How Do I Nuetralize The Acid In My Stomach?

I've finally seen "Avatar" ...

... and will nearly three months since the day it opened, in that distant December 2009. Why the hesitation to time to see this movie? Well I hope you tell it ipso facto. Going back to the beginning of time, the first news of the project I was, like everyone, a jug of years ago, read directly from the "Frames" or "Driven" (now do not remember). The news said that James Cameron had a Biggest titled "Avatar" but could not shoot it because the technology was not advanced enough. Immediately I thought it was a publicity stunt and threw to forget the super-good innovative project Cameron.

And the years passed and the project became reality. The first news of the one I here on the blog of our dear Krust. Having seen the trailer and I formed a very specific view of this film special effects overwhelming and a total lack of plot, or what is the same: the script as a mere excuse for the deployment of innovative special effects super 3 - D. Soon, I read the first view of one of the viewers of "Avatar", exactly here, and that criticism seemed to confirm my theory (and I've been reading Juanlu time to confide in his opinion). Thus I decided not to go to the cinema to see such nonsense, mostly because I did not want to contribute my 9.90 euros to the progressive devaluation of the medium we love so much (and, ultimately, is simply an artistic way to tell a good story.)

And the months passed, I was bombarded by the opinions, not only friendly but extremely enthusiastic of my colleagues and friends: "You have to see it!" "I already have seen it three times and the 160 minutes fly by ! "," score a before and after in the history of cinema! "" You still have not gone to see it?! Are you crazy?! ". To which I always said, "is that the trailer tells you the whole movie and I did not get into the movies to see special effects "to which all responded" Well do not believe that history is not as you think ...", to which I was intrigued and doubt assailed me : I was being a snob, an intellectual gafapastas, a purist immobile? Had she been too hard on my preliminary analysis and should give Cameron a good opportunity? "Fuck", I concluded, "and see the DVD when you purchase any colleague or family" and parked the issue indefinitely.

until this morning. By chance I got into this blog "Fantasy Dimension" of the ineffable James Wallenstein, a man with an ego the size of a movie screen (maybe that's why he likes both the middle) and boasts that his blog is the number one Top 100 of something called "Horror Society" (which I say, if "Dimension fantastic" was the best, how they should be the other 99, but anyway ...), blog that has, in theory, with a legion of fans willing to praise and defend the good of James to the killing (which surely I'm getting in trouble for posting this entry ...). In short, I read the opinion of James Wallenstein on "Avatar" (you The itching can read here ) and was quite scaly, particularly with this paragraph:

"We talked about James Cameron has written a genius. So when many criticize nonsense that the script is worthless, these buds sure you give them a pencil and a sheet of paper and ask them to do an essay on a topic ... and get stuck half hour in the first two "I mean phrases? There is nothing worse than a bunch of illiterate posing as great minds. Do you think all who are able to do or write something better? Please antics for carnivals. "

And I recognize that I piqué and I wanted to answer (Wow, just like old times Linkara!) but of course how to answer if he had seen the movie? Damn! I had no need to go to the movies to see in situ "Avatar" from James Cameron (who knows, maybe the visionary of Wallenstein was right and we were all a "cocoon" and "illiterate" and was actually the Avatar " Citizen Kane "XXI Century).

Well, I just got the film y. .. and I did hurt the soul to pay 9.90 euros to see such a monstrosity. Gloriaaa benditaa, what more bad movie! But do not get insulted Mr. Wallenstein, I will seriously and try to argue my negative opinion about this "movie" (well, quotation marks). Ahem ...

no doubt "Avatar" is one of the worst films of James Cameron (if we understand an artistic film to tell a good story.) His script is bad because it is predictable, simple, full of topical and extremely boring. The only question that has one is to discover whether the main character die at the end, the bride or neither. The argument is a mere excuse for the deployment of special effects (which at 30 minutes just tired). The characters have no charisma or depth whatsoever and the philosophy of the "navi" is taken directly from "Lion King", at an intellectual level near the preschool. For me, the best Cameron is the "Terminator", the "Aliens" and "Abyss" now that's pure genius (and a perfect balance between script and special effects). The rest want to loop the loop and find fame and money through extra-cinematic forms.

Asked whether Mr. Wallenstein think I can write a script better than James Cameron ... God, yeah! And not because I'm a good writer, but because it is impossible to do worse! It is not lack of originality in the argument that bothers me or that are Navi smurf version of the Indians Native Americans (Isaac Asimov did a lot of science fiction stories based on episodes of History (as the fall of the Roman Empire) and all are great), what really bothers me a screenplay by James Cameron is the obvious unwillingness to create a minimally interesting plot and characters give us "truth." Sounds like a joke that James Cameron will not shake the pulse repeat a series of trite clichés as the gender and the environment. And frankly, I think this simple story is an accident or an oversight, by contrast, is calculated and revealed millimetric the true message of the film and the ultimate intention director: "The only thing really important in" Avatar "are the special effects, and everything else is irrelevant.". And no, Mr Cameron, what really matters in a film is the story that counts and staging the service history. The story may be more complex or simple, can be original or be influenced by previous films, but a movie, above all, must be honest with the viewer and the environment, and "Avatar" is completely dishonest to the cinema (and in case) because it encourages the creation of good films made by good directors, actors and screenwriters, but encourages the media balls business and billionaires at the expense of cinema (something which has been taking in Hollywood for 30 years but never so blatantly). Although I must admit that James Cameron has been very frank with the audience, as the few minutes of the trailer shows blatantly the intentions of the director: "Do not worry, fans of mine, the script is silly and mascadito to avoid layoffs and so you fully enjoy the images in 3-D. "

And lest anyone be confused or misunderstand me: I firmly believe that the future of cinema lies in the improvement of technology and the consolidation of the 3D (without glasses and without hosts) but a 3D done with intelligence, subtly and tastefully. The 3-D "Avatar" has reminded me prints of saints, virgins and Jesus Christ that my grandmothers had them do you remember? It was the acme of bad taste, gaudy and tacky, that were moving and the background changed or moved holy hand. The forest of Christmas and the creatures that inhabit it are a mix of colors that do not stick or glue (and lint-jellyfish are the height of tacky and stupid thing.)

Anyway, I do not regret having seen the "movie" (more than anything to be able to answer Wallstein largemouth and similar) but does not recommend it to anyone. 3-D images do not deserve the sovereign 160 minutes of boredom. And if some refer to "Avatar" as a classic of science fiction, it only notes that the term "classic" is very undervalued in these uncertain days.