Seems fairly minute to me. The sucker punch may be that but it's about as effective as Gary Coleman hitting George Foreman.

The reason I wouldn't see this version is not the snipe at "men of the cloth" but because of the gimmicky 3D, the ruining of a very potent scene with forced slap-stick and the fact that there are already far too many superior versions of a story that has been retold enough times for it's own good.

I have to admit to watching episodes of a variety of Reality shows including some comically tragic ones such as 'My Super Sweet 16', and 'True Life'. Though I haven't seen 'Jersey Shore' it shouldn't be much worse than either of the aforementioned shows.

And if these shows provide an example for people of how *not* to act then shouldn't we be praising them? I don't think people are actually tuning in to Reality TV because they associate with these characters or think they represent a wide swath of specific groups of people.

I would be more willing to see this film if James Cameron just acknowledged what it really is and stopped trying to pretend it's "just a movie". A convenient excuse made throughout Hollywood whenever there is backlash against a film.

If film is art and art is a critique of our culture through the eyes of another then it should be analyzed as such.

Being that Cameron worked on this script for over a decade, spent over 300 million to make it, spent another 200 million marketing it partnering with one of the largest corporations in the world (McDonald's), and pushes the specific agenda that he does in this film makes him out to be a hypocrite in the largest sense. He's already admitted that he's an aging hippy. Shouldn't that clue us in to at least a partial sense of what he's all about?

I've said this before. I must repeat myself. What is so enlightening and deep about Avatar? If you've been a movie lover or industry type for any significant period of time then this story is no more original than Christmas Carol and its sundry remakes. I fail to see how pointing out a movie's flaws and bias is unfair criticism and "dogmatic anti-intellectualism".

But I suppose it would take a free thinker such as yourself to enlighten us rubes. I guess we just Grin and Bear it, as Hollywood makes a mockery of our country and revels in its downfall. This alleged catharsis so many of your types mean for us has been going on for decades and now when people grow tired of it and speak against it they are accused of being fascists. Saul has taught you well.

And you don't think that transfer of wealth and government handouts had an equal share in widening the gap between classes? I know of very few countries that take care of their poor and destitute as well as the U.S. does. Think of a poverty stricken homeless person in America, now imagine the same situation in Russia, or China, or Africa.

Is the system perfect? Of course not! Perfection is beyond the scope of humanity. The idea of a Utopian society is theory. I guess the model that works best for us flawed humans is too much for some since it is Darwinian in principle. Does our model need regulation? YES. Does it need interference? NO. What group provides the largest amount of employment in the US? That's right, small businesses, and when you try to put the squeeze on large corporations (Essentially ALL legislation by the current administration and some from the previous) you stifle the true lifeblood of this country.

And I absolutely agree that *Climate Change* is much more complex than simple minded analysis, being that humans still aren't even capable of fully explaining weather phenomena with our much ballyhooed technology. But it has also been overly simplified by the AGW enthusiasts, putting all blame on humans when our contribution of greenhouse gases are minute percents compared with what nature conjures. Among other things this and the fact that some so-called scientists are making a mockery of true analytical research renders the whole argument puerile and slack.

Try harder troll. And next time bring something original to your argument. Alinsky-ism doesn't work here.

"Don't try to defend a shitty country", eh?

I didn't know that the only country in the history of the world with the largest number of +1,000,000 minority groups, the widest scope of human rights ever granted, the country that even under withering attacks from the sophists such as yourself still sees an influx of people from *many* nations, the country that has *liberated* far more than have been killed, and still finds the time to extend the benefits of all this to an ingrate like you, was shitty.

And I didn't know the "poor-oppressed-native-tribe-that-would-never-have-known-strife-but-for-the-evil-white-man" was such an enlightening story. Perhaps it's because your fringe intelligentsia think no one else is capable of digesting a *real* story about conservation and living within your means so it is coated in hackneyed tripe such as this.

You know? I bet if these useful idiots bumbling about bothered to ask any person with a *conservative* bent what they felt about *conserving* the environment they'd be shocked to find out we are just as much for protecting our world as they are, we just don't subscribe to bogus science that has transcended into cult status and if followed will hamstring *progress*, something I thought they were for.