Nah, thanks for the criticism. It’s always nice to have my flawed work commented on.

IN MY OPINION Avatar isn’t a new type of extraordinary cinema. It looks amazing, but beyond the eye candy there is not anything to it.

I don’t think that comparing “the ground breaking” Avatar to Frankenstein or King Kong is quite fair cuzzzz Frankenstein introduced interesting themes like man playing god and his creations running amok. King Kong is from 1933. We’ve had more than five decades to refine storytelling to something better than what KK showed us.

The rare times I watch foreign films I do enjoy them greatly, but IN MY OPINION most of them are too weird for my tastes.

FINALLY I understand that not all films are gonna be masterpieces. I don’t expect them all to be wonderful pieces of cinema. What I demand is engaging characters and stories, a decent movie can provide this, Avatar can’t.

OKAY I’m done ranting. No more fighting in the War Room.

Hollywood is not, and has not, been the highest echelon of filmmaking since the days of Un Chien Andalou, to attack the American film industry on grounds it never purported to stand on is ridiculous. Look at the oft-abused Academy Awards of 1994, Pulp Fiction lost to Forrest Gump, despite the fact that Tarantino’s film was hailed the greatest and most innovative American film since Citizen Kane. It is cheap, and certainly easy, to insult the Hollywood machine as repetitive, redundant and clichéd, mostly because it is.

But the true flaw in your analysis of the situation stems from your condemnation of the fact. Avatar, your chief victim, apparently has a “plot [that is] as thin as a lake of ice in the middle of the summer.” However, the film was not regarded highly for its plot, or story, in the strong tradition of viscerally pleasing films such as Jurassic Park, Die Hard, and even the classic Singing in the Rain. Avatar is not a soul-bending film filled with existential angst and layered plot development; it is an experience in and an introduction into an entirely different style of filmmaking, and nothing more. The original King Kong fails to convince anyone of the authenticity of the aforementioned simian beast and James Whale’s Frankenstein no longer instills even a modicum of terror in audiences, yet both films are considered classic for their achievements made in furthering the medium.

Again, the visual aspect is merely one of the many faces of film which make it such an expressive medium. If you wish to see champions of plot and character development then you must broaden your horizons beyond that of the local chain theatres. Look at the Best Foreign Language Film category at this year’s Academy Awards, from Ajami to Un prophète they offer the emotionally involving and structurally complex films you so desire.

And most importantly, I would caution your condemnation of the modern Hollywood film. Rather, think of it as a parallel to the art often scene in hotels. It is fairly unremarkable for the most part, but it is not meant to be remarkable. It is meant to be enjoyed, if even briefly so, for what it is; pleasant, entertaining, and possessing of a certain spark of vitality inherent in all art, everywhere.

I hope that you, and all other critics of modern films can understand that even if they are not masterpieces, it is often because they were never intended to be.