>>Speaking frankly, I understand your enjoyment, but I have reached the point where FX simply isn’t enough.<<
I’m with you on that one. That is why I stayed away so long. It is also why I compared it to Star Wars. Both brought visuals to the table that were unheard of at the time. That made them worth it. But now I’ve seen it.
Same was true of CGI movies. It was only in the couple of years that I realized that I had just assumed that if a movie was CGI it would be good. And at first, they mostly were. But now they are like the rest of them. They need more than CGI to get your attention.
Avatar delivers on the visual side in a way it has not been seen before. That has value to the moviegoer as well as the producer.
>>I much prefer films with emotional depth, intellectual honesty and spiritual truth.<<
Movies are like books for me. Sometimes I read fiction and sometimes I read non-fiction. I’m not always looking for depth of story in a movie, but sometimes I am. My “desert island” movie is “That Thing You Do” BECAUSE it is simple, one dimensional, and is just fun.
I go to different movies for different reasons.
Oh, sure, I get that. Pretty fun film, all in all, though not that high on my list there. When going for that kind of thing, I actually go overboard: "Dude, Where's My Car" would be more along that line.
Actually, if I had to take just one movie, it would be...wait for it...'You've Got Mail'. :) We used to chant along with the dialogue we knew it so well and loved it so much. I bet there's CGI in there somewhere, but, whatever.
Thinking about it, if I was forced to make my desert island film one heavy with CGI, I would choose 'Iron Man'. That was MUCH better than I expected (I don't usually bet against Robert Downey turning in a great performance).