youtube is pretty good in general, but the community really sucks.



so i got around to watching 'runaway', a short film just made by kanye west et al.

though it's often described as a short film, i feel that it's just better to call it a long music video. it's a fantastic piece of work, but i find that there is little in terms of coherence or plot.

of course, the plot is very simple, a phoenix crashes down to earth (ebanks) and is soon discovered by griffin (west). they have a romantic relationship, but shit happens when phoenix has trouble coping with the oddness of earth, griffin is troubled when he finds that he can't stay with her.

i had a few grievances with the video, for one, west and ebanks are rather lousy when it comes to delivering dramatic dialogue. otherwise, their film presence is fine. i have also been a tad puzzled by a popular interpretation i've seen in various forums, apparently the key to understanding the video is at the beginning when west awkwardly says "first rule of this world baby, is don't pay attention to anything you see on the news" which is mean't to refer to how irritated west is at the way the media portrays him. this may be true, but you need much more than that to support this interpretation.

on that note, it's pretty clear that the whole message is that society doesn't accept things that are different. this is supported by the various reactions to phoenix, the dinner scene and several lines of dialogue. i have noticed some other potential metaphors, but that's not what i'm here to discuss.

the visuals are fantastic, there's nothing particularly innovative (though it may seem so to west's mainstream audience). the opening bit was sort of messy in my opinion, on my screen it was really dark and somewhat hard to see. the rest of the video is colourful and has some very good cinematography.

this is a music video, so the music better be damn good (it is). this supplements the 'runaway' part of the video extremely well, it exaggerates hypnotic aspect of the ballet dance even further.

overall, this is a fine project by west, and where it screws up in dialogue and story it makes up for with visuals and music. just try not to see it as something amazing and revolutionary. it really is just a long, but great music video.



this is the first movie i saw at the viff (now long over), and unfortunately for me, it was a lousy way to start of the festival.

the movie is about the hapless shamoto (the only character - other than the 2 cops - that realizes how fucked everything is), who runs a niche fish selling business. his daughter is a delinquent, his relationship with his new wife has dried up and he generally experiences existential dread. one day he meets murata, who also runs a fish business, though far more successful. he's very charming, funny and welcoming, and he also has a hot wife and drives a ferarri. conflict ensues when shamoto is dragged into murata's questionable methods of doing business (murdering the fuck out of anyone who might fuck with him).

it's without a doubt, one of the stupidest movies i've seen for a while. however, there were some things i like about it. i was happy with the camera work, the music, and definitely (most) of the acting. there were also certain scenes where i wanted to shout some variation of "FUCK YES" (such as when shamoto goes from pushover to BADASS MOTHERFUCKER in an instant). i was also pleased with the film's "you gotta be ruthless to get what you want" message.

the problem is without a doubt in the believability of the characters and the nonsense story, plus some other bits. i will spoil key story elements but it's a rather stupid movie anyway.

for one, sono shion pulls out every cheap japanese horror/psychological cliche in the book. the amount of fake blood used in this movie is disproportionate, tarantino used a shitload of blood in kill bill, but the crazy 88's fight scene had 88 dudes get sliced up, of course it's going to be bloody. cold fish uses the same amount of fake blood for maybe 4 deaths. there's also the classic "japanese flipout" which you'll be used to after seeing higurashi (i haven't seen it, but i've seen screenshots), evangelion, ichi the killer, etc. there's also this "smiling/laughing while murdering someone" bullshit i've seen a million times, it's not scary anymore, it clearly adds nothing to the substance of the movie and serves only as cheap shock value.

one of my biggest gripes with the movie is it's stupid ending. if the last 5 or 10 minutes of the movie were cut out, then i might have considered this movie mediocre. sadly, shions chosen ending make the film stupid. it's only positive was making it clear that passive shamoto had BECOME a more serious murata after he killed him. i was happy when shamoto kicked his ass, disciplined his hooligan daughter and addressed his wife with a stern, quiet "i know you fucked murata" (his next words were 'im going to rape you now').

but after this, he brings murata's corpse to the mountain to dispose of it, forcing his now-widowed wife to take care of it (all of a sudden she becomes stupid and complacent, it's as if her iq dropped 30 points, what the fuck?). then for some reason, shamoto decides to kill her (after feeling her up). his wife and daughter eventually come to the mountain after the police do, shamoto then murder's his wife, and then kills himself in front of his daughter, who then jumps up and down, happy that both her parents are dead. all of this nonsense seems to happen for no reason other than shock value and being different for difference's sake.

i will confess that the movie was somewhat entertaining, but profoundly stupid. all of the horror elements were only added to give the movie something to make it stand out, it doesn't provide any substance. only watch this movie if you consider yourself a japanese horror veteran.



i was watching cnn a moment ago, and as it turns out, sarah palin told christine o'donnel to avoid all interviews and critical questions, unless they're from fox news. holy shit.

US politics is fucked.

the problem is, even though some of these republicans - tea party supported - are gleefully ignorant; o'donnel is ignorant of the US constitution, she believes that schools should be allowed to teach creationism as a science via 1st amendment, which would be overcome by the 'freedom of/from religion' thing. sarah palin also proved several times over that she's easily one of the least qualified persons to do - anything. she allows herself and her family to become gossip magnets, quits her job as governor (she somehow made it seem that keeping her job would be "quitting"[1]) and makes speeches that make no sense (it sounds like she makes it up as she goes along).

US politics is fucked.

what's depressing, is that most of these idiots will get elected anyway, just by the very virtue that they're not democrats. according to gallup polls, most americans blame the republicans for causing the massive recession, and most of them thought that republican dominated congress was crap. oddly enough, many of them are going to vote republican in these coming elections. i think it's psychology, many american voters think that since the economy hasn't changed much, it must be the current party in power (reasonable logic). the thing is, they believe that action is better than inaction (also reasonable logic). however, it took the republicans 8 years to fuck up the economy, it's going to take a damn long time to fix it again, and that shit takes a lot of time. if the republicans get in again, everything will be really fucked, because obama will be a democratic president with a republican congress, how the fuck will anything get done? politics will be in constant check mate.

US politics is fucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i take solace in realizing that nothing in that country will ever change. ever. remember how obama was going to change everything overnight? well, he actually did do a lot of good, but fundamentally, US politics is totally fucked.



so i saw this movie the other day at the viff. since it's a documentary, the question is whether or not it was done tastefully/well or how well it showed both sides of the story.

well, of course it was done tastefully. the movie is narrated by kate winslet, and takes place in iceland for a bit, but is predominantly shot in the united states. the primary subjects of the documentary are margret, and her son keli, who undoubtedly has hardcore, low functioning autism. margret is on the search for a highly effective treatment method.

her son keli, is severely autistic, non-verbal, very often he flails his arms about and he often tries to offset his sensory overload by finding flowers or tree branches and waving them in his face. as with many autistic parents, margret and her husband are clueless as to what he's thinking or feeling.

along the way, margret talks to many people and encounters a lot of autistic kids. among the people interviewed are temple grandin, vernon smith and soma mukhopadhyay , as well as several parents, therapists and PhD holding neurologists and psychologists.

man, some of these kids are surreal. one of these kids is 11 years old, non-verbal, and to everyone's surprise, he "likes stocks" have you ever heard of an 11 year old kid who is interested in stocks to the point where he can make 23% in a week-long contest?

this film was extremely well done, camera work was great, music was from bjork and sigur ros, and the film covers autism as well as it possibly can be covered in 90 minutes. the movie was as fair as it needed to be both sides (the idea that vaccines cause autism is discarded as bullshit, and rightfully so).
if you've ever been around autism before (as i did in grade 6/7, many kids at my school had some form of autism) then you must see this movie.



so today i went to see 'the red chapel' at the viff. it most certainly made up for the nonsense of the movie i saw last night ('cold fish' but more on that later). i have almost nothing bad to say about this movie, so ill just go on about all the stuff i liked.

the red chapel is about 3 danish comedians, 2 of whom are danish-korean, and 1 of whom has cerebral palsy (calls himself a 'spastic'). this movie - in short - reinforces yet again how severely fucked up north korea is.

the sense of humour fits pyongyang perfectly. mads' (director/narator) musings on north korean culture is cynical and rather deadpan, giving us what is likely the only north korea travel documentary from a humorous perspective. mads' is also quick to note that the koreans must be using this as a prime propaganda opportunity, jacob and simon go to the korean peninsula for the first time since they were born (in south korea) and pick the north. the movie is funny in a rather depressing way (but not like 'the office', that show just makes me depressed as hell), these guys go all the way to the dprk with a whole routine already prepared, taking caution to leave out ideology or politics. this is almost all for naught, as the guide - mrs. pak - and the directors find a ton of ways to ruin everything they prepared.

it's rather clear that the movie tends to focus on jacob, whom has cerebral palsy. he's really just a regular guy, he just sits in his wheelchair most of the time, and talks kinda funny (he also takes full advantage of the fact that no one in north korea understands danish, not hesitating to dismiss a monument as 'shit'). he also can't put up with all the nonsense that their culture is composed of, and he's a spectacle in many ways, as many in pyongyang have never seen a handicapped person (the government probably kills them off, or sends them to death camps). he also feels creeped out by mrs. paks surreal touchy-feelyness ('he is like a son to me, i'd like him to be my son' this was after she knew him for 5 hours).

the film also shows us all the things that foreigners to pyongyang always get treated to; the kim jong-il school of arts (and brainwashing), the various monuments, the museum of gifts to the dear leader and the dmz. they also happen to be around during the anniversary of the beginning of the korean war, where we learn that the dprk's 'big lie' is that the americans invaded the north, when in actuality, the north koreans invaded the south once kim il-sung got the OK from the u.s.s.r.

in short; see this movie if you can, i believe it ought to play twice more at the viff!!



why is education screwed up?

crap teachers: a math tutor i had told me many time over that he sometimes hated the fuck outta teaching math 11 because a ton of his students couldnt do basics. meaning, the previous teachers were so incompetent that they couldn't adequately teach the skills necessary for the next course. many of the students that did well had tutors before, but tutors cost money. how is this shit supposed to work for the kids from low income families?

fucking unions: thanks to teachers union bullshit, teachers get paid almost solely based on how long they've been working, instead of the results they produce. as long as a teacher does the work s/he's supposed to do and doesn't molest anyone, they'll probably be paid until they retire. there's also this crap where if a science teacher is sick, they bring in an english teacher to substitute; "your teacher gave me these worksheets for you guys to work on" well if the teacher is doing shit all, i might as well leave for the day.

goddamn school boards: it seems to me sometimes that the school board has no idea what it's doing. every year almost, they progressively pussy up the math curriculum. remember in grade 11 and 12 when they omitted two or three of the chapters? thats right friends, they thought that shit was "unnecessary" well, if that's so, then why did i have to learn conics when i took calculus 101 in college?? in fact, some university level english classes are fucking joke thanks to your shit. one of my friends' classes was teaching her how to identify a protagonist, what the hell.

dont hinder creativity: if shakespeare got to make words up then why can't i????



both yojimbo and unforgiven feature several shots that are blocked by obstacles, whether they be window panes, vehicle windows, or jail cell bars. fair enough, but what of it? they’re both westerns – though yojimbo is definitely period, it has heavy western elements. they’re both about hired assassins, and they both use obstacles through their cinematography. they have different stories, and take place in different time periods. however, i’m willing to argue that they both use a plethora of obstacles throughout, but the metaphors they highlight are substantially different. this paper is to demonstrate the use of vision obstruction in unforgiven primarily for obstructed truth and personality, and primarily for voyeurism and gossip in yojimbo.

the similarities on a surface level are very easy to notice. both of these films are about experienced killers whom are now unaffiliated, or have become distanced from their careers. bill munny hasn’t shot anyone in years, and a change of societal landscape has made the self-described sanjuro into a mercenary. they both live in the wilderness, with freedom to do as they please. they both take place – mostly – in small towns. this is where the similarities end.

when we’re introduced to bill munny in unforgiven, we see that he’s working on a pig farm, something unfitting a gunslinger. looking closer, we notice the use of obstacles in one of the shots; he’s standing behind a large wooden fence. he likely feels imprisoned by the new life he leads, as he doesn’t seem all too happy about the way things are now, underscored by the small house he lives in, and the dirty exterior.

on the contrary, we see a few shots of sanjuro walking a nondescript trail after expressing his freedom by tossing a stick up in the air, then walking around it, with one foot on each side to foreshadow his capability of moving between factions. though this may not count as an obstacle, it’s a non-narrative way that the mise en scène expresses their levels of personal freedom. this is likely one of the few similarities, where vision obscurity (or lack thereof) is used to express the same theme: personal freedom.

after these introduction scenes, the meaning conveyed by this technique is drastically different. vision obscuring is used in yojimbo to demonstrate voyeurism, or bystander effect at the very least, but what can the poor townsfolk do? sanjuro walks into town with all the locals hidden in their buildings, looking at him through wooden bars. however, these bars could easily represent jail cells, the people of this village are caught in the middle of a gang war between two opposing factions, and they have no power to stop it. a lot of these “prisoners” are women, most of whom are traded back and forth like property. by contrast, sanjuro continues to walk around unbarred.

obstruction is heavily used as a medium for voyeurism and gossip. gonji, the tavern keeper, brings sanjuro to his slit windows to demonstrate to him how corrupt their town has become; even telling him about the noisy prayer next door, and how lousy the last town mayor was. the camera’s perspective is kept obscured to give us their perspective into the happenings; this perspective does give sanjuro as a hired warrior a more objective idea of who to side with, but it proves to serve the townsfolk as gossip. orin and her seibei comrades gossip and talk behind sanjuro’s back, debating on whether or not to pay him or kill him, exemplified by a close up of the three of them. sanjuro himself even gets in on the observation, sometimes subtle and other time very blatant. we can see sanjuro looking through small cracks, but also sitting on the top of a high tower as his potential employers engage in a battle of nerves.

obstruction is used much differently in unforgiven; the cinematography better reflects separation on a personal level than a social one. we notice bill munny is obstructed by a fence when he’s managing his pigs, but when the schofield kid shows up and calls him out as an assassin, he’s no longer covered. in this film, characters who aren’t true to themselves or others are covered by obstacles, but revealed – or proven to be themselves - when they expose themselves. some characters hide who they are or allow blown up legends to spread. there’s a shot where skinny is having a conversation with little bill – whom is obscured by a ladder - while a pillar of wood keeps them separated in the shot, demonstrating that bill hasn’t fully integrated into civilization as much he would like to be. the obstructions are clearly seen during the jail scene; we see both little bill and english bob through the bars. the camera could have stayed at one perspective, never showing little bill from the jail’s perspective, but this doesn’t happen. this is significant as english bob’s character is obstructed by his legends, and little bill is obstructing his success at integrating into civilization.

interestingly, we don’t see munny obscured in a particular negative way; his introduction at the hog farm demonstrates the conflict between assassin and farmer. in contrast to the jail scene with little bill this may show that he could still have criminal behaviour lingering

beneath his lawful façade. on this note, no one is obscured in the final bar scene when billy munny shoots everyone in sight, including an easily visible little bill, who we’ve seen obscured quite a few times. this must have happened since these two characters have come to grips with who they are by this point. munny picks up his weapons and embarks to give ned vengeance, reverting to the ruthless killer that he once was; he even admits at the bar that he killed “women and children” little bill, who several scenes ago was shown whipping ned, has now revealed his ruthless behaviour better expected from bandits. in the bar he behaves maliciously and doesn’t hesitate to order his henchmen to blast munny.

both these movies have their fair share of similarities, they could both be classified as westerns, both feature the conflict between civilization and independence, and both main characters find themselves walking into a town in relative disarray. there doesn’t seem to be a lot to compare except for the way that they use objects blocking the camera. the only clearly visible example is the voyeurism motif, but that isn`t common in unforgiven, at least though objects. yojimbo uses it to perpetuate the gossip and, voyeurism and unforgiven uses it as a metaphor for the cloudiness of the inner workings of these characters. in summation, both these movies are great on their own merits, especially in the way they cleverly use obstacles to convey a theme, whether it be the changing of characters, or with something as simple as gossip and talking behind the backs of other people.



here are the movies i intend to see at the viff. i will attempt to see the earlier showing of every one i see and write a review the day-of and tell you if it’s good or not.

3 stars means “i really fucking want to see this”
2 stars means “i really want to see this, but if i miss it, then i wont cry over it”
1 star mean “i will see this if you want to as well”

if i know you in real life (not the internet) let me know if you want to see any of these

the illusionist
cities on speed/mumbai disconnected
cold fish
icarus under the sun
sawako decides
the white meadows
the red chapel

waiting for “superman”
i wish i knew
thomas mao
the man from nowhere
the robber
the tenants
surviving life
the invention of dr nakamats
the autobiography of nicolae ceausescu

the fourth portrait
breaking the silence: burmas resistance
leap year
a somewhat gentle man
cell 211
down terrace
find a reason to believe [shorts collection]
a mothers courage- talking back to autism
inside job
anpo: art x war



hipsters to me are very interesting, they try to be different by liking obscure things (sometimes this doesn’t work) and behaving ‘counter-culture’. of course this doesnt work. i could go on but i wont. i have decided to discuss hipsters because i am in portland, and they are everywhere (like our sewer system).

hipsters dont like cars; the only time you will ever see a hipster driving a car is if its really shitty. so almost never, really. though yesterday i saw a hipster (she had blue hair) driving a not-so-old volkswagen. granted, it was very muddy everywhere, i hope this isnt a new trend. you can often see hipsters riding their bikes with their pants rolled up.

hipsters like cafes; too many hipsters have seen too many french movies (new-wave, neorealist, the era doesn’t matter). i dunno about hipsters, but if i was trying to establish something quirky and cool, i’d get my clique to hang out exclusively at cheap middle-eastern places (none of us would be middle-eastern).

hipsters dress funny; a note here: you may see some people that look like hipsters, girls wearing those stupid string headband things like in those fucking mgmt videos. don’t be fooled, if someone you know has a postal service record on vinyl [even though they don’t have a record player] and they buy their clothes at urban outfitters, they are not hipster, they are tryhards. actual hipsters buy their clothes at thrift stores or overpriced boutiques (only the pieces that make them look poor). hipsters are the only social group on this earth who spend a lot of money in order to look poor. male hipsters have a tendency to not shave, at all. the only people in their 20’s that i ever see with full blown beards are hipsters.

hipsters smoke cigarettes; many hipsters smoke, they do this because it’s ‘cool’. remember the french movies? north american hipsters do their best to copy french hipsters. some hipsters will smoke cigarillos, but don’t think that those are better somehow [i’ve tried some romeo y julietta ones, they taste like shit].

hipsters drink a lot; i mean, everyone drinks a lot, but hipsters try to turn it into an art (everything is ‘art’ when you’re on some kind of drug). hipsters always try to make their drunk experiences sound quirky. “i do slam poetry when im drunk” okay, im taking about myself here, but im still not a hipster at least. you should also know that hipsters don’t usually go to nightclubs (except fortune soundclub in china town, damn good club), they usually go to bars, cheap ones though (or guilt&co in gastown).

hipsters usually get crap degree’s; if you ever meet a hipster getting a business, science, engineering or any other degree that sounds useful, they’re probably not actually a hipster (this means you can take them seriously); this also means that while they may have the same tastes in music, books and movies as a hipster, they probably aren’t as unoriginal or painfully liberal as a real hipster. hipsters are known for getting arts degree’s like sociology and english, these degree’s usually allow them to get a job in table waiting or retail (re; h&m sales rep).

hipsters are skinny; if you see a fat girl who has her pants rolled up and she’s wearing retro wayfarers, she is not actually a hipster, she is a tryhard. if you are a girl hipster, you must weigh less than 115 lbs. if you are a dude hipster, you must have almost no muscle mass, bearmode males are the only exception to this rule. why is all this so? because if you’re fat, it means you have money. speaking of money, my dad and i saw this hipster when we were walking around in pearl district, he was smoking cigarettes and asked us “hey can you spare some money? i need $11.30 for a hostel” as we walked away my dad muttered “if he didn’t buy that pack of cigarettes he wouldnt need it” damn straight.

hipsters read a lot; there is nothing wrong with this, its just silly what you may notice. many hipsters read stuff by jean-paul sartre, of course, if they actually took in what he wrote, they wouldn’t be hipsters anymore.

the more you know!!


with the recent explosion of hipsters near where i go to school, and given the counter-culture nature of socialism, i seldom hear anyone saying nice things about capitalism. fair enough, no system is perfect.

however, most of the opposition is actually to corporatism,which is identifiable with the united states, and not canada. corporatism is when large companies have more power in government then they should, michael moore’s “capitalism: a love story” is about this.

even then, what they rant about is usually how vacuous consumer culture is, and behave as if nike brainwashes the populace into buying their shoes, and that unless you’re well-read, you have almost no free will. sociologists like to blame today’s deplorable, vapid culture on all the largest multinationals.

i appreciate adbusters and sociologists for pointing out things that aren’t in plain sight, but they shouldn’t be calling capitalism (they mean corporatism) evil.

no matter how many advertisements you’re bombarded with, billboards you see or radio ads you absorb, it is your choice whether or not you buy it, that is the quintessence of the existential nature of capitalism.

another criticism that lefties (don’t jump to conclusions, most of my political views are considered liberal) like to use, is that it’s impossible to ascend in class with capitalism in place. perhaps in brazil or even the united states, this is not an inaccurate assertion, but canadian capitalism tends to be very solid - at least when the ndp aren’t in power. we have enough capitalism that the hardest worker makes the most money (unless you’re in a union), and enough socialism to grant a central bank that keeps the big 5 from tanking (a la lehman brothers).

while i am aware that people that come from terrible households, the sort with no money, domestic abuse or neglect, etc, tend to have a shitty life, that’s a whole other situation where the economic system in place is not to blame. you blame that on culture.

i find that the structuralism stuff is a bunch of crap. my father was born on a farm in new brunswick with very little money, today, with a lot of hard work, he runs a highly profitable engineering business, trades a lot of stock and directs a few public companies.

what you do with the money you worked hard for is your choice. communism is where the fruits of your labour aren’t even yours, they belong to the government, or the people for that matter. what purpose is there in working if a doctor and a janitor get paid almost the same? what point is there in working if i’m not doing it for my goals? i am not an individual if i act solely for other people. if you want to donate to charity, go for it, but i never want to be forced to do that by my government. if a some tax money goes to social programs, i don’t have much of a problem with that, but i don’t want to be taxed like the finnish.

capitalism in canada is highly existential, it is almost entirely your choice how well you do. as long as you are a rationally thinking individual (psychotics and invalids will have a shitty time no matter where), there is little to stop you. you get scholarships if you do well in school, you can get a job or two to pay for university and the government is willing to give you loans, just do yourself and the government a favour and pay it back when you’re done.


since the avatar dvd came out recently, i’ll post my impressions from when it first came out:

i went and saw avatar shortly after it was released in 2d, which is said to not be the full experience. but to me, if you need to see it in 3d to be a good film, i just call bullshit on that.

since many of you know my nature when it comes to stuff like this, you may expect me to say some nit picky, horrible things about the movie. however, it just happens that it is a good movie. it accomplishes its goals and doesn’t try to be anything that it isn’t. i can’t bash it for having almost no art house qualities, because that wouldn’t really help it in any way, it’s made to be accessible to teenagers.

i’ll just say it straight up, there are two reasons why everyone’s flipping out over avatar. one, it got hyped aggressively ($150,000,000 was spent on marketing), no one hasn’t heard of it. two, 2009 was a total drag for hollywood films. the only two other movies that come to my mind as not being crap, are district 9 and up (which was somewhat below pixar standard).

as for the actual movie, not much can be said. the plot is solid, the acting is good, the graphics are clearly superior, but that’s almost the reason that it’s so hyped up. it’s also the first movie james cameron had full control of since titanic 15 years ago.

it’s clear who the good guys and bad guys are, the plot has no glaring holes or paradoxes (like the time travel bullshit in the terminator series, also directed by cameron). all of the acting is good. the appearance of the universe (planets, organizations, ships, creatures, etc) is very original for the most part, it’s nice to see some aliens that are humanoid without being little green men or funny looking humans like in star trek. the way the avatar concept in the movie was execute was also original, he wasn’t plugging into the internet and he wasn’t lucid dreaming.

nit picking:
though it didn’t need it, some nice philosophical dialogue and musing could have been included in the movie. i mean, isn’t it the shit that they can move conciousness from one body to another? do the avatar pilots feel some existential dread as a result of this? i haven’t thought about it too much, but it would have been nice for it to have been included.

neytiri’s character seemed hauntingly similar to an archetype commonly seen in japanese media, the “tsundere”. she act’s like an asshole to jake sully at the beginning as a way of keeping her feeling at bay from others. this isn’t really a big deal though, it fit the character and zoe saldaña does a good job at playing the part, it made me feel weird when she cried her eyes out when her father died and when she flipped out at sully when he told her that he knew the master plan. you know that feeling when one of your friends starts to cry? that’s how i felt. only the best film acting and good stage acting can do that to me.

the film’s plot also seems very similar to pocahontas (jeff described the movie as “pocahontas in space”). i don’t mind this too much, as completely original movies are completely rare from hollywood cinema these days, everything is either a sequel, prequel, remake or based on a book, old tv show or (sadly) a videogame.

i also have too many questions. what is earth like during the course of the movie? is it roasting from global warming? is the pmc american? how does the avatar setup work? whatever, there will probably be a sequel, doomed to suffer because cameron will feel pressured to make it live up to the first movie.

cameron’s ideology is also painfully obvious, it’s pretty clear that he’s trying to create an allegory of the white man selfishly taking the lands of the indigenous, or even the current war in iraq. also note the environmentalism. on this note, i don’t really like most “war movies” like platoon. i mean, i like them and think highly of them, buy them and watch them later, but i would like it better if they were called “anti-war movies” as in, the ideology is served to you and not interpreted by the viewer. this is why i loved full metal jacket for its ambiguity.

additionally, weaver is one hell of an actor, and her role should have given her more room to do what she does best. her character of augustine almost seemed to trap her. i know that sounds vague, but it’s how i felt.

i hope i didn’t sound like too much of an asshole, but this is a good movie. one of the best hollywood movies of 2009. i’d give it a 7.8/10, would watch again. i just don’t like hype. sorry if this write-up seems half-assed.