Effects great., plot weak, what's all the hype?

Rating: 2/10 (1 March 2010)

I saw this with six other people the first week it came out, and we even spent the money on 3-D. Irrelevant, as Spock would say.
What a loser. I mean, two months later, I can barely recall anything other that the flying-on-animals part. Another friend mentioned recently that he didn't like "all the fighting at the end," and I couldn't remember the end. It was like cotton candy -- there for a flash and then gone.
I don't really think that's a spoiler, but I am just being clear.
Why this thing has gotten such good ratings is beyond me. I guess it is the "sheeple" thing -- people acting like sheep, agreeing with whatever the paid-Hollywood-whore lackeys and the media want them to say. All I know is that seven of us walked out of the theater two months ago (Christmas Day) and looked at one another and said, "Yeah, well, that was okay..." Which is not a ringing endorsement.
The plot was weak, the graphics were great, and as far as acting, well, it was all done in front of a blue screen so you can't really fault anyone for that. Ridley Scott was probably either horrified or pleased that someone could have all this technology and get it so wrong; if I were in his brilliant shoes I'd be laughing. Cameron is a good director, but what is there to direct when it's all CGI? Of course Sigourney Weaver is terrific, but even she can't breathe life into this project. I don't actually give a tinker's damn about the Academy Awards because they so often get it wrong -- nowadays it's about money and some other ephemeral, meaningless things, not talent or art, perhaps just skill -- but if this gets the best film award I will be convinced that there is someone behind it all pulling the strings. Strictly entertainment, and I give it a two to bring the overall ratings down.