"Yeah, I was right about Avatar"

Title by Shayne Knights.

Benny's Top Ten of Two Thousand and Nine

For what it's worth. Here is my list. Please God make it count.

10. Avatar (Dir. James Cameron)...the game changer.

9. The Hurt Locker (Dir. Kathryn Bigelow)...edge-of-seat stuff.

8. Inglourious Basterds (Dir. Quentin Tarantino)...coolest film of '09.

7. Harry Brown (Dir. Daniel Barber)...Sean Harris is worth the ticket price alone.

6. Bronson (Dir. Nicolas Winding Refn)...best male performance of '09.

5. Brüno (Dir. Larry Charles)...tears streaming down both cheeks.

4. District 9 (Dir. Neill Blomkamp)...Best sci-fi of '09.

3. The Informant! (Dir. Steven Soderbergh)...funniest film of '09.

2. Antichrist (Dir. Lars Von Trier)...dark & moody.

1. The White Ribbon (Dir. Michael Haneke)...Haneke's masterpiece.

It’s not the tale; it’s how it’s told.

Written entirely by Shane Knight.

OK, batter up. Let me just start by saying I’ve not seen ‘Avatar’ yet (I know, I know. Madness) but never mind, and the last time I saw TDK (The Dark Knight) was at the cinema (even though I’ve had the damned thing on DVD for over a year). But I feel I can speak for both. Sometimes films are Art (2001) and sometimes films are just Spectacle (The Mummy), and sometimes they can be both (Kingdom of Heaven – Dir Cut). And sometimes, just sometimes, films can be exactly what the filmmaker wants them to be, whether large or small, and it’s up to us how we take them.

BB (Batman Begins) and TDK are a pre-existing world molded around Chris Nolan’s way of thinking. Avatar is Cameron’s baby, full stop. What I’m trying to say is, ‘Fuck you Cherry’. Yeah, fuck you in your tiny murderer eyes. Let the storyteller tell the story however they want. All you have to do is watch. If it wasn’t to your liking, then that’s it, tough shit. Move on. Watch Robocop and Wicker Man, two other films that were told exactly how the storyteller wanted it just so happens they click with you. The moving image on the screen enters your tiny killer peepers and finds a nice warm place to live in your mind-box. Robocop has many faults, has does WM, in my beautiful matinee idol eyes. One thing you need to do and so do a lot of other people is open their minds and more importantly, and this I have to stress because it really fucks me off is ‘Suspend you god forsaken disbelief’. MINDBLOWING isn’t it. Just think about it for a second.

“But the joker planned it all along? Bollocks!!!”

‘The Joker’ lives in the fiction city of Gotham for FFS. Batman dresses like a fucking Bat FFS. There’s a bloke with half is fuckin’ face missing and he’s not suffered from infections and it doesn’t hurt him FFS. All these things you’re willing to accept, yet you struggle with the fact that Bruce puts on a silly voice when in costume. “Suspend you’re disbelief”!!!.
People comment on when Jar El wears glasses he’s Clark Kent and when there off he’s Superman, and nobody connects the two. Well, you see, like Batman, he lives in a fictional city, he’s from another planet, was raised in a fiction town, and he can fly. Yeah he can fucking fly and see through walls and freeze a lake with his breath. If he can do all those things he can put on a pair of specs and pretend to be someone else.

“Hey, Clark Kent is Superman!!!”

“Yeah and what the fuck are you gonna do about it?”

“Yeah well, I know your true identity”

Superman then punches the Man/Woman through the chest leaving a gaping fucking hole and no one ever questions him again.

‘Avatar’ is the story the JC wants to tell the way he wants to tell it. So if he sticks a cliched marine in there, then so be it. If he wants to whack in a few corny lines here and there, so be it. If he wants to remake Dances with wolves mixed with Furngully, so fucking be it. Take it or leave it. I’m not going to watch Avatar for the story; I’m going to watch it because I want JC to spray his golden jizz over my diamond eyes. Star Wars is shit, but it’s the story Lucas wanted to tell exactly the way he wanted to tell it, and he got his way. Take it or leave it. I still find myself watching them and liking them, even tho there weak has piss. EMPIRE is fucking slow and dull. Lord of the rings has flaws. There I said it, but fuck those flaws, I’ve suspended my mind and I love them films. They fit snuggly in my oversized face. I’ll love Avatar too. And I know when I watch TDK again soon, I’ll love that too.

To be continued...

Inception

The Dark Cherry: A Rebuttal

Written by Benny Ward.

Before Christopher Nolan started shooting Batman Begins he gathered his crew and privately screened Blade Runner, when it finished he told them he wanted his film to be just as good. He came close.

For The Dark Knight Nolan sat them down to watch Heat by Michael Mann.

This is what separates Nolan from most of the Hollywood fare, instead of following up the hugely successful Batman Begins with a sequel of equal quality, he decided to make a new film, one that didn't even have 'Batman' in it's title, different in tone, a film for our times.

Dear Cherry, I completely 100% disagree with you on The Dark Knight, you must have walked in on a different film to me (and everybody else in the world), maybe you were in a bad mood (time of the month?), perhaps you had just been dumped by your girlfriend/boyfriend and this kind of 'serious' movie was just not what you were looking for at that time?

I would recommend re-watching The Dark Knight if you don't like it, something is wrong with you. Seriously wrong with you.


---

The one image that sums up the mood of the film: the burning fire engine.

It invokes the feeling of chaos, of helplessness, there is no hope against this enemy, an enemy that is hidden, an enemy that is violent and seemingly amoral, an enemy who wants drag our very society into anarchy and flames.

The Dark Knight isn't just a film for our times, it is a film of our times.

Nolan attempts to make a mainstream action blockbuster whilst holding a mirror up to our dark situation, not only does he succeed in making one of the best cinematic experiences of the decade but he also succeeds in making a film that will be remembered in decades to come, this is how we felt, this is the world we inhabited in 2008.

Cherry's Plot-Holes Resolved

Cherry: "Joker counted on Batman finding the bullet hole in the wall and having all of this specialist equipment to get this fingerprint and then for Batman to turn up at an exact location at an exact time where the blinds on the window open-up…"

Benny: Since when did The Joker rely on Batman finding the bullet? surely when he hatched his plan he knew they would be looking for him, he believed they would find him somehow, he was there to cause confusion whether Batman found the bullet or not. He would not have been caught that easily. Sorry Cherry.

Cherry: "Another plot is where Joker blows up the police department. The Joker planned to do this and we know this because the explosives are inside one of his gang who is arrested and put inside the prison cell. That would mean that the Joker had planned to get caught and imprisoned. He is caught prior to this scene at the where he tries to blow-up Harvey Dent as he is being taken away in a police van. If Joker succeeded in blowing-up Harvey Dent in the police van then he would have also blown up Gordon (who we all think is dead at this point) who is sat in the passenger seat next to the driver. It is Gordon who surprises and arrests Joker. So, if the van was blown up Joker wouldn’t have been caught and arrested and the police station would never have been blown up. Yet, the film makes out that this was Joker’s plan all along. And that makes no sense."

Benny: Surely it's quite clear - The Joker's 'plan' was to entice Batman out into the open, he attacks Dent to do that, to get caught, he uses the mob to gain access to Dent and Rachel, then uses a prisoner in the police station to find a way out, but there was only one real plan in The Jokers mind, and that was to prove that even the most 'pure' man of Gotham could be turned, hence The Jokers victory at the end of the film, as Harvey Dent is turned from being Gotham's hope / Gotham's White Knight. And why, to try and preserve that hope, Batman takes responsibility for the murders that Dent enacted as Two-Face. In Batman's mind it is a sacrifice he is willing to take.

Cherry: "As far as we are concerned Joker thinks Dent is Batman. Yet Batman comes along and stops Joker from blowing up the van and yet plays the integral part in the Joker’s plan. Because at the same time as the station being blown up, Dent and Rachel are being blown up. But wouldn’t Dent be already blown up with Joker had succeeded with his bazooka? Are we really to believe that as soon as Joker is captured it is his schizo gang members that formulate the plan to kidnap Dent and Rachel? And do it all so efficiently the timing is perfect with the Joker at the police station?"

Benny: You are mis-interpreting the characters' motivations, does The Joker really believe Dent is Batman? is he not trying to draw Batman out into the open by attacking the imprisoned Dent? Remember The Joker is supposedly working for the mob to bring down Batman, so the mob's connections with the corrupt police force mean that The Joker has access to kidnap Dent and Rachel and make Batman choose one of them after he is imprisoned, in this 'plan' he is victorious. One - nil to The Joker. Dent survives and his dark side (which exists earlier on in the film) takes over, he is bitter and angry. Ultimately Dent chooses to reject his role as the White Knight of Gotham. Two - nil to The Joker. It is one of the few Hollywood films that lets the villain take the glory.

The script is complex - what else do you expect from Jonathan Nolan? (see Memento & The Prestige).
On one level it looks like The Joker is trying to kill Dent because he believes he is Batman, but you'd be a fool to think that, because The Joker merely uses the attack as a rouse to entice Batman into the open, even though Batman and Gordon believe they have the upper hand, they believe they are the ones tricking The Joker, it backfires on them, The Joker is caught and still has the upper hand.

---

Thanks again Cherry for your review, nice try, but your attempt to destabalise Nolan's hold on quality mainstream cinema has failed. He will be around for many years to come, fingers crossed he helms the much-needed reboot of the Robocop franchise.

p.s. Check out his new film INCEPTION, due 2010.

The Dark Knight- WHY SO SERIOUS (and dull)?

­­

'Plot-holes, bad acting, over-hype, etc aside, my problem with TDK is that it is NO fun. And unlike Batman Begins, TDK isn’t exciting or thrilling or a joy to watch. It's plain dull and takes itself way too seriously. The film’s most famous lines is perfectly suited for the film itself ‘WHY SO SERIOUS?’

I was really looking forward to The Dark Knight and no one was more upset and disappointed when the credits rolled than me. I loved Batman Begins and I am a big fan of director Christopher Nolan. There are many problems with Dark Knight: it is too long and the film’s structure is messy, its too self-righteous and preachy, there are too many plot holes, poor acting and it would seem that it relies too heavily on Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker (and his subsequent death). Oh, and Bale’s bat-voice is so bad is laughable! On a more positive note, the film certainly looked great. Nolan directs with confidence and brings a lot attention to detail. The music, like Batman Begins is superb and the action (what little there is) is fast and slick and with that blink-and-you'll-miss-it style of editing packs a real punch.

I recall whilst watching the film just before the final scene I, and it would seem most people in the cinema watching it with me, thought the film was about to end. And it didn’t. And the amount of sighs I heard from people was amazing. I’ve never heard anything like it before. Will this film end? We all thought. Dark Knight is 2.5 hours long and it feels about 3.5 hours long. There are way too many things being dealt with and the film for me felt like quantity rather than quality.

I write this for the people who have actually seen the film.

The character of Harvey Dent and his transition into Two-Face is the prime example. His character would have benefitted from just being introduced here rather than introduced and concluded. His character is never fully fleshed satisfyingly or plausibly and it all feels squeezed in and rushed. He is a strong enough character that he could have been the main villain in a future Batman film. I was happy with Aaron Eckhart playing Dent and thought he did bring a lot to the role. He especially gave the character more humanity because as much as I enjoyed Tommy Lee Jones’ performance is was rather camp and OTT. Dent/Two-Face is my favourite villain from the Batman cartoons so to see him portrayed Nolan’s way was disappointing.

I have similar issues with the Joker. There are so many things going on and he has so many ‘schemes’ and ‘dastardly plots’ going on that it’ll make your head spin and hurt. The film is too ‘fat’. It needs trimming down; less is more. Plus, the fact that the Joker, baring in mind his only help is a schizophrenic can plan and achieve and succeed and get away so much stretches believability way beyond its limits. With Tim Burton’s and Joel Schumacher’s Batman’s you could forgive one or two things here and there as they operate is this fantasy/comic book world but with Nolan’s Batman he has brought the franchise into the real world and into the present. And, tried to make it all plausible. And doesn’t succeed.

SPOILERS:

Let’s focus on one or two of Joker’s ‘schemes’. This may make more sense for people who have actually seen the film. The Joker has threatened to assassinate the mayor. To stop this and catch the Joker Batman has a piece of wall with a bullet-hole that he has taken from the apartment of a previous victim of the Joker. Batman uses extremely high-tech specialist equipment to analyse and recreate the bullet being shot into the wall, etc. I cannot remember exactly what Batman does but I recall the end result is that he gets a fingerprint. He finds out the location of the fingerprint’s owner and it turns out to be yet another trap the Joker has set where Batman (as Bruce Wayne) nearly gets shot by snipers when he stand too close to a window. So to sum-up, Joker counted on Batman finding the bullet hole in the wall and having all of this specialist equipment to get this fingerprint and then for Batman to turn up at an exact location at an exact time where the blinds on the window open-up… you understand how far-fetched?

Another plot is where Joker blows up the police department. The Joker planned to do this and we know this because the explosives are inside one of his gang who is arrested and put inside the prison cell. That would mean that the Joker had planned to get caught and imprisoned. He is caught prior to this scene at the where he tries to blow-up Harvey Dent as he is being taken away in a police van. If Joker succeeded in blowing-up Harvey Dent in the police van then he would have also blown up Gordon (who we all think is dead at this point) who is sat in the passenger seat next to the driver. It is Gordon who surprises and arrests Joker. So, if the van was blown up Joker wouldn’t have been caught and arrested and the police station would never have been blown up. Yet, the film makes out that this was Joker’s plan all along. And that makes no sense.

Also, the Joker isn’t aware that Gordon isn’t dead. As far as we are concerned Joker thinks Dent is Batman. Yet Batman comes along and stops Joker from blowing up the van and yet plays the integral part in the Joker’s plan. Because at the same time as the station being blown up, Dent and Rachel are being blown up. But wouldn’t Dent be already blown up with Joker had succeeded with his bazooka? Are we really to believe that as soon as Joker is captured it is his schizo gang members that formulate the plan to kidnap Dent and Rachel? And do it all so efficiently the timing is perfect with the Joker at the police station?

I’m not one to nit-pick. I don’t mind suspension of disbelief, etc. But I did expect more from a film like the Dark Knight and I probably would have been more forgiving if the film was entertaining and basically ‘fun’ rather than long, drawn-out, clunky, way too serious (‘Why so serious?’) and dark and preachy. I like dark films but I think that a balance is needed.

Throughout the film the Gotham PD are so useless and inept that you wonder what the hell would happen if Batman weren’t around. As soon as Joker strikes there is a mass panic and everything is completely out of control and nothing can be done and everyone just screams and shouts waiting for Batman. I thought the scenes were completely unnecessary where Joker takes the boats hostage and tries to make the passengers decide whether or not they should blow the other boat up to save themselves. We have one boat that is full of prisoners and the other civilians. You can just guess the moral debating, etc that goes on here. And it is so contrived that it is a big, mean, savage-looking man (and he’s black) on the prisoner boat that takes matters into his own hands and throws the detonator out of the window and the prisoners are left at the mercy of the civilians. Wow! How out-of-character! How ‘fresh and different’ and ‘never saw that one coming’. Yawn! For a film of this calibre where we expect more it is insulting.

The end of The Dark Knight is just as annoying and unsatisfying. Gordon and Batman stand before a fallen Harvey Dent. And from their conversation they basically say that we must lie in order to protect the people of Gotham. We must cover up the truth as people wouldn’t understand and society would crumble. Or maybe they mean do all this until the people of Gotham are ready? Yeah right! So Batman must take the blame and become the villain? Give me a break! Why must he? Don’t we as a society believe in truth above all else? What gives Batman and Gordon the right to decide what to so and what not to show? Aren’t they ‘covering’ up? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me. And this is reiterated when Alfred decides not to tell Bruce Wayne, who is mourning the loss of his darling Rachel Dawes, that she had written a letter and had chosen Harvey Dent over him and so Alfred proceeds to burn the letter and ‘burn the truth’. Maybe Bruce should forever believe that Rachel, if she had survived, would have been his forever. And now that she is dead is makes no difference either way. Bruce, the truth hurts, surely you know that.

Then we have the little niggles in the film: Maggie Gyllenhaal’s acting was awful! I’m sure she is and I’ve seen much better acting from her in other films. I used to fancy Maggie and thought she was gorgeous but here she looked all drained and tired. Bring back Katie Holmes any day! 2008 was Christian Bale overkill: Terminator, Public Enemies, Dark Knight, etc. From watching all of these I now see the limits of his acting here in Dark Knight and his Bat-voice is so bad its funny! He needs some Strepcils in his Bat-belt next time!

I liked Ledger as the Joker. He was certainly brought something fresh to the role. But, I don’t like his performance as much as everyone it seems. Whenever I ask about this movie or it is being talked about usually the first thing mentioned is Heath Ledger’s Joker. I always follow this with ‘what about the rest of the film?’ The usual response is ‘yeh yeh it was good’ but it would appear that many people judge this film based on Heath’s Joker. Not everyone, but a good few. My friend really loved the Joker in TDK but he hated the movie and had a very similar opinion as I did. I do not think Heath Ledger’s Joker is enough to carry this film TDK is so overloaded and heavy that if he tried he would probably break his back.

From Batman Begins I really loved the father/son back-story of Bruce and his his father. It was heartfelt and touching adding humanity to the hero who we usually always see as a dark loner, hell belt on revenge and justice. TDK lacks this human element and gives us nothing at all to replace it.

TDK thinks being over-complex and brooding gives it some higher level of intelligence. For me it doesn't. It lacks that human element, it was dull, too long and it takes itself way too seriously.

Ward Vs Cherry Vs Avatar

It's not that I disagree with Cherry's view that Avatar is a great film, in fact I agree with him on that point, what I disagree with - and I hope I don't offend him - is what he preaches are the parts that make this a great film.

There are three clearly defined / succinct acts that make up Avatar, and act three is not the best, not by a long shot. Sorry Cherry. Acts One and Two are so ground-breaking it really doesn't matter what happens in Act Three.

To start: Avatar is predictable and ham-fisted. That we can all agree on. It follows the tired Hollywood action film formula to a tee, especially as we reach the uber-predictable ending (third act - or as I like to call it 'the bit where they all have a big fight, good people die but we all know who's going to win in the pissing end, come on!'), but there is a twist!...the bad guys are you and me. Which is why this film is saved from being just style over substance. The use of modern military lingo (see Generation Kill) and images reminiscent of recent world events (9/11 & The Iraq War) gives the story some grounding in our own reality, it is believable, even down to the blood thirsty war addicted Colonel, people like him exist, just switch on your mother fucking television sets.

Sure the acting is adequate (Sam Worthington and Stephen Lang being the only stand out performances), the cardboard dialogue is questionable (titanic-level?) and that last act; although predictable is visually impressive, but none of these negative points are enough to take away the glory from Cameron's smoothly mitted palms.

No, the reason that Avatar has set the new bench mark for all future mainstream blockbusters is that visually we have seen nothing like this. Not only has Cameron pushed the bar on CGI / live action integration but he has poured such passion into creating this fictional world of Pandora, his passion / jizz can be seen on screen, all $400m of it.

He has gathered / surrounded himself with hundreds of artists and scientists, and his 'titanic' 12 year absence has paid off, he has been slowly working away in his ego bubble all this time, to deliver to our eyes some of the most beautiful images ever burnt to celluloid. To prove my point please click on this link and bathe in Cameron's mind, wonder around in his imagination, skinny dip in his love juices....The Science of Avatar: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440

I'm not going to bore you with all the detail, I'm not even going to wax lyrical / fapp all over this for you, no, instead I'm going to provide you my highlights. Sit back, grab your sen a tissue, enjoy.

Benny's Bestest Bits:

- The opening few minutes...startling / mesmerizing. Cameron first reveals Pandora via the giant mirrors of a highly detailed spacecraft, he teases us (like Miss Harrison in those afternoon Science lessons), we start to salivate. We realise we are in for the ride of our sodding lives.

- Michelle Rodriguezeses breasts in IMAX 3D! Approximately 2hrs 11mins into the film she swaps her kaki garb for a figure-hugging white top....imagine the screen filled with her milky pillows when the screen is the size of an 8-storey building!

- Night time on Pandora. Cameron has (quite obviously) been influenced by Studio Ghibli (Laputa / Spirited Away / Princess Mononoke) as well as Terrance Malicks The New World. Which is only a good thing, because when night time arrives on Pandora everything bathes in this beautiful bio-luminescence, its visual cream for our feeble human eyes, you may even find yourself involuntarily dribbling down your own drooping chin.

- Colonel Miles Quaritch (played by Stephen Lang). He isnt very original, but he is played with such intensity that you can't help but admire him and despise him in equal parts.

- The CGI / Live Action integration. Remember when you saw Gollum for the first time in 2002 (The Two Towers), you wet yourself because he was perfectly realised by WETA, the most realistic CGI yet....well times that by a thousand, because Cameron and WETA have used that technology and not just created one character but a whole world, detailed to such a degree that no human mind can fully take in what is being presented before it, rumour is that only 3% of humans can actually see Avatar 100%. Amazing.

---

I'd like to thank Steven Cherry for watching the movie and reviewing it, shame he watched it through Robocop eyes and fapped over the final 'action times infinity' act, but I'm glad we can agree that Avatar is one hell of a cinema experience. Love you.

In closing I'm going to steal from my inferiors...'Go watch it. In 3D. At an Imax.'

Cherry Vs Avatar

'When his brother is killed in battle, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully decides to take his place in a mission on the distant world of Pandora. There he learns of greedy corporate figurehead Parker Selfridge's intentions of driving off the native humanoid "Na'vi" in order to mine for the precious material scattered throughout their rich woodland. In exchange for the spinal surgery that will fix his legs, Jake gathers intel for the cooperating military unit spearheaded by gung-ho Colonel Quaritch, while simultaneously attempting to infiltrate the Na'vi people with the use of an "avatar" identity. While Jake begins to bond with the native tribe and quickly falls in love with the beautiful alien Neytiri, the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand - and fight back in an epic battle for the fate of Pandora'


(Nearly) every movie James Cameron (Pirahna 2: The Spawning) brings us is one that is important and groundbreaking (T1 & T2 and Titanic) in the cinematic world. Movies that you wished you could have gone to watch at the cinema is your were old enough at the time. Or if you had even been born. Avatar is one of those movies. Age isn't an issue here with the 12a rating. If you've already been born, go and see it and the cinema. In 3D. At an Imax.

South Park was quick off the mark with their excellent episode 'Dances With Smurfs'. Although the episode isn't solely about mocking Avatar it is quick to point out that James Cameron's latest mega blockbuster is just Dances With Wolves (1990) but with 'blue people' aka Smurfs aka the Navi. And then I heard a friend refer to Avatar as 'Fern Gully 3D'.

Now these two comparisons couldn't be anymore right: The hero, Sully, realises he's on the wrong side and leaves his 'own kind' and joins the 'savages'. The 'villians' only want the precious materials hidden beneath the surface of the planet and so move it with gigantic JCB's to destroy all of the trees/life that stand in their way.

And its not just the unoriginal plot that hampers Avatar but it suffers from cliches so bad it hurts. For example, the actor Wes Studi plays/voices the leader of the Navi. Anyone familiar with the actor will realise that he too was a 'savage' in Dances With Wolves and played a similar, almost identical role in Last of the Mohicans. Yes, he has that 'native american' look and sound to his voice and so the casting department assumed that he is great at playing a 'native' and would be perfect for the native leader of some far away distant planet. To see him completely typecast here is embarrassing.

Stephen Lang, on the human side of things, plays the stereotypical colonel who assists the corporate bullies with his warfare expertise and hard-nut marines, wants to skip negotiations with the Navi and get straight into blowing them to the next world. And he takes it especially personal when Sully turns against him to join the natives and makes it his personal mission to seek vengence. Of course, the colonel, who wouldn't be out of place in any typical Vietnam movie, is 'hardcore' and bad-to-the-bone, full of war scars, has no-nonsense attitude and speaks with a southern twang. Apocalypse Now/Kilgore springs to mind.

I think Cameron has a 'thing' for macho women. In Aliens with have the female, hardcore marine Vasquez, in T2 we have a muscular/military Sarah Connor and anyone familiar with the films of Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, Strange Days) will now that she is now an ex-Mrs Cameron. The macho lady returns in Avatar, Michelle Rodriguez, playing a tough, straight-talking pilot who joins our heroes in their mission but unfortunately falls from the tree-of-cliche and hits every branch on the way down. Her character is only here to help the story along and offers nothing else. With Stephen Lang, her character shares first place for the worst lines in the movie. Dialogue so bad and cliche and cringe-worthy that it was becoming dated even in the 90's: 'I got a gun also, bitch!' Lang soon follows with with his lines spoken at the final showdown 'Come to daddy!' (or it could have been 'pappa!') He says this to a female... of course. In 2nd place for worst lines is that hard-nut marine who cries out 'come get some' everytime he fires his very large gun. The film is set in 215-something. Do people still speak like that?

Then there is Giovanni Risbi's corporate scum... just think of Burke from Aliens. Oh, and 'Wind in his Hair' from Dances with Wolves is also here and in full-blue. And then there is the romance between... well, think Romeo and Juliet.

I won't go on any longer about cliches, etc as I'm sure most people will be aware that originality isn't Avatar's strong point. Is it ever with Cameron? It was quite painful for me (as a movie buff) to watch the film with these cliches running so thick. I was easily becoming bored and agitated. And because of this I didn't feel much emotion or empathy for the characters. I had seen them all before and knew where they were all going. Also, the referecnes to 9/11 and the Iraqi war were so obvious the script could have been written in Crayola.

But, I felt all of this paid-off with the final act of the film. The battle sequences are truly amazing. Spectacular. Flawless. They have certainly set a new standard. Yes, its all so predictable (as if that was going to change at this point in the film) but all so engrossing! I'm not a fan of epic battles al la Lord of the Rings but Cameron is a true master of directing action (Aliens, T2, True Lies) and here he once again surpasses himself. He may not have much originality with story but where action is concerned nobody does it better. It is these final parts of the movie that make the film for me. I would have gladly paid for the cinema ticket (plus extra £2 for 3d glasses) for the final 30mins of the film alone. It gave me goosebumps it was so engrossing and great! It was here that I began to care for the Navi and their fight for survival and find myself on the edge of my seat.

Of course, the big selling point of Avatar is the visuals and its technical excellence. And a big part of the final acts success for me was scope and the visuals; truly epic in every sense of the word. Avatar is a visual masterpiece from beginning to end. The planet of Pandora is a visual feast with the most vivid, gorgeous colours and like the Navi themselves it all has the greatest of details so perfectly executed that it is almost 'real'. It is as though this planet and race really does exist and Cameron has simply visited there with his camera. In the past with all these SFX bonanzas (Independence Day, Matrix sequels, Lord of the Rings, 2012, etc) there were always scenes where the SFX looked 'dodgy'. Where the technical team couldn't quite achieve the visions of the director/script and make it look realistic. With Avatar there isn't a single scene or moment where a technical limitation shows it's ugly head. It is visually flawless. And it blows you away with this awesomeness.

There's the old saying about style over substance and SFX over story. Wasn't The Phantom Menace supposed be some technical benchmark? And like Star Wars I think Avatar may lack some soul. For me, Avatar was all about the third act. My cinema-buddy, less of a critic than myself, loved the film and more so its visuals. But then again she is an art student! Cameron is a master there is no doubting that and I really want Avatar to be the success it needs to be. Maybe purely for my admiration of his past films and the sake of his future ones as I'm sure he will go on to make film of the same high standard. If I was asked whether or not I would recommend this movie to people then I would give is 2 thumbs up... only for the third act. So yes, I was won over by the epic action and visual brilliance and NOT the characters or the story. Shame on me. But I'm sure everyone will take away something different from this movie. Original or not.

Acting-wise, there wasn't anything too terrible but then there wasn't anything too great. I'm not convinced yet if Sam Worthington, like Gerard Butler, is leading man material. He plays Sully the hero but play its by-numbers. As an actor he seems to lack a certain charm and charisma. But time shall tell. Zoe Saldana as the daughter of the Navi leader (and of course Sully's love interest) played it rather well and very firey/primal and cat-like. Sigourney Weaver I felt was just going through the motions. Stephen Lang is a good actor but wasn't really given much to play with or expand upon with his character. Giovanni Risbi, again a good actor, but not given anything to push his talents. And then there is Michelle Rodriguez whose past films I am not too familiar with but I doubt she has ever played a damsel in distress of some cute little rich girl. Her character is just there to help the story move along and assist the main characters when they are in impossible situations so it was all rather pedestrian.

I admire Avatar because it reminded of the amazing yet rare feeling and experience you get from a film and the power of cinema that you cannot get watching it at home.

Go watch it. In 3D. At an Imax.

Shenye 'I heart Ladyhawks' Knight

Benjamin 'I hate men' Ward

Steven 'Robocop' Cherry

An Introduction

Violence is conflict.

Conflict is everything.

Ever since the first particle fought for space to exist there has been conflict.

This is why this blog exists.

If there is one thing we can agree on; it's that Benjamin Ward and Steven Cherry disagree.