Avatar: Spoiler-Free Movie Review

So, I just got back from James Cameron's much-hyped, mega-bucks, special effects extravaganza that was said to be in the works for years and years. As Saj astutely observed, Hollywood directors and producers should take a page out of Cameron's book and take their time to craft a film, because this, this was epic.

Just about everyone has seen the Avatar trailer, or the various behind-the-scenes and the-making-of specials surrounding the blockbuster, and I, for one, was looking forward to it. A point to note, though, was that I was more than willing to accept a rather brainless action movie about aliens and big guns and flashy animals with stunning effects. Which was why I wanted so badly to watch it in 3-D.

That didn't happen, and it was a downer for the hour or so I had to wait before the film began. And even after being seated, Golden Village saw it fit to cram what felt like 49 advertisements for hair-care products and alcoholic beverages (and the perfunctory Visa commercials) while only screening trailers for Alvin & the Chipmunks 2 and Sherlock Holmes. I want to watch one of those movies. Here's a hint: It isn't the one with the word Squeakuel in the promo.

So there I was, all settled in, trying hard not to mind the row of prepubescent Chinese girls and boys (who sounded like girls) that were happily running amok as the lights dimmed. At first, I thought they were misplaced and were actually looking for sparkly gay Vampires, but then the movie started and they shut up.

It's a hallmark of a great and special film when the kinds of people that one expects to tarnish your cinematic experience fade into oblivion. Not a sound came from the group of them, and I'm sure that the fella beside me had his nachos untouched until the end of the movie.

As I was sitting there, trying to think of ways to rephrase "a visual feast that satisfied one's appetite for anything else", I was blown away by, of course, the effects and the sheer magnificence of the backdrops and just about everything going on on-screen. The lush world of Pandora (Borderlands!) is breathtakingly beautiful, and the indigenous flora and fauna are stunning, for lack of a better word. I watched a pretty cool documentary about what life on low-gravity planets might look like, and this seemed close. And there are Mechs! I haven't seen a Mech since The Matrix: Revolutions. Plus, Dragonhawks! Sheit.

The plot isn't that profound, and a quick scan of the trailer would enlighten the casual viewer on the gist of it, but, more importantly, it isn't stupid either. Midway through I realized that it was a hybrid of Pocahontas and Star Trek, quite honestly. There are a handful of things in the film that you would expect and predict, though I won't reveal any details. This doesn't detract from anything though, and while you might not get any Sawesque twists, it seems like just the right blend of intelligent dialogue, witty humour, solid storytelling and fast-paced action to warrant at least a second viewing.

Yep, I decided I was going to watch it again less than an hour in. Oh, the movie is long, more than two hours, and trust me, you do NOT want to leave for a pee break. Make sure you are suitably relieved before it starts.

Sigourney Weaver's character, of course, made me think of the last one that was directed by James Cameron, and her as well as Michelle Rodriguez', another tough, no-nonsense chick. It's the second Sam Worthington movie I watched, and like the first one, I absolutely loved it.

It's been a good year for movies for me, I think. Star Trek. Coraline. Terminator Salvation. 500 Days of Summer. Up. Saw VI. Watchmen. How does Avatar rank among them?

I told a number of people the instant I stepped out of the theatre that it was the movie of the year. By far. Some might attribute that to just post-film gushing and euphoria, and that may be so, but then, no other film made me feel this way either. It definitely sits among favorites like Lord of the Rings, Terminator 2, and Jurassic Park in almost every way.

I'd give it a minimum of 9/10, though the only reason it might lose out on a perfect score is that I would have liked if there was more detail for certain parts, but I'm a geek and it's not at all important. Oh, and also for the cheesy name of Unobtainium.

But wow.

My December

This year has flown by. Flown by.

My ill-fated trip to Krabi, hospital visit and all, still plays clearly in my head as if it were yesterday. I can still remember the rock-climbing, snorkeling, being jolted from sleep by certain people in the early hours of the morning.

But that was almost a whole year ago. A lifetime ago, it seems.

Alot has happened since then. I don't need to spell out the most major things, but those who have been paying attention would agree (and have pointed out several times) that I'm a changed person. Some say it's an improvement, some say it's not, others think it's more of me being who I really am, whatever or whoever that is.

A whirlwind ten or eleven months has led to where I am today. Done with what may be my final exam ever in Singapore, but maybe not. It's a scary thought, especially considering the fact that for such a long time, things seemed really foggy at the best of times.

Imagine, if you will, you get a nice jigsaw puzzle. Only the picture on the box isn't something you'd expect like a scene of a sunset against snow-capped mountains or kittens in a basket or your favourite Disney characters assembled a-smiling. The picture on the box - the puzzle - is something you don't really recognize or are able to identify. Just a jumble of shapes and colours, patterns and motifs.

So you toil, painstakingly, over this seemingly impossible situation, and just when you think you got it figured out, you realize that you've been using the wrong sides of the pieces, and now you have to start over. What you thought fit before, may or may not anymore.

I wonder how things will be like in the near future, in many regards, with many people. Some of these thoughts have already been discussed with the relevant people, and some of them remain either oblivious or defiant about things.

Ah well.

COM 443: Final Thoughts & Suggestions

It's been one hell of a semester, in many regards. This is going to be the last Advertising-Module-Related post, in all likelihood, so bear with me.

To recap, I've said this and this and this.

All in all, it's been a rough ride for everyone, and there is no better measure, in my opinion, of what we've been through than the fact that we have barely had five football gatherings since September. That's ridiculous, considering I've been playing religiously since January, and most of the others even earlier so.

I heard that before, the Advertising course that we've all slogged through involved impressing actual clients and/or representatives of ad agencies. That would actually be pretty cool, on many levels. It adds to the realism bit, as well as offering us students the opportunity to test our mettle and be judged by actual, real-world industry professionals. I'm not detracting from the current instructor's ability, but you see where I'm headed here.

Being an American course on Advertising, I can understand, expect and appreciate the emphasis on group project work. However, there are a few things to consider regarding the grouping that may be greatly beneficial to future victi - err, students of COM 443.

It's no secret that certain groups, though randomly assembled, are totally and wholly superior to their "competition". I'm not just talking book-smarts, of course. What happens if a group doesn't have anyone proficient in Photoshop or other graphic design software? What happens if the entire group, in a cruel twist of fate, has smart, creative people but all of whom suffer from the severe disability to speak to a crowd? What I'd suggest is at the start of the course, students "rank" themselves according to their ability and talents in different areas, some of which include:

Graphic Design and/or Drawing

Public Speaking

Creative Flair

Language

Video Editing

Audio Editing

Photography

A basic 1-10 on the above (which is far from exhaustive) would suffice, and then the instructor can ensure that there is some even distribution of talent, for lack of a better term.

Of course, the random nature of the (current) grouping procedure is designed to reflect the dynamic and unexpected nature of the working world that all of us should be entering soon. However, there are a couple of things that could potentially help all involved.

In a real working environment, of course, you'd expect people to switch jobs and agencies due to whatever reasons. Personal issues, financial gains, proximity to home, culture clashes, the list goes on. The same should be allowed in the classroom as well. But what, you say, what happens if people just decide to hang with their buddies? One might design a system whereby only straight 1-for-1 swaps are allowed, and only one person may swap per group per semester. That would work (somewhat), no? An example to highlight:

Group A consists of seven members, assigned somewhat randomly by the instructor. However, it's a busy, hectic, difficult semester, and while nearly everyone in Group A is able to meet every Tuesday and Thursday morning to get their work done, Person X cannot, because she has a class that the rest are not a part of. Weekends are worse, due to other commitments. However, Person X might be a better fit in Group B, who has someone willing to swap immediately.

Swap proceeds.

Group C, however, has the best friend of Person X, and now she wants to go to Group B too. However, due to the fact that Group B had previously decided to use their "Transfer Card", so to speak, no such move is possible.

Flawed, but oh well.

Finally, and most controversially, each group currently has to appoint a leader. An Agency Director. A CEO. A Boss. Give the boss some power. What power, you ask? The power to fire people. It's supposed to simulate a company, a real-world agency, isn't it? Let him/her fire people (one person?) should the need arise. The leader is elected anyway, so the group already has some regard for his/her authority.

What happens to the said fired person? If another group wants to take him/her up, by all means. If not... Drop the course? That would be harsh(er). Perhaps there could be supplemental, solo projects for everyone in class, for small extra credit. But these projects would become the bulk of the said person's workload, maybe with new dimensions and added difficulty, of course.

So what do you think of that, hmm? Full of holes, of course, but I think it could work.