Avatar reviews - Attention : spoilers

Re: Avatar reviews

This review:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/21882/1/REVIEW-AVATAR-DEVIN039S-TAKE/Page1.html

- is the one I've been waiting for. It's about what I expect to be echoing, based on what I've seen and read so far. I hope I'm wrong and that I'll be calling Devin's take a prissy bunch of killjoy nonsense instead. Hell, there was no shortage of negative reviews for LOTR, which I thought was moving and beautiful, for all its faults.

Anyway I'll be posting my thoughts in about seven or eight hours from now, for whatever they're worth. Seeing it on a decent-sized screen, in 3D.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Man, Devin posted what I was thinking... he must've plugged his hair into the ground!
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Martyn's review, heh:

Well...it's big, certainly. And reasonably involving - but overall, Devin's review is fair. A bit more negative than I'd be, possibly. I might give it a 6.9 out of 10 - though it doesn't lack effective comic relief, this thing is still too self-important to just give yourself over to the spectacle of it all entirely.

The 3D is good, after a few jarring moments at the start. The characters ARE likeable. The cringe-inducing dialogue has mostly already appeared in spoilers, so there's little to make things worse. The people you know are going to die, die. The people you know are going to live, live. You'll laugh where you're meant to, and also laugh (or, OK, possibly gasp) at Cameron's sheer over-the-top audacity in other scenes. You'll know exactly what's going to happen well before it does, and in case you missed the situational cues and setups, Cameron helpfully flags things with actual dialogue a few seconds later.

The story is what you already know about it and little more. The Na'vi characters might as well be named Little Bear or Wild Eagle. There's no explanation for what unobtainium is used for, why it is important (other than that it is expensive), or whether it plays a role in the planet's deeply strange and impossible Roger Dean-esque geographical features*.

The biology of the planet is really odd too; for example there appear to be two radically different native vertebrate body plans, yet these are related closely enough to share a specialized communication mechanism...which is also shared with the plant life. Huh? Oh, and the universal bioluminescence doesn't make a lot of sense on a planet that's not lacking in sunshine. But it's pretty, so who cares, right?

The allusions to present wars and politics are as clunky as everyone says, but somehow none of that stuff mattered too much, even though I was thrown 'out' of the movie for more than one stretch. The movie itself is so long, and I was having fun for much of it, so it averaged out...

When I think about the relative bang for the buck, ticketwise, I got from this movie versus, say, the more cerebral District 9, then...well, actually, Avatar probably wins. It's huge and daft and fun and amazing, and I said the same for 2012, so I'll say it here too. (Comparing my bang for the filmmaker's buck, though, District 9 remains the clear winner.)

When the credits rolled, the audience at my screening applauded - hesitantly at first, but then with more enthusiasm when they realized they weren't going to be alone. I joined in. The hell with it, life's short, have fun where you can, eh?

That said, I reserve the right to edit this tomorrow when I've digested it a bit more. :)

* The 'Yes' album cover artist.
 
Last edited:
Re: Avatar reviews

This review:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/21882/1/REVIEW-AVATAR-DEVIN039S-TAKE/Page1.html

- is the one I've been waiting for. It's about what I expect to be echoing, based on what I've seen and read so far. I hope I'm wrong and that I'll be calling Devin's take a prissy bunch of killjoy nonsense instead. Hell, there was no shortage of negative reviews for LOTR, which I thought was moving and beautiful, for all its faults.

Anyway I'll be posting my thoughts in about seven or eight hours from now, for whatever they're worth. Seeing it on a decent-sized screen, in 3D.


Interesting, and those are pretty much the expectations I have. I'll still want to see this in 3D in the theaters, but I'm not really expecting to like it. Still, this is one of the rare cases where a theater visit is practically required. I suspect I'll find it entertaining in a diverting way, and impressive technologically, but that impressiveness will wear off in about, oh, 20 min after I leave the theater.

Put simply, fancy images alone don't do it for me when it comes to films. People got all hyped up about Crouching Tiger, but when I saw it, I saw a prettier, better characterized version of Saturday Kung Fu Theater on channel 29. I suspect the same will be true of Avatar. I'll see a poor man's take on the Dances with Wolves thing, and will otherwise say "But yeah, impressive visual techniques. Hopefully a better film will make use of them or someone can take an older better film and make it 3D in a way that doesn't look forced.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Solo, you're dead on. 20 minutes might be harsh, I'm still feeling fairly warm about the thing. But it is absolutely Dances with Wolves, it really, really is.

To expand more on the 3D, it really is nice. Nothing looks like flat, stacked cardboard cutouts, there are only a few scenes with floating foreground ash or flowers or what-have-you that are at all forced. Most of it looks very, very natural and nice. Kudos where it is due!
 
Re: Avatar reviews

But the Dances and Crouching Tiger critiques are hardly fair. There are very few, if any original plots left. What makes a story memorable is the author/director's own personal stamp on the thing. That's why, say some slasher movies stand out despite being essentially clones. Or why some family dramas, or historical epics stand out. Each creator puts their individual mark on the material. It sounds like Cameron has done this.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Planet of the Apes got slammed for its heavy-handed message.

2001 got slammed for being a soulless excuse for cutting-edge effects.

Star Wars got slammed for having cardboard characters.

Blade Runner got slammed for being an empty exercise in art direction.

The Terminator and Aliens both got slammed for being overly derivative.

LOTR got slammed for being "too long."

Avatar, it seems, is being slammed for all of the above. It'll be interesting to see what effect these perceived flaws have on the film's long term appeal.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

I don't mind a retelling of a good story now and then. I don't mind people doing things like setting a classic tale in a new setting. I mean, I've often thought that you could do a bangup job of redoing Stagecoach in a sci-fi or post-apocalyptic setting (although arguably the last 10 min of The Road Warrior/MM2 do just that). I just don't think that's really anything more than an "Oh, that was fun" movie, as opposed to "OMG THIS IS THE BIGGEST CINEMATIC EVENT IN THE LAST 30 YEARS!! IT WILL CHANGE MOVIE MAKING FOREVAH!!!!"

I don't expect Avatar to be a BAD film. I just don't expect it to live up to the hype that precedes it. Nor do I expect it will -- for me at least -- justify the glowing reviews (except that the glowing reviews seem to be more concerned with the CG elements rather than the plot). All the positive stuff I've seen has been about the visuals. When the story gets addressed, it's more "And yeah, the story isn't bad either." >sigh<
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Okay, I think I should explain my fear more correctly: I have a longstanding fear that American filmmaking has become more about the glits and glamour than about the story itself. I'm worried about a day where I will wake up, go to a movie theater, and everyone enjoys a movie that has no story behind it, movies becoming nothing more than a series of random special effects with no real meaning behind them.

Next to going to bed and waking up to a reality that wasn't the same one I went to sleep in, it is this type of film I'm afraid of. It's not the technology that worries me, it's the idea of special effects replacing a solid story that worries me.

I hope that this clears up any confusion about my previous statements.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

I think people have been complaining about that since Jaws. If not long before. And every years loads of crap is released, and every year loads of great films are also released.

God, the internet is full of old people who complain about how these whippersnappers are ruining film and the price of bread in their day. :lol
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Don't worry about them. :)
Just enjoy movies to their fullest extent yourself.

Also, I believe that the laymen's intuitive response to film is not so disconnected to the analytical repsonse of the learned. We're cognatively trying to acknowledge what they intuitively "get."

Successful entertainment appeals to something human, people just need to be careful what parts of them it appeals to. Try to find entertainment that appeals to the best in you.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

But the Dances and Crouching Tiger critiques are hardly fair. There are very few, if any original plots left. What makes a story memorable is the author/director's own personal stamp on the thing. That's why, say some slasher movies stand out despite being essentially clones. Or why some family dramas, or historical epics stand out. Each creator puts their individual mark on the material. It sounds like Cameron has done this.

The "Ah, there's no new stories to tell anyway" thing is a cop-out, though. The originality of the story isn't as important as how well said story is told. The "eh, I've seen it" thing is less of an issue if, for example, you're emphasizing different things or emphasizing them in different ways. Raiders of the Lost Ark lifts TONS of elements of 1930s/1940s adventure serials, but it works because of HOW it does all of that. If Avatar can ape Dances with Wolves WELL, then I won't care that it's a ripoff.

Despite my perceived pickyness about films, I can actually be pretty forgiving of imperfections IF the rest of the thing holds up. I forgive the Star Wars films their imperfections. I forgive Raiders its imperfections. I'm not concerned with "Wait, how'd Indy survive on the sub ride lashed to the periscope?" But that's because the REST of the movie works so well.

Likewise, I won't mind if this is a ripoff of Dances with Wolves as long as it doesn't come across as too stupid. I'm just not entirely sure that Cameron's approach will accomplish that. But it'll likely be very pretty.


Planet of the Apes got slammed for its heavy-handed message.

2001 got slammed for being a soulless excuse for cutting-edge effects.

Star Wars got slammed for having cardboard characters.

Blade Runner got slammed for being an empty exercise in art direction.

The Terminator and Aliens both got slammed for being overly derivative.

LOTR got slammed for being "too long."

Avatar, it seems, is being slammed for all of the above. It'll be interesting to see what effect these perceived flaws have on the film's long term appeal.

Honestly? I'd bet that it won't be remembered anywhere near as fondly as these other films. That's due less to the nature of THIS film, however, and more to the nature of moviemaking back then and moviemaking today. These days there are so many F/X extravaganzas that I think audiences are generally inured to shiny F/X alone. It'll get them in the seats in droves, sure. But years from now they won't really give a crap abotu the films. The films won't become classics for them. That's because the films, after the initial "wow!" effect wears off, really just aren't that compelling.

The LOTR films will survive, I suspect, because they're just good stories. Flawed, yes, but still good. Aliens and Terminator survive because they're good stories. Dated, certainly. Heavy-handed in their preaching at times, but still good stories at the core and stories that are focused more on the story itself than "OMG!! WE HAVE MADE THE ULTIMATE STAN WINSTON STOP MOTION CREATION! YOU WILL NEVER SEE A MORE REALISTIC LOOKING ANIMATRONIC VERSION OF AHNOLD'S HEAD EVER!!!"

Blade Runner still works because it's both incredibly atmospheric, but also an interesting story in and of itself.


I suspect many of the current blockbuster hits will be remembered about as fondly and treated with about as much reverence as, say, the blockbuster hits from the last decade. Anyone here regularly rewatch MIB? Independence Day? Armageddon? Hell, how about The Mummy? I mean are these bad movies? Not really. (Well, ok, Armageddon and ID4 are...) They're not particularly GOOD films, though. It's not that folks don't still enjoy them, but they haven't become these landmark films for people the way a lot of the movies you list have.

I have no idea what'll happen with Avatar eventually. But I think it's a LOT harder these days to create a truly memorable f/x extravaganza that lasts longer than, oh, 3 years in people's minds as a standout film UNLESS the underlying story is really good. Otherwise you just get eclipsed in 2 years by the next big f/x extravaganza.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Okay, I think I should explain my fear more correctly: I have a longstanding fear that American filmmaking has become more about the glits and glamour than about the story itself. I'm worried about a day where I will wake up, go to a movie theater, and everyone enjoys a movie that has no story behind it, movies becoming nothing more than a series of random special effects with no real meaning behind them.

Next to going to bed and waking up to a reality that wasn't the same one I went to sleep in, it is this type of film I'm afraid of. It's not the technology that worries me, it's the idea of special effects replacing a solid story that worries me.

I hope that this clears up any confusion about my previous statements.


That boat has sailed.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

That boat has sailed.

I know. But there's still a somewhat of a story exist with most of the special effects-spectular movies. I'm afraid of the day where filmmakers and filmgoers decide to abandon the whole concept of a story and just have nothing but special effects. Even some movies that are improvised (i.e. Mike Figgis' "Timecode") has a story, even without a script.

But like I said, it's just my concerns. And for all I know, my fears may just be idle nothingness that I shouldn't have concerns about.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Planet of the Apes got slammed for its heavy-handed message.

2001 got slammed for being a soulless excuse for cutting-edge effects.

Star Wars got slammed for having cardboard characters.

Blade Runner got slammed for being an empty exercise in art direction.

The Terminator and Aliens both got slammed for being overly derivative.

LOTR got slammed for being "too long."

Avatar, it seems, is being slammed for all of the above. It'll be interesting to see what effect these perceived flaws have on the film's long term appeal.

I think of a lot of folks looking at those titles.
Rod Serling, Pierre Boulle, Joseph Campbell, Arthur C Clarke
Harlan Ellison, Phillip K Dick, Tolkien, Giger, Dan O'Bannon.

Tracking back to some of the source materials and inspirations may partially explain why those kind of films rose above the initial critical comments by some. They had good foundations, often quite original.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

well I'll weigh in with my thoughts on this.

Saw avatar tonight and went in with a bit of a 'meh' mindset. I've guessed the general storyline from the trailer and snippets that I'd heard.

it's dances with wolves, its the age old western, hired gun comes in , hired gun goes native to help them against the evil settlers/corporation etc.

and yeah, the story isn't anymore than that. there's a few clunky bits of dialogue and the cast are okay.

Signourney weaver and Giovanni Ribisi don't get much to do. I did like Stephen Lang as the bad guy. Love his slow drawl accent and he's got the right hint of menace within restraint to make you love/loath him. He's not there to understand the native, he's there to do his job and he'll do it however he can.

Sam worthington, well he's a piece of wood as a human, and good as a na'vi. Could we h ave the Na'vi avatar play his part in the clash of the titans please? I'm sure it'll be more expressive.

Score - James Horner yet again produces a lazy score which as always has a few echoes of past work in there. The score works within the context of the movie but there is nothing there that stands out, and nothing I would want to listen to just on my hi-fi. I know Horner did Aliens and Titanic for Cameron so there is a certain loyalty there in Cameron picking him again but I can't recall a recent Horner score that is near the quality of his work on Wrath of Khan.

where avatar really shines is the technical work. The CG for me was very good, and cameron has used his experience using 3D on Ghosts of the Abyss to give us a nice 3D experience with plenty of stuff coming at the audience to make the 3D worthwhile.

I see Avatar sweeping the board on the technical stuff at the oscars but it won't get best film, it won't get any acting or directing awards.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

Lancer, Weaver's part is actually a lot bigger than I was expecting! Ribisi is basically playing Carter J. Burke, but it's a proportionately smaller role versus that part in Aliens. After pulling the trigger, he almost vanishes and it's all up to Lang to shoulder the evil. Which he does do brilliantly.

Agree fully regarding the score. Some generic world music and a few toots and whistles. It's pretty enough but bland!

Solo - if you think you can enjoy a remake of DwW then perhaps this'll work for you. It's not lacking in dumb and cheesy moments, though, especially the War on Terror critique element.
 
Re: Avatar reviews

For all the spectacle, scope, SPFX†, SFX, and stereoscopic wizardry, it's missing one vital element: a story... in particular, interesting characters.

For a three-dimensional movie, the characters are awfully two-dimensional.

I just wish more blue pixies had died.

†Can we still call them that?
 
Re: Avatar reviews

It took Obi-Wan, like, 30 seconds to explain the Force, right? And everyone got it. But it took those blue pixies almost three hours to explain their ridiculous ecology. And I still don't care. :lol

Agree fully regarding the score. Some generic world music and a few toots and whistles. It's pretty enough but bland!

Horner just ripped off Aliens and Titanic. For the parts when there was actually a score, anyway.
 
Back
Top