Exodus: Gods and Kings

Like the western, the historical epic has seemingly gone the way of the dodo bird. The genre was at its most popular in the 1950s and 1960s, turning out gigantic epics like The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Spartacus, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and that's just some of the biblical epics. About a year ago, I was naturally curious when I read that director Ridley Scott was at the helm of a new epic about Moses and the Hebrews' escape from Egypt. Reviews were mixed to negative, but it managed to make decent money in theaters. So where does 2014's Exodus: Gods and Kings fall? Let's see.

In ancient Egypt, a new pharaoh, Ramses II (Joel Edgerton), has been appointed after his father dies. The fiery new pharaoh has help at his side in the form of his stepbrother, Moses (Christian Bale). Many years before, an orphaned infant Moses was picked up in the Nile River and taken into the home and temple of the then pharaoh, Ramses' father. The Hebrew man grew up somewhat knowing his past, his blood, but he's moved on...until now. Seeing his stepbrother as a potential threat to his throne, Ramses exiles his brother. Moses survives though, starts a family in a far-off, isolated village and moves on. Years pass though and he continues to hear the plight of the Hebrew people working as slaves under Egyptian rule, still the cruel Ramses. There has long been rumors and teachings that someone will save the Hebrews, and that man may just be Moses himself. Can he realize it? Can he go back to Egypt and convince his brother to peacefully let the slaves go?

So basically everyone knows the story of Moses, of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, the plagues one after another, the parting of the Red Sea and the eventual 40 years of wandering in the desert. I read about it a ton as a kid growing up, at home and in school, and then I saw the 1956 epic The Ten Commandments, still shown on ABC every Easter. That's both a good and bad thing for Scott's epic. It's familiar...but it's familiar. I liked it but didn't love it. There's the necessary spectacle and scale you need in a biblical/historical epic and a solid cast, but there are equal part flaws and misses that handicap the movie's potential.

There seems to be a trend going on in history books, on history documentaries, miniseries, all of the above. I think it's a good trend, one I've enjoyed watching as it develops. It's pretty simple. Look at history with a questioning eye. Did the Exodus story happen just as the Old Testament said it did? No, probably not, and that's where Scott steps in. In the movie's strongest moments, he's able to blend that Old Testament story with a fresh eye, a clean look at the story. In a different sense (and a necessary one), he tries to distance himself from The Ten Commandments, many viewers most familiar connection to the story. What was Moses like? What was Ramses like? What was the world they lived in throughout ancient Egypt? It provides a fascinating jumping off point into a dark, dirty, violent and particularly nasty world that we thought we knew.

Christian Bale is one of my favorites. I thought he was the best thing going by far in American Hustle, his Batman movies are great, and if he's in a cast, I'm pretty likely to at least give the movie a chance. In a cast that features quite a cast but not much in the term of characters, Bale is the one to get out unscathed and represent himself quite well. His Moses is a three-dimensional person, a man struggling with what may be his destiny, his fate, the thing he's supposed to do with his life. Is it going to be easy? Not in the least, and that's what he's grappling with. When it comes right down to it, will he make that difficult decision? Bale isn't great, but he's pretty good in a cool leading role. Edgerton too is one of my favorites, a budding star looking for those great roles that will propel him into stardom, but this isn't it. The script does him no favors, an old school, power-hungry villain who comes across as more cliched than a real person. Too bad because Bale and Edgerton's scenes together are a high point. I just wish there was more of them.

The rest of the cast is given little to nothing to do. The names are impressive but any sense of character development was left by the wayside. Look for John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde, Andrew Tarbet and Ben Kingsley in smaller parts. Two solid smaller parts go to Ben Mendelsohn as a cruel district commander who couldn't care less about the slaves he rules over and young Isaac Andrews as Malak, a child who is God's human representation on Earth, communicating with Moses about what's to come. A scary, intense performance from a talented young actor. I especially liked Bale and Andrews together in their scenes, especially when Paul's Joshua looks on, not seeing Bale talk to anything at all. What he sees is a man seemingly talking to himself in the middle of the desert. Uh-oh, here we go with some faith-based questions again!

 Now if the focus isn't on character development, it's gotta be somewhere else, right? You would be correct. 'Exodus' embraces the moment in terms of scale and gigantic qualities you'd come to expect from a historical and Biblical epic. The plaques and plights an angry, violent Old Testament God sends down upon Ramses and Egypt are a sight to behold from the locusts, frogs, blood in the water, to the diseases, and most frighteningly, the killing of all the first born sons of Egyptians, these scenes are the movie at its best, strongest and most comfortable. But by far, the most exhilarating scene is the chase across the Red Sea, Moses and thousands of fleeing Hebrews pursued by Ramses and his chariot army as the receding sea charges back at them, the waves growing ever-higher. An incredible sequence, one of those great uses of computer-generated imagery. So in epic terms, this movie is a huge success and well worth seeking out.

I just wish there was more heart somewhere mixed in with the scale and spectacle. It's a pretty decent movie with some great moments. Still worth recommending -- especially to fans of biblical and historical epics -- but it's good. It could have been much more.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014): ** 1/2 /****

The Village

What is director-writer-producer M. Night Shyamalan associated with? The twist ending. The BIG twist ending. From The Sixth Sense to Signs, Unbreakable to The Happening, Shyamalan has made a career out of that pull the rug out from under you feeling. I've seen most of them, and now I can check off 2004's The Village, another Shyamalan vehicle with a twist in the end.

In a small, isolated village in the Pennsylvania countryside in the late 1890s, life goes on pretty much as normal on a day-to-day basis. Well....pretty much. The close-knit community is isolated from the rest of the world, all the townspeople unable to leave a perimeter surrounding the village. Why? The town has a delicate truce with something living in the woods, creatures dubbed "Those We Don't Speak Of." One of the townspeople, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), a young man, is sure the creatures will let them pass if approached in non-aggressive fashion. He is close to Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a young woman who lost her vision as a child, who also believes Lucius' plan. It is a pleasant if limited life, but Lucius wants to explore, to question. Can he convince the village elders to give him the chance? Will Those We Don't Speak Of stop him before he can do anything?

Here we sit. Though his films have struggled some at the box office and especially critically, Shyamalan is a talented director. He is. He has few rivals when it comes to building tension, to setting the mood, creating that unbearable sense of doom looming just over the horizon. What's coming next? What's gonna happen?!? Sometimes though, it feels like the films get so wrapped up in building up to the twist that the movie suffers. The focus becomes all about that twist. 'Village' suffers from that issue to a point. At different points, there is A TON of potential that seems to be building to something really crazy, interesting and entertaining. The gloomy setting -- it's seemingly always cloudy -- sets the mood in ideal fashion, and composer James Newton Howard picked up an Oscar nomination for his haunting, eerily beautiful score. So where does it go....

Semi-SPOILERS for this paragraph. I won't give anything specific away, but I've got to at least address it. There's actually two different reveals, one revealed about the hour-mark of the 109-minute movie, the other popping up about the 90-minute checkpoint. They're not bad. The big twist doesn't feel so forced, so out of left field that you question why the script (Shyamalan doing the honors) even went there. It's original. It's unique. It's just not necessarily....well, good. There are some hints dropped along the way, but it did catch me by surprise. If there is a goof, it's in the reveal of the first twist. It comes along too early, taking away from a later scene that would have been dripping with tension and terror if we didn't know what we do (if that makes sense). The biggest issue is that the ending feels rushed without letting things breathe a little bit. Too bad because as far as twists go, this one could have been a doozy of a gem.

Now with the mood, the tension, the mystery, the cast and characters do a good job with a story/script where the focus isn't specifically on them. They're a means to an end. Phoenix does a good job as the moody, questioning Lucius (quite a stretch, huh?) while Howard especially shines as Ivy, the blind young woman who is a favorite in the village because of her generally pleasant outlook on everything. As for the town elders, look for William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson and Cherry Jones.  For some of the other townspeople, keep an eye out for Judy Greer, Michael Pitt, Jesse Eisenberg, and Adrien Brody as Noah, the mentally challenged adult who never grew up. Some very good actors committing to generally unwritten parts and doing their best to bring it to life.

There's something missing in general here. The build-up is there, that tension and fear of the unknown palpable through much of the first hour. From there on in though, the story loses momentum with a focus on the village and the people. I wanted to like it more. I wish I had liked it more, but it's not bad, just not as good as it could have been unfortunately. A disappointing semi-misfire.

The Village (2004): ** 1/2 /****

Ghostbusters

Wanna feel old? Just look back at movies that were released the year you were born. Last week I went and saw Guardians of the Galaxy only to find a poster advertising the coming 30th anniversary of 1984's Ghostbusters hitting theaters. My first thought was something along the lines of "Haha what an old movie. That's crazy." Well....I'm 29 so that makes me....oh, God, I'm gonna be 30 next summer!!! Okay, calm down, calm down. Yeah, anyways, Ghostbusters is really good. Definitely couldn't pass up that re-release in theaters.

When their grant with Columbia University runs out, doctors/screwballs/misfits/friends Pete Veckman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Egon Spangler (Harold Ramis) find themselves in quite the sticky situation. Experts of sorts in paranormal activity, the trio decide to go into business for themselves, dubbing the little group 'Ghostbusters.' Their start-up business struggles at first but quickly hits a groove to the point they become celebrities, popping up in newspapers, magazines and TV news all over the country. Their reputation spreads and they keep on scooping up and observing all sorts of paranormal activity across New York City. Then, they take a job that may be too big even for them. A woman, Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), claims some inexplicable things have been happening in her apartment. What's going on exactly? The Ghostbusters are on the case.

How crazy is it that Ghostbusters is 30 years old? Seriously. It's 30 years old. Let that sink in for a little bit. Process it. I hadn't watched this sci-fi, horror comedy in years (like....lots of years) but the girlfriend is a big fan so it was hard to pass up the opportunity to see it remastered on a big screen. It's easy to forget the impact the film has had in those 30 years, spawning a sequel (and possibly a third upcoming one), two cartoon series -- I loved The Real Ghostbusters growing up -- and too many iconic things to mention. Okay, let's try. There's the instantly recognizable theme from Ray Parker Jr. (listen HERE), the great throwback beige jumpsuits, the Ghostbusters warehouse, and of course, the NYC firehouse turned Ghostbusters office. Oh, and Slimer too. You can't forget Slimer.

As far as comedy writers go, there's a certain mad genius quality to Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. Together or working separately, they've helped write The Blues Brothers, Coneheads, Dragnet, Spies Like Us, Caddyshack, Meatballs, Stripes and Animal House. Oh, and this one, Ghostbusters. You combine those two mad geniuses and let them do their thing. The script is a gem, funny without ever trying too hard. It lays things out, assembles a ton of talent and gives each of them a chance to shine. Murray gets the most laughs, but it is a smart-ass, underplayed, dripping with sarcasm part as he unleashes one memorable one-liner after another. Aykroyd is just manic energy, Ramis is the straight man who's always ready with a scientific response, and joining the crew late is Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddmore because a job is a job.

What a cast though. It's 107 minutes and the cast and story never feels rushed. Murray, Ramis and Aykroyd are pretty perfect together, giving the impression of three friends just hanging out and shooting the breeze. Throw in the very sexy Sigourney Weaver who gets to deal with her nerdy neighbor played to perfection by Rick Moranis, and you've got quite the group of talented actors assembled here. Also look for Annie Potts as the Ghostbusters' secretary, Janine, and familiar 1980s snooty bad guy William Atherton as an EPA agent more than a little interested in what the Ghostbusters are actually doing.

No point in any overanalysis here. Director Ivan Reitman has a gem here, one I very much enjoyed catching up with how many years later. The entire movie is strong, but it is at its best in the final act as the Ghostbusters must tangle with an ancient spirit and demigod, Zuul, and a Sumerian shape-shifting god of destruction, Gozer. It produces probably the movie's most memorable scene, a gigantic 100-feet tall Stay Puft Marshmallow Man terrorizing New York City. Hard not to like this one. Well worth revisiting....even if it does mean I'm almost 30 years old.

Ghostbusters (1984): ***/****

Paul

Way back in 2004, audiences were introduced to Simon Pegg and Nick Frost in 2004's Shaun of the Dead. The comedy duo worked with director Edgar Wright again in Hot Fuzz and World's End, the trio's odd, smart sense of humor resonating with audiences. Pegg and Frost branched out in 2011, starring in Paul, a movie any science fiction fan will get a kick out of.

Lifelong friends with a love of science fiction, Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost) have traveled from England to San Diego for Comic-Con. That's not all for the trip though, the friends renting an RV and planning a trip across the southwest, hitting all sorts of extraterrestrial spots like Area 51 and Roswell. The trip goes pretty much as planned....at first. One night driving along, the RV crashes and when they get out to investigate, Graeme and Clive are stunned at what they find. An alien is standing in front of them, and he speaks English quite clearly (and with some attitude). The alien's name? Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen), and he's on the run from government agents. Paul has escaped from the facility he's been held at, and he intends to go home to his own planet. He bonds immediately with nerdy Graeme and Clive, but he needs their help. Will his two new friends help him get away and get to his spaceship?

I really do try to be honest with my reviews so here goes. When I saw the trailer for this sci-fi comedy a few years back, I thought it looked dumb. No, that's not enough. D-U-M-B. I avoided it the last couple years, finally caving and getting it on Netflix. The cast proved to be quite the motivating factor in the end! Well, as is so often the case, my complete refusal to listen to the "Don't judge a book by its cover" premise ended up being very, very wrong. I liked this movie from director Greg Mottola (Superbad, Adventureland). A lot. It was funny, surprisingly smart, and pretty sweet in the end -- with some dark, stupid humor mixed in for good measure. Yeah, the pretty deep, very talented cast helps, but there's more to it than that. With Pegg and Frost writing the script, you know you're getting a good final product.

The acting/writing duo actually came up with the idea for 'Paul' when they were filming Shaun of the Dead, and then it was just a matter of time until they could make it. The elements that worked in 'Shaun,' 'Fuzz' and 'World's' all translate here in an easy-going, natural chemistry. It never feels like Pegg and Frost are acting. This plays out like two old friends who know everything about each other -- some think they're gay, much to their surprise -- and are enjoying a vacation they've long talked about. Then throw in Rogen (who's excellent), and we've got quite the trio of characters. An alien who's been on Earth since the late 1940s, Paul is a great character. He's picked up all sorts of human touches from personal interactions to his often dirty conversations. Rogen even provided the motion capture movements for Paul, adding an oddly appropriate slacker look to the alien's actions. I loved the dynamic among the three, that chemistry providing the best laughs and carrying things throughout the 104-minute movie.

As a movie nerd, it was cool to watch this one develop. Pegg and Frost have said in countless interviews this movie was intended as a tribute of sorts to all the science fiction movies they love. It's a tribute to all those great science fiction movies from the 1970s and 1980s. By my count, I saw scenes with nods to Close Encounters, E.T. (obviously), Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Back to the Future and probably countless others I'm forgetting. The ending especially gives a big old nod to Close Encounters and E.T., a pretty cool ending overall. Even director Steven Spielberg makes a voice cameo, Paul serving as his unofficial "technical adviser" as he makes E.T. back in the early 1980s. And in a quick but essential cameo, sci-fi icon and Alien star Sigourney Weaver makes a fun appearance late. Science fiction fans will definitely get a kick out of this one.

There's more to that pretty cool cast that's worth mentioning. Jason Bateman has some fun as Agent Zoil (a kinda-sorta Men in Black), a government agent in pursuit and trying to bring Paul back. Bateman looks to be having a lot of fun in the tough guy part and with a good twist late. He's got two bumbling, inexperienced agents working with him, played nicely by Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio. Kristen Wiig puts a fun spin on the love interest, a woman who was raised highly religiously and is beginning to think she's got it all wrong. Her rookie attempts at swearing and cursing are especially good.There's also fun parts for Jane Lynch, David Koechner, Jeffrey Tambor, Blythe Danner, John Carroll Lynch and Jesse Plemons.

If you read some reviews about 'Paul,' you'll no doubt fall into quite the religious quagmire. The script from Pegg and Frost takes some digs at religious folks, those who believe what they believe even if evidence is presented that directly counters what they believe. I lean toward the non-believers side so I wasn't offended, but it's easy to see why some resented this movie's message. The religious characters are loony, crazy, off-the-wall individuals. As well, the action gets ratcheted up to some crazy levels over the last 30 minutes, goofy and over the top but never too much. A very pleasant surprise from beginning to end. Highly recommended.

Paul (2011): ***/****

Alien

Earlier this year, I saw and liked 2012's Prometheus a lot....if I was a little confused. From director Ridley Scott, it was a quasi-prequel to his 1979 sci-fi classic Alien. I'd never seen Alien in its entirety in one sitting, having seen pieces here and there. Well, apparently I wasn't the only one trying to catch up with the 1979 film. Netflix had it on 'Long Wait' for the last four months. I waited it out, finally catching up with it this weekend.

In the near future, the Nostromo, a deep space towing vessel, and its crew is returning to Earth with an immense shipment of ore mined on a far-off planet. The crew, including Captain Dallas (Tom Skerritt), Kane (John Hurt), the executive officer, and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), the warrant officer, are awakened from a deep slumber. The Nostromo's computer has sensed a message -- possibly an S.O.S., possibly a warning -- from a nearby planet. Following orders, the ship sets down on an Earth-like planetoid, but one of the search party brings something back aboard the ship. The crew debates what to do, but it's too late. The creature is free and loose. With improvised weaponry, the Nostromo's crew now finds itself fighting for survival.

This is a movie that is hard to review. Why's that? Well, for one, that's a compliment. Released in 1979, Alien has basically influenced every horror-science-fiction-thriller made in the 30-plus years since its release. Having seen Prometheus just a few months ago, it's obvious how similar the "new" movie was to the original. We're talking spot-on. So through no fault of its own, this 1979 original does feel -- for lack of a better word -- familiar. It doesn't take away from the quality, but some of the scares and twists are somewhat predictable. Still, it's a gem. Anything that influenced so many movies since is worth a recommendation.

Directing just his second feature film (and three years prior to another classic, Blade Runner), Scott does an admirable job here. There's nothing quite as scary as deep space for me. Who knows what kind of horrors are out there? Oh, and there's nowhere to run...not quickly at least. Scott's vision of the future is just that, very visual. The Nostromo is both well-lit and furnished, but in its depths is claustrophobic, dank, damp and hiding all sorts of fear. In other words, plenty of space for our Alien to hide in. The scares are slow-burns, long scenes with little movement or sound suddenly broken up by quick GOTCHA! bursts that will have you jumping (okay, I did). While it is scary, it's more importantly smart scary. Most of the scares from the unsettling mood; the quiet and foreboding. At its best, this is an underplayed scare fest.

The focus is on the scares and the Alien that starts to dispatch members of the crew. 'Alien' doesn't have time or room for anything else. We're introduced to the characters, but know nothing about them more than what their duties on-board are. It strips away everything superfluous and maintains that focus on the survival aspect. The crew -- fodder for the Alien -- include the always cool Tom Skerritt, the similarly cool John Hurt and Weaver. Also included are Yaphet Kotto as Parker, the engineer, Harry Dean Stanton as Brett, the assistant engineer, Ian Holm as Ash, the medical officer, and Veronica Cartwright as Lambert. There really isn't a weak performance in the bunch, Skerritt, Kotto and Holm especially standing out. The real standout though is a young Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley, the intelligent, reasonable-thinking heroine, a part that would help make her a star. A female star in an sci-fi movie was something new, and Weaver is a great lead.

Did I love this movie? No, but I liked it a lot. Seeing it in 1979, Alien would have no doubt had a different impact on me than it does now. It did influence countless movies since -- a credit to its power -- but viewing it now, it does affect the viewing. The surprises are solid, but they're not completely out of left field. If you're paying attention, you'll see them coming. On the other hand, it's still a gem 33 years later. A very pointed story with no dead weight anywhere in sight. Still well worth a watch.

Alien <---trailer (1979): ***/****

Avatar

When I first heard about James Cameron's Avatar, I can honestly say I wasn't interested in the least.  Sure, I saw Titanic twice in theaters while in grammar school, but this new project he'd been working on for years held little appeal to me.  The story sounded weak at best, and the attraction of some new technology did little to impress me.  It got worse when the movie actually hit theaters and was a huge success, lots of friends and family saying I'd love it, just go see it.  Well, that sealed the deal. I wasn't going to watch it. Most of a year later, I caved, getting it from Netflix this week.  Final result? Good but not great movie, one that's definitely not one of the greatest movies ever made regardless of how many bajillion dollars it made in theaters.

Going in with as open a mind as possible, I wanted to give Avatar a fair shot...even if that voice deep down inside wanted me to hate it.  I couldn't help it.  I saw all this craze last winter and thought it was ridiculous how much fans got into it.  I read stories that some fans were even going through variations of depression and withdrawals since they couldn't visit the fictional planet of Pandora where the story takes place.  It just all added up.  It was Harry Potter, Twilight, and any number of other popular series in pop culture rolled into one.  Still, I buckled down and tried to enjoy it, and overall, I did.  But that doesn't mean there weren't flaws along the way, major flaws.

Sometime in the future, a paraplegic Marine, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), is sent to the far-off planet of Pandora in place of his recently deceased twin brother. On Pandora, a corporation is struggling with how to handle the indigenous population, the Na'vi, a humanoid race of creatures, who sit on a hugely lucrative element needed back home called unobtanium.  Through an extensive, expensive scientific process, Jake can become a Na'vi as an avatar, looking like them and eventually living with them.  His superior, Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), wants to learn about the Na'vi and their culture and way of life, but Jake receives pressure from the corporation's head (Giovanni Ribisi) and the head of security (Stephen Lang). Living among them, Jake begins to become one of them, even falling in love with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and is torn between his duty as a former soldier with his desire to do what's right.  A fight is coming, and Jake's right in the middle.

Props to Cameron right off the bat because he basically invented a new form of technology to film this movie, taking existing motion capture software and making it ridiculously better.  The whole movie is basically CGI (which I despise), but it's so good, so perfectly handled, that you don't even process that you are watching anything completed by a computer.  If you can convince me CGI is a good thing, you've done your work.  Point to Mr. Cameron.  The movie is beyond gorgeous.

That's by far the strongest aspect of the movie, the first 90 minutes or so as Jake explores Pandora and all it has to offer.  The storyline is similar to Dances With Wolves -- except in the future and in space -- so we see Jake learn how the Na'vi live from day to day in the jungles of Pandora with all its plant life and vegetation and various sorts of wildlife, some friendlier than others.  The sequences that blow you away are phenomenal, like Jake flying through the suspended mountains that hang in mid-air, the exploration of the immense tree the Na'vi live in, and many more.  It's all new to Jake as he takes advantage of his new legs, and it's all new to us as we see the ins and outs of this idyllic planet somewhere in the galaxy.

One of the rising stars in Hollywood, Sam Worthington is an ideal choice in the lead to play marine Jake Sully.  He's been in Terminator Salvation and Clash of the Titans, but he's still a new face here in Avatar.  He needs to be a new face because if you've seen this guy/character in various other roles, it loses some of the appeal, the wonderment as Jake transforms into something else. Saldana is the equally strong-willed Neytiri who fights Jake but comes to love him.  The technology that makes Saldana into a Na'vi is obviously something special, but credit to her for not getting lost along the way as she makes Neytiri a very strong female character.  Weaver and Ribisi are solid in supporting parts, Lang is hamming it up for all he's worth as the evil security head, and also look out for Michelle Rodriguez, Wes Studi, and Joel Moore in supporting parts.

Now for the disappointing part of Avatar.  With a budget of over $300 million, Cameron apparently didn't spend much on a well thought out, well written finished script.  The dialogue is embarrassingly bad at times with some lines that made me cringe hearing them and more so now just thinking of them.  I mentioned earlier the story is similar to Dances With Wolves.  That's not true.  It is Dances With Wolves with the Na'vi filling in for the Sioux and evil white men filling in for...oh, wait...that one is the same.  Cameron clearly went to town on the special effects, and good for him because they're amazing, but at 162-minutes the movie feels incredibly long in parts and could have been tightened up or at least been better utilized.

The finale is a combination of all this good and bad as Lang and Co. launch an all-out offensive on the Na'vi and their villages.  It is an inspiring sequence full of scope and a truly epic feel that is also limited by a heavy-handed ending that I hoped wouldn't be there.  SPOILERS For awhile, it looks like the Na'vi are going to lose only to have a naturalistic, spiritual ending of the Pandoran ecosystem work together to fight off the intruders.  SPOILERS It of course leaves the door open for a possible Avatar 2 -- God help us -- but doesn't ring true at all.  But that's the movie.  Lots of good and lots of bad, but in the end the amazing technology wins out.

Avatar <---trailer (2009): ***/****