By David Robb

Cameron Lewis Horner at Avatar premiere
“Titanic,” of course, went on to win 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Director, Editing, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costume Design, Sound, Score, Visual Effects, Sound Effects Editing and Original Song. Only one other film before – “Ben Hur” – and movie one since – “Lord of the Rings” – has won as many Oscars. But apparently L.A.-based film critics know better than the Academy – or anyone else. “Titanic” only won one award that year from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association – for Best Production Design.
“Titanic” would go on to become the all-time box office champ, taking in more than $1.8 billion worldwide and selling more than 128 million tickets in the U.S. alone. (Question: Do you know what “Titanic’s” box office take was in Saudi Arabia? Answer: Zero – there aren’t any movie theaters in Saudi Arabia.)
But for some reason, Turan, who somehow still has a job at the Times, was assigned the task of reviewing Cameron’s latest movie – “Avatar” – the writer-director’s first film since “Titanic.” Only this time, Turan says he likes it.
“You’ve never experienced anything like it, and neither has anyone else,” he raves, calling it “an extraordinary act of visual imagination.” “This is something you won’t want to miss.”
But apparently still stinging from the scorn and ridicule that was heaped upon him 12 years ago for being the only film critic in the world who didn’t like “Titanic,” Turan, in his review of “Avatar,” couldn’t help but remind us all that he was right and everybody else was wrong about “Titanic.”
“ Perhaps the most surprising thing about Cameron’s visual accomplishments,” he wrote this week in his “Avatar” review for the Times, “is that they are so powerful we’re barely troubled by the same weakness for flat dialogue and obvious characterization that put such a dent in ‘Titanic.’”
But he doesn’t stop there. “Avatar’s” non-human “romantic protagonists paradoxically end up feeling like creatures whose fates we care more about than we did Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet’s on the boat.”
I don’t know. Maybe Turan really liked “Avatar,” which opened today. Or perhaps he was just fearful of missing the boat again. Either way, it almost makes me not want to see it.
Authors addition: It was too long, he said, and cost too much to make – “a hackneyed, completely derivative copy of old Hollywood romances” – “a movie that reeks of phoniness and lacks even minimal originality.”






5 responses so far ↓
1 jeff stone // Dec 18, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Another online writer trying to get a name for himself. Loser.
2 Homeotherium // Dec 18, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Don’t look now kiddies but this little ditty is a paradigm changer. A big-assed smash hit. Can you say Star Wars ? Say it. Star Wars. When is the sequal?
3 AneHoward // Dec 19, 2009 at 12:55 am
Sorry Mr. Stone. Mr. Robb is not an online writer looking for a name. In fact he worked for Variety for ten years and the Hollywood Reporter for the same. We are lucky at Hollywood Today to have his opinions and savvy. Attack the opinions if you will, not the author. — J. Jolson, editor
4 Homeotherium // Dec 19, 2009 at 12:30 pm
There was lame dialogue in Star Wars and hackneyed plot lines in the Ring Trilogy aplenty.
But they were cinematic leading edge tech and people ate them up. Why is this author unable to recognize a monster hit when he sees one?
Why is this author hamstrung on story and plot? This moving picture is not about story and plot. Hello?
5 Nabi // Dec 21, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Titanic was horrible–I’ve never been able to sit through it; the main plot device which had a gun chase down into the bilge while the ship was sinking was amazing in its stupidity. The movies success merely proved there are a lot of dweebs out there.
Leave a Comment