Movie Review: Her

Image via Huffington Post.

Yes, “Her” is about a man who falls in love with his computer. But eventually, the fact that the love interest in question is a computer will not faze you at all. That is the magic of “Her.”

“Her” is a little bit of everything. For anyone looking for a good laugh, a tear-jerking romance, and a science fiction fable all in one, “Her” is the perfect solution. The film takes place during an unspecified date in the future, though time doesn’t exactly matter. This is, however, one of the more accurate imaginings of the future on film. There are no flying cars or hoverboards here. "Her" is on par with “Children of Men,” minus all of the random acts of violence.

Spoiler Review: Gravity

Spoiler Review is a new series where I will review movies that require many spoilers in order to review them properly. This is my review of "Gravity." This goes without saying: SPOILER ALERT.

Every time a movie comes out that uses 3D really well, like really really well, I never hesitate to call it the second coming of cinema. "Avatar." "Hugo." "Life of Pi." Yes, I do strongly regret giving "Avatar" that much credit.

I don't want to say "Gravity" has changed the game. It's just responded to the tools of our time so well and it has done what many others only wished they could accomplish. More importantly, if you ever doubted that the wonder of the movies has been stolen by TV, then look at "Gravity," and you'll understand that it never went anywhere.

Movie Review: Gravity

"In space, no one can hear you scream."

This is now the famous tagline from "Alien," and the basis for "Gravity." "Gravity" hasn't been advertised as a horror film, but it captures the fear of being alone in space better than most others that have tried way too hard to do so.

"Gravity" marks the long awaited return of Alfonso Cuaron who last directed "Children of Men," which is still one of my favorite films of all time. Like "Children of Men," there is no indication of when the camera starts and stops rolling. Cuaron is one for relentless action. Immersive might not even be a strong enough word to describe "Gravity." I get the feeling that Cuaron just wanted us to float in space with him forever. There were multiple times where I felt short of breath. Apparently, you don't need any dimensions beyond 3D to get all your senses this invested in a movie.

Movie Review: Elysium

Futuristic sci-fi films wouldn't be much fun if they imagined the best possible scenario for the future. "Elysium" might be one of the bleakest versions of Earth's future shown on screen.

It's approaching the end of the 21st century, and Earth has become extremely overpopulated. Mankind is plagued by disease and pollution. Los Angeles, where the film is primarily set, looks like a third world country. The sleek, electronic buildings that lit up futuristic Los Angeles of "Blade Runner" are nowhere to be found. The tallest buildings we see are nothing but carved out skyscrapers now filled with shantytown homes.

Movie Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

With all of the angry insistance of "you HAVE to see this!" that goes around in popular culture nowadays, it is always nice to see something that is more inviting than exclusive. So far, J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" has been great for old fans* while it also creates new ones.

Laying out the entire plot of "Star Trek Into Darkness" here would be of no use, as there are too many details that I am afraid I will give away. The opening scenes involve a chase by some indigenous people through a colorful forest that leads into the center of an active volcano. Now, movies don't tend to kill of their main characters before the opening credits, especially if that character is Spock (Zachary Quinto), but I was surprised to find out that that was not a simulation as I thought it would be.

Movie Review: Oblivion

According to "Oblivion," as well as most other dystopian sci-fi films, the future is filled with white rooms and white furniture. This feels less like an ode to Minimalism and more like a director and crew that were too bored to hash out all the details. That's what "Oblivion" is: the possibility of an original sci-fi property wrapped up in a generic shell.

"Oblivion" begins with a voiceover describing the end of the world. Tom Cruise, who once again plays a man named Jack, delivers a bland monologue, which works much better when it is explained in a scene later on. Jack, along with Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are part of a "mop-up crew" who stay in a swanky apartment (as described above) and are assigned to patrol what remains of Earth. Writer-Director Joseph Kosinski decided to hit Earth with a whole array of disasters: aliens invade, the moon is destroyed, and earthquakes and tsunamis tear the world asunder. The best thing that can be said about "Oblivion" is how striking and well thought out the world looks. While the set design is stale, the world is well detailed. The creative minds behind this film certainly spend a lot of time thinking about the end of the world.

Movie Review: Looper

Director Rian Johnson is exactly what movies need. Perhaps the best way to break Hollywood out of cliche land is to play into the most typical of genre conventions and then turn them completely on their heads.

"Looper" must be the work of someone who doesn't finish until every little detail is drawn out, and every possible subplot comes full circle. There's a lot to get through and a lot to sort out, but the fact that the ending pulls it off in an unpredictable way makes it work all the better.

Movie Review: Prometheus

Look familiar at all?

Ridley Scott's "Prometheus" is like a sci-fi opus from a better time in the history of sci-fi films. And I would know, because I like to pretend I grew up then. 

"Prometheus" rises above because for once, it is a movie interested in actually exploring what lies in space, as opposed to just killing everything not from our home planet. If you give Ridley Scott a space ship and weird space creatures that like to impregnate people, he will create his best work. Basically, he needs to stay out of Medieval England and French vineyards.

Movie Review: Cowboys & Aliens

A lot of unusual things happen to the unassuming western folk of "Cowboys & Aliens." Mainly, aliens land on earth. Yet, nobody seems to react to it. In fact, these people don't react to anything at all. Is this a movie, or an assembly of cardboard cutouts?

"Cowboys & Aliens" has a cast of cutouts that includes some of Hollywood's best action stars being reduced of their charms and talents. Daniel Craig plays a cutout named Jake Lonergan, a wanted man who wakes up one morning with a mysterious metal band around his arm and blurry memories that might involve aliens.

As he tries to piece this puzzle together, he wanders into town and captures the attention of the townspeople by standing up to the local rough-and-tumble outlaw, Percy Dolarhyde (Paul Dano), who thinks he owns everything. Among the other people in town include the timid doctor (Sam Rockwell), and the token hot lady (Olivia Wilde). After Percy's father Woodrow (Harrison Ford) rides into town, a series of "flying machines" begin attacking and what is deemed by the priest as "demons" is most certainly an extraterrestrial attack. Now, everyone must unite and fight for the future of humanity.

Where exactly did "Cowboys & Aliens" go wrong? In too many places to even keep count. With Jon Favreau at the helm, his direction feels more like it did in the second "Iron Man" as opposed to the original. That is, it feels like he started directing an action sequence and then halfway through it, gave up. As a director, Favreau hasn't yet gotten to the stage where he can phone it in, and still pull it off. No, that takes many more years of experience.

"Cowboys & Aliens" was penned by "Lost"co-creator Damon Lindelof. It contains all of the intrigue of "Lost" without an of the wonder. If you are trying to put us into a time where the idea of life outside of earth is as foreign as the idea of cell phones, you must also put the audience into that sense of wonderment. Instead, all anyone can feel the whole time is, oh they are being attacked by evil aliens from space. Where is the film's extra hook to really surprise us; where is the film's polar bear in the jungle? How can we expect to take an alien species seriously when their spaceship looks like Squidward's house?

The cutouts of "Cowboys & Aliens" consist mainly of a series of western archetypes. There is the young outlaw who's seen too little, the old outlaw who's seen too much, the knowledgeable doctor who can't defend himself, the old coot with no teeth, and the guy who has to march down the town's streets and yell about how he gets free drinks because he owns this town. None of the characters turn into anything above those stereotypes. I don't blame this on the actors as much as I do on the writers.

The actors do the best they can, which is really all an actor can do with weak material. Craig, who has deservedly become the new face of James Bond, seems to struggle with his American accent. It doesn't even come close to sounding like a grisled outlaw, it sounds more like an English guy trying to sound American. Besides the Bond movies, he should just stick to playing badass Jews from now on.

Harrison Ford, meanwhile, was the person I was most excited to see and yet, he doesn't bring any of the typical Ford charm to his performance. Ford has played Cowboys before, in varying forms (Han Solo; Indiana Jones), yet Woodrow carries no outlaw spirit. He seems less angry about the aliens he has to fight and more angry that he is involved in this movie. He never even seems too concerned about the missing son that he is fighting the whole movie to get back. Shocking, as Ford is usually a master at yelling about missing family members.

I will say this, though: the closest the film ever comes to an actual human interaction is the scene in which Ford gives a young boy his knife. It is never very well explained, but these two characters are the only ones in the film that ever seem to have any chemistry. The fact that nothing is ever done with this represents all of the film's underutilized potential.

"Cowboys & Aliens" strives to combine two genres that have been combined many times over, with much better results. In fact, the sci-fi western has been considered a genre for decades already, ever since "Star Wars" first came out in 1977. "Cowboys & Aliens" tries to fall under this genre, but it never makes these two very different genres seamlessly blend. The point of "Star Wars" was that if it took place in the Old West, it basically could have been "The Searchers." I don't even know what "Cowboys & Aliens" could have been. All I know is that it really made me want to keep watching "Firefly," the TV series that did exactly what "Cowboys & Aliens" wanted to do, but in a much more exciting and coherent fashion.

The worst part of "Cowboys & Aliens" is that it isn't very fun. I appreciate that Favreau wanted to tackle this story in a serious manner, but he takes the idea of straight-faced a step too far. Even Leone's great western opuses had a sense of humor about themselves.

As for the sci-fi part of the film, the aliens feel less like an enemy, and more like a plot device. The aliens in the film look like those from "District 9," but with way less personality. The reason why the aliens are here at this very moment remains totally unexplained. Even though "Super 8" somewhat failed in that respect, at least they tried to make us understand its creature.

Amongst the seriousness, the makers of "Cowboys & Aliens" forgot that this is a summer blockbuster, and blockbusters can be both smart and serious while providing entertainment. This isn't entertainment, this starring blankly at a bunch of preposterous characters and situations. Westerns are supposed to be slow, not boring.

Movie Review: Super 8

Steven Spielberg has always said that as a child, he would make his model train crash and film it. Decades later, somebody decided to crash a train on film, and they did it just the way Spielberg would have done it.

"Super 8," named after the film format, is a cinephile's paradise. It's a tribute to the great sci-fi, monster, and buddy movies of the past. Think "E.T." meets "Jaws" meets "Stand by Me" and "The Goonies." Only a director this in touch with films past could make this movie. Luckily, J.J. Abrams is that guy.

"Super 8" is a little different than you might expect. For one, it's not the explosion-a-minute summer blockbuster that has clogged American movie theaters for the past decade or so. It is first and foremost a story. It takes place in the late 1970s in a small Ohio town where a group of kids are trying to make a zombie film. While filming, they witness a terrible train crash. After the train crashes, a series of mysterious events sweep the town, likely prompted by something strange onboard that train.

"Super 8" made me feel nostalgic for an era I didn't even grow up in. Additionally, this is the first summer blockbuster I have seen in ages that actually had an enjoyable screenplay. Even "Inception" wasn't this well written. It has snappy dialogue and endearing characters. The best part about it though, is that it has a heart. Rarely does a mainstream action movie come along that actually cares about what happens to its characters, rather than just what happens if they blown up.

The story of "Super 8" goes into some very dark territory, exploring death's effect on children, the effects of bad parenting, and the meaning of love and friendship at such a young age. Like Spielberg, family is an important bond between the characters of an Abrams film. The fact that this film focuses on these issues rather than just plot is something worth celebrating.

The special effects, action, and the monster itself are nothing revolutionary, but that's not a bad thing. The train sequence is one of the best I've seen, just ranking somewhat below the train explosion from "Lawrence of Arabia." Abrams films it the way he filmed the plane crash in the very first episode of "Lost": it's not the crash itself, but the aftermath that is so frightening and exhilarating. Watching how the characters deal with the wreckage is like an ultimate test of their will to survive.

While this film contains the many strong suits of a Spielberg film, it also contains some of his weaknesses. Like "War of the Worlds" and some other Spielberg pictures of recent years, "Super 8" resorts to over-sentimentality in its ending. Worst of all though, its ending feels rushed, rather than earned. All of this buildup ultimately leads to something uninspiring and unoriginal. Based on how good the rest of the story was, I think Abrams was capable of something better than this. Even "Cloverfield" had a better ending.

The ending of "Super 8" certainly has some effect on how I perceive the entire movie, yet the film as a whole is hard to hate. It is just so lovingly crafted, only someone who has ever devoted their entire life to film could ever have made a movie like this. It never treats its audience as if it is dumb; it challenges the viewer, and makes them wait for the action.

When the plot is boiled down, it is not about some awesome superhero trying to save the world from robots or aliens, it is simply about a bunch of kids trying to make a movie, and how their movie was disturbed by the presence of a monster. Sometimes, the problems of childhood are much more interesting than the issues of adults.

Movie Review: Paul

Comedies that have been made since, let's say the 90s, have been strongly derived from science fiction. It seems odd to think that the people who were raised on "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" went on to make "Clerks" and "Knocked Up." I never really connected the dots until I watched "Paul." Sci-fi, in either the best or worst sense, can also be comedy.

"Paul" is one of those satires that's a little mocking, yet very loving, at the same time. Only someone so in love with sci-fi and comic book culture could ever make fun of it in this way. "Paul" is one of those movies that was much better than it had any right to be, or at least much better then I ever thought it would be.

"Paul" begins in a place where the new heroes of the 21st century seem to dwell: Comic-Con. Best friends Graeme (Simon Pegg) and Clive (Nick Frost) come all the way from England to experience the convention. On the way back, they stop off at some alien landing sites and come across Paul (Seth Rogen), a foul-mouthed, weed smoking alien who just wants to go back home. Now, the duo must help Paul safely meet his ship, while avoiding some very sinister FBI agents (including an intentionally robotic Jason Bateman, along with the much more ridiculous Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio). Along the way they also pick up a Jesus freak (Kristen Wiig) and flee her psychotic father (John Carroll Lynch).

"Paul" might not land my 10 best list for the year, but I will say that it's probably the best put together comedy I've seen so far this year (though the competition is pretty slim). Though this shouldn't be surprising, based on the people involved. Pegg and Frost have already gracefully mocked zombie movies with "Shaun of the Dead" and action movies with "Hot Fuzz." In both cases, they wrote movies that both mocked the genres while becoming entries into them. "Paul" is no exception. These people have obviously partaken in enough sci-fi to know how to make fun of it correctly.

"Paul" has such a sprawling cast of comedic talent, and each actor contributes exactly the way they should be. Pegg and Frost have been practicing British bromance for close to a decade now, and they really know how to do it right. Though this time, their relationship had a much difference balance. It was a little less of one actually trying to get things done, and the other being a total idiot. This time, their friendship was basically played up as a romance, with hilarious effect.

The best comedic minds in Britain blend with America's funniest comedians in "Paul." I guess someone who can make characters as awkward as Wiig can was destined to one day play a half blind hard-core Christian; I guess she fulfilled her destiny. Rogen meanwhile is good as ever, even in alien form. At times, Paul never seemed very alien, because no one bothered to make his character any different from the real Seth Rogen. This actually turns out to be a good thing, as Paul becomes a likable, almost human character. He's like E.T., if only E.T. could speak fluent English and chain smoke.

"Paul" nailed all of its sci-fi and pop culture references, from the never-ending mothership to the meeting spot at Devil's Tower. The film is directed by Greg Motolla, who impresses more and more with the range of comedies he can direct. He can go from gross out ("Superbad"), to a little dramatic ("Adventureland"), to one that has an FX alien as a main character.

What Motolla does best is make sappy ideas seem very sweet. Think about the power of the friendship in "Superbad." That's why I really wish "Paul" had a little more emphasis on the friendship between Graeme and Clive, because very little development and change occurs in it throughout the film. This is too bad, as this was always a strong and hilarious aspect in the other films Pegg and Frost made together. Nothing against Motolla, but perhaps frequent collaborator Edgar Wright would've been a good directorial choice here.

Then again, how do you fit a fully developed buddy comedy into a movie about a half naked alien? If Motolla, Pegg, and Frost could've pulled that off, they'd forever be comic geniuses. Maybe they didn't get there, but they still made a perfectly acceptable, unstoppably hilarious satire. They have certainly followed this rule of good satire quite well: if you want to make a good satire (especially of pop culture), you must be both familiar, and a little in love, with the content you are making fun of.

Inception: On Backlashes, Second Viewings, and Dead Cats

Warning: Do not read on unless you have actually seen "Inception." And even if you don't care about spoilers, I command you to proceed with caution.

So, here we are. "Inception" has officially been in theaters for two weekends. It's also been a little over a week since I first laid eyes on it and made it out to be a magnum opus unlike any we've ever seen (or, unlike any we've seen since Kubrick or Scorsese and Coppola in their prime). Since then, the film has made a killing at the box office, and has been called both an epic masterpiece and an overrated piece of crap.

Yes, many have dared to call "Inception" overrated. Others have dared to call it resistant to criticism. This just shows how no one seems to know what "Inception" really is. And let's hope it stays that way.

I am going to assume that most everyone who has decided to read this article has either already seen "Inception" or just doesn't care if anything gets spoiled at all. I will be light on the spoilers, but a little more specific than last time. I don't know if I'm qualified enough to write about "Inception" again. Even after seeing it again, and I feel like I understand a great deal more, I still feel like I know nothing. Yet "Inception" is just one of those movies you have to talk and write about as much as possible after viewing them.

It is safe enough to say that "Inception" has received an overwhelmingly positive response. Some make legitimate arguments. Others are just hating for the sake of being contrarian. Others are exposing everything that is wrong with modern film criticism.

It is not just one group of people who are causing the problems. The haters seemed ready to hate "Inception" since before it was even released. This goes even beyond Armond White, the now notorious critical contrarian. I won't spend too much time on White, but I will say that it's one thing to not like a movie because it is flawed, and another to not like it because you feel it has enough love already.

And then there are those people who think that "Inception" should be shielded from all criticism. These people seem to think just because it is so unique that nobody should be allowed to point to its problems. Well, everyone has a right to their opinion, and in a time where the art of film criticism is in danger, telling a critic to shut it seems kind of dangerous. As much as I love Rotten Tomatoes, I might have to blame this on them. There is a sort of feeling these days that if a movie doesn't receive a perfect 100%, then it is no good. Right now, "Inception" stands at 87%. Most movies would dream to have that much approval.

But enough with the triviality of reality. It's time to delve into the world of movies. Specifically, the world of "Inception." And what a world it is. Even on a second viewing, there was still something amazingly unique about it. While some movies that are full of surprises feel less surprising on a second viewing, "Inception" is still filled with new things.

If you've only seen "Inception" once, chances are you are really confused. It makes sense why anyone would be confused after just one viewing, but the funny thing is that no one should be. With a close listen to the dialogue, you can see that almost everything is totally spelled out for you. Almost every single line of the film is pure exposition. Yet, it seems even breezier and more fascinating on a second listen. Exposition can be fine if it's actually interesting.

I found on a second viewing that I was paying less attention the spectacle and more attention to the actual story. Yes, the folding city and zero gravity fighting are still awesome, but there's nothing quite like seeing scenes like that fresh. But when you look at the scenery, you really can miss the depth. Many have found "Inception" to be weakest in its story. That might be thought of in one viewing. But there really is more than meets the eye.

What really stood out now were the film's themes. The central question goes well beyond is this reality or a dream. It is more like when does reality start and subconscious set in, and vice versa. The question could even extend to whether or not one or the other doesn't even exist, or whether they exist in the same place.

This can be seen when paying very close attention to Mal (Marion Cotillard). She's more than just a projection, she is Cobb's totem. While Cobb is constantly spinning the top to see if he is dreaming or not, that was Mal's totem. In that sense, he doesn't use it so much to see whether or not he is in a dream, but whether or not he will get to see his wife again. Perhaps the reason he didn't even pay attention to whether or not the top was going to fall in the end was because he had totally let go of his wife. Whether or not she showed up was irrelevant.

In the relationship between Cobb and Mal lies the film's true heart. And while others didn't notice, it is beating. In addition, despite the fact that the scene where Fischer (Cillian Murphy) confronts his dying father was imagined, there was something extremely satisfying about the revelation reached at the end of it. Fischer, like Cobb, could not function on his own without getting rid of the weight of his troubled past. Dreams are where we go to escape our troubled pasts, and our even more troubled presents.

Something that is harder to notice is the film's very keen sense of humor. Most of the jokes are quick enough that only someone who has viewed the movie twice can really catch them. They also manage to work well in part of the actors. Tom Hardy as the forger Eames added a dry sense of playful British humor to every scene he was in.

But the second time around, one laugh I didn't expect came at the end. After waiting in anticipation to see the fate of the spinning top (even though I knew the ending, I was still at the edge of my seat), the whole audience began to laugh once the screen turned black. They weren't laughing at the movie, but rather with it. Perhaps Nolan actually intended that ending to be a sick joke. Maybe the moment the screen faded to black the top either fell or kept spinning.

Yes, that final shot is just one tiny shot. But it really needs to be discussed. It is more of a paradox than the infinite staircase. Yet, at that point, it almost didn't seem to matter whether or not Cobb was dreaming or awake at that point. The last shot was a sort of Schrodinger's Cat: the ending is both relevant and irrelevant at the same time.

Schrodinger's Cat

The top is so important because this tiny toy encapsulates the whole point of the movie. Perhaps the most important line in the film is when Mal tells Cobb there are three options in life: what you believe, what you want to believe, and what you know is real. In the case of whether or not the top keeps spinning or collapses, I could say I believe that Cobb is in reality, I want to believe that Cobb is dreaming, and I know that it's impossible to ever know which one it actually is. Any of these three answers, even the one about what is real, can be altered in some way. Just like dreams have different meanings to different people, the whole of "Inception" can mean so many different things. By opening up the possibility to us that nothing we saw took place in reality, Nolan was in effect performing inception on the audience.

That leads to a theory that's been widely discussed and is extremely plausible: "Inception" is a metaphor for the act of filmmaking itself. Each person who serves a role could also serve on a film set. Both involve artists meticulously creating worlds from scratch and keeping them from falling apart.

For one more second, back to that ending. There is indeed proof of multiple conclusions. Notice how the light in Cobb's house shines in the same way it did when him and Mal woke up. Notice also that this time, his children turned around while in his dreams they never did. Then again, maybe that's because he never bothered looking in his dreams.

So maybe it is too early to call "Inception" one of cinema's greatest. "Citizen Kane" wasn't called the best film in 1941. I'm not saying "Inception" has quite the impact on filmmaking as "Citizen Kane" did. But I do know that it will forever effect the way I watch and process film. It truly did push boundaries both visually and narratively. It simultaneously achieved mirror-breaking self-reflexiviness and it also became an allegory for the world we live in. I don't think I'm over-analyzing when I say that "Inception" reflects a world where people are more interested in creating their own worlds than fixing the one they actually live in.

Now, who here is ready for round three?

Movie Review: Inception

Dreams are not reality. Movies are not reality. They are both part of what he have in life, and mostly what we really want. That's why they're constantly a focus in movies. Though the whole "it was all a dream" ending had worn out its welcome. That is until "Inception" landed in theaters and completely redefined reality and imagination.

"Inception" is a film that's been hyped up for months. It brilliantly showed us gripping footage while keeping us totally in the dark. For once in your life, you'll feel like you walked into a movie not knowing a single thing about what it really is. It's more than the thriller you thought it would be. It's, well, maybe you should be kept in the dark about that.

I will give you something, maybe slightly more than you could get from some commercials. "Inception" brings us to what may or may not be a futuristic dystopia. Or else it is a slightly altered version of our own time. In this world, technology exists that allows one to enter the human mind through dreams and use that to gather and manipulate ideas. It's called Inception. Two "architects," Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are experts at this. Cobb is addicted to exploring the world of dreams, so much so that it causes strains between him and his family.

Cobb and Arthur are hired by a shady businessman (Ken Watanabe) to find some information for them. The two team up with a bright, young student (Ellen Page) to embark on a mind-bending, possibly dangerous journey into the human subconscious.

It's hard to know where to begin with "Inception." The way to enjoy "Inception" is to suspend reality and be engrossed into the many worlds you are introduced to. That's why the set pieces and camera are so crucial. This is a rare film that actually uses its sets properly. And much of what you see is done without the aid of CGI. Christopher Nolan decided to go the old-fashioned way and actually build real sets. For that, I applaud him.

Every location and every shot of the film feels so authentic, and so imaginative. The laws of gravity and physics no longer apply. Cities runoff into the sky. People can float. Objects can move at any pace they want. This is a world without rules.

With the infinite possibilities that lie within dreams, Nolan is given the freedom to bring the story into whatever direction he wants. Most directors seem to stop at certain points because they don't want to lose their audience. Nolan doesn't care if you're following or not. He'll go as far as he wants, for however long he wants to.

Nolan though is trying to unite two different crowds: those who want a thought-provoking movie, and those who want high-class entertainment. "Inception" amazingly caters to both needs.

As an action movie, "Inception" keeps you in constant suspense and constant shock. Fight scenes, whether real or imagined, are given time and detail. They aren't filled with the insanely fast cuts that made movies like "The A-Team" almost unwatchable. Nolan lets the audience savor every blow delivered.

The one action piece you won't stop thinking about involves a hallway and a lack of gravity. Any amount of description I provide can't possibly ruin it for you. It looks accurate enough to have been a green screen.

"Inception" proves a conclusion that has already been reached: Nolan is a master. He knows how to turn spaces into haunting visual nightmares. The looming shots of Tokyo and other metropolises might as well be Gotham City. He can then take those landscapes and fill them with incredibly complex stories.

Nolan's narrative techniques are as interesting as his directing. Much of the dialogue in the film is expository, but hearing every step of the process is so fascinating that you won't mind. Intertwined is some enlightening discussion about the nature of dreams and the human mind. It's the kind of information that must've taken years of research. How Nolan could fit all that in while making two "Batman" movies is a mystery to me.

The plot of "Inception" unfolds very slowly. As the characters enter deeper levels into the dream world, new layers of plot unfold. Strangely, the more chaotic things get, the clearer the story becomes.

It's kind of hard for any one actor in this film to truly shine, as Nolan and the visuals totally steal the show. That's not to say there isn't some fine acting. "Inception" boasts a few of the most talented young actors working today. With both "Inception" and "Shutter Island" this year, DiCaprio has proven himself an actor responsible of mature and psychologically complex roles. He knows how to play people so torn up that they can barely even function as humans. He is starting to become the DeNiro of our generation. Gordon-Levitt and Page meanwhile, provide a perfect counterbalance of wit and charm along with both understanding and total confusion.

All of this leads me to say that beyond all of the action, "Inception" is truly a human story. It is about loss and regret and the dream being an outlet to both conceal and confront the darkest parts of our lives. Dreaming can be a means of both escape and confrontation.

"Inception" reminded me for the first time in a long time what a true moviegoing experience is like. The theater exists for a reason. That reason is when you have a story this complex and sprawling, you need a gigantic screen to fill the room and truly take in everything being shown. It is in a space like this where we are most able to suspend reality. Plus, when you have a film this good on a screen big enough, it can truly suck you into the story. At a time like this in a film like this, 3D seems irrelevant. Your mind creates the illusion of being in a third dimension.

To call "Inception" the best movie made in a very long time would be an understatement. Nothing has changed the rules of cinema this much since "The Matrix." It combines so many genres into one mesmerizing whole. At so many points it could've fallen apart but Nolan keeps it intact.

"Inception" is a thriller of the mind that won't leave your mind. After some movies end, you immediately know you have to see it again. Only with "Inception" will you know that from the very first scene.

If You Liked this Movie, You'll also Like: Memento, Mulholland Dr., The Dark Knight, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix, Shutter Island, Fight Club, Blue Velvet, Blade Runner

For more awesome mind-bending movies, check this out.

Movie Review: Aliens

It's time to put on your geek hat and forget for a moment the notion that all sequels suck. Just step back in a time machine and relive the days when summer blockbusters used to be really good, and sequels were more about completing stories than making more money. Today's sampling: "Aliens."

"Aliens" might've come from a time before advanced CGI, but still holds up as well as any older action film could. "Aliens" leaves off 50 years after "Alien" ended. The last surviving member of the Nostromo, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), has been asleep and floating through space for the past five decades.

Unfortunately, Ripley is not given a hero's welcome upon returning to Earth. Rather, no one believes her story and she loses her pilot's license. To top it all off, she is still haunted from the horrible events that happened on that ship (a.k.a. more excuses to show aliens popping out of people's stomachs).

Humans still remain ignorant of the dangers these creatures pose, and decide to colonize their planet. After some disturbances, Ripley is sent to the planet to investigate the problem. While there, she befriends a brave little girl (Carrie Henn) who's entire family has been killed, and runs into hundreds of the man-eating aliens. Ripley, it's time to get back into badass mode.

One thing I sometimes don't like about sequels is how most times they're the exact same story as the original, in a slightly altered package. "Aliens" is the rare sequel interested in actually continuing its original story and allowing for further character development. For example, this certainly is not the same Ripley from the first movie. She is at first more vulnerable, and less prepared. It gives her new levels of emotional depth to explore.

Perhaps the main differences between "Alien" and "Aliens" lies in its two very different directors. The original was helmed by Ridley Scott, and the sequel by James Cameron. Both men are infamous perfectionists, but Scott's filmmaking goes at a much slower pace. His action was less flashy, and it took much longer to build up to it. Cameron, meanwhile, loves to go all out. That is why "Aliens" is so much more of an action driven film.

I don't mean this to be a bad thing, as Cameron is a master at large-scale filmmaking. Look no further at his future work on "Titanic" and "Avatar." The action and the violence of "Aliens" are most definitely stunning. Cameron just knows how to elevate everything, from emotions to sound, to make everything more and more tense. Throughout the film you might hear a constant, creepy dripping of water. Or in another scene, when the background score is heard at different volumes in different rooms.

Cameron, like Scott, proves himself a master at utilizing space. The characters of "Aliens" don't inhabit a space as vast as Pandora. Cameron uses this to create a tighter, more tense mood. The space is also so complex, that the aliens could literally be anywhere.

What also makes Cameron so great is his attention to tiny details. He turns perfectionism into art. He lets the audience pay very close attention to metal bars falling apart when touched to a flame. He also seems endlessly fascinated and obsessed with the weapons his characters use. Small details like this are all a part of universe building. He manages to do this while still maintaining his story.

Before watching "Aliens," I wondered why Scott wouldn't come back to complete his own story. It makes sense though, this is Cameron's type of story. "Alien" was all about mystery; "Aliens" is all about intrigue. Since Cameron loves those details, he's great with exploring what exactly these aliens are and what they want with us. This comes even more in handy when we finally encounter the angry, bloodthirsty queen.

All of this contributes to a great sci-fi film because part of great sci-fi is the mythology behind it. There is the mythology of both the dystopian future humans have built, and the habits of the aliens. This is something that will continue to make the "Alien" series standout from most other sci-fi.

Some may view James Cameron as a filmmaking God. But he cannot be because if God exists, he would be flawless. Cameron is in serious need of taking some writing classes. The dialogue here is not as bad as in, say "Avatar." The movie does have its fair share of memorable lines, one in particular when Ripley faces the Queen.

However, there is so much excess dialogue. A perfectly good battle sequence could be ruined by Bill Paxton's running commentary of every alien he's just killed. Sometimes, the only sound we should hear are bullets banging and bombs exploding.

The dialogue is just a tiny little dent in a great product. "Aliens" also has something else most sci-fi movies lack: great acting. Mainly, that's done by Weaver. She exemplifies a great action hero: tough with a soft spot, and endlessly relentless. She's both hero and human.

Movies have changed much since "Aliens" first premiered, but it still remains a fine model. If more movies tried to be like "Aliens," then maybe filmmakers could finally find that perfect balance between intelligent and action packed. It's possible. To all those who forgave the stupidity of "The A-Team" because of its entertainment value, watch "Aliens" to discover that brains and entertainment can mix quite well.

Movie Review: Splice

Some movies are too weird for their own good. Other movies find ways to be good through all the weirdness. "Splice" balances on the line between these two.

"Splice" is the latest film from Vincenzo Natali. Natali has the name of a great horror director, and he could just become one. I have never seen any of his previous works, but "Splice" shows that he knows this genre, and the several other ones that the film navigates.

"Splice" is infatuated with low angle, and usually subjective, shots. One of the best choices it makes is opening through the blurry, confused eyes of a newborn. This is no newborn, this is the birth of a new species. This is a creation from scientists (and lovers) Clive (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley). The two figured out how to isolate the DNA of various types of animals and morph them into one, new species. The new species is active, healthy, and can even produce medicinal milk. It turns out to be both a scientific and economic wonder.

Clive and Elsa want to take their experiment to the next level: they want to add human DNA. However, the company isn't looking for scientific breakthroughs, but rather profit, and forces them to continue research on the milk the new creature produces. They go ahead with their experiment anyway. The result is a creature with the face of a human, the body of a small kangaroo, and the skin of a salamander. The clone, named Dren, starts off sweet and innocent enough. Then she turns, quite literally, into a monster.

The film is proceeded by some noteworthy shots, a few corny lines, and a few great thrills. It is a mixture of scientific intrigue and fictional ridiculousness. Despite some flaws, "Splice" is still miles ahead of most sci-fi films released in recent years. It draws upon, rather than steals from, classics.

On that note, the thing I enjoyed most about "Splice" is how inspired it was. Natali is a film lover's filmmaker. The slow, creeping doom that occurs alongside the speedy development of the creature feels right out of "Alien." A later scene involves a chase through a dark, snowy, forest reminiscent to the frozen maze chase that occurs in "The Shining." At one point, a character even shouts "It's alive!" just like Rosemary mistakenly shouted in joy in "Rosemary's Baby." It might just sound like I'm merely throwing out every film reference I can to look cool, but I'm actually throwing out compliments. Natali doesn't just know great films, but he knows what makes them so great. And those things influence his work in the best way.

Don't get the impression from this that Natali's work is nothing but a lot of pop culture reference. He is also a great director for individual reasons. The sci-fi works great because he understands how the sci-fi genre operates. The horror aspects work especially well because he understands how to create real thrills. As usual, it is not about the gore. What is crucial is atmosphere. He can create a moment of suspense either threw loud, overbearing music, or pure silence. One of the most impressive ways that he creates an environment of dread is through very tiny details. The most significant is a light swaying back and forth overhead, as the couple waits to see if there creation has survived.

"Splice" also displays some impressive cinematography. It contributes to the atmosphere as much as the sound and music. Best of all, it doesn't rely on an unnecessary large amount of shaky cam to try and frighten the viewer. Any horror you might feel comes organically.

As I am not Natali, I can't say what his true goal was with "Splice." If it was simply to thrill us and weird us out, then mission accomplished. But if he was looking for something even deeper, which I suspect he was, then he just missed the mark.

At times, I thought "Splice" was going for the "Brave New World" message that there's a line in science, and sometimes we just shouldn't toy too much with our own DNA. Then there's also this whole thing about how science is being ruined by corporate greed. These are themes that have been explored again and again, and I wish "Splice" did it in a slightly more original, and even more three-dimensional way.

The reason these two things don't work so well might just be because of the weakest aspect of the film: the writing. All of the arguments about the place of science and moral judgement just sound contrived. Such eloquent directing could've used much more eloquent writing.

While I obviously appreciated this film as a thriller, I wish Natali had gone and made it a little more satirical. There is one moment in the film (you'll know it when you see it), that's so gruesome and unexpected that it ends up being uncomfortably hilarious. Some might find it horrifying, others might find it to be the most genius moment in the entire film.

"Splice" certainly isn't your average sci-fi horror film, as Natali certainly isn't your average director. And even though the film falters on several points, it's hard not to recommend "Splice." After having to sit through "Robin Hood" and endless "Sex and the City 2" ads, any actual story is welcome.

Lost: This is the End/There is a Light that Never Goes Out

SPOILER ALERT: If you didn't watch the series finale of "Lost" yet and ever plan on it, I advise you do not read this until you watch it.

Well, it's over. Now please excuse me for a few more seconds while I collect my thoughts and feelings.

...

There. What I have here is a film blog. I thought about movies. But every once in a while, there's a TV show that captures the magic I see in films. "Lost" happens to be one of them. Ever since that first plane crash, I've been mesmerized by it. Like any "Lost" watcher, I've had so many questions. Tonight, in its last episode ever, "Lost" did the impossible: it answered every question I had, and then it took all of its answers back.

Here is my interpretation. It might not be right, it's merely an interpretation. Some spent six seasons believing that the island was purgatory. Well, they were close. The island wasn't quite purgatory. However, the Sideways world was. It was a purgatory they created. It was a world of redemption and second chance that these characters so desperately needed. It's exactly what the Island represented in seasons one through five. But now that that was taken away, this was the place where they could go before they went knockin' on heaven's door.

As for everything else, we did find out what the island is: it is the light. This light is the source of all enlightenment for some. Keep it in one place, and it's good. Let it get out, and unspeakable evil will be unleashed. That unspeakable evil was the Man in Black, who spent the entire season in the skin of recently deceased John Locke. His reign of terror came to an end at the hands of Jack Shephard, who truly became the hero figure that the show has tried to make him look like for six years.

Let's talk about Matthew Fox for a second. I never much liked him, nor the character. While a weak main character will usually bring down a work, "Lost" was lucky enough to have such an amazing supporting cast. In the past, Jack was always stagnant and arrogant. Plus, Fox never put much emotion into him. But starting with his breakdown after Jin and Sun's death, Jack became a character I actually felt invested in. Then, in this episode, he truly became the Luke Skywalker of "Lost": the one man driven to great things by fate, the man with the force. You could even call him Christ, as well.

Jack's sacrifice was heartbreaking and almost uplifting at the same time. The final shot ever of "Lost" was Jack lying in the same bamboo forest he landed in once the plane crashed, but this time with an eye closing rather than opening. In this moment, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse so beautifully and perfectly brought "Lost" full circle. The moments before might've left you scratching you're head, but that final shot was no "Sopranos" fake out.

Before I get into the heavy interpretation stuff, let me appreciate "Lost" for its entertainment value. Tonight was two and a half hours of more than solid entertainment. The final confrontation between Jack and Fake Locke was one of the most intense fights I've ever seen shot on film. It could be because of the slippery slope atmosphere. Or maybe it's because of the build up to it. It wasn't being built up for just a few episodes. No, this is the confrontation we've been waiting for for six years.

Kudos to Cuse and Lindelof for how well structured this episode (appropriately titled "The End") was. While large parts of the episode were certainly devoted to plot, much more was devoted to character. While it was important to see Kate and Sawyer get off the island and Hurley becoming the new Jacob, it was also important to see everyone unite in the Sideways world.

The connections achieved in the Sideways world simply achieved what I believed "Lost" has been going for since day one: to show how much the little things matter. In more detail, "Lost" shows how so many different people can somehow be connected to one another. At the end of the day, "Lost" is all about how a bunch of random people ended up on an island together and then realized, they all impacted each other's pasts and futures.

Another important "Lost" theme was handled carefully this season: perspective. "Lost" has never been the show to stoop down to creating good guys and bad guys. Good guys become bad, and bad guys become good. This was seen in the battle between Jacob and the Man in Black. Some could view Jacob as a God like figure, while others could see him as an oppressor. Meanwhile, the Man in Black could be both a devil and a man who just wants to be free. Also, Locke became a villain and Benjamin Linus became a good guy. When a show can so convincingly turn good into bad and make all perspectives seem convincing, you know you have good writing.

Another highlight of this season includes, as usual, Terry O'Quinn. He always gave outstanding performances as John Locke, but this season was unique as he was playing the same character with a totally different disposition. He nailed the role of noble, complex villain.

As for season six itself, I wouldn't put it on the same level as season one. However, it did have its moments that emulated the spectacular first season. By taking away the whole time travel aspect and focusing more on the faith aspect, Cuse and Lindelof were able to spend more time trying to understand what the island really is while suspending reality. They also brought back those nice, quiet moments which might simply involve the cast hugging and appreciating their own existence.

While many have been polarized by the Sideways universe, and especially with what it turned out to be, I enjoyed it because it brought many characters back to their roots, with a few twists. While the Island had villain Locke, the sideways world had hero Locke. Even after they died on the Island, Jin and Sun were still alive and eternally in love in the Sideways world. Not to mention, it also brought beloved Charlie back into our lives.

Season six also brought us one of the best episodes "Lost" has ever produced. No, I'm not referring to the finale; I'm referring to "Ab Aeterno." What simply made this episode such pure genius was its compelling storytelling. Not only did it reveal so much about the island, but it also proved that sometimes "Lost" could be at its finest when it sticks to one dimension of time for more than five minutes.

But of course, there was a lot that didn't work this season. That temple storyline felt more like the Hydra Station than the Hatch; a time filler rather than an actual compelling storyline. However, the creators were wise in not dwelling in this one space for too long. And as always, there were a few backstories that just didn't have the same impact that others did. For example, while the Jacob backstory was crucial to the show's mythology, his history strangely came off as cheesy rather than inspiring.

What did this ending mean for "Lost" as a whole. In the series-long battle between fate and freewill, it seems fate was the winner here. It is still arguable whether fate or freewill brought them to the island but ultimately, they were all reunited by fate.

While the they're-all-going-to-heaven ending isn't something I'd buy into in reality, it's something I buy into only in the universe "Lost" has created. "Lost" has done what any good fantasy should do and created an alternate reality so fully realized and elaborate that it becomes a living, breathing entity where anything is possible. I would even take the risk of saying it's created a sci-fi mythology great enough to allow this show to be mentioned in the same breath as both "Star Wars" and "Star Trek."

Some also seem to get angry when anyone calls "Lost" 'groundbreaking' or 'revolutionary.' Revolutionary is a step too far, but groundbreaking isn't. Few shows would ever even dare to tell their stories so out of order and then actually make the viewer think by not answering every question for them. "Lost" was one of the last bastions of great storytelling left on a basic cable station.

In its final moments, "Lost" showed its self-aware, self-reflexive side, then it showed what it was truly all about: love. Amidst all of the polar bears and smoke monsters, "Lost" just wanted to show us the peace brought about by loving connections between human beings. It could've been corny, but that final beam of light felt earned, and it got me. Maybe it was because they included the dog.

For the joy and the frustration you've provided me over these past few years "Lost," I salute you.

Movie Review: Moon

Of all the movies I've seen, even the strangest still give me something to say. It is at the rarest occasion that I am almost at a loss for words. One of these rare occasions occurred as I watched Duncan Jones' "Moon."

This doesn't at all mean that "Moon" is a bad movie; it is in fact quite a good one. It is just so complex and almost non-linear that it will take a lot to explain what I just saw.

The film is a mixture of both the sci-fi and psychological thriller genres. Along with "District 9" and "Avatar," "Moon" proves why 2009 was the year that sci-fi made a comeback.

"Moon" is set sometime in the near future. At this point, humans have gone beyond using dirty forms of energy and have found a clean form of energy in fusion from the sun. This form of energy can only be found on the surface of the moon so the company Lunar Industries sends people to the moon to harvest it.

At the moment, the man on the moon is Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell). Sam is under a three year contract and, being the only person on the moon, faces extreme loneliness. He especially misses his wife (Dominique McElligott) and daughter. The only company he has is a robot named GERTY (Kevin Spacey). The only thing that makes GERTY seem remotely human is the little smiley face attached to him, which at times seems more intimidating than friendly.

One day, Sam is involved in a vehicle crash and wakes up to find himself in the middle of Lunar's twisted, new experiment.

It's going to be hard to discuss both the thematic and narrative implications of "Moon" without giving away a giant spoiler. Therefore, I will do my best to avoid revealing this huge plot point. What I will say though is that Rockwell does an amazing job dealing with this twist. I always knew he had talent, but "Moon" just proves it even further. He shows some great skill handling a character with a tendency toward both lunacy and normalcy. In the face of the very strange journey he goes on, he manages to seem as realistically perplexed as the viewer is.

Jones' writing and directing also deserves great praise. I am always fascinated by visions of the future. Where do artists believe we are headed as a species? "Moon" definitely has some interesting things to say on that topic. While a lot of dystopian genres take the bad things of present day society and amplify them in the future, Jones does the opposite and takes the clean energy craze and turns it into something that could doom us all.

However, Jones also does tie in the topic of technology. Sam's isolation could be a tool to show how our increasingly computerized world can be dehumanizing. In fact, the future of "Moon" seems like a time in which humans are treated more like machines that can be easily programmed and deprogrammed then like actual human beings with thoughts and emotions. The future will quite literally be dehumanizing.

"Moon" also manages to create a convincing futuristic hell through the amazing set designs. A lot of the cold, white hallways of the station were reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey." This isn't very surprising, as that film also portrays a future where humans have been taken over by technology. Also, the utter attention and focus put on every detail of this time create a world that seems so vividly real that the viewer might almost feel a part of it. That is the true essence of a Kubrickian filmmaker.

The film also felt slightly like "Alien," as it pits helpless crew members in space against a corporation with shady intentions. "Moon" also uses outer space the same way "Alien" did and uses it as a tool for being both trapped and extremely isolated. When you're in space and you're life is in danger, there aren't many places you can turn to.

"Moon" will likely leave you feeling perplexed, and shaken up. It uses both genres it combines to compliment each other and create an extremely original and satisfying whole. It's engaging from its very first shot and it never lets you go from there.

This is a Sci-Fi film not reliant on action but rather on character study and it reveals what the genre does best: use the extraterrestrial or technological world to reveal human nature. When you walk out of this film, you will question what it means to truly be a living, breathing, human being.

Movie Review: Avatar

James Cameron only makes a movie every 10 or so years. But every time he does, he seems to rewrite the rules of filmmaking. With "Avatar," James Cameron not only rewrote the rules, but opened a whole new book.

"Avatar" is one of those films that's not just a film, but a vision beyond anyone's wildest dreams; it's daring in ways one couldn't even imagine.

Cameron's strange yet fascinating sci-fi epic takes a few steps to break down, it's a premise that mixes contemporary society with ancient faiths. "Avatar" takes place around the year 2154. At this point, the earth has been totally ravished by humans (and, not mentioned in the movie, run out of oil), so the human race heads toward a distant moon called Pandora. Pandora contains a race of creatures called the Na'vi, a tall, blue species with a cat-like face and human tendencies. More important to humans, the moon also contains a valuable, energy-rich rock called Unobtanium. In order to get the Unobtanium, humans infiltrate and then hope to destroy the Na'vi by slipping into their bodies in Na'vi form. These bodies are called Avatars.

War veteran Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), paralyzed from the waist down, takes his brother's place on Pandora after he dies. He is sent to become part of the Na'vi, but in the process, he becomes a powerful member of the tribe, and falls in love with a Na'vi woman (Zoe Saldana).

In some ways, in different hands "Avatar" could have been a disaster, or maybe just an action film like any other action film ever made. But in the hands of a man with a real vision, "Avatar" is something totally different. "Avatar" is shot with a new form of Motion Capture technology that Cameron himself invented. This form looks stunningly real, from the monsters that live on Pandora, to the Na'vi themselves. While some forms of Motion Capture come out as uncannily unrealistic, there is something about the Na'vi that is incredibly human.

The film is shown in 3-D, a usually wasteful tool to add to feature length films. It is something I usually associate with the Muppet ride at Disney World. When used in most films, the only thing it is used for is to shoot raindrops or bullets out at the audience. "Avatar," however, uses its 3-D to make its images more stunning. It seems like more of a way to put the viewer into the film than create some means of shock value. While I hope 3-D doesn't become a regular feature in filmmaking, if it is used for this purpose alone, then I really wouldn't mind.

The storyline of "Avatar" has many elements derived from both contemporary issues and religions. This helps turn the film into a pretty effective parable of human nature in both the past and the present. For example, Avatar comes from the Hindu faith and is the manifestation of a deity from heaven to earth. That makes sense, as Avatars are humans in Na'vi form. Also, the entire film itself seems based off the Hindu belief of reincarnation, as the wheel-chaired Jake wants so desperately to be reborn into something else.

The film also seems to take on the totally unrelated ideology of Shinto, in which it is thought that people have a spiritual connection with the natural world, a connection the Na'vi share with their own planet.

When looking at "Avatar" from a contemporary perspective, one could quite obviously point out that it is a highly critical look at man's depletion of his own home. Some might even try and politicize the film for this reason, though politics should be left out of it.

Looking deeper into the film, one could see that it is about the horrors of imperialism. The war between the humans and the Na'vi often mirrors the destruction of the Native Americans of the United States or the Aztecs in Central America. It is also about the human instinct to act as pillagers: destroying one land, and then moving on to the next.

Moving beyond the themes, the greatest part about "Avatar" is its incredible CGI. Pandora becomes a planet that seems almost tangible. Every aspect of it, from the animals to the plants to the water, is something that could never have been thought of by anyone. In this light, one could almost say "Avatar" is the "Star Wars" of this generation that we've all been waiting for.

Alas, "Avatar" doesn't go without its minor flaws. At times, some of the dialogue is a little clunky. Also, the basic storyline is one that has been done before in one way or another. However, the context it is put into is totally original.

Quite simply "Avatar" is such a great filmgoing experience because its audacious, and its exciting. The end battle sequence is one that could rival the ones from "The Return of the King" and "Lawrence of Arabia."

The very first line of "Avatar" is, "You're not in Kansas anymore!" This shows that in "Avatar," you're being swept out of your comfort zone and being taken to a place beyond the imagination. It could also be nothing less than a shout out to "The Wizard of Oz," a film that led the way to a new dimension of filmmaking with its bold use of color. Cameron is the kind of filmmaker with the vision to accomplish this.

Cameron always manages to defy our expectations. People doubted him before "Titanic" came out and they did the same with "Avatar." Both times he totally changed the game. As Pandora was the beginning of a new frontier for humans, "Avatar" is the beginning of a new frontier for filmmakers worldwide.

Note: Earlier, I accidentally wrote that Pandora was a planet, when it is in fact, a moon. We all make mistakes sometimes, and for this one, I apologize. Thanks to Cameron Bruce for catching this mistake.