I don't get to the movies much anymore.  It's not the ticket prices that have kept me away, it is the other movie-goers.  I can't stand all the talking, cell phones, and general 'rustling' of candy wrappers...not to mention people with weak bladders getting up 3 times during a 90 minute flick.  I'll wait for the DVD unless a film must be seen on the big screen.  Avatar is one of those films.  To date, Avatar has made a zillion dollars in box office worldwide, surpassing Cameron's own Titanic as the biggest grossing film.  Well, sort of.  In constant dollars, Gone With The Wind is still number one (as of the date of this post).  So, I'm a little late in my review, but as I said, it takes a lot for me to venture into a movie theater these days.

Avatar is a visually revolutionary film.    I saw the IMAX 3D version, and although the IMAX screen at the theater where I saw the film was much smaller than the other IMAX screens I have seen (Sony Theaters Lincoln Square New York, Kennedy Space Center Visitors Complex, Liberty Science Center), it was still an awe inspiring visual experience.   James Cameron's combination of live action and CGI characters is the best to date in a feature-length film.  With that said, when the story switched between the 'real' scenes and the CGI action, the contrast was a bit jarring and distracting.

A friend of mine cautioned me about seeing Avatar in IMAX 3D.  He said his eyes were 'seriously messed up' for a week afterward.  I didn't care.  James Cameron needed my $15, and nothing was going to stand in my way of supporting this struggling filmmaker.  I had no issues with the 3D.  Perhaps the smaller screen helped?  I would like to see the movie in 'regular D' to judge the difference,because I'm not sure how much the 3D added to Avatar.  In any event, there were no 3D gimmicks in the film.  In fact, after a bit I didn't even notice, I just got lost in the stunning imagery and flawless motion of the CGI characters.  Then there was the story...

The plot of Avatar could be pitched to a movie studio exec as "Dances with Wolves" meets "Pocahontas" in space.  It is a basic 'good vs. evil' science fiction / fantasy/ fairy tale best suited to young teens.  James Cameron is no dope.  This is a blockbuster, and it cost a boat-load of cash to make.  Cameron crammed all the elements for worldwide box-office success into Avatar: Action, adventure, romance, good guys, bad guys, and stunning visuals.  While the themes are not entirely new, the story is original.  Cameron has found huge success with his new and original characters, and he didn't need to 'reboot' (aka 'ruin') a beloved 40 year old movie franchise (like J.J. Abrams did with Star Trek) to do it.

While Avatar is an action movie with a strong romance plot, it also comments on imperialism and environmentalism very heavily.  I was very disappointed that the evil characters were portrayed as Americans.  Cameron could have very easily made the 'bad guys' an international Earth force consisting of characters of different races and languages, but he chose mostly white characters who spoke American English.  Alternatively, the 'bad guys' could have come from a different alien world instead of Earth, but in the film it is plain to see that a group of future Americans have come to the peaceful planet of Pandora to plunder and kill.  Uses of the phrases 'shock and awe' and 'fight terror with terror' only reinforce that it is American and Americans killing the beautiful heroes of the movie.   I take issue with this because Avatar, despite its visual 3D, does not have multidimensional characters.

The Pandora natives are completely and one hundred percent good and pure.  They are peaceful and at one with nature, while the imperialistic humans (Americans) are one hundred percent evil.  War mongers and corporate fascists these Americans are.  There is no subtlety to the characters, no substance.  I have no issue with James Cameron making  a statement about the environment and imperialism.  The fact is that the United States, Europe, Japan, etc. have committed atrocities in the name of Imperialism in the past, and I'm not suggesting that history be swept under the rug, but to include such a complex theme in a simplistic 'good vs. evil' plot is offensive to me.   Again, Cameron could have made the same social commentary with the villains being the United Nations instead of only Americans.  Even better, it would have made more sense for the Imperialists to be fictional aliens from another world considering that the protagonists are completely fictional.  Either scenario would have told Avatar's morality tale within the confines of  the fantasy genre without vilifying the United States.  I'm not sure if that was what James Cameron was trying to do, but it can't be undone now.

I have noticed that some people never negatively criticize something they have purchased, a sports team they follow, or anything on which they have spent money, time, or energy.  I assume that they subconsciously feel that their choice of purchase reflects on them to a very large degree.  Not me.  I'll tell you straight up that I purchased a Chrysler PT Cruiser in 2002, and it was the biggest piece of crap that I've ever owned, but others would never admit it.  They would defend the Cruiser and tell you how great it is despite their deep hatred for the car.    This mentality is completely foreign to me.  What's the use of being alive if you can't complain about living?!

If you are a regular reader of BackingIn, you know that I'm a Microsoft enthusiast, but don't get me started on how much I hate Microsoft Outlook.  I live for the New York Mets, but I could do a thesis on why they suck out loud.  I bought a 2009Volkswagen Rabbit, and it is a great car, but it gets horrendous gas mileage and the fit and finish are sub-par.   I own a Motorola Droid, and it is way cool, but rest assured, I will give you a true assessment of it below.

A Quick Motorola Droid Review

The Motorola Droid is an Android-based smartphone sold by Verizon Wireless.  The Droid has many features not found on the Apple iPhone, its main competitor.

• Physical keyboard
• User-replaceable battery
• SD Memory card
• Multitasking
• LED Flash for Camera
• Open application development
• Widgets
• Verizon Wireless
• Support for Adobe Flash 10.1 (to be released Q1 2010)

It is because of the above features that I chose the Droid.  Well, that and the girl who sold me the phone at the Verizon kiosk was super-cute.  After almost two months of ownership, I still love my Droid.  The phone sound quality is excellent.  I have experienced no dropped calls, and the 3G coverage is  omnipresent.  Web browsing is fast and seamless.  The onscreen keyboard is as easy to use as a touchscreen keyboard can be.  I especially like the predictive text feature.  The hardware feels solid and well built.  Battery life has been excellent so far.  There are over 20,000 apps available for the Android operating system that runs the Droid, and you can find almost everything that you want in the Android Market application store.  Almost everything.  And that brings me to the fun part.  The negatives:

• Applications.  Unlike a Windows Mobile phone, where Mobile Office is included, the Droid does not come with an application that can create or edit Office documents.  There are applications that you can purchase from the Market that will give you edit capability, but the phone should come with Office compatibility.  Also, unlike a Windows phone, the Droid does not make it easy to sync with Outlook.   You can't even access Google Docs from the Droid or any Android phone.  Google made Android!  What's up with that?
• Applications, part II.  There are thousands of Android apps for the Droid, and the fact that the iPhone has over 100 thousand apps is no big deal.  The number of apps is way less important than the availability of the apps that you want.  Most companies are not going to develop separate apps for iPhone, Blackberry, Android, Windows Mobile, Palm Pre, etc.  They are going to produce an iPhone app and maybe a Blackberry version.  Hopefully this will change with Android and other smartphone operating systems pledging Flash support.
• Touchscreen feel.  The Droid has a very good touchscreen, but there is a slight delay from when you touch and drag your finger across the screen to when the interface begins to move.  It is not as smooth as the iPhone (or the Nexus One, so I'm told).
• Camera.  The camera takes way to long to focus and snap a picture.  The wait time between photos is long as well.  Photo quality is good for a cell phone, but flash photo quality if very low.
• Stability.  I have had to pull the battery out of the Droid about 4 times to fix problems.  Three times the phone was locked up, and recently, it lost all data connectivity.  Pulling the battery fixed the issues, but the lack of OS stability is troubling.  The Android 2.1 update is due for the Droid, but no date has been given.

All in all, I recommend the Motorola Droid.  Despite its shortcomings, many of which will hopefully be fixed by future software updates, it is the best smartphone on the market.  The Google Nexus One has a better screen and faster processor, but it remains to be seen if Google can service a consumer electronics product effectively.  The iPhone has the apps and the accessories, but it lacks many important features and is tied to iTunes and Apple censorship.  The Palm Pre has received glowing reviews, but will Palm survive 2010?  To paraphrase the great Obi Wan, "These are the Droids you're looking for."

Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future was a positive one.  He imagined a future where human beings settled their conflicts peacefully. In Gene Roddenberry's future racism, war, poverty, etc. did not exist.  With varying levels of success, over 5 TV shows, an animated series, and 10 feature films, Star Trek extolled the virtues of diversity and tolerance.   There were episodes and portions of films that succumbed to the pressure to make money over creative integrity, but taken as whole, the Star Trek franchise stood for something. Star Trek was intellectual.  It challenged the viewer to contemplate the human condition through complex storytelling and simple morality plays.   In other words, Star Trek is not just the name of a science fiction franchise, it defines a rigid set of rules for story telling.

But, how do you continue to write compelling and entertaining stories in such a confined framework?  Well, maybe you don't. In addition to ten motion pictures, over 725 episodes of Star Trek have been produced.   Maybe enough is enough.  Instead of sullying the meaning of Star Trek by producing a violent action/adventure...just let it die!  It is OK for TV shows to go off the air, for a series of books to end, a band to break up, and a film franchise to hang it up.   Isn't it better to have less quantity and more quality of your favorite art?  Don't you hate that that band recorded an album with a replacement singer, and that TV show went an extra season when the show was spent 3 seasons ago?  Wouldn't it have been better to just let it die?   Here's a radical idea: create a new film franchise based in space with the familiar Star Trek and Star Wars technology, and do whatever you want with it:  Jason Bourne meets Twilight meets The Hangover!  Genius!

So, what was so bad with the 2009 Star Trek?  Let me count the ways:

1. The film creates an alternate reality.  Other Star Trek episodes and films have employed the alternate timeline/reality vehicle, but the original timeline was always reestablished by the conclusion of the story.  By creating an alternate reality, the producers of the film gave themselves a cheap excuse to do whatever they so choose with Star Trek.  Without restoring the timeline back to the original Star Trek 'universe', every thing that you loved about Star Trek is changed.  It's done.  Over.  Screw you Gene Roddenberry.
2. It is very violent.  Star Trek was never about excessive violence, but in once scene a Starfleet cadet pummels a young Kirk mercilessly!
3. The plot is almost incomprehensible.
4. The acting is sub-par.
5. The dialog is clumsy.
6. And so on...

Star Trek was never perfect, and the two films preceding the 2009 release made it pretty clear that it was time to end the franchise.  It is a shame and a pity that young fans and future fans will only know Star Trek as a slick action/adventure shoot-em-up.  Lastly, please don't tell me to 'get a life' and 'it's just a TV show'.  Television and movies are art, and I will never apologize for my love and passion for Star Trek.