Avatarible

I hate Avatar. There, I said it. Whew!

I thought seeing it written would make me feel differently, but it hasn't. My sentiments are completely unfounded. I didn't see it. Nor have I seen or felt a special affinity toward any of the other films expected a nomination this year (the only one I saw was Julie and Julia... oh and New Moon of course). I wasn't blown away by the Hurt Locker (hahaha, get it?). I didn't soar over Up in the Air (too much? prob). I haven't even bothered to ON DEMAND Inglorious, but somehow I am utterly aggrevated that Avatar beat these films at the Globes.

Maybe it's that I could see this movie coming a mile away. All flash, no substance. All visual, no cerebral. Since the very first trailer, I felt as if I could relay the storyline to you almost verbatim. Everyone I know and respect, who has seen the film, including many of the loyal bloggers on this site o' ours, has justified my feelings.

Maybe I fear blue people. The characters look cross-bred, as if they were the unholy spawn of a tryst between the Blue Man Group and the cast of Cats.

Now I know Cameron innovated for this film big time! I know that industrial upgrades in cinema have not been so blatantly altered since Lucas (who incidentally also gets my goat lately), but I kind of, like, don't care. Is that fair?

I shutter to think that this film will provoke blurbs like, "now the rules have changed." I don't want Avatar and Cameron to change the rules of filmmaking this way. I like my movies the way they are, thank-you very much. I don't want CGI everything. I want Ellen Page as Juno. Matt Damon as Jason Bourne and Zach Galifinaka-whatchamacallit as any funny fat guy he so chooses to be...

If merit were judged on visual innovation, why didn't True Lies (1994) win an Oscar? Why didn't Terminator II: Judgment Day (1991) win? Oh yea, cause the storylines sucked. They were cool movies to watch in the theatre (and I saw them both in one), but they weren't Academy Award films, and you know what? Neither is Avatar. Guess what won Best Picture in 1994? A movie called Forrest Gump. A film that utilized CGI innovatively. A film with great effects, but also great acting and writing. Maybe I want too much. Maybe this is an off year for film.

If it is a slow year for film, why not nominate Paul Rudd for the comedic performance of the year (yes, I saw the Hangover) in I Love You, Man. Do it, Oscar. Totes McGotes!

Maybe I just don't like that Cameron showed up, copied Robert Downey's sentiment about the music and proceeded to preach to the room about "accepting CGI." To a room full of actors! That's like going to a chamber maid convention and pushing Rosie from The Jetsons on everyone. Like showing up with those mechanized baskets at a toll collector conference. Here's the future everyone...I hope you like crap.

Maybe it's just that Cameron looked like he was on leave from Hogwart's. Maybe it's that he looked like the crazy old guy from Six Feet Under and sounded like John Houseman. I don't know.

Also, Ricky Gervais was a disappointment. Mostly because he got less air time than Vanilla Ice did in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 (extra credit for anyone who can name the subline of that gem of a picture). One zinger? At the expense of Mel Gibson. By dog could make of Mel Gibson, and he has arthritisis and doesn't speak English.

Anyway, I hope the Academy gets right what the Hollywood foreign press screwed up. Maybe we just don't get them...they're foreign after all. Don't be racist, Clancey.

Oh, and I am not alone. Here.