"Wonder Woman" unaired pilot review

Those of you not in the comic geek loop may not even know what "unaired pilot" I'm talking about. Before I get started, let me just quickly summarize: over the last couple of years, a live-action "Wonder Woman" TV series has been in the works. In late 2010, Warner Brothers (the company that owns DC Comics as well as the intended producers of this series) began pitching the show to the various networks. The series was meant to be "a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which Wonder Woman – aka Diana Prince – is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance all of the elements of her extraordinary life" (Entertainment Weekly). The series was denied by all of the networks. In early 2011, reports again surfaced that NBC was willing to look into it, and ordered that a pilot episode be made. Warner Brothers went ahead and made the pilot episode, starring Friday Night Lights star Adrianne Palicki as the Amazonian princess. In May, NBC announced that it would not be picking up the show, which pretty much put the nail in the coffin of this series.

But a few days ago, I finally was able to view the pilot episode of this series that could have been. And honestly? I didn't think it was all that bad--I guess I kind of have mixed feelings about it.

MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD

First off let's start with the good--I think Adrianne Palicki is very well suited for the role of Diana. She seems comfortable in the role (and the uniform), looks the part, and is a good actress. To me, she was a very convincing Wonder Woman all around. The plot of the episode involves a company that has been producing illicit enhancement substances that have been killing teenagers throughout the country, and Wonder Woman has to go after the head of the company (Elizabeth Hurley's character Veronica Cale) to shut the operation down. The writing also wasn't terrible--it wasn't fantastic, and there were a lot of odd quirks things that seemed really odd and unnecessary (more on that later), but I was never really bored throughout the show's forty minute runtime. Her relationship with Steve Trevor (who was Wonder Woman's love interest many, many years ago in the comics) seems like it was something that could be interesting, but was not yet fully developed. And finally, the action scenes (especially the fight at the end) looked fantastic! Nicely done!

That being said, the show takes some questionable artistic liberties with the Wonder Woman character. In the show, Wonder Woman is the CEO of a corporation (called Themyscira Industries) that produces...*sigh*...merchandise based on HERSELF. She's the DEFINITION of selling out. It seems completely at odds with the idealistic alien-in-a-foreign-land Wonder Woman we've known all these years. I also find it weird that the character has THREE identities--one is Wonder Woman (the superhero), the second is Diana Themyscira (her "public" identity as the CEO of Themyscira Industries who everybody knows is Wonder Woman), and Diana Prince (her "private" identity that no one knows is Wonder Woman and/or Diana Themyscira). The show barely even hints at her origin (more of that in a bit), yet is somehow going to try to get the audience to wrap their heads around three separate personas? There's also a moment where she flat out MURDERS a guy with a pipe, which seems totally inexcusable for Wonder Woman.

The weirdest thing about this show is that it always made me question obvious things that I felt I should know the answer to but didn't. When this show started, I wasn't even sure if this "modern" version of Wonder Woman was even an Amazonian princess from Themyscira or even had any superpowers at all (after all, they made it obvious that strong artistic liberties had been taken with the character). I felt that that is something very obvious that the writers should've informed audiences of right off the bat. It took me a while to figure out that she was actually the Amazonian princess we know from the comics and that she that DOES have real superpowers. The first time you see Wonder Woman, she's chasing a guy on foot through the streets of LA. Sure she seems fast and fit (like any other action hero), but there's no clear indication of any real superpowers until AFTER she captures the guy and she unnecessarily slides him like ten feet across pavement towards some police officers. With all this "moderness" and "big city girl" stuff going on, I had pretty much assumed that they had scrapped her comic book origin story of her being a princess from the ancient mythological all-female city of Themyscira. But then midway through the episode, a character makes an offhand remark that's something along the lines of "it's like your favorite uncle...but you wouldn't know", indicating that she doesn't have any uncles because she's from an all-female tribe. To me, the show just did a very poor job of establishing exactly who Wonder Woman is and what her powers and abilities were, and it just kind of left me confused for the majority of the episode.

Overall I guess I liked it enough that I would have watched episode 2, but they would have had to make some major changes to keep me interested for a whole season. I wish the show stuck more to Wonder Woman's roots as a mythological figure instead of just an "everyday, business owning girl in the big city"--because there's already so much of that on TV. I guess I have more of a problem with the questionable and often seemingly unnecessary artistic license they took with the character, rather than the plot and story of the show as a whole. But I really don't understand why NBC nixed the project altogether--I think there are definitely the makings of a great Wonder Woman show lying somewhere in here, and with a couple of rewrites and character adjustment I think this could have been a fun, interesting show.

"Paranormal Activity 2" review

“Paranormal Activity 2”. For those who have seen the first film, saying that name out loud sounds almost laughable. While the original Paranormal Activity really pushed the boundaries of what an independent film could accomplish, it was an entirely self-contained film, so the fact that a sequel was actually made just screams “Hollywood cash in!” With a much bigger budget, a more seasoned director, as well as the inevitable stigma that comes with sequels, could Paranormal Activity 2 possibly live up to the incredibly high-grossing, low budget, R-rated film that terrorized worldwide audiences last year?

Paranormal Activity 2 shouldn’t really be considered a “sequel”, because its story does not actually take place after the story of the first film; it runs parallel to it (though you would never guess that from the misleading title). The story begins several months before the events of the first film, where Kristi Rey (Grayden), the sister of Katie from the first film, is bringing her newborn son Hunter home from the hospital. Through segments of home-movie footage and security camera tape (through which this entire story is told, just like in the first film), we meet Kristi’s husband, Dan (Bolland), her stepdaughter, Ali (Ephraim), the family’s superstitious nanny, Martine (Vivis), and their German Shepherd, Abby. The actors do a very good job across the board convincing you that they could very well be the family that lives next door to you. Everything in their lives seems perfectly average until (you guessed it) strange, unexplainable things begin to occur around their house. And while Kristi and Ali are quick to jump to a supernatural explanation, Dan has a much harder time believing that his house is really haunted by otherworldly spirits.

The true genius of Paranormal Activity 2 is how it seems to effortlessly fit like a glove into the plot of the first movie. Featherstone and Sloat reprise their rolls from the first movie as Katie and Micah, who frequently visit Kristi’s house to see their newborn nephew Hunter. Without spoiling too much, the events of Paranormal Activity 2 greatly expand upon the events from the first film, with many scenes adding as much insight into the plot of the first film as it does this one. We learn not just what Katie and Micah were doing during the large time gaps in the original Paranormal Activity, but we also dig a lot further into Katie and Kristi’s history, which gives much more context to the hauntings. Seeing these events unfold from a different angle gives the story a much bigger scope than anyone who has seen the first movie could have predicted. After seeing this sequel, you’ll never be able to look at the first movie the same way again, which is a huge testament to the writers who clearly put a lot of effort into creating a plot that so effortlessly supplements the first film’s.

Unfortunately, the very existence of a Paranormal Activity 2 is very obviously the result of the success of the first one, and this very blatantly comes through in the film’s structure. Paranormal Activity 2 will not scare you nearly as much as the first one did, but this isn’t because it’s a hacked-together sequel that isn’t as well-structured as the first film. The genius of the original Paranormal Activity was in its agonizingly slow increase in perceived spiritual activity, which left viewers always on edge. It would cleverly heighten tension at times without a payoff only to hit you with a heart stopping “BANG!” when you least expected it. Combine this with a “this could happen to ordinary people like you” atmosphere, and it’s no wonder why this film left some viewers with sleepless nights. The biggest problem with Paranormal Activity 2 is that it sticks to the original’s formula to a T. You realize very quickly that this sequel follows the pacing of the first movie almost beat-for-beat, so those who have seen the first movie will be able to predict exactly when the “scares” are coming, diminishing their effect almost entirely. It’s almost all déjà-vu: the characters talk, they go to bed, something mysteriously moves, the characters wake up and freak out about it, they talk, they go to bed, a door mysteriously slams, they freak out about it, etc. It can definitely leave you bored, wishing you had a remote control so you can just fast-forward to the interesting stuff at the end. The last twenty minutes or so is definitely the highlight of this movie, but even its “Blair Witch”-style action doesn’t make it much less predictable. The film does have its fair share of jump-out-of-your-seat moments, but you just never get that bone-chilling feeling you got when you saw a possessed Katie standing over Micah watching him sleep for hours on end in the first movie.

As far as sequels go, Paranormal Activity 2 could have been a lot worse. Creating a good sequel to Paranormal Activity is nearly impossible task, but you can definitely tell that the creators of this film at least had their hearts in the right place. They definitely nailed the spirit of the first film; the biggest problem is that they actually did it TOO well. Still, Paranormal Activity 2 does offer some very interesting insight into the first movie, and it is for this reason that I can definitely recommend this to fans of the original. Just don’t go into it expecting the same level of fear and suspense the first one gave you.

"Sex (mature content obviously)"--A response

A friend of mine made a blog post earlier today that really got me thinking, and I really feel the need to blog a response to it, giving my own feelings about the subject. In her post on the ages-old controversial topic of sex (which I respectfully won't link to without her permission), she basically says that sex has nothing (or little) to do with love, rather it's about pure primal passion, lust, and desire. It's about the most basic of human wants--the satisfaction of our bodily desires. Sure, love can be involved, but when it comes down to it, sex is all about quenching our inner animalistic desires.

Okay, now I'm going to do what many people think is impossible--I'm going to defend sex as a representation of love and union, as well as sexual abstinence prior to marriage, without ever using the words "Jesus", "in the Bible it says..." or anything else of that nature. While I do believe those points to be more than valid, I do realize that an argument of that nature would be an immediate turn off to non-Christians, many who feel that there is no argument for my case outside of the rambling off of traditional Christian doctrine. Though my argument is religious at its foundation, it more leans towards our general spiritual natures rather than a specific religious doctrine.

Now, to the point--almost every living creature we can think of has sex. Why? It's very simple--they have to to survive. Because of this, each species has a hormonic drive to engage in sexual activity, otherwise the species would have disappeared a long time ago. As was stated in the post I'm responding to, humans also have this drive--this primal, animalistic drive to engage in sexual contact with a partner. The big difference though? For humans, it's fully and completely a choice. Animals have sex because of instinct--through evolution, they've become programmed to do it, otherwise they would not survive. Humans experience this very same desire but with one key, unignorable difference--the ability to choose to do it. Sex is not just something we do--it's something we choose to do, and that makes a world of difference.

See, I think there's three sides to every human being that are always in constant conflict. We can't deny the fact that we're animals who physically are of this Earth, and because of that we inheret characteristics of things of this world, such as sexual drive. But there's also another side to us that's unlike anything else in the known universe--the ability to rationally think and to make decisions and accept responsibility for them. Almost every one will agree with these two sides. But I would add on a third side--our spiritual side--the part of ourselves that is part of the larger scheme of things, which includes our conscience and our ability to make moral decisions. Either way, we have at least one side to us that is in no way related to this system of "instincts" on which the rest of the world revolves--and there's nothing else like it in this world. Our different natures are always in constant conflict--what one side of us thinks is good may not get another nature's approval. For instance, if we're in a supermarket and we're really hungry but have no money, our animalistic side will tell us to just grab food and eat it to satisfy our bodily need, but our rational and spiritual sides will tell us that it's wrong to steal something that belongs to someone else. Vice-versa, if we're giving up our time to, for instance, do grueling charitable work (like doing yard work for someone unable to do it outside in the hot sun), it will be satisfying to our conscious-driven side (knowing that we're helping another person), but our animalistic side will be telling us to get the hell out of there and go relax somewhere. So when it comes to sex, it cannot be argued that it is satisfying simply because it satisfies the desires of the body, because you're missing huge portions of what makes us human that could be going without satisfaction. Just because it's satisfying basic, bodily desires doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.

Now to sex in relation to marriage. I believe that marriage is important because it's the strongest commitment two people can make to one another. Marriage (like I discussed in a previous blog post), isn't just about living together and having a family, it's a total union between two people. A man and a woman are two parts of a whole, and marriage and sex are what ties them together. Never is this more evident than in their physical sexual organs, which are perfectly compatible with one another. In marriage, two people totally commit their lives to each other, and in the process, spiritually become one. Sex is the physical representation of the commitment made during marriage--two parts are literally coming together as one and creating wonders in the process. And a child created through marital sex is the physical embodiment of that union--at that point it's not even just two parts coming together, it literally is both parts as one. How can this unity be anything less than the greatest possible human representation of love for each other? Not only is the body fully physically pleased because of the physical touch and unity, but so is the spiritual nature because of the impossible to describe strength of the total spiritual unity between yourself and your spouse. Love is all about connecting and bonding with one another, and marriage and sex go hand-in-hand in creating the strongest sort of love possible--the lifetime commitment of love and unity between two people and the physical and spiritual embodiment of it. How can a union of this magnitude be described as anything less than love in it's purest form?

And it's not just the sex that's the full display of love for your spouse, it's also the sexual abstinence beforehand. What shows love for someone more than sacrificing something for them? In the case of abstinence, you're sacrificing your bodily desires in order to give the most important person in your entire a life a gift that's so special it can be given only once. How is this anything but love? So many people perceive virginity as something just for the taking, but what people don't realize is that it's an incredibly precious gift to be given. I think that people need to realize that it needs to be kept safe before it can be given as the greatest gift one could possibly give to another human being--the gift of oneself, totally and completely, in it's original, unblemished state.

So while yes, I will agree that sex is at least partially about animalistic desires, I believe it can be so much more than that if people understand what an amazing act it really is. It really is in the human-only choice of when and with whom to have sex that shows just how much love is involved. Sex can be about just bodily satisfaction, but it can also be about that and so much more--the physical embodiment of the total unity, love, and commitment between two people, total satisfaction for mind, body, and spirit, and the greatest gift one could give to another. I think I'll choose the latter, as I really believe that this is the type of satisfaction that could only be made in heaven.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (movie) review

So last night I got to see Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the Jerry Bruckheimer film loosely based on the 2003 video game of the same name. Now I have to say, I wasn't very sure how this movie was going to turn out. I am a big fan of the Prince of Persia video games (I own all four games in the "Sands of Time" series, including the newly-released "Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands"), and I've always felt that they were fantastic games but I never really saw them working all that well as a movie. The games, for the most part, stick to a pretty straight formula: do some crazy, gravity-defying acrobatics to get from point A to point B, solve a "push the block, pull the lever" puzzle, fight a huge hoard of bad guys, rinse and repeat. The plots of the games are engaging and interesting (especially the first one on which this movie is based), but for the bulk of the game the plot serves no real purpose but to give you a reason to go from point A to point B, keeping most of the interesting plotting at the beginning and end of the game. While this type of plot structure works great for a video game, where the focus is more on the gameplay itself, it doesn't necessarily translate all that well into a movie.

Luckily, Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and Director Mike Newell realized this, and decided that it was better off to use the video game series as more of an inspiration than trying to retell their story exactly. While there are certain elements taken directly from the game (most notably the Dagger of Time), Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time features an all new plot written specifically for the movie. While the movie doesn't break new cinematic ground by any stretch of the imagination, it definitely takes its inspiration from the best, and proves itself to be a very entertaining classic example of a summer popcorn flick.

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" takes place in 6th century Persia (which you may remember from your history books as being filled with white people with British accents who have developed technologies such as crossbows and hand grenades). The movie tells the story of Dastan (Jake Gyllenhall), a street orphan who was adopted by the good-hearted king of Persia when he witnessed him do a good deed for another boy in the streets one day. Though Dastan has no royal blood in him, the king holds him in as high esteem as his other two sons, Garsiv and Tus, and makes Dastan an official member of the royal family. Fast-forward a few years, and the Persian army is getting ready to invade the holy city of Alamut, lead by the legendarily beautiful Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton, who you may remember as Bond girl Strawberry Fields from "Quantum of Solace"). The leaders of Persia believe that Alamut is secretly forging large amounts of weapon (*cough cough* of mass destruction *cough cough*) and selling them to Persia's enemies. During the invasion of the holy city, Prince Dastan stumbles upon the mystical Dagger of Time. He is eventually accused of a crime he didn't commit, and is forced on the run from the Persian army, with Princess Tamina conveniently joining him.

So the plot might not be the most original. But if you walked into a theater expecting a movie titled "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" (which sounds just like a 30s adventure serial) to be a wholly original, artistically-made film, than you're living under a rock. But Bruckheimer (who is no stranger to big-budget blockbusters) and director Mike Newell do a fantastic job keeping the plot moving and keeping it interesting the whole way through. Though you never feel like the heroes are in any real danger in the movie (if all else fails they can just hit the "rewind" button on the dagger), there is never a dull moment in the movie, so you never really have any time to realize that you've probably seen all of this stuff in many other big-budget movies before. The action scenes are incredibly well choreographed and paced, and the movie does a fantastic job of making sure that none of the action scenes overstay their welcome (something that director Michael Bay has yet to learn). The parkour stunts are all very impressive, and people who have played the video games will notice some nice nods to the Prince's move set from the game.

Many people questioned the casting of Jake Gyllenhall as the Prince, saying that he's too white to be playing a Persian prince. While yes, that is true, you have to remember that none of the characters in the video game are all that Persian either, and I think Gyllenhall does a fantastic job of translating the Prince's sometimes-arrogent yet still very likable personality to the big screen. I also think I'm becoming a Gemma Arterton fan--she is definitely beautiful, but she's much more than just Megan Fox-type eye candy, as Arterton is a fantastic actress as well whose performance stands up great next to Gyllenhall. The two are at their best when they're going back and forth exchanging smart quips with each other, but all of the "romance" scenes seem very forced, as I almost felt like many of their exchanges seemed more brother-sisterly rather than that of "lovers". Alfred Molina's character is always a joy to see on screen, as his modern-sounding rants about politics and taxes and his deep held love of ostrich racing are always funny.

I don't think it's fair to judge a movie on something that it's not trying to be. "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" doesn't try to be the next landmark movie--it just tries to be an entertaining summer popcorn flick, and in that regard it more than succeeds. It understands the limits of the source material, and constructs a story that is consistently engaging the entire way through. That, combined with some really cool stunts, clever humor, and a fantastic cast, definitely make this a great choice to go see on a Friday or Saturday night with a huge group of friends.

I give it 4/5 stars.

Who's going to be the villain in Batman 3? Ra's Al Ghul of course, because there really is no other way.

Recently, me and my friends re-watched both "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", and there was some talk about the next "Batman" film. Now all we know about the third "Batman"film at this point is that it's rumored to be in the early writing stages; no official announcements have been made by anyone at Warner Brothers or Legendary Pictures. The most talked about thing by far for the next film is "Who's the villain gonna be?!?" It's almost the first question you hear whenever the third Batman movie comes up. Everyone seems to accept the fact that the writers would be stupid to bring The Joker back in, as no one could possibly match the performance of Heath Ledger, and anyone who tried would look like they're just copying him, kind of like Brandon Routh did for Christopher Reeves in "Superman Returns". Once we accept that fact, the names of all the most popular Batman villains, including the Riddler, the Penguin, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Catwoman, etc etc etc start getting thrown out. But I really think that everyone's missing the big picture of this particular film series. If they are indeed keeping this series to a trilogy, the major villain in Batman 3 will be none other than Ra's Al Ghul (yes Liam Neeson's character from the first movie). It simply wouldn't work any other way.

Ask any Bat-geek out there, and they'll tell you that Batman has two great nemeses: The Joker and Ra's Al Ghul. These are the only two villains who have ever even come close to destroying not only Batman himself, but his entire world. In many ways, these villains are total opposites of each other. The Joker is sporadic, insane, and does what he does simply because he loves doing it without any method or thought to his madness. Ra's Al Ghul on the other hand, is maniacal, crafting, and does what he does to serve his extremist idealism. While other villains like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, The Riddler, Bane, Scarecrow, Two-Face, etc. can be easily sympathized with, and really only do what they do because of greed or revenge, Ra's Al Ghul and The Joker are cold and heartless, and will stop at no end to achieve their goals, which makes them nearly unstoppable. They are in a completely different category from the rest of Batman's villains. You simply can't get any bigger than the villains in these first two Batman movies--any other villain would simply be a joke. And since any Batman writer would be crazy to even touch the Joker again with a ten foot pole after Health Ledger's incredible and nearly irreproducible performance, Ra's Al Ghul is the only villain who could finish the trilogy off with a bang after the huge scale of the previous two movies.

The first thing I get whenever I bring up Ra's al Ghul as the villain is "No way! He's dead!!" If there's one thing that my movie-viewing experience has taught me, it's that you never believe that someone's really dead until you see a corpse, and even after that be skeptical. The last shot we see Ra's al Ghul in "Batman Begins" is as he slowly shuts his eyes as the Wayne monorail that he's on plunges off the tracks and explodes. Does that make him dead? Not in the least. "Always mind your surroundings", he constantly reminded Bruce in "Batman Begins". Do you think he could've been on that train for such a long period of time and not known the quickest way out if his plan had failed? He's one of the smartest men in the world, not to mention a master of almost every martial art known to man. I'm SURE he had a way out before it exploded. Not to mention that he had already faked his death earlier on in the movie: what's to stop him from doing it again?

And if the writers can't get creative with that, there's always one aspect of the character from the comics that wasn't even mentioned in the first movie: the Lazarus pits. Like the Biblical character they take their name from, the Lazarus pits are secret, mystic underground pits that allow Ra's al Ghul to come back to life if he's placed in them within a certain time after he dies. Because of these pits, he's been able to live for thousands of years (something that WAS mentioned in "Batman Begins"). I know the writers are going for more realism with this particular Batman series, but I don't think that this is much more far out as other concepts from the first two movies, such as the Scarecrow's "fear toxin". Either way, there are multiple angles that the writers could take that could easily (but not cheaply) explain how Ra's al Ghul is still alive.

Another crucial element of this series that makes Ra's al Ghul perfect for a return visit is his incredibly close ties to Batman's origins. This is the only Batman series (including the comics, the animated series, the 90s movies, etc) that credits Ra's al Ghul with Batman's origins. Who is a more worthy villain that someone who was responsible for the creation of the hero, and one that taught him everything he knows? Ra's al Ghul is not only physically able to stand up to Batman, but they also connect on a much deeper mental level. Also, I get the feeling that the writer's aren't trying to make these movies separate "adventures" of Batman, like the old movie series and animated series were. These movies seem to be more of a saga--they're THE story of Batman, not separate stories of his adventures. Because of this, you don't need a bajillion new villains in each movie, but Ra's al Ghul could represent the villain of the entire saga, like Emperor Palpatine is to Star Wars and Sauron is to Lord of the Rings. I really think it will be revealed that Ra's al Ghul was not only behind the events of "Batman Begins", but he also played a pivotal role behind the scenes in "The Dark Knight" and even in the early parts of "Batman 3". Ra's al Ghul is a master plotter and manipulator. What he did in Batman Begins was child's play compared to what he has done in other Batman series. I think that once the trilogy is over, you'll be able to step back and realize the big picture that Ra's al Ghul has been behind all along.

Also, getting Liam Neeson back will most likely be not much of a problem. It's more than likely that he won't appear till 2/3 of the way through the movie, as one final "revelation" that Batman needs to defeat. After the success of The Dark Knight, "Batman 3" is going to be a guaranteed multi-million dollar blockbuster, and I'm sure Liam Neeson knows this, even if he doesn't appear on any of the movie posters or teasers to try to keep it a secret as much as possible.

For these reasons and more, there is really no other choice for a major villain in "Batman 3". Sure we'll probably see one or two more "classic" Batman villains. Now that Rachel's gone, I'm sure we'll probably see Catwoman in the next movie to spark the romantic interest. But Catwoman isn't a master plotter or evil in any sense of the word: she just likes to steal things for fun. There's no way she could hold up a whole movie as the villain. There's simply no other villain that could send the series out with a bang and prove as much as a threat to Batman as either of the villains in the first two movies. Because of this, it's gotta be Ra's al Ghul.

[Update 03/12/10] In a recent interview with Christopher Nolan done in the Los Angeles Times about the new "Superman" project he's starting, he had this to say about the third Batman movie:

“Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story,” he said. “And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story."

Also:

"Unlike the comics, these things don’t go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful. Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we’re telling."

This seems right on target with what I said earlier in this post. The third film WILL be the end of the trilogy, and thus Nolan says that he does not want to "infinitely blow up the balloon" of the story. It's further evidence to suggest that he won't introduce any major new villains, and attempt to tie together what he already has in place. It seems that (like I said earlier) the three films are meant to be viewed as three acts in one larger story. Introducing some other major villain wouldn't serve this purpose, as it would only seek to drive the story forever forward. That's why I really think that Nolan is going to make the best use of the villains he already has, and since the Joker is almost positively out, that leaves us with only one major villain left: Ra's al Ghul.

Political correctness is not the reason for the season

I know this is an ages-old argument, but I really feel like I need to put in my two cents about "political correctness" around the holidays.

I'm back as a cashier at Stop & Shop for Christmas break this year, and as someone who works with customers all day, I'm almost obliged to wish them some sort of goodwill for the holiday season on their way out. And it got me thinking.

As you walk around almost any store, you'll definitely notice that the words "Christmas" "Hanukkah" or "Kwanzaa" appear far less than you would think. That's because the over-indulgent consumerist honchos that own all these major companies seem to be too scared to offend anybody, and instead stick everything that everybody is celebrating at the time under one, totally impersonal umbrella greeting, "Happy Holidays".

But really, how could you get more blatantly impersonal than wishing everyone who walks by you "Happy Holidays"? That's like wishing someone a great "existence". No other phrase could more accurately depict the consumerist focus of our holiday season than "Happy Holidays". It just shows that you obviously don't give a damn what holiday someone celebrates, and you're too impersonal to offer someone any insight as to what exactly you celebrate at this time of the year.

I don't celebrate "Holiday". "Holiday" to me means some sort of time off from work--a break or a vacation. While this may be true, it completely disregards the meaning of the season and why exactly I celebrate Christmas. Christmas to me is not just time off from school--it's a time to see family I don't see very often, a time to give presents to show our appreciation for each other, a time of remembering past traditions, and most importantly, a time to celebrate one of the most important events in human history--the birth of Jesus Christ. Calling all of this just a "holiday" seems a bit unfair right?

I would rather wish someone a "Merry Christmas" and have them correct me, saying for instance that they're Jewish and celebrate Hanukkah. Because at least at that point you've gained some deeper knowledge of the person and had a somewhat meaningful discourse rather than just some words that you throw at them on the way out the door that have little meaning for either you or them.

And most importantly, by saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" you have revealed something deeper about yourself--that you are a Christian and celebrate Christmas, or you are Jewish and celebrate Hanukah, or you are African and celebrate Kwanzaa. It shows that you understand that there is some deeper meaning of the time of the year other than just buying stuff for people. I believe that Christmas, Hanukah, and Kwanzaa share a similar spirit--that of being personal with those around you. Cheap, meaningless phrases like "Happy Holidays" do not adhere to the deeper meaning of any of these three celebrations, and the umbrella term of "Happy Holidays" just shows that this time of year means nothing more than the commercialism surrounding it.

Been a long time--AVATAR review

Okay guys, I'm super sorry for not updating my blog since September--the school year's been pretty crazy and I just never really got around to it. So I figured that now that Christmas break has started, I can kick things back into gear with a good ole movie review of a movie I saw at midnight last night. Ladies and gentlemen: my review of James Cameron's AVATAR.

First, a clarification: this movie is NOT...I repeat NOT based on the Nickelodeon cartoon of the same name. There is in fact a movie coming next year out based on the Nickelodeon cartoon entitled The Last Airbender. But this is entirely different. The original script for this movie was written all the way back in 1994 by writer/director James Cameron, only a few years after his smash hit and action movie revolution film Terminator 2 and only a few years before he created the current box-office record holder Titanic. However, Cameron decided to wait on actually making Avatar, as the budget would have been more than he could afford at the time and he felt that the CGI technology necessary to do the script justice just wasn't there yet. But a couple of years ago, Cameron felt that the time was finally right to make his masterpiece. Using some of the most advanced CGI and 3-D technology seen yet (more on that later), revolutionary filming techniques, and a budget of over $300 million, Cameron has finally brought his dream project to life. So just how good is it?

The answer: simply amazing.

I don't even know where to begin, but I guess I can start talking about the plot. It is certainly a very complex plot that I won't spoil for you, but just to give you the gist of it, Avatar takes place in the year 2154 on the fictional forest planet of Pandora, where an alien race (the Navi) reside. However, humans from the outside world are deeply interested in accessing some sort of extremely valuable mineral located under Pandora's surface, and the Navi living right on top of the largest deposit of the mineral on the entire planet. Using a breakthrough scientific technology, humans have begun creating "Avatars", which are bodies made up of a mix of human and Navi DNA. They have developed a technology that allows humans to actually shift their consciousness into these Avatars, allowing them to live inside these bodies and more easily interact with the natives. The story follows Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), an ex-U.S. Marine, who is assigned to become one of these Avatars and go into the dense forests of Pandora in order to discover what it will take to get the natives to relocate so the humans can access the mineral deposit. However, not everyone agrees with the science community's diplomatic policy: the Military, led by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), is all in favor of simply wiping out the Navi in order to gain access to the deposit. Without giving too much away, Jake Sully, as an Avatar, is in a race against time to fulfill his mission for the humans, but on the way discovers new things about the Navi, the forests of Pandora, and himself.

It really is an incredible story and is done extremely remarkably. It has close ties to stories we've all heard before, including everything from Pocahontas to the U.S.'s westward expansion to the Iraq War. And it's really one of the only thing that you can fault this movie for: the simple fact that we have heard this story a million times before and it is fairly predictable. But it's really hard to not like the movie because of this fact, as the story is so incredibly timeless and relevant to us today. Though the movie has an obvious bias, it never feels like it gets too preachy, and it really does hold your interest the whole way through, even if you can probably guess what is going to happen.

Now let's talk about visuals. This certainly isn't a movie that you can just brush off the visuals on; the visuals are a MAJOR component of the movie. It's so easy to see why such an incredibly high budget was needed to make this movie. The CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) is easily the most advanced seen in a movie yet. The entirely CGI jungles of Pandora are so incredibly lush and lifelike you'd swear it was a real place (that is, perhaps until you witness the awe that is Pandora's floating mountain range). But where the movie really makes HUGE leaps is with the entirely CGI Navi and Avatar characters. The creatures are so lifelike, their expressions so accurately portraying every last drop of human emotion, that it's hard not to think that these creatures really exist. The way they move and act doesn't look so obviously fake like the billions and billions of other CGI creatures out there. This is the leap that CGI in movies has so desperately needed since it began being used in the mid-90s. We're going to look back and laugh at the so obviously fake CGI that existed prior to this movie. It's really no surprise that such a leap came from James Cameron--after all, the T-1000's morphing ability in Terminator 2 was one of the first major examples of CGI used in movies.

And after seeing Avatar in 3-D, I'm totally convinced that it's the ONLY way to truly experience this film. As one of the first feature films to be fully FILMED in 3-D using special cameras that actually capture depth, it really really delivers. This definitely isn't the gimmicky 3-D where it's blatantly obvious that many shots were catered to making you go "woah!" when you see it in 3-D. Cameron just tells the film the way it should be told, and uses the 3-D effect to greatly enhance it. It really makes it feel more like you're looking out a window into the vast Pandora forest rather than simply viewing it on a flat movie screen. The depth provided by the 3-D is simply stunning. The movie really comes alive in 3-D, and working together with the incredible CGI effects, really transports you into the world of Pandora. I honestly think I would be really disappointed viewing the movie in normal 2-D now that I've seen all three dimensions of it.

The acting is all top notch too. Worthington's character is a really likable guy, and you can really see and entirely understand the conflict he's going through. The villain is also someone that you really really hate by the end of the movie. All of the other actors, including the voice acting and motion capture work done for the Avatars and Navi, is all absolutely top notch.

Overall, Avatar really is a spectacular movie. I really feel like this movie is very comparable to Cameron's original Terminator: a plot that isn't entirely original, yet it just works so well because of the incredible new take on it, combined with some fantastic visual effects. Cameron has already stated that he plans on making sequels if the movie does well in the box office, and it's really one of those movies that I would be totally okay with there being a sequel for. If Cameron DOES make a sequel, I really hopes he does what he did with Terminator 2 and create a sequel that combines an entirely original concept to all of the amazing things done in the first movie to create a movie that will be the standard to which every other movie in the genre is held up to. But for now we have Avatar, which is an absolutely incredible movie in it's own right that may not completely change the way in which movies are written, but will most certainly change the way in which they are presented.

I give it 4.5/5 stars.