Avatar
 

Well, here it is.

James Cameron's project has been hyped to within an inch of its proverbial life over the years, what with the epic budget, alleged re-inventing of special effects and some admittedly underwhelming trailers full of conspicuously computer-generated blue elves. The question that's burning in everybody's mind leading up to its release this week is: Is it really that great?

The answer: pretty much, yeah. But more on that in a bit.

For those of you who haven't heard the story, the plot revolves around paraplegic marine Sully (Sam Worthington), who's offered a second chance at life on the lush alien planet of Pandora. The humans on the planet are engaged in a war with the native population, blue humanoid warriors known as the Na'vi, over extremely valuable natural resources. To this end, a handful of scientists (led by a delightfully taciturn Sigourney Weaver) have created an "avatar" project where people control cloned Na'vi in order to get close to the tribes and work something out. Through a cruel twist of fate, Sully ends up controlling one such avatar and from there the story well and truly begins.

Now, where do I start with Avatar? The film's a lot of things, but it's obviously not perfect, and I'm not sure whether to address its flaws or good points first. Something tells me I'll go with the flaws first. It's hard to judge them too objectively - it all depends on just how tolerant you can be. I'd probably say the film's worst flaw also plays a huge part in defining just how good (or bad) the film is. I refer of course to the film's copious use of CGI characters. This is a problem that I think will depend on the viewer. Either you're going to find it horribly distracting the whole way through or get used to it after about five minutes. I reckon this is something that is up to every viewer to decide. Myself - I fall into the latter camp. Just as well, because that could very well be the major deciding point in how to judge the film, if only because Avatar is saturated with CGI. Not like that's a bad thing, as a lot of the CGI looks very flash. Avatar's look is pretty damned impressive, all things considered. Between the lush locations, slick gadgetry and veritable cornucopia of action available, I can hardly see how the film's abundance of CGI is a problem. It definitely aims high and hits its mark a lot.

With that main issue out of the way, the rest of the film manages to be considerably strong a lot of the time. Once the story gets going, it stays riveting for much of its lengthy runtime. It's well-written, even if one of the central metaphors seems a little too obvious (powerful corporation attacking harmless natives over valuable resources - not exactly subtle) and it managed to keep reasonably surprising all the way to the end. The acting was by and large good; Worthington doesn't exactly shine as the hero, but he performs reasonably well. The highlight is probably Weaver, although there's something to be said for Stephen Lang's battle-scarred colonel, who makes up for a general lack of character dimension with relative ease.

The real question remains as to just how great Avatar is. It's definitely an amazing epic in spite of its few flaws and relative lack of originality, so it's admittedly far from perfect. It remains by and large a visual extravaganza if nothing else, and should deserve consideration for one of the better blockbusters of the year (if not necessarily one of the best films). Depending on your expectations, it either wasn't quite as great as it could have been or it was far superior. If you had mixed expectations like I did, it's probably a mix of both. Avatar remains a technically great piece, a bit lightweight in parts, but overall pretty damned good. I'll definitely be checking this out in 3-D, anyway.

Re: Avatar
 

I'm seeing it in IMAX 3-D, so I will **** in my pants...hopefully.

Re: Avatar
 

Great review, thanks Iro. :)

Got my tickets for a midnight showing tomorrow; IMAX, 3-D, etc. Actually, I think it's one of those semi-IMAX monstrosities, but it's the best we can do conveniently, sadly.

Bit nervous about the 3-D aspect. It's been lame in every single form I've ever seen it in, and I tend to get tiny headaches and the like from it. Cameron's been insisting that this is better and not as gimmicky with the technology, and I hope he's right. The reviews I've said so far indicate that it's fine, but not really necessary, either, which sounds about right. We'll see soon enough.

Thanks again for the early review. Cool stuff. Seems like the consensus is really overwhelming: great visuals, decent story, lame overall premise, but cool enough that most of us won't care. It's actually rather stunning how many different reviewers have agreed on all three of these points.

Re: Avatar
 

Thank you for sharing, Iro. It's good to hear positive feedback from someone whose opinion I respect. Really looking forward to seeing this film.

Re: Avatar
 

Seeing it tomorrow at 6.

I'm seein this Saturday. I usually don't pay attention to them, but this has gotten rave reviews by just about everyone. The first screening in London even got a standing ovation. When Steven Spielberg saw this he stood up as well and threw his fist up in the air yelling praises for the film.

Re: Avatar
 

Seeing it next week as well as sherlock holmes

Re: Avatar
 

Saw the movie yesterday with a couple friends and we were all blown away by the visuals. I forgot I was watching CG within the first 5 minutes or so, its truly that convincing in my opinion, with Neytiri being a particular standout amongst the nav'i. The movie does so many things so well that it does make the flaws stand out a bit more, but they're easily dismissed and forgivable all things considered. The movie is without question, a must see, particularly in 3D. Will definitely be seeing it a few more times!

Re: Avatar
 

Re: Avatar
 

This is the first time in a while, that I have been really pumped to see a movie in the theaters.

Can't wait.

Thanks for the review, Iro. :)

I have to admit, until I saw the film sitting at 87% on Rotten Tomatoes, I had no plans to see this. But now I'm pretty sure I'll be making the trip this weekend.

My tolerance of big-budget, blockbuster CGI extravaganzas is slim to none these days, if only because CGI never trumps even a competent story. I'm glad to hear that James Cameron has taken note and steered Avatar away from the banality of most others of its type.

Still, I'm nervous about the large contingent of CG characters in this film. For all the technical care and consideration that goes into creating them, when it comes to seeming real, everything is against them. It comes down to the performance driving the polygons, so we'll see.

You mean driving the "avatars", correct? :cool:

Re: Avatar
 

nice review. nice!

I don`t like media-hypes in general, but after reading some good reviews like this, I`m really looking forward to see it. It will be my first three-dimensional movie. :cool:

Re: Avatar
 

Looking forward to seeing this. I may go on Christmas night.

Saw Avatar in quasi-IMAX and 3-D last night. I don't know if I'd exactly recommend it, but I wouldn't not recommend it, either. It kind of has to be seen, regardless.

Thought a fair bit about whether or not to bump the rating up to , which would be just about as accurate as what I gave it. I'll have a better idea after a second viewing (I'm pretty sure they'll be one). I'd eagerly invite a bit of friendly back-and-forth about its merits, by the by, though I think this is one of those films where both its admirerers and its critics probably agree on both what's right with it, and what's wrong with it, and vary only as a matter of degree.

I enjoyed it, I enjoyed the IMAX 3-D experience, it really enhanced the feel of the film. I understand the gripes people have with it, but I have to disagree with Yoda when he claimed the 3-D was gimmicky, out of all the 3-d films I've seen, this one was the only one that didn't use it in that effect.

I actually didn't feel the 3-D was especially gimmicky, I just think that it was gimmicky a couple of times, and the times that it wasn't, it was unnecessary. I didn't phrase that well, I suppose; the emphasis was definitely intended to be on the latter.

That said, there were definitely two or three of those "we're going to have something fly right at the camera so it looks like it's coming at you" deals which have become the hallmark of all 3-D films so far. Not many, thankfully, so I'll give Avatar some credit for that. It was probably the most subtle use of the technology I've seen, even if that isn't saying much.

I wish I'd remembered to mention (though I don't know where I'd put it) the narration. The narration was bad. Really, really bad. It was full of modern colloquialisms ("numb nuts"? "Take it to the next level"?), it was strangely sporadic, and it didn't serve much purpose, either. I don't know if it's worse than the cardboard cutout bad guys, or the uber-predictable storyline (I even lazily predicted the last shot of the film 30 minutes before it happened), but it's close.

Re: Avatar
 

I agree about the narration, it was quite odd and misplaced sometimes.

Re: Avatar
 

I was working on a review, but it seems that you all are basically saying all of the same things that I was thinking.

Overall, I found it to be wanting. I really wanted to like it, but sadly didn't.

Re: Avatar
 

Well, this should be fun. I think we're going to find a 2-D screening somewhere. I am not a fan of 3-D and wish it would have stayed dead and buried. I completely agree with your gripes about in general Chris. To me, 3-D is just a way to take your mind off the fact that it's usually a pretty crap film you're watching, so, yeah.

Just a thought too Chris, it seems to me that if you're already thinking about seeing the flick again then a is probably pretty right on. As you know I've probably seen more than my fair share of to movies and when I do I tend to not think about seeing them again for quite some time. Anyway, just a thought. We are after all, different people. Weird, right?

Re: Avatar
 

Yeah, that's a pretty fair point. There are a couple mitigating factors: namely, that I'm unsure of how much the 3-D may have affected my opinion (I don't think it's much, but you never know), and that it's been awfully well received in general, which is enough to make me think twice. That, and things are always a little slanted when you go to a Midnight showing. I don't fall asleep or anything, but it's conceivable that it could hurt a film's attempts at generating excitement.

You could certainly be right, though; a bump to is totally plausible. And given how many things I ended up complaining about, the rating is almost all on the strength of the visuals (with a few coold ideas sprinkled in), which is rather impressive when you think about it.

Re: Avatar
 

Yeah, I tend to think this one is going to be a little like Speed Racer was for me last year. Light on Story but absolutely eye popping, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if it lands in the to range.

Re: Avatar
 

I'm not a fan of 3-D films either, but I honestly believe it adds to the experience of this film.

I'm interested in hearing thoughts from a 2-D screening.

Just saw Avatar in 3-D yesterday and it was extroadinarily stunning. Although, the picture would have been still visually breathtaking two-dimensionally. Nominated for three Golden Globes this year, including best director and best picture, Avatar stands on its own as a true cinematic epic. I'm looking forward to James Cameron exploring other worlds in the sequels. As well as the eventual DVD/Blu-Ray release next summer.

I give Avatar .

Re: Avatar
 

I don't like to ask too much of a movie. I like to pigeon-hole movies into specialized categories because asking for everything in one movie is too much in my opinion. There are some movies that I watch for a comprehensive plot and complexity and then there are movies like Avatar which I watch for pure entertainment and don't really expect much more than that...

If I was to vote purely on a 'how much fun I had watching this movie' factor I would have to give it a 9.5/10. Seriously, it was that good to me. It has been a few days now since I've seen it and all I can think of is how much of an eye orgasm the CG was to me. I'm usually very quick to complain about bad CGI or even notice CGI when others don't but, like others have said, after 5 minutes, I didn't notice much at all and this is a huge rarity.

I found myself promoting this movie to people that didn't even ask about it. Go watch it.

Here's the link to my review:

Re: Avatar
 

thanks for these reviews! i'm seeing it in 3-D this weekend :)

Re: Avatar
 

I’m truly stuck on where to start this review for “Avatar”. Do I talk about the unbelievable cinematography, or about the mind blowing world James Cameron made for us to be enveloped in. For those of you who have been living under a rock the last year and a half here is a synopsis for the movie:

When his brother is killed in battle, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully decides to take his place in a mission on the distant world of Pandora. There he learns of greedy corporate figurehead Parker Selfridge's intentions of driving off the native humanoid "Na'vi" in order to mine for the precious material scattered throughout their rich woodland. In exchange for the spinal surgery that will fix his legs, Jake gathers intel for the cooperating military unit spearheaded by gung-ho Colonel Quaritch, while simultaneously attempting to infiltrate the Na'vi people with the use of an "avatar" identity. While Jake begins to bond with the native tribe and quickly falls in love with the beautiful alien Neytiri, the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand - and fight back in an epic battle for the fate of Pandora. Written by The Massie Twins

Most of my reviews have a good and bad section in them, but this movie twisted my brain upside-down and sideways. To start, the world Cameron created was like nothing I have ever seen in a movie. Usually when you watch a sci fi flick you will think at least once “I saw that in Star Trek or Star Wars had a town that looked just like that.” In Avatar everything is new, from the aliens, the plant life, to the weapons used; it’s all newly created for the movie. The world is alive through the whole movie and that fact is conveyed to the audience through bright neon on all the plant life. Even when someone steps on the ground, a faint glow appears under foot. The indigenes animals created for the movie are spectacular. Deadly at the onset of the movie you learn later on how they are all part of the Na’vi and their culture. You will not be able to take you eye’s off this new world that has been brilliantly brought to life.

What can be said about the acting in the movie? Every character fit together like one of those Russian Nesting dolls. If you were to take one of the characters out of this movie the whole thing doesn’t work. Cameron meshed the best actors with the most fitting roles. Sigourney Weaver as the idealist scientist who created the Avatar program captivated you with her ability to steal every scene she was in, but what do you expect from the queen of the sci fi genre. What I was most happy about was the acting of Sam Worthington. To date the only thing I had seen him in was Terminator Salvation, and by the end of that movie I was hoping Christian Bales character would die and Worthington would survive. He was fantastic, he made you feel his deep division of conscience between being a good Marine and doing what is morally right. There is one performance in the movie that will go completely under the radar, but I think needs to be mentioned. That’s the role of corporate goon played by Giovanni Ribisi. At first he comes off as your stereo typical corporate lap dog, but if you watch his eyes and body language, he tells you he’s not O.K. with what’s going on and is towing the company line at the expense of his soul.

The story line is a hotly debated one. Even today in church I had people with differing views of the need for force. I’m of the mind that Hollywood is finally getting hip to the idea that as a nation that uses force to end disputes isn’t always the right way. Do we all need to be tree hugging hippies that don’t embrace any use of force? I don’t think that’s what the movie was saying. It was showing that just because we can doesn’t mean we should. If Hollywood wants to make action movies that have a social message involved with it, then I would rather my kids see that if force is used to take instead of protect it will be repaid tenfold on the aggressor.

I’m sorry there is one thing I didn’t like in the movie. They did swear a little too often for my taste.
I would suggest this movie for anyone who has an imagination. It will be an afternoon of wonderment and adventure for the whole family.

I know others have their review up, but these are my thoughts and I thought they were to long to post in a respones.;)

I totally agree with you, I have been promoting this movie like crazy ever since I saw it on Monday. Make sure you go check it out, I don't give it a 9.5 out of 10, I give it a 10/10.

IDk if they plan to make a sequel or if this is a beginning of a series but i had a but of a problem with the ending

SPOILERS:

At the end of the movie wen the na'vi have taken over the human base and they are marching all of the human prisoners to the space ship to leave i can just see Giovanni Ribis's character thinking "just wait till we can come back" i mean if the "unobtanium" is worth 20 million a kg. thats just to large a profit margin to be left alone, not to meantion asuming that this is a fuel (what else can be worth 20 million besides super medicine that cures any disease) it is bound to have strategic value for earth and i think that's reason enough to send a army to Pandora (private or otherwise), the force that crused the mining security companys was only about 2000 strong vs what i asume is a few hundred private security soldiers, todays PMC can easily field thousans of troops, now it take 6 years to get to pandora so thats 6 years for the surevivors to get back to earth tell everybody what append lets say 2 years to organize an expedition and 6 more years back to pandora, so at most i see that jakesully and the na'vi is 14 years of peace.

Yes the Na'vi won a battle but its not like if the US stopd its indian policys after little big horn or the british left africa after isandlwana on the contary those defeats fueled continued efforts to subjugate the native people, now you can say the planets nature protects itself with the lizard-birds, rinos and tiger eske creatures, buts whats would they do if the humans decide to bomb the planet from orbit everithing from a 200km radius from their mining site, or worse yet glass the planet HALO style (its the year 2500 i asume they have the technology), i mean the resources they want are underground its not like they are there for the lumber so they lose nothing, and if its really a fuel like i asume, i dont doubt that when their gas prices are true the roof they would do wathever is necesary to get resources.

So in short its just seem like the na'vi only won themselves a reprive.

Re: Avatar
 

I think nobody would want to see it on dvds,lol

Re: Avatar
 

A reply to davidzou: Many people would watch it because it is possible to buy 3D versions of the movie with a pair of 3D glasses albeit a bit expensive but worth it! I think...

Now my views:

I don't know why some people are saying this movie was bad but then everybody has their own views. Myself, I think that this movie was awesome and utilized new generation technology in movies perfectly. There might be some goofups, some abrupt changes and some unwanted scenes but this movie is still a great one. I absolutely loved it and would like to watch it again! The 3D experience was really nice and you didn't have to be constantly reminded that it is there by objects wooshing towards you but the effects made the world seem real.

A lot of work has been placed in development of the Na'vi and they look like people who might exist somewhere. Keep it up and if there is a sequel, I hope it comes back with a great storyline and ironing all the glitches in it.

:D

Re: Avatar
 

Saw this last night. We did end up going to a 3-D showing. Not I-Max though, I'm glad we didn't because it would have put my wife in the hospital as she got really sick after the show, it took several minutes for her to regain her bearings. I think we're sticking to 2-D from now on.

As for the movie, I thought is was really pretty entertaining and I was so blown away by the world Cameron created that the supposed lack of story really didn't bother me a bit. Just fantastic. This is the kind of film that may get me to buy a Blue-Ray machine. Seriously.

We're going to probably go and see it again at a regular theater so I can enjoy the colors better. I honestly think you lose a good chunk of it in 3-D. But it was still really excellent looking. I've been thinking about it since last night and I think more now than before Chris, that you should think seriously about upping your rating a smidge. Something that looks that beautiful is worth a lot. That is by far the best CGI I have ever seen. Just amazing. I'll give it the it most definitely deserves. Picking all the technical Oscars this year will be a cinch. :yup:

Re: Avatar
 

I don't think you lose anything, Cameron built his own camera to use 3-D technology. If anything, you'll lose not seeing it in 3-D.

But I guess it depends on how you take it, you said your wife got sick from the 3-D.

I've avoided it for this reason. I get sick trying to watch 3D, too. I think it's cool in 15-20 minute increments, but after that my eyes are just working too hard.

Re: Avatar
 

TUS, you don't think all of those greens and yellows they use to make the picture 3-D affect the overall color? We almost went and saw it again tonight so it would have been easier to compare to two. I think we'll be going on New Years eve instead so hopefully I'll still be able to discern the difference.

Still buzzing about the flick though, just wow. Anyone who's skipping this because of the story is really missing out.

My eyes did that when the film first started, but after ten or so minutes, I had no problems. Camera keeps a clear depth of field, which makes it easier on the eyes.

As for the colour, not at all. I guess I would have to see it again in a regular theatre to really give you an answer though.

Re: Avatar
 

SPOILER WARNING





hey guys, just a question me and my friends are debating about. In the scene when the humans destroy the huge tree, do u believe that all those missiles would have made the tree really fall over?

My friends think that it would, but i dont because consider how huge the tree was and how thick and strong the hide/wood of the tree would be. Even though they attacked the columns, i believe that the missiles would have done only slight damage to the columns, also, the tree had lots of columns to support it, and in the movie it only showed 3 columns being destroyed. So even if the missiles destroyed the columns, the tree would have still been standing because it had many other columns to support it.

Let me know what u guys think.

Re: Avatar
 

Its the first time I have seen a film in 3D, i consider it the best film of the year next to District 9. The film had everything including a new language created by a PHD from Cambridge. The military guy was cool with those long scars, the race of Na'vi were clever, the excellent idea to have on a foreign planet a foreign race that can be viewed by humans inside a machine added plenty to the overall movie ride. Apart from one minor detail in the way the military enlists the help of Jake to keep tabs on the Na'vi, and show exactly hot to get at the Unobtainium, (stupid name btw), I was impressed by what 300 million can do.

Another thing that I liked was that movies in 2D can be slow and boring regardless of how well the plot has been developed or thought out. One particularly satisfying thing about the 3D version is how well the characters looked and felt through it. I begun to wonder on how many more dimensions Cameron had tapped due to opening a new setting to the audiences serviced by a 3D world and 3D plot... I also like to think that I can see aspects in 2D movies that other people cant see, and by having everyone in the movie thinking and watching with the glasses on, opened my eyes to the possibilities of the technology. I took the glasses home and looked at myself in the mirror and asked myself the question... ARE YOU DRUNK?

Just got back from watching Avatar!

It's an amazing movie!

I give it

Avatar: Some Personal Comments
 

AVATAR

The film Avatar has finally been released this month after being in development since 1994. I have not seen it yet, but I have read about it and discussed it with several people who have. This prose-poem tries to encapsulate some of my initial thoughts on this blockbuster, its initial reception and some of its meaning.

James Cameron, who wrote, produced and directed the film, stated in an interview that an avatar is: “an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form." In this film, though, avatar has more to do with human technology in the future being capable of injecting a human's intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body. "It's not an avatar in the sense of just existing as ones and zeroes in cyberspace,” said Cameron; “it's actually a physical body." The great student of myth, Joseph Campbell(1), should have been at the premier in London on 10 December 2009. I wonder what he would have said.

Composer James Horner scored the film, his third collaboration with Cameron after Aliens and Titanic. A field guide of 224 pages for the film's fictional setting of the planet of Pandora was released by Harper Entertainment just five weeks ago. The guide was entitled Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora. With an estimated $310 million to produce and $150 million for marketing, the film has already generated positive reviews from film critics. Roger Ebert, one of the more prestigious of film critics, wrote: “An extraordinary film: Avatar is not simply sensational entertainment, although it is that. It's a technical breakthrough."-Ron Price with thanks to Wikipedia, 30 December 2009.

Like viewing Star Wars back in ’77
some said/an obvious script with an
earnestness & corniness/part of what
makes it absorbing/said another/Gives
you a world, a place/worth visiting/eh?
Alive with action/a soundtrack that pops
with robust sci-fi music shoot-'em-ups...

A mild critique of American militarism
and industrialism.....yes the military are
pure evil........the Pandoran tribespeople
are nature-loving, eco-harmonious//wise
Braveheart smurf warriors. Received....
nominations for the Critics' Choice Awards
of the Broadcast Film Critics Association &
on and on go the recommendations for the..
best this and that and everything else. What
do you think of all this Joseph Campbell???
You said we all have to work our own myth(1)
in our pentapolar, multicultural-dimensional
world with endless phantoms of our wrongly
informed imagination, with our tangled fears,
our pundits of error ill-equipped to interpret a
social commotion tearing our world apart and
at play on our planetizing-globalizing planet.(2)

(1)Google Joseph Campbell for some contemporary insights into the individualized myth we all have to work out in our postmodern world.
(2)The Prophet-Founder of the Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'u'lláh, has been presented as an avatar in India beginning, arguably, in the 1960s. With only 1000 Baha’is in India in 1960 to more than 2 million by the year 2010. Baha’u’llah has been associated with the kalkin avatar who, according to a major Hindu holy text, will appear at the end of the kali yuga, one of the four main stages of history, for the purpose of reestablishing an era of righteousness. There are many examples of what one might call a quasi-cross-cultural messianistic approach to Bahá'í teaching in India.

This approach has included: (a) emphasizing the figures of Buddha and Krishna as past Manifestations of God or avatars; (b) making references to Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita, (c) the substitution of Sanskrit-based terminology for Arabic and Persian where possible; for example, Bhagavan Baha for Bahá'u'lláh, (d) the incorporation in both song and literature of Hindu holy spots, hero-figures and poetic images and (e) using heavily Sanskritized-Hindi translations of Baha'i scriptures and prayers.

Ron Price
30 December 2009

Re: Avatar: Some Personal Comments
 

Another odd yet interesting post from Mr. Price!

:D

I gotta say, I'm still pretty surprised at how many people are giving Avatar a pass here. It's interesting because usually there's some disagreement between the people who love a film and the people who don't, but in this case everyone seems to agree that the story is pretty bad, predictable, but that it's awfully nice to look at and quite detailed. The difference of opinion is whether or not to forgive the bad things because of the good ones, but there's an almost universal agreement as to what the film's strengths and weaknesses are.

It's hard for me to wrap my head around this, because a lot of the people who seem to love this film are often people who would agree wholeheartedly that stories and characters are the most important thing in any film, and the majority of MoFos aren't the type to overlook shortcomings in these areas simply because of effects. The only difference here is that people seem to find the effects so good that Avatar deserves some kind of exemption from the unwritten rules of how to make a genuinely good film.

I just can't get past the fact that anyone who's seen more than a dozen films knew how everything was going to turn out. I was able to guess the film's very last shot half an hour before it happened.

Who here wasn't sorta waiting around for all the events we knew had to take place? Like...

NOTE: I'm labeling these as spoilers to be safe, but if you haven't seen the film, don't worry; you already know all this.


Nothing in this movie was surprising. Every one of us knew all the things above were going to happen. How is that not a huge black mark against a movie?

Anyway, despite all this, I'm still going to see it again, possibly this weekend, and definitely in 2-D. I agree with whoever (was it PW?) said 3-D dulls the colors. It absolutely does.

Re: Avatar
 

It is a strange situation isn't it? I agree with everything you've said Yoda but I still went to see it twice in as many days, enjoying it even more the second time I saw it (and to be honest I thought it was pretty damn good the first time).

About 20/30 minutes too long for my taste though.

I haven't seen Avatar yet so just kinda skipped through some of the posts on here... but wasn't this thread originally in the Review forum?

Re: Avatar
 

It was; I think I may have moved it by accident. All better. :) Thanks for catching that, Cait.

I wouldn't say the story is bad. It's just... routine. It's a story that's been told countless times before. But it's solid. A lot of the characters are quite shallow, I'll admit; but a few exceptions notwithstanding, all of them are interesting. Cameron was able to get pretty rewarding performances out of Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana, at least.

The plot itself is predictable, but really, how often are we treated to something truly different these days? I thought Star Trek was just as predictable as this, but it's been largely praised despite gaping plot holes. To me, Avatar is a tighter, more lovingly-crafted story. I think perhaps the "revolutionary" visual effects - which I didn't find very revolutionary, by the way - make the story seem much simpler than it might have otherwise.

I can't speak for anyone else, but after seeing it, I didn't really feel like Avatar was all about special effects. I think we all expected it would be, probably, but the story in no way feels like an inconvenient requirement to making an effects-ridden film. I wouldn't say Cameron really tried to pen a "new" story either, but I'm kinda glad he opted for an appropriate plot instead of something revolutionary for revolutionary's sake.

Suffice it to say, I think a film that's simple but solid is far better than a film with plot holes, which is too often what we end up with these days. The last thing I want to do is grumble about how the writers didn't fix this or failed to explain that.

I might have known where Avatar was going, but it's like this. All roller coasters are, for the most part, the same. I know what to expect, and a few unexpected turns are certainly always welcome. But ultimately, it's the catharsis of the ride that I want. Avatar gives me that without insulting my intelligence by screwing its own story up, and it's got just enough heart to make me feel for its characters. I can't remember the last time a blockbuster did that.

Whilst I agree with Yoda's point that this film appears to be getting a pass from people, I have to ask how this 'predictability' makes it any different from Cameron's other films? Or even blockbusters in general? Obviously you could argue that being able to predict the last shot puts it out in front of other films, but isn't that really all that's seperates it?

Re: Avatar
 

To me the best thing about Avatar was the integration of human and graphics. It was marvelous. And I would credit the director for this.

Re: Avatar
 

We're going to go and see it in 2-D as well. I think it will be interesting to compare the two. 3-D vs. 2-D.

I suppose there's a difference between "bad" and "routine," but that distinction is hard to make when a film is really routine. To me, it's death when the audience knows what's coming, and is literally waiting for the film to catch up.

As for the performances; I'm having a hard time judging them. Were they actually good, or are we just impressed that they weren't all creepy and disembodied? Like most of the film, I think technical achievement is spilling over into our collective impressions of its quality as a film.

I find it really hard to believe that anyone predicted all the twists and turns in Star Trek. I recall us talking about this a bit in another thread, though, and odds are I still owe you a reply there.

Anyway, in regards to "how often are we treated to something truly different these days?" I dunno about truly different, but how about different at all? I'm not harping on Avatar because the good guys win; technically speaking, we all know how the overwhelming majority of movies will turn out, more or less. But there are ways of getting there that can be more or less conventional. It's not just that we know where Avatar's going, it's that we know every flippin' step it's going to take to get there.

Not sure I follow why the effects would make the story seem simpler. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true; the effects are obscuring just what a retread it is.

I'm not suggesting the story should have been as revolutionary as the effects, but I certainly expect something new. We're talking about inhabiting fake bodies, but the ethics and implications of this aren't really explored at all. I don't recall any time being spent on this. How about the ethics of land use and how we establish the concept of property with cultures that don't necessarily believe in it?

There are lots of interesting, complicated questions here, and Avatar isn't interested in any of them. Nature good, technology and corporations bad...oh, and please ignore the $300 million our corporate studio spent on new technology to bring you this message.

Despite all this, I would've taken predictable if it had, I dunno, great dialogue. Anything to supplement the story-by-numbers. Anything to get me from one scene to the next.

I don't think we should have to choose. If we do, then to me that makes it a mediocre film. If the highest praise we can muster is that the plot was so simplistic as to not have massive plot holes, then doesn't that demonstrate just how low the bar is being set? We're giving it credit for something which should be standard.

Well, to each their own on that front. I have no problem with the occasional mindless thrill ride, but Avatar clearly thinks it's more than that, and lots of people are praising it in a way you don't usually see mere roller coaster-type films praised.

I mean, as far as I can tell we all agree that the story is predictable and unoriginal, we all agree that the voiceover narration is downright bad, and we all agree that the film's agenda is transparent and fairly simplistic. It seems odd to me that we can't also agree, given all that, that it's a mediocre film. It's more important than good, I think, but perhaps that isn't a distinction that everyone feels we should make.

Re: Avatar
 

Avatar is a movie worth watching on the theather
the story is simplistic, predictable, but Cameron makes
you get in to the story and feel bad for waths happening
to the Navis.

Even though the story is not original you get in to it,
i think Cameron wanted it to be this way so it can be
easily understood and liked by the masses from children
to adults.

Ray

Maybe, but I never felt like I was waiting for the film to catch up. I guess I just had a relaxed experience. I let the film unfold in front of me, rather than trying to outguess it at every turn. The pacing of the film really allowed that to happen; there were frequent moments of rest, where the ambience of the film's characters and environments took over.

Nah, I disagree. Zoe Saldana's performance, I'll argue, was a tremendously inspired one despite her digital character. She did seem real, yes, but all of her dialogue and emotional ticks - which were motion-captured from the actress herself - were full of conviction and devotion to the character.

As far as Sam Worthington goes, I thought his performance was actually much better outside his avatar. He's an expressive guy in his own simple way, and with him there's always a genuine, underlying sense of heart. But hey, that's me. Maybe you thought differently.

I wouldn't say we could have easily predicted how things were going to happen, but I don't think it was too difficult to see what Nero was after, the result of the "final battle," etc. I mean, really? Was Star Trek all that original?

Admittedly, I wouldn't say I knew every step it was going to take. And even when I did, I never felt like I was smarter or better than James Cameron. I just know how these films generally go. I will say, too, that I found some genuinely interesting concepts in the film: the literal and figurative implications of controlling an "avatar;" the partnership of a Na'Vi and his flying dragon-bird thing; the explanation of Eywa as one large, interconnected planetary organism. Nothing was very fleshed out or groundbreaking, but what can I say? For close to three hours, I was sufficiently entertained.

I also rather appreciate when a writer is courageous enough to step out of the status quo, even for a minute, and make things happen in the story that are cataclysmic or irrevocable. Anyone who saw Avatar knows what I'm talking about. Too often in films something is in danger, but at the last second, it's spared. Avatar does this to an extent in its finale, but it's also got the balls enough to follow through on the danger and despair it promises. Maybe not enough to change the formula - good guys win, bad guys lose - but that was a given already. Even Joss "Wash Murderer" Whedon couldn't stop himself from giving the Serenity the W.

I probably should have said "in terms of the film's expectations." For such an expensive film with revolutionary visual effects, you'd think the story would also follow suit. Maybe some of us did, I don't know. I really wasn't expecting much, but I can see how the simplicity of the story could stand out if somebody was expecting the whole package to be one for the books.

True, true. All good things. But I guess it's all about what you want the film to be. I don't think Avatar, at any stage of production, was intended to be a thinking man's film. I'd have loved if it was, but I can tolerate the final product because they stuck to their guns and did it well.

:laugh: Well, that's the rub, isn't it? You've certainly got a point. But for what it's worth, I'm glad to see Avatar didn't end up as just another Spider-Man 3. Again, I don't think Avatar is really trying to make sound comparisons with big business and environmentalism in the real world. It just uses those ideas to sell the emotional side of its story. You can say that's shallow, but... I mean, it's a James Cameron film. Action and special effects. :)

And yet, it so often isn't. Maybe the bar is being set drastically low, but I really believe that a film's plot - as long as it's competent and contains enough bells and whistles to keep me interested - can be simple and still satisfy. Sure, I prefer the likes of Charlie Kaufman, Steven Soderbergh, and the Coen Brothers. But with Avatar, I wanted a lush visual effects experience and a cathartic story, and I got it.

On the contrary, I think blockbusters are too often tolerated. I already mentioned my problems with Star Trek. I loathe how forgiving people have been to Revenge of the Sith, which I find extremely taxing and overblown. Spider-Man 3 received a number of stellar reviews when it was released, despite the fact that it's a turd of a film. I mean, it's all subjective in the end.

Again, I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I only agree to the first one. I didn't think the voiceover was terrible - or even a major piece of the film - and I don't think the film really has an agenda outside of being critically and commercially successful. There are connections - the film references Native Americans heavily for the Na'Vi, for example - but ultimately I think every story ends up using long-established archetypes as a model on which to operate. Rarely do you find a truly unique formula, and certainly never in a blockbuster.

There are a lot of mediocre plots out there. How they're executed can really determine whether they're enjoyable or not. Avatar was executed well, with much more loving attention (and time!) than most blockbusters are afforded. To me, that goes a long way.

Re: Avatar
 

Even though for the most part the narrative is predictable, there are so many smaller details to like that it almost didn't bother me. I presume this film was aimed at a much younger audience for obvious reasons. So I keep thinking to myself, if I was 10 years old I would probably be blown away. Even if this is just a CGI Furn Gully I'd much rather younger generations adoring a lesser James Cameron film then some soul less action vehicle or god-forbid Twilight.

Agree!

Re: Avatar
 

I think Cameron wanted to bring old school filmmaking into the next generation of filmmaking. The film's technology and how we experienced it is the next step. I imagine what people felt while watching Avatar is what the audience felt when they first watched Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat. I won't say it had the same effect, but I think comparing audience experiences are generally around the same. (I'm sure no one ran screaming out of Avatar thinking they were going to be hit by a spaceship though, so don't argue that point).

The story itself kind of felt like a film from the 80's, with the action and all, only upgraded for a new generation of film goers. As it has been said, Cameron does action and effects very well. Heck, I enjoy his writing but I know it's not the best stuff and like I said before, I will forgive a film that is 'predictable' if it is done well, Avatar is done very well.

Re: Avatar
 

Just watched Avatar in 2D. Wow! Just Wow!

Re: Avatar
 

It was a great movies. I just loved it :)

http://i48.tinypic.com/2e4xnhy.jpg

Avatar (3D)

Complete bastard to rate this, or asses my feelings on it. I enjoyed it, got swept up in parts, but lord it had a lot of weak elements. Elements that would normally lessen my enjoyment a lot more (but mainly didn't, thanks to the novelties of the new tech). Elements that will probably become more pertinent the more the 3D & CGI aspects date.

The 3D itself worked best in scenes like the initial 'dragon' flight, and making the background flora of this alien world seem even realer. Areas where depth wasn't distracting, but a complement. It felt forced and gimmicky at some earlier points tho - forced when fake-seeming defocusing was used (the mic-stand during Sully's logs, for example), & tacky somehow at others (an early stereotype-clash between Weaver & Ribisi made me feel like I was watching a Mark Hamill vid shoehorned into a Wing Commander game. Like low-denominator tat relying on presentation-novelty to elevate it).

The rest of my reservations centre around the 'native green alien' issues & plot. I was slightly uncomfortable with the melange of Native Indian allegory, African-sounding accents & bestial bodies at first. You wend your way into it, thanks to the Sully/Neytiri relationship being affably, if 'avatistically', done ('scuse pun). It's also smoothed over by the worship of all things biological in the film, making 'bestial' the desirable, but that in itself took such an extreme stance as to be risible. I'm a greeny myself, but if the film wants to present a completely idealised version of all things 'eco' (life-systems as Godhead, capable of everything artifical tech can do, but with none of the downsides etc) they should totally embrace the fantasy, not bring us back with cheap Iraq jabs & front-and-centre US-'cleansing'-guilt. (PS, I think both the latter are fine in theory, but didn't work as a whole here). Unless Cameron really thinks trees can compute the storing of souls, it's tipped beyond the silly. (In defence of green-angles here, nature does inspire huge swathes of our novel tech, and is capable of truly miraculous things - from stressed trees sharing nutrients via underground symbiotes to us hairless monkeys mimicking evo-tricks to make a better optic fibre cable - and piping around mind-bending images like these. Cameroon's presentation of guided benevolence destroyed by human rapaciousness is too either/or to reflect those realities though).

There are lots of other quibbles (communications working in the tech-interrupting 'vortex' zone. Prison-break nerds not getting spotted by security. Etc etc.). But hell, in the here and now, this was a blast to watch, and much of the silliness and predictability was still well executed, and made for a streamlined ride.

---

(The minuses are almost place-holders for how my estimation might dip as the novelty of the tech advances wear off)

It does feel a bit like a game-changer doesn't it. I think that adds a certain frisson to the affair while watching - another feeling of 'difference' to override the staid & frayed aspects.

Talking of it's importance/impact, i couldn't helping thinking that this tech is gonna get used for porn the minute it becomes widely available (hey, there are historical precedents ;)). I immediately thought of the denizens of Second Life, who's strange world of sexual predilections and non-human fantasies is probably frothing now at the thought of it. And those are the kinda guys who'd dedicate the time & effort to push the tech to its best semi-pro possibilities. The ardour of aficionados and that. (And I'm not sure exactly how healthy that level of escapism/reality-bending ends up being).

I also got the feeling that we'd tip-toed further into the world of artificial sense-immersion, and in a way that doesn't necessarily engage the critical faculties :|. It didn't feel like a definitive leap, but certainly we've stuck our toes in some new technical waters.

Honestly, I'm not sure. I definitely think our generally lowered expectations towards motion capture contribute to how impressive we find the performances, but they seemed fine even aside from that.

What actually bums me out is that I'm pretty sure Robert Zemeckis is going to get passed over a bit here. Obviously Beowulf wasn't the technical achievement that Avatar is, but I think it's the first film to demonstrate that motion capture is, in fact, capable of rendering emotions ("emotion capture"? ;)) believably.

I give almost all films a pass when it comes to the "good guys win" predictability, simply because we have no choice. I admire a film with the guts to go the other route, but I can't really fault a film for having the baddies lose. So I'll certainly excuse both Star Trek and Avatar for that.

I'm thinking more the steps along the way. This may just be me, but it really seemed like every single turn of the story was telegraphed, as detailed in my spoiler-tag-wrapped bit a couple posts back. I'm especially aghast with the whole good guy does bad thing/is won over/is exposed/redeems self thing, which is the basis of pretty much every romantic comedy ever made. I'm not sure if I could call one type of plot the least creative, but if I had to, I might put that at the top of the list. Though I admit it would have some competition from the good guy gets famous/alienates friends/redeems self trope. :D

I'll give you the interconnected thing (kinda spoiler-y, but not too bad, I suppose); I liked that idea. But that just made it all the more frustrating when it took it to such extreme lengths and didn't explore it much. It's funny, but to me this particular plot point was a good idea with poor execution, whereas I found the rest of the film to be the exact opposite.

The linking thing...well, I dunno. At first I kinda liked it, but then it occurred to me that it's just a literal representation of all the symbolic things the film was trying to say. Actually, now that I think more about it, that sums of the film pretty well for me: I think a smarter film is content with metaphors, while Avatar beats us over the head with its agenda by making everything literal. So, instead of nature being like an interconnected thing, it actually is. Instead of man (well, Na'vi) and beast having a symbiotic bond metaphorically, they have one biologically. It's like having a character destroy a relationship and then literally having them burn a physical bridge while walking away, just to make sure we get the point.

Hmm, I'm actually not sure what you mean here, but I'll take a stab:



Hmm, that's an interesting thought. I admit, I didn't approach it this way. I tend to think that effects compensate for weaknesses in other areas, and I adjust my expectations accordingly. But I can see how someone could have the opposite expectation in this instance.

This honestly surprises me a little. I think Avatar definitely has the ambition to be, if not a thinking man's film, certainly a thought-provoking one. I could be wrong, but it is interesting that we had such different impressions about its goals. The production feels sufficiently self-righteous that I think it thinks it's making some profound points. But we've definitely strayed into Conjecture Land here.

Again, this is very interesting, because I've never thought of Cameron as the Michael Bay/action-and-effects type. I think Terminator 2: Judgment Day was very thought-provoking, for example, and I thought The Abyss was fascinating and methodical. Difference of opinion, I suppose.

That said, I have to disagree with the idea that Avatar isn't trying to make real-world comparisons. I think it is, and I think it's tremendously clumsy about it. The comparisons to American history are very obvious, of course, but there are several deliberate parallels with the Iraq war; for example, the phrase "shock and awe" seems to have survived 150 years in the future. I kind of agree with you anyway, because the film's all over the place with its politics and can't really decide what point it wants to make, but I think that's a sign that it's simply confused.

And, of course, the environmental agenda is impossible to miss.

Diff'rent strokes, for sure. But does this mean you'd have rated it lower if you'd expected it to be more intelligent/original/whatever? Is it a genuinely good film, or is it only good if accompanied by the caveat that you can't expect much from it?

Aye, it is. Which annoys me to no end. :D

I don't think blockbusters get much of a pass, though. Sure, they make money; bad films make money all the time, and it doesn't really bother me. Not everyone takes film all that seriously, and being casual about it is a perfectly valid way to consume it. But I take it for granted that just about everyone here is a different kind of moviegoer, and that we're all aware of what movies can be, to the point at which we don't often tolerate the ones that fail to live up to the inherent potential of the medium.

This is why I think, for example, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen can make over $400 million domestically with a mere 20% on the Tomatometer. What I'm getting at is that they get a pass from people who expect little out of their films, but not from most of the people who watch films seriously, either as a profession or as a hobby.

To bring it back around to the original topic: I'm not surprised that Avatar is doing well, or that most people like it. I'm surprised that most MoFos like it, because we all tend to expect more.

The fact that the voiceover wasn't a major piece of the film, actually, is one of the things that I think makes it so bad. It was fairly sporadic and completely unnecessary. As for how bad it was when it was used; I'll have to see it again, but I distinctly remembers lines like "I had to take it to the next level," which sounds like something out of Bring It On 3.

Aye, this is what it all comes down to; how much we forgive the almost univerally-acknowledged shortcomings in light of the almost universally-acknowledged technical prowess.

I think Golgot's point is a pretty good one; it's so obvious that we've all failed to make it: how much are we going to enjoy this movie in a few years? Even if you like it now, going in with low expectations and relatively blown away by the technology, will it have any kind of staying power?

Anyway, I was going to see it this weekend, but weather got in the way, so next weekend is more likely. Pretty determined to see it in 2-D before it leaves theaters, though.

Re: Avatar
 

Hey, stop belittling my genius for stating the obvious ;)

Yeah, I think so. While I still think Beowulf is the first to the party, Avatar is more of a cultural event, and therefore is more of a turning point in terms of (probably) generating further investment for the many uses you describe. In my review of Beowulf over two years I mentioned that the film had gotten away with depicting things that would've resulted in an R if it were genuine live action, and how meaningless the distinction was becoming:

Avatar definitely figures to bring this issue to the fore. Whatever seedier uses the technology figures to have, low-budget filmmakers are going to benefit in the end, I expect. But unlike certain types of effects, I think these are still a very long way off from being viable outside of nine-figure productions. I don't think it'll be the way it was with, say, Jurassic Park, where a mere decade later decent CGI was finding its way into high B-level productions or being done out of people's homes.

Re: Avatar
 

Genius, indeed. From one of your countrymen: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

Yeah, i missed Beowulf, but the violence depiction is one of the interesting 'moral' aspects of CGIs march towards (but not completely into) verisimilitude.

The hype aspect makes it difficult to gauge audience/emotive reactions with Av. I was noticing how the audience seemed to want to laugh at certain uber-tree-hugger displays in the film (or at least I'd expect them to under normal circumstances). Was it the 'shock and awe' aspect of the film's reputation that was keeping them quiet? (A juggernaut of social approbation that causes people to hesitate before questioning?) Or the wave of visual experiences et al that had generally washed over everyone, swamping short-term misgivings?

The fact that we all bought so readily into these 9ft creatures etc did make me wonder what else we could be persuaded to 'believe in' via these techniques. What other misgivings we'd subsume to be entertained and transported. (Can't wait for the first party political broadcast in 'Happy Land' 3D ;))

Yeah, I'm wondering whether it's this exact technology/approach which will go widespread, but it seems reasonable to assume that comparable tricks and evocations will trickle down.

Too kind sah, although i was more looking out of my arse ;) (to stay with the metaphor) - looking to the past. A lot of Cameron's tech-experiments have lost some of their lustre with time. The Abyss's water creature, Terminator 2's liquid baddie, the Titanic Titanic. They don't knock you into 'suspended disbelief land' so effortlessly these days. I figure this one will lose some sway in that sense too.

A new word for the glossary, perhaps? ;)

I missed Beowulf. Is it worth seeing for the motion capture? You're right about Zemeckis pushing harder for motion capture usage than Cameron in recent years, though I'm just wondering if he has surpassed his wooden, glossy-eyed characters in The Polar Express. The renderings are flawless, but there has always been a disconnect between where the digital form and the live actor are supposed to meet. Avatar struggled with this too, usually when it came to minor characters, but the main characters all seemed to "be there," as it were.

We could probably do this all day, though. Sure, if we look at Kaufman, Lynch, Cronenberg, Anderson, etc., those conventional plot formulas tend to vanish. But on the whole - and certainly when it concerns a theatrical filmmaker like Cameron - those standards tend to stick. You and I both know it's because films are more marketable when they fit an already-established niche. Sure, they get tired eventually. But I think zedlen's point is well taken: Avatar has got enough small details going for it that the larger formula seems fresher than it really is. And again, for me, stellar production value, rewarding performances, and engaging details go a long way... even when I'm getting fed a familiar plot.

If anything, I think it came too late. It seemed like Jake Sully would have learned this truth well before he did, but I guess the timing was helpful to the plot considering what begins to transpire immediately after. I would like to have seen the idea explored too, but that would have likely changed the focus of the film considerably.

Eh, I don't know if it's that harsh, but your point is well-made. I guess it just didn't bother me. Rather than having an implied connection, I liked the detail of the symbiotic biology: interesting visually, and ultimately appropriate to the story. (It's also a nice fantasy for those of us who sometimes wish we could directly connect with the natural world. :))

Actually, I was talking more about...



Nah, the supporting characters were pretty lame. I was hoping for some additional stuff between Neytiri and her father, but maybe we'll get some deleted stuff in the DVD? As for Whedon, this is largely why I prefer X-Men: The Last Stand to its predecessors. Whereas Singer's films unfailingly maintain the same status quo to the end as they start with, Ratner's film makes leaps that change its characters tremendously. (Of course, then it pretty much backtracks on all of them in the final moments, lol. :laugh:)

Yeah, I very much agree that Avatar, more so than any other Cameron film before it, had the chance to be a thinker of a film. It probably would have taken a much different form, narratively-speaking, which is a hard sell when you're talking about a $500 million budget.

I can't agree, however, that Avatar was trying to make any profound statements about anything. I think Cameron was after a theatrical adventure film that would gross a billion dollars, and knew that tapping into the corporate-greed-versus-environmentalism concept would probably take him there. He might think a film as large as this one has the ability to turn heads, but I really can't see how anything more than an unabated appeal to emotion for the sake of ticket sales was on anyone's agenda.

That's a fair point. Both films admittedly explored their own content more than Avatar did. T2 is probably his most successful film in that respect, with the machine experiencing a pretty substantive change as a result of his relationship with John Conner. But it's still an action spectacle at its core... as is Aliens... as is True Lies... as is Titanic. The man just has a greater love affair with production challenges than he does with story. In The Abyss, although the characters confront the best and worst of human nature - which is underscored for them by the aliens - I do think the film is pretty predictable and a little bit cheesy. :)

Well, I said I didn't think Avatar was trying to make sound comparisons. The comparisons are most definitely there, and Cameron acknowledges that himself. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think the film can be considered a legitimate voice in any political arena... and I think Cameron knows this too. To me, the politics of the film seem to have been used to sell tickets - nothing more. Otherwise, methinks this discussion would be far more widespread (a la The Da Vinci Code and gnosticism).

Is it really an agenda, though? Is Cameron donating a portion of the revenue to Greenpeace? Did he speak at the recent Climate Council in Copenhagen? I think there's certainly an environmental message - respect and preserve the environment - but is anyone really opposed to that sentiment?

It's a genuinely good film in the same way Star Wars is a genuinely good film. Simple, formulaic, charismatic, adventure-filled, and memorable. (Note: I'm not saying Avatar is revolutionizing film like Star Wars did in the 1970s; merely that they're comparable in quality.) It doesn't approach the pantheon of films we all consider truly exceptional and original, but does it really have to? I think it's a good film because it dictated its own terms, stuck to its core, executed well, and stayed solid with many instances of brilliance.

Yeah, but I think we also understand that they can't all be Oscar winners, either. There's going to be sore spots in every film. It's just the nature of the action/adventure genre. I'll admit that I won't hold Avatar to the same critical standards as I do, say, The Reader. They're just two totally different films on two totally different levels. So yeah, even I give blockbusters some slack. But whereas most blockbusters are riddled with asinine characters and plot holes, Avatar - formulaic story be damned - manages to be not only competent and complete, but pretty exciting too.

Well, the Transformers sequel seems to have significant problems, too. Star Trek's issues are pretty small in comparison, probably, but I still think a film with holes in the plot that are pretty evidently glossed over is negligible.

You could say that Linda Hamilton's voice-overs in T2 were similarly sporadic and confused. I think they worked because they narrated a bit more on the figurative side than Sam Worthington's in Avatar, but his really worked for me when they were tied to his daily task of logging videos. Toward the end, you can infer that the voice-overs are really those logs, but they do kinda fall apart because there's a long span of time where you don't even see him continuing that task. And yeah, that line was bad. :)

Yeah, but I don't think the shortcomings hold as much weight for everyone, from film to film, and that's where it doesn't seem fair to put Avatar's failings into that box. Sure, it's simple and formulaic, but that doesn't necessarily equal a bad film in every case. You could argue that Pixar films follow the same basic formula, but they're so touching and imaginative that it really doesn't matter.

Sure, I think it will fade. It'll become dated like anything else. I don't think anyone really considers it a seminal film, except that it made a lot of money. But I do think it's an old-fashioned adventure film that stands apart from other blockbusters because it was made largely by a filmmaker, not a studio. To me, that makes a whole lot of difference.

Re: Avatar
 

Am I the only one who thinks T2's liquid villain still holds up to this day?

I still like the T-1000. Some of the effects are kinda hokey, and are obvious shortcuts. But when he materializes in the helicopter... wow. :)

Re: Avatar
 

Just saw Avatar, and it is one of a kind movie.. it made the movie very interesting that catches every movie goers attention.. this is a must see movie...

Wasn't quite sure where to put this, but, as the majority of the Avatar talk is going on here, I thought it the right place. Feel free to move it.

Avatar hit by accusations of racism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...of-racism.html

My friend shared the same sentiments. As soon as we exited the theater his immediate reaction was that it was, "Dances with Wolves... only this time the Indians are victorious." Then again, my friend is a highly political person himself, most movies we watch become political commentaries or historical "lessons". Which I think is a fault of his because, in my opinion, politics is such a dead-end road that one wonders why anyone should even try. People can protest all they like, but as the 60's demonstrated, that got most people nowhere, and in some cases, (such as Kent State), it came at the cost of lives... for nothing. People have to live in a world where several people share several different opinions, that's just a fact of life, why get so hot and bothered by it? Whatever his reasons, they always subtract from his viewing experience, as been my experience. The movie could be great, I could be watching The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and he, (and I suppose others), can extract an anti-capitalist message from it. In the case of Avatar, I can see where people are getting that message. I in fact felt it too, but honestly its not worth "protesting" or getting flustered over. If one doesn't like it, avoid it, simple as that. Which is something I find odd about some people, (including my friend), I think he knew going into Avatar what to expect to some degree, (even I knew it was going to be somewhat "anti-white"/"imperialist"), but there are many out there who I think like to get politically flustered for reasons I'm unclear of. In my experience, (as with any Michael Moore film), if you don't like or agree with what your seeing, reading, etc. why bother to continue or watch? I don't watch Michael Moore films because I think he's full of bologna. I don't pay to see his movies, I don't buy his DVD's, I don't buy his books. If you want to really protest, just use counter-economics, stop giving the people your at odds with your money, and don't waste time to write a newspaper column.

I'll post my review here... and no I have not read through this thread yet, but I'm curious to see what other people think.

Avatar (2009, James Cameron)

http://www.awn.com/files/imagepicker...e-1024x576.jpg

This movie sucked. It blew. I wanted to get a giant chainsaw and go nuts on Jame's Cameron's foliage and flowers around his estate... assuming he has them. After watching this film, I'd assume he lives in a botanical center. However if I did such a thing I would be a two-dimensional and knee-jerk reactionary as the characters that inhabit this film.
To sum up the plot, it takes place 150 years in the future when mankind is colonizing other worlds because we've destroyed our own and laid waste to our nature plant life or some such thing. Sounds very original. Seems like I saw a much more profound film called Silent Running with a similar tree-friendly concept.
Anywho, mankind wants this planet because of a natural mineral/metal that litters the landscape, but in their way is a race of 15 foot-tall humanoids called the Na'vi. The na'vi don't want humans there and who can blame them. Humans don't run around pray to the blessed spirit of the forest. I digress.
The title comes from the plan to capture a na'vi, and inhabit it with the mind of a human through a pod. Don't ask, but it's a cool concept and I was digging the first half hour of the movie. It goes to complete Hell however once it turns into Dances With Wolves in space, as our protagonist (Sam Worthington) rolls his way into being a secret agent of sorts to infiltrate the Na'vi (tribe) and inform about their secrets, lifestyles, etc. You pretty much know where the film heads from here. He learns the value of the Na'vi culture, falls in love, questions his motives, betrays humanity, saves the Na'vi, and becomes one of them.
How quaint. Not only does this film suck because the message is heavy handed, but it's very sentimental and the villains twirl mustaches and the heros are glorified to the strains of the most generic music of James Horner's career. And to think, this is the man who's music made me cry in the original Land Before Time. Oh well.
A million CGI shots and sweeping landscape views and vistas with our characters engulfed by the massive and lush planet Pandora, cannot save this movie. The story sucks, the characters were boring and lacked any kind of motivation to give their actions and storyline depth.
It just blew.
I will say the visuals were impressive during a couple of the night sequences, but this film was overkill. It's difficult to believe that this movie came from the man who directed the amazing low-budget Terminator and the amazing high budget Terminator 2. Again. Oh well.

Grade: D

Short Avatar Review
 

I’m literally just in the door from seeing Avatar and I think I’m going to make this a pretty short and straight forward review as there’s nothing that I’ll say that many other reviewers haven’t already touched on. I was lucky enough to see it in 3-D and it was absolutely stunning. It was hard to resist reaching out in a futile attempt to touch the realistic use of special effects. I have heard that seeing it in 2-D is a waste of time and money since this glorious epic is purpose built for the third dimension but I can’t really make a solid judgement on that front for obvious reasons.

Plot wise, it was alright. Of course, it could’ve been better but I think this is a movie for admiration of cinematography and beauty than a subversive storyline. I did find myself easily disregarding names of characters and locations due to being immersed in innovative visuals. The story wasn’t emotive enough to make me cry and I didn’t laugh a whole lot either but it did effectively get it’s point across and once again cinema made me see that humans are twats who, after destroying their own world, have decided to mess with someone else’s. Dancing with Wolves and Pocahontas let us coil in shame as we witnessed an account of how the Western world wounded (to say the least) the Native Americans, Schindler's List let us observe how we turned on our own Western lifestyles so tragically because of religious and cultural hate and now Avatar is a vision of how we will possibly treat races on other planets in the future. This movie, like many others past and to come, has successfully made me ashamed to be human.

In conclusion, this is a must see just because it is the dawning of another new age of cinema. It’s a ground breaking epic and it defiantly has a better plot than James Cameron’s last real blockbuster Titanic and let’s face it, I think a lot of people went to the cinema to see that just to see the fail boat sink. He’s constantly pushing the bar and I’m keen to see what’s next, no doubt, it will be very pretty to look at.

Re: Avatar
 

I read the post above about racism in Avatar. In my opinion, its completely false! The movie is awesome!

Re: Avatar
 

I am amazed by the long list of movies this particular film reminds me of (Pocahontas, Atlantis, Princess Mononoke, Ferngully, even Highlander...). I am further astounded by the amount of bad movies this thing brings to mind. Whether they were intentionally ripping off other movies or not, this is certainly a sign of blatant unoriginality. Aside from that, it didn't even seem to try to be subtle on its "symbolism" of our society. Yet again, we get to learn how awful the white man and corporation is through an awe-inspiring, god-like film. James Cameron also doesn't miss his opportunity to wow us again with his lack of interesting/realistic dialogue and his two-dimensional characters. The visuals were pretty, yes, but when the story is this manipulative and predictable I don't think the special effects can save it.

Re: Avatar
 

I found the story served the type of film it was perfectly fine. I went in knowing nothing about it and knew what it expect. So for those who saw the trailers, who the hell did you expect?

If you were to see the film a second time, this time having already seen it so knowing FULL WELL what was going to happen. Will you still think it, to quote iluv2viddyfilms "Blew".

Sorry I took so long to reply to this! I wanted to see the film again before doing so.

Re: Beowulf. Yeah, it's actually quite good in that regard. It's not perfect, but it's light years ahead of the whole creepy-eye thing in The Polar Express. Zemeckis must've really taken those criticisms to heart.

Re: minor characters in Avatar. That's a good observation, and I think you're right. The more screen time a Na'vi had, the better their motion capture seemed to be.

Well, I can certainly live with this kind of disagreement; the details were enough for you to compensate for the overall story, but just not enough for me, I suppose.


It is definitely interesting, and I couldn't figure out why it bothered me until I was already replying to your last post, and that's when the literal/symbolic thing hit me.





I'm totally with you on X-Men: The Last Stand and the chances it takes, though the cop-out at the end pretty much ruins the whole thing for me. They were really close to doing something truly gutsy. Oh well. Maybe the next film will still sorta follow-through on this stuff.

This is a fair point, so I should probably qualify what I'm saying by pointing out that some of this may just be circumstance. In other words, though I think it's a mediocre film, and feel pretty strongly about that fact, I don't feel strongly that it's necessarily because Cameron wrote a bad script. I think he probably did, but there was probably a lot of tugging back and forth. That said, the dude's coming off of Titanic and seems to enjoy quite a bit of creative freedom, as the movie's pretty risky even in its final version. But there are plenty of unknowns about how the process might have affected things.

I don't think the two are really mutually exclusive. Dunno how profound the film think it's being, but phrases like "shock and awe" are a pretty clumsy, obvious way to try to give the film some political meaning.

If Cameron wasn't trying to make any actual points, then he's instead guilty of dropping in all sorts of tiny political jabs in a poor attempt at making it seem like it wants to. Which I guess is slightly better. ;)

Aye, they're all action spectacles at their core, and that's cool with me. I guess I'm just used to rest of the films being fleshed out better. True Lies, for example, was really funny at points, and fairly inventive at others. Most films, as we discussed before, are pretty predictable in a larger sense, but can still keep you on your toes from moment to moment. Cameron, I think, is usually quite good at that.

This may be true, but I don't know if tossing in half-hearted political references or similarities just to sell tickets makes me like the the film any more. I'm reminded of one character's reference to how there's "nothing green" on Earth any more.

I'll actually agree with that, about Hamilton's voice-overs. They were definitely too sporadic, though I think they were better written and more, well, relevant. But I could certainly live without them. I think you're dead-on about why they seem to work better, though; they're far more abstract.

Re: bad lines. There are quite a few. Roger Ebert once did a clever thing to criticize a movie: he reproduced a number of the lines with the preface "People in this movie actually say the following things:" So, with that in mind...people in Avatar actually say the following things:

• "I'm going to kick his corporate butt."
• "Shut your pie hole."
• "They'll use your eyes for jujubees."
• "...to ever face them again, I was going to have to take it to a whole new level."
• "In cryo, you don't dream at all. It doesn't feel like six years - more like a fifth of Tequila and an ass kicking."

I think a lot of people consider it a seminal film, unfortunately. If I thought most people who liked it just found it fairly entertaining, as you did, I probably wouldn't bother to make my case as often as I have. I hope you're right, but I'm afraid that this is gonna be, to many people, my generation's Star Wars or something.

So, anyway, as I mentioned above I finally got around to seeing Avatar a second time; in 2D, this time. Still think I've gotta go with . There were more bad lines than I remembered, and the whole thing just felt like it was on autopilot.

The visuals are still lovely, and I enjoyed them more without the distraction of 3D. Very impressed by the subtle facial expressions...I just think we're talking about a technical achievement, and not a creative one. I draw a distinction between creativity and sheer attention to detail.

Anyway, found this the other day and thought it was pretty hysterical:

http://www.movieforums.com/community...tar_script.jpg


I saw the trailers, reserved judgment, heard some rumblings about the story before the release, and went in expecting a very pretty but fairly predictable/simplistic story, and that's what I got. I've now seen it a second time, knowing exactly what to expect, and feel the same way.

I'm not sure why expectations should change things much, though. Knowing a film will probably be vapid doesn't excuse it for being that way, does it?

^Oh dear god... That was beautiful. I salute thee, Yoda (and whoever wrote that). Man, that just made my day.

I saw Avatar in 3-D a week or so ago, and and would rate it +

Whilst I found the visuals stunning (a huge compliment considering I loathe CGI); the hackneyed dialogue and story were often cringeworthy. So much so that the cinema audience groaned in unison on more than one occasion.

Having said that though I found myself completely entranced by the emmersive beauty of Pandora. Indeed I've read newspaper articles about people who've suffered depression since seeing the movie (I'll let you do the jokes) because they want to stay there. Whilst I'm certainly not one of those people I can kind of see where they're coming from, because my overriding memory of Avatar is of something enchantingly beautiful; even if the story is nothing more than a tired melange of films like John Boorman's The Emerald Forest, and Costner's Dances With Wolves (to name but a couple).

Avatar
 

Was i the only one that was singing ride of the valkyries when the gunships took out that huge tree? xD

(in avatar)

Re: Avatar
 

You can sing in German?

Re: Avatar
 

I was kind of doing noises then mr picky. :P

Re: Avatar
 

Why is this thread in General Movie Discussion? I'm assuming it has something to do with a moved post.

Re: Avatar
 

Yup; my mistake there. I'll fix it now.

Re: Avatar
 

Can I just say, I completely agree with everything Chris said (about the predictability of the plot, including the final shot) but I still found the film to be very entertaining and satisfying (I saw it twice in the theater which I've only done with the LOTR films, and I thought it was equally satisfying the second time around). I really don't know how to explain it other than the really stunning visuals overpowered everything and that, as someone else mentioned already, there's enough (rather nifty) details and ideas which destract you from the rather weak writing and story in general. Also, the last hour or so is just brilliantly directed action. Maybe it's not such a flattering thing to admit to, but I found myself completely swept with the goings on, as predictable as they were, it was still emotionally engaging So, artistically, I suppose I would give it about the same rating, but sheer entertainment wise, it's a It's kinda contradicting, but I had a similar experience with Mamma Mia, which had a much stupider plot but the music overrode everything and I ended up having a really good time at the theater. I even own the DVD...(:

Re: Avatar
 

Haven't seen avatar yet... Sad... But, me thinks, I would like Wolfman better.

I just watched this epic today. as blind fan of James Cameron I was expecting something beyond imagination. and undoubtedly hes succeeded to entertain me. Movie is after all entertainment ;)

I always like the theory of Cameron's visualization of Human vs Extra Ordinary powerful species/objects drama. No one can do it more accurately like him.

Easy flow of character which is suitable for people of all classes throughout the world. Viewers don't find problem to read em :)

My rating: +

-mb

Yeaaah, about the plague called Avatar.
I saw it like 3 weeks ago with my mom, she loves technology, so she did appreciate the special effects. So did I, after all in college we study special effects for cinema and it was hard for me not to say "wow" at some point.

Besides the special effects, the best thing about the movie is that it ended.

3/6

Actually, I agree with magic boy.
Basic scenario - yes. The movie is a cliche, but can we really judge it becouse of this. I don't think so. For me the visual effects are not the best part. I liked the idea of the physical connection between all living beings. It's emotional, easy to be understood and "green". I loved it. If we are not looking for new ways to say "peace", what are we doing? Or this mission is for Disney and documentaries only?

My rating: 5/6

Re: Avatar
 

Are the special FX really that much better than, say; Yoda in Revenge of the Sith, or, say, Golem?

Are they? I see nothing new aside from more time spent coloring. Just more time spent on facial animation.

The art is nice, ILM and Weta rock, no doubt about that.




http://www.ilm.com/

http://www.wetanz.com/weta-workshop-services/

Having these two companies on your team and $200 million - a even a I could make a pretty flashy movie.

Re: Avatar
 

How Avatar should have ended:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXraSkgssFk

wow, reading this thread, and not being able to see Avatar (don't ask), should we all feel sad this will overtake Titanic in domestic gross by Wednesday?

Is this about expectations or is the film not really worthy of all this money?

Re: Avatar
 

Eh. It's obviously a big success, but as I mentioned in another thread, it's only breaking these records because of a failure to account for higher ticket prices, the increasing popularity of 3D/IMAX tickets, and above all else, inflation. It's among the more successful films of all-time, sure, but in terms of things like tickets soled, or inflation-adjusted gross, it hasn't even cracked the top 20 yet.

Re: Avatar
 

Yeah, in reality, it is 26th.

I think there is a huge difference between the Na'vi and Yoda from the Revenge of the Sith. As well as Gollum. They are clearly CGI, whereas in Avatar, there are many scenes in which you can't tell the difference. To ask the question are they really that much better than Lucas' lame choice to turn Yoda CG, is (imho) an insult to the animators.


And having the two together doesn't always equal a flashy movie. Eragon anyone?

And I think that every time that someone talks about Box Office with Avatar, they feel the need to mention inflation and 3D/IMAX ticket prices, yet any other film that makes a ton of money (Transformers 2) they fail to mention it. I think that you take away from some of it's success. Even if you cut the film's box office take in half, it's still a big success.

Re: Avatar
 

The following is a list of people who worked on Avatar. You will see almost every big CGI film listed on their credits.
- note that much of the art is inspired or directly taken from earlier work by Syd Mead and Ron Cobb.

Todd Cherniawsky (supervising art director)
Kevin Ishioka (supervising art director)
Kim Sinclair (supervising art director) - that's right, the art director from Willow and the birth of CGI.
François Audouy ... concept artist
Jim Charmatz ... conceptual design
Ryan Church ... concept artist - HELLO
James Clyne ... concept artist
Dylan Cole ... concept artist
TyRuben Ellingson ... concept artist
Kasra Farahani ... concept artist
Gus Hunter ... concept artist - duh! Eragon!
James Lima ... concept artist
Victor James Martinez ... concept artist
Steven Messing ... concept artist
Neville Page ... creature designer
Erin Palmer ... miniatures
Craig Shoji ... concept artist
Daphne Yap ... concept artist
... among several hundred other animators and scultors and builders.