"Can I Get an Amen!?"

So it has, once again, been a long-ass time since I posted. So long that I now have a tablet, and an app to post with. Get me.

It occurred to me the other day that I really have alot more to say than I actually end up saying, and that's not just limited to the online world. My opinions may not be popular or by any means correct, but I've often gone with the more tactful approach of just keeping my opinions to myself. It makes life more smooth. More tolerable. Easier to mop up.

I am considerinng re-applying to the cinema for work. Now for the past year I have been yo-yoing between England and Sweden for work at ridiculous-per-hour and that included a metric sausage-ton of travel, most of it by coach or train. Now I know what you're thinking, just fly, but for me its not that simple. Ever since a dodgy experience back in 2000 I've had a problem with flying. If I force myself I will get on a plane and fly, but not before sleep deprivation and possibly anti-anxiety medication do their work to help me sleep. Call it a phobia if you want, it is what it is, but due to that, its mainly been coach and train, which is long haul either way. Coach is hell however you slice it, especially if you are sat near an old English woman who is spitting abuse at everyone sat around her purely because she must have some form of social disorder. I've now been to Hamburg four times, and the first time, the time that woman got off the coach, was like watching Shawshank all over again. Uplifting, heartwarming and with a happy ending. All it needed was Morgan Freeman.

Anyway, my point is this. I have had enough of travel, and to a degree, wiring. I've met alot of good people in Sweden.  Pontus, Par, Magnus and Erik to name but a few, and had some great times at work. The problem I have is the lifestyle. When it comes to work I like routine. I like to know when and where I'm working, and I don't just mean what I'm doing any particular day. Being self-employed you're always worrying where the next job is going to come from, and that's a kind of insecurity I can't deal with on such a regular basis. Not only that, wiring takes you abroad alot, because the better wages are abroad. I like home. I have alot of my friends here, and a core group of them are a big part of my life. To take that element out sort of renders life meaningless. The day to day becomes simply that, without any mental stimulus, and that's not an easy existence to cope with. So, if I can get back to the cinema, back to a familiar work pattern, I might try. It'd certainly be awesome to get the free films again.

So, without any further ramblings, here's today's offering.

Deep Blue Sea.

I got rid of my DVD copy of this a LONG time ago, before I got rid of my DVD collection (more on that next time), and I remember thinking 'I barely watch this, and the case is one of those rubbish card ones, so I won't miss it.' It wasn't until I saw the blu-ray on offer in HMV (who survived, thankfully) that I decided to give it another go.

Plot - Scientists researching Alzheimer's cure unwittingly unleash super-smart killer sharks. Stellan Skarsgard pisses into the wind. Game on.

Now I love a good shark movie. There aren't enough of them around. Shark Night, although funny, was a bit poor, and I've not seen Jaws in years. There have been others, but none have really encapsulated the fear factor that Jaws originated in sharks, which is a shame. There is potential there if the script is smart enough. Hell, maybe a future project, why not. Anyway, Deep Blue Sea tries to go back to that Shark fear factor.

I will say this now, in terms of story, this film is a bit low. But come on, killer sharks, a politically incorrect parrot, and Samuel L. Mothaf@#king Jackson as a company director who survived an avalanche by killing and probably eating fellow climbers? What is not to love. This film may lack in credible explanations for half the stuff that goes on, such as sharks swimming backwards, fitting through doorways, and knowing how to bring down a rescue helicopter. But while you're watching it, you don't care. Deep Blue Sea has enough going for it to keep its audience entertained regardless. It's got that fear factor of sharks in the water with humans, which hasn't been replicated as effectively since. Shark Night tried and nearly got it, and Piranha was ridiculously funny but didn't come close. Deep Blue Sea may not be in the IMDb top 250, but it got onto my blu-ray shelf before most of them.

Rating - 7

"This is the Business We've Chosen..."

That kinda rings true for me, moreso recently than when I've thought about it with regards to the whole writing gig. Thinking about things realistically for a moment, lets take a look at the current situation. BA in the bag, MA on the way, things educationally seem to be looking up in terms of the writing. How much screenwriting have I done since I submitted my final script in May last year?

Fuck all.

I can think of many, many excuses to explain this complete drop in my output, but the truth is I just haven't had any ideas worth putting onto the page. That and a general lack of interest in it that's lasted nearly a year. I guess my screenplay gland wanted the time off to recharge and not think about final draft for a while. I kinda miss it.

Novel writing (well, novella writing, as it has come to pass at this point) is an interesting distraction from the rigid structure that is the screenplay. It's refreshing to be able to use  over the top 'poncey' words and get away with it for a change. That and I don't have to count pages. Only words. I haven't decided which I detest more. September will tell in that regard.

Anyway, even though I digress somewhat with this whole 'non-screenplay' malarky, I still likes me my DVD reviews. Top 250, #3...


3. The Godfather, Part 2

So, how best to follow up such a film as the Godfather? The only way one can, with the sequel (one of the few times that statement is true - take note Hollywood)

Yeah, I've started adding pictures to these reviews. Go me.

 The early life of Vito Corleone, and the continuation of the story of Michael Corleone, as he continues to seize control of his inherited crime syndicate.

This film was one of my earliest experiences of dual plot strands. Obviously in all screenplays there is plot and subplot, but rarely does it occur that two main plots run concurrently, and even more rare that such a storytelling technique works to such great effect. Its the format I first tried (unsuccessfully) when I first dabbled in screenwriting all those moons ago back in Welwyn, so its a little meaningful. Only a little.

Anyway, I'm going to cut this one a wee bit short, because I often ramble about the same old shit. This film is awesome. I don't have much to say about something this good, and damn me I likes ripping into worse films. I know a few people that haven't seen any of the Godfather movies, and I often ask them why. Usually its either "I've not got round to it yet" (which with me and such films as Casino, Once Upon a Time in America and the 'Che' movies is a fair excuse), or "they're not my cup of tea". To be frank, anyone who has or has had a family of some description should sit themselves down and watch these films. The third one not so much, but the first and by god definitely the second. Don't ask me why, just sit down and watch.

There. Blog re-energised. Back to daily life. To Ikea!

"It's Safer to Teach You English!"

Oddly enough, it took me a good ten minutes looking for a quote even remotely un-serious for this one, and thats all I could find. This should be interesting.

So, I'm currently sitting in the Post-graduate area (oooh get me) in the library at Uni. There is really nothing special about it, aside from perhaps a little more elbow room either side. Shows how much Solent truly appreciate those who have survived the first three years and don't have the common sense to go somewhere better. That and somehow we have to find an extra £3500 for the privilege.

Anyway, it dawned on me the other day that I hadn't spoken to my old cohort of bitterness Greeners in a long while, so I shall hopefully be heading up to Newbury for a pint and such larks at some point. Be nice to catch up.

Anyway, Next!

2. The Godfather

I can never, ever get tired of this movie. I think there are only a few films in existence that can hold my attention and entertain me enough for me to say that.

You all know the story - Ageing crime boss Vito Corleone, through various circumstances both under and not under his control, leaves his empire to his youngest son, Michael.

Where the hell do I begin?

For me, this film has it all. Romance, comedy, action, drama in metric fucktons. It's wonderfully well paced, with the violence coming in short, sharp bursts, with the tension building between each set piece. There is no-one out of place in terms of cast - aside from perhaps the undertaker at the start, even though his opening lines set the scene for an awesome opening sequence.

My opinion of this movie harks back to something I once thought about after watching (or more accurately, enduring) 2001: A Space Odyssey. After sitting through that for god knows how long, I had a thought. '2001' and The Godfather were released only 4 years apart. Now both are hailed as classics (according to the IMDb top 250, The Godfather a darn sight more), yet for the life of me I can watch The Godfather at least twice a day, and I can barely stand the first 20 minutes of '2001'. Says alot about how well or not films age, doesn't it?

I can offer no praise of this film that hasn't been done to death by anyone and everyone since the seventies. All I can really do is something I hate doing to films I thoroughly enjoy, and that's find flaws in them. Firstly, as I've said, the undertaker. I completely understand his role in everything. He's there to dispel every preconception we believe regarding typical mafia behaviour. He asks Vito to kill - he says no. He's then asked for a favour - to clean a body for a funeral. He just irritates me for some reason. Probably because he's meant to, as his request for murder irritates the Don. Just not as comfortable with his presence as I am with the rest of the film.

I think the only other thing I have a problem with is the diner scene, in particular Sollozzo. Again, this is me being exceedingly picky, but I'd have put subtitles over the Italian to give us an idea of what Sollozzo is trying to do by speaking to Michael in public. It's a little confusing and takes a little away from what is still a classic scene, just would have tweaked it a little in post production. Means all those who speak Italian out there have an advantage over us. Damn you Macina!

Anyway, The Godfather. Classic. Next up. Take a Guess.

"Salvation Lies Within..."

Doing this MA and having all the problems with it that we've been having sometimes makes me wonder if its worth the time, money and effort. With all the irrelevant lectures, the absolutely pointless guest lectures and the botched student rep system employed by the MA, it's a wonder that Solent have noticed the £3000 we've each paid to learn this crap. Oh well.

Watching Doctor Who at 9:00am, as should be compulsory in the UK, brings to mind my recent binge of television shows on DVD. Boston Legal. The West Wing. Smallville (I know, I know), and a stab at 24. A little stab. I don't generally keep up with TV shows as they're aired. I don't have terrestrial, thats a big part of it, but I guess I just don't like to be constrained by the timetable of Radio Times. You could call it a pro-active approach to TV, rather than a Sky+ approach. Anyway.

My reviews, from today onwards, will be geared towards a slightly different purpose. I have, since its inception, been fascinated by the IMDb top 250 films of all time:

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0120689

There are thousands of films out there, and more are arriving every week. From the good to the downright ridiculous, there is always something happening with film, thats just the nature of the industry. Now the IMDb top 250 is not a set list, as you can imagine. It does change from time to time, when a film is deemed worthy of it (bearing in mind that the films on the IMDb top 250 are decided by public vote). So, here's what we're going to do. I will, in descending order, be reviewing each film from this list, in as detailed a way as possible, to discern whether or not I feel they are worthy of their place on this list. As the list can change, I will review each film that as of today stands on the list.

So, with no ado, because there are 250 films to get through, and I still need to watch at least 100 of them.

1. The Shawshank Redemption

Now I'll be doing this in descending order so I can ask myself if one film deserves to be lower than one before it. So, starting off at the top, the mother of all films.

Shawshank is, as you had better know having seen it (if you haven't seen it, you do not deserve that air you're breathing just now) the story of Andy Dufresne, a banker incarcerated in Shawshank prison for a crime he didn't commit, and his friendship with Red, a prison entrepreneur and 'lifer'.

Now this is the first of a trilogy of collaborations between Frank Darabont and one Stephen King (The Green Mile, which is the second chronologically, is also in the top 250, whereas The Mist is not) and the dark, gritty undertone of the antagonist in this one shows very well. Darabont, when working from King material, seems to have a sense of the underlying evil in his antagonists, and he shoots them incredibly. I can imagine if you were to ask a few people what their favourite part of Shawshank is, they would say "the reveal of the tunnel", and thats one hell of an iconic scene. But if I had to push the boat out, I'd say that the performances of Bob Gunton as Warden Norton and Clancy Brown as Captain Hadley really help make this film memorable. Every film needs a strong antagonist to make it work, and Shawshank, thanks to an excellent script and fantastic cinematography, has a pair of great antagonists.

See, I often find myself trying to find something I would change in a film, even a good one. The problem is, Shawshank is essentially the closest to perfect that I have seen in a film. It's perfectly balanced, no throwaway lines of dialogue, no unnecessary action sequences. It's all in the right place. The only thing I can fault is the use of voice over, but there are two reasons why this really doesn't matter. The first is because the use of voice over really sets the mood for this film, it doesn't really give anything away and thus is not of any detriment to the story .The second, is because its Morgan Freeman. Quite frankly, that man could voice over my life.

So, to summarise. This film is awesome. Number 1 spot in the top 250 is a safe bet for Shawshank. Explains why its been up there since day one.

Next up - The Godfather.

 

"Boom! You never know!"

I may or may not have had this conversation with someone at some point, so I'll have it with no-one in particular this time.

 I was in the middle of one of two lonely shifts at the cinema, which are sandwiched in between a couple of excursions to Sweden, the second one pending, and a thought occurred to me. We are currently showing the film 'Safe House', starring Ryan Reynolds and one Denzel Washington. Now from what I understand of this film, its a sort of 'naive young guy takes the lead from chiselled veteran old guy' story. Now, stop me if I veer a little of the accuracy track here, but isn't this the sort of thing Denzel has done before?

Think about it. The Bone Collector. Unstoppable. Training Day. Safe House.

The interesting thing? All the 'naive young' characters are white. The Bone Collector was Angelina Jolie, Unstoppable would be one Chris Pine, and Training Day was Ethan Hawke. Now out of these four, I haven't seen Safe House or the Bone Collector, Unstoppable wasn't bad, and Training Day was really good. I have thus come to one conclusion.

Every film that Denzel makes from this day on should be entitled "Denzel Washington Carrying White Actors Through A Movie : Part 5" and so on.

So, that aside, here's a review.

The Untouchables.

Synopsis - A young detective brings together a team with one objective - to bring down Al Capone.

Now having sat through Dances with Wolves, I am in the unfortunate position of having seen Kevin Costner in more than one film in the space of 10 years. There is something about him that irritates me. Whether its the tone of his voice, or his accent, or his existence, I don't know. Point is, had I not seen Dances with Wolves and been so drained by it, I'd have been able to cope with Costner in this. As it stands, I am waiting at least a year before I watch Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves, purely because I can't deal with much Costner. The Bodyguard can fuck off. Insert Whitney Houston joke.

Costner aside, The Untouchables is a pretty good film. Sean Connery, although woefully out of place in terms of accent, was an awesome mentor for the lead character. Personally I don't think Andy Garcia gets enough work, because I enjoyed his role and I don't think I've ever seen him do anything bad (Confidence is a good movie, yeah, I said it), and lets be honest folks, if the character is Italian, Robert De Niro plays it well by default. He could probably try his utmost to act badly, and still come off as realistic. It's well shot, and having not read the script I will assume that it was fairly solid. If not, I blame Costner. It's a safe bet, look at Waterworld and the Postman. And Dances with sodding Wolves.

Honestly, watching this film and watching Costner makes me want to re-write his part. Not the rest of the film, thats fine. Purely Costner's role, to see if it would improve any more. Probably not a great deal, but it would be worth a shot.

"Sir knight? I've just pissed in my pants... and nobody can do anything about it..."

It occurs to me every once in a while to keep this thing updated with news and reviews, so, hello again.

Right, the Bachelor's Degree is in the bag with a 2:1, so that's 3 years of life well spent. It was a hard and at times downright weird slog, but it's done now. Time to see what the future holds.

Am into the new flat, and aside from Internet issues (i.e. not having any) it's good. Right next to the docks, but barely ever hear them, just down the road from work (no more paying for taxis on a close) and it's away from the raucous Polygon. Were it not a flat share I'd be sorely tempted to make it a permanent residence. That, however, is something for the future.

Right, back to the reviews.

Dances with Wolves.

As if Avatar wasn't long-winded enough.

Right, Civil War Hero John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) is posted to the frontier. He finds his post deserted. He encounters a tribe of Sioux, including Mary 'I'm about as Sioux as JCVD's talking nipples' McDonnell, and that guy from Maverick (Graham Greene). Dunbar learns their ways, joins them and defends them from his own people.

That is probably the shortest synopsis of this film available that will do it justice. Make no mistake, this is a film of epic proportions. So much so that I had to watch it over 2 discs.

Anyway, this film is supposedly Costner's best, being not only his directorial debut, but the film in his filmography that won the most Oscars. Now, back then the Academy weren't quite so formulaic as they are now *cough* King's Speech *cough*, so it was a time when a film had to stand out even more than perhaps it does these days. Which leads me to my first point.

Why...why is this film so sodding long!?

Now I am a fan of long films, such things are no secret. Things like Amadeus, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur and Gandhi adorn my DVD shelf, and they'll all get a watch every now and then. But this? This film basically consists of Kevin Costner, a wolf and a horse. With some other people thrown in when you're about to be driven nuts with boredom. They make it interesting, but we're not around them enough to actually give a shite because we're too busy with Kevin Costner on his own (no giggity's please). My main gripe with this movie is that empty space where it's just him, the animals, and his flaming voice-over. It's unnecessary, time-consuming and at times bored me to tears. Not to mention probably the most annoying voice-over this side of Twilight. Did Kristen Stewart take acting lessons from the Costner? I leave that to you to decide. It was either him or Keanu Reeves.

Anyway, I do malign this movie, but for what it is, it's not bad. The development of Dunbar's relationship with the Sioux was good (if a little overdone) and Graham Greene, Mary McDonnell and the other support cast put in a very convincing showing. The sets were great, everything was put together very well. I guess I just have a massive problem with Kevin Costner. I reckon if this film were a script nowadays and it were sent to a studio they'd turn it down flat. If Costner didn't have half the influence he did back then, he'd have been laughed back to the drawing board. Instead he got to make it and for some reason it was Oscar-worthy. Probably because it was up against the likes of Ghost and The Godfather Part 3 (also Goodfellas, and that didn't win?).

To be fair, this was probably the first modern film to portray this type of story well enough. I just think that compared to this, The Last Samurai is more involved, more emotionally charged, and just better. Although, to be fair to the Costner, this monster of a film is still better than that one with blue people in it that used the same underlying storyline.Well done Kev! You fought off lanky Smurfs!

Next up - Hansel & Gretel.

"We are Gonna Lose some Paint in Here..."

So, we are now in the last month of the degree, final deadlines are starting to shift from 'in the distance' to 'looming', and there's still alot of work to do. Locks getting changed, rooms being renovated, houses being searched for, and oh, it's that bastard month again isn't it?

As I have said before and will do so in brief again, April is the month when alot of strange shit happens in the personal lives of human beings. People get together, break up, relationships change in their dynamic, and lots of other weird stuff, all because it's April.

Before we press on, special mention to Tina, who was awesome on the pin-up photoshoot. Really good sport when she was otherwise busy, so thank you for that! Also, the poster design so far is looking pretty good.

...SO...

Avatar.

Now this one will be by no means an easy review. It's surprisingly hard to stay impartial when a film holds a great deal of personal resonance, so I will do my best, because I have been fervently against this film and although my reasons I believe are valid, not all would agree. So here we go.

So, basic plot, a crippled marine takes his dead brothers place in a science mission on a resource-rich planet far from Earth. His mission is to remove an indigenous tribe from their home so that humanity can claim a precious resource from beneath it to save Earth. He joins the indigenous in an Avatar body, and eventually comes to join their cause and fight for their way of life.

Ok, now the first thing that will strike anyone when they hear of, speak about or watch Avatar is the budget. $237m. One of the largest ever budgets for a film. Now as the vast majority of this film is CGI, you'd think that nearly all of that budget was spent on making the film. Highly unlikely. More feasible would be to assume that a good portion of that money went on the advertising/marketing campaign. This film was plugged to high heaven when it was on the way. The interest generated was massive. This was also one of the major factors in its success, snatching over $2bn by the end of January 2010. Now yes, this makes it the most successful MODERN film of all time (accounting for Inflation, Gone with the Wind still takes the crown) but it doesn't necessarily make it one of the best. IMDb rates it at #161 in its top 250 of all time. No mean feat, but again, is this the be all and end all. Does this mean it's a good film, or just that people were persuaded by the massive marketing campaign behind it to go and pay their money to make it as successful as it was? I think only time can tell on that one, harking back to the longevity of films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather.

Okay, the next thing you notice is fairly obvious - it's Sci-Fi. Now Sci-Fi is firmly back in the public focus of late. Films like this and District 9 have proven to the modern audience that Sci-Fi isn't just a genre for quirky stories and actors who have passed their sell-by date (step forward Scott Bakula - my annoyance of this guy will be explained next time). Sci-Fi sells.

Now with regards to the film itself, I will admit there are a couple of aspects that make it an enjoyable experience. For starters, those visual effects. Everything is seamlessly put together in the CGI, everything seems to move naturally and it's all quite subtle. It can be easily forgotten that its not just all the odd animals with six legs that are animated, but also everything around them. Hat's off to the CG artists on this.


Next up for the plaudits are Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver. At the start of this film, Weaver plays the perfect role - Ripley had she taken a Biology GCSE instead of one in Ass-Kicking. She fits the role of hard taskmaster really well. Ribisi? This guy is a wanker throughout the whole film, and it suits him. He needs to play more high profile, strong and flamboyant villains in his films, he's good enough to do it.


Now I normally go a bit mad with fandom when awesome actors turn up in films, no matter the quality, and Avatar is no exception. Step forward CCH Pounder and Dileep Rao. Okay, Rao may not have proven himself as awesome just yet, but he was in Inception and that'll do. But CCH "The Female Morgan Freeman" Pounder? Oh yeah. She had a fairly small role in this, which is a shame because she's so talented. But we can't have everything can we?

Finally, special mention must, must go to Stephen Lang. He's awesome. He should have been in Battle: LA, playing the same character he does in this. Hard-ass. Marine. Bastard. With scars down his face. I can't say much more, except whenever he was on screen it was fun.

So, now that I am done with the positive stuff.

My hatred of this film is justified. I do not like Avatar. It will remain so. Here is why.

For starters, the film opens with narration. Narration is a lazy tool of telling a story however you slice it. When the film starts we can see that the planet the story is set on is not Earth. We know that, we don't need telling. We know that this is a science fiction universe - there's a spacecraft floating about that looks nothing like any existing spacecraft. We can guess that the marine has been in stasis - there's a guy shouting at him and the others what to do after being in stasis - we don't need Sam Worthington sitting there with a big sign saying "I am going to read you this story". Worthington periodically talks to camera throughout the whole movie. I now despise the mans face.

Now I am well aware (working in a cinema as I do) that Avatar's marketing campaign was extensive and very well thought out. but christ, this is a motion picture that was advertised as brilliant, powerful and revolutionary. It's CGI. If it's revolutionary, the audience isn't going to see that revolution taking place. It's not powerful. It's a story that has been done 1001 times with different characters, different actors and different directors. The Last Samurai was the last version I saw before this. The point is, the marketing campaign seriously plugged the CGI, and CGI should never be the point of a film. The story should always come first. bad form Cameron.

FROM NOW ON THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.

There is a sodding tree in this film that can transfer the essence of characters from one body to another. That is crap.

Specifically, it can transfer the essence of humans into empty Na'vi bodies. Nifty, huh?

No. Not really.

Now I understand how James Cameron worked this out. The nature on Pandora is all linked, much like a computer, and the Na'vi can access that network. It's perfect to make the tree credible. The problem is, that's all it's for. There is no other feasible explanation for the presence of this network, other than to make Cameron sound smart.

WHY ARE THEY BLUE!? Surely he saw the Smurf references coming?

Now did anyone spot me mentioning Sigourney Weaver being good at the start of this film?

Yes, the START. In the rest she was rubbish. Her character was meant to hold the main protagonist with a kind of quiet malice, whilst at the same time helping him along. After ten minutes of wonderfully acidic barbs, she is practically licking his scrotum with helpful character advancements. In truth I'd much rather there be a Galaxy Quest sequel than seeing Weaver act in this crap.

Sam Worthington deserves dishonourable mention again. He's bloody awful in this. Wooden, monotonous and...well shit. The fact that he spends a great deal of this film opening his mouth and speaking only adds to the trauma.

One thing about modern Hollywood cinema that is becoming really tiresome right now, is the over-and-mis-use of Michelle Rodriguez. I recently saw Battle LA and she is actually ok in that (not to mention SHE LIVES!!!) but for the love of god, enough with the bullheaded attempts to re-stereotype Latin Americans by martyring her in every goddamn film. You can't do it. The only thing this is doing is making any role Rodriguez takes on incredibly predictable. It has the potential to ruin the movies she stars in.

Going back to the CGI for a moment, another real problem with this film is one of the 'locations' on the planet. Floating mountains. What are these floating 'mountains'? Boulders. In mid-air. No reason for it, they're just there, hanging around waiting for a set piece to happen. Hell, I use the program used to create those things, and so much more can be done with it than just having floating boulders. It's unimaginative. Just like the bloody story. The story should be the heart of every film, and the story in this film is really good. It's a tried and tested story, and if I'm honest I have no problem with the story in this film. It's about overcoming adversity, finding ones true self. But it's been deeply undermined by having such a mound of crap sitting atop it. In addition, I'm kinda tired of the whole "I will find myself by joining a tribal clan" angle. The Last Samurai did it, Dances with Wolves did it, now this has done it. The whole slant is getting a little old.

 In retrospect, I am glad I bought this film. It gave me the chance to completely analyse it and see it without outside influence, and gleam some perspective off the back of it. I still despise Avatar with a passion. I can't watch it without it either boring me or annoying me because of its irritating flaws. But this films marketing was superior in so many ways to many movies. It made good use of the vast resources available, and ended up making a shedload of money. Unfortunately that vast resource wasn't also used to make a meaningful film. Good for sticking on in the background while you clean or write is Avatar, but watching it is not a pleasant experience.

Right, the review of doom is over. I am now going on writing mode until May 6th, so there will probably not be any more posts until then. I'll watch a film in due course, and the next review will be up when it's up. Until then.