As those who have known me for any length of time will readily attest, I have been and fully expect to always remain a lifelong fan of the science fiction/fantasy genre. I have never made any apologies for this, seeing no more reason for it than for my wife to apologize for liking "Little House on the Prairie," or my mother for being a lifelong fan of the now-extinguished "Guiding Light" or its sister soap, the soon-to-be-defunct "As The World Turns."

Some of my fondest childhood memories involve sitting next to my father watching Sunday morning airings of the old Buster Crabbe "Flash Gordon" serials on WGN-TV. I had read the bulk of Dad's Edgar Rice Burroughs novels - not to mention several by H.G. Wells, Jules Verne and Isaac Asimov - by the time I finished the fourth grade. Reruns of the original "Star Trek" series and all of its followups have always been a television staple at my house. I accidentally got my buddy Johnny Garduno in trouble in 1977 when we sat through two showings of the original "Star Wars" at the Town Cinema theatre in Kankakee. My wife and sons and I have given some of the pets we've had over the years such names as Dejah, Shannara, K'ehlyr and Bilbo. We've attended the annual Superman Festival in Metropolis, Illinois, not once but twice. One of the few times I was ever truly, honest-to-goodness star struck was when I met Adam West back in 1992. And I seriously doubt that there were many who cheered louder than I did when Peter Jackson's "Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King" won the Oscar for Best Picture (an event which I saw as vindication at long last for "Star Wars" having lost to "Annie Hall" so many years before).

Even today science fiction/fantasy remains my favorite form of escapist entertainment, accounting more probably 75 to 80 percent of the books I own, as well as the majority of the tapes and DVDs in my home video library. Yes, I also own a few action figures - not many, but probably more than I suspect most men my age would generally feel comfortable to admitting to. Shoot, I'll even own up to owning a Hallmark Christmas ornament of the space shuttle Galileo from "Star Trek," complete with a recorded message from Leonard Nimoy that plays when you push the button on the bottom of the thing. I may not be the epitome of a geek, but by golly I do have my moments.

I state all this as a means of prefacing my admission that - as of this writing - I as yet have not seen the current SF blockbuster "Avatar," which has proven a favorite of film fans and critics alike and seems well poised to quickly assume the top slot on the list of biggest moneymaking movies of all time.

There are a couple of reasons for this, the primary one being lack of both time and, to a lesser extent, funds. So far this year the family and I have had the opportunity to go to the show just once, and we all decided to see "Sherlock Holmes." (That one, by the way, turned out to be a better movie than I had anticipated...)

And I've already promised my wife that the next movie I'll take her to see is the new Harrison Ford flick, "Extraordinary Measures"; I figure it's the least I can do, given the number of times she's gone with me and the boys to movies she probably wasn't all that interested in. (It helps that Ford has always been one of my favorite actors.)

Beyond that, however, is the simple fact that I've never been a fan of "Avatar" writer/director James Cameron. "Aliens" and "The Abyss" were okay, I suppose; but I never liked his "Terminator" movies and I have gone on record with my heartfelt belief that "Titanic" may well be the single most overrated movie in Hollywood history. (The ONLY thing I liked about that movie was the music - and even there I really believe that, Academy Award notwithstanding, composer James Horner's work on "Titanic" paled in comparison with his scores for such films as "Braveheart," "The Mask Of Zorro" and "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan.")

I also have to admit that, as much as I love science fiction films in general, I am beginning to grow a little weary of all the computer generated characters and pyrotechnics that are bombarding the silver screen these days. CGI is a useful tool for moviemakers and when used right (last year's "Star Trek" reboot and the entire Pixar oeuvre spring immediately to mind) can serve as a great springboard for creativity. But more often than not the whiz-bang computer graphics become too much of a crutch, as filmmakers attempt to veil incompetent writing, acting and/or directing with a lot of cool but ultimately meaningless special effects.

Indeed, the author of one of the few negative reviews I've read to date of "Avatar" stated that he wished Cameron had spent less time on developing his special effects andmore time developing his story. That's a common complaint with most such films these days, I'm afraid.

All things considered, then, it would be a safe assumption to guess that I was pre-disposed to not like "Avatar." But in recent days I've found myself on the verge of reconsidering this predisposition.

For one thing, I've read a couple of recent articles which state that Cameron supposedly drew some of his inspiration for "Avatar" from some of the same Edgar Rice Burroughs novels I grew up reading. Based on what I've seen in the previews, any connection between Cameron's work and Burroughs' would appear to be tenuous at best; even so, anything that helps introduce a new generation to Burroughs' classic adventures would have to be considered a good thing by ERB fans like myself.

Even more interesting to me than this, however, was an article by Los Angeles Times writer Patrick Goldstein stating that "Avatar" has drawn the ire of conservative movie critics who see the film as anti-American leftist propaganda. Goldstein cites a recent review by John Podhoretz of the Weekly Standard which dismisses Avatar as both "a Green epic abut despoiling the environment" and "an attack on the war in Iraq."

I'm guessing that Podhoretz was probably far more tolerant of last year's "Transformers" and "G.I. Joe," two of the most pro-military movies to come down the pike since John Wayne made "The Green Berets." For what it's worth, I kind of liked the "G.I. Joe" movie myself; I've long been a fan of both John Wayne and Charlton Heston, and there are even a couple of Tom Cruise movies that I'll admit I rather like. I don't have to agree with an actor's personal beliefs to appreciate his art.

And as I've said before, I also do not think any person - whether it be a writer/director like Cameron or a gas station employee named Ferdinand Lobomowicz - should be automatically rejected as "anti-American" and cast aside just because they question the country's leadership or direction, a fact which should be at least appreciated by those who are currently speaking out against the current administration. (And believe me, if it were otherwise there are a number of anti-Obama types out there I'd be more than happy to personally help onto the boat...)

Until he comes out and says so with his own mouth, I do not believe James Cameron is anti-American. I do believe he has - as other artists on both sides of the political aisle have done and will continue to do - chosen the medium in which he works to voice what he feels are legitimate concerns about what we have been doing to our environment, and about the nation's military-industrial complex.

With regard to the latter, it bears reminding some conservatives out there that one of the first to voice such concerns about about the U.S. military-industrial complex was one of their own: President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

As for me, I suspect that at the very least I'll probably wait to see "Avatar" until it comes out on DVD. Funds for a night out are limited, after all, and there is that promise to take my wife to see "Extraordinary Measures" to consider. But I'll also point out that any movie that gets a bad review from John Podhoretz can't be ALL bad...

(Copyright 2010 by John A. Small)