Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: moviesceleton on July 25, 2009, 08:19:21 AM



Title: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on July 25, 2009, 08:19:21 AM
Here's a teaser (I assume it's legit...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGs3_1qKl34

Can't say a fuck based on that clip. I hope we get a real trailer soon.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on July 25, 2009, 08:24:42 AM
This had damned well be the greatest film ever made for all the hype I've been hearing about it.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 25, 2009, 10:51:27 AM
I'm very eager to see this movie, Cameron's first after that Titanic thing I didn't like very much.

SF epic, 240 million dollar budget, more than 2 and a half hours long, 3-D. Hmmm, they better throw a couple of homages in there to lubricate the thing, you know what I mean? :D


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on July 25, 2009, 09:00:30 PM
I can't say I'm very interested to see this and I can't understand why everybody else is.
I'll watch it for certain... just not counting down the days.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on July 26, 2009, 08:04:12 AM
I probably won't unless gets a Best Picture nod.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 26, 2009, 11:30:08 AM
and I can't understand why everybody else is.

To see what has James Cameron been doing for the last 10 years.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Atlas2112 on July 26, 2009, 11:43:02 PM
I probably won't unless gets a Best Picture nod.
with 10 nominations you might as well reserve your ticket now, unless G-force happens to beat it out (watch that too, just to be sure).


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 27, 2009, 02:28:06 AM
with 10 nominations you might as well reserve your ticket now, unless G-force happens to beat it out (watch that too, just to be sure).

What 10 nominations? ???


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Atlas2112 on July 27, 2009, 02:36:16 AM
http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2009/20090624.html (http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2009/20090624.html)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 27, 2009, 02:42:03 AM
http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2009/20090624.html (http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2009/20090624.html)

Aha, that, I thought you're saying Avatar has somehow already been nominated in 10 different categories... :-[


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on July 27, 2009, 06:39:53 AM
As if the Oscars couldn't possibly get any cheaper...


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on July 27, 2009, 08:33:18 AM

On Spike.com there's a lot of interesting Avatar-related stuff (from Comic-Con): http://www.spike.com/blog/comic-con-09-live/84160

Scroll down the article, click on any of those pics, scroll down again and you'll find a couple of videos (James Cameron, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, etc.).


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on August 20, 2009, 11:12:42 AM
http://cinemablend.com/new/Teaser-Trailer-For-Avatar-Is-Finally-Here-14445.html

Trailer. Dorky crap from the looks of it (and not in a good nerdy way)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 20, 2009, 03:37:51 PM
To see what has James Cameron been doing for the last 10 years.
Well, he did have an appearance on Entourage.

Can't say I'm looking forward to this. I will attend a screening dutifully, just to stay in the loop, but I'll be surprised if I enjoy it.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 20, 2009, 04:29:26 PM
http://cinemablend.com/new/Teaser-Trailer-For-Avatar-Is-Finally-Here-14445.html

Oh look, another "3-D movie" that ISN'T 3-D...

this'll be excitin'...

yeah... ::)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 20, 2009, 05:12:25 PM
Oh, look, Cameron has re-made Braveheart:
http://cinemablend.com/images/news_gallery/n14445/_12507809051932.jpg


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 20, 2009, 05:13:28 PM
Those creatures look like shit.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on August 20, 2009, 05:27:16 PM
Those creatures look like shit.

They look like a more retarded version of Final Fantasy XI's elf race.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 20, 2009, 06:10:51 PM
My God, that looks HORRIBLE! :o


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on August 20, 2009, 06:12:43 PM
Oh, look, Cameron has re-made Braveheart:
http://cinemablend.com/images/news_gallery/n14445/_12507809051932.jpg

………………….._,,-~’’’―――’’~-,,
………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_
……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ―’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
…………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’―: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,
……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’―: ―’’-, ; ; ;’,
…………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : ; ; ; |
……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ―― ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
…………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;―― ; ; ; ; ;|
..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
…….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’―’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’― ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-,
……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~--‘’’
………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,
……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;――’’― ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,
……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,
…..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’’,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ,’
…,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’~-,,,,,--~~’’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…..,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-
…| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
…’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’….’, ; ; ; ; _,,-‘’
….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’~~’’―
…..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
………’’~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
………..| ; ; ;――’’’’― ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘
………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
…………’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
………..,’ ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’……….’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
……….,’ ; ;’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’…………………’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
……..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………’’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…………………………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’’
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
……..’,_ , ; , ;,’……………………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
………’,,’,―,’,’’|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘--,,
………….―…’’………………………..’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,,
……………………………………………’’-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,
………………………………………………..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;’-,’’-,
…………………………………………………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,--.
……………………………………………………’-, ; ; ;,,-~’’’ , ,|, |
………………………………………………………’’~-‘’_ , , ,,’,_/--‘


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 21, 2009, 03:22:04 AM
237 million $ is a looong road...


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 22, 2009, 09:53:01 PM
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/21/did-district-9-steal-avatars-thunder/


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on August 28, 2009, 11:44:24 AM
Photorealistic my ass. Disappointing. And it's hard to believe that it could look any better in 3D.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on August 28, 2009, 02:13:13 PM
I cant wait for the film. Dude spent a long time trying to make it and now thats its here it looks great.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on October 29, 2009, 09:05:34 PM
New trailer:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809804784/video/16357477 (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809804784/video/16357477)

Still looks like crap, but crap with a cliched plot.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 09, 2009, 11:25:56 AM
Can the film make money? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/media/09avatar.html?_r=2


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on November 09, 2009, 11:32:52 AM
It will have to be a monumental success just to break even, let alone to turn a profit.

I'd have to question why the hell movies like this keep getting bankrolled. When Pirates of the Caribbean 3 and Spider-Man 3 cost going on $300 million, wouldn't it make more sense to not make the movies and keep the cash pocketted? Now, in those instances, they were going off successful and generally well-liked originals which were themselves trading on a well-established franchise. What makes Cameron think that this film has the same staying power or interest?


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 09, 2009, 12:46:40 PM
Hubris?


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on November 11, 2009, 01:04:17 PM
237 million $ is a looong road...

You got to remember that IMAX tickets and 3D showing tickets are more expensive than regular tickets.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: mr. mouse on November 11, 2009, 01:08:02 PM
I'm looking forward to this movie. I went to the preview screening (Avatar Day as it was called) and it looked rather awesome, even though the storyline seemed awfully cliched.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on November 11, 2009, 06:18:40 PM
You got to remember that IMAX tickets and 3D showing tickets are more expensive than regular tickets.

I don't have to remember anything: I don't have the money to go to the cinema. :D


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on November 11, 2009, 09:25:53 PM
I don't have to remember anything: I don't have the money to go to the cinema. :D

with being po you do lose memory


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 12, 2009, 08:22:17 AM
I'm guessing this is a pretty fair appraisal:

Quote
AP review: Effects wow but story limps in `Avatar'
Dec 11 11:45 AM US/Eastern
By JAKE COYLE
AP Entertainment Writer

 
When a film brashly asserts that it will change moviemaking forever, one feels the urge to either take its "king of the world" arrogance down a notch or hail it as the masterpiece it claims to be.

But—and forgive us if this sounds too much like the dialogue in President Obama's war room—what if there's a third option?

James Cameron's 3-D "Avatar" has all the smack of a Film Not To Miss—a movie whose effects are clearly revolutionary, a spectacle that millions will find adventure in. But it nevertheless feels unsatisfying and somehow lacks the pulse of a truly alive film.

"Avatar" takes place in the year 2154 on the faraway moon of Pandora, where, befitting its mythological name, the ills of human life have been released. The Earth depleted, humans have arrived to mine an elusive mineral, wryly dubbed Unobtainium.

The Resources Developmental Administration, a kind of military contractor, is running the operation. At the top of the chain of command is the CEO-like Carter Selfridge (an excellent, ruthless Giovanni Ribisi), who's hellbent on showing quarterly profits for shareholders. His muscle and head of security is the rock-jawed Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who curses Pandora's inhabitants (the Na'vi) as savages and considers the place worse than hell.

In fact, it's a paradise. In Pandora, Cameron has fashioned a sensual, neon-colored, dreamlike world of lush jungle, gargantuan trees and floating mountains. Its splendor is easily the most wondrous aspect of "Avatar."

Cameron, like the deep sea diver that he is (his only films since 1997's "Titanic" have been underwater documentaries), lets his camera peer with fascination at the glow-in-the-dark plant life, the six-legged horses and—especially beautiful—the nighttime frog-like creatures that, when touched, open a bright white sail and spiral into the air.

It's this sense of discovery—in Pandora, in the wizardry of the filmmaking—that makes "Avatar" often thrilling.

Our main character is Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a brawny former Marine who lost the power of his legs in battle on Earth. His scientist twin brother has just died and Sully, having a matching genome, is invited to replace him in a mission to Pandora.

He joins a small group of scientists led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) who are attempting to learn more about the Na'vi by conducting field studies and doing a bit of undercover science. They've created avatars of themselves to go about Pandora as a living, breathing Na'vi, while their human bodies lie dormant in a sort of tanning bed (they return to them when their avatars sleep).

The Na'vi are a 10-foot-tall species with translucent, aqua-colored skin, 3-fingered hands and smooth, lean torsos. They have long, neat dreadlocks for hair and wide, feline foreheads. The smart freckles on their brow faintly light up like tiny constellations.

With beady headdresses and skimpy sashes, the Na'vi are clearly meant to evoke Native Americans, as well as similarly exploited tribes of South America and Africa. They pray over slain animals and feel at one with nature. Their tails (oh, yes, they also have tails) even connect—like nature's USB port—to things like mystical willow branches, horse manes or the hair of pterodactyl-like birds.

It's no coincidence that the Na'vi chief Eyukan is played by the Cherokee actor Wes Studi, whose credits include "Dances with Wolves," perhaps the film most thematically akin to "Avatar."

"Avatar," which Cameron wrote as well as directed, is essentially a fairy tale that imagines a more favorable outcome for the oppressed fighting against the technology and might of Western Civilization. Sully, who quickly takes to life as a Na'vi, begins to feel his allegiances blurred.

Though he has promised Quaritch to spy on the Na'vi (their home lies atop an Unobtainium deposit), he begins to appreciate their ways. He also falls for Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), the Na'vi princess and the one who introduces him to the tribe.

Many Na'vi are suspicious of Sully—"a demon in a fake body"—but they eventually embrace him. They accept him as a leader, even though he occasionally goes limp and vacant when his human body isn't connected. This off-switch makes for questionable leadership skills—as if George Washington had been a narcoleptic.

The inevitable battle has overt shades of current wars. Quaritch, drinking coffee during a bombing with a cavalier callousness like Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now," drops phrases like "pre-emptive strike," "fight terror with terror" and even "shock and awe," a term apparently destined to survive for centuries in the lexicon.

These historical and contemporary overtones bring the otherworldly "Avatar" down to Earth and down to cliche. The message of environmentalism and of (literal) tree-hugging resonates, but such a plainly just cause also saps "Avatar" of drama and complexity.

It's also a funny message coming from such a swaggering behemoth of technology like "Avatar." As for the effects, they are undeniable. 3-D has recently become en vogue, but only now has it been used with such a depth of field.

The movie is also a notable advance for performance capture, which is how the Na'vi were created. As was done with Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings" and King Kong in "King Kong," the Na'vi were made with cameras and sensors recording the movements of the actors and transposing them onto CGI creatures.

Seldom has this been done in a way that captured the most important thing—the eyes—but Cameron employed a new technology (a camera rigged like a helmet on the actors) to capture their faces up close. The green, flickering eyes of the Na'vi are a big step forward, but there's still an unmistakable emptiness to a movie so filled with digital creations.

Ultimately, the technology of "Avatar" isn't the problem—moviemaking, itself, is an exercise in technology. But one need look no further than Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" to see how technique—whether it be antique stop-motion animation or state-of-the-art 3-D performance capture—can find soulfulness at 24 frames per second.

"Avatar," a 20th Century Fox release, is rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking. Running time: 161 minutes. Two and half stars out of four.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 12, 2009, 12:01:05 PM
Avatar? Doesn't this movie star Kevin Costner as an American soldier who befriends the Indians and learns the errors of his white ways?


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 12, 2009, 01:28:33 PM
Wes Studi played one of the evil Pawnee Indians in Dances With Wolves, yes? Therefore that's an odd comment to make.

Thanks for the article Jenkins. I might see this at some point out of curiosity but it will have to wait.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: cigar joe on December 12, 2009, 07:25:38 PM
yea thanks


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 12, 2009, 09:40:03 PM
In fact, it's a paradise. In Pandora, Cameron has fashioned a sensual, neon-colored, dreamlike world of lush jungle, gargantuan trees and floating mountains. Its splendor is easily the most wondrous aspect of "Avatar."

Cameron, like the deep sea diver that he is (his only films since 1997's "Titanic" have been underwater documentaries), lets his camera peer with fascination at the glow-in-the-dark plant life, the six-legged horses and—especially beautiful—the nighttime frog-like creatures that, when touched, open a bright white sail and spiral into the air.

It's this sense of discovery—in Pandora, in the wizardry of the filmmaking—that makes "Avatar" often thrilling.


That all sounds very nice but the trouble is it was done on a computer.
The camera never viewed any of this.
"Thrilling" is hardly the word I would choose when talking about a computer generated camera view zipping through a computer generated world.

The only way I'll be seeing this movie is at an IMAX theatre in 3-D.
But being that the nearest IMAX to me is in a hell hole (Fort Lauderdale)... I think I won't even bother.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 13, 2009, 04:03:51 AM
Wes Studi played one of the evil Pawnee Indians in Dances With Wolves, yes? Therefore that's an odd comment to make.

Thanks for the article Jenkins. I might see this at some point out of curiosity but it will have to wait.

From what I've read, the script is the weakest part. and it's basically Dances With Wolves in Space. Maybe it's not, there's always that possibility, right? I'll have to find out on DVD.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 13, 2009, 04:19:12 AM
I'll have to find out on DVD.

I wonder why more filmgoers won't be taking the route you've chosen.

If you've seen the 4 minute trailer (like those going to see the film next weekend undoubtedly have) you would know that you don't need to spend money to see the film because you've already seen it.

You get the beginning, middle and end with those short 4 minutes.

Anybody else wondering why the greedy humans don't just use their massive gunships to wipe out the tecnologically challeneged natives as opposed to going through the trouble of infiltrating them?

Perhaps I can answer my own question...

Then there wouldn't be a 2+ hour movie.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 13, 2009, 06:23:48 AM
Anybody else wondering why the greedy humans don't just use their massive gunships to wipe out the tecnologically challeneged natives as opposed to going through the trouble of infiltrating them?
Apparently, the cat people are living on top of a huge deposit of Unobtanium, and if they blow the pooh out of the catpeople they'll lose the mineral they're trying to get. Why they can't just go mine the stuff somewhere else on the planet, I dunno.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 13, 2009, 10:21:05 AM
The Universe needs fewer cats. That's reason enough to wipe 'em out.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 13, 2009, 10:42:48 AM
Yeah, when I see the film, I'm definitely gonna be rooting for Stephen Lang and the boys.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 13, 2009, 12:49:51 PM
It would be something not quite cliche though, so I doubt it will happen.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 13, 2009, 05:53:46 PM
Comment from another review:

"If I wanted to hear endless nonsense spewed from something good-looking, I'd watch The Tyra Banks Show."

http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/avatar-review/1662350/content (http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/avatar-review/1662350/content)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Banjo on December 17, 2009, 06:38:04 PM
http://cinemablend.com/new/Teaser-Trailer-For-Avatar-Is-Finally-Here-14445.html

Trailer. Dorky crap from the looks of it (and not in a good nerdy way)

I'm only just latching onto the trailers etc now and it all looks very naff and  hideous.Not my kind of movie so i hope it does disasterously. ???


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 18, 2009, 02:18:41 PM
Anybdy going to bite the bullet and see this tonight?
I'd be curious to hear what a lot of you have to say.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 18, 2009, 02:27:10 PM
I was thinking about seeing it today but I'm going home this evening, and betting on the 59U is a dicey proposition.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on December 18, 2009, 03:55:08 PM
I would see it, but for the whole experience with the 3d + IMAX.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 18, 2009, 07:30:20 PM
I was thinking about seeing it today but I'm going home this evening, and betting on the 59U is a dicey proposition.
I was planning to see it after work today, but as the hour approached . . . I just couldn't make myself go.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 20, 2009, 09:09:41 AM
I'll go tonight with my family. I don't expect too much of it (although Terminator 2 is the greatest action movie I know and True Lies is one of the big movies of my childhood) but it seems like the perfect christmas blockbuster: family movie, 3D and it could even end up good. Last but not least, my parents will pay.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 20, 2009, 10:34:38 AM
Reviews seem overwhelmingly positive, but more important to me they pretty much all indicate it's a "great special effects - lame story" kinda film. I'm not too easily wowed by effects and the blue kitties don't seem all that impressive to me.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 20, 2009, 03:43:57 PM
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/avatar-review-we-have-technology-now-what#

The money quote:
Quote
Of course, without centuries of development in science and technology, the film putting forth this simple-minded, self-loathing worldview wouldn’t exist. You’d imagine Cameron himself would be bored to tears on the planet he created.
There are no movies on Pandora, so he’d be out of a job. The Na’vi rarely visit a multiplex. They sit around their glowing trees, chanting; they don’t build and sink titanic ocean liners, and they don’t construct deep-sea mini-subs enabling certain filmmakers to spend countless days exploring said cruise ships.

Avatar, then, is a 500 million dollar investment in bad faith. But I guess Cameron knows his audience.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 20, 2009, 05:39:33 PM
"great special effects - lame story"

Let's add:

- Very good mise en scene and cinematography
- unoriginal
- good graphism
- dιjΰ vu first half but kind of involving
- boooooooooooooooring second half
- predictable from start to finish
- stupid ecologist message
- very few good ideas
- dialogues ok
- great use of 3d
- ok trailer music during the whole movie, TERRIBLE song during the credits

All in all: with a budget of 300,000 to 500,000 dollars, couldn't they give a couple millions to a scriptwriter who would have reworked Cameron's "script"?


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on December 21, 2009, 02:10:23 AM
I might be going on Saturday. But that's mainly because I want to form an opinion on 3D in general. As a movie, I guess my thirteen-year-old brother will enjoy it better than me.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 21, 2009, 02:49:03 AM
About 3D: this was my first 3d movie (i mean real movie).
To me, the use of 3d in avatar shows that for action/adventure/fantasy movies, 3d can add a lot. It make CGI look so much better, and you're completly "in" the movie (i'm not sure i would have found the first half involving at all without 3d).


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 24, 2009, 08:19:10 AM
One of the dumbest articles I've ever read.
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/hmg-avatar-hidden-messages.html (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/hmg-avatar-hidden-messages.html)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 24, 2009, 08:52:43 AM
"But some who have seen the film say that it contains hidden messages that are anti-war, pro-environment [...]"
Check out the big brain on Brett!


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 24, 2009, 10:54:44 AM
"But some who have seen the film say that it contains hidden messages that are anti-war, pro-environment [...]"
Check out the big brain on Brett!
Wow, that doofus really IS named Brett. ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 24, 2009, 11:08:24 AM
Haha, I didn't know :)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 24, 2009, 11:32:15 AM
Don't make fun of the man! We need someone to point out the obvious. ::)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on December 25, 2009, 12:39:01 PM
"But some who have seen the film say that it contains hidden messages that are anti-war, pro-environment [...]"
Check out the big brain on Brett!
Wow, that doofus really IS named Brett. ;D ;D ;D
;D That made my day. ;D


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on December 26, 2009, 12:05:24 PM
So.......

Just saw it and I can more or less confirm what seems to be the consensus here: nice looking 3D, predictable and childish story. But that's not the whole truth. 3D has its problems: fast movement looks generally crappy especially if it's horizontal (handheld camera doesn't work at all!), something being out of focus really breaks the illusion (if I'm 'inside' the picture I should be able to choose what I focus my eyes on), as do the edges of the screen. Then again landscapes and surprisingly human faces look very fascinating in 3D (Leone would be all 3D if he was alive). Even the Na'vi look tolerable, even good, in 3D although they looked totally hideous in the trailer.
    The story has been told many times before but not without reason: it's a good story. But do the Na'vi have to be so like every other aboriginal race in the universe? Tall, longhaired, of different color and in total harmony with the nature. (Don't get me started with the fact that they look generally exactly like human beings. Ever occurred to you that aliens might look like two-inch-tall furry Jabba the Huts with no eyes or mouths?) But I was ready to buy them as part of the story... up to the point where they formed a circle around a tree and started chanting. That went just too far.
    But all in all I found myself enjoying the movie (most amazing is that I could care for these smurfs!). 7.5/10 would be my rating. However, there's not a lot of re-watch value - none if you can't see it in 3D. As for 3D in general, it's a fun tool but I can't tell if it would serve any purpose in a dialogue based drama. 


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 26, 2009, 09:16:55 PM
But I was ready to buy them as part of the story... up to the point where they formed a circle around a tree and started chanting. That went just too far.
Ya think?

How about the bit where the smurfs have these living fiber-optic things coming out of their ponytails that they use to jack into other animals so they can "drive" them? Very, very, very serious kink, my friend.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on December 27, 2009, 04:09:41 AM
Ya think?

How about the bit where the smurfs have these living fiber-optic things coming out of their ponytails that they use to jack into other animals so they can "drive" them? Very, very, very serious kink, my friend.
A friend of mine raised a good point: When they had sex under the tree and got married (right?), why didn't they actually "tie the knot"? That would have been only logical if you think about it.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 27, 2009, 08:03:10 AM
There's no reason for me to ever see a movie with that ending. Unfortunately, I had a dream about Avatar the other night, so apparently there's no level of consciousness on which I can escape it. :-\


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 27, 2009, 11:35:06 AM
So.......

Just saw it and I can more or less confirm what seems to be the consensus here: nice looking 3D, predictable and childish story. But that's not the whole truth. 3D has its problems: fast movement looks generally crappy especially if it's horizontal (handheld camera doesn't work at all!), something being out of focus really breaks the illusion (if I'm 'inside' the picture I should be able to choose what I focus my eyes on), as do the edges of the screen. Then again landscapes and surprisingly human faces look very fascinating in 3D (Leone would be all 3D if he was alive). Even the Na'vi look tolerable, even good, in 3D although they looked totally hideous in the trailer.
    The story has been told many times before but not without reason: it's a good story. But do the Na'vi have to be so like every other aboriginal race in the universe? Tall, longhaired, of different color and in total harmony with the nature. (Don't get me started with the fact that they look generally exactly like human beings. Ever occurred to you that aliens might look like two-inch-tall furry Jabba the Huts with no eyes or mouths?) But I was ready to buy them as part of the story... up to the point where they formed a circle around a tree and started chanting. That went just too far.
    But all in all I found myself enjoying the movie (most amazing is that I could care for these smurfs!). 7.5/10 would be my rating. However, there's not a lot of re-watch value - none if you can't see it in 3D. As for 3D in general, it's a fun tool but I can't tell if it would serve any purpose in a dialogue based drama.  

I kept it lower since i hated:

SPOILERS (haha)

- the "strategy" of the heroe during the battle: let's be numerous and then CHAAARGE. I expected more of a Ewoks/Empire fight, where Ewoks make traps and the like. I mean, you don't have to be a marine to understand that bows and arrows, even many of them, are pointless against tanks with machine guns.
- the badass colonel was kind of cool until they decided to make him the regular bad guy that only wants to kill the heroe (final battle was crap)
- you KNOW everything that is going to happen 5 minutes before it happens
- you KNOW that he's gonna ride the red dragon at the second she says "only 5 people did"
- they forgot to create a universe/background, while it was the easiest thing to do. I would even say that they put what they need when they need it. Not very clear? Let's take an example: the navis don't have children. I mean, you probably see 500 navis during the first half (and apparently they have nothing to do the whole day long, they're just there), and before the marines attack the big tree someone points out "there are children there!" and then you see a couple ones, and that's it. Same thing for the animals appart from the one they ride: you spend 20 minutes with them at the begining and forget them until the end. And so on and so forth.
- Everytime they try to make an emotion scene, it's worst than crap (remember the reaction of Weaver and her team after they cut the big tree? Remember that ideous slow motion and dramatic music?)
...

Watching it in 3D on a big screen was an amazing movie experience, but there is absolutly no reason to watch it without 3D.

By the way, I agree on your comment about handheld camera, but i don't think it has something to do with 3D: it just doesn't fit the cinematography of the movie. You either shoot at least 30% of the movie handled or 0%. But you cannot do only 10 handled shots in a 3 hours movie.
When it comes to focus in 3D, i disagree: i liked what cameron did. That's the only reason a 3 hours 3D movie doesn"t destroy you eyes.

There's no reason for me to ever see a movie with that ending. Unfortunately, I had a dream about Avatar the other night, so apparently there's no level of consciousness on which I can escape it. :-\

:)



Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 27, 2009, 03:34:22 PM
Certainly something to think about: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/12/26/notes122609.DTL


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 28, 2009, 02:16:37 PM
Certainly something to think about: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/12/26/notes122609.DTL

The money shot:
Quote
Behold, the ultimate in guilty colonialist fetish fantasy epic porn filmmaking, ever. Flawed, broken white man can, with his righteous modern technology, fuse his DNA with super-hot exotic sexually flawless alien species and become the Other and save the world and then score the hot chick from "Star Trek."
;D



Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on December 28, 2009, 02:39:16 PM
 ;D


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 31, 2009, 09:50:54 AM
From Patrick Kurp's lit/poetry blog Anecdotal Evidence ( http://evidenceanecdotal.blogspot.com/ ):

Quote
Thursday, December 31, 2009

`Just Drop Your Mind Into It'

I took the boys to see Avatar, a long, loud, kitschy paean to nature mysticism and noble savagery. I left the theater with a headache, sore ass and the wish to see Tokyo Story again, but took solace from a poem by D.J. Enright I had read the night before. It’s about poetry but it might as well be about movies, another art form possibly beyond resuscitation in our time. Here’s “Buy One Now” (from Collected Poems, 1948-98; originally in Sad Ires, 1975):

“This is a new sort of Poem,
It is Biological.
It contains a special Ingredient
(Pat. pend.) which makes it different
From other brands of poem on the market.

“This new Poem does the work for you.
Just drop your mind into it
And leave it to soak
While you relax with the telly
Or go out to the pub
Or (if that is what you like)
You read a book.

“It does the work for you
While (if that is what you like)
You sleep. For it is Biological
(Pat. Pend.), it penetrates
Into the darkest recesses,
It removes the understains
Which it is difficult for us
Even to speak of.

“Its action is so gentle
That the most delicate mind is unharmed.
This new sort of Poem
Contains an exclusive new Ingredient
(Known only to every jackass in the trade)
And can be found in practically any magazine
You care to mention.”

Avatar is cynically attuned to the conventional wisdom of the day: Indians good, cavalry bad. When the movie opened two weeks ago, several high-school students I was working with went to see it. Their review arrived in the form of a single, often repeated word , one that I hope is soon criminalized: “Awesome!” They were unable to say anything else about Avatar, not even a hint of the plot. As Enright says of his “new sort of Poem”: “Its action is so gentle / That the most delicate mind is unharmed.”


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on January 08, 2010, 02:47:48 PM
$1,137,846,909

is a lot of money


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 08, 2010, 03:14:06 PM
I don't care!


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 08, 2010, 04:34:08 PM
$1,137,846,909

is a lot of money


Does that surpass DARK SHITE?

I'm going over to the DK boards to see how the fan boys are taking it. >:D


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Kurug3n on January 08, 2010, 11:48:03 PM
I don't care!

I know O0

I just thought  just how INSANE its made that much.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 09, 2010, 12:04:04 AM
Fair enough. O0


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 09, 2010, 04:05:34 AM
When you put 300/500,000,000 dollars in a movie, people want to see what it looks like on screen. Especially when a huge part of that budget is on advertising ("by the director of Titanic") and when film critic call the movie "a revolution". That's enough to beat a few records (best box office start ever...).

Add to this impressive landscapes, good CGI (although not amazing), nice use of 3D and a stupid clichι story (clichι also means that... it works.) well told and acted: it leads to a good word of mouth, which happened less that 20 times in blockbusters history. That will probably make it the biggest box office success.

Of course, the movie doesn't deserve all this attention, but there is nothing really amazing to me in its success.
(easy to say after everything happened, of course)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: titoli on January 09, 2010, 05:02:04 AM
In italy this is advertised by saying that Spielberg called it "a masterpiece". So I'll skip on it.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on January 09, 2010, 06:36:32 AM
When you put 300/500,000,000 dollars in a movie, people want to see what it looks like on screen. Especially when a huge part of that budget is on advertising ("by the director of Titanic") and when film critic call the movie "a revolution". That's enough to beat a few records (best box office start ever...).

Add to this impressive landscapes, good CGI (although not amazing), nice use of 3D and a stupid clichι story (clichι also means that... it works.) well told and acted: it leads to a good word of mouth, which happened less that 20 times in blockbusters history. That will probably make it the biggest box office success.

Of course, the movie doesn't deserve all this attention, but there is nothing really amazing to me in its success.
(easy to say after everything happened, of course)


Astute.

Very. Very. Very. Astute.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 11, 2010, 08:41:23 PM
Note to idiots: drink the purple Kool-aid NOW. http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 13, 2010, 10:49:28 AM
Note to idiots: drink the purple Kool-aid NOW. http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

Jesus Christ...

Well dammit Jinkies, since I read all that...

http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2010/01/ultimate-in-fanboy-idiocy.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2010/01/ultimate-in-fanboy-idiocy.html)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 13, 2010, 03:21:51 PM
Jesus Christ...

Well dammit Jinkies, since I read all that...

http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2010/01/ultimate-in-fanboy-idiocy.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2010/01/ultimate-in-fanboy-idiocy.html)
;D

I imagine we'll be hearing from these same losers when the DVD arrives.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: T.H. on January 13, 2010, 08:29:44 PM
lol nice work groggs.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 13, 2010, 09:07:48 PM
;D

I imagine we'll be hearing from these same losers when the DVD arrives.

Then they can cut their wrists with the disc.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: T.H. on January 14, 2010, 12:30:49 AM
But that would have to involve cracking their precious disc.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 14, 2010, 10:15:11 AM
There's always the digital copy...


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 14, 2010, 11:14:39 AM
They'll be buying multiple disc sets, and probably rebuying them as they come out: Director's Cut, Ultimate Cut, The Really Really Ultimate Cut, etc. The Best Buy Exclusive will probably include even more discs. I'm sure these losers will be able to  find SOMETHING they can use on their wrists.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on January 15, 2010, 03:10:37 AM
Still haven't seen it.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: cigar joe on January 15, 2010, 06:48:01 AM
me neither O0


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 15, 2010, 10:06:21 AM
I'm probably going to see it tomorrow unless something comes up. I'm debating whether to bother with the 3-D or not.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 15, 2010, 11:20:21 AM
I'm probably going to see it tomorrow unless something comes up. I'm debating whether to bother with the 3-D or not.

3D, or there is NO point seeing it.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 15, 2010, 11:55:33 AM
Sounds like there's NO point seeing it, then.

I really don't want to see it in 3-D but in the interest of fairness it's how Cameron wants it to be seen. If I wrote a panning review of the 2-D version no one would listen. I'm not one to be blown away purely by visuals, that's a starting point but story and characters are required for me to have more than a passing interest in a film.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 15, 2010, 12:34:25 PM
Although the 3-D didn't make much of an impression on me, I too think you should either see it that way or not at all. The animation on its own isn't that interesting.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 15, 2010, 01:03:19 PM
Looking on IMDB they only seem to have a choice between 3D and iMax 3-D. So that's no longer an issue.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 16, 2010, 08:11:00 PM
I finally saw this bloated whale turd today, and let me scribble some semi-coherent thoughts on here before I write a full review.

Well, I'll say first off that I didn't get much out of the 3-D at all. It was kind of cool at first, but like a fireworks show, it wears itself out before too long. You can only see so many flashy computer-generated images before it becomes tiresome. This was already proven in the Star Wars prequels and Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, and so it is here, but here it is. I watched decent swaths of the movie without my glasses and when the 3-D rendering didn't interfere with the overall picture, it looked fine to me. I wasn't drawn into the world of the movie or whatever, I just saw dandelion spirit thingies and coffee cups popping out at me every second of the movie. So there's a strike against it.

Once the initial wow factor of the visuals wears off (about an hour or so in for me), you're left with a tired, boring, cliche-ridden Noble Savage story that's been done a million times before. The Western Broken Arrow (not that thing with John Travolta) and Lawrence of Arabia came to mind quite often, let alone the more obvious examples (Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, etc.). The characters were pathetically one-dimensional and the sense of wonder Pandora initially induces degenerates into pantheistic bullshit, with Nature literally saving the day (but more on that later). The script is a huge web of cliches, from the dialogue to the by-the-numbers story. The acting is adequate, with top honors going to Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribsi and Sigourney Weaver. James Horner's score sounds recycled from any number of other action-adventure flicks.

The most insipid part of the film was the climax. *SPOILERS* I knew there had to be a happy ending of some sort - Cameron is hardly the type of director to break with convention if he can help it - but for a moment I was holding out hope we'd have a Soldier Blue/The Mission-type climax. Well, just when all seems lost for the Blue Kitties - the Hammerheaded Rhinosaurs show up out of nowhere to kill all the Space Marines. I was stifling laughter at how idiotic this bit of deus ex machina was; Cameron couldn't even think of a decent way to bring about the inevitable happy ending.

I give it a VERY generous 5 or 6/10. This is because for its all flaws, the movie does look great, and it's never quite boring. But that's about all I'll say in its defense.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 16, 2010, 09:13:02 PM
In case I wasn't clear enough above: :D

Quote
Yes, I've finally seen James Cameron's Avatar (2009). I'm about the last person on Earth to have seen it, so I won't be saying anything new. It's worth watching for the impressive, gob-smacking special effects, but has little else to recommend it.

In 2154, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is sent on a special mission to the planet Pandora. The planet is chock full of the precious mineral Unobtainium (blech), and corporate head Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) has no qualms about using Marines led by Colonel Quartrich (Stephen Lang) to slaughter the peaceful natives, the blue, humanoid Na'vi. Along with scientist Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), Sully incorporates his body into an "avatar" of the Na'vi, ostensibly to study them and gain their trust, and becomes enraptured by the gorgeous world of Pandora and its peaceful inhabitants - not the least of which is gorgeous Princess Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Sully is torn between his mission and his new friends, ultimately siding with the Na'vi as Quartrich's Marines show up for some good old-fashioned genocide.

Avatar is pure style over substance, a "cinema of attractions" for the 21st Century. Cameron and the WETA people have created a gobsmacking spectacle, constructing a gorgeous, engrossing world full of floating mountains, weird yet strangely familiar animals, flourescent plant life, and the Na'vi (hereafter referred to as Blue Kitties). CGI has never been more convincing here, and the film has a lot of genuine wonder, scope and beauty. The huge final battle is generally well-staged and thrilling, although it's ultimately undercut by the resolution. Aside from James Horner's disappointingly banal score, there's little to complain about on a technical score.

It must be said, however, that only so much pleasure can be had from sheer spectacle. The effects give the impression of fireworks; once the initial sense of wonder wears off, you get more and more effects thrown at you, until it gives you a headache. This has already been amply proven with the Star Wars prequels and Pirates of the Caribbean, but Cameron felt compelled to teach us this lesson again. If there were some substance to complement the images, this might not be a problem - but as we'll see, monotonous beauty is the least of the film's problems.

As for the 3-D? Although occasionally impressive, it didn't significantly impact the film. I will admit to slipping off the glasses on occasion, and when the 3-D rendering didn't ruin the image, it looked just as good. Not to mention that the effects only work under special circumstances. When we're watching flying horse creatures, spinning flourescent frogs and spirit dandelions, it's pretty cool; it's less impressive when Giovanni Ribisi hits a golf ball into a three-dimensional coffee cup. For me, 3-D remains an indifferent gimmick, but clearly most critics and viewers would disagree.

Storywise, Avatar has little going for it. It's a recycling of the old White Guilt fantasy of a Liberal Soldier defecting to a race of Noble Savages against their Imperial Oppressors (banging a hot Native chick in the process). It put me most in mind of was Delmer Daves' Broken Arrow (1950), which had Indian Agent James Stewart coming to respect noble Apache Chief Cochise, marrying an Apache princess, and then defending them against white gun-runners. The sense of wonder initially instilled by Pandora eventually becomes wrapped up in bullshit pantheism. Thrown in for good measure are some obnoxiously obvious Iraq War parallels - the phrases "pre-emptive strike", "shock and awe", "fight(ing) terror with terror" and something about "Daisy cutters" are rattled off in two minutes' time. The finale is particularly insipid; not content for a downbeat (or vaguely non-conventional) ending, Cameron throws in an atrocious, mind-blowing deus ex machina which damn near ruins the film on its own.

Sam Worthington (Terminator 4) is adequate but little more as Jake Sully; the role requires little beyond being wowed by Pandora's wonders and being conflicted by his role in its conquest. The supporting cast fares better, with Sigourney Weaver wonderfully feisty, Michelle Rodriguez less annoying than usual, and Stephen Lang and Giovanni Ribisi (both of Public Enemies) doing well with their one-dimensional villain roles. Zoe Saldana (Star Trek), CCH Pounder (The Shield) and Wes Studi (The Last of the Mohicans) make the most of their roles, which isn't much; it's hell being a Noble Savage.

What more can be said about Blue Kitties In Space? Today I read the entire of George MacDonald Fraser's Royal Flash in the same amount of time it took me to watch Avatar. You should be able to guess which 150 minutes was better-spent.


http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2010/01/avatar.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2010/01/avatar.html)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: titoli on January 17, 2010, 05:49:30 AM
My sister's family went to see it yesterday. The elder son (10 yo) liked it very much.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 17, 2010, 10:16:58 AM
My dad weighs in (he can sue me if he doesn't want these to show up on a webboard):

Quote
Now that you've seen Avatar, are you ready to give up your cold, postindustrial existence and move to the Home Tree?  I thought that it was OK as a mindless action movie, but hardly the life-changing experience that it was hyped as. The 3-D was OK, although some things looked a little wonky. I think my favorite part was the little dog playing with his ball before the feature started.

Anyway, there were a couple of things that really annoyed me.

1. All of the V/STOL aircraft sounded exactly like a Bell UH-1 from 1965. The whop-whop-whop of helicopter blades is caused by shock waves at the rotor tips.The aircraft all had ducted fans, and shouldn't have made that noise. There were probably 12 aerospace engineers and me that noticed, but it did take me out of the moment.

2. How come everybody was an American? Not only was everybody American, but except for a few black guys in the background and an Hispanic helicopter pilot, they were also white. Where were the Pakistanis, Philippineos, and others that you would expect a multinational corporation to hire?

3. How come the world of the future looks exactly like the world of 2010? Most si-fi movies try to create a believable reality for their characters. Captain Kirk didn't dress like people from the 60's, Han Solo doesn't talk like a guy from the disco. The clothing, speech, attitudes, and technology of Avatar (except for interstellar travel and the avatars themselves) are exactly like today.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 17, 2010, 11:12:36 AM
Your dad has some great points, Grogs. O0 His take on the aircraft sounds put me in mind of a feature Letterman used to have called Limited Perspective. Someone from a certain profession would come on the show and review a movie and take particular note of whatever it was they dealt with in their job. I remember one where a dentist came and complained about the wonderful (but anachronistic) teeth all the actors in a historical film had.

The most telling critique, though, is the one about how everything except the space travel and the avatar technology is just like 2010. This is just Standard Cameron Operating Procedure, though: check out Aliens again where most everything (again besides the space travel and the avatar--er, android--technology) looks and feels like 1985. Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Cameron is a hack. That is why his products are so beloved by The Great Unwashed. He can sell movie tickets as well as Tide can push soap.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 17, 2010, 11:33:57 AM
I think the answer to my second point was to emphasize the colonialist allegory. Note also that Michelle Rodriguez is the only soldier (well, if you don't count Sully) who has any qualms about what she's doing. And all of the Blue Kitties with speaking parts are black or Native Americans. Wonderfully simplistic color-coding, I think, which might be somewhat easier to swallow if any of them were interesting or well-drawn characters.

As for the first, I guess it's similar to my complaining about inaccuracies in Civil War films, which I do a lot. I guess my feeling is, if you're going to try and go into that much detail, why not get the detail right?


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 19, 2010, 03:59:37 PM
Perhaps even worse than the above-linked articles:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/avatar-death/2010/01/19/1263663092281.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/avatar-death/2010/01/19/1263663092281.html)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 20, 2010, 04:25:44 AM
I can't find the words for describing my thoughts.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 20, 2010, 08:52:00 AM
I can't find the words for describing my thoughts.
Then you are the perfect audience for Cameron's products.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 20, 2010, 07:29:15 PM
Perhaps even worse than the above-linked articles:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/avatar-death/2010/01/19/1263663092281.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/avatar-death/2010/01/19/1263663092281.html)

Man dies after seeing AVATAR?

He must have had really good taste.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Rubio on January 22, 2010, 09:48:57 PM
I saw Avatar after my Aunt and 10 year old cousin dragged me along. I think it's alright...quite overrated in my opinion though.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: PowerRR on January 25, 2010, 04:43:13 PM
In italy this is advertised by saying that Spielberg called it "a masterpiece". So I'll skip on it.
You are the most close-minded fuck in the world, huh?

That being said, I watched it today and it really isn't that good at all. Its Dances With Wolves except with pretty animation, horrible dialogue and acting, and even more boring. It's a visual feast, sure, but not much else beyond that.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: titoli on January 25, 2010, 04:48:43 PM
You are the most close-minded fuck in the world, huh?

Can't hide a thing from you.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 27, 2010, 08:56:24 PM
Saw ten minutes of this in the theatre.
Walked in on the part where Weaver is dying and the natives try to get the tree to revive her.

I think I'd rather watch grass grow than see another second of this.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 28, 2010, 02:40:25 AM
Saw ten minutes of this in the theatre.
Walked in on the part where Weaver is dying and the natives try to get the tree to revive her.

I think I'd rather watch grass grow than see another second of this.
;D You happened to see the worst scene in the whole movie  ;D


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 28, 2010, 11:05:37 AM
I second that. That's the worst scene. Don't juge the movie on this. It would be a pity to miss the most strategic battle ever :

"We're indians. We know the forest, its traps and its dangers. We can run on the trees. All they've got is machine guns and armors. I know what we're gonna do: everybody take a horse and CHAAAARGE!!!"


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 28, 2010, 11:32:43 AM
Jesus Christ, every other thread on IMDB's Film General board is about Avatar. You would have thought the fanboys would have let up in the past five weeks, but apparently not. It's the new Dark Knight, only not a fraction as good.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 28, 2010, 11:47:17 AM
I second that. That's the worst scene. Don't juge the movie on this. It would be a pity to miss the most strategic battle ever :

"We're indians. We know the forest, its traps and its dangers. We can run on the trees. All they've got is machine guns and armors. I know what we're gonna do: everybody take a horse and CHAAAARGE!!!"

They're lucky that the Rhinosaurs and Space Hyenas decided it was time to go berserk. The "God has heard you" bullshit wouldn't pass muster if it were a Christian praying for victory and a convenient earthquake swallowed up a Muslim army (or, to be fair, vice versa), it's no less insulting here. Why not a remotely negative ending?


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 28, 2010, 12:42:40 PM
Jesus Christ, every other thread on IMDB's Film General board is about Avatar. You would have thought the fanboys would have let up in the past five weeks, but apparently not.


This isn't surprising in the least considering it's the biggest box office draw of all time (it just surpassed Tit-tanic in the WorldWide gross. All it needs now is to secure the domestic).

Wake me up when it's safe to go back to the movies.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 28, 2010, 12:46:00 PM
Jesus Christ, every other thread on IMDB's Film General board is about Avatar. You would have thought the fanboys would have let up in the past five weeks, but apparently not. It's the new Dark Knight, only not a fraction as good.
What's worst, it seems to be the new Star Wars...


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 28, 2010, 12:57:13 PM
Star Wars wasn't that great either, so it would just be carrying on the tradition of sci-fi blockbuster mediocrity.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 28, 2010, 01:09:02 PM
Star Wars wasn't that great either

Well it was certainly better than this fluff.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 28, 2010, 01:45:21 PM
Star Wars wasn't that great either, so it would just be carrying on the tradition of sci-fi blockbuster mediocrity.
Yea, but DK wasn't SW. It wasn't as big phenomenon, as big moneymaker or as revolutionary in technical aspects.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: titoli on January 28, 2010, 03:34:31 PM
Saw ten minutes of this in the theatre.
I think I'd rather watch grass grow than see another second of this.

You are the most close-minded fuck in the world, huh (after me, of course)? Glad to see you're learning. O0

Anyway, a conversation on "cinema" based on Avatar, Dk and SW... 


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 28, 2010, 03:37:23 PM
Anyway, a conversation on "cinema" based on Avatar, Dk and SW... 

Try not to think about it...


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 28, 2010, 03:39:40 PM
I second that. That's the worst scene. Don't juge the movie on this.

I don't know guys.
Any movie that includes a scene like that is a movie that should be ignored by everybody.
Even if everything else is a masterpiece.



Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 28, 2010, 08:09:27 PM
What's the Howard Hawks saying? A great movie has three good scenes and no bad ones? This movie has more than one bad scene, and I didn't even think the scene was question was THAT bad compared to, say, the final battle.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 30, 2010, 01:06:45 PM
Hmmmmmmmmm: http://www.heavy.com/post/avatargate-the-case-for-the-prosecution-3351

Given Cameron's past plagiarism, this sure seems suspicious.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 30, 2010, 02:07:26 PM
Interesting, but we already knew Avatar was unoriginal.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 30, 2010, 05:27:40 PM
Yes, but I'd assumed it had been stolen from several sources (the Lucas Technique) rather than its having been (as it appears) mostly acquired in a single raid--er, I mean, foray.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Rubio on January 30, 2010, 05:37:02 PM
that is priceless.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 30, 2010, 06:17:43 PM
I'd assumed the floating rocks came from Sonic and Knuckles.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: stanton on January 31, 2010, 01:54:31 AM
Maybe you guys forget that this is a forum dedicated to a filmmaker who made his breakthrough with a plagiarism he in the first place also "forgot" to name.

And got much worser reviews then only to become a classic much later.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on January 31, 2010, 09:33:05 AM
I don't particularly care about the lack of originality. The fact that it's presented very badly is the issue to me.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 31, 2010, 05:24:49 PM
I'm happy to attack Cameron on multiple fronts.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 03, 2010, 02:48:16 PM
More nonsense.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-fresh-myers-movies.artfeb03,0,1699712.story (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-fresh-myers-movies.artfeb03,0,1699712.story)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 04, 2010, 02:04:07 AM
More nonsense.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-fresh-myers-movies.artfeb03,0,1699712.story (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-fresh-myers-movies.artfeb03,0,1699712.story)
I'm waiting for your response.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 04, 2010, 09:55:00 AM
I was considering a reply, but I don't know if going after a college blogger would be shooting fish in a barrel.

I really can't reconcile his self-contradictory "this movie sucks, therefore its revolutionary" argument, though.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on February 04, 2010, 11:11:47 AM
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/04/james-camerons-avatar-is-many-things-but-not-racist/ (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/04/james-camerons-avatar-is-many-things-but-not-racist/)

With all of this material, I ought to rename my website Groggy's Avatar Blog.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 15, 2010, 03:38:22 PM
Ok, now, this is a must read:
http://autotelic.com/avatar_-_the_metacontextual_edition

Sample:

 
JUGHEAD: Okay, I think I'll do this incredibly difficult task of catching one of these super bad-ass red flying dragon things that only two people in the history of their civilization have ever been able to tame.

THE AUDIENCE GEARS UP FOR A FIGHT THAT WILL CONVEY THROUGH ACTION THE IMMENSE DIFFICULTY OF THE STRUGGLE THAT JUGHEAD MUST UNDERTAKE TO SUBDUE THE...

JUGHEAD: Done!
 
AUDIENCE: What the fuck?
 
JAMES CAMERON: I've got director's cut DVDs to sell later on, bitches.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 15, 2010, 04:41:54 PM
''VASQUEZ WANNA-BE'' ;D


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Groggy on March 25, 2010, 02:15:28 PM
I can't stand Glenn Beck, but this is pretty darn funny.

http://www.popeater.com/2010/03/25/glenn-beck-slams-james-cameron/ (http://www.popeater.com/2010/03/25/glenn-beck-slams-james-cameron/)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Whalestoe on March 26, 2010, 07:34:56 PM
I can't stand Glenn Beck, but this is pretty darn funny.

http://www.popeater.com/2010/03/25/glenn-beck-slams-james-cameron/ (http://www.popeater.com/2010/03/25/glenn-beck-slams-james-cameron/)

Would be funnier if it was a video of Beck being impaled by a Na'vi.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Senza on March 14, 2013, 05:02:09 AM
Dances With Wolves with incredible eye candy.  :)