Aliens (James Cameron, 1986)

"These people are here to protect you. They're soldiers"

Introduction

I will set out my objective clearly: To strip Aliens of all of its credability. I want to reveal how fatally flawed it is. How it is appalling that so many viewers argue Aliens as the strongest in the franchise, when if we really analyse it and compare it to Alien or The Terminator, both are superior and offer unique and profound points, whilst Aliens is a rehash of previous Cameron topics - dare I say it, is Aliens a dry-run for Terminator 2: Judgement Day? Whilst, in terms of what Ridley Scott set-out in Alien, Cameron completely ripped up the rule-book and ran off on a tangent that took the franchise the wrong direction. I think Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection are both attempting to claw back the credability of the first film ... but their hands are tied behind their backs as they always try to make the film more 'action-packed' like the second film. In this months Empire magazine, Ridley Scott notes how he was always fascinated that none of the sequels explored the space-jockey starting-point he had set-up. A wealth of material (which he intends to use in Prometheus) was waiting for a filmmaker to capitalise on, but none of them did. It took Scott to really get back to the true starting point of the franchise. James Cameron thought "right, a sequel - we need more aliens, more guns and more military ... stuff".

Moral Compass

A clearly controversial (and debatable) starting point ... and maybe a little unfair. It was unfair, I can appreciate James Cameron. I think what Aliens does clarify - and expand upon - is the clear anti-capitalist argument that was touched upon in Alien. Alien touches upon the nature of the term "crew expendable", but this time it is about the importance of family. In fact, the very nature of a maternal role in Ripley is set-up in the very first act, as Ripley gives birth to an alien ... before waking up. It is a dream. Then we are told in no uncertain terms that a substantial amount of families have lost contact ... they are all dead. The aliens are destroying families and it is Ripley who needs to restore and create the family-unit. And she successfully does this by establishing a relationship with Cpl Dwayne Hicks (Michael Beihn), and becoming a maternal figure to Newt (Carrie Henn).

Carter Burke (Paul Reiser) is the 'Ash' of this film. Not that Burke is a robot, but he is very much detached from his human emotions. It is established early on that Burke is not to be trusted and we find out, as the film progresses, that as Ash was happy to break quarantine rules in Alien, Burke will actively release a face-hugger in the hope that it can be transported home and further experimented on. In contrast, the robot Bishop (Lance Henriksen) is played as untrustful but we see as the film progresses that his heart is in the right place. Or, a better way to put it, his circuits are running properly [insert robot-version of the phrase here].

James Cameron-isms

Cameron ups-the-ante, by utilising the various alien-features to great action-effect. The acid-blood becomes a huge danger - especially for the military unit attempting to kill the aliens. The face-hugger is not just a creature that leaps on a face - we now see the tentacles flailing and slapping around, whilst we see a facehugger held back as the penetrating tube that slips down the throat is desperately trying to find its way into a humans neck. This exploration of the creatures really builds on what we know - never had we seen the creatures become so fast and dangerous. Alien is very-much about a creature killing off a crew tactically, one-by-one, whilst in Aliens it is brute force and relentless attacking. As much as I may appreciate these elements, it is very-much the old sequel-story - more aliens, more attacks, more close-ups, etc. The beauty in Alien was how we didn't see these things - we knew about them, and were shown a dead facehugger as Ash delicately operated on it, but we didn't see it leap around much or show-off its features. Thats not to say there was no place for it, but imagine if we had a similar small-scale story to Alien second-time round and the horror-element still played a part (opposed to turning it into action), you could still see a sequence whereby we saw a little bit more about the movement and skills of the creature - but this sequence alongside the relentless attacking of the aliens themselves just makes it a part of a mass-army attack opposed to a unique element to a subtle exploration of the aliens. Fascinating as it is, the film as a whole is built upon the idea of excess - which is completely against the subtlety of Ridley Scott's original. Remember, all the interesting aspects of the alien itself were set-up in the original - the only 'new' aspect was the Queen. Who simply looks like a queen-bee. How original.

Even James Cameron didn't bring much new to the table. The Terminator was only two years prior and had many similar concepts and designs. In The Terminator we have Skynet and in Aliens we have Weyland-Yutani - the corporation in a futuristic environment against the common working woman - Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley respectively. Even the designs of the machines in the military-team in Aliens would not look out-of-place on the barren landscape in the post-apocalyptic 2029 that begins The Terminator. The excessive use of guns and miltary-grade machinery is akin to the excessive use of force the T-800 applies when tracking down Sarah Connor. Even the finale of both films almost imitate each other as they are both set in industrial environments, across multiple levels and heights, with blue-and-white lights shining through unneccessary but 'looks-cool' gas in a nightime-setting. When Ripley ascends in the never-ending lift, you almost expect her to come face-to-face with Arnie, instead she becomes The Terminator and dresses up in her mechanical-outfit to take on the queen alien. Maybe Cameron looked at Ripley-as-Robot and thought: "What about The Terminator as a good guy?"...

Simply Not Good Enough

Consider at this point how you are realising how Aliens is clearly repeating everything Cameron himself created in The Terminator. Add to this the standard of the acting - specifically, the child-actress in Newt (Carrie Henn). This is the heart to the film and you can see, clear as day, how she is reading and acting off simple direction. She hides and is mute initially and very slowly opens up as the film goes on to reveal a very 2D character. Then, to make matters worse, in terms of 2D characters, lets consider the entire military unit. "Loose-cannon" Hudson (Bill Paxton) with his popular imitate-me lines: "I say we grease this rat-fuck son-of-a-bitch right now." or "We're on an express elevator to hell; going down!". Then we have Sgt Apone (Al Matthews) who constantly refers to the unit as "sweethearts".  Butch Pvt Vasquez (Jenette Goldstein) with her huge guns and destructive attitude - we all think "Wow, what a strong woman! Could she [*shock*] be stronger than a man?". To top it off we have the Lt Gorman (William Hope) as the under-experienced but more-senior positioned character - we all think "how can he be leading this team!?". An incarnation harking back to many World War II films as senior leaders do not understand the role of the regular soldier. These characters are flat and 2D - there is nothing more to them. Family? Loved Ones? Previous relationships? Previous missions that changed them? Understanding of aliens? Understanding of earth? Nothing - they are set-up for one purpose: to become meat for the aliens to chew on. They mean nothing. (oh, and we can endlessly quote them)

Influential

But, as a fan of Jurassic Park, I cannot help but see the clear comparison. The conflict of interest regarding company morals and ethics; is it right to experiement on creatures and play with science - and act as God (again, a theme due to come up in Prometheus). Even visually, when the aliens are at the door and when Hudson dies - both have a striking similarity to Jurassic Park. Hell, even the offices look like the Ingen company offices whilst Burkes clothing seems to be from the same shop as Dr Alan Grant.

Furthermore, I think films like Aliens are what must have created and directly-inspired games such as Quake and Doom. So often we see from the point-of-view of the soldiers - often through the cameras on their heads. The relevant data appearing on the left and right, as the guns lead into the centre of the frame. Throw in the industrial and alien environment and we find ourselves in the territory of alien-shoot-em-ups Doom, Quake and - after Goldeneye - Perfect Dark. Maybe James Cameron should be in gaming-industry instead.

Alien Tangent

There is one obvious echo and link to Alien when the characters run through the halls with alarms ringing out, it reminds you of the final act with Ripley in the first installment. But you can simply see how James Cameron simply took the film and franchise in a completely different direction. Even the planet LV-426, whereby the colonies live, is nothing like the spectacular, artistic creation by H.R. Giger in Alien, and I wouldn't be suprised if this Giger-world is what Ridley Scott loved about the franchise - not the action-and-guns that became a staple of the franchise in Aliens and Alien: Resurrection. Think about Blade Runner - despite some great action-sequences, it is very much about the look of a world combined with profound and fascinating talking-points that established the film as a Sci-Fi classic. Alien, equally holds its own as it is an environment which had never been seen before combined with a creepy, horror-take of the Sci-Fi genre ... the action was not important, but it became important because Jim Cameron made it so in Aliens.

James Cameron asks "What's wrong with commerce?"

James White, for the Empire Blog and in Off the Wire writes about James Cameron dicussing the upcoming Titanic 3D April 2012 release:

And if you’re a sceptic when it comes to 3D films, Cameron has words for the doubters, too. “I don't care about them. If you could wave a magic wand and give everyone in the world an orgasm simultaneously, there'd still be cynics looking for a way to criticise that. First of all, what's wrong with commerce? What's wrong with making jobs for people in movie theatres around the world? What's wrong with entertaining people? If people don't show up, then we were wrong. If people show up, we're giving them what they want and if they show up again? We're really giving them what they want, because they're willing to pay for it twice. So it's really just a gamble that the film has the same impact on audiences now. And that's an experiment. Every movie is. It's business. It's art and business put together and I have no problem with that whatsoever.”

Read the full article by clicking here: http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/off-the-wire/post/p1165

The irony to all of this is what Cameron believes is 'first' - namely, commerce. I understand the business model of studios and how making money is the priority but the fact that Cameron is so blatent about his intentions makes me feellike a mug if I paid for the viewing. The fact that Michael Bay could say the same thing - Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen was released, rushed and not properly executed because the first priortity was 'commerce'. The priority was not equality of sex's - with Megan Fox pretty much playing a porn-star-who-keeps-her-clothes-on and the priority was not sensible script for clearly-African-American robots ... it was a simple case of Make Film, Make Money. Unfortunately, it did, and therefore set in motion other films that will continue to misrepresent races and gender and crucially, producers will not see the neccessity of a good script for a film. Bottom line is that it made money and thats the 'first' priority.

I'm going to throw something out there - I don't thing James Cameron is a good filmmaker. Granted Aliens is alright, but it hardly has the artistry of Alien and the characters within the film are completely 2D - knuckle-head marines who hold big guns. Big Deal. The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day are similar affairs, lots of special effects but hardly anything more than eye candy: Big guy with gun ... shoots people. Avatar, in terms of story, was nothing new... and simplified a potentially-interesting story about patriotism and identity. Other than the special effects, Cameron has very little. In fairness, he can shoot Special Effects too ... but in terms of telling an interesting story? He clearly understands the priority of commerce being the 'first' priority - but to what extent. Does he know - or care - that his own lack of story and lack of characterisation is devaluing scriptwriters? Does he consider the knock-on effect of his filmmaking 'prioritisation' and how it damages cinema in the short term (Consider all the awful 3D conversions...) The fact that the whole model of converting films into 3D is actually stopping people going to the cinema?

A quarter of the survey's respondents cited 3D as something that put them off going to the cinema. Other reasons for not going to the cinema included ticket prices, the constant glut of remakes and reboots and other people playing with their phones during films.

Read the full article by Stuart Heritage on The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2011/nov/11/cinema-3d-video-on-demand

Yes, we know that the business of cinema is the business of product - creating something that will sell. But I think Cameron is simplifying the concept of money-making-cinema to a point that it is damaging cinemas integrity and, ultimately, the quality of the product. He is the man turning the restaurant into a McDonalds whilst cineastes and film-lovers are desperate for the restaurant to be 5-star - serving high-quality, meaty food that takes time to prepare and is delivered by outstanding-service. We want to remember the experience and think about what was in the food - we don't want to wolf it down and worry about how bad it is for your health.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (James Cameron, 1991)

"On August 29th, 1997, it's gonna feel pretty fucking real to you too. Anybody not wearing 2 million sunblock is gonna have a real bad day. Get it?"

Introduction

Randomly, I bought this before watching The Terminator. Reason being that I was going through the early-DVD phase of my life and, in a tin box ... with loads of special features ... a 'classic' film I hadn't seen ... I had to buy it. Ironically, I am sure that this film marked the end of my watch-the-film-and-special-features-all-in-one-go phase ... so many special features, many of which are relentlessly dull, simply stalled me pretty soon and I decided I'd bail on the special features, content that I'd watched a 'classic' film. Then I watched it again when Sarah's Mum visited. Lets see what we can pull from the 'flames' of Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Future before Modern Day

So, in the same way as its predecessor, the opening delivers the background to 'The Terminator' whilst also setting the scene for entire film itself. As if the previous film did not exist, this film sets Sarah Connor up, now as narrator explaining the nuclear war that killed the vast majority of humans. The nuclear war still happens, the future is still set - and this film is about stopping the nuclear war from happening - opposed to the previous film whereby the focus is Sarah Connors survival to give birth to John Connor, the leader of the resistance. Cameron explands the universe and, as if in a dreamlike-state, we are walked through this nuclear attack: childrens play on swings, the laughter and fun drowned out by the intense light and heat destroying all human kind. This is Sarah Connor's fear - and, the storm clouds that approached at the end of The Terminator has clearly hit home as she is currently in an asylum, whilst her son - John Connor - is a rebellious youth.

Rehash and Renew

In the same way as in The Terminator, he returns in the same way - his point-of-view tinted in red whith details highlighthing his actions. The clock-like 'tick-tock' soundtrack beating as he makes his move. He even finds his 'look' very quick -finding leather and sunglasses to update his style. This is within 10 minutes. I heard the following information from Andy and john on The Hollywood Saloon. If you can imagine watching  Terminator 2: Judgement Day up until he confronts John Connor, you are - again - unsure about his motives. You are supposed to think he is the same terminator, with the same motives - on a rampage and killing John Connor... but things have changed. The terminator has a new motive - he has, in fact, been sent to protect. This is lost on so many people now because the terminator is seen as the protector - the same role played in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Hope and Humanism

I believe this film has a primary focus on how humans and their personal perspectives is what needs to be valued. There is 'no fate' - no inevitable options. Humans "have feelings" and are "afraid". It is these emotions that stop hope from blooming. But then again, it is these emotions that make people reflect on their actions. T2 builds on the argument set-up in T1 ...captialism and a lack-of-foresight into the effects industrialism. The SKYNET company is given more depth - that one hand being the reason for the quick evolution of technology. We know Cameron's very pro-nature attitude and this is clear in this film too - but it is our ignorance of the bigger-issues that is the concern. We are all responsible.

Miles Dyson - the scientist directly involved in the development of the technology that will, in turn, create the war on Judgement Day - is a good guy. He has a family. He has children. He could be anyone who simply wants to be successful - who doesn't want to be successful?

When Sarah Connor finishes the film, narrating over the ongoing road ahead - she ends on a message of hope - "If a machine, a terminator, can learn the value of life, maybe we can too". The question is - who is she talking to? The Terminator himself? Or the clueless development of military machinery and nuclear power - are they not terminators themselves? Putting the cogs together for someone, with less good intentions, to use. Is that too much depth? Who supplies the armies in the middle-east with their weapons? Technology can be a dengerous thing in the wrong hands ...

The Terminator (James Cameron, 1984)

"You still don't get it, do you? He'll find her! That's what he does! It's ALL he does! You can't stop him! He'll wade through you! He'll reach down her throat and tear her fuckin' heart out!"

Introduction

Alongside Robocop, in Primary School, The Terminator was the film everyone had seen ...  except me. I was the one with Catholic parents who would never in a million years be allowed to watch an '18' rated film in Primary School. On my 12th birthday, Dumb and Dumber was out of bounds due to the 'toilet' humour my Mum and Dad were not prepared to let me watch. So, Unfortunately I only managed to watch this fairly recently - having watched Terminator 2: Judgement Day multiple times already. I am always the one who demands others to watch films in their original, canonical order - so this was an epic fail on my part.

Visual Start

Whenever we think of silent openings, everyone references 2001: A Space Odyssey and then, only recently, Wall-E and There Will Be Blood. The Terminator, though nowhere near as epic, begins with virtually no speaking – you have to work out what is going on. Both Kyle Reece (Michael Beihn) and The Terminator (Schwarzenegger) both look in the phone book for Sarah Connor (Hamilton). We only realise the true meaning of their intentions when they meet her - the fact that the film is called The Terminator means that, to some extent, you are expected to guess which one is the machine. I think with Schwarzenegger's definitive role being the machine itself, means that this tension is lost on modern audeiences - much like the first hour of T2 is lost, due to the trailers and post-release knowledge ... but thats a different argument.

The Future?

Considering the film begins, set in the future, only to flash back to the modern day, it is interesting to see how this "future story" has very little "future" shown. It shows the destroyed world people live in - with their [small-set] underground houses with very little to live off. This brings to mind other 'future' films with very little future in - The Matrix would be one, whilst even 2001 shows lots of space but very little urban-life [quote from Sarah].

Having just watched Back to the Future it is additionally interesting as to how the film links back round as the child John Connor is, in fact, Kyle's child - sent by John Connor to meet Sarah Connor. I am sure there is a timeline inconsistency here and the time-travel element of The Terminator films are flawed as soon as we find this information out.

Horrific Night

Another apsect which could place this sci-fi film into an almost horror-genre (thoug Cameron does not direct the film in this way at all) is the unstoppable nature of The Terminator - akin to serial killers and mad-men, anyone gets in the way and he will kill them. We see two additional Sarah Connors killed off early on and, due to the nightime setting of the film, this merely adds to the fear of someone knocking at your door, late at night, and - just on such a trivial fator such as your name - you are killed. The finale, is industrial - the metal bangs and clunky machinery a reminder of the industrial world we live in - and the destructive future it may create. Is the real terminator captialism and industrialism - the dependency on such models for a society to survive, it eventually will walk over anything and 'terminate' anything to keep society functioning in its model?

The Terminator may be dated, but the root-issues are still relevant - potentially even moreso. The irony may be a discussion on the business model Avatar has created. A film made with huge technological advances in 3D and, finanically, a huge success within Hollywood - Avatar proves that there are films everyone will make sure they watch, importantly, at the cinema. But ironically, this has changed the goal-posts within filmmaking. Now any film that can be retro-fitted into 3D is made - and you only have to look as far as Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender to see that, although they made their money back (Clash with a sequel in the pipeline whilst Airbender was made to be part of a trilogy ... but we shall see if that happens...) I think everyone is well aware that these are not good examples of the future of cinema. The focus on new-techonology to help cinema make money detracts us from what is really neccessary - an investement in unique story and interesting characters. Will these things make money? Inception proves this is true ... but then again, with a plot ripped off from Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves, Avatar is still the model to imitate, whilst Inception is seen as a fluke.

What do you think? Is The Terminator a representation of our future? Could Avatar's techonological advancements eanr money in the short-term - but potentially destroy cinema in the long-term?

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter (simonandjoshow) and Facebook.

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 21/02/2010

This week, we begin where we left off - from the Haymarket - shortly before a screening of a film we will review next week. Nevertheless, the bulk is recorded from the Curzon Soho whereby we discuss the Top 5 Box Office films and, more importantly, James Cameron apologises for Avatar ... well, an apology of sorts.

We review A Single Man in more depth and consider why on earth it hasn't got more credability in Best Picture categories. To finish, we focus on the BAFTA's and the Oscar contenders for Adapted and Original Screenplay.

Finally, we stand outside the Royal Opera House as they set-up the BAFTA ceremony and we talk about Kevin Smith's Cop Out, Russell Brand and Jonah Hill in Get Him to the Greek and Atom Egoyen's Chloe.

Music is from the soundtrack to A Single Man.

http://simonandjoshow.mypodcast.com/

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 17/01/2010

From Londons Leicester Square - outside in the cold - Jo and Simon report on this weeks releases and news on the Spiderman 4 debaucle. To finish, they argue it out over Guy Ritchie and considering the young stars of the BAFTA Rising Star Award and the Golden Globe nominees ... lots to cover with music from the soundtrack to Up in the Air.

Enjoy!

http://simonandjoshow.mypodcast.com/index.html

Update: To clarify, Bangor rep did not think Daybreakers was rubbish - and I quote: "Daybreakers was surprisingly awesome tho, it should be said! sam neill is win"

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 10/01/2010

Recorded completely at the Curzon Soho (whereby you will hear phones and, if you listen really carefully, you can hear The Bends by Radiohead playing...), we have an extended episode for the New Year to make up for the missing episode from over the holidays. We shall divulge our views on the holiday movies - Avatar, Nine and Sherlock Holmes and then a more detailed review of the John Hillcoat's The Road.

To finish, a look at the films we are excited about over the coming year ... again, we reveal our favourites without prior discussion.

The music used is from The Road and is by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis.

Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)

"Just relax and let your mind go blank. That shouldn't be too hard for you."

Introduction

12 years in production, so we are told. James Camerons first feature film since Titanic. We all think it will be flawless and yet, we also know that our expectations of the film is unfair because the expectations are so high. I personally think the marketing campaign was awful - nothing we hadn't seen before. Those huge blue faces on posters meant nothing - reminded me of an out-of-proportion, incomplete half-face pencil sketch. As an Art-teacher, I spent many years improving my drawing skills drawing many-a-self-portrait and one of the first things you get wrong is proportions - the size of the eyes, of the mouth, etc - and so you stop drawing at a point, such as when you have only completed half the face, of the area around the eyes. So, to finish, the posters of too-big-eyes and too-big-lips, with only half the face shown simply reminded me of incomplete portraits. Not exactly exciting. Nevertheless, with Chris Hewitt's 5-star review 'flawed but fantastic' and Roger Eberts 'two thumbs-up', it could hardly be too bad. Then came the negative press. Tom Huddleston's two-out-of-five in Time Out and Anthony Quinn of The Independent seemed intent on stating how, as impressive as it looked, the consistency of themes - "corporate predators versus harmonious tree-dwelling natives, militarism versus humanism" - did not exactly stay true-to-its intent by the final act. Before I continue, I side closer to the 2/5 and 3/5 reviewers rather than the, what I think is ridiculous, five-star, top-marks it got elsewhere. Avatar will not be king of the world this year.

Opinion/Analysis

Get the, rather dull, story out of the way: Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) has legs that don't work and becomes an Avatar of himself as a Na'vi creature - a religious tribal group who are fiercely predatorial on the planet Pandora. The Na'vi protect nature and respect the environment - in an early sequence, the killing of vicious dogs to save Jake is deemed sad because the vicious dogs are part of the environment as are the Na'vi (unlike the humans who are not literally connected to the environment, while the Na'vi actually are literally connected to everything around them - trees, animals, etc). Fact is, beneath the home of the Na'vi is expensive rocks that Ribisi and his corporate company is desperate to get their hands on. Jake, initially amongst the Na'vi to gain their trust and move them out so the humans can take the rocks, begins to then change and adapt his views to suit the Na'vi, ultimately preferring his life - with legs - as a Na'vi tribal member rather than being a human. How the militaristic company deal with this situation in the final reel is obviously out-and-out war which looks great and it ends as one side wins. Guess who folks?

Straight off, I found something jarring about the blue-people and their eyes. Something nearly cartoonish about it. My favourite visual treats was not the landscapes - which you could watch on any Blue Planet or Planet Earth documentary (or even on one of those 3D films released years ago about nature) - but it was the shots of the humans standing close to the Na'vi. The beautiful finish as the Na'vi creature Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña) holds the human Jake Sully in her arms. It was almost surreal and rooted in true-fantasy. Recalling artwork by Boris Vallejo and other fantasy artists. Fact is, this was a passing resemblance rather than a true rooted-in-the-visual theme.

Additionally, the machines the humans used were, pretty much, the same as the ones used in The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions. Obviously, as Thomas Anderson 'jacks' into the matrix to become Neo, Jake Sully 'jacks' into his Avatar body to become 'jakesullee'. So the parallels are constant. The difference being that 'Jakesullee' is who Jake stays as - while Neo was fighting the forces, but had to become powerful, in his real body. There is a much deeper philosophical story in the idea that people would give up their lives to be something they are not, while Avatar seems to have legless-Jake become disgusted in who he really is and therefore change into something he is truly not. Funnily enough, I am reading Barak Obama's book (like everyone) Dreams from my Father whereby one fascinating chapter explains how, as a child, Barack saw a story in Time magazine about an African-American who changed their skin-colour to be white - in a time when racism was more prevalent in society - and this forced Barack to look into the mirror and analyse who he is. And, more importantly, how society views him. Does Avatar claim that if you have some sort of disadvantage in society - such as a disability - you can simply change who you are (in terms of racism, an interesting quote comes from Annalee Newitz of io9 blog in a post titled "When will white people stop making movies like Avatar" concluding that, in Avatar, a 'white guy' becomes the best member of a 'non-white culture'). Interestingly, Jake Sully was even offered 'new legs' (Gump to Lt. Dan "You got new legs!") by the uber-male army-guy - something that could, and should, be an incredibly important shift in the story becomes a simple choice for Jake - choosing to go back 'one-more time' to the land of the Na'vi only proving that he despises who he truly is - with or without legs.

Dances with Wolves - a comparison to Avatar by many critics including Mark Kermode - shows how Dunbar (Costner) becomes a Native-Indian slowly but surely through understanding the Native-American culture. Thing is, it ends as Dunbar is 'saved' by the American army and he has to escape to get back to his tribe. Dunbars change of allegiance makes him a bigger target for the American-army - so Dunbar has to leave the Sioux group so that he doesn't make them a target also. His original identity forces him to be alone. The violence of the American civil-war ultimately won-out in history and there is tragedy in Dunbar being forced to be alone, but it wouldn't have been any better if the Native-Americans 'won' through violence. There should be an acceptance of cultures - not a cultural war, which was, in effect how Avatar ended. Yes, Jake 'tried' to get a mutual understanding with the Na'vi and failed - and the uber-army man and Ribisi claimed that, for years, they tried for a peaceful solution and failed. So, rather than explore a complex issue, Cameron decides to simply show the 'good guys' win without realistically exploring how complex a war actually is - clearly there are always two-sides to any story and, alas, this is merely touched on and not followed through.

Another frustrating section is when 'Jakesullee' prays to the god-like Eywa (a tree...) for help in the coming war. Neytiri tells him that she doesn't favour anyone and won't assist anyone - she is merely there to 'keep the balance'. But this entire argument is contradicted as during the coming war, they Na'vi only 'win' because nature assists and Neytiri is well-aware that it is Eywa who has interceded. So Eywa does favour people - so, think about all those murders 'in the name of God'. What was originally Na'vi defending themselves becomes a God-supported Cause - akin to the God-supported wars of extremists and religious-mentalists.

So many structural and moral flaws with this film - you could go on about it all day. But there are some good points. Namely the actual acting talent. Giovanni Ribisi, for me, was incredible. I have never had a problem with him before and this is no exception. What is interesting is his range - he has a very unique appearance and yet has now officially progressed from the doper-teen roles he played when he was in his mid-twenties (his cameo in Friends, Gone in Sixty Seconds) to more maturer roles in his mid-thirties - playing the corporate boss in a moral dilemma in Avatar. The few scenes he has in Avatar, he completely steals from everyone (except Sigourney Weaver) and he has more depth than poor ol' Sam Worthington and Stephen Langs action-man roles. You really see the difficult position he is in - but how he ignores the moral implications and pushes through his own agenda, potentially threatened moreso by Colonel Miles Quaritch (aka, the aforementioned Action Man) than by his own conscience.

The 3D stuff is impressive, fine. But like any new perspective, once you have climbatised and accepted the 3D it all becomes a bit of a waste. I watched it at the IMAX, so no problems with the edge of the screen and I am sure on a smaller scale - even on your 50" TV screens - there will be stuff missed, but then again, I'll bet once you start watching it, you climbatise and watch it on that smaller screen. And see, this is my problem - following its limited cinema release - when released on DVD, will it matter. All that 3D-ness and for what? for a better 'cinema-experience', cinema will always be better than home-viewing. I guess with all these big-ass TV's in the homestead, 3D makes cinema that-much-more unique. Personally, I still have a classic (I like to think retro) 25 inch, back-projection Sony TV and I don't cry myself to sleep when I watch Gladiator on it. I accept it for what it is and I understand the story and see enough of it to be able to enjoy it and appreciate it - it hardly stops the 'enjoyment'. Fact is, even if I had a huge TV and all the sound and whatnot, Gladiator would still be better at the cinema, so you have to ask yourself this, without 3D, would it matter? How far can these 'changes' come before it all becomes a little redundant. I am sure Avatar in the IMAX is always going to be very different than when viewed, in 2D, in your lounge - as any DVD-on-TV experience is always inferior to the cinema experience. In my opinion, cinema always wins out over TV-viewings, but when Avatar is released on DVD or even blu-ray ... even 3D blu-ray - it will not really seem worth it. Either you watch it the way it was intended - 3D on the IMAX - or you settle for less, even watching it 2D on a big-enough screen (20 inch minimum I would say) and you'll still enjoy the movie. Everything in between seems either not-good-enough or trying-too-hard.

So, to wrap this essay up! Talk of a sequel is in full flow so, yeah, that will happen. It is what it is, but I do think its unneccessary because so much is tied up. Nevertheless, it will inevitably come - if only because they have all the CGI banked from Avatar to use - all they have to consider is the 'new' aspects and areas of this 'world' we are don't know about. I think its fair to say Cameron has not spent 12 years on this one movie, he has spent twelve years establishing a franchise that can run and run. "I'll only work in 3D in the future" Cameron said on The Film Programme podcast ... thats because he will probably only make Avatar sequels. I think this expansion of the world is one of the biggest problems with this first film. I had no idea about the other 'tribes' we found out about in the final act, until they were on screen. There was only hints of history and the size of this world. Considering people claim that the scope of Avatar is akin to The Lord of the Rings, I have to say no - Lord of the Rings was such a huge universe that they had to relay in the first ten, twenty minutes of The Fellowship of the Ring the history that preceeded it to give us the scope the trilogy deserved. No history was shown in Avatar so we only trust what we see - and only in those brief moments when Jakesullee makes his world tour with the clan - do we get some idea of the size of Pandora. Thats only brief, and before we know it, we are fighting some war.

To close, 'let your mind go blank' is what Sigourney Weaver tells Jake before he enters his avatar body - and I feel we need to forget about the countless stories and films that deal with the same themes, issues and aspects of Avatar to truly enjoy the movie. Because, if you really want to know about philosophy watch The Matrix, if you want to know about allegories of the American Civil-war - in fact, just watch a film about the American civil-war, watch Dances with Wolves, if you want Sam Worthington with a 'strong heart', watch Terminator Salvation ... the list goes on.