| Author |
 Topic  |
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
 Posted - 12/23/2009 : 17:44:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
Wasted opportunity to deliver something truly remarkable.
I must have really low standards, because I felt it was truly remarkable. I've never seen anything like it. |
 |
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 19:27:14
|
| Low standards? Doesn't follow, sil. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, including thee and me. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/26/2009 : 00:25:48
|
We saw it on Christmas Day, well into the inevitable First Backlash. After dazzling early reviews from the likes of Roger Ebert, Tony Scott, Todd McCarthy, Peter Travers and Manohla Dargis, the first fans trooped in expecting to become high priests, and the movie took some lumps. We�ve been waiting all these years for�this? Why, it�s nothing but effects! And the story: it�s just DANCES WITH WOLVES in space! MBI wrote that he was �angry,� it was �atrocious,� "stupid," a �thorough failure.� The First Backlash is sometimes so powerful that it even helps: I waited so long to see THE PHANTOM MENACE that it turned out to be much better than I�d expected after wading through a three-month barrage of brickbats.
Well, I wasn�t incensed by AVATAR at all; more frequently I was exhilarated. There are caveats, of course. As a writer of dialogue, Jim Cameron has never exactly been confused with Noel Coward [�I�ll be back!� �I�m the king of the world!� �Stay frosty!�], and despite the current lamentable mini-trend toward non-linear narrative, there are only a handful of different stories ever invented. This one combines the forbidden love affair [ROMEO & JULIET, TITANIC] with a fish out of water [MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON] forced to understand a new type of honesty [AARON SLICK FROM PUNKIN CRICK]. It can quickly deconstruct into absurdity whenever you try to play, �I�ve seen this story before.�
What nobody can deny � besides Cameron�s being a jolly good fellow � is that the visual inventiveness is sumptuous. The flora and fauna on Pandora, the space place depicted here, all seem brand new, yet many come from very familiar twists: bring underwater creatures into the air and vice versa, etc. [Make an extra effort to watch AVATAR in 3-D if you possibly can.] Seen it before? This isn�t a �science fiction� film, but an earth-mother fantasy introduced with pseudoscientific tropes: the concept of an �avatar� sounds contemporary, but leads us into a world less suited to a hacker than to those poor Ewoks. [Hey, Glenn Beck: maybe it's just me, but isn't every single one of the archers a leftie? Needs some "journalistic" "investigation," no?] The Hometree, host to everybody we know, is unknowingly massive, and its fate is completely in Cameron�s hands. But it�s not in the hands that the film resides. It�s in the faces.
Somebody did a very shrewd thing by casting Sigourney Weaver. She�s the only recognizable face whose �avatar� is Na�vi, one of the ten-foot-tall blue beings native to Pandora. Whenever you see Weaver�s Na�vi persona, maybe all of 2 minutes in a 2:40 picture, Cameron is showing you, this is what we did to all the actors. Weaver�s personality, her mouth, smile, cheekbones, gait, absolutely shine through: this is not a woman in a rubber suit, but neither is it a woman. It�s something in between. The rest of the Na�vi must be populated by unknown faces, including our two leads, so that you can forget about being pulled out of the story with, �Damn! That�s Sigourney Weaver!� and just follow along. You have a lot of help: the technological leap is such that these creatures are absolutely believable -- they make Gollum look like the Creature from the Black Lagoon, IOW, a guy in a rubber suit. Especially in 3-D, you are watching a frickin documentary about ten-foot-tall critters with tails. It�s amazing, but the most amazing thing is that you finally forget about that and just accept the tribal culture. [By the way, one of the Na�vi is played by Wes Studi, the most prolific of all Native American actors, so yes, Cameron is perfectly aware of the cultural echoes; he doesn�t slap his forehead when you point it out.]
Stephen Lang. He scared us in the Broadway production of A FEW GOOD MEN, and we were sitting all the way up in the balcony. [Jack Nicholson in the movie was a pale imitation, trust me.] Now, as a sociopathic Marine officer, he gets to burst some forehead blood vessels again, and I hope he gets more work out of this. He was, is, and will be, tremendous. Giovanni Ribisi, as a civilian, more jaded, version of Lang, is utterly unnecessary. One of those caveats.
The 3-D effect. Yes, it helps somewhat, and yes, it�s the future of theatrical performance. But there�s a great deal of work still to be done. At worst, especially human-against-human background, the effect looks like a �process shot� from the Forties. Better still, sometimes, like a multi-plane shot from early, mind-blowing Disney animation. But best of all, when, for example, the sense of a great impending fall is needed, it rocks. Only twice in the whole affair did something come flying out past my face in what I consider the cheesy �Dr. Tongue�s 3-D House of Stewardesses� effect. The rest of the third dimension was used to add depth inside the picture frame.
The best movie I ever saw? Please. The shape of movies presented in public to come? Without doubt.
|
Edited by - randall on 12/26/2009 21:49:02 |
|
|
|
Airbolt 
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 12/26/2009 : 22:45:31
|
| Stephen Lang auditioned for Hicks in Aliens - so Cameron must have kept him in the mental rolodex ( Hmm , i wonder if i will ever do another marines in space epic? ) |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/26/2009 : 23:14:47
|
I like watching movies for which the early reviews are of the "It's fucking awesome!" and "It fucking sucks!" variety.  I usually end up somewhere in the middle.
I take it the 3D effects aren't essential here, and it'll be OK to wait for the DVD? |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 12/26/2009 : 23:29:17
|
It may just be that I am no longer capable of being impressed by special effects and world-building. It'd be one thing if it were Star Wars in the '70s, but it's the '00s, and EVERYTHING looks great nowadays. The technology is there. Everyone can do it now.
And yes, you can go insane if you play the Where Have I Seen This Before game, but the more relevant question is, What Haven't I Seen Of This Before. This was a profoundly predictable movie (indeed, I saw the movie with a friend who went on a truly embarrassing string of correct predictions, right down to the final image.) Not only is it predictable, but it's very shallow. I could speak at length about its racial condescension and its utter avoidance of any complexity whatsoever, and I've done so: The more think about this movie, the more its utterly juvenile simplicity grates at you. But that's not the point.
The point is that it's NOT A VERY GOOD POPCORN MOVIE. I did not feel shit about anything that happened in this movie. Are people really going to tell me this stands up with the Star Wars trilogy, or even movies from earlier in the year like District 9, Harry Potter 6 or Star Trek? Where were the great scenes, the great characters, the great dialogue? Where was the excitement?? There were more than a few things that made me groan out loud -- the painfully cliche bringing-food-to-the-prisoners escape, the unmotivated villainy, the "fibral neuronet" that turned the Na'vis pagan spirituality into so much midichlorian bullshit, the near-literal deus ex machina of the climactic battle -- but more importantly, it never surprised me enough to put a smile on my face. There were no good one-liners, no interesting or fun characters (maybe Stephen Lang, and that sure wasn't because of the writing). I can't think of any actual scene worth mentioning.
|
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 00:01:18
|
Even though I enjoyed it a lot, I can see where you're coming from on many points MBI - I completely agree with your issues regarding the plot and the (ironically) two-dimensional characterisation. You're quite right that none of the characters live beyond the film, and the dialogue is totally forgettable... however, you're dead wrong about everything looking great these days and it being a given. As I wrote before this is the first time I've seen good enough CGI to carry a film. The generated performances were practically flawless: that is not something to shrug off and dismiss. Hollywood would love you to think that CGI has been paving the way for a decade or more in visual effects, but frankly most, if not all, big-budget CGI can suck my balls - it always looks like it was added in post-production and there's never been realistic characterisation before.
As for memorable scenes - I think once the hate latched on you probably went all out to hate it (sniffy comments from your screen companion wouldn't have helped that much), so there's not much to say on this count - but there were heaps, from tiny detailed moments of flora and fauna, to all out tree-felling destructive ones. I'm also a fan of big robot suits (cf. District 9) - so every appearance of those was a memorable one for me. I think the last thing to say is that this really was a family movie and not really trying to be overly sophisticated; Cameron was aiming for the widest audience spectrum, including not very bright, or exactly cinema literate people. To make all his money back he wasn't going to write a complex character study with philosophical resonance. He was going to do big blue people riding dragons through floating mountains getting shot at by evil corporate marines in big gunships. If you access your inner 12 year old, it doesn't get any better than that. I get it if you can't find that, but I think a whole lot of people will, regardless of the story's shortcomings.
Edit: Oh, and Sean, no don't wait for the DVD unless you've got a big home system - you'll get a fraction of the experience unless you're seeing it big, in 3D or not. I don't think the 3D was important, in much the same way it wasn't for "Up" - but you really should see it on the biggest screen you can. |
Edited by - demonic on 12/27/2009 00:02:50 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 00:23:15
|
I have a 50" TV, but my curiosity has got the better of me, so I'll be seeing it sometime soonish in the cinema and will report back.
BTW, it seems clear that CGI is just going to get better and better and better, but I don't think that's an excuse to neglect plot, themes and characters. |
Edited by - Sean on 12/27/2009 00:26:01 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 01:55:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
It may just be that I am no longer capable of being impressed by special effects and world-building. It'd be one thing if it were Star Wars in the '70s, but it's the '00s, and EVERYTHING looks great nowadays. The technology is there. Everyone can do it now.
Yeah, but this is the first time since Kubrick in 1968 that I've seen the successful illusion of mass and weight. Not ships impossibly banking in space like in STAR WARS [I'd love to read your jaundiced take on that flick if you were ever able to watch it dispassionately, which is the aspect you're forgetting here], not thousands of indeterminate warriors like in LOTR. You have to relax and play along if you're going to enjoy flicks like those, or this.
quote:
And yes, you can go insane if you play the Where Have I Seen This Before game, but the more relevant question is, What Haven't I Seen Of This Before. This was a profoundly predictable movie (indeed, I saw the movie with a friend who went on a truly embarrassing string of correct predictions, right down to the final image.)
If 'twere me, I would definitely suggest that next time, my friend should kindly shut the fuck up while I'm trying to watch a movie, goddammit! And a toddler could have given you the final image. That shot lasts :10 longer than it normally would so that you'll be cheering for the payoff, like Tinker Bell.quote:
I can't think of any actual scene worth mentioning.
How about the sequence where he discovers he can run again -- and you see an eerily recognizable human smile on his face? I have a few more if you want 'em. NOTE: I'm not trying to gainsay in a knee-jerk way, like Monty Python's Argument Clinic or one particular fwifferian individual. I just think you're being far too harsh here -- this flick really doesn't deserve the wrath of Hunter S. Ellison -- so if nobody else will speak up for shy, retiring Jim Cameron, well... |
Edited by - randall on 12/27/2009 03:08:54 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 03:09:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I have a 50" TV, but my curiosity has got the better of me, so I'll be seeing it sometime soonish in the cinema and will report back.
BTW, it seems clear that CGI is just going to get better and better and better, but I don't think that's an excuse to neglect plot, themes and characters.
See it in 3-D if you possibly can, no matter how big the screen is. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 05:54:15
|
quote:
If 'twere me, I would definitely suggest that next time, my friend should kindly shut the fuck up while I'm trying to watch a movie, goddammit!
Naw, man, we're talkers. We talk through movies and we sit way up front away from everyone so they can't hear us. Silence does not become us.
quote:
I think the last thing to say is that this really was a family movie and not really trying to be overly sophisticated; Cameron was aiming for the widest audience spectrum, including not very bright, or exactly cinema literate people.
I mean... fair enough, but does that excuse it? I mean, it's one thing for Star Wars, which has no real political dimension, to stick to the basics, but Avatar, I think, has to be considered a political movie, more so than even the Star Wars prequels, and so I think you kinda have to sit and think about what the movie means and what it's trying to say, and any weaknesses in the writing have to be considered.
I left the film disliking the movie. The more I think about it, the less I like it. It's just so... basic. Weirdly enough, I just stumbled across a thought that suggests that maybe Avatar is more complex than I gave it credit for. Avatar is a pro-environment movie all about glorifying the natural life, but it was made with super-expensive state-of-the-art technology. At first I thought that was just self-negating hypocrisy, but then I remembered that that's how it works in-universe as well -- Jake is able to experience and enjoy nature through the use of his super-expensive high-tech avatar. Science as a vehicle to enjoy nature -- that strikes me as a surprisingly complicated, even maybe evolved worldview. That's something to chew on.
Still, does that justify Unobtainium? Or the nature-comes-to-the-rescue battle scene? The fact that Cameron plays the Noble Savage and the Mighty Whitey card completely and totally straight, even though it's 2009 already? I mean, we were all there piling on 2012 a month ago, and that had some great special effects too. I could nitpick Star Wars all day, but I **like** Star Wars -- there's more energy, there's better dialogue, and there's better characters, so I'm willing to forgive its missteps. And as special effects go, I'm willing to forgive that Planet of the Apes is clearly inhabited by men wearing rubber suits, and I'm willing to accept that Peter Jackson's Gollum is painfully obvious CGI, because the characters are interesting, whereas the Na'vi are not.
As far as this kind of movie goes, the whitey learns the way of the noble savage routine, Avatar is better than Ferngully, Pocahontas and The Last Samurai but nowhere near as good as Dances with Wolves.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 12:08:22
|
I had another thought about Unobtanium [which, as you've read, is a familiar term in real life among, er, rocket scientists]. If I'm not mistaken, the term is only used once, by Ribisi, as he casually looks at a small piece of the stuff. Could he be using the name ironically? Only this stuff can power whatever stuff it powers. We had none of it before. And now the only thing that stands between us and genuine Unobtanium [i.e., that thing the lack of which makes whatever we want to do impossible] is a bunch of tree-huggers. Maybe it has a real name, and he's simply making wiz ze joke.
A stretch. But possible? |
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 12/28/2009 : 03:08:04
|
I'm with MBI on this one. I did not like the film. An orgy for the eyes, and a raping of the mind. SPOILERS
I watched the film in 3d. The first 30 minutes or so are spectacular due to the attention to detail. However, after this, all scenes have considerably less detail. Every minute gets worse and worse past the first half hour, and I would have walked out if I had not been with a friend.
The racist implications of this film are staggering: Have white people killed all other people in the future? Or is it that the company mining unobtainium doesn't employ anyone else? Why is it that literally the only non-white pilot (Michelle Rodriguez) doesn't follow orders and defects? Why is it that the natives are unable to fight without a white guy leading them (who, despite having his body only for a little bit, is by far the best warrior)?
In the future, it looks like health technology has progressed. People can heal cripples, use mind links to control bodies that were cloned for the purpose, et cetera. However, it seems that military equipment has taken a step backwards. Wouldn't it have been easier just to launch a few Tomahawk missiles at the tree, rather than lead a bomb raid with the slowest planes in the universe? He might has well have been leading a bunch of Zimmerman blimps through the forest.
"I see you." I get it. You don't have to use it 50 times in the movie.
A question about the military motives: So, they're hired by a company to conquer the big tree because of the elements below it. After the tree is destroyed, how is it possibly economically efficient to kill the natives just because they slightly inconvenienced a colonel? the cost of planes, or even a single bomb would be expensive, much less a coordinated air strike.
Also, as far as the Colonel goes, he might be the worst villain ever. At no point do we ever side with him or see where he's coming from.
Why is there no explanation for the floating mountains? Why did mother nature wait until the Na'vi were slaughtered before sending help? Also, the planet seems to have a lack of herbivores. If it is indeed so "balanced", then why are the creatures always fighting each other? I have no idea how this ecosystem is sustainable without herbivores, since Darwin teaches that carnivores can only exist if the population of herbivores is much greater than carnivores.
I feel that the planet sending reinforcements is nothing short of a deus ex machina ending. I also didn't see why the main character wouldn't fight for the natives. He goes from being relegated as a bodygaurd since everyone thinks he's unqualified, to having legs, a girlfriend, being viewed as a messiah, et cetera.
I don't understand the hype.
CGI 10/10
Acting 3/10
Story 2/10
Dialogue 2/10
Not one of the worst films I've seen, but not very good. I give it a generous 4 out of 10 only because of the CGI.
|
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 12/29/2009 : 05:17:22
|
Avatar reminded me a lot of Titanic -- a really lame boring story that is completely unoriginal (A rich girl falls in love with a poor boy, a soldier meets the natives and falls in love with their way of life). Then the special effects take over and makes the film watchable.
Avatar was good -- it would have been a much better if James Cameron trimmed 40 minutes. As great as the special effects are, I was getting bored by the end. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/30/2009 : 21:02:55
|
| I read an interview just before release. Somebody asked Cameron: at what point do you make money? He replied, "When we announce AVATAR 2, you'll know we made money." A properly inscrutable answer, since he owns the sequel rights... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Avatar
