Avatar reviews - Attention : spoilers

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Re: Avatar reviews

Man, I hear you. And I used to look up reviews of a movie AFTER I'd seen it, if I was realllllly into it, just to learn more or see what I could find...and it was always such a downer, things getting picked to death. I remember a time when I genuinely LIKED "AotC." Before the Internet told me I shouldn't.

Don't be a sheep, man. I still love the prequels as much as I love the OT. Bother are flawed bits of bad acting with a decent story tossed in.

 

[Nwerke]

Re: Avatar reviews

The conceit that makes the story possible
(that the blue natives were physically and spiritually connected to their planet and environment) isn't a real thing.
I had to suspend my real-life and religious beliefs to buy into Avatar's story.
Mike

Mike, did you understand that Eywa wasn't literally a goddess? She was derived from the Gaia concept, but in this case a planetary network of information-processing tree root systems. Like a giant botanical neural network. She can cause the animals to act in certain ways - a directed ecosystem, if you like. But not an actual goddess.

It's probably not impossible, it's just very unlikely to evolve by itself.

 

[CTF]

Re: Avatar reviews

It doesn't have to be new and unexpected.

No, of course it doesn't! Nobody is saying that. I don't expect -- or want, for that matter -- silly twists, a la M. Night. But what I do want -- but don't expect anymore, sadly -- is a well told story with characters that are engaging. When you do get those elements, well, that movie will keep on giving... no matter how many times you watch it! As I said, District 9 accomplished that. Avatar did not.

The second time you watch it you know whats going to happen. Doesn't stop any of you from having watched a few movies more than a few times over has it?

Now, c'mon. There's no need to be silly.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Re: Avatar reviews

I have to agree with CTF here. Avatar was a decent movie. It really was. Probably one I will add to the DVD collection, BUT(Behold, the Underlying Truth) District 9 was a FAR better movie. The Wikus character sucked me right in. He was every cubicle pencil pushing shlub out there. Hell, I KNOW guys like Wikus.

 

[Nwerke]

Re: Avatar reviews

Yup. The only reason I'd say Avatar is more diverting is that it's so much longer and bigger. Hmm, sounds a bit dodgy put like that!

District 9 is a far more inventive, clever film with equally clear and watchable action sequences - just fewer of them, and smaller-scale.

And *I* am a guy like Wikus...

 

[Nwerke]

Re: Avatar reviews

Did anyone else have a problem with the 3D in their theatre? I saw it in IMAX 3D in the King of Prussia PA theatre last night. In the "still" shots (like the video recordings), low image-density shots and wide panorama shots all worked beautifully but a lot of the fast paced, high-density and multi-depth shots had horrible ghosting on the 3D. Anything that wasn't the focus of the shot was doubled,

...

I want to see it in non-IMAX 3D now to see if it was just the screen.

Yeah, do that. There's a problem with the IMAX 3D format. From IMDB, via/courtesy of CHUD user Hadjimurad:

IMAX 3D (film projected) - 70mm image projected on an approx SEVEN STORY screen. Picture is ENORMOUS and VERY BRIGHT, the sound is nothing short of FANTASTIC in my experience. As for the 3D - the theater uses a 2-projector, polarization system which involves lightly tinted glasses. PROS: Mind-rapingly enormous screen, great sound, it's like a freakin' sports event. CONS: tinted glasses leads to loss of brightness, audiences have reported lots of 3D artifacts such as "ghosting" and "stuttering". Glasses are recycled and are reported to be uncomfortable and poorly cared for in some centers.

 

[The Stig]

Re: Avatar reviews

D9 > Avatar
No doubt.

 

[barbatus]

Re: Avatar reviews

quote:
Originally posted by birdie
-stephen lang is the most fully realised & photo-real all cgi character yet created.

:thumbsup

he was awesome, huh? A living and breathing cartoon! :lol

Yeah, if only Cameron would have handled the characters like super genius Neill Blomkamp did in the movie of all movies, District 9. Wouldn't the Quaritch character have been so much deeper if he laughed like a maniac while knocking Na'vis around saying "I love killing Na'vis and the best part is, I even get paid for it!"? I mean since it worked so well for the bad guy in District 9...

I would have liked District 9 so much better if it wasn't for the über cartoony characters. If it worked for you, fine, it simply escapes me why District 9 seems to be the new benchmark for a lot of guys that dedicate an awful lot of time to pull apart everything that comes to the big screen.

It's amazing how the same things that are being critized on AVATAR can also be applied to District 9: Shallow and über cartoony characters, well known story arcs and motives, heavy handed message, tons of clichés, foreseeable plot, plot holes etc. While AVATAR surely isn't for everyone it will remain a mystery to me why people don't judge District 9, supposedly the second coming of cinema, by the same standards. Maybe it's simply more fun to bash big budget productions. Let me try: "Screw District 9, Moon had only a sixth of that budget and is a far superior movie."

 

[CTF]

Re: Avatar reviews

It's amazing how the same things that are being critized on AVATAR can also be applied to District 9: Shallow and über cartoony characters, well known story arcs and motives, heavy handed message, tons of clichés, foreseeable plot, plot holes etc.

"Great movies are rarely perfect movies." - Pauline Kael

 

[CTF]

Re: Avatar reviews

This is the future of cinema? If so, can someone sell me a flux capacitor so I can get the **** out of here!?

:lol

 

[Nwerke]

Re: Avatar reviews

Okay okay! We've established it's not the second coming!

But it tried so hard to knock my socks off. Ineptly at times, sure, but in the same kinda loveable way that a big boofy dog tries to amuse you. I can't help going 'awwww' a little.

 

[rad1701]

Re: Avatar reviews

I try hard not to compare things. I like apples and oranges - both. But they are not the same thing. I enjoyed "Avatar" quite a bit. I also enjoyed "District 9" too. Both films borrow plot elements from a variety of sources. But, again for me both were well worth seeing - especially on the big screen. I thought "Avatar" had a lot of heart and was gorgeous to look at. I was very satisfied with the film.

 

[rmschneider104]

Re: Avatar reviews

Amazing visuals. Thought it looked great in 3D. Decent story.

 

[SurferGeek]

Re: Avatar reviews

Here's a test:

Watch D9 and Avatar but before the movie starts... drink a 32 oz soda. See which movie you are willing (or able) to get up for a bathroom break.

I thought my bladder was going to pop after watching Avatar. :lol

 

[burningman]

Re: Avatar reviews

The film may be great. And it'll likely be a visual landmark in cinematic techniques. The only thing that bugs me is where people confuse one for the other. As if a masterpiece of cinematic technique also equals a good and engaging story. Ideally, though, it'll be both. But I'm not 100% sure on that, if only because the ONLY thing people seem to talk about is the ZOMG!! GRAPHICS!!! quality of the film. I hear comparatively little about the plot, characterization, etc., outside of summarizing stuff I already know (IE: "Avatar is a movie about humans who pose as alien Na'Vi using what are called 'avatars.' AND THE GRAPHICS ARE AMAZING!!!!11!!")

This sums up exactly how i feel about this one. This has nothing new story wise to bring to the table. And that for me would be the engaging part. I bet alot of people will be pretty annoyed when it doesn't look quite so nice on thier home tv when the dvd comes out.
As for the technology and the movie being a ground breaker. I doubt it highly. Sure the CGI looks great..i can't argue that..but in the end, I couldn't give a rats behind how slick the graphics are. This movie is basically a 2+ hour long tech demo. If it has engaging story and engaging charaters then yes it would be more that a tech demo but it doesn't.

Heck I'm more stoked about Tron Legacy than this film and I know Tron will have about 5 people who liked it and will probably fade into obscurity a week after it's out.

Oh and that Chud review was great!

 

[DARKSIDE72]

Re: Avatar reviews

We went to the 3D late show last night. I knew roughly what I was going to see, my wife did not aside from the trailer. She's a moderate sci-fi fan, she enjoys specifics of the genre. At the end she turned to me with tears in her eyes and said "THAT was ****ing awesome!". Which was exactly what I was thinking.

Jim Cameron knocked this one out of the park, I knew he would. An instant classic for me. A simple story, great acting, and visually jaw dropping as in stunning. I don't have anything to compare it to. There is nothing to compare it to. I found the 3D immersive, beautiful, and not distracting at all. I'm looking forward to seeing this again. thumbsup

The comparisons I'm reading here are so ludicrously off base and amusing.


Naysayers can bury their heads in the mud and pine and **** away for all I care. What a miserable lot... :wacko District 9... (a fun wee film) but are you serious! :lol Yes of course you are.

 

[saxe coburg]

Re: Avatar reviews

Avatar cost $400 million (an OK movie)
District 9 cost $30 million (a great movie)
Moon $5 million (an amazing movie)

For me, just because a movie is bigger, longer, more expensive does not make it a better movie. In this situation (at least for me)… less is more. We as a culture need to focus on better writing, better character development and less big flashy lights with over the top CGI. Avatar was an all right flick, it really was but I really don’t think it was great or amazing by any means.

 

[The Stig]

Re: Avatar reviews

This is the future of cinema? If so, can someone sell me a flux capacitor so I can get the **** out of here!?

:lol

I think the future of cinema is more along the lines of films like Moon and District 9. When the final profit margins come out on these films I think Avatar will be well short of its goal.

 

[nightrider]

Re: Avatar reviews

We went to the 3D late show last night. I knew roughly what I was going to see, my wife did not aside from the trailer. She's a moderate sci-fi fan, she enjoys specifics of the genre. At the end she turned to me with tears in her eyes and said "THAT was ****ing awesome!". Which was exactly what I was thinking.

Jim Cameron knocked this one out of the park, I knew he would. An instant classic for me. A simple story, great acting, and visually jaw dropping as in stunning. I don't have anything to compare it to. There is nothing to compare it to. I found the 3D immersive, beautiful, and not distracting at all. I'm looking forward to seeing this again. thumbsup

The comparisons I'm reading here are so ludicrously off base and amusing.


Naysayers can bury their heads in the mud and pine and **** away for all I care. What a miserable lot... :wacko District 9... (a fun wee film) but are you serious! :lol Yes of course you are.

This one wins post of the month for me.:thumbsup

 

[CessnaDriver]

Re: Avatar reviews

Avatar cost $400 million (an OK movie)
District 9 cost $30 million (a great movie)
Moon $5 million (an amazing movie)

For me, just because a movie is bigger, longer, more expensive does not make it a better movie. In this situation (at least for me)… less is more. We as a culture need to focus on better writing, better character development and less big flashy lights with over the top CGI. Avatar was an all right flick, it really was but I really don’t think it was great or amazing by any means.

Tons of CGI effects in a film is becoming a detriment for me and I actually am starting to view it as a negative now.

And this is from someone who bought Cinefex magazine for many years back in the day. A fan of movie "magic".

FX seem bloated and over indulged in now in many films.

Stories and characters secondary to the fireworks. More intense focus on creating the FX and upping it a notch, rather then intense focus on the characters and story. The trailers for many of these films start to look all the same after a while.


There is something about being restrained by what is physically possible to do that forces creativity and discovery.


Imagine if ALIEN were made today and packed full of CGI that audiences have come to expect now.

I would bet the film would be unrecognizable and forgotten by the next weekend when the next FX movie came out.

They couldnt create whole 'verses with a mouse click.
Sometimes thye had to give you slivers and glimpses to imply them.
Terminator, felt far more epic then it was because of those short glimpses of the future war for instance.


I know that films even before CGI relied on FX too much sometimes to distract, but somewhere we crossed a bridge on the matter.