Avatar: Enter the World

Oh my goodness... where to begin....

How about this for starters: $2.7 billion. Is this enough money for James Cameron? no. it was released in Imax 3D AGAIN before it's quickly approaching release on DVD. Is this enough money for James Cameron? no. Shortly after releasing it on DVD, he plans on releasing it on DVD AGAIN, this time in 3D. Is this enough money for James Cameron? no. This summer, the extended edition of Avatar will be released in 3D AGAIN in select theaters. Does this movie deserve all the hype, money, and acclaim that it's getting? don't be silly. of course it doesn't.

Now, I don't mean to bash this movie, it really was very good, but I have some serious problems. Here's 10 reasons why Avatar isn't all it's cracked up to be:

Number one, what's up with "unobtainium" the super-rock that Cameron's obviously corrupt version of humans are trying so hard to get? what's so special about it? "This is the reason we're hear. because this little rock sells for so-and-so billion dollars." Why? Why would somebody pay so-and-so billion dollars for the rock? what does it do? This lack of motivation makes the human side seem very weak and trivial. sure, they're powerful, but nobody really knows why they would use their power against the Avatars. too much vague subject matter makes for a weak story.

Number two, what was the significance of Jake Sully's brother? Sure, he was the one that signed up for the mission and trained to be an Avatar, but why not just have Jake be the one signing up? His whole character was based around a crippled marine that works himself to death because he's convinced that he can pass any test a man can pass. If he's so hearty and self-motivated, doesn't the fact that he didn't actually sign up weaken his character? I understand that Cameron wanted Sully to be in a position where he knew nothing about the culture or the Avatar, but character should always take precedence over story. Story can be tweaked to fit the characters, but characters can never be tweaked. No matter how strong the story is, weak characters will always make for a weak movie. don't believe me? Pirates of the Caribbean. Enough said.

Number three, this movie was way way way to colorful near the end. I'll admit, it had two or three super-dark spots, but the cinematography didn't flow with the story. Luscious green, piercing blue, vibrant orange.. these are happy colors. The movie was 70% happy, and 30% despair, where was the despairing colors?

Number four, Cameron's version of humanity was obviously corrupt and untrue. I refuse to believe that even in 1254 (although never said out loud in the movie, the date is on Sully's video log) humans will be so far gone that they will forcibly kill an entire culture to get a really nice rock. A lot of hype has been going around that this is supposed to parallel the colonists treatments of the Native Americans, but we certainly never went as far as to obliterate an entire culture, destroy an entire religion, and desecrate natural marvels to get at a rock. While humans are innately sinful, that doesn't mean that all humans except for a rare 4 or 5 are completely evil, greedy, selfish, and destructive.

Number five, what was up with the Na'vi's religion? Although Cameron may have intended it as a parallel religion to Christianity, there were some serious problems with it. First of all, Eiwa, their god, "only fought for the balance of life" and "didn't take sides." For one thing, in order to protect the balance of life, Eiwa would NEED to take a side, and for another thing, this is completely contrary to Christianity. Also, supposedly they could only communicate to their god by connecting their hair to the "holy tree", but when Sully prays for Eiwa to take a side, he is certainly not connected to Eiwa. In addition to this, the god is presented as not only a belief, but a real fact. When Grace (played by Sigourney Weaver) dies, her last words are, in essence, that their god is real, and that she is with their god. Not good.

Number six, the whole "I see you" thing was way way overplayed. After he learned it's meaning from Norm (played by Joel Moore) it could have possibly been brought up once, or MAYBE twice in the movie, but was referenced at least 5 more times in the movie. by the time he says it to Neytiri the last time, it has completely lost it's effect. Cameron could have done better than that, agreed?

Number seven, can the Avatars survive without their human counterparts?? This seemed to be apparent since their consciousness seems to oscillate back and forth, and when Sully begins to die, his Avatar follows suit, but when Norm's Avatar is killed, he seems to live on. What? how did that happen?

Number eight, everybody insists that this movie was 13 years in the making. not exactly true. While this movie took a titanic effort (no pun intended) to create, it was actually shelved for nearly 10 years while Cameron waited for technology to catch up. In other words, this movie took 3 years to make, and 10 years to wait. oops, nobody seems to have noticed. Maybe it's just easier to assume that this movie is more spectacular than it really is.

Number nine, what about the characters? so many opportunities to build strong characters were passed up in order to make a story. I'll say it again: A strong story with weak characters is a weak story. Emotions turned on a dime, and most of them were completely unfounded.

Number ten, the dialogue was lamentable to say the least. One character ONLY says "Come get some!" the entire movie. I was happy when he died, because I cringed every time he said it. Moods in the movie turn on a dime, especially Colonel Miles (Stephen Lang) who goes from loving to hating Sully in the space of about 3 seconds when Sully says he has a way to fix Miles' problems. What? why does this make him so angry? All the army characters said nothing but "army-esque" lines, none of the Na'vi said anything but Native American sounding lines, and, in short, if you were to watch the movie without dialogue, you would be able to guess every line spoken. No surprises, no clever one-liners, no character-building dialogue, nothing. I am disappointed.

So, with these 10 reasons why Avatar was not-so-great of a movie, why should you see it? in short, it was beautifully directed. If you're looking for pure spectacle, either see Avatar, or 2012. Cameron is a talented individual, he just apparently payed no attention to any other production elements other than graphics and direction. To summarize, this is an ugly movie standing on a weak foundation, covered by a oh-so-beautiful mask.

Imagine That: What if your daughters imagination... was the secret to your success?

Who doesn't love a fresh new director; the kind of director with vision, energy, no experience, no record of success, no feel for how movies work? Ok I"ll give you a hint: I don't. Why? Because directors such as Karey Kirkpatrick (director of--you guessed it--Imagine That) don't know what they're doing. Sure there's some, no, a LOT, of very talented independent directors. Look at Neil Blomkamp's District 9, for example. I don't mean to say that directors are limited by experience, but maybe some are just fast learners. Kirkpatrick is not a fast learner.

Enough idle words. this was a fairly entertaining movie, actually. The biggest problem I had was shot composition. I don't think I make any exaggeration when I say that EVERY shot in this movie was governed by the rule of thirds. I know, some people are more devoted to the rules of filmmaking, but it's always nice to actually see something in the middle of the screen, right? even over-the-shoulder shots--where the person being talked to is usually in the center, and the person talking is usually off to the side--were divided into thirds.

Acting... ah.... well Eddie Murphy certainly has a nod-worthy career, having taken a part in 220 films (in various rolls of acting, music, producing, etc.) Did he fail to entertain? certainly not. If there is fault to be found with this movie, he is certainly not to blame. What did I like about the acting? Two words: Daniel Polo. although he had a tiny part in the movie, he made me laugh more than any of Eddie Murphy or Thomas Hayden Church's capers and escapades.  After being in several notable TV shows (this being his only film role to date) I expect this kid to definitely be going somewhere. Hopefully he will get out of the dead-end TV career realm, but I wouldn't set my hopes to high.

What did I think about the story, you ask? wow... what a strange story. It centers around Eddie Murphy's chraracter's daughter's blanket's imaginary friend's financial advice. It's made clear that her imaginary friends are... well.... imaginary, and that the blanket isn't "needed" to come up with wise financial decisions, but the heck of it is that the blanket was always exactly right. What is this supposed to mean? was this a jab at a reference to a higher power? maybe an attempt at humorous random luck? maybe it was just stupid? I'll go with the latter. It was just stupid. I understand, if you took it out, the movie would have no content. I suggest they should have taken it out, and made a movie about something not-so-stupid. Perhaps something entertaining and believable. am I asking for too much?

I know, I complain a lot about movies, but to be honest, this wasn't a "terrible" movie, just a failed attempt at a very good movie, falling a little short of "hilarious", "clever", or "worth watching again." Thomas Hayden Church has a bright future, Daniel Polo has high prospects, Eddie Murphy has a bright past, and if you haven't guessed, neither Yara Shahidi nor Karey Kirkpatrick are going anyway. thank you, that is all.

Armored: To Protect And Serve Yourself.

Ok first off, I'd like to give kudos to Nimrod Antal (yeah, that's his real name) for making such a quality movie considering this is his first significant film, and for landing a gig as directing the anticipated Predators movie set to release in July. (btw, Predators will not be a reboot of the Predators series, it will be a sequel to the origional Predators, ignorning previous sequels and the Alien vs. Predator films.) With that being said, although this is a wonderful "professional debut" this was only a so-so movie, with so-so acting and a so-so plot.

Antal has a very "average" filming style. The kind of style used by directors that will probably never have a name for themselves. An experienced director will use emotions as a basis for choosing artful shots, but this movie, content aside, conveyed no emotion. The performances were reasonable, but not always convincing, and the acting partnered with the filmmaking made it difficult to feel inside the movie.

The entire premise of the movie was a very good idea. The struggle between what the protagonist felt was right and what he felt he needed to do for his family makes for a strong plot. Too bad it was spoiled by emotionless filmmaking. The lines between what the protagonist considered ok, and what he thought were wrong were intriguing. stealing millions from the government is ok in his eyes, but killing to do it is out of the question. why? he has no reason. just because it's wrong. Although from a Christian standpoint, it would have been nice to hear, from a filmmaking standpoint, this is important. It defines his character, and makes us question our morality. why do we do what we do, and refuse to do other things? for religious reasons? for practical reasons? whatever your answer is, knowing why you do something is more important that knowing that you do something.

The cast was almost entirely made up of actors accustomed to playing television rolls, small movie rolls, and supporting characters with the exception of Lawrence Fishbourne (Morpheus in the Matrix franchise.) As refreshing as it was to see these fresh new faces, there's a reason they aren't famous actors: they're not very good. They offered up a believable performance, but not an engaging or convincing one. Part of this might have been poor writing; even the best actors can't make bad lines sound good.

All in all, this was a cookie-cutter movie, with a predictably cookie-cutter ending. What so many filmmakers don't seem to realize is that endings do not have to be happy. Life isn't always happy, and a happy ending pasted onto a movie like this seems to be more of a superimposed image of how the director wants life to be than a reflection of how life is. I understand, people go to movies to escape, but within the bounds of reason, not every single ending to every single movie needs to be happy. It's ok to have a sad ending, because that's just how life works.

Although this movie had many setbacks, it was in no way a "bad" movie. It was mildly enjoyable, and a nice movie to see if you've already seen all the other current action flics. I'm excited to see how Antel's future movies turn out after he develops a style and a sense of emotion.

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lighning Theif

When you think of really bad book/movie adaptations, what movies do you think of? Eragon? Inkspell?  Enter Percy Jackson & The Olympians. As a huge fan of the book, I was shocked at how bad, and blatantly disregarding of the actual story, this movie was. Important plot elements were completely cut out and replaced, to the extent that the entire premise of the movie was changed. As far as filmmaking goes, this wasn't all-in-all a bad movie, but as far as adaptation, this was honestly the worst book/movie adaptation I've seen in my life.

Was this movie a total waste of my time? No I wouldn't say so. Even I watched in horror as the story was brutally murdered before my very eyes, some very interesting imagery struck a chord or two with me. In particular, when they finally get to Hades, the floating objects had a very good effect on the mood of the entire movie, and offered a much-welcomed distraction from the story. The visual effects were for the most part good, but it only takes a few sub-par computer graphics to spoil the entire movie. Percy Jackson and the Olympians managed to just barely scrape by, as some of the graphics were truly lamentable.


Casting varied between perfection, and total disregard for the book, as most of the characters seemed fit for their parts, with the huge exception of Annabeth. Although books make it abundantly clear that she has silver hair and eyes, neither of them are done justice in the movie. Was this poor casting, poor production values, or just a poor directing decision, the character on the whole felt unrepresented.

On the plus side, it's good to see Sean Bean in a recognizable role for once.

As bad as this movie adaptation was, I think I would give them a second chance. If they can make a half-decent adaptation of the sequel, The Sea of Monsters, it just might be the franchises saving grace. Unfortunately, making any sequel at all will be difficult, to say the least. Many extremely important characters and plot elements were entirely left out and a very major character dies. Also, the stereotypical boy-gets-girl, everybody-lives-happily-ever-after ending probably means we've seen all the Percy Jackson we're going to see.

In a sentence: I was disappointed by how poor an adaptation this was, and, although it had it's moments, this movie was a disgraceful representation of the book.  should you go see it? I recommend you stay home and just read the book.

3D movie tickets: How much is too much to pay?

Well, as much as I love movies, I haven't been blogging lately because... well... I don't like spending $7 to see just any movie. And that's with the student discount.  I've only seen one movie in 3D (Alice in Wonderland), and although I understand it wasn't "true 3D," meaning it was shot in 2D, and then edited to be 3D in post-production, I found it to be little more than a novelty. an expensive one too. the price of an adult 3D ticket was around $15, and might have been as high as $16.50 in some cities at the time I saw Alice in Wonderland. That's the bad news. Unfortunately, I have no good news to offer because: the price of 3D movies is going up. That's right! Incredibly expensive entertainment just got MORE EXPENSIVE.

Now, I'd like to make it clear that while I enjoy the 3D technology, I would quite frankly rather save myself 5 bucks and see it in 2D, and quite a considerable amount of people agree with me.Do you think people will be willing to pay MORE to see a movie in 3D when a lot of them are already reluctant? I don't think so. Prices have been raised by as much as 26% in some theaters. in other words, a $15 ticket could cost almost $19. Although I'm an avid movie-lover, am I the only one who thinks this is a ridiculous amount of money to pay for 2 hours of entertainment? And Imax tickets are even more pricey, with ticket prices already around $17+ and who knows how much they'll cost after the price change.

I understand that 3D technology is very expensive, but raising the prices just doesn't work. the 3D glasses cost less that 50 cents, and while the 3D projectors are very expensive, people don't seem to realize that the same projector can be used for every 3D movie that comes out. In other words, if the 3D projector that costs $45,000 dollars and that has been payed off by the first movie or two it shows (don't think 3D movies earn enough to pay something that expensive off? Just ask James Cameron), is useful for an unlimited number of movies in the future. To put this in perspective, the price of 3D movies should be going DOWN because there is no longer an equipment expense to theaters that have switched to 3D, and with the wild success of Avatar in 3D, any respected theater has already made the switch.

Maybe I'm alone, but personally, $15 is a lot of money to pay for 2 hours of entertainment, and if the price is going up, it's just not worth my time. In perspective, seeing a 3D movie now would be like paying the theater minimum wage to show the movie, and that's for every single person in the theater. In summary, although 3D is a fun and novel experience, it's just that: a novelty. A novelty worth 7-9 more dollars than a non-novelty movie? I think not.

As a slightly opinionated individual, I would like to know what you guys think. Leave a comment down below! Even if you completely disagree with everything I say, I don't mind knowing why I'm wrong. thanks for reading, have a great Easter :]