Avatar (the film, not the TV show)

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bane

New Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
Feel free to contradict me if you disagree with me about this...but Avatar in 3D is possibly the best film I've seen this DECADE, nevermind this year. Its certainly the most amazing I've seen since the last Lord of the Rings film. But that's just my own opinion :lol:
 
Aah, I really want to see that film. My big brother should be taking me out to see it during the Christmas week, so that'll be exciting. It does look pretty epic.
 
I'm seeing it next week. The critics weren't thrilled with the story, but then again from what I read I don't think they even paid attention.
 
The film was well-constructed and the camera work was cleverly done. However, the story line itself could have used a little refining, not much as it was quite good, but there are always things that could have had slightly more attention paid to it.
The sound, in general, was well used and supported the storyline very well throughout the movie. The main thing is the length, which at times, can be annoying to some people, like me for example, who can't sit still for 3 hours.

All in all it was quite a good movie.
 
Lolx.. I just finished the movie just now.. Yeah, it's real nice..
 
Most films I'd say go watch the 3D option if you want, Avatar I'd say you HAVE to see in 3D, it wipes the floor with every other film that's used the third dimension so far. Again, its just my opinion though haha
 
Ebert gave it four stars, and it may in fact have converted him into a furry. I'm not even joking. Watch your click there, it's got some spoilers about. And this is the part that most concerns me.

Like "Star Wars" and "LOTR," "Avatar" employs a new generation of special effects. Cameron said it would, and many doubted him. It does. Pandora is bevy largely CGI. The Na'vi are embodied through motion capture techniques, convincingly. They look like specific, persuasive individuals, yet sidestep the eerie Uncanny Valley effect. And Cameron and his artists succeed at the difficult challenge of making Neytiri a blue-skinned giantess with golden eyes and a long, supple tail, and yet--I'll be damned. Sexy.

Really though, when the common man starts being converted, you know things are bad.
 
I think I'll see it tomorrow if all goes well. Not sure whether the theatre supports the 3D though... hopefully it does
 
The reviews all say the same thing, mediocrity coated in amazing CG.

I don't like rampant CG like this. You can't replace a human being. I realize most actors today are abysmal and some even disgracefully awful (the kid from Juno, namely), but a computer can't replace things like Vincent Price and Clint Eastwood.
 
It was ok, but definately not the greatest movie of the year. It was over hyped like the Dark Knight, but unlike this movie the Dark Knight actually rocked.
I expected better from James Cameron.
 
The movie definitely demonstrated the vast potential of CG if a studio is willing to put the time and money into it, whether you like CG or hate it.

The reasons I thought the film was great:

  • The CG was amazing... this is the one thing every review had in common, so I won't elaborate on it.
  • It was a two-and-a-half hour long movie, and I think it's a great thing when a movie this long, in the midst of movies that are only about 90 minutes long on average, can not only keep my interest, but keep me asking for more.
  • Sure it was heavy on the CG, but James Cameron managed to create a whole new world with Pandora, which couldn't have been easy. Yeah, there were a lot of parallels and similarities to Earth, but I can't really say that there's one distinguished aspect of this new world that I've seen before.
  • Not to mention, this year wasn't exactly the greatest as far as movies go. Transformers 2 was horrible, Watchmen and Terminator Salvation were letdowns, and the only movies we were left with were Star Trek, Zombieland, and Up.
  • I think the biggest fault in this movie, while the story wasn't exactly groundbreaking, was that it appealed to such a narrow audience, even though box office evidence would show that even that isn't proving to be too much of an issue.

It might've been a bit overhyped, but it's James Freaking Cameron... the main reason everyone was so disappointed is because he's practically the best there is. People have to understand that Cameron made this movie because he wanted this movie to be made, which is the way movies should be done. He pursued the story that he wrote over ten years ago, and I don't think it was any movie to just brush off.

However, now that Avatar's been released, I can't wait for Battle Angel.
 
*shrugs* It was pretty, I'll give it that. The begining bored me, and I thought the moral was too hard-handed. Nothing really surpised me, though.

Although, that bisness-dude really pissed me off.

And I doubt anyone, even soilders, are that okay with killing off an entire sapient race.
 
Well.. Everyone will do anything for greed.. DX Sadly, I heard quite number slept in the cinema..
 
I find it interesting the praise this film gets for "creating a world", as if it's something new.

Video games have been doing this for two decades or so now. Wait, damn, I forgot, video games are not an acceptable artistic medium... oops.
 
Half the criticism seems to be it wasn't deep and subtle enough.

Uh...its an action movie, in CGI, by the guy who made Terminator.

What exactly were you expecting?!

And yes, its been done plenty of times by videogames, but I've never felt as immersed in a videogame world as I did in Avatar's. I respect everyone's right to an opinion though, so I'm not about to slag people off for disagreeing with me.

Someone else commented that no soldier would be that willing to wipe out a sentient species...the US armies dealings with the Native Americans anyone? The German soldiers in the concentration camps? The Conquistadors in Latin America? I could go on with a list of armies who've been willing to do it in real life. It may be an uncomfortable thought, but I can entirely believe a native species that was "in the way" would be dealt with like that. Not that I agree with it.
 
fate said:
I find it interesting the praise this film gets for "creating a world", as if it's something new.

Video games have been doing this for two decades or so now. Wait, damn, I forgot, video games are not an acceptable artistic medium... oops.
Click to expand...

No one's saying it's new, nor are they saying that video games aren't an acceptable artistic medium. But, believe it or not, there's a huge difference between movies and video games. It's a lot easier to engross an audience when they're making a significant effect on the storyline, as with a video game, than it is with a movie.

Not only that, but I don't really think that any video game out there can compare to the visuals of avatar, and part of creating a new world is probably making it look nice.

It's not very common to "create a new world" in movies, especially now, which is why much of the praise regarded doing so. If you want to mesh all of the different forms of entertainment into one big category, than your argument is incredibly weak.
 
This is now my all-time favorite movie and I am honest in that.

Just so we can get it out of the way, the visuals were superb. Period.

The acting was very good. Cameron got the best that he could and they didn't disappoint.

Now the story is the key factor of a movie. Sure you can have awesome graphics and stuff, but unless you are Transformers, you need a story to back it up. Avatar's story was the complex mess that Dark Knight was (even though I loved DK). It was simple, and it was based off of historic events. It also had an environmental message that wasn't shoved down our throats. You actually wanted to eat that message up. The movie really makes you fall in love with the na'vi and their way of life and you go "wow, this is an awesome jungle. all glowy and stuff." and then the bastard humans come and destroy it. Mercilessly. While drinking coffee. In that instant it takes
to destroy the Home Tree
, you really begin to hate the humans in charge.

It's a very precise blend of visuals and story that make this movie a cinematic masterpiece. It takes a lot to get me to wish that that I could jump into the story and punch someone because it takes a lot to make you forget that this is just a movie.
Avatar had me doing it a lot. And the 3D helped some.

I really hope they don't mess up this movie when they release it on DVD. It's so awesome in 3D.
 
Does everyone seriously like this piece of trash? SRSLY?

I know it's an action movie but the script is beyond uninspired. I mean, it's Dance with Wolves but with blue things. And without the likeable characters.

Everything to the romance was so expected you don't ever care. The blue girl comes on and you just start chewing your nails or count the seconds pass on your watch, hoping something interesting will happen afterwards (can't recall anything ever happening though).

It's boring. The movie is over 2½ hours long, yet there's only 1 real action scene, somewhere in the last half. Before then it's all just Jake running around, with absolutely no conflict and just pointless build-up. There's no even faux tension ever occurring for the first hour, given he's in an Avatar so he can't really die.

Cameron tried to make every so incredible looking that the visuals actually become dull by the end. Take bio-luminescence. Everything is bio-luminescent, the plants, the animals, the Na'Vi, the air. So when you see the Memory Tree or whatever, you're told it's sacred and extremely important, but when it's just as alien as a piece of fungus, it doesn't inspire any sort of impact on you.

The film was busy (visually-wise). This is both a pro and a con. The CGI makes many scenes realistic. The herd movement in creature for example. However since they're all perfectly rendered and shot there's a thousand individual points, each with impossibly perfect detailing, to focus on. This means your eyes will get irritated. Very, very quickly.

They're dozens of moments where the camera would focus on a single object (birdthing, dropship, etc) to show off "AMAZING REAL 3D™ TECHNOLOGY!" These focus shots are pointless and get jarring. Like, once or twice near the beginning would be fine okay, but they don't ever stop. It's like they're padding it out or something? Not to mention the whole 3D effect kind of becomes unnoticeable at times. I took my glasses off more then once to see if there was any difference.

Na'Vi Sigourney Weaver was so hideous I almost left 20 minutes in.

In conclusion, I'm not that disappointed. I didn't really know about this film until a fews days before release, so I thought from the trailers this would be some mindless action movie. Instead I got The Last Samurai plus Ferngully with nothing happening most of the time.
I didn't expect a good film, just a time-waster, and I got one. I just can't see how all of you our loving it so badly.
 
Oh, Spool, I hated too. It was boring and cliché. Nothing surprised me at all.

It was pretty and the acting was good. That's all I can give it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom