Against my better judgment, I ended up going to see this. Me and a bunch of friends made a run into NYC late last night, to catch it in IMAX 3-D. On a visual level, this is an absolutely stunning movie. That's all the nice stuff I'm going to say about this one. This movie is LOOOOONG, and it felt even longer. It runs 2:40. After an hour and fifteen minutes this movie already felt LOOOOONG, and I still had to get through an hour and a half.
Shoot me now.
Someone needs to sit James Cameron in front of a dictionary and have him copy the definition of "overindulgent."
douglascohen
Comments
Cameron should have gotten someone else to write that script. Maybe then the "twists" would have been actually twisty and the "romance" wouldn't have been so formulaic. And the characters might have had more than one dimension.
Less camera-work on the pretty, Cameron. More Story, plzkthx. Make the scenery work for you and tell part of the story instead of just looking spectacular. Someone who gets paid as much as Cameron does should know something that basic.
Of course, I didn't like "Titanic" either, so what do I know.
But last night I happened to flip past the third new Star Wars movie. I was amazed at how much I'd blocked out. In the scene I saw last night, Samuel Jackson's character takes 3 Jedi Knights (= theoretically trained warriors) to arrest Palpatine. The four advance on him with lightsabers activated. He stands up, turns his on, and kills two of them before they even blink. Great warriors, they! Then Palpatine starts doing Yoda-esque acrobatics through the air.
That's where I get overindulgent. We were all perfectly happy with normal duels in the original movies, and even the duel between Darth Maul against Qui Gon (sp? and Obi Wan in the Phantom Menace was beautifull choreographed without relying on physics-defying acrobatics. Sigh.....
Maybe I was just in the mood for pretty-pretty colors.