CampusIntel

Isn’t it great when Hollywood, and other media outlets, inspire panic in people by suggesting in a film or other propoganda that the world is going to end in the very near future?  Isn’t it also interesting how much material on the topic becomes purchasable in various formats immediately after the report catches fire?

Contrary to suggestions of the 2009 straight-to-dvd blockbuster, Here’s why 2012 will simply be another year in history, and you can take a break from building your refuge tunnel to the center of the earth:

1)      The Mayans did indeed have a calendar that ends on 2012.  However, just like any other calendar, all you have to do is start it from the beginning again.  Their calendar begins from a time Mayans identified as a point of creation, and then counted forward in units of “tun”.  Similar to the way we sequentially write 10, then 20, 30, etc., Mayans change the names after 20 units.  20 tun equals 1 k’atun; 20 k’atun equals 1 b’ak’tun; then piktun, kalabtun, k’inchiltun, and so on.  On December 21, 2012, the 13^th b’ak’tun cycle will end, and then the 14^th will begin.  After the completion of 20 b’ak’tun’s, the first cycle of 20 piktun’s will begin October 13, 4772, and so on, and so forth.  So if the Mayans already had names for all this, why would they/why should we think the world was ending?

2)      There’s no planet or celestial body named “Nibiru” (or anything else) that is on a collision course for earth.  NASA’s got plenty of instruments in space, like the Spitzer and Hubble telescopes, that would have relayed a message about a planet on an intercept course by now.  NASA launched a spacecraft named Voyager 1 in 1977 (yes, there’s a Voyager 2 as well) that is just now in the process of leaving our solar system.  So if it took us 33 years to get something out of our solar system, don’t you think we’d know about something coming towards us by now?  The odds of something that size getting to us through our galaxy in one piece (the Milky Way is filled with much larger and dangerous things like larger planets and asteroid fields) is extremely slim.  Besides, if something we actually coming, The US or some other country would put up some sort of missle defence system, or we’d just deal with it ala Armageddon style, right?

3)      The earth is subject to solar activity ALL THE TIME, and is able to deal with flares and such due to its magnetic field and atmosphere, which deflect harm.  The earth’s magnetic field does reverse polarity once and a while (approximately every 400,000 years), but the effect takes several thousand years to complete, and would not interrupt the earth’s rotation or point of axis. 

4)      Planetary alignments also happen ALL THE TIME.  They’re called “eclipses”, and chances are, you’ve heard of them; you may have even seen one or two.  Even if all the planets in the solar system aligned (which they won’t), it wouldn’t be cataclysmic.  It might be cold for a few hours or so, but that’d be about it until the sun started hitting us directly again.  The earth isn’t going to flood, the oceans won’t boil, Hawaii won’t burn down, and the continents aren’t going to crash into each other. 

So there’s the scientific explanation of why 2012 will hold nothing to worry about except for living your life.  I’m a Christian, and my personal beliefs are to the tune of what Jesus said himself in the Bible,

“No one knows of the hour of the final days, not even the angels in heaven, except for God alone.  The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Matthew 24:36, 44)

In other words, none of our fancy methods of determining the end of the earth will be accurate, as it will happen in an incalculable way; no calendars, no psychic or prophetic predictions,  it’ll just happen.  According to scientific theories, we’ve got a few billion years yet (but no pinpointed time), so don’t pack up or quit your job just yet.  Until then, go live and enjoy your life!  I’ll do my best to keep you afloat of other Catastrophic Cosmic events that are of no consequence to your, and everyone else’s, existence.

I felt it necessary to remove the Up In The Air review as well as the Daybreakers one I had planned. My reasoning behind this is that everyone seems to already have an opinion on Daybreakers due to the love/hate relationship audiences have with vampires right now. And I read the novel Up In The Air, and the movie is nothing special.

The Lovely Bones:

Considering the last movie I saw directed (and written) by Peter Jackson was Braindead. And if you ever came across that little film then you will know my expectations were very low for The Lovely Bones. On the official Stoner Movie List this movie ranked 8.9/10, which makes it just above Pineapple Express, and putting it below Dogma. And personally I loved this film. The effects were spectacular and the acting was spot-on for the characters of the book the film was based on. The one thing that kept me entertained while watching it was the concept of the afterlife (or the ‘in between’) and how mindboggling and chaotic it seemed with its ability to act like an anti-reality where anything happens all the time (as confusing as that is).

It captured the one thing I always try to look for in films and that’s my sixth sense. When a character walks on screen and you feel a wave of creepiness and indecision about them, that is what I look for and that is what Stanley Tucci did. Tucci basically plays the character of a man who comes into the life of Suzie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) by becoming obsessed with her. He eventually captures and kills Suzie Salmon and we (the audience) go on a journey into the lives of Suzie in the afterlife, her family dealing with her death and the sad life of George Harvey (Tucci).

The story was excellent and the screenplay definitely well written. The sometimes lack of dialogue was actually annoying as I tried to get as much information as possible from what they were saying because of how interesting the story was. I’ve been back to the theatre three times now to see this film and I plan on seeing it a few more times. It’s well put together, well developed (both in characters and story) and the cinematography is top of the line. The only unfortunate part of the film was when I left the theatre and stepped into Legion.

Edit: Some people found this movie sad and a few even cried during it. I really didn’t see it as a sad movie, but a journey into the theme of grief in individuals and the exploration of the idea of the soul. Philosophical, not sad.

Legion:

My reaction after the movie: “So wait…what happened?” And pretty much I can sum up the film in those few words. What happened? To be honest I don’t really know. How I can properly explain this movie is to give a brief analogy. Imagine taking a book and ripping out the first chapter, doing the same with the middle of the book, but only taking every odd (instead of even) chapter. Now put the book back together and throw the ending in the fire.

No wait, better way of explaining it. They took a picture of Paul Bettany looking at the sky, added wings and a knife, a clearly photoshoped MP5K (that’s a gun) and some fancy lighting. Scott Stewart (the director) saw the picture on someone’s desktop and said, “Hey, I can make a movie out of that”. And KABLAMO I give you Legion.

My apologies, I’m ranting a little bit. I was the one defending the film as I walked out of the theatre. I defended its 100% action, zero story as I did when I walked out of Transformers 2. We didn’t need story, we needed action, right? Wrong. This wasn’t directed by Michael bay and it wasn’t written by any modern day Shakespeare either.

This film was poorly written, badly directed, included a slew of nameless actors and a smattering of wrongly casted famous ones. Paul Bettany remains the same character from The DaVinci Code, Dennis Quaid should not be a hillbilly and Lucas Black should have given up his career after Tokyo Drift.

My major problem with the film however was the story. In all honesty, it was like reading a letter addressed to someone else sent from someone I don’t know. I don’t understand the context of the letter, the purpose of it or even where the story is going to end up later on.

On the plus side – great special effects. That grandma was the most kick-ass demon I have ever seen since Daria in Night Watch (A Russian Film).

Is this film worth seeing?

No.

Is it worth ranting about?

Clearly.

- Written by Ethan Taylor

I have just finished a class about gender issues in the media. I firmly believe I have been oblivious to reality for too long, and so, have wondered if anyone else has been as well. For this reason, I have decided to share some of the knowledge I have recently learned about how the media uses images of men and women in stereotypical roles.

When it was first mentioned in class, I began thinking of the shows I watched and the movies I have enjoyed. And although cliché, I decided to analyze one of my favourite movies (please do not judge me), “Legally Blonde.”

In the movie, beautiful Elle Woods is portrayed as the typical female – she has a bubbly personality, is obsessed with shopping, make-up and shoes, and is known to be ditzy… To be clear, this is NOT my definition of a woman, but in fact, what I have learned society dictates the stereotypical woman is.

My professor discussed how today’s society continues to privilege males over females. Now, I don’t know why, but for some reason this surprised me. Perhaps it’s my many women’s studies classes or even the fact that my university is majority women, but I firmly believed that the division was becoming less and less apparent. But, supposedly, we are we are still living in a patriarchal world.

The movie tries to overcome this obstacle through having Elle attempt to break the barriers between the sexes. For instance, she starts attending a college dominated by males, Harvard Law School. Unfortunately, however, their distinction seems to do the opposite, as it appears to strengthen presupposing stereotypes and reinforce the divide between the sexes.

I further investigated other stereotypes present in the movie….and yes that required me watching parts of the movie again…..and yes I should have been studying for exams and not procrastinating….but to my defence, I was still learning! One of the most interesting lines comes from the saleswoman, who states:  “there’s nothing [she] loves better than a dumb blonde with Daddy’s plastic.” This reinforces not only that women are unintelligent but also that they are reliant on males as they hope to receive money from their fathers.

The more I watched, (and the more I procrastinated), the more I saw the presence of stereotypes. And in fact, stereotypes were present for both men and women, creating a further divide between the sexes with each one.

One of the most noteworthy examples involves shoes. For instance, when Elle is talking with Enrique, the cabana boy, he states: “don’t stomp your little last season Prada shoes at me, honey.” His knowledge of shoes, forces her to gasp and proclaim: “He’s gay!” Through this, we see that when males hold similar interests as women, their association with their sex is diminished, much like how Enrique is viewed as being unmasculine. Conversely, through observing Warner, the macho and intelligent male, we can see that the opposite can be stated. When Elle asks him what kind of shoes she’s wearing, he responds: “ummm… black ones,” reinforcing society’s expectations and thus his masculinity as well.

Through observing these facts I now wonder what other television shows and movies focus on stereotypes and highlight the distinctions between the sexes. Are there any other movies that anyone has watched that have presented similar stereotypes?

Many sitcoms are focused upon the average looking, hard-working, money-making male, with the gorgeous woman who stays home and spends all of his money. What I find unusual is that it is these shows that we have become accustomed to enjoy. I now wonder if there is any way to overcome these labels once society has etched them in our minds. For instance, do you think that if a show presents the opposite, which would be in this case, a hard-working woman, with the stay-at-home father, would the show be just as popular?

Continuing on with my day, which is shaping up to be considerably long I entered the next theatre. Now in the interest of the reader I have condensed the next two movies I saw, Youth In Revolt and Sherlock Holmes into one review for two reasons. The first being that I won’t ramble on to long about the hilarity of the social breakdown of the family ‘norm’ occurring in Youth In Revolt and secondly so I won’t force my Sherlock Holmes review into a stretched-out rant about how terribly it was assembled.

Oh, and I’m totally not just theatre hopping as someone mentioned before, I swear I paid for all these movies… *cough*

Youth In Revolt:

Despite the ever-present awkward teen character that continues to be the only extent of Michael Cera’s acting abilities we finally see a new face of the quickly-rising-to-fame actor. I actually loved this movie. I don’t really appreciate Michael Cera as an actor because of how excellent he is at alienating everything that makes teenage life awkward and horrible, but I do appreciate his ability to choose movies that will be excellent.

Nick Twisp (Cera), an unbearably awkward teenager with no friends worth putting on screen falls in love with a girl named Sheeni after ‘vacationing’ with his dead-beat mom and her one-dimensional boyfriend. Boy falls in love with girl, girl has boyfriend, but girl demands proof of love for her from boy. Boy creates alter-ego named Francois who along with best-friends mischief and arson create chaos in the life of boy’s mother to move near girl and finally be together, that is after getting rid of girl’s boyfriend, getting girl kicked out of all-girl school of her dreams and somehow persuade or drug girl’s parents with the help of girl’s brother to allowing boy to be with girl and boy’s new best friend to be together with girl’s slutty roommate.

So obviously we’ve all seen this story before. But this is precisely why I love this movie. It is unique and keeps you laughing, cringing or really feeling the awkwardness radiating off the people around you in the audience. I enjoyed the story, the character progression (although this could be argued because there really is no character progression, just a gong-show of manipulation of the average teenager character-model) and most importantly the acting, very well done.

In conclusion, I recommend this movie to people who like Michael Cera.

Sherlock Homles:

*Sigh* I was very disappointed when I saw this movie. I had been looking forward to it from the day I got my hands on an excerpt from the script and of course after hearing Robert Downey Jr. would be starring in it. And after seeing it there really is not much to say about how it was put together.

To anyone who understands ‘Mise-en-scene’ (and to anyone who doesn’t, Google can show you a better definition then I can give you) and to anyone who understands that you’re supposed to only have to concentrate on the person in frame who’s talking; then you will be thoroughly confused. The director, for some reason wants you to concentrate on everything happening in the shot – foreground, background, diegetic sounds (all of them) and they assume you can interpret all of this as well as listening to the splendid voices of Downy Jr. and Jude Law. It’s too much! It moves to fast! In a Sherlock Holmes novel you can take your time understanding everything that’s going on and actually deduce and solve the crime before you reach the end. Well deduce this Guy Ritchie, you’re a terrible director.

I loved the acting and hated the organization and order of the shots. I did see the movie again after today and picked up a lot more then I did the first time, but if it takes two viewings to understand the plot of the film then they should pay for your second ticket.

It was badly directed, terribly edited, well written and included some great acting. It’s a movie you have to see, you don’t have a choice. It’s a Robert Downy Jr, movie and therefore it cannot be missed. But tread lightly when giving this movie high-praise because in about two years you won’t see it on anyone’s DvD shelf.

I’ll see the sequel though.

To read about the next movies I saw, Daybreakers and Up In The Air, follow this link.

- Written by Ethan Taylor

Note to readers: if this is my last blog posting and you do not hear back from me, then Chuck Norris got me and more than likely subjected me to endless roundhouse kicks.

Dear Chuck Norris,

It has been a long time since I last wrote you. As I can recall, the last time I wrote you I was a 12 year old schoolboy who ran home everyday after classes ended to catch the daily reruns of your epic programme, Walker Texas Ranger. I’m not sure what it was; the unrealistic plot lines, the B-grade acting or the downright comedic undertones of many of the episodes, but I sure was hooked.

It was sheer magic. You, aging ever so gracefully, jumping out of helicopters and beating the hell out of mobsters, drug dealers, satanists, pedophiles, gang-bangers, bullies, assassins, and even a bear once. Now, I know recently you’ve been getting a bad rap for your ultra right-wing stance on religion and support of failed presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Chuck, I myself come from the right (yet not the religious right) and I can respect your personal ideals and beliefs, but please stick to making movies and not embarassing yourself on CNN with rambing Bible-thumping jargon. People are starting to wonder about you old boy.

Please make at least one more Walker Texas Ranger movie before you retire. Your 2005 movie Trial of Fire was brilliant and you are still kicking butt at 70. In the movie, your wife Alex was shot at the very end, so it looked for sure like there would be a sequel, but instead your fans have been hanging off the edge of a cliff for five years wondering her fate. End your career with a bang and make a concluding Walker Texas Ranger movie, and bring back Judson Mills and that smokin’ hot Janine Turner.

Regards,

Viewsfromtheright

You’re probably pretty familiar with the phenomenon of books being made into movies and I thought with the release of “The Lovely Bones” movie, this would be an appropriate time to discuss this fad.

Most people going to these movies will likely fit into one of three categories: 1) those who have read the book (or are ‘fanatics’ of it) before seeing the movie 2) those who have not read the book but go see the movie and 3) those who have read the book but go with people who have not read it or vice versa. I’ve been part of all these categories on various occasions, and each time it’s a very different experience.

In category 1 my experience was with Harry Potter. In a way I guess you could classify me as a fanatic for these books. I mean…I guess I went to every release of the book at midnight…and I went to every movie on the first day…and have read all the books multiple times in English and one of them in French…and I GUESS I do have a few of them on audio for my ipod….but other than that it’s just another book to me… Anyways…when the first movie came out I watched it with high hopes, but afterwards I realized I definitely didn’t like it as much as the books. Why? I think first of all the movie could not encompass all elements of the book, so inevitably some of my favorite parts were missing. Also, some parts were skimmed through while others I may not have thought were as important dragged on. Furthermore, when you read a book and really love it, you know in your heart exactly what each character should look and sound like…and without being a casting director it’s hard for the movie to be an exact representation of what you imagined. So, to read a book before seeing the movie is not always a good idea, unless you can learn to expect different things from the book and the movie…or at least don’t go and re-read the book right before seeing the movie…otherwise you’ll likely come out disappointed.

In category 2 my experience was with the “Lord of the Rings”. I really did try to read the book before going but couldn’t get through it… but, you can’t be mad at me here, because I even tried reading “The Hobbit” but… that didn’t really work out either…however, I DID get a lot further in that book than I did with the “Lord of the Rings” (maybe I was just too busy reading Harry Potter…). Ok, so this being said, I still wanted to see what all the hype was about and thought maybe if I watched the movies, I’d be provoked to read the book. Well…I didn’t actually watch all the movies until last year (I know, I was a little slow on the draw there)… but you know what…I liked them! However, I know a lot of people who didn’t like them because they were so different from the book (or so I’m told). So not reading the book actually worked out for me a lot better for this case…although I still haven’t had the time to read them…

Finally, in the 3rd category I was the one who had read the book before seeing the movie and my friends had not. This happened when I saw “The Lovely Bones” the other day. I think here, reading the book ahead of time wasn’t as bad as when I read Harry Potter before seeing the film. I feel this way simply because I think with the topic being what it is some people do better going into it knowing exactly what’s going to happen. My poor friends who I went with were both on edge the whole time…one waiting vengefully for the guy to die (if you’ve seen the movie or read the book you know who I’m talking about) and the other afraid the whole time that additional harm would befall the girl’s family. I found that although I had read the book, the movie was not the exact same as I had pictured it in my mind but the general ideas and perspectives of it were depicted really well. Additionally, some of the things represented in the movie were better than what I had thought of, as a lot of the abstract thoughts were finally brought to life in the movie whereas before I couldn’t really picture them myself.

In the end the question of whether you should read the book before seeing the movie based on it will obviously depend on the movie as each will be different. However, here are my general guidelines: read the book before seeing the movie if you can, but don’t expect the movie to be everything the book was to you. Also, if you have read the book, make sure you give yourself some time after reading it before you go see the movie and you’ll probably enjoy it a lot more!

Although I don’t do it often enough, I found myself waking up on a Friday morning and deciding to spend my free day exclusively at the theatre. My day at the movies began as I walked into the theatre early enough to catch the first movie on my list, The Book of Eli. The intoxicating smell of buttery popcorn, the crunch of discarded kernels underneath my shoes and the rattle of the ice in my drink, today was going to be a good day.

I started my day with The Book of Eli, a movie I had been looking forward to for quite sometime. Although the religious undertones I heard this movie alluded to initially turned me away when I got my hands on the script, finding out that it would star Denzel Washington caught my attention. And on top of that, he would be doing all his own stunts including participating in all the choreographed fight scenes. Needless to say, the time had come for another excellent Denzel film.

The plot had me captivated from the beginning since post-apocalyptic settings are my favourite. Essentially the story goes; it has been 30 years since something called “the flash” occurred and somehow threw the world into chaos and destruction. As you make your way through the film you are presented with a number of blind characters, and it is hinted that anyone who witnessed the flash directly went blind. Eli (Denzel) eventually states that a war was already wagging over religious issues worldwide that may or may not have caused the flash. Eli is on a journey west for some reason, which becomes evident later, but in his possession he has a book that he must keep secret from everyone else due to the power it possesses. And without spoiling anything…well to be fair if you can’t deduce that the book is a bible then you need to see the film again.

Eventually he reaches a town run by Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who is in search of a bible to be able to control the survivors of the flash through its words and power. In his possession is the daughter of his ‘wife’ Solara (Mila Kunis) who plays a rather interesting role in Eli’s search.

The only problem I found with the storyline is that it is 100% relying on the fact that everyone in the audience is religious or at least believes that a bible will unite all the people of the chaotic world and bring happiness to everyone. Pshhh. I was not one of those people. I kept assuming the book was just a metaphor for the union of man through a common cause. I was wrong however; the director actually wants you to understand that a bible is so powerful and so perfect in its creation that any person (especially desperate ones, like in the film) will cling to its magnificence and bow down willingly to its almighty teachings. That’s a little much in my opinion, but this theme is constantly pushed throughout. I love though how the film outlines how anyone apposing the book or apposing Eli will end up dying a horrible death at the end of his sword and be essentially “released” from this crude world. Trust me this film is ripe with Christian religious undertones.

The movie itself though was actually quite enjoyable. It had well choreographed fight scenes, decent enough back story and great acting; I always love when Gary Oldman portrays a villain. The twist at the end of the film left me satisfied and watching Mila Kunis with a pair of Aviators on throughout the movie kept me entertained to say the least. The writer of the film, Gary Whitta, remains one of my favourite science fiction writers (noted for writing episodes of both Futurama and Star Trek: Voyager) and didn’t disappoint in the excellent script he wrote for this movie.

The film is exciting and entertaining, but also informative and keeps you thinking about it long after you leave the theatre, or in my case thinking about it in the lobby as I waited to attend the next movie on my list. It questions your understanding of the power of faith and how negative and destructive it can be in the wrong hands. This film will start religious debates; it’s one of those movies.

You’ll regret not seeing it.

To read about the second movie I went to see, Youth In Revolt and Sherlock Holmes, follow this link.

- Written  by Ethan Taylor

“So your mum sent you here in the hope that a little bracing sea air would sort you out?”

“Something like that.”

“Spectacular mistake.”

Now it’s hard to top the epic tale of Love Actually among the denizens of 5^th Floor Glengarry, Carleton University. But British Film has outdone itself once again with another spectacular film. Now before I dive into the story of the 5^th Glen movie debate I must first state, do not see Pirate Radio. Avoid it at all costs. Go find an excellent British copy of the original The Boat That Rocked. When the film transitioned to North America after several months, as little as 20 minutes of the film was taken out to make it shorter, but it is a 20 minutes sorely missed. Now, onto the part of this article where my personal life takes up more space than the movie review itself.

There was one movie above the rest that, not only among the population of 5^th Glen, was the all time most epic and original university residence film. This sacred movie was known as The Boondock Saints. This film could not be defeated, it could not be avoided and eventually everyone found themselves sitting in a dorm room with a bunch of over-excited young men enjoying the *sigh* beauty of this film. But we did it, my roommate and I; we found a movie better than the Saints. When we came across Love Actually we were moved by its ability to make heartless, naive teenagers feel empathy. And so made it are prerogative to spread this film’s awesomeness to everyone we knew. And so, if you ever meet my roommate or I, or anyone from 5^th Glen 08/09, you will probably discover how amazing Love Actually is if the discussion of film arises. And it should be noted that we watch this movie at least once a week and make the lead up to it so exciting that everyone joins us. It should also be noted that via this tale of super-awesome-fudge-coated-films that The Boat That Rocked rivals Love Actually in spectacular film.

The story of this movie falls on Britain in the 1960s where BBC Radio sadly only plays 45 minutes of rock music everyday. Hence, the creation of Radio Rock, an off shore radio station centred on a boat that plays excellent rock music all day and all of the night. It should be stated now that the soundtrack of this film is amazing and I downloa*cough*bought all the songs right after seeing it. Bill Nighy plays the captain of the ship and another excellent role for him as he remains my favourite actor. Philip Seymour Hoffman as well as the hilarious Nick Frost also find themselves in this movie.

It seems to be your typical plotline of rebel vs. government. As the British governments attempts to shutdown Radio Rock lead by Jack Davenport of Pirates of the Caribbean. Radio Rock attempts to defy the law and the government tries to enforce it. You, as the audience, see the people who listen to Radio Rock. You see this radio audience form afar, but it offers one of the best aspects of society I think is sorely missed, union. The population of people that listen to Radio Rock all day fight for it to stay alive and devote all their listening to the story of the lives of the station’s crew. Eventually climaxing in a tear-jerking ending that can only be bested by the likes of Love Actually and it’s incredible ending.

This movie doesn’t have much progression of plot as it does skip from month to month and you get to see their lives slowly unfolding, so there isn’t much to say without giving too much away. But the combination of British humour, the musical soundtrack, the character development and the overall feeling that you are apart of something big, makes this movie exactly what it is, extraordinary.

I guess my conclusion would be that you should go see The Boat That Rocked as well as Love Actually and enjoy a great movie created by the writers of another excellent one.

If I give an honest rating, which is 10, it will be misinterpreted. This is “my” favourite movie and you need to see it to decide how you judge its excellence.

- Written by Ethan Taylor

Ladies and gentlemen I am awestruck. Now usually I would fill the next few paragraphs with a little filler, but today I’m afraid, if that’s what you were waiting for, that day is not today. Avatar. Wow. Incredible. I had my doubts, as I usually do with these overly hyped up films, but once again James Cameron has done his duty to the film industry. Hollywood Reporter said it best; “A dozen years later, James Cameron has proven his point: He is king of the world…”

Hair-raising. That’s how I can describe this film. Spine-tingling. Awe-inspiring. Just…just epic. Epic and beautiful. I’m sorry, I’m going to need a minute. I’m still reeling from seeing it. I only hope I can find myself in the 3D experience next, I heard it was even better.

Enough praise. To the review! There was a general opinion as I walked out of the movie, and my father and brother seemed to mirror it. The movie was predictable. But let me explain to you the use of predictability in movies by James Cameron. Predictability is needed. At the beginning of the film you know exactly what’s going to happen. You don’t realize how visually eye-raping it’s going to be, but I’ll save that for later. From the beginning of the film you can probably plan out the story on your own. But predictability is needed, and James Cameron knows this secret. To have the audience come to together in a quick intake of breath right before the predictable part is going to occur is electrifying in a theatre. It’s predictable, you know what’s going to happen, but there is nothing more satisfying than being right, and being right with the entire audience. So for all you people who didn’t get that, go watch all the other James Cameron movies.

So here’s the deal. The timeline is 2154. The earth has essentially “killed its mother” and nature has been wiped away. Although it’s not explained very well, Pandora, the planet where the Na’vi live, has a material called Unobtanium. Which may or may not save Earth for some reason. In an attempt to relocate the Na’vi from their home, coincidentally sitting on the largest amount of this mysterious material, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is brought in with a few others to pose as Na’vis. By using some ingenious technology they are put into Na’vi bodies that look like their real bodies. And so after some adventurous, and quite hilarious (not to mention heartfelt) experiences, Jake Sully integrates into the Na’vi as intended. Threatened with the oncoming military onslaught, he must save blah, blah, blah, go see it.

The visuals. I can’t even begin to describe how incredible they are. You all need to go see this movie because when critics look back and talk about how this movie was the pioneer into a new cinematic experience, you can say you saw it first-ish. There were times when the blending between reality and digital effects became so seamless that I could have believed the legendary floating mountains of Pandora were actually real. And I’m almost positive 50% of the Marines you meet are digital effects. The simple fact; you need to see it to believe it and you need to see it in theatres.

Now there are two things that critics have been saying, which I admit has gotten to me, the length of the film and the apparently one-dimensional characters. To start, watch Titanic. Does Jack have a massive back-story? Does Kate? Not really. They serve their purpose in the movie and then are disposed of. All the people who want character depth and development through sequels clearly don’t understand how single-film characters are designed. Just take them for what they are, and don’t read into them. If need be, read into the acting. Excellent acting. I still don’t understand how Sam Worthington filmed this and immediately started filming Clash of the Titans.

Now, the length of the film. It’s three hours. But here’s what you need to understand. First, there was never a time in this film when I was bored. Bored with the story, maybe, sometimes. But you have a whole screen to explore and the depth of effects to marvel at. The attention span of the youth today is shortening, fast. And if you are unable to enjoy a movie because it is too long, then don’t. The length of the film is not the filmmaker’s fault, it’s the audiences. I hate to sound harsh and critical against everyone who watches this movie, but you need to understand its format and context before critically analyzing it like every other film because it’s not like any other film.

In conclusion, wow, James Cameron you’ve done it again. Fifteen years in the making and I can believe it. I have never been 100% satisfied with a film or EVER given one a 10/10. But I have to say, this has moved above Love Actually, and above The Boat That Rocked, to the top of my all time favourite movie list. Readers, you must see this movie. Get caught up in the hype. Enjoy it for what it is and don’t critique it so much. Or else you’ll just ruin it for yourself. Just enjoy another inspiring James Cameron Film.

Here’s what some other reviews said:

“It’s an unprecedented marriage of technology and storytelling which is on the whole remarkably successful.” – Screen International

“Twelve years after “Titanic,” which still stands as the all-time B.O. champ, Cameron delivers again with a film of universal appeal that just about everyone who ever goes to the movies will need to see.” – Variety

“…make sure you can say you were there when the future of cinema began.” – The Sun

“James Cameron’s “Avatar” is the most amazing … no, wait: the most staggeringly amazing, jaw-droppingly triple-awesome unbelievable movie ever made.” – Kurt Loder, Rotten Tomatoes

- Written by Ethan Taylor

I once read an article on the degradation of eyes when watching movies in the dark. That the reason theatres keep on a few lights is for safety reasons with the audience’s eyes. Well I feel it my obligation to ruin my eyes at the cost of a great horror movie, sitting alone, wrapped in a blanket, popcorn bowl, in the dark. *Shifty eyes* – Not that I watch movies wrapped in a blanket. I lift weights while I’m watching them, yeah, and fight people, like a tough guy. *Cough*

But I find myself either sticking to a certain genre of horror movies for quite a while or switching from corny to serious. And I have narrowed down your horror movies to a basic 21^st century understanding. Usually horror movies stick to three genres: exploitation, slasher and zombie. Most horror movies will likely fall under the sub-subgenres of ‘exploitation’, and after those have been eliminated all you are left with are gory, slasher, serial killer films and zombie flicks.

In the modern world though we have broken down our horror movies into a few simple categories:

The Saw and Saw-ish: If there was ever a franchise to know within the horror genre it is the Saw movies. But the Saw series is quite a conundrum. Here’s how it works. You cannot simply watch only one Saw movie, or even just the first. You have to watch them all. To completely appreciate these movies you must see all of them. They are a turning point in cinematic horror, if you can’t enjoy them for the genius they are, at least enjoy them for that. The Saw-ish story lines are the films that built off of three main conventions. The hidden killer, the crime scenario and the excruciating deaths. Which means, you never see the killer until the end, we usually follow a detective or character trying to solve the case or find their kidnapped loved one. And of course the deaths that we cannot bare to comprehend. I’m talking ripped in half, dropped in a pit of needles, or having your hands crushed at the wrists. Ouch!

The Infected: My favourite of ALL the horror subgenres out there. The pinnacle of frightening. There is nothing like walking home from a movie with the fear of an undead zombie running flat out to eat your flesh. Zombie movies get to everyone. But this genre encompasses all zombie, clinically infected, raw flesh eaters, mass disease breakout and infectious bacteria types of storylines. Some of my favourite include: Dead Set, The Devil’s Rejects (This move makes you cheer for the killers in the end), 28 Weeks Later, The Mad (With Billy Zane, priceless), Resident Evil, Dance of The Dead and Flight of the Living Dead: Outbreak on a Plane. All excellent movies. Although most of the great, infected films consist of a high degree of comedy, as seen below.

The Twisted: The twisted genre consists of two types of films, psychological thrillers and jump-horrors. That is, a movie more devoted to scaring its audience then focusing on story and special effects. I find these can be the scariest types of movies. Just sitting there, 95% of the screen you can’t make out, you haven’t reached the climax yet, but you know it’s coming soon, you haven’t seen the ‘monster, etc’ yet and then SCREAM! Jump-scenes get me. Shaking, nervously laughing with the rest of the audience, anxious and hoping for more. Psychological thrillers are roughly the same, but don’t rely as heavily on jump-scenes. As the audience you bring it upon yourself to have to comprehend what is going on in a movie, psychological thrillers don’t let you. They keep you confused, scared and way to aware of everything that is on the screen, making you even more susceptible to being scared. Check out: The Others, Hide and Seek, Scream, Jeepers Creepers and The Shining.

5-4-3-2-1s: I welcome you to virtually every other horror film out there. These movies usually start with 5 or 6 teens in a scary house, the woods, or the middle of nowhere. And find themselves slowly diminishing one by one until left with the sole survivor or the two star crossed lovers who somehow found romance in the brutal deaths of all their friends. The cliché horror movie characters appear most commonly in these types of movies; the comedic relief, the overweight guy, slutty girl, bad boyfriend and the main protagonist who always knows way more than they are letting on – probably ex-military or one of their family members experienced the same twisted things going on. My favourite of this genre is the film Battle Royal. An old subtitled Japanese movie, which follows an alternate reality Japan as it struggles with government control issues. Thus they select a normal school class and take them to a secluded island and put exploding collars on their necks. They give them each a random weapon and tell them they have three days to kill all their classmates or their collar will explode and kill them. It is a really messed up film that is a great cult-classic. Also check out: Wrong Turn 1 and 2, Final Destination, Prom Night and ‘It’.

The Comedic Subgenre: There is little to say about this genre other than it can be seen in all the types of genres above. It is the movies where comedy is heavily relied on the cut the tension, but also to make the situation seem less real. Most people would probably be in the foetal position if zombies attacked; yet Shaun from Shaun of the Dead is on a quest to get back his girlfriend and grab a quick pint. It allows the audience to sit back and enjoy the most unlikely characters in their favourite horror subgenres. Please check out these films, they are all my favourites.

Saw and Saw-ish: Stan Helsing

The Twisted: All the Scary Movie films and Gremlins

The Infected: Fido, Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, Last of the Living, Zombie Strippers and The Mad

5-4-3-2-1s: Trick r Treat, I Know How Many Runs Your Scored Last Summer and House of 1000 Corpses

So readers. Grab one of these great horror movies, whether you’re looking for a laugh or a scare and enjoy!

- Written by Ethan Taylor