Omer Mozaffar, a Pakistani Chicagoan,
discusses James Cameron's "Avatar"

Wo! Omar! We should have "Ebert and Mozaffar"!

Thanks for a report that's tops in readability and richness of content. You and Roger are both a bit too forgiving of the hackneyedness of AVATAR's story line and characterizations, but I'm with you in that it's a marvelous achievement. You're also spot-on about the Cameron color scheme.

Are any of your lectures on Islam available on-line?

The 'Avatar' pushing on this blog is getting out of hand, this post has almost nothing to do with the movie, it's actually more interesting than what the title implies.

Hey there, Mozaffar!

(which sounds like Zanzibar and very far away; smile.)

How nice to see! And I liked the sound of your voice, it's got a nice timber to it. I also enjoyed reading your piece and in particular this bit:

"I started watching Siskel and Ebert on Sneak Previews as a young grade schooler, perhaps because they were reviewing movies on Channel 11 (PBS). In all honesty, Siskel and Ebert were probably extensions in my mind of Big Bird, Oscar the Grouch, and Mr. Rogers."

For my mind immediately began "photoshop’ing" Gene and Roger's faces over various muppets. I know; clearly I am easily amused. :)

Maybe it’s a West Coast thing, but when I’m out and about and I hear a multitude of languages being spoken - everyone seems to be getting along. And Muslims aren’t hiding. You’ll see them reading the Quran on the Skytrain, or chasing after their kids because they foolishly did what all stupid parents do; they allowed them to get near the TOY dept, chuckle!

Note: “Mom, can I have…” is understandable in every language when asked by a child.

I do know “Little Mosque on the Prairie” - a Canadian sitcom on CBC Television, created by Zarqa Nawaz and produced by WestWind Pictures, does well up here and has won numerous awards.

All of which is to say, I think it sucks that the U.S. is more polarized in its thinking and Muslims find themselves having to constantly separate themselves from the behavior of others, simply because “those guys were Muslims too” – ergo, guilty by association. Whereas whenever a Christian commits a crime, other Christians don’t feel the need to apologize for it.

But then, I personally think of faith in terms of a mosaic. Yes, you’re all Jews or Christians, etc etc. However at the same time, you’re also a single piece of ceramic tile on the wall, eh? Faith is the grout. Not the pieces, themselves. And why they can get loose or fall out – case in point; have you checked your bathroom lately? Everything okay? Nothing cracked?

And so if a Muslim in the United States does something, I see it as the act of an individual. While observing that your Media does not, and what that’s a deeper reflection of.

Note: the thing I like the most about Islam, is that it teaches the respect of all beliefs. Whereas Christians always want to convert you – which strikes me as a “Borg” mentality (Star Trek ref.)

And speaking of Science Fiction….

So; you really, really liked Avatar, eh?

Hmm. (smile.)

Well, I can’t fault your reasoning for it’s emotional and honestly expressed. You were genuinely moved by it. And yes, blue… I noticed that too! But there’s no mystery there – it photographs well and he knows it. And it conveys both above and below (sky and sea) and thus resonates with people on a visceral level. Making it a great color to use psychologically speaking.

I actually saw a copy of the film – so no big screen or 3D experience for me. Just the CGI and the story. And I did like it and enjoy stuff but I didn’t fall in love with Avatar the way some have. I think it has awesome bits and pieces but also faults and failings.

What matters though is that you enjoyed it. As you paid for your ticket, I didn’t; chuckle!

P.S. is it snowing outside that window behind you..?

Seems like a misleading title. You appear to be discussing yourself. What exactly is the point?

This is what Omer always does, take us to a ride of religion all the way to entertainment and this is the beauty of his speech/writing and personality,,
I love this article of his ,,
keep up the god work ,

AA: You appear to be discussing yourself. What exactly is the point?

---Yes. How dare a stranger introduce himself with an essay, even if he has been asked to do that by his host. It is the most pointless behavior I have seen all day, no matter how interesting to read. Even worse, he has presented his review of the film on video for us. I just don't get you, Omar ; )

The opening sentence says "I was born in Karachi, Pakistan, at a very young age. " Although I was born at a young age too, I believe he intended: "I was born in Karachi, Pakistan. At a very young age, my beloved parents rode the huge wave that was the South Asian diaspora, landing here in Chicagoland, where I've been ever since."

Ebert: Technically correct. But knowing Omer, I'm sure he wrote that with a smile.

His Tweets @Mozaffar are very funny.

the so-called "war on terror"?i preferrably would rather call it the war against islamic jihadists?

@Tom Dark: Thanks, man. I appreciate it. The Ebert standard is amazingly hard to reach. Believe me, I tried. I even looked at the earliest clips I could find, and they were amazing. Thanks for your comment.

@Gary in Phoenix: The story is indeed very simple. I was thinking about it after watching it. Off the top of my head, the only Cameron movie that has a serious twist/betrayal of any sort was Aliens. Otherwise, his stories and characters are pretty simple (and straightforward). My main criteria: does it knock me out of the experience *during* the movie, and it did not. Thank you for your comment.

@Parker: The post itself is basically an introduction from me about me. Thanks for your comment on it. But, after your comment on Avatar, I did chuckle, noticing how much it has been mentioned on Ebert's blog. Serendipitous. Thank you for your comment.

@Marie Haws: Hi Marie. Yes, I'm really trying to remember why I started watching "Sneak Previews." It must have been 1st or 2nd grade. I'd like to see them as Muppets.

Is "Little Mosque on the Prairie" still on up there? I met Zarqa Nawaz some 15 years ago, when we were all big film/video dreamers. Doubt she remembers me. But, she had a poise, confidence, and humor then that I still remember.

Do the Islamic primary sources call for more respect of faiths than Christianity? I can answer that academically (being a theology prof), but instead, I'll just speak as a Muslim about Islam. The answer is both yes and no (that Islam respects faiths), depending upon how a person chooses to look at it. In the context of preaching/missionary work, the obligation is to call, not convert. The obligation is to deliver the message clearly. The choice of conversion is between the individual and the Divine, and some might not reveal their conversions. But, the Qur'an has both praise of the conduct of some Christians (for example), and yet is very critical of belief that, for example, God has a son. In my Intro to Qur'an class this past semester, I had a student (devout Christian) who found those passages in the Qur'an to be offensive to her, but she appreciated that they were as direct as they are (rather than tiptoe around the issues). Keep in mind that I'm speaking here only of text.

So, yes, I really like Avatar. I really, really liked it. I was probably smiling through most of the movie, all the more because the story was so predictable. Cameron is one of the few filmmakers who can make such a predictable movie that is still amazingly fun.

Your points about blue make sense. I won't comment on your viewing of the film, except for what I've just said in this sentence. :)

Snowing: no. Very low light, so I had to open the shutter as wide as it would go. Thanks for your comment.

@AA - Thanks for your comment. The post is my bio. The review is Avatar. You might be seeing more reviews.

Omer M

I might be one of the few, but I really enjoyed this post. The fact that I'm also a Muslim most likely attributes to my fondness for this article though.

Anyways, thanks for this.

Reply to: the point here is to illustrate what is playing in the media from the perspective of a young Muslim man: it is a constant onslaught. The result is that many young Muslims felt rather pressured to choose to retain, reshape or abandon their Islams.

Abandon a religion? that's the smartest thing you could do.

I'm not going to talk about Islam, because I prefer to talk about "generic religion."

If you read a book that tries to sell you on a certain belief about God, that book is false. A dishonest person had to invent an opinion about God. How do I know this? Because God does not exist.

I would give you the same advice I've given other people. Walk away from religion. I could give you pages and pages of compelling reasons, but there are so many Defense Mechanisms, you would only see me as attacking something, rather than trying to save lives.

Look around you. That's reality. Religion says, "There's something better than reality, and you can only obtain it by joining our group." But, in truth, there's NOTHING better than reality.

Faith and belief are tools used by con men, to manipulate their followers.

@AA - Did you click the YouTube link? The written article is not the same as the video that shows his actual review.

Ebert: Correct. I ask each Correspondent to describe themselves and a little of their philosophy.

The video clip contains his comments about "Avatar."

I like the article but Avatar isn't mentioned once.

I don't see anything wrong with my last comment, thanks for censoring it. Can I at least ask the "theology prof" a theology related question?

Ebert: Your post was offensive. It had no bearing on this entry, but was apparently inspired by the author's religion.

He made no claim to be a "theology prof." We try to keep a civil tone here.

Omer,

I feel sad that many people these days tend to criticize films for their simplicity, yet they have such high regard for, let's say, parables in the Bible, which are simple from a narrative standpoint but hold deep truths which we need to look deeper into. Just like Avatar.

As a literature professor, although I am open to the fact that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, I get frustrated with comments like Avatar is not worth it because it is essentially "Fern Gully," "Dances with Wolves in Space", or "Smurfporntastic," and the like. Over at rottentomatoes, I have been commenting on criticisms such as these because its critics don't seem to dare to look deeper than the visuals, and I've observed that those who hate the movie have the penchant for comparing Avatar with movies they've watched with a similar plot.

They don't seem to SEE that even our great classics in Literature deal with archetypal themes, which is why they seem to copy from one another. The universality of being human (which could be due to our 'genetic programming') would mean that there is a strong tendency for us to view things similarly even if we belong to different cultures and we've never met; example: water means eternity or purity.

Saying that Jim Cameron is not a good writer is baseless. After reading his screenplay for Titanic, particularly the way he describes scenes, I noticed that he writes like a novelist. Sure, the dialogue is simplistic, but that's the only way to sustain realism in a story. And back to Avatar, Sully or Col. Quaritch, being ex-military, cannot be expected to speak like Shakespeare or have the philosophical musings of Morpheus of the Matrix trilogy.

I guess I'm wishing that before critics become critics, they should read a whole lot of literature, just like you who reads the great Q'ran. That way, they would have a much more discerning taste in their criticism of movies. If those who cringe at Avatar fail to SEE the movie starting with one eye of Sully opening and ending with his two eyes wide open, I am concerned about the kind of future the next generation of critics would bring to movies.

Reply to: while the narrative structure of the Qur'an has left many westerners scratching their heads, seeking from it a Biblical/Classical structure, for me it was a perfect fit:

I read your comments a few times. Seems like you don't understand why there's so much opposition to Islam in the United States.

From a site: The Arabic term 'islam means "submission."

The source is 'aslama, which means "to surrender, resign oneself."

In Islam, the fundamental duty of each Muslim is to submit to Allah and whatever Allah wants of them. (end)

How do you know what Allah wants? Do you hear a voice when you pray? Or, is there a middle man who, maybe, makes up a message from Allah? OK, let's talk about the United States. Our ancestors came here to escape religious tyranny in Europe.

We don't have a state religion. In fact, our constitution forbids the government from establishing a state religion. Why? Because our founding fathers didn't like the abuses caused by competing Christian religions in the countries they left. So they wrote laws to CHANGE things.

When you come to the United States, hopefully, you're willing to leave the bad things about your old life behind. To become an American.

Americans don't submit to God. Americans don't submit to organized religion. We've drawn a line between our government and organized religion, and said, "Stay on your side of the line."

From a site: A person who follows Islam is called a Muslim, and this means "one who surrenders to God." The concept of submission to the will, desires, and commands of a God is inextricably linked... When a religion originally develops in a cultural context where total submission to absolute rulers and total submission to the head of a family are taken for granted...(end)

I guess my point is, our ancestors left Asia and Europe to get away from tyrants ruling in the name of their God and their religion. If you come here and ask us to respect the idea of submission to a religious leader, it's not going to work. It's just not American. It's not anything America stands for.

Americans don't believe in submission to political leaders. Or religious leaders. Americans are a bit arrogant. For me, personally, the idea of a culture or tradition where an entire family submits to the head of the family, and up the chain to a theocratic leader, is offensive.

You mentioned "The South Asian Diaspora"

From a site: ...numbers just under 30 million people worldwide... a movement of professionals and labourers in the late 20th and early 21st century from the subcontinent to countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Singapore.

Immigration to the U.S. came in two waves, the first from 1907 to 1924, and the second much larger wave, starting in 1965 continuing to the present day. The first wave consisted mostly of Sikhs from the Punjab, and Muslims. After an unsuccessful attempt to gain a foothold in the lumber industry in the Northwest, most South Asians migrated to California and through hard work became landowning farmers.

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1923 regarding the Thind case said that Indian immigrants were Asian rather than white and made it impossible for immigrants already in the U.S. to gain citizenship.

Increasingly strict immigration laws reduced immigration and the Immigration Act of 1924 barred all further immigration from India. The estimate of South Asians immigrating to the U.S. before 1964 is around 6,400. In 1946 the Luce-Celler Bill established very small quotas for immigration from India and Pakistan (100 per year from India). In 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Reform Act marked the beginning of the second wave of immigration and by 1990 nearly 1 million South Asians had immigrated to the U.S. A large percentage of South Asians in the second wave were professionals. (end)

As I said, my advice would be to walk away. Anybody who asks you to get down on your knees and "submit" to his authority - or God's authority - really doesn't have your best interests at heart.

Okay, I take my comments back, I was thrown off by the title and only read the text because I was looking for a review.

Anyways, I don't have a review but a short blurb on a spiritual message of the movie (which might be relevant here).

http://arif.amplify.com/2009/12/20/universal-spiritual-message-in-the-movie-avatar/

Mr. Ebert: “We try to keep a civil tone here.”

Sir, I'm sorry. It was criticism. Harsh criticism, but not in my opinion uncivil.

Mr. Ebert: “Your post was offensive.”

Sir, with all due respect, I find your not publishing the comment offensive.

Mr. Ebert: “It had no bearing on this entry, but was apparently inspired by the author's religion.”

Sir, with all due respect, it does concern the entry, because in the entry he provides a 1,263 word essay about his life as a good muslim. No he did not explicitly mention that he is a good muslim, but his writing is dripping with implicit positive references to his religion. He has delivered over 200 lectures on Islam all over America, claims to be an academic and is indirectly soliciting not only questions, but other concessions also.

Mr. Ebert: “He made no claim to be a "theology prof."”

Sir, ahem, coughing, spluttering, I suggest you read paragraph 6, lines 1 & 2 of, Omer M. Mozaffar | December 22, 2009 11:30 PM | where he says-

“Do the Islamic primary sources call for more respect of faiths than Christianity? I can answer that academically (being a theology prof), but instead, I'll just speak as a Muslim about Islam.”

Sir, out of respect for you, I believe that as a non-muslim, non-sky-person believing human being living in the twenty first century, I have a completely legitimate question regarding the progenitor of the religion of Islam, of which said “theology prof” is an ardent follower.

Have I your permission to ask the question please?

Before you answer, I want you to have a long hard think about what you wish to censor. Also, I want you to bear in mind, the fact that favoured former student of yours or not, the answer he gives to this question will determine, whether he ought to be delivering any lectures of any kind at all, least lectures on theology.

I would also like you to remember that you encourage critical thinking among all your readers and further I would like you to consider the simple fact that just because a question makes someone uncomfortable does not mean it should not be asked. I have defended muslims in the past and will do so in the future, particularly against people like Mozaffer, should his answer not correspond with your or my view of reality, which I am given to believe would without a moment's hesitation, deliver exactly the same answer to the question.

It is a yes/no closed question.

There is no moral conundrum here. I'm sure you have a good idea what my question would be and if you censor it, you will have only your own conscience and honour to answer to. Hundreds of millions of muslims suffer, because questions like this are considered taboo. Accountability has to be circular, if Jews, Christians and many other religions can have quite offensive things said about them in America, surely a simple closed question from me can do no harm?

So Mr. Ebert, sir, may I please ask the question?

Mr. Ebert: “We try to keep a civil tone here.”

Sir, I'm sorry. It was criticism. Harsh criticism, but not in my opinion uncivil.

Mr. Ebert: “Your post was offensive.”

Sir, with all due respect, I find your not publishing the comment offensive.

Mr. Ebert: “It had no bearing on this entry, but was apparently inspired by the author's religion.”

Sir, with all due respect, it does concern the entry, because in the entry he provides a 1,263 word essay about his life as a good muslim. No he did not explicitly mention that he is a good muslim, but his writing is dripping with implicit positive references to his religion. He has delivered over 200 lectures on Islam all over America, claims to be an academic and is indirectly soliciting not only questions, but other concessions also.

Mr. Ebert: “He made no claim to be a "theology prof."”

Sir, ahem, coughing, spluttering, I suggest you read paragraph 6, lines 1 & 2 of, Omer M. Mozaffar | December 22, 2009 11:30 PM | where he says-

“Do the Islamic primary sources call for more respect of faiths than Christianity? I can answer that academically (being a theology prof), but instead, I'll just speak as a Muslim about Islam.”

Sir, out of respect for you, I believe that as a non-muslim, non-sky-person believing human being living in the twenty first century, I have a completely legitimate question regarding the progenitor of the religion of Islam, of which said “theology prof” is an ardent follower.

Have I your permission to ask the question please?

Before you answer, I want you to have a long hard think about what you wish to censor. Also, I want you to bear in mind, the fact that favoured former student of yours or not, the answer he gives to this question will determine, whether he ought to be delivering any lectures of any kind at all, least lectures on theology.

I would also like you to remember that you encourage critical thinking among all your readers and further I would like you to consider the simple fact that just because a question makes someone uncomfortable does not mean it should not be asked. I have defended muslims in the past and will do so in the future, particularly against people like Mozaffer, should his answer not correspond with your or my view of reality, which I am given to believe would without a moment's hesitation, deliver exactly the same answer to the question.

It is a yes/no closed question.

There is no moral conundrum here. I'm sure you have a good idea what my question would be and if you censor it, you will have only your own conscience and honour to answer to. Hundreds of millions of muslims suffer, because questions like this are considered taboo. Accountability has to be circular, if Jews, Christians and many other religions can have quite offensive things said about them in America, surely a simple closed question from me can do no harm?

So Mr. Ebert, sir, may I please ask the question?

Wow! Omar..thanx for such a nice post...I really enjoyed it..:)...I liked when you said: "On the South Side of Chicago, I'm a Pakistani. In the rest of Chicago, I'm a Southsider. In the rest of America, I'm a Chicagoan. In the rest of the world, I'm an American. That is today's "normal," isn't it? We are simultaneously, unintentionally local and global". LOL!

Greetings all:

Indeed my bio was not about Avatar, and in hindsight, I should have commented on it in text, to accompany the video.

But, for those who would like to continue the conversation on Islam, religion, war, etc.. it might be better to comment on my personal blog. We're a bit limited in what we can speak about here because the site belongs to the Sun Times. Meaning, even I have to be cautious about saying things about Islam in particular, but religion(s) in general.

@Gary - I'm sorry, I didn't respond to your question about my lectures online. To my knowledge, there aren't any. I'm a bit of a reluctant lecturer. I would rather be watching movies. And, I tend to spend more time tutoring students than lecturing. Still, some people have been pushing me to post lectures online, so let's see what happens in the near future. Otherwise, a number of my writings are available all over the internet.

@Malahat Qureshi - Thank you, sir. Thanks for your comment.

@Tom Dark & @Mark - Thanks for your comment. I suspect that AA might actually be a friend of mine, who is picking on me.

@Joe W. - It was indeed a tongue-in-cheek comment. I stole that joke from a friend some 20-25 years ago. To this day, I don't think it has ever made anyone laugh. Or even smile. But, thankfully, it is finally getting noticed. I guess it took time to germinate. Not only am I a late bloomer, but apparently, so are my jokes. Maybe those people I've told the joke to over the past decades are laughing right now at the joke. Ok, this previous sentence is also a joke.

@john marzan - I'd call it the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was not meant to be a war against "jihadists" but for many within the war machine on our side, it is exactly that. For many within the war machine on our side, it is a war against Islam. Likewise, for many on the other side, it is a war against Christian/Jewish Holy Warriors, and for many it is a war against Christianity and Judaism. But, speaking as an American (Muslim or not), it's little more than an occupation, and I wish our soldiers would ordered back home. Thanks for your comment.

@M - Thanks for your comment. I hope it was of benefit.

@Bill Hays - Thanks for your comment. Yes, indeed faith is one of the oldest tools of the con artist. That is the con: trust. Keep in mind that if we use your argument, you've just told me that you're a dishonest person, because you're trying to sell me a certain opinion about God: that God does not exist. No? Smile.

The real question, however, is simple: is your reality better than mine? It's not any sort of an assertion; I'd be interested in seeing how you answer it. More importantly, if you're in Chicago, I'd love to chat with you in person. The simple fact that you used a capital "G" reveals that you are addressing the issue with respect (which many do not do), so I would love to chat with you more.

@Auditory - I'm happy to give Roger a pat on the back. Thanks for the comment.

@Adam - Yes, I should have mentioned Avatar. Thanks for the comment.

@MDR - Feel free to engage on my personal blog. Thanks for the comment.

I hope all is well. If I missed any questions/comments, I apologize.

Omer M

Omar Mozaffar says: "... while the narrative structure of the Qur'an has left many westerners scratching their heads, seeking from it a Biblical/Classical structure, for me it was a perfect fit: I had already so thoroughly embedded a film-editing outlook to my outlook, the Qur'anic narrative not only seemed to match, it also informed my understanding of film."

Very good point. Qur'anic narrative is often not linear, it returns to a subject or event and takes the scene from a different sometimes seemingly conflicting angle, giving the subject more depth and understanding. The spatiotemporal continuum is not material the Qur'an and it often emphasizes one day can be 50000 days for Allah and duration or place is not the point here. It jumps from a subject to another and returns back, without confusion. It assumes basic knowledge of the Bible events and characters, and only returns to them if it is needed to correct a part of it; implicitly putting it that though Bible is divine, there has been alterations. There are many Usual Suspects or Tarantinos in the Qur'an, and it is mostly not about rules but a different mental attitute. I just don't see such a book would be put together by a community of illiterate medieval desert people whose only priority was survival, or for that matter, even by modern intellectuals.

Yup - "Little Mosque on the Prairie" is still on the CBC. It's season 4.

As for Islam, my experience of it is fairly "west coasty" for lack of a better term; chuckle! Sometimes you might see a head covered but... it's not just Canada, it's also Vancouver, ya know? :)

It's pretty mellow out here. And so are Muslims.

Re: converting folks...

Catholic missionaries (hello South America.) You never seem to hear about Muslims doing that, eh?

My cousin tells me that the Qur'an states that all infidels (non-believers) should be killed. Is this true? Is it true to any degree? Is it a quote that is written but meant to mean something else?

One other note, I never quite understood the purpose and use of religion. We, even the evil, still know good from evil and right from wrong. I say, live as good a life as possible and let God sort out the rest. Any God that would send you to hell only for not believing any of "his" supposed written books, is a God not really worth serving anyways.

Ebert: You are offensive. The Muslims make outrageous demands when they live in a country not dominated by Islams...wanting their laws enforced in the country they live in rather than that country's laws, demanding that they not have to sell liquor in a store that they work in which sells liquor while in the U.S. Catholic pharmacy employees must sell birth control pills even though it is not their belief.....I could go on and on. I firmly believe that the Western countries have become much, much, too, too Political Correct. If you have a Muslim true to Islam living in a Western country, he/she will almost chose Islam over their western country even if he/she is a citizen of western country. The Muslims (according to NATO) will be the majority in Western Europe by the turn of this century.....what a change that will be. I believe that Muslims should live in countries where their religion is majority NOW.......They do not blend well in Western countries because of their strict, anti-Christian beliefs. Go ahead and ban this email. You have a lot to learn.

I don't recall them ever saying it was the "American" military or business. It's not anti-american what-so-ever, it's anti-imperialism.

Nice essay by Omer. I understand exactly what he means by "exile". I was born in England, and my parents went to Canada when I was six months old, and then to the US when I was six years old. I suspect that growing up Muslim on the South Side of Chicago was not unlike growing up Catholic in Mississippi -- one does not really fit in.

Comments on Avatar. Have any of you read Ursula K Le Guin's novel The Word for World Is Forest? This is about a benevolent race of aliens who inhabit dense forests, living in harmony with nature until they are attacked by invading human soldiers who believe that the only good gook is a dead gook. I know, lifting SF themes is commonplace -- Le Guin's The Lathe of Heaven is essentially same story as H G Wells' "The Man Who Could Work Miracles".

My son thought of Ferngully, which I admit I have not seen.

The floating mountains reminded me of Roger Dean's Yes album covers.

Your review sets the standard quite high like others. It's always nice to be introduced to movie lovers I have not met before.

I watched "Avatar"(2D-version) again this morning, and I was still a little bothered by not-so-subtle story. But what James Cameron achieves is still great to watch. Sometimes I talk with coffee shop owner at her shop(one story below multiplex theater) about newly released movies, and she expressed some doubt on watching this movie in 3D to me. However, this week, she told me the movie completely changed her opinion. She had a terrific time, and she'd like to watch it in 2D for assessing its beauty in more comfortable condition. Nevertheless, after watching in 2D, I think 3D is still more recommendable because that version cleary shows how great the movie is in many technical aspects.

P.S.

And I think we always need environmental messages even if it is not so subtle.

I guess that taught me a good lesson in "civility", you great fan of Sid Vicious, you old "rabble rouser" you. Sid would've had a few choice words for this attitude, I'd repeat 'em, but seeing as my comments are not going through, what's the bloody point anyway?

Merry Christmas.

This was a wonderful read. As an aspiring filmmaker from Pakistan, I am thrilled to see this article included here.

I do find it interesting though that much of the talkback deals with the author's religion and the opinions he expresses on film in tandem with his belief, as if the two are somehow oil and water. But film and religion are so intimately linked with the human experience, what is felt or imagined is rendered subjectively in both fields, while interpretations may be wildly unalike. It can be argued that films spur as much incessant debate as religious texts do, and I believe it is because both take root in the power of human imagination, personal spirituality and preference, and are designed to challenge the very human experience it arose from.

Because they are interpretive, the challenge both present are designed precisely to leave open the possibility for further moral correction and examination, for this process of correction and inspection is one that each human being is always subject to as his or her life progresses.

Although I am not a devout "Muslim" per say, I can relate entirely to Mozaffar's thrill at seeing a precisely constructed aesthetic and the way it may mirror the spiritual construction of any individual. A director that enthralls my own spiritual sense in Terrence Malick. His organic approach to film, disjointed in its editing, vague yet beautiful and thematic often appeals to those personal truths that seem to lie just beyond the bend, always elusive, yet somehow understood in the wanderings of one's self.

Anyway, my point was that the article and the comments really spurred my interest. Thank you for posting!

Omar,
You state in the description that the "Bad guys" in Avatar are the American Military and business. There is no place on or off the film where it is stated that the mercenary forces in the film Avatar are American, just as there is no statement as to what nationality the mining company is.

Ebert: What nationality did they seem like to you?

Omer, my apology. My excuse is my ongoing correspondence with my friend Omar, an Islamic scholar.

Yes you've got the TV chops. Confidence, even-tempered good humor, quick wit, right to the point and entertaining.

As to Islam, I recently learned the word "insan." I'll bet that even mentioning this statement sends shivers of recognition up certain posters who haven't any idea what the word means; be they insan Christians or certain wearying, wearying, wearying, wearying, wearying wearying, wearying weeeeeeeeeeeeeearying WEARYING Jesus-freak types who'll collar you on the street with wild hair and eyes screeching about what doesn't exist and how dangerous it is not to disbelieve with the same wearying, wearying (etc.) weird jihad as their own.

Omer was born at a very young age, and let it be said he lives his life in the present.

As a former coworker and "office sharer" of Omer's, I can attest to his love of film as we would often discuss movies in spirited and humorous ways.

James Cameron has a knack for producing and directing movies that appeal to our collective unconscious, especially "Terminator" and "Titanic", but given his admitted megalomania, I wonder whether he's reflecting the Zeitgeist but instead manufacturing it with expert and all encompassing advertising and merchandising.

Based on the preview alone, I did not want to see "Avatar". I was not moved to enthusiasm for it after seeing Cameron's "60 Minutes" interview or finding a blinking Avatar(?) sitting next to my kitchen table from one of my daughter's Happy Meals.

It reminds me of the scene in "Spaceballs" where Rick Moranis as Dark Helmut and Mel Brooks as President Skroob watch a video tape of the movie "Spaceballs" in the middle of the movie "Spaceballs".

Cameron's efforts to manufacture interest in his movies resemble industrial interests efforts propelling the masses to war. Omer's description of the movie's simple premise is reminscent of the Bush line "They don't like our freedom". War isn't hell, it's a popular movie.

Omer says he'll watch "Avatar" again, but I don't think "Terminator" or "Titanic" hold up for 2nd viewings, and forget about watching any "II"s or "III"s again.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, wait for the DVD.

I'm really enjoying this series of "new" film commentators from around the world. (Chicago being as exotic as Istanbul to someone like me living in suburbs.) Omer is right that we need to constantly reaffirm our humanity to each other. This series has that in it's underlying core.

I'm looking forward to more of his film commentary and I second the call for posting lectures on Islam and, of course, anything that thoughtfully puts (edits?) them together.

Omer, it's great to "read" you again--beautiful post. Thanks for sending me in this direction. I was curious about your reaction to Avatar having seen it myself this past week. I'll watch your video post later (my son is sleeping in the next room and I don't want to wake him!). BTW, I thought it was mind-blowing technically and smiled nearly throughout the entire film. We'd probably share a few chuckles about the dialog and acting if we both still reported to the Help Desk every morning on the 33rd floor.

Hi,
There is a line in ur article saying Jews dont condemn violence.
Also I notice that ur livid at the way how Muslims are treated,may I point out that other religions eg Christians ,Hindus dont cry out so loud when
Muslims treat them so badly.Turkey was the actual Greece.today its just another backward country,what about Kosovo,that was also Christian
until Albanian immigration took over the place.The Serbs were perfectly
hospitable until the Albanians started imposing their ways.The Albanians
were Christians until they were forcefully converted by the Turks,their
national hero is a Christian who fought against the Turks.Therefore my friend ,go figure.
Islam cannot reform until u change the Quran,until then Im sure its perfectly valid for a 60 year old to marry a 6 year old.
Im not against Muslims,except that their just too hypocritical when it comes to treating others with dignity

Wonderful, enlightening article and excellent review. I had no intention of seeing the movie, but now I won't miss it. Thanks Ebert and Mozaffar!!

Thank you, Omer, for what you've written above as a complement to your recorded review. What I like and admire most is your honesty. We'd like to share what you have to say with our students of English here in Marrakesh many of whom are also young people who love the creativity of the West but also love the inner peace which comes to them by way of their tradition and faith.
Take care and may all the best of this new year be yours.
And course the same to Roger Ebert who has opened so many doors of understanding.

Peace, salams

Omer says:
' It was that simple. When you're an extra in a movie, you sit and wait. And wait. And wait. So, you sit there and think. And chat. And think. And, I decided to read the Qur'an.'

And, you did this 'in prison' as a real inmate who was an extra for 'Natural Born Killers' OR as a extra who visited the prison as an honest man?
Prison conversions to Islam are rather telling of the power of the vindictive, sexist and racist nature of Mohammed (pbuh) and Islam's directives -- If numbers mean anything, prisoner's, particularly black or males of color, love it for those reasons -- someone should compare that inclination to convert to the rate of Islamic conversions in women's prisons.

Greetings all:

Once again, if you would like to engage in theological issues, it would probably be better to do it away from the Sun-Times site. If you are from Chicago, I would be more than happy to meet with you in person.

Apologies in advance for any points, comments, or questions I miss. It is not intentional (except where stated)Apologies for my not understanding some of your points.:

@Gerard Espiritu - Thank you for your comment. Beautiful points. I asked a friend -- a film critic and aspiring filmmaker -- if we can honestly criticize James Cameron for the writing in this story. Even if it is simplistic and predictable -- as was, for example John Ford's amazing "The Searchers" -- can we criticize him if that simplistic story contributes appropriately to a great film? You make an interesting point about his screenplays. It has been a long time since I've read any of his scripts (and I vaguely remember having read many of them). Based on your comment, I will revisit them. What courses do you teach?

@Bill Hays - Thank you for your comment. In some parts I agree, and in some parts, I disagree, so let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the discussion. Let me try to respond in order:

a- Actually, the opposition to Islam among some Americans has little to do with the points you make. Prior to 9/11 much of the opposition to Islam was little more than simple bigotry. Post-9/11, it is a bigotry compounded by anger, fear, and tribalism.

b- I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make in most of the first half of your comment, unless you're building your argument to say, as you do, that "If you come here and ask us to respect the idea of submission to a religious leader, it's not going to work." That's well and good, and I agree with you. I would venture a guess that you're assuming that this is somehow Islam, and I'd state that we should sit and talk so I can clear a few things up for you. There is no clergy in Islam. Islam has been a decentralized body at least since the 900s.

c- I don't understand your point about the South Asian Diaspora. Are you just sharing statistics? If so, then thank you, because they are very interesting.

d- Well, I have no problems with someone telling me to submit to God's authority. And, if that person tells me that his authority is synonymous with God's authority, I doubt I'd listen any more than you would.

But, let me sum up what I think you're trying to say. There are a few aspects of society toward which our founding fathers directed their efforts. The first is in checks and balances. The point here is that authority must be kept in check. The second is in protection of dissent. You must be able to express dissent in speech and practice (i.e. religion or no religion) without fear of social, legal, political consequences. Implicit in this outlook is that religion is one such force in society that might be used to override one or both of these points. There is more, but these seem to be the points that you are focusing, and that you are concerned that Muslims or any people of religion are threats to this.

Yes?

Please pardon me for misunderstanding any of your points.

@AA Thanks for the link. I'll try to check i out.

@MDR - I don't see a question, and if your goal is to protect people from people like me, then please continue to do so. Thanks.

@Raana Khan - Thanks. I'm glad you liked it.

@Alexander Grill - Very interesting points. Do you buy my analogy to film-editing? Thank you for your comment.

@Marie Haws - Wow, Little Mosque is in its fourth season?!!

I have a number of Muslim friends in Vancouver. Seems to be a big community out there.

Regarding missionaries, most of what I've heard tends to come from, well, movies. Smile.

@Tobias - To answer your question from your cousin, the answer is no, and if your cousin is really concerned about this and is in Chicago, we can talk in person. Of course, if your cousin is non-Muslim, then perhaps he or she might be concerned that I might try to kill him/her, no? Or, connect with me on my blog. Thank you for your comment.

@Clyde Nugget - Thank you for your comment. You make a couple important points. So... is your point that Muslims should just conform to laws that they feel are unjust? Because that would make them bad Americans, right? Because as Americans, we take pride in standing up for what is right. Should Muslims move to Muslim majority countries? That doesn't sound all too "Western." And, for that matter, what should we tell African American Muslims?

Regarding "strict, anti-Christian beliefs," I'd suggest that you might want to look in to the views of the founding fathers.

@jmusheno - The movie is definitely not anti-American. It is definitely anti-imperialism, I agree. But it is definitely connecting imperialism with business, no? Keep in mind that the two most prominent military characters in the movie were Marines. Thus, it seems to be pro-American, in at least implying that America has survived for another century or two. Thank you for the comment.

@John Hobson - Great suggestions. I will have to check them out. I would be interested in learning more about your life in Mississippi. Thank you for the comment.

@Seongyong Cho - Thank you. I love reading your comments on Ebert's blogs. I still have to figure out why I so loved this movie. I think, to quote Marie Haws from above, it's a visceral experience.

@More Diffusion of Responsibility - I'm sorry, I don't understand. Thank you, though.

@mhk - Great points. What is your favorite Malick film?

@Jon L - Aren't the two main military characters Marines? Aren't all of the humans speaking in American English? But, yes, I do not recall seeing any American flags. I expect that do be addressed in the sequels. More importantly, did you like the movie?

@Tom Dark - Man, I really don't understand what you're saying.

@Michael Weiser - Great to hear from you! How about this. I'll pay for your ticket. Tell me how much it cost (including whatever you usually eat/drink when you watch movies), and tell me what you think of the movie. It's a fun movie, man. I hope all is well with you and the family.

@Hauss - Thanks for your post. I appreciate it.

@Brian - Great to hear from you! When you watch the video, you'll probably laugh noticing how much more bald I've become.

@John - Thanks for your post. But, no I did not say that Jews do not condemn violence. In fact, the example I gave was of Rabbis condemning violence. Regarding your historical examples, they are actually way off.

@carolyn baugh - Thanks for your post. Tell me what you think of the movie. Thanks primarily to Ebert.

@Abdurrahman - Salams and thank you for your post. Tell me what your students think.

@RDS - RDS, my little sweetheart. How are you doing? I miss you, my sweet little teddy bear. I won't comment on your statement about "blacks or males of color." That's a new low for you. But, considering how much time you've spent following me on blogs, I'd say that somewhere in your little tiny heart, there is hope.

Omer M

I am in Riyadh teaching ESL to first year university students. I presented Omer's article to my reading class, but got very little input from them. On a literary level, it went a little over their heads. When given the gist of it, it was difficult for them to relate. I don't believe they consider cinema an art. They view it in the same way they view video games. Islam is one thing; interpretations of it- and lifestyles and acts based on it- like other religions, are open to debate.

I began showing Majid Majidi's "Color of Paradise" this week to two different classes. Granted, it is a film from "Shiite Iran," which Saudis despise, but aside from a deep personal connection to the film, I chose it for its English subtitles and for complementing this week's reading unit titled "Helping Others: Random Acts of Kindness." I made it clear that the film does not deal with politics, but with life. I told them that nowhere in the film does it mention "Shiite" or "Sunni."

In the first class, the students gathered near the screen and as soon as the -very subdued- music opened the credits, my one very bearded student stood up and walked out. When I was about to continue the film yesterday, he said "Teacher, we have all agreed that we do not want to watch a film. We want to read a book." The other students all said that they had agreed on no such thing, that they think the film is beautiful, and he waved his finger at them, called shame upon them, and left again.
Upstairs in the teachers lounge, where Faisal, a very lively Saudi man, works behind the desk, I mentioned the details of the class and the film. He got very worked up and said "You show them whatever you think will benefit them. How many guys in your class objected? One! Don't you dare change your mind about anything based on one guy." Two minutes later, 3 bearded teachers circled around us and informed me that I have no right to play "music" (in a film, or in any other format) or anything else that's forbidden or objectionable, unless I want to be fired. These teachers are not Saudi. Well that was enough to rattle Faisal. He challenged them and said "Do YOU find movies and music objectionable? Are you offended by the very thought of them?"

"It's not about what we object to; it's the rules."

"Whose rules? Who made these rules? You guys are keeping my country a living hell!" I listened, and said nothing, but I fear I will be targeted- and for what? Showing a film that is rated G? The real horror is not that probably half of young Saudis have seen Saw VI in their own bedrooms, but that they know not a thing about what Cinema is, and what it can be. These hypocritical, senseless "rules" are holding this society in the dark ages. In addition to showing this film, I took all of my students to a bookstore and had them choose a novel to read. This little action is something that would not be approved by this university, since it does not adhere to its curriculum. But what is the point in learning "how" to read from a textbook and leaving it at that? If you walk into my classroom, you'll see Jane Austen, Stephen King, Agatha Christie, Charles Dickens, and Roald Dahl on students' desks. Roald Dahl has become the author of choice in my class, as the others authors go over their heads.

I asked Faisal why posters and advertisements around the city show people with their eyes or faces blurred. He said that it's because some people here believe that when we take a photo, we are emulating God. The same thing with artwork. He told me that the longer we spend on such crafts, the more sinful the final product will be to those who view them. By blurring the eyes, or face, we "kill" the creation so that it shows we only have the power to "create" something that was, and always will be, dead. I write this because I find it confounding on one level, stupid on all others, and would love to hear Omer's opinion.

I can't believe the level of anti-Muslim vitriol which is being slung on this blog in response to Mr. Mozaffar's movie review. It's predictable but extremely depressing to see how anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice (the two are not the same, but the distinction is usually lost on the people making these statements) has become the somehow #1 acceptable prejudice among liberals who would otherwise recognize anti-Arab prejudice as the form of racism it is.

Instead, terrified by scare stories of Islamic fundamentalists -- and there *are* some really scary stories, of 9/11, of Taliban misogyny, of religiously motivated assaults and threats against writers like Salman Rushdie and Naguib Mahfouz -- even people who identify as liberal willingly line up to sling mud against "vindictive, sexist" Muslims when they make the slightest positive mention of their religion. And of course that's not even mentioning the attitudes towards Arabs and Muslims held by the right wing, and by Fundamentalist Christians.

For those who think of Islam as intolerant, have you ever considered that communities of Christians, Jews, Druze, Yazidi and many other religious minorities persisted in Islamic lands for over a thousand years to the present day, whereas all significant non-Christian groups in Europe and America, apart from Jews, were wiped out or forced to convert?

For those who think of Islam as violent, have you ever considered that it's (Fundamentalist) Christianity which goes into such Rapturous detail about the end of the world in which nonbelievers will be tormented, eaten by monsters, etc.?

For those of you who think of all religion as worthy of mockery -- and frankly, I am an atheist too -- could you consider the theory that the recent rise in fundamentalist Islam is not because Islam is somehow fundamentally anti-modern, but because fundamentalist Islam, at this moment in time, offers a cultural rallying point against the military attacks and occupations of Arab countries throughout the 20th century, and the current boom in racism against Arabs and Muslims, leading into a self-perpetuating cycle?

I hereby assign all you mudslingers the homework assignment to watch the documentary "Reel Bad Arabs" and go read Jeremy Salt's "The Unmaking of the Middle East." As a side note -- Roger Ebert, you are one of the greatest living writers. I have always admired your wit, brilliance and good taste. Keep up the good work and keep up this series of guest movie reviews!

I could have sworn that somebody mentioned America in the movie. If not, "Marine" and "jarhead" are terms that strike me as particularly American, especially when used together. And if the allegory was America exploiting Native Americans/The Middle East for land/oil, then yeah, those marines were Americans.

Say Omar- nice to see a Mckinley Monarch make his mark. Came across your article surfing Ebert to find a rental.
Tom Ryan '85

To date, Avatar is the most amazing visual experience out there. It's just as Roger says; and, I fully agree with his four star rating. It's easily the finest movie of its genre yet made; and Avatar will indeed set a benchmark for future sci-fi movies.
I wrote a comment before seeing it in Roger's column about Avatar; and, I lamented that the special effects have become so good that such movies will twist the public's view of reality into mush much like a cult; and beyond my wildest dreams Avatar essentially does just that. It leaves the population confused and impotent to be a force for moral certainty in this federal republic the United States of America.
Indeed this movie has that power to reverse patriotism itself -- I even rooted for the monsters in the end. It clearly makes the USA's paid, devoted military into the heartless bad guys, our Wall Street money men into venal thieves, and heinous murderers -- in contrast, I suppose, to Sharia banking … or a barter system, and the 9/11 terrorists into good guys? But this was another planet we’re talking about – right?
I can think of Disney Animations for children: Furngully, Pochahontas and Atlantis particularly; not that it didn’t draw heavily from a few others; and, Cameron's ‘Alien’ movie, for special effects and gadgetry.
I'm not sure Marie and me complain about the same things but the movie isn't above criticism. It leaves me with a tad cynical taste in my mouth at how formula driven the story line and visuals were.
This was perhaps written by Cameron, but conceived, constructed, and polished with the hands of a committee from the people at Disney: it's a glorious testament to the power of the corporation -- ironically the antagonist in this movie. Disney has caught the competition and stand to reap huge wealth -- at the expense of reality itself.
I can just see a lawyer like Gernero of ‘Jurassic Park’ rubbing his greedy hands together, as he viewed Avatar before release in 3D glasses.
At the Smithsonian museum one can see the kinds of horrors native Americans suffered with displays of shrunken heads, bones (are they still on display?) embedded with arrow heads, or chopped into from efforts to remedy disease and 'madness' -- riddled with the evidence of parasites … if such things plagued the natives on that planet it was never shown; no, in fact, the horrible monsters became friendly in a real pinch. In a place like that hostile environment, not once was an inhabitant shown maimed -- was it like Ancient Sparta where the diseased and all mutants in the population were killed? No obese or old and ugly -- or really stupid, excepting the human -- the American.

Interesting post, and it touches on something that I have been thinking about regarding James Cameron's films.

I was underwhelmed by Avatar, but many of the criticisms leveraged against it were similar to those leveraged against Titanic in the decade since its release. I like Titanic. So I would like to say this, in defense of Titanic, and by extension, of Avatar:

-Cameron's last two films appeal to a very wide international and multi-generational audience-

Context: I am married into a family of Punjabi immigrants. My wife and I grew up in the west, and our lives have been defined, in large degree, by the movies and television were were exposed to throughout our youth. And we were exposed to a LOT of movies. Her family, however, grew up in a small village in India. Though her family are re-known artists, philosophers and intellectuals in their native land, they rarely watched western films or studied western art. They rarely watched films at all. They had more important things to do, like survive. The films they were exposed to were mostly romantic fantasies, trivial for the most part, from India. They don't bring with them the complex viewing process that would allow them to interpret or appreciate a movie like, say, Momento. If film has a language of its own, then Momento is a foreign language to them.

Titanic, on the other hand, is a movie they can watch and love. The story transcends age, language and culture. It's a movie I could watch with my inlaws, or even with my own flesh-and-blood grandmother (who, despite growing up in the U.S., but can barely follow the cacophonous modern cinema). Titanic's characters exist within a less ironic world, and for that, we children of the ironic age tend to view it with suspicion and contempt.

The same is true of Avatar to a lesser degree. The movie's themes do reflect topics which the developing world are acutely aware (exploitation of the natural and cultural world for selfish material gain), and the movie's lack of irony will help it communicate to foreign audiences. Although, I should say, the genre is not something my grandmother would enjoy.

Titanic broke all box-office records because it had massive cross-cultural appeal. I don't think Avatar will be as successful, but I do think Cameron was aware that his super-expensive films need to play to more than just teenage boys and movie savvy 20-30-somethings.It needs to be said, that while Avatar rips 'Dances With Wolves' plot, Dances with Wolves is 20 years old, and a whole generation was born and raised without the reference point. So maybe we shouldn't make such a fuss about it.

Thanks for this post. Your article reminded me of the chapter on Islamic art in the art history course I am taking. I learned that Islamic art has a lot to do with pattern, symmetry, repetition and above all, the beautiful garden as symbolic of heavenly paradise. The entire planet of Pandora in the movie is a beautiful garden.

RDS - At first I could not follow any logical thread through your post, but as I examined your post more closely, I realized that your comments may in fact provide evidence of Hawking's quantum theory.

You start out by saying that Avatar is "the most amazing visual experience out there. It's just as Roger says; and, I fully agree with his four star rating. It's easily the finest movie of its genre yet made..."

Then you suggest that "special effects have become so good that such movies will twist the public's view of reality into mush much like a cult" At first I thought, how could a movie turn your view of reality into mush, but then you go on to prove it by demonstrating that your mind has in fact been turned into mush!

"...and beyond wildest dreams Avatar essentially does just that. It leaves the population confused and impotent to be a force for moral certainty in this federal republic the United States of America. Any time someone starts a sentence with 'indeed', you know you are about to hear some dramatic statements, and, indeed, that's what you did: "Indeed this movie has that power to reverse patriotism itself

The force of this film turned your ordered and sophisticated brain into mush! Without your confidence in the moral certainty of the USA, your brain could no long process information critically!

But there is perhaps something more insidious at play here. Follow me for a second.

In his book, 'A Brief History of Time', Steven Hawking discussed at length the phenomenon of Entropy, and how the expanding Universe is transforming order into disorder. But, Hawking warns, there may come a time when the Universe will reverse itself, and disorder shall become ordered once again. If such a thing ever happens, our consciousness might perceive all things in reverse.

RDS, I think you may have identified the point in time when the universe reversed itself, and Avatar is the nothing less than the harbinger of this new universal shift. After all, if this film can cause 'patriotism itself' to reverse itself, surely the universe has gone topsy turvy.

You even 'rooted for the monsters in the end.' , My God. It's like James Cameron is the new Leni Riefenstahl!

You connected all the dots:
" It clearly makes the USA's paid, devoted military into the heartless bad guys, our Wall Street money men into venal thieves, and heinous murderers. in contrast, I suppose, to Sharia banking … or a barter system, and the 9/11 terrorists into good guys?"

So, you've made your case and it is clear: the movie is brilliant and dangerous work of propoganda, but you are too smart to fall for it.

But then you reverse yourself again! 'It leaves me with a tad cynical taste in my mouth at how formula driven the story line and visuals were.'

You see, it's true! We are in living in what Steven Hawking called the 'universal relapse'! Over the course of your post, you literally reversed yourself from saying it was 4-star film, and 'the finest film of it's genre', to 'formula story line and visuals'.

And watch how it transformed you from a pro-corporate, pro-American patriot into an anti-corporate tirade against Disney:

'it's a glorious testament to the power of the corporation -- ironically the antagonist in this movie. Disney has caught the competition and stand to reap huge wealth -- at the expense of reality itself.'

AT THE EXPENSE OF REALITY ITSELF!!!

"I can just see a lawyer like Gernero of ‘Jurassic Park’ rubbing his greedy hands together, as he viewed Avatar before release in 3D glasses."

To quote Orson Welles: 'I have no words'.

Thankfully, the spell Avatar cast on you must have worn off, because you then switch from your commie tirade against greedy corporate powers, back to your pro-American, pro-Occupation self. You clearly saw through the leftist propaganda:

"In a place like that hostile environment [Pandora], not once was an inhabitant shown maimed -- was it like Ancient Sparta where the diseased and all mutants in the population were killed? No obese or old and ugly -- or really stupid, excepting the human -- the American."

Well, there you go. See. Americans and Corporations bring health and prosperity to all the people of the universe, and for that, we get shat upon. Without America, we'd all be maimed or diseased, or sacrificed before we could become a strain to the rest of the population. Boy, I sure am glad we didn't base our political system on those evil Ancient Greeks!

RDS, you have a powerful mind, I am amazed at the way you defied the film's spell. The rest of us were fools.

God Bless America and burn Avatar... it's the only way to set the universe back on track!

Salaam To One and All,

Nice to see a fellow like this both commended and critized. He's refreshing to read as far as I'm concerned. Not exactly captivating but more like the fellow at the greasy spoon to whom you comment on the weather just to be nice and ten minutes later you've bought him another coffee and want to know more about his job. It just happens.

Oh .... and by the way ... he's a Muslim. Interesting. I wonder what that's all about?

marek,
I have no apologies or corrections for my observations -- actually, this one was used instead of an original that had brought Omer into the discussion.
Formula driven concoctions with committees of numerous people are how movies get made, usually (ever look at the credits stupid?), including four star block busters.
Avatar happens to be directed and written by a guy who hates the USA, with the blueprints supplied by Disney -- it is a powerful movie.
Marie tells me Cameron's a Canadian with an axe to grind -- a man who withdrew his citizenship application in protest against Bush -- news to me.
Besides a personal tirade against me, I can't see that you said a damn thing that is true -- you're the kind of guy who would put a lamp shade on his head at a party to get a little attention. But, you have nothing to contribute, Marek -- do you?
BTW, smart guy, the USA didn't base it's system on Sparta; Sparta wasn't a federal republic, let alone democratic, nor did it resemble or produce those we admire as the Athenians, with people as Plato or Socrates in Greece; nor do we, as yet, kill those who are born with defects as Spartans did.

Greetings all, before I share my first post with all who take the time read it I would just like to say that I am a long time follower or Mr.Ebert, I have loved movies all my life and find every word of Mr.Ebert to be insightful and fare so any comment that I read of any form of slander I find to be repulsive.

Many of you reading this comment would probably throw away my opinion immediately due to the fact that I am but 16 years of age however I would have to agree with Mozaffar completely on the idea that yes, the people who need to take into effect the message that Cameron portrays will not listen to it. My older brother, a die-hard conservative is the essential antithesis of the message of the movie and still refuses to take the message to heart. And for whether or not the "bad guys" in this film was the U.S. government it is rather obvious that they are American mostly judging on the accents.

Evidently it's offensive to some, particularly Merek (who, BTW, understands Stephen Hawking) -- a personal affront as well, that one could presume, and offer as discussion to this thread, that the 'average man' can be hood-winked, deluded or converted to something that might not be for his best interests, particularly in cutting edge movie entertainment.
That in a 'democratic' USA or Canadian society, people given a good education (by the state -- not one of those Christian schools), are individuals; and, fully capable of thinking for themselves. So, when confronted with the con-man's grift, a politicians lies, or a fanatics proselytizing Americans see right through it to the truth. Will these rascals never learn!
The spin doctors for politicians, hawkers of scams, or cruddy products from China, and dirty tricksters for sneaky Dicks are easily spotted by the teeming multitudes of movie goers – now religion is another matter: It’s all 'good' in the USA, and the movie industry respects that completely. But the movie industry itself is sacrosanct too. Isn't that what you mean Omer with no contradictions with the Koran?
Omer said: 'I had already so thoroughly embedded a film-editing outlook to my outlook, the Qur'anic narrative not only seemed to match, it also informed my understanding of film. In my mind, to this day, it is hard to separate the two, as though they are that different. More than common narrative style, however, the two gave me sukoon (tranquility).'
So; Omer, Pee Wee Herman and Merek can sit side by side in a darkened theater and absorb the product as individual Americans should: entertainment; and, never fear that the movie might not cleverly hide some group’s or person’s agenda -- just 'sukoon' (submission is good!).
That’s such a given that Omer hardly had to even mention 'Avatar' since it, (even Star Wars) and the Koran are both 'good':

not

You sound like a very intelligent man. Sorry to see you mired down in the superstition trap. The quran is just a book written by men, so if you submit to its rules you are submitting to the rules of deceased scientifically illiterate desert wanderers. As it is with islam it is with all religion. They are guesses and wishful thinking and I hope I live to see the day that the majority of humanity can gets past it and starts dealing in reality. More and more, it seems that reality will be dealing with us whether we like it or not.

I apologize for my 'stupid' remark toward a fellow poster -- though basiclly calling me 'stupid' was essentially Merek's entire post.
Evidently it's offensive to some, particularly Merek (who, BTW, understands Stephen Hawking) -- a personal affront as well, that one could presume, and offer as discussion to this thread, that the 'average man' can be hood-winked, deluded or converted to something that might not be for his best interests, particularly from cutting edge movie entertainment.
That in a 'democratic' USA or Canadian society, people given a good education (by the state -- not one of those Christian schools), are individuals; and, fully capable of thinking for themselves.
So, when confronted with the con-man's grift, a politicians lies, or a fanatics proselytizing, Americans see right through it to the truth. Will these rascals never learn!
The spin doctors for politicians, hawkers of scams, or cruddy products from China, and dirty tricksters for sneaky Dicks are easily spotted by the teeming multitudes of movie goers – now religion is another matter: It’s all 'good' in the USA, and the movie industry respects that completely. But the movie industry itself is sacrosanct too. Isn't that what you mean Omer with no contradictions with the Koran?
Omer said: 'I had already so thoroughly embedded a film-editing outlook to my outlook, the Qur'anic narrative not only seemed to match, it also informed my understanding of film. In my mind, to this day, it is hard to separate the two, as though they are that different. More than common narrative style, however, the two gave me sukoon (tranquility).'
So; Omer, Pee Wee Herman and Merek can sit side by side in a darkened theater and absorb the product as individual Americans should: entertainment; and, never fear that the movie might not cleverly hide some group’s or person’s agenda -- just 'sukoon' (submission is good!).
That’s such a given that Omer hardly had to even mention 'Avatar'; since, it (even Star Wars) and the Koran are both 'good': Submission.

I can't help but comment. I find the blog very interesting and enjoyed reading it, but I had to laugh out loud with the first sentence: "born in Karachi, Pakistan, at a very young age". Aren't we all? Born at a very young age, that is, not in Pakistan :)

I remember taking Omer's Arabic I class at Columbia a few years back. What I remember about him is an extremely eloquent, interesting, and humorous individual. I believe he did mention his love for movies multiple times--though the specifics are now lost on me--but I am so happy to have been able to read this (and subsequently watch his Avatar review) on your site, Roger, and gain more insight into him as a person.

Omer, not only was it great to hear more about your personal life and your identity struggle as a young man, but your poignant analysis of Avatar and its importance to film beyond the technological aspects, as well as our culture, was greatly welcome. There is so much negativity surrounding this film and the "heavy-handed story" or the "shallow characters" or the "cheesy dialogue." I feel like you seem to express what I left the theater feeling, in that I don't necessarily think that every film needs to have some subtle, underlying message, or clever banter between the well-rounded characters. While I, personally, tell stories in a different manner, focusing on shades of grey rather than the extreme black and white, I do not fault someone like James Cameron for directing his message in a way that can be easily grasped by everyone, from the young to the old. From the dense to the enlightened.

I do share your cynicism and disappointment, though, when you speak of those that really need to hear this message, and their flippant disregard or downright admonishment of the central message. It is sad that something like this is instantly portrayed as liberal, pro-environmental propaganda (and of course all of the negative connotations we have regarding the word "propaganda") by those with dissenting opinions. And many people will unwillingly damage the importance of the message by calling the film shallow, the story juvenile, and claiming that its greatest merits are the visuals (however spectacular they may be). Something that so very recently happened with another great film, Wall-E.

I conclude with this: After seeing the film, I, like so many, was caught up in the hype and blogged about what a wondrous technological achievement it was. What exciting things it would usher henceforth in how we watch movies. I do not retract any hasty statements I made, casting aside what I saw at first as a "serviceable" story that was really just a means to a visually spectacular end. I had only just begun to absorb the movie in its entirety. Instead, I contend that after repeated viewings, the not-so-subtle storytelling is perfect for what the movie intended to accomplish. It draws lines, and speaks to our current situation, even though we are unwillingly on the side of the humans in this case. It warns us, it asks us to listen, to think. I don't see that as a bad thing at all. In fact, seeing as it has affected so many people, raised so many dialogues, and still manages to be relevant weeks after its release (something which most films never experience in our culture), just goes to show how brilliant of a film it really is.

Thanks again, both Roger and Omer. This was a real treat. I'm glad to have the chance to participate in the discussion.

Greetings All,

Some more responses:

@Peter Fawthrop - Thank you for sharing that story, and I am humbled that you used it in your class. I suspect that if I rewrote my piece for them -- or what I perceive to be their thinking -- I can still make a lot of the same points. For example -- I'm speaking as a Muslim -- is it possible to find and interact with the Divine without the Qur'an? Yes, it is. That point might seem controversial, but I am simply citing a figure in the Qur'an: Luqman. The greater point being that your interaction with the Divine may come through scripture, may come through the world around you, and/or it may come through the world within you. It may also come through the worlds of your imagination. Ideally, it is all of these. They might understand this point.

We have to understand that KSA is first and foremost *not* any sort of Islamic State. First and foremost, it is a monarchy. The Islam of KSA is subverted to fit the monarchy. Christianity is often subverted here by American politicians at least as much. That is not to say that the Saudi monarchs are any more or less devilish or angelic than American politicians; I have to make this point because people often seek to blame the Saudis for everything related to Islam and/or oil.

What I gather from your story is a condition we find in many parts of the Muslim world, that spirituality (i.e. ihsan) has been disregarded for law. The ideal is to have the balance of the two. Art connects with the spirituality. If art is looked at from the perspective of law, then we will have that exact bizarre situation where billboards will be present with eyes blotted out. The argument about "emulating God" has been so thoroughly used and misused that it has lost its meaning. Why even have a human in the billboard in the first place, if that is the concern?

The deeper problem is that when law is imposed at the cost of spirituality, so too is social justice. Most of the greatest, most influential figures of Muslim history -- the social activists/scholars -- were known for their spiritual orientations.

But, I would be interested in what your students *do* regard as art, beyond (for example) Qur'anic recitation, mosque architecture, and maybe Qur'anic calligraphy.

A good place to start the discussion is to ask them what is beauty.

@mhk - Thank you for posts. I don't know that there is anything for me to respond to.

@Jason - Thank you for your post. I know Shaheen's book, but I do not know Salt's book. I will have to take a look at it.

@Paul Arrand Rodgers - Yes, Sully tells the Na'vi that he is from the Jarhead clan. And interesting point that this movie had me consider was that as far as our consumption is concerned, compelling us to devour natural resources, the people on those lands are no different than the environment. Thanks for your post.

@Tom Ryan - TOM! How are you? Have we spoken to each other since Junior High? Weren't we also lab partners at some point?

@RDS - I tend to agree with your point about the apparent inconsistency in vilifying American business, by American business. But, I suppose that Cameron is expressing boundaries that American business (or business in general) should follow. Would you agree? Thanks for your post.

@jon - Very good points. Thanks for your post.

@Nancy Ibsen - Indeed, one of the words for paradise is "Jannah," which translates as "garden," and more accurately as "unseen garden." Art and beauty are aspects of interaction with the Divine.

@Marek - Thanks for your post, I guess.

@Omar Zaid, M.D. - Wa Alaykum Assalam. I'm not really a captivating guy. I tend to enjoy cheap jokes that bore gradeschoolers.

@Marek and RDS - May I ask that you shift the sparring to vilifying me?

@Tom - You're a wise person for 16. When I was 16, I was sitting around twiddling my thumbs. Do me a favor and give your brother a big hug. Because he's your big brother. Thanks for your comment.

@Rob - I'm sorry you feel that I'm mired down in the superstition trap. But, I'm sorry to tell you that religion (including superstition) isn't going anywhere. There was a notion, during the rise of scientism that religion was rendered useless, except as an opiate. It still is an opiate, and is still largely useless for many people. But, for many people, it gives them what science cannot: meaning. Science can give you facts, but science cannot give you value and meaning. Would you disagree? Thanks for your comment.

@A Mexican living in Canada - I'm glad you laughed. After years of me trying, people are finally laughing at the joke. Thanks for your comment.

@G Keenan - How are you Keenan? How is your health? If I remember correctly, you caught a really bad stomach flu or something during that semester, no? You had a goatee and often wore plaid, maybe flannel? Have you graduated? Thanks for the compliments. I agree that the storytelling is perfect for the film. Thanks for the post.

Thanks again everyone.

Omer M

@Omer M. Mozaffar

Thank you, and will do.

This was apparently supposed to be about Avatar, but it got going in other directions. So much back and forth about whether posts are polite or impolite gets confusing and/or boring.

I'm Irish-American, and when I was about 9 years old in Virginia in the 1950s, I got shot at by the KKK because Irish wasn't white; and Catholic definitely wasn't white; and my grandparents told us old-country stories about having to sneak out of the house on Sunday mornings to go to Mass in a ditch while some of the men kept lookout with shotguns against the Unionists and the Brit troops. So I personally understood pretty early about religious prejudice, besides racial.

I became a Muslim about 1978. Islamophobia is same-old, same-old to someone who's been dumped on for being papist spawn of Satan; and the dumping comes pretty much from the same folks, actually.

Omer Mozaffar's essay was greatly appreciated; his comments on Avatar, also. Cameron made the forests of Pandora look like a tropical reef, with the same profusion of color and form. The bioluminescence of much of Pandoran flora was a nice touch, especially when the pressure of a step would make footprints light up.

I saw Avatar it's opening day, and then again a week later. What I noticed first about it was, that this film has done more to end the war in Afghanistan in it's first weekend, than all that the Left has done in 8 years.

None of the liberals or leftys I talked to out here in the San Francisco area about this got it at all; and I've grown tired of having to break it down. However, the Right caught it, and has been slamming Avatar from day 1 for being anti-American, anti-military, racist, I even saw anti-human... I haven't seen any rants about how it's promoting miscegenation - that's too non-PC a term to use in public - but it's definitely been a subtext. Under it all, unmentionable because to mention it would raise the unspeakable reality, is what Avatar does: instill empathy for resistance to foreign invasion. Since the Right can't admit that that's what the U.S. has been doing, it can't be spoken aloud; but they can scream in shrill, tightening circles all around the elephant in the room, without actually pointing at it.

The other film that I keep telling leftys they should show at their meetings, to get people to understand the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan is, Red Dawn. They don't get it for that film, either.

Rashid Patch
Oakland, California

Salams Rashid,

Thanks for your comments. Red Dawn. That is a good suggestion. Please send more movie suggestions either on this topic or just movies that you recommend.

If you became Muslim in the late 1970s, and are in San Francisco, then I'd venture a guess that you are a Sufi. In my Islamic Mysticism / Rumi class, I have my students compare Cast Away (w Tom Hanks) with the Song of the Reed that begins Rumi's Masnavi. We will, in fact, be watching it this week, Insha Allah.

Omer M

Hello Again Omer (Tom Ryan from MCJHS). I think we were lab partners and I will bear the responsibility for neither of us turning out to be scientists.

I hope this post is not too late. I was reading the Esquire story on Mr. Ebert and looked back at this post- thanks for the response. Mr. Ebert was a gracious customer when I ran the U of C commissary off Michigan Ave during the mid/late 90's. I worked evenings as a second job to pay for grad school. I hope he is doing well, and I am happy to see you in his intellectual orbit. He was gracious to everyone, including myself an overgrown stock boy whose favorite Movie was 'A Man Called Horse'. Since then I migrated to NYC where I have been the last decade.

Hope all is well my friend.

Tom Ryan

Dear Roger,
this is an episode which has been preying on my mind for a very long time and not one I relish revisiting, but I feel I must. I consider myself a reasonable person and although I know all is forgiven for the transgressions of this sorry episode from quite some time ago, my conscience does not allow me to rest easily until I make clear what truly bothered me and why. I hope you can indulge me while I explain my intentions, apologise and own up, as I think I should. It's the reasonable and honourable thing to do.
Thanks.

Dear Omer,

you will I understand hope when I say that I perceive an unbridgeable philosophical gap between my views on theology and yours, because of which, I have no intention of getting into a theology debate with you, either here or at your blog, but thank you for the offer. The comment censored by Roger which brought forth this torrent of outrage from me, was one in which I quoted statistics by reputable human rights organisations and clips from You Tube which outlined similar infractions of justice, mostly upon women and I had addressed it to Marie, which in retrospect was a silly thing to do also.

Roger is right (Roger is seldom wrong), my comments were a reaction to your affection and your devotion to your religion. I think however Roger misunderstood me as attacking your religion, I don't think I was. I was questioning you, or at least attempting to, forcefully, on the veracity of some of your claims.

There are two things which you said, which particularly inflamed my outrage --

1. "On the South Side of Chicago, I'm a Pakistani. In the rest of Chicago, I'm a Southsider. In the rest of America, I'm a Chicagoan. In the rest of the world, I'm an American. That is today's "normal," isn't it? We are simultaneously, unintentionally local and global. "

&

2. "..when speaking about Islam, the responsibility goes a step further: you are often expected to apologize for the atrocities committed by others."

I would like to preface what I am about to say next with the fact that I often find myself agreeing with you on your general outlook on life, but on certain issues I disagree very strongly with you.

You have described yourself often as a moderate, fine, in principle I have no objection to that; I understand and have stated at other threads that I understand the vast majority of muslims to be moderates and I have defended muslims, not in a literal sense of course, but against harsh words, I know now of whom, but that's far besides the point. I think you remember one such thread at which you addressed me, it was I believe the O'Rourke's thread, wherein I not only defended muslims against some monumentally ridiculous comments, but was also happy to extol the many accomplishments of the wider muslim community.

Why then this anger that poured out at you? Is it because I am an Indian? Hardly. It is because you are a Pakistani American and you have a life of great privileges which are denied your brethren in Pakistan and because you ought to know better. On the one hand you are happy to identify with a global community and yet you shy from taking responsibility for others, while at the same time you blithely play the "otherness" card, often and it seems without regard. I am not asking you to join up to some monolithic worldview, I respect your spirituality, but you express it often in political terms, under the guise of moderate leaning, if it helps, I think you do it unknowingly, but know this, having the access to the knowledge and resources that you do, if you do not take responsibility for the actions of radical elements within the community which you claim defined and continues to define your identity and spiritual being, it amounts to your being an apologist for them. It amounts to you turning the blind eye of non involvement, that of innocent bystander. It is simply not good enough. Either don't speak of said affections, or if you must, take responsibility for them.

This is a problem within the muslim community and I welcome Roger or anyone else to disagree with me on this, but it is people like yourself who knowing what you do, instead of taking progressive positions, choose instead to take a moderate stance, that is what I meant when I said defending muslims from people like you. Note this, I don't know you personally, have never sat down and had a chat with you, I am however picking up on cues of an attitude which is easily identifiable within you, that is to say -- "it's not my fault, if Pakistan has a shockingly high rate of gruesome injustices against women" -- of course it isn't your fault, just like it isn't my fault that WWII happened, I'm not even a member of the nation, continent, or community of people, which were either responsible for, or affected in the many ways little, or cataclysmic, by it and it preceded my birth by several decades, but nonetheless I take responsibility for it as a failing of humanity, as part of the larger human community and if and when possible I try to speak of it, such as to prevent similar catastrophic events from happening again. I take responsibility for every other, because I see myself in them, as I expect them to see their selves in me. I take responsibility for you, which is one of the main reasons why I have decided to speak on this again.

Look, I know and this is not just from your association with Rog, that you are a decent human being, this comes across in both your writing and the manner in which you carry yourself, but answer me this, when in India, the radical right-wing makes xenophobic declamations against Pakistan, when as someone who holds mostly secular progressive views, I believe that we ought to be looking for reconciliation with our neighbours, this in spite of over three wars which India and Pakistan have fought, all of them instigated by the latter and unthinkable atrocities which the Pakistani institutions both rogue and legitimate, have perpetrated upon Indian civilians, with foreign aid money diverted from educational and development initiatives, how am I to square with those people who would bay for Pakistani blood as retribution for such crimes, the fact that you, a very well educated muslim American, claims to not be responsible for the acts of others?

You are responsible Omer. You are responsible because you claim not to be, because you identify first with one group and then diffuse their shortcomings, of which there are many, within another larger one. You are responsible for the abomination that is the treatment of women in Pakistan and other muslim states, because you claim it has nothing to do with you. I take responsibility for muslims where they claim no responsibility of theirs lies, this is why I stick my neck out and say that you are wrong again. It is a failing not only on your part, but also on ours, the rest of us, all of humanity, that as we progressed, we left significant portions of the world behind and claimed that they had nothing to do with us. Your position therefore is one not of being not wrong, it is one of being less wrong i.e. better a moderate, than an extremist. Is this the image you wish the world to have of muslims?

The question I wanted to ask you and ultimately did not, was one of the better decisions I made, because the question was in fact deliberately inflammatory and was one which could bring undue pressure to bear on Roger, which is unacceptable to me. I care none for myself, if it were to come to it, unlike many others here, I would reveal myself publicly, because I believe in the moral necessity of the search for truth and hope and in that spirit I will tell you the subject that question would have sought to address -- I have not yet spoken a word on your religion, only against you and when I speak against you, I speak against your attitude, or lack thereof; now however, a few words on your religion: I have respect for Islam as I do for all other religions, but I know this to be true -- there are different interpretations of Islam in different parts of the world, it is not a homogeneous entity, however, it is I think not wrong to assume that in general, the broad global interpretation of Islam has persecution of women built into it. This is nothing new, it existed in Judaism, it existed in Christendom and yes, it even existed in Hinduism. This however, is simply not acceptable in the twenty first century and if you are going to identify yourself with a diverse global community, whom you wish to speak for and which you assume would speak for you, you need to to not only take this on board, but you need to act on it too, in whatever way you can.

I am very happy that you are good friends with Roger and that you have made good friends here with Tom, Marie and Grace. I wish for you and I to be friends too, but I am also willing to go an extra step and try to think and speak for those who either owing to fear, discomfort, or to facetiousness (yes, I'm looking at you Tom), would not point out what is clearly wrong. They are welcome to disagree with me, or ostracise me for it, but I think for myself and so, with humility, I own up to being MDR. I apologise to Roger again for getting carried away on this thread and on this issue, I know that I would find this sort of snarkiness (let's call it what it was) deeply unpleasant, were I to find myself subjected to it, even if I were not the subject of it, especially as it was over the Christmas period.

All my shortcomings and idiocies aside, I think I am not completely incompetent at assessing, or differentiating right and wrong. I have a strong sense of who I am and what I would like the world to be. I have no wish to impose myself upon anyone, but when you define yourself as a global citizen, it is presumed that you speak for me and what you said, I disagreed strongly with. That is all. If this comment caused anyone any offence, I am sorry, but I think that you would be hard pressed to find a more reasonable and diplomatic manner in which to have addressed this. I also think that this episode was the precursor to snarkiness by others, on the same/similar topics and for that also I am sorry, I share neither the views of those people and certainly not the manner in which they express them.

Best,

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

P.S. On "Avatar" Omer, Jim Cameron (or as I like to call him, "Dim Cameron") was targeting India with "Avatar". It is a nation of over one billion people and a growing population, which is gaining an increasing share of global emissions but is nowhere close to any of the biggest polluters in the world and on a per capita basis, is far behind even his native Canada. Two of the most highly regarded deities in the Indian pantheon i.e. Shiva and Krishna, are both blue in colour, India is a land of exotic cultures and peoples, get it? It is even called "Avatar". I mean come on! His stage managed protest in the Amazon basin aside, I find this film and its politics/pseudo-political statement to be reprehensible in the extreme. He is happy to make a film which costs hundreds of millions of dollars, promote a useless technology and then talk down to a country, more than half of which lives in what the west would define as extreme poverty. If he didn't realise he was doing that, then he is even dumber than the discredit I happily attribute him; kind of like Armond White, who I have now read a bit of, who is happy to mouth off about the merits of a similarly pointless film i.e. Transformers, while failing to identify its colonialist message -- I mean, its a film of anthropomorphised cars, which land in the middle east, of all places and are seeking to destroy a cube, I mean a "cube"; how difficult is it to get it White? Verdict -- jackass.

Small print -- Armond White is a contrarian jackass, whereas Dim Cameron is just plain stupid, the former is far superior to the latter. I was going to write him an open letter for comparing me with Glenn Beck, in which I really laid into him, but then I thought, that's exactly what he wants, I ought not stoop to his level, after all I cannot win against someone who is willing to use indigenous peoples who suffer from terrible diseases and a high mortality rate, in some crazed messianic plan of saving the world, which is really a foil for making fools out of people while lining his own pockets. I have still not watched it, will never watch it and will dissuade people from watching it in the future. I would not watch this film if I were paid handsomely to do so, or if it were a matter of life or death, because its politics is nauseating. Its aesthetic quality I am given to believe is poor, the plot plagiarised, in short any redeeming quality it could possibly have are all outweighed by the numerous negative baggage it drags along with it and for this I declare that is probably one of the worst films, if not the worst, that I have never watched and the only saving grace thus far is that I haven't watched it, on every other aspect it is an exercise in caliginous dim wittedness. So there, I have said the last of what I wanted to of this film.

Stephen Hawking has been recently in the news for suggesting (if I have this right) that the universe could have come into being without the assistance of God. Given his own lamentable condition, I can't help wondering if he feels he could similarly get by without the assistance of God himself...

For those who have never seen, let alone heard about, the Jackass franchise, the best possible way to describe it is to explain what its not. Its not a family orientated form of entertainment, its not for the weak hearted, and most importantly, its not something that disappoints and Jackass 3-D is no exception.Each hilarious stunt looks as if the writers took great pride into thinking them up...that also makes me ponder...what were they thinking? If a person were to tell you that Jackass' methods of merrymaking were crude and unorthodox they would be 100% percent right,However, as the film industry has changed over the years, it seems as if vulgar behavior is what most people desire for good amusement. So, if dropping a duce or getting hit in the groin is what the people want, then let there be Jackass.This film personifies humor, and will leave you in stitches on the way home, I give Jackass 3-D the best possible score it could receive, an 8 out of 10.

“If you believe you can, you can. If you believe you can’t, then, well you can’t.”