| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 03:28:14
Somebody I trust reviews Jim Cameron's newie. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| damalc |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 13:02:23
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
Conan The Westy beat me to my first review idea  and has gotten a vote, though i was gonna use 'blue' instead of 'alien.'
curses, scooped again, this time by Larry!
"Saldana, Black and blue." |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/24/2010 : 11:35:59
Avatar
I loved it and I agree with all of Mr.B.I. (et al)'s points; there's the rub.
Everyone banging on about 3D makes me think it must be very wonderful to see the world in 3D. I'm jealous of that, but I didn't mind seeing this film 2D (in a 3D screening) because, like all films, it looked no flatter to me than reality other than in not being able to get a different view by changing my head/body position, which is the same for everyone. So, anyway, the 3D was not why I enjoyed the film. It was even a small disadvantage because there wasn't as much use of perspective as there would be in a normal film.
Looking back, though, it's hard to pin down why I got such a buzz from it. I loved the avatar idea and the world is breathtaking, but is that enough? The flora and fauna is far too similar to Earth (although in the case of the 'horses' this is due to the need to film them). The spinning lizards annoyed me by just being too evolutionarily implausible, as are such bulky creatures as the 'rhinos' living in the forest � (small) elephants live in the jungle in the Congo but they can get food from trees. (The 'horses' and 'rhinos', and the 'deer' that Jake shoots, do provide some herbivores, even though we don't see any smaller ones.) 'Unobtanium', which was definitely mentioned more than once, was unbearable, and the fact that it is used by rocketeers as an abstract idea makes this mundane appropriation even worse. Plus, why does Yuppie McAsshole have millions of dollars' worth just floating around?
The poor dialogue and absent characterisation are a bigger weakness than the predictable plot. It's hard to imagine our culture without Star Wars existing, but can you imagine this having that sort of impact long term? The only names I can remember are Jake and Grace. All the characters are totally stock, from the nerdy sidekicks to the hostile rival chief/beau.
Which brings me onto the worst taste in my mouth. As others have covered, this film is just so racist and paternalistic. It's shocking. Look at all the quaint natives! That old woman eschews science and chants � she must be in touch with Mother Nature! They respect the animals they subjugate � they're so noble!
Talking of race, Michelle Rodriguez is not non-white. The United States is the only country which really categorizes Hispanic as a race and even its census does not do so. (It talks about Hispanic/Latino of any race.)
It would have cost hardly any more just to get a good script-writer on board. Hopefully the sequels can make amends.
I didn't know what to score this, but having thought about it I normally score based on how much I like a film, regardless of whether that is only due to a narrow range of things. So I've given it 6/5 - 1 for the racism (not caring about all the stupid aspects of it) = 5/5. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/22/2010 : 23:38:48
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
enough of the not-so-subtle shots at W and the wars. he hasn't been president for almost a year now. let's move on.
We'll move on just as soon as those wars and other disasters are not still haunting the entire planet. |
| Sean |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 04:44:54
Actually the more I thought about it the more Miyazaki I saw in this movie:-
Floating islands - Laputa: Castle in the Sky
Large slow-moving flying 'warships' - Laputa, Nausicaa, Howl's Moving Castle etc
Kill the 'soul' of the forest and you kill the forest - Princess Mononoke
The 'Chosen' ride wild carnivores - Princess Mononoke
|
| Sean |
Posted - 02/15/2010 : 20:29:02
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Didn't they also have a floating city or something like that in the Hallmark version of Gulliver's Travels? You know, the one with Ted Danson as Gulliver.
Or am I thinking of something else. Hm... I can clearly remember something like this.
Probably (haven't seen it though). Laputa is the floating flying island from Gulliver's Travels. |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 02/15/2010 : 14:50:56
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Nope, more revenue for the Oscar broadcast. They figure more people will watch if there are some films they've actually seen in the running.
I get that, but just as much as Avatar doesn't deserve to win Best Picture, neither does Up deserve to be in that list. Up will certainly win for best animated film, and that should be enough for it.
If Avatar was in the Animated Film category only, I would not have a problem with that. I disagree on Up. That movie had me crying in the first 10 minutes. It's not often a movie can do that to me. I thought Up was exceptional and deserves to be in the Best Picture category, especially with 10 nominees.
EM :)
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/15/2010 : 12:43:07
Didn't they also have a floating city or something like that in the Hallmark version of Gulliver's Travels? You know, the one with Ted Danson as Gulliver.
Or am I thinking of something else. Hm... I can clearly remember something like this. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/15/2010 : 12:13:20
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
effects? haven't seen that before. did anybody else gasp at the floating mountains?
Nope, seen it before in Laputa: Castle in the Sky.
Crikey - it's been used in at least two major ad campaigns here for months.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 02/15/2010 : 11:18:35
OK, I saw it. I hadn't seen a 3D movie in about 20 years but it only took a microsecond for everything to fall into perfect spatial focus. Visually it was a sumptuous feast, and the 3D CGI made immersion in this fantasy world possible in a way that I've never experienced. I periodically tried to remove myself from this world (with difficulty) while thinking about the plot and characters, which brings me to:-
Themes & plot: Totally generic, simplistic and predictable as has been mentioned countless times.
Characters: None memorable. And I mean none. People were doing the Gollum voice for years after LOTR; nobody is going to quote or mimic any of these guys. I didn't even like the main character, he was just.... vacuous. In fact they all were.
But I didn't mind as I was enchanted by this spectacle. I'm hoping the day will come when something with the thematic depth, character intensity and memorable dialogue of Star Wars or LOTR looks this magnificent. Actually perhaps it's time for the 3D LOTR remake? 
Anyway I'm giving this 7/10, mainly as I gave the visuals 11/10. Plot and characters probably 3/10 each.
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
effects? haven't seen that before. did anybody else gasp at the floating mountains?
Nope, seen it before in Laputa: Castle in the Sky. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/14/2010 : 12:17:23
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Nope, more revenue for the Oscar broadcast. They figure more people will watch if there are some films they've actually seen in the running.
I get that, but just as much as Avatar doesn't deserve to win Best Picture, neither does Up deserve to be in that list. Up will certainly win for best animated film, and that should be enough for it.
A friend just went to see Avatar last night. He said that visually it was stunning and technically amazing to watch. But totally lacking the type of "meat" that a Best Picture movie should have. According to him, the concept of an anti-invasion film disguised as Sci-Fi/Fantasy tale was a good one and had the potential of being meaty. Especially if you remove the gossamer veil of this being an alegory about the white man stealing America/Australia/Africa, et.al. from their native people, to find a statement about Iraq as well as possibly Israel in the crosshairs here. The problem is that my friend believes, that this message will be totally ignored by the audience that all the fancy footwork is attracting. Moreover, strip away the bells and whistles, and the script is just too simplistic to be memorable. Still, that's exactly what works for this movie's main audience, big time!
|
| randall |
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 22:40:15
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
...in three years time, there will be another wild movie made with so much CGI and Special Effects the world will be swooning twice as much as today, and no one will remember Avatar.
This is exactly the way I see it. There's no more reason to consider Avatar an awesome movie due to the CGI than there is to rate Nosferatu as a poor movie due to the lack of colour, graininess and lack of voice track.
Here here to both of you. Best Picture? I say "Bah!" to that. And I say "Bah!" to the Oscars expanding the nominees for Best Picture to 10 films. What the heck? That is just wrong.
Obvious ploy to get more revenue for the films.
5 Best Pic. nominees is enough. 10 is indecisive.
EM :)
Nope, more revenue for the Oscar broadcast. They figure more people will watch if there are some films they've actually seen in the running. |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 15:06:57
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
...in three years time, there will be another wild movie made with so much CGI and Special Effects the world will be swooning twice as much as today, and no one will remember Avatar.
This is exactly the way I see it. There's no more reason to consider Avatar an awesome movie due to the CGI than there is to rate Nosferatu as a poor movie due to the lack of colour, graininess and lack of voice track.
Here here to both of you. Best Picture? I say "Bah!" to that. And I say "Bah!" to the Oscars expanding the nominees for Best Picture to 10 films. What the heck? That is just wrong.
Obvious ploy to get more revenue for the films.
5 Best Pic. nominees is enough. 10 is indecisive.
EM :)
|
| Sean |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 11:00:31
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
...in three years time, there will be another wild movie made with so much CGI and Special Effects the world will be swooning twice as much as today, and no one will remember Avatar.
This is exactly the way I see it. There's no more reason to consider Avatar an awesome movie due to the CGI than there is to rate Nosferatu as a poor movie due to the lack of colour, graininess and lack of voice track.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 08:28:28
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
I'll wait for the Wii game. Same plot. More fun.
EM :)
Sounds good to me.
But that makes me think... since when did a movie that's really more appropriate to be a video game be Best Film Oscar material? I didn't mind LoTR getting all those Oscars - it was a classic fantasy novel to begin with. But this? I'm sorry, this just doesn't measure up to the types of films you want to see the Oscar go to, if you ask me. Why? Because in three years time, there will be another wild movie made with so much CGI and Special Effects the world will be swooning twice as much as today, and no one will remember Avatar.
|
| Montgomery |
Posted - 02/02/2010 : 19:56:54
I'll wait for the Wii game. Same plot. More fun.
EM :) |
|
|
