Aliens (1986, directed by James Cameron)


When I learned that today was Sigourney Weaver’s birthday, I flashed back to the first time I saw Aliens.

I was just a kid, probably too young for the movie.  My father rented Aliens from the local Blockbuster.  It had been years since the movie had first come out but my father, who went to every Star Trek movie premiere and who still knows the lore of Star Wars better than I do, had never seen it and he was planning on correcting that oversight.  My family gathered in the living room.  We turned out all the lights.  The tape was slipped into the VCR.  Play was hit.  Our boxy television turned into a movie screen and Aliens began.

And it scared the Hell out of me.

Today, I think people forget just how scary both Alien and Aliens are the first time that you watch them.  After the first time, you at least know when the aliens are going to jump out at people and you also know who is going to survive.  Today, if I rewatch Aliens, I know not to get to attached to the any of the Colonial Marines.  I also know not to trust Carter Burke, even if he is played by Paul Reiser.  I watch the movie in anticipation of Bill Paxton’s “Game over, man,” instead of dreading it.  When I first watched it, all I knew is that the screen suddenly went dark, the soundtrack was full of screeches and the deaths of the Marines, and that the only thing scarier then being confronted with one alien was being confronted with a hundred of them at once.  When I watch today, I know Bishop (Lance Henriksen) is going to prove to be a good android.  I didn’t have the assurance when I first watched the movie.  For all I knew, he was going to just abandon Ripley (Weave), Newt (Carrie Henn),and Hicks (Michael Biehn) on the planet.

Sigourney Weaver was the heart of that film.  She went from being angry and bitter over what happened during then first Alien to still being angry and bitter but willing to risk her life to save Newt.  From the start, she alone understood the Xenomorph threat and she was ultimately victorious because she was not only as determined and ruthless as the Queen but she actually had the heart that her opponent lacked.  Ripley won because she was actually fighting for something more than just conquest.  She was fighting to save Newt from becoming an incubator.

I usually think of Aliens as being the last Ripley film.  I don’t acknowledge the third film because I find the idea of killing Newt and Hicks to be a betrayal of what made the first Aliens more than just a scary action movie.  The fourth film, I don’t acknowledge because it asks me to believe that Winona Ryder would still be acting like Winona Ryder in the 23rd century.  Aliens is a scary movie but it’s also a movie that ends with the promise of hope.  After all that she’s been through, Ripley finally has a chance to start again with Newt, Hicks, and Bishop.   That hope is something that is too often missing from the follow-ups.

Happy birthday, Sigourney Weaver!  I’m going to go watch Aliens.

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special James Cameron Edition


4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

Today, the Shattered Lens wishes a happy birthday to director James Cameron.  It’s time for….

4 Shots From 4 James Cameron Films

The Terminator (1984, dir. James Cameron)

Aliens (1986, dir by James Cameron)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991, dir. James Cameron)

True Lies (1994, dir by James Cameron)

The Aliens Are Here!


The Aliens are here!  They were spotted flying over California earlier tonight night and lighting up the sky.  The official story is that everyone was just seeing Trident missiles.  Watch the video below and judge for yourself.

I don’t know about you but it sure looks like aliens to me!  What might our new alien overlords be like?  Here’s how some others imagined this moment.

(By Alex Schomburg)

(By Alex Schomburg)

(By Allen Gustav Anderson)

(By Allen Gustav Anderson)

By Ally Fell

By Ally Fell

(Artist Unknown)

(Artist Unknown)

(Artist Unknown)

(Artist Unknown)

(Artist Unknown)

(Artist Unknown)

(By Earle Bergey)

(By Earle Bergey)

(By Edmond Swiatek)

(By Edmond Swiatek)

(By Gabriel Mayorga)

(By Gabriel Mayorga)

Whatever you may look like, welcome to Earth!

Duke Tries A Halloween Marathon…Part One.


So, I think it may be fair to say that of most of the posters on this great site, I am probably the one who least enjoys the horror genre…or at least is never as excited about it as everyone else. It isn’t that I do not like horror films – there are quite a few I really love – but I just expect a lot from them. Probably – unfairly – more than I expect from other films. Why? Because I honestly think that when done right, horror films can be some of the most emotionally affecting films from any genre. But when done wrong – as I think far too many of them are – it just feels cheap and manipulative – and as someone who loves film, who loves how they can generate empathy and tell interesting stories, it always just feels like a slap to the face.

This love/hate relationship usually makes me hesitant to watch most horror films, which of course is an issue come October. This month is wall to wall horror from 12:01AM on the 1st – to midnight on Halloween. With this comes the pressure to watch a ton of horror films, and although in the past I have watched a few, I’ve never taken part in any sort of marathon that so many bloggers partake in this time of year…until now. This is part one – of what I hope will be a month long series – of quick reviews for horror films I watch this month. I hope to watch at least one a day.

October 1st: ‘Thale’ (dir. Aleksander Nordaas)

tumblr_m490fyx40y1ruxqt3o1_1280

A very low budget Norwegian fantasy/horror film, with a lot of interesting ideas, that sadly doesn’t execute on enough of them to reach any level of greatness…which I think was possible.

‘Thale’ is about two friends, working in a crime scene cleaning service, who stumble upon a hidden basement at one of the locations they have been hired to clean. Within they find a lab of sorts, and a beautiful young woman who is unable to speak – and is most certainly more than she appears to be. The result is a rather unique horror film with fantasy elements; one that thrives on atmosphere for the first hour or so, building a genuine level of suspense and mystery. It is an intriguing story, one that is slow to build but never boring. There is certainly a lot under the surface.

The only real issue I had was that there is narration throughout that tries a bit too hard to add depth to the story, both narratively and thematically, without much success. Mainly because the exposition within would benefit more from a ‘show don’t tell’ approach – and also because the actual narrative comes off as so simple that many of the themes expressed through the narration have nothing to do with what we have actually been shown.

This isn’t too big of an issue really, and I can’t fault it for trying to give more meaning to the story, but had it executed on some of the ideas it alludes to under the surface than maybe this wouldn’t have been an issue at all – especially if it had been a half hour longer, and explored the fantasy element in more detail.

Still, the performances are very good and – given its very low budget – so are the effects and overall production. It certainly has its flaws, but it still warrants a recommendation.

Oct. 2nd: ‘Pontypool’ (dir. Bruce McDonald)

pontypool_xlg

‘Pontypool’ is a mostly lean – though often convoluted – and creative horror film that builds slowly and contains just the right dash of humor. It is at times essentially ‘Welcome to Night Vale’ in film form.

It stars Stephen McHattie as an ex-shock jock who has reached a point in his career where he is stuck doing an early morning radio gig in a small Canadian town. He is quick to try to cause a stir, but his producer reminds him that the listeners just want to know the weather. As the morning slowly passes by the station begins to get weird reports of people, herds of people, swarming the streets. Whats seems to them to initially be a joke begins to turn into a life or death emergency situation where a virus is infecting the town, keeping the workers at the studio locked indoors, trying to figure out how it all started.

This isn’t the scariest horror film you will ever see, neither is it the most suspenseful – yet the development of the story, the unraveling mystery and the urgency of the performances make it an absorbing viewing experience. Things do start to get a little convoluted as we begin to better understand how the “virus” infecting people is being spread. The film seems to be making it up as it goes, and ironically it can’t seem to think of the rights words to explain what is actually happening.

But it does managed to create an interesting subtext on how language has been simplified and diminished by gossip, social websites and the media. It would also probably benefit from multiple viewings. But for now, I recommend you at least watch it once.

Oct. 3rd: ‘Pumpkinhead’ (dir. Stan Winston)

pumpkinhead-poster

‘Pumpkinhead’ is a creepy, cliche and cheesy as hell horror film about revenge, that manages to overcome all its faults with its brilliant creature design, a great central performance, and an emotional core that gives all the supernatural violence some resonance. The result isn’t a masterpiece – by any stretch – but it is a damn near perfect horror film for Halloween/October – especially with its eerie supernatural aesthetics.

The film stars Lance Henriksen as Ed Harley, a single father raising his son on a farm in the south. One day a group of teens (including a few blondes and a douchey “bad boy”) arrive in town. Their destination? A cabin in the woods…of course. On their way they encounter Harley at a local store he owns, which accidentally results in his son being killed by one of the teens in a dirt bike accident. The group heads for the cabin, fearing the repercussions, while Harley tracks down a creepy old lady who, according to local legend, can summon a demon-like creature to avenge the wrong doing done to a man.

From there we get a rather unoriginal creature feature – as the demon, called Pumpkinhead, hunts down the group of teens one by one. What kept this interesting, for me, was the structure of the events of the film and the development of Henriksen’s character. Henriksen is a great actor, and the bond that is built between him and his son, and the emotions he displays as he struggles with his son’s death and the revenge he seeks, manages to ground the film and gives it enough of an emotional relevancy to excuse the cheesiness of the supernatural horror elements – and some truly shitty dialogue.

On top of that are the great spooky horror aesthetics and atmosphere – moody lighting, fog…pumpkins – as well as the awesome design of the Pumpkinhead by special effects legend Stan Winston (‘Aliens’, ‘Terminator’) – who actually directed the film. It all adds up to an above average horror flick that I recommend everyone watch this October.

Let’s Second Guess The Academy: Best Picture 1986


Dean Stockwell in Blue Velvet

Dean Stockwell in Blue Velvet

Last week, we considered whether or not Out of Africa deserved the title of best picture of 1985.  As of this writing, the votes would seem to indicate that most of you feel that it did not.

For this week, let’s jump ahead one year to 1986.  According to the Academy, the five best films of the year were:

1) Children of a Lesser God, an adaptation of play about an angry deaf girl and the teacher who falls in love with her,

2) Hannah and Her Sisters, a Woody Allen film about three sisters and the neurotic people they know,

3) The Mission, a film about Jesuit missionaries in South America that also won the Palme d’Or at Cannes,

4) Room With A View, James Ivory’s super romantic adaptation of E.M. Forster’s novel,

and finally, the winner,

5) Platoon, Oliver Stone’s autobiographical film about the Viet Nam war.

Unlike Out of Africa, Platoon has remained a fairly respected winner.  Still, was Platoon actually the best film of 1986?  If I had been a member of the Academy back in 1986, I would have been torn between A Room With A View and Hannah and Her Sisters with my final vote going to Room With A View.  How about you?

Now, here comes the fun part.  Let’s say that Platoon turned out to be a disaster.  Let’s say that Room With A View never made it over to American theaters and maybe Woody Allen decided to retire early.  Let’s say that none of the best picture nominees had been eligible to be nominated.  Which five films would have nominated in their place?

You can vote for up to five films and yes, write-ins are accepted!

(I voted for Blue Velvet, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Pretty In Pink, Betty Blue, and Something Wild.)

Prometheus: Peter Weyland TED 2023 (Video Clip)


The video above was released today by 20th Century Fox as part of their marketing machine to help create buzz for their upcoming summer blockbuster scifi film Prometheus.

It’s a clip of a fictional keynote speech by one Peter Weyland at the TED 2023 conference. Guy Pearce plays the role of Peter Weyland and talks about how technology’s influence in human history from the beginning with fire (he mentions the Greek myth of Prometheus stealing the technology of fire from the gods and giving it to man) all the way to artificial intelligence and realistic cybernetic constructs.

Anyone who has been a fan of the Alien franchise will recognize the name Weyland. It’s the fictional transnational corporation which has become a major part of the films in the franchise and, to a degree, even to the Predator franchise. They’re the corporation which sends Ripley and the crew of the ore mining hauler Nostromo to the desolate planet of LV-426 where they encounter the very lifeform that would become one of film’s iconic monsters. It is also the corporation which 70+ years later would send a terraforming colony to the very same planet which would become a major part of the plot for Aliens. Even the David Fincherdirected third film, Alien 3, would use the corporation as the monolithic badguy behind-the-scenes.

Weyland is just part of the corporation’s name as through the years it would combine with another corporation to become Weyland-Yutani. While the aliens in the franchise have been the immediate threat in all the films in the franchise it would be Weyland-Yutani who became the face of the corporate evil that continues to try to get samples of the very alien the franchise is known for.

It’s going to be interesting how this viral video ties into the upcoming Ridley Scott “prequel” to Alien and whether Weyland-Yutani will play a major role in the film’s plot. One thing I’m sure is that Pearce definitely plays a convincing corporate visionary with a God-complex that’s part Steve Jobs and part Richard Branson (if both iconic businessmen channeled their inner-darkside).

Prometheus is set  for a June 8, 2012 release date.

Skyline Trailer


I wasn’t able to attend this year’s Comic-Con, but those who did and saw clips from this under-the-radar alien invasion film from the Strause Brothers came away impressed by what they saw. This particular film may be the Zombieland of 2010.

Skyline looks like your typical alien invasion flick with highly-advanced and even more highly-aggressive beings from another world wreaking havoc on the planet with their massive and very cool-looking ships. This one is made by the Strause Brothers who last made the sequel, Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem which was better than I thought it would be. It was still a bad film, but at least the brothers were able to inject some insane fun in the proceedings unlike it’s predecessor.

This second offering from the brothers look to do the same for their version of the alien invasion and this time around the setting centers on Los Angeles and not New York. The film looks to have tentacles (anime fans rejoice) in addition to huge hovering ships destroying city blocks and smaller ships taking on humanity’s armed forces. From what I could gather the acting and dialogue will not be the highlights of the film, but if they keep those at the barest minimum then this little-gem from this year’s Comic-Con may just be one of the best times in the theaters this year.

Review: Lifeforce (dir. by Tobe Hooper)


“I mean, in a sense we’re all vampires. We drain energy from other life forms. The difference is one of degree. That girl was no girl. She’s totally alien to this planet and our life form… and totally dangerous.” — Dr. Hans Fallada

1985’s Lifeforce, directed by Tobe Hooper, was critically panned and barely registered at the box office. Yet in the decades since its release, something curious has happened: the film has gathered a loyal cult following among fans of science fiction and horror. Hooper’s film fuses so many genre conventions that it resists classification—too strange for pure sci-fi, too grandiose for standard horror. The result is a striking and eccentric reinvention of the vampire myth, a lavish but uncanny blockbuster that feels imported from an alternate cinematic timeline.

The film begins squarely in the realm of science fiction. Conceived during the public fascination with Halley’s Comet ahead of its 1986 return, Lifeforce rode the wave of comet-themed media flooding the decade. Most were cheap cash-ins. Hooper’s film stood out for its ambition and its visual scale.

Coming off Poltergeist, Hooper received an unusually large budget—a far cry from the lean, feral energy of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The story follows the crew of the shuttle Churchill as they discover a massive alien spacecraft hidden in the comet’s tail. Inside, frozen in suspended animation, are three humanoid figures. The ship’s dignified name feels ironic, even doomed; considering what’s to come, Demeter might have been more fitting. Like the sailors of Stoker’s novel, these astronauts inadvertently ferry an ancient predatory force home—yet this time, the threat arrives from the stars.

The horror unfolds once the crew retrieves its mysterious “specimens.” Members die in gruesome succession until only one survivor, Colonel Tom Carlsen (Steve Railsback), escapes in a pod back to Earth. Railsback’s performance is an intriguing mix of unhinged emotion and grim conviction. His intensity suits a film that constantly walks the line between pulp spectacle and cosmic tragedy.

When the story shifts to London, Lifeforce transforms into a supernatural thriller with procedural undertones. Peter Firth’s Colonel Colin Caine becomes the viewer’s compass: calm, authoritative, and determined to impose order on mounting chaos. As London succumbs to panic and outbreak, his steady professionalism anchors the outlandish events. His partnership with Railsback’s haunted, psychic Carlsen gives the middle act its volatile energy.

Among the supporting cast, Frank Finlay leaves one of the strongest impressions as Dr. Hans Fallada, a scientist fascinated by death and metaphysical energy. He serves as both philosopher and investigator, treating the vampiric invasion as a riddle of life itself. His restrained curiosity lends weight to scenes that might otherwise descend into absurdity. While the city collapses, Fallada studies the phenomenon with eerie calm, treating catastrophe as an experiment in cosmic entropy.

Patrick Stewart also makes a memorable, if brief, appearance as Dr. Armstrong, the head of a psychiatric hospital linked to the Space Girl’s psychic presence. His role builds to the film’s most grotesque and bizarre sequence: an exchange of minds, sudden possession, and an unnervingly intimate kiss with Railsback. The moment condenses everything Lifeforce represents—erotic, macabre, and unconcerned with boundaries. Stewart brings a gravitas that makes the absurd strangely compelling, a counterweight to Railsback’s volatility and Mathilda May’s silent allure.

May, as the unnamed Space Girl, says little but dominates the film through presence alone. She embodies an alien ideal of beauty and destruction, gliding through scenes with a composure that’s both sensual and predatory. Her nudity, much debated at the time, plays less as exploitation and more as elemental symbolism—the human body as an expression of both creation and death, desire and annihilation.

Supporting figures from the British military and government round out the ensemble, emphasizing the film’s descent into bureaucratic chaos. Michael Gothard’s Kane, a Ministry of Defence officer struggling to reconcile logic with the inexplicable, captures the helplessness of institutional order collapsing under cosmic threat. His pragmatic exchanges with Firth highlight competing instincts between reason and survival.

As the infection spreads, Lifeforce expands into a vision of urban apocalypse that fuses British science fiction and American spectacle. London becomes a nightmare tableau—crowds of shriveled corpses feed on energy while arcs of blue plasma swirl through the sky. The city’s fall evokes both George A. Romero’s zombie apocalypse and the metaphysical unease of Nigel Kneale’s Quatermass stories. Amid the insanity, Finlay and Firth remain the emotional touchstones, keeping the audience oriented as narrative logic begins to dissolve.

For all its ambition, however, Lifeforce suffers from erratic pacing and tonal whiplash. The first act unfolds with deliberate, moody wonder, then abruptly veers into frenzied exposition and psychic melodrama once the story reaches Earth. The balance between unsettling mystery and outright spectacle often collapses under its own weight. Scenes that should evoke cosmic terror sometimes tip into unintended camp, particularly in the dialogue-heavy middle stretch. Hooper’s direction, though visually imaginative, occasionally struggles to maintain coherence amid the script’s shifting identities—part creature feature, part disaster epic, part metaphysical drama. The editing, especially in the theatrical cut, undercuts tension with rushed transitions that leave emotional beats hanging. Railsback’s manic performance, while strangely compelling, can also verge on excess, blurring the line between conviction and chaos.

Tonally, the film wavers between awe and amusement. For some viewers, its earnest delivery will read as self-parody; for others, its collision of erotic horror and science fiction grandeur gives it a singular vitality. Lifeforce’s flaws are inseparable from its daring. It dares to fail boldly, and in that failure finds a kind of messy transcendence—larger than reason, too strange to fade.

In the end, Lifeforce lingers as one of the strangest hybrids of its era: part gothic fable, part erotic horror, part apocalyptic science fiction. It was too eccentric to find mainstream success, yet its sincerity and scope give it lasting resonance. The ensemble performances and tonal daring hold the film together, transforming potential chaos into something mythic—a story about possession, contagion, and humanity’s fatal pull toward the unknown.

Beneath its spectacle, the film engages in a deeper dialogue between gothic and cosmic horror traditions. Its characters represent a spectrum of responses to the incomprehensible: Fallada’s intellectual curiosity, Firth’s stoic resolve, Railsback’s frenzy, and May’s serene seduction. Together they form a portrait of human fragility in confrontation with the infinite. Where gothic horror finds fear in the collapse of reason, cosmic horror finds it in the vast indifference of the universe.

By fusing these lineages, Lifeforce becomes a mythic apocalypse that feels both intimate and vast—an encounter between flesh and void, terror and temptation. Its fusion of genres, ideas, and performances ensures its peculiar power endures, a reminder that some of the strangest failures of 1980s cinema are also its most visionary.

20 Best Science-Fiction Films of the Decade


I consider these the best and greatest science-fiction films of this closing decade. Some of the films in the list could be labeled as being hard scifi while some definitely have their roots in the pulp storytelling traditions of the 1950’s scifi publications and novels. Some could be considered horror while others more action or comedy. In the end, they all have a basis in the traditions of science-fiction as their common denominator.  They will not be in any particular order since I couldn’t truly determine which one deserved to be top on the list or which was just 20th. In my eyes they are all equally great in their own way.

Do you agree with the choices? Do you think another film belongs on the list and, if so, which one? I’m interested to know what your favorite sci-fi films of the last 10 years happen to be.

1. District 9

2. Children of Men

3. Iron Man

4. Primer

5. Sleep Dealer

6. Pitch Black

7. Minority Report

8. Moon

9. Los Cronocrimenes

10. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

11. The Fountain

12. 28 Days Later

13. The Prestige

14. Wall-E

15. Star Trek

16. Idiocracy

17. Avatar

18. Sunshine

19. War of the Worlds

20. Serenity

Film Review: Avatar (directed by James Cameron)


“Everything is backwards now, like out there is the true world, and in here is the dream.” — Jake Sully

When was the last time a film became an experience for you—not just a story that made you think, but one that swept you up and immersed you completely? The most hyped film of 2009, and likely of this decade, was such an experience for me. James Cameron’s Avatar, a project over fifteen years in the making, more than lived up to the hype that followed it from the earliest production leaks.

Avatar is not the greatest film ever made, nor does it revolutionize filmmaking the way Technicolor did in the late 1950s and early 1960s. What Cameron has accomplished is providing a blueprint for how filmmakers can bring audiences closer to the stories they tell. Stories and ideas once considered unfilmable due to technological limitations are now within reach. Avatar is an experience that should be seen, regardless of whether one embraces its story. The narrative is not original—some may be reminded of an Oscar-winning film directed by Kevin Costner or an animated feature with “Gully” in the title. While the lack of originality is noticeable, the story works within the context of Cameron’s vision. Clichéd and hackneyed dialogue aside, it serves the film well. Cameron’s writing may not rival that of Kaufman or Mamet, but he knows how to tell a simple story and keep the audience engaged.

With that flaw acknowledged, I haven’t felt this way about a film—nor even the best I’ve seen this year—since the first time I watched The Fellowship of the Ring or, before that, Spielberg’s Jurassic Park. Only a few films truly sweep me into their world and hold me there. It didn’t matter that Avatar wasn’t the second coming of Rashomon or this generation’s Citizen Kane. What I watched, I fully bought into. The world of Pandora, imagined by Cameron and brought to life by WETA Digital and ILM, felt real. The detail, clarity, and dedication in its creation gave me hope that creative boundaries once thought uncrossable are now being stepped over.

While the film is also available in 2D for theaters without 3D capabilities, it must be seen in 3D, ideally in IMAX 3D. Cameron’s use of the new “emotion capture” cameras he helped develop achieves a level of CGI photorealism that avoids the “Uncanny Valley” effect seen in films like The Polar ExpressBeowulf, and A Christmas Carol. The groundbreaking “mo-cap” technique, refined by WETA Digital for The Lord of the Rings trilogy, convinced Cameron it was time to make Avatar as he envisioned. The Na’vi are now the most realistic CGI characters ever put on screen, surpassing even Gollum. Cameron demonstrates that the limit of CGI use is not quantity, but how it is implemented. Lucas, Bay, and others who have misused CGI have much to learn from Cameron’s achievement.

It took a few minutes to adjust to the 3D effect, but once my eyes adapted, the film’s magic took hold. The distinction between CGI and live-action scenes blurred and eventually disappeared. Even the best CGI-heavy films sometimes break immersion, but Avatar never did. This total immersion helped me overlook the story’s familiarity and, for some, its ordinariness.

Despite the material, the performances ranged from good to excellent. The villains, while written one-dimensionally, were played with enough conviction to be believable. Giovanni Ribisi’s corporate weasel, a clear echo of Burke from Aliens, was cartoonish in motivation, but Cameron is not known for deep, well-rounded characters. The standout was Stephen Lang as Colonel Miles Quaritch. His scenery-chewing performance was riveting, stealing the film from Sam Worthington’s “hero on a journey.” While Lang’s performance may not win awards, it stands as one of the year’s most memorable, joining the ranks of characters audiences love to hate.

Some may think I’ve joined the Cameron fan club, but I can’t explain why I love this film despite its flaws: the familiar story, clichéd dialogue, and one-dimensional characters. Is Avatar just a technical and visual marvel? Yes, and more. Does the CGI and bombastic climax overshadow the storytelling? No, it actually propels the story forward, much like Jake Sully’s own fragile legs.

In the end, my love for Avatar comes down to the experience it provided—a rare occurrence in modern cinema. Cameron didn’t make a perfect film, nor one better than sliced bread. But he created a filmgoing experience that will be remembered decades from now, much like the first time audiences saw Star Wars and believed in Jedi and space battles, or Superman and believed a man could fly. Cameron’s Avatar made me believe in Pandora, a place I hope to visit, or at least experience through his eyes. I’m eager to see what he—and other filmmakers inspired by his work—will create next.