Avatar reviews - Attention : spoilers

[Nwerke]

And who says the connection is natural ? It might be the result of highly advanced biotechnology and the Na'vi are just happy to live simple lives, but keep the planetbusters hidden in their racial memory just in case

Yeah. Perhaps there's a little Ursula K. LeGuin or Nausicaa in the mix there, eh? That would be a really interesting idea, and would also help to explain the presently unexplainable issues like the multiple body plans. It might not be just a self-aware, centrally-directed ecosystem, but an artificially created one.

... Or they might be able to fix the problems on earth and save the human race from themselves ...

Well, Pandora has already cured the common cold. According to the backstory, Eywa came up with antiviruses for everything that the humans brought along.

Solo, Carson put it very well - the spectacle IS the story in this case. I'm seeing it again tomorrow and I still expect to have a good time...

 

[Nwerke]

Holy crap. I just read it's made $400 million so far. In a week and a half of release, it's gathered 40% of Titanic's total boxoffice.

He's done it again, hasn't he? How does he do this?!?

 

[Sigma-LS]

I saw the Midnight release when it came out. I had been up since early in the morning (3am) so I knew I would start to doze if the movie didn't hold my attention. A pretty good litmus test IMHO.

Before I say anything else, this is the 1st 3D movie I have ever seen that actually worked with my messed-up eyes. Fun stuff.

Most of my review is just the same as most I've read in this thread. I'll just add that the big tree getting blown up and the blue people scattering as well as the blue people getting their asses handed to them at the beginning of the last battle were my favorite parts.

I could stomach all the treehugging in the show but the thing that disappointed me the most was the way the humans lost. I mean I was really hoping for a Zulu style ending where the major personnel escaped while the security forces fought off hordes of angry smurfs (fire and retreat Men of Harlech stuff). Instead they went out like punks. The Colonel was the one exception. I don't think I've ever wanted the "bad guys" to win so badly in any film I've watched before...

 

[DARTH SABER]

Holy crap. I just read it's made $400 million so far. In a week and a half of release, it's gathered 40% of Titanic's total boxoffice.

He's done it again, hasn't he? How does he do this?!?

Yup, it made more in it's second weekend than it did in it's first.
It's also already predicted to be the second highest grossing film.

DS

 

[Nwerke]

Well, I guess we can assume movies 2 and 3 just got green-lit then.

 

[Carson Dyle]

I don't think I've ever wanted the "bad guys" to win so badly in any film I've watched before...

I like the Colonel in the way one likes tough, charismatic, cinematically larger-than-life genocidal warlords, but I'd have to stop short of the "wishing the bad guys had won" thing.

But maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain why, within the context of the story, you would like to have seen the "blue people" get
massacred?

 

[nightrider]

Went to see it again tonight with my wife. Monday night at 10:30, still showing on 4 screens and the theater was packed. Weren't some people saying a few pages back about this movie not recouping enough of it's investment or something along those lines? I knew after seeing this movie that it was going to score big time with repeat viewings. Not just from hardcore fanboy/girls like SW, but from average people. Most of the people I know who've seen it intend to see it again before it leaves the cinema, and many have been more than twice already. At any rate, I think Carson summed it up best as far as story goes.

 

[niennumb1]

I think a lot of the people that went into this film with reading all the big hype will naturally come out disappointed. It's just how it is when you have super high expectations and this almost always happens to me.

I'm glad I went in not knowing what to expect. It made the film experience a true blast and I loved every bit of it. One of the shortest 2 and a half hour movies I've seen and the 3D was beautiful.

Seen it twice and hope to see it again soon!

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Holy crap. I just read it's made $400 million so far. In a week and a half of release, it's gathered 40% of Titanic's total boxoffice.

He's done it again, hasn't he? How does he do this?!?

No, not really. The movie is doing better overseas than it has here in the States. It's $212m, domestic and $410m overseas. It appears he has made his money back, but it is not going to reach "Titanic" status.

 

[niennumb1]

No, not really. The movie is doing better overseas than it has here in the States. It's $212m, domestic and $410m overseas. It appears he has made his money back, but it is not going to reach "Titanic" status.

You don't think it has a chance? 2% drop from last week is really not bad at all considering many suffer 30% after week 1 box office. Theaters around here are sold out a week in advance on the Imax 3d experience too.

You never know. It will be interesting watching this film's progress.

 

[defstartrooper]

Holy crap. I just read it's made $400 million so far. In a week and a half of release, it's gathered 40% of Titanic's total boxoffice.

He's done it again, hasn't he? How does he do this?!?

Hype that's how.

 

[ItsThatGuy]

Seriously, the only hype I heard about this film was from here. It was of course all negative way before we saw the trailer. I knew if most of you hated it that much then it had to be awesome! :lol

I loved it.

 

[pennausamike]

Originally Posted by Nwerke
Holy crap. I just read it's made $400 million so far.
In a week and a half of release, it's gathered 40% of Titanic's total boxoffice.

He's done it again, hasn't he? How does he do this?!?

Hype that's how.

It's not hype, it's word of mouth.
The trailers don't seem to have impressed the non-fan moviegoer.
My wife thought it looked "stupid";
until she saw the movie.
She was blown away by the visuals.

The backlash to the bad-humans-good-guy-tree-huggers story
isn't enough to offset the draw of such a visually astounding and immersive theater-going experience.

Mike

 

[firesprite]

My husband and I saw Avatar on Christmas day and I thought I'd add my thoughts on it.

Overall, I REALLY like this movie. A lot. I honestly forgot most of the time that I was watching computer generated creatures. The world and the animals of Pandora were spectacular, and I like that Cameron took the time to make the Na'vi more interesting than just humans with a coat of blue paint and kitty markings.

Storywise, there were no surprises... but that's not necessarily a negative. I knew going in that Jake would wind up finding a way to remain in his avatar's body. There's a reason that this story has been told again and again... it resonates with us. We identify with Jake and, through him, with the Na'vi.

In terms of the acting, I think that Sam Worthington is going to be huge if he continues to work on his craft. The fact that someone who's a relative newcomer can hold his own so well with someone as accomplished as Sigourney Weaver is awesome. This also marks the first time I've actually LIKED one of Michelle Rodriguez's characters and I was genuinely saddened when she was taken out.

I really want to see this in 3D before it leaves theaters... and this is the first 3D release that I can honestly say that about.

 

[Nwerke]

No, not really. The movie is doing better overseas than it has here in the States. It's $212m, domestic and $410m overseas. It appears he has made his money back, but it is not going to reach "Titanic" status.

Do those figures translate into 'doing better overseas'? If your figures are right then it has made a third of its money in the US. What's the population of the international markets that it is currently in release in, I wonder?

Anyway, if it is actually at $622M after ten days then it surely has an excellent chance of beating Titanic, doesn't it? Especially if the weekend BO is actually rising?

nightrider - yep, and I was one of them. The thing is rumoured to have cost anything up to $500 million to make. To make money it practically HAD to be another Titanic and the chances of that didn't look good, based on what we knew about the story.

Well, we were wrong, of course. It's a hackneyed story, but guess what? It's massively commercial. What a surprise, coming from Jim Cameron! Shoulda known, shoulda known...

 

[Sigma-LS]

I like the Colonel in the way one likes tough, charismatic, cinematically larger-than-life genocidal warlords, but I'd have to stop short of the "wishing the bad guys had won" thing.

But maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain why, within the context of the story, you would like to have seen the "blue people" get
massacred?

Within the context of the story could be done but it's not the reason for my bitterness. Plus I have hope for some Zulu style battles in the sequels now that at least one seems guaranteed.

As for my reasons mostly it's an old hatred of mine in storytelling that the magical/biological many times beats the technological against all odds or that it's an instant fix for a technological gap. I like to call it the Flintstone effect.

"It took us 10,000 years to go from bow and arrow to flying gunship."

"Well that's nice but we got a big pterodactyl that does the same thing." :confused

That and the fact that the Na'vi suffer from blue indian syndrome (Noble Savages). The whole "one-with-nature to the extreme" concept isn't bad just not too realistic IMO. I went to school in the middle of nowhere as a kid and half my class was indian from 6 different tribes. And of the Comanche, Apache, Blackfoot, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Kiowa that I knew growing up who knew their tribal history very well always said: People used whatever they could in terms of tools and tactics to make their lives easier. Horses came around GREAT. Guns EVEN BETTER. And they still maintain much of their heritage but not to the point of being stupid. You can respect and love nature and still be smart enough to see the advantage of a firearm in hunting. I'm sure not all tribes are that way and some are super conservative like fundamentalists of any sort but it seems that Hollywood has been playing that angle for far too long. :cry

 

[CessnaDriver]

Within the context of the story could be done but it's not the reason for my bitterness. Plus I have hope for some Zulu style battles in the sequels now that at least one seems guaranteed.

As for my reasons mostly it's an old hatred of mine in storytelling that the magical/biological many times beats the technological against all odds or that it's an instant fix for a technological gap. I like to call it the Flintstone effect.

"It took us 10,000 years to go from bow and arrow to flying gunship."

"Well that's nice but we got a big pterodactyl that does the same thing." :confused

That and the fact that the Na'vi suffer from blue indian syndrome (Noble Savages). The whole "one-with-nature to the extreme" concept isn't bad just not too realistic IMO. I went to school in the middle of nowhere as a kid and half my class was indian from 6 different tribes. And of the Comanche, Apache, Blackfoot, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Kiowa that I knew growing up who knew their tribal history very well always said: People used whatever they could in terms of tools and tactics to make their lives easier. Horses came around GREAT. Guns EVEN BETTER. And they still maintain much of their heritage but not to the point of being stupid. You can respect and love nature and still be smart enough to see the advantage of a firearm in hunting. I'm sure not all tribes are that way and some are super conservative like fundamentalists of any sort but it seems that Hollywood has been playing that angle for far too long. :cry

Space Indians are clearly way cooler though and suffer no such evil hooman traits.

And future humans will regress and act like 1800's cavalry.


As with The Abyss, Cameron again assigns pureness to his "aliens".

They are better then us and need to teach us lessons as to how effed up we are. And a special "chosen one" is used to bridge between the huge chasm.

This I think may be more about Camerons personal psyche then the human condition.

Does he view himself as a chosen one?

Statements like "only five people in the world can do what I do" makes ya wonder.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Do those figures translate into 'doing better overseas'? If your figures are right then it has made a third of its money in the US. What's the population of the international markets that it is currently in release in, I wonder?

Anyway, if it is actually at $622M after ten days then it surely has an excellent chance of beating Titanic, doesn't it? Especially if the weekend BO is actually rising?

nightrider - yep, and I was one of them. The thing is rumoured to have cost anything up to $500 million to make. To make money it practically HAD to be another Titanic and the chances of that didn't look good, based on what we knew about the story.

Well, we were wrong, of course. It's a hackneyed story, but guess what? It's massively commercial. What a surprise, coming from Jim Cameron! Shoulda known, shoulda known...

I think Titanic did $1.2b worldwide. It dropped off a bit this weekend, domestically. It "only" took in $75m.

 

[Solo4114]

Within the context of the story could be done but it's not the reason for my bitterness. Plus I have hope for some Zulu style battles in the sequels now that at least one seems guaranteed.

As for my reasons mostly it's an old hatred of mine in storytelling that the magical/biological many times beats the technological against all odds or that it's an instant fix for a technological gap. I like to call it the Flintstone effect.

"It took us 10,000 years to go from bow and arrow to flying gunship."

"Well that's nice but we got a big pterodactyl that does the same thing." :confused

In most cases where the technological or military underdog managed to win, it as a result of combined aspects including: (1) the cost of the more powerful entity pursuing the war, (2) support by a similarly powerful enemy of the enemy, (3) lack of popular support for the way back at the enemy's home.

So it's not usually that bows and arrows and SPIRIT!! (We've got spirit, yes we do! We've got spirit, how 'bout you?!) win the day, but rather all that plus help from France/The USSR/the USA/whoever, and it being really expensive and unpopular for England/the USA/the USSR/whoever to continue prosecuting the war.

That and the fact that the Na'vi suffer from blue indian syndrome (Noble Savages). The whole "one-with-nature to the extreme" concept isn't bad just not too realistic IMO. I went to school in the middle of nowhere as a kid and half my class was indian from 6 different tribes. And of the Comanche, Apache, Blackfoot, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Kiowa that I knew growing up who knew their tribal history very well always said: People used whatever they could in terms of tools and tactics to make their lives easier. Horses came around GREAT. Guns EVEN BETTER. And they still maintain much of their heritage but not to the point of being stupid. You can respect and love nature and still be smart enough to see the advantage of a firearm in hunting. I'm sure not all tribes are that way and some are super conservative like fundamentalists of any sort but it seems that Hollywood has been playing that angle for far too long. :cry

There was an episode of, I think, Battlefield Detectives that actually proved that the reason why Custer lost at the Battle of Little Big Horn was (A) because he was CRAZY AND STUPID, (B) because he was a racist who assumed the superiority of the white man over the "savage", and -- perhaps most importantly -- (C) his smaller group of troops was using breech-loading single-shot carbines against a much larger force that had bows and arrows, but also Henry repeating rifles. Kinda puts the whole "primitive savage" thing to bed, doesn't it?

That said, when the evil oppressor wants your land bad enough and is willing to pretty much commit genocide to make it happen...Le Resistance is gonna crumble eventually if you have no outside support and weaker technology. The real question is whether you have that outside support and how determined the enemy of the "noble savage" really is.

 

[Sigma-LS]

....So it's not usually that bows and arrows and SPIRIT!! (We've got spirit, yes we do! We've got spirit, how 'bout you?!) win the day,....

I'm familiar with the real-world examples. What bugs me is the fantasy. The Na'vi weren't using guerrilla tactics. They wound up being saved by Deus Ex Machina. I'd like to see Blackwater fight off a whole planet!:lol

There was an episode of... Kinda puts the whole "primitive savage" thing to bed, doesn't it?

That said, ....The real question is whether you have that outside support and how determined the enemy of the "noble savage" really is.

Which brings me back to my main point. The way the Na'vi are portrayed is very much a stereotype of American Tribes (*cough* space horses *cough*). The only exception being a sedentary vs. nomadic lifestyle (a plot point to actually make them recalcitrant to the mining operation). This doesn't make any sense as they are shown as hunter-gatherers. And hell the bow and arrow is advanced technology 10K ago. Before that it was the atlatl and sling and before that the spear and before that the rock. There's no reason why they would refuse a little advanced technology from the "Sky People".

I can see them not wanting to leave because it was holy ground (apparently less holy than the soul trees though). But their total ignorance to what was happening? Come on!

"Cake or Death?!"

"I couldn't eat any cake. I'm still full from lunch.":lol