|
IMDb James Cameron has, without a doubt, brought back the spectacle to cinema with an overwhelming bang. The last several years of apparent "blockbusters" pale in comparison to the undertaking of what has been in the works under Cameron's helm for well over a decade. Avatar is strong and enticing in it's relatively well known plot structure, taking what we know and are familiar with, but amping it up to an entirely new level of visceral filmmaking. There were honest moments while screening this (on a 70' screen) where I lost myself in the world of Pandora. I can't remember the last film to ever have done this, as the complex nature of everything being shown in frame was utterly breathtaking. Suspension of disbelief was truly at work here, a great accomplishment from Cameron and the wizards working from WETA Digital, as the alien world felt very real and as such, was beautiful to have experienced. From the flora and fauna, floating mountains, otherworldly creatures, to specs of dirt and debris, imperfections of eroded terrain, and the overwhelming beauty of bioluminescence that set the alien world aglow at night, Pandora existed to me, but unfortunately for only a mere three hours. I didn't want to leave. I also became quite enticed with Pandora's indigenous sentient race. Note, this is coming from someone who was initially impartial to the alien design, but after seeing subsequent clips, and now post screening, I can easily say the Na'vi are the most exquisite creatures ever to have been put on film. They were elegant, majestic, and simply beautiful. Their immense size, in comparison to us humans, demanded unconditional respect on screen as well. Despite their large composition, they moved with an unrivaled poise and grace, and though while alien, their beauty can be matched with animals from our own nature here on Earth, a thought of which most skeptics and doubters of this film fail to realize. That initial backlash towards the Na'vi appearance, or how the world of Pandora was depicted simply goes to show how plagued parts of human society are with subtle notions of xenophobia and racism. Though I do suppose that thought ties in well for the film's story, seeing as the plot structure is partly developed around a disregard and lack of respect for an alien culture. Now that I mention that, one interesting bit brought up about the Na'vi with a friend of mine post viewing was how they, and essentially everything Pandoran, are culturally structured symbiotically. The pseudo-science behind that form of alien co-evolution with everything being easily connected via a world neural network mirrors that of our own human culture and how it's evolving today. Though, as opposed to the Na'vi biologically evolving, we're doing so technologically via the internet, social networks, cellphones, etc. You could derive from that the Na'vi are a metaphorical representation of the perfect social structure humans are capable of achieving with our environment and ourselves. Would seem that the people who unknowingly disregard the Na'vi for whatever reasons are subject to be phased out by such evolution due to their discrimination. Now as mentioned, the plot skeleton of Avatar is very well known, and most avid film snobbery was so eager to point that out. Yes, it's been done before, and you can very well see parallels to the noble savage motif, what with the Na'vi aliens having characteristics of the otherworldly indian tribes depicted from such stories as Pocahontas, Last of the Mohicans, and the much compared Dances With Wolves. You could go even further and see such plot similarities in films like The Last Samurai, Gladiator, or even Braveheart. I could go on, only to show you that this plot archetype, when done right, makes for brilliant storytelling. The difference here is the amplified nature of Avatar's story makes for an overtly exhilarating and sense distorting ride that takes this well known plot and crafts it into something else entirely brilliant. This is what Cameron does best, even if some of the characters present seem like typical cardboard cutouts. That popular gripe does not take anything away from the cinematic experience, as with the story comes great direction on Cameron's part. While the message of this film was very, very ham-handed in its delivery, essentially being an allusion to the war in Iraq, taking cues from Vietnam and the tragedy of 9/11, it works well in this storytelling art form, as it ties into memory, further embellishing the already visceral action. When the Na'vi hometree was being bombarded by the RDA military security, it was a heartbreaking sequence that hit memory tones of footage I saw when the World Trade Center went down, scattering New Yorkers about in disarray with billowing smoke and fire in the background. Cameron hits those emotional chords with a precision that most blockbuster directors will never achieve, and that makes him a great storyteller. Even after 10 years, he's still got the gift of making great entertainment. In summary, I enjoyed this movie as much as I possibly could. Cameron delivered, and I left the cinema completely satisfied. He can still film an action sequence like no other director I know, that's for drat certain. The stereoscopic 3D was completely mesmerizing to me (I've never seen a 3D film, so note that) and had me completely engulfed with the truly mind-blowing depth of field simulation. The plot pacing is perfect, as there were no lulls whatsoever with its three hour running time blowing by, and shot composition was gorgeous. Hope it gets a cinematography nod somewhere. Also the CG is most definitely photorealistic, and leaps beyond anything I've seen from the last three or four years. I also want to note the score, as I purposely kept myself from listening to any leaked tracks, which I thought was loving brilliant and played off each scene and sequence perfectly, riling up my emotions unknowingly. The only real gripe I have with this film is that, even in the span of almost three hours, development for some key characters was a tad lacking. Other than that, Cameron made every minute count. 5/5 teagone fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Dec 18, 2009 |
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Avatar starts out with a brief narration by Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic ex-Marine who has come to take his brother’s place on Pandora as part of an industrial operation. Humans have come to Pandora after a substance called “unobtanium” (an old sci-fi nickname for a non-existent substance), while the native Na’vi don’t want humans spoiling their world. From there, Avatar takes a flying leap (sometimes literally) into a jungle world filled with “noble savages”, terrifying creatures, amazing scenery, and often, more spectacle and effects than depth of plot. Despite this, Avatar really is a must see for the sheer adventure of it. Avatar, at its core, is a blend of the ancient “noble savage” story and a man on an amazing adventure. Like any good adventure movie, the special effects are everywhere and astounding. For the first time in a while, I was truly blown away by the effects. The machinery seems like it’s really in use, the natives really seem…well, native, the creatures seem ready to attack, and even the heads in a meeting seem like you have to peer over them to see the presentation up front. I can remember sitting there with my mouth hanging open in awe at what I was seeing on screen in several parts. One of the most amazing sequences comes in a night shot, where…well, I won’t spoil it. But it’s fantastic. One nice touch, for anyone who might be debating the violence is they did go out of their way to keep that to a pg minimum. They would show it juuuust enough to give you the idea of what was about to happen, and then pan away really fast before showing it. Despite this, Avatar is still just an adventure story at its heart. It often sacrifices depth of plot and chances to really explore ideas in favor of the next amazing creature, or the next amazing jungle sequence. However, that didn’t matter to me after a while. I had settled in after about twenty minutes for another solid Cameron adventure and this delivered again and again. Yes, a more detailed plot would have been nice, but then it wouldn’t have been a James Cameron movie. He makes wonderful adventure stories heavy on effects and spectacle, but light on plot. This is no exception and despite that it’s great. Ultimately, it all comes back to what some of the earliest reviews were screaming about Avatar. “Revolutionary!” It might well be, but it will be subtle, it will be weak, and it will be gradual, like all of Cameron’s other movies. Few other directors will ever have the time or the money to make such a movie. I would call it another landmark, where James Cameron has taken an old familiar story and proven his ability to make an involving, inspiring and deeply imaginative movie. All in all, 4/5. The story may be weak, but the effects are spectacular and make up for it. Go see it in theaters in 3D for the sheer adventure of it. Avatar simply won’t be the same on anything less. However, pick your bathroom spots well, or go in shifts before the third act due to its 2 hour and 46 minute runtime. Edit: Cleaned up the end, spelled "Na'vi" correctly. TheBoyBlunder fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Dec 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 22:04
|
|
|
Wanted to get some sleep before expounding on this so I'm a bit late but here's what it comes down to. This movie is easily the most beautiful and thrilling escapist experience I've ever had at the theater. It is my generation's 'A New Hope'. If you have even a casual interest in the craft of movie making, you will agree that this this film is a masterpiece. If you come out of the theater and the only thing you have to say is, "All spectacle, poo poo story!" you were determined to hate this long before you ponied up to the box office. Period. The 3D. Oh my god the 3D. It's not revolutionary in the sense that the effect itself is somehow much improved over techniques that have been used before, but Cameron, I feel, is the first person to use it at this level of sophistication. It's not a gimmick. This IS a 3D experience. If you see this in 2D, you haven't seen the movie. "So it relies on the 3D gimmick to make it watchable? That's a cop out!" Wrong. You might as well say, "A film shouldn't need sound effects and dialog and music to be good. If it relies on those things, it's bullshit!" Cameron could not and would not have made this movie without the 3D technology. He has proved to me that 3D is here to stay, just as the innovations of an audio track, color, and surround sound were once brushed off as fads but are now ubiquitous to most every film today. The CGI. Best ever put to film. All the numerous effects studios that contributed to this are going to be swimming in awards for their work. The level of detail in every single shot is so mind blowing, I'm still stunned over what an achievement it was. I was pretty much thinking, "Holy poo poo, HOLY poo poo!" throughout the film. It's not just a technical achievement. The artists and designers who worked on this are surly some of the best in the world and deserve huge respect for their mastery of craft and creativity. Story and script? Tight, effective, believable, better than Terminator 2 by a mile. This isn't Shakespeare, it's a drat Cameron movie so you should know he's ALL about presentation. It works. A lot of the awkward sounding lines from Neytiri in the trailers made much more sense in the context of the film when I realized she was saying things like, "This is sad. Sad only," "You have a strong heart," and "Pure spirits," because she only has a rudimentary knowledge of English and those were just the most serviceable equivalences she could think of for the Na'vi's very different language and culture. Anyone who's learned another language can tell you that in many cases there simply doesn't exist a perfect translation that conveys the deeper meaning of certain concepts. I liked the example of, "I see you" which goes far beyond surface value for the Na'vi. Anyway, the characters are archetypal but believable. You root for Jake and feel his struggle. I remember gritting my teeth a lot in the battle sequence when the two sides clashed because I was drawn into the native's cause and felt so pumped up to kick invading human rear end. There were cheers in the theater when Tsu'Tey finally went toe-to-toe with the marines. There's so much more to touch on, but much has been said already. I know I'm going to be watching the gently caress out of all the behind the scenes stuff on the Blu-Ray when it comes out. I hope a proper 3D home version gets released (instead of the anaglyph crap we're stuck with at the moment). I could see Cameron pushing for this especially with 3D TVs finally breaking into the market. Oe-ri ta ngeyä fahew akewong ontu teya längu 5.5/5 Pibborando San fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Dec 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 22:46
|
|
|
Adding another unoriginal voice to the chorus - Avatar exceeds as a technical exercise, but handicaps itself with an extremely generic plot. Really, I sat mouth agape during much of the movie. The performances on display in the CG are amazing, truly an evolution of Gollum. The Na'Vi faces (specifically the mouths and eyes) are awe-inspiring. In general, the effects are so incredible and so plentiful as to take a giant dump on the SW prequels (and most other modern blockbusters). I doubt that many other projects will exploit 3D and CG the way this one did, at this level of detail. The design is also mostly incredible. Most organic and mechanical aspects are amazing, save for the Na'Vi themselves. Best geek porn of the show has to be the super gunship, which is basically the final evolution of the dropship from Aliens. I also loved the animals on display and found them quite funny sometimes. Alas, we get thoroughly tired plotting, pan flutes in excess, and a whole race of gyrating voodoo aliens. The end song is also straight-up Disney. As a technical feat, 6/5. As a story, the scientific aspects are fantastic, but the dog-tired arc of Jake and Neytiri bored me to death. 3/5 Probably the best non-Anime Anime I've ever seen, with all the trappings of that genre. Maybe 4/5 as a whole? the_psychologist fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Dec 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 10:45
|
|
|
This isn't the best movie of the year, and it has numerous aspects that people who do not want to like it will claim acted in its detriment, but its use of scale and scope create a larger than life cinematic experience that most people will be impressed by. It's a familiar story but is unique in it's own way. It reads a lot like the revisionist history of the native Americans. The use of archetypes like 'horse' and 'bird-thing' are arguably conflicting with the alien setting, but in a sense make for one of the only grounding 'norms' that the world of Pandora uses, with numerous departures of convention. This movie is BIG. The one phrase i can safely repeat is that "it will change the way you think about film." The scale, the size, the scope. It's the x factor, and despite some notable shortcomings The dialogue was approaching bad, if not safely unremarkable. There were a few things at the end that greatly bothered me: A) THe loving pilot in War paint, B) the loving helicopter thing painted in war paint, C) the mech battle at the end that was completely un-inventive - they could have easily had the alien panther-thing and the mech-colonel battle for a lot longer than one simple move and kill. D) The use of guns by the avatars at the end. This last one, the guns, was particularly troublesome because the entire premise was based on the way of life being superior to what he had known before. They could have had some sweet shot's of Jake hurling spears or firing off arrows into people, but no, they kept him with a machine gun. Fantastic, not. Remove these things, and improve the dialogue, and it is easily the best sci-fi film of the last decade, including district 9, which is the closest thing to an original sci-fi movie i can relate it to. If possible, see it on an IMAX without the 3D instead of the 3D glasses. It has gotten alot better, beyond the simple gimmick, but its still an imperfect technology and it by all accounts still hurts the eyes after 20 minutes. I intend to go to see this in an imax non-3D viewing as soon as i can find one, i think the experience will be a lot more enjoyable. It is an excellent film. It's a must see for everyone. Rating: 4.5/5 ilshur fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Dec 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 10:46
|
|
|
Avatar I really enjoyed this movie, but I think it will suffer in the long run from a recycled plot line, generic and predictable love story, unremarkable dialogue, and cliched characters. You will really start groaning when the security director starts giving his speech complete with references to the modern day war on terror and pre-emptive strikes, following on the heels of phrases referencing a "shock and awe" campaign... There's certainly no lack of the movie beating you across the face with a verbal brick to make sure you REALLY understand what's going on. Cameron had a blank check to create the Avatar world but instead of giving us something unique and original, he provides us the most basic black and white concept in terms of morality and conflict that can be presented. It was definitely a fun ride, but when you strip away the presentation and scale of the setting, we're not left with much else but a "remake of FernGully" as stated by a recent critical review. If I could give half scores, I would say 3.5/5, but the limitations of the forum will make it a 3/5. The Shep fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Dec 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 22:09
|
|
|
Just got back from this tonight. The cinematic experience is obviously maxed out from awesomeness but elements of the movie can easily detract from a perfect rating. I was very underwhelmed by the soundtrack. The R&B number that rolled at the credits was a little too Disney for my tastes. Sound and visual effects were definitely superb though. There was just something very disenchanting about the music selection. The ending monologue was also a bit underwhelming and I wish it would have gone away and left on a more awesome note. They teased us with a minimal details slighting of what appeared to be a dramatic backstory. Why this went neglected is beyond me. Dialogue hinted at the notion that a lot more juice existed in their cross-cultural relationship but it was generalized in a fashion that seemed to want us to "assume" everything was analogous to historical attempts at assimilation. This was slightly offensive given that the year for this movie is 2152 or something far in the future, and thus humanity has made no progress at all towards cultural compassion and would be as ruthless as New World settlers. The Jurassic GI Joe who we knew from the start would turn out to the indestructible foe, sure enough had a solo that included being the only survivor *SHOCKER* and jumping out of a flaming aircraft in a giant robot suit. The 8 year old inside of me jumped ten feet in the air but my brain still cringed a little bit. Honest to god the "love story" if you can even call it that was hardly noticeable, scratch the one creepy alien foreplay scen that thankfully lasted not long at all. It didn't completely cripple the movie, I think maybe because Cameron learned his lesson with Titanic. Visually I still can't get over this movie. It is so good that it makes the movie worth seeing multiple times...on multiple substances. Since the rating system is based on 5, I'm giving it a perfect score anyway. Flaws aside, I liked it much more than other movies I've given 5s to. 5/5 Edit-One last peeve is when the giant beast rips off the robot suit's weaponry and geriatric Duke Nukem has the robot pull a knife...give me a break EllisD fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Dec 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 07:51
|
|
|
I have amblyopia, so I can't comment on how good the 3D effects in the movie were. Living as a minority in a world of stereo vision, I thought the scenery was awesome, and the new motion capture technology cool, however nothing uber-mind blowing. Bear in mind, this is coming from somebody with defective left eye For me it's the treatment of the fantasy world. Sure, it's cheesy, but it's presented so drat well. I really like how James Cameron can handle sometimes dumb plots and polish them to a reflective shine. His story can be about anything, no matter how corny, and his presentation all but forces you to take his material seriously. Same goes for this movie. I don't think it lived up to the hype, but not much does, and I want to see it again. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 04:28
|
|
|
Everything is beautiful and generally entertaining up until the 30 minute mark when gradually the novelty wears off and you're left with a very predictable and dull story. None of the cast excepting the colonel manages to bring in any interesting dynamics or even provide some solid performance/dialogue to prop up the long running time. Personally the most aggravating thing was that the Navi were far too close to being human to accept that this was an alien society. A conglomerate of African (the warrior/early rival, the woman shaman) and native American (clan chief, 'riders of the plain') culture along with the blue cat bodies made this seem like a high definition WoW-esque video game cutscene. Every time some unseen Navi made that typical native whoop-yell I cringed. Basically Avatar suffers from 'old legend' malaise which also applies to recent films by Eastwood, Spielberg & Lucas. It goes through all the motions to what would be a good film, that tugs none-too-subtly on the viewers heartstrings, and fires off a few throwback crowd pleasers (in this film all the references to Aliens via the marines, mechs, and lines like "Outstanding!"). Yet it lacks the charm, grittiness or raw atmosphere that made Cameron's and the others' films great back in their day. The conflict is far too Manichean and far too easily resolved. However it isn't completely terrible either (Lucas). Like I said for the first 30 minutes up until the actual Navi make an appearance the visuals are spellbinding and remained interesting enough so that I wasn't bored out of my skull during the many scenes of the happy blue couple malarking around Pandora. While the film is long, the plot was fairly tight and covered all the necessary bases; similarly while there were no stand out performances there weren't any particularly bad ones either. I've only seen Sam Worthington in this film and he was steadily bland. The much hyped technological advances are readily apparent in Avatar but I am much more looking forward to a film that couples them with a striking script too. The entire time I was emotionally detached, save for having a surge of adrenaline hoping that the colonel would make it out of the downed control ship. The structural integrity and visual aspects of Avatar ensure that this is not a SW prequel/Matrix sequel catastrophe; more like Indy 4. A damp squib. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 21:22
|
|
|
Great scenery. Awesome special effects. The most godawful plot you've probably been witness to in a long time. It's a movie for people easily captivated by pretty bright colors. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
Avatar is one of those movies I will forever remember watching in theaters. Probably not since Jurassic Park or Terminator 2 (two other technically advanced films for their time) have I really been completely awed at what I saw on screen. James Cameron is truly a master of his craft. Nearly every minute of the movie was engrossing, captivating and almost completely new to my eyes and sense. He is the true master of pace, visuals and story telling using the movie medium. Which leads us to the storyline itself. First off the characters, as usual to Cameron's movies, were the strongest part of the movie narrative with his trademark strong female charaters (there is not a woman in all his movies that can't handle themselves) and the unlikely and unwilling heroes that leads. While the story maybe something familiar and often cliched, it was at the least the best telling of the same story we may have heard before. At no point was it weak or sloppy or even slow. If this movie is a retelling of old stories as some have claimed then I don't mind at all, because no one has ever told it better than James Cameron has in Avatar. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
Screw the haters. People who argue that this movie is not cerebral enough, or borrows too heavily on previous movies should have known what to expect from Cameron's previous efforts. It's like complaining that a Bond movie is not cerebral enough. You didn't really expect Citizen Kane when you went in anyway, did ya? It is a step forward in 3D and CGI performance, that much is sure. This movie is no more plageristic than a majority of "blockbuster" movies. Is this movie the second coming of Christ? No. Did I have a really good time watching it? Yes. It really reminded me of what it felt like to be back in the 80's watching a summer hit movie. 4/5 Edit: Just wanted to add this comment. This movie in many ways epitomizes modern film making, which is to say the focus is completely on business, and art as a distant second. This is the type of thing that Cameron understands really well. But you all knew that when you entered the theatre anyway, so I stand by my rating, because whether or not this movie has a soul is irrelevant. I knew what I was getting into, and I was entertained. Yabanjin fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Jan 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2009 13:58
|
|
|
This is the first time I've seen a movie in 3d and I was blown away for the first 10 minutes or so. After that I kept raising my glasses to see because they totally dimmed out the screen for me. I can appreciate the movie for it's technical wizardry, but I don't know. Seen all that cool poo poo before in King Kong. It's great, but I'm not getting the whole "this will change the face of movies forever" thing. I think Lord of the Rings might have done that as far as fantasy epics go. Plot was sub par, but it did leave me with a tear in my eye. It was cheap, like a sucker punch to the bollards, but I did respond to it, while rolling my eyes at all the chanting under the magic tree stuff. Good movie, but not life changing. I'm probably getting old. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 00:48
|
|
|
I saw this movie in IMAX 3D and it's probably one of the best 3D movies ever made. The special effects were really nice and there was lots of action. I didn't really care for the plot though and this movie had too much tree hugging in it for me. It was still an entertaining movie nonetheless though. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
Most of the time I find CG in movies to be noticeably odd, either due to lighting or wonky animation. Many films have found ways to reduce its intrusion, but this film has managed to throw it up close and in your face, yet still have a texture of believable flesh and bones. That said, it still had its out of place moments, such as wide shots of characters traversing unstable ground, or reflections in human air masks. Regardless, a step up for movie magic. The plot was familiar but decent. Unfortunately the love story felt forced, and a handful of the action was unbelievable or far fetched. Enjoyable, but no masterpiece. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 03:52
|
|
|
Good: It's got a lot of pretty cg. Sigourny Weaver is a cool and somewhat complex character who is surrounded by a lot of awful characters. Bad: It's a horrible story for anyone familiar with native american history, and who's sick to death of 'white person saves natives' bullshit in films. The bad guys are one dimensional so we learn nothing about why these horrible things happen. The natives are sanitized so they don't feel like real people - just as they are in hollywood apology films involving native americans. The main character is flat and contrived to be 'the ultimate best-person who does everything right in the end.' The film should have had Sigourny Weaver's character as the main character grappling - often unsuccessfully - with trying to open a dialogue between humans and the aliens. 2/5 I only added one point because it was pretty to look at. But beauty that runs skin deep does nothing for me if the story is terrible, and coming from a horrible place. I am impressed by DW Griffith's filmmaking ability but left feeling empty and outraged by his glorification of the KKK and the southern plantation paradise myth. I hate avatar for a lot of the same similar reasons. It's a film that will reinforce the ignorance it pretends to address.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 15:26
|
|
|
Amazing movie. Make sure your first time seeing it is in a theatre because odds are your lovely TV just won't compare. 5/5 e: and if you see it in 3D, don't give yourself a headache by fighting the focus. Keep your eyes focused on one plane (the screen) for the whole movie and it will be a much more enjoyable experience. All You Can Eat fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Dec 30, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 05:56
|
|
|
America and the World seem to be looking for a Savior. Whether admirers look toward the heavens in wait for Jesus Christ to return, or eat up the most recently publicized accomplishments of the next sports legend, or loyally worship James Cameron's Avatar, there seems to be an insatiable quest to exalt someone or something because we want to keep building higher and higher pedestals for our glitterati. With the over-hyped and sensational Avatar, James Cameron - to quote Sigourney Weaver's character - has just "pissed on our legs without the courtesy of calling it rain". Sorry, fanboys, but it's true. Jimmy is laughing all the way to the bank. And rightly so. He is a master of self promotion and crowd manipulation. Who else could possibly utilize a massive ego, a massive budget, and a massive IMAX screen to try to give us something that was touted as the most revolutionary advancement since the printing press, only to deliver a movie that is really the vehicle for a mere technology boost. It would appear that Mr. Cameron is interested in creating a new ILM, as well as capitalizing on the trend of 3-dimensional movie making that appears to be the missing link in getting attendance in theaters these days. If we were to believe all we were initially told, this movie should have been a culmination of technique and timelessness, but instead it's only tepid. How dare I say this, you ask? Well, my impetus is not irreverence. Far from it - in fact, I think James Cameron is quite the genius. But everyone creative eventually missteps in some way and I think this is the moment where he inadvertently trips on his high heels, cascades off the catwalk, and falls into the fawning audience. He'll get up and keep the show moving, but not before being embarrassed a little. He knows the show must go on. He's one of the big boys. Almost all movies require you to look beyond some flaws to accept a story, but this flick has so many story and character flaws that it's as if they overcompensated for it by hiring every 3d modeller they could just to prove that style alone can win an audience over. This movie definitely exudes style. It is gracefully choreographed and masterfully edited. I only wish that James would have accepted his own limitations as a storyteller and looked for some creative helpers when it came to the overall idea of what was being presented on screen. At some point, when you are in charge of 2,000 3d geeks and you realize that your story is mediocre, you kind of let them take over. I'm betting that underneath his composed, confident exterior is a man that realizes that farts need to be covered over with air freshener. Yes, I get it, we ALL get it - this technology stuff is pretty cool. And in the hands of a storyteller who can use it with less pressure to payback investors after spending billions of dollars, we might eventually see it come to its true fruition. But with characters who lack rational inner motivation, metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, and a cheesy love story that only emotionally inert dorks could enjoy, this thing was destined to be profiteered by big-wigs selling happy meals. Mr. Cameron, when you get through figuring out what it is you want to accomplish with your next movie, I hope you can take off your crown for a while and put on your thinking cap instead. We are all waiting for your next countermove to be as thoroughly exceptional as your claims are. 2.5/5 ajrosales fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Dec 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 06:17
|
|
|
The first third of the film made me glad I brought my knitting with me. It's like they were so caught up with the animation, they forgot to write a story for it. Possibly spoilery complaints: I swear I was about to punch the next character who complained about how little training the guy had. YOU'RE THE loving MILITARY, how about you, oh, I don't know, TRAIN HIM? A soldier should never be plopped down into a foreign planet's jungle without so much as a field guide to tell him which creatures to safely ignore and which ones would instantly kill him. Are you seriously telling me that the government spent millions of dollars on these stupid avatars, but then couldn't care less if the operator keeps it safe? And then the part where he wakes up for the first time and immediately runs away... ugh. They were trying to show us that the main character is a wildcard, but all they succeeded in doing was making everyone, the military, the scientists, the soldiers, EVERYONE was unprepared and incapable to the point of silliness. Once the set-up is over and the plot gets going, the movie is much more enjoyable. I began to empathize with the Na'vi and really cheer for the good guys to win. By the time the movie was over, I was happy about having seen it and satisfied with the outcome. The animation looked great but I was not as blown away as James Cameron told me I would be. I will compare it to Finding Nemo in this sense: it looks good, but so what? The 3D was a waste. It didn't add anything to the movie, it just "was". Most people were happy that they didn't use gimicky, in-your-face 3D tricks, but I was left wondering why on earth I paid a $3 glasses rental fee and the only 3D experience I got was flinching when a "leaf" flew at my face ...and a nose ache. If I could split this movie review into "first 45 minutes 2/5" and "the rest 4/5" I would, but I supposed I'll average the two for a solid 3/5 rating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2009 17:28
|
|
|
This is the worst movie I've seen in years. Sure, the graphics were pretty nice (and certainly not worth the 500 million spent on this movie), but that's about where the positives stop. The overarching story (WAR IS BAD) is so heavyhanded that i actually started rooting for the Humans. The Na'vi became so annoyingly uninteresting that even their INCREDIBLE INTERACTION WITH THE FOREST nearly put me to sleep. And seriously, I doubt they'd ever done those body/soul transformations like they did for Grace and Jake, so I wonder how they figured it out so quickly? Also, at the very end when the humans were being kicked out of the planet despite having superior weaponry and mass explosives at their command, did anyone notice Norm there in both human and Na'vi form? Terrible movie. Avoid if you enjoy good stories and non IN YOUR FACE graphics and social commentary. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
A note on natashafatale's review: it's all a corporation with guns for hire. But that said they still wouldn't plop a guy down with no idea what he's doing. Nor would they blow up a tree when they could just as easily use 2009-era drilling techniques to go around it underground Visually it's the most amazing film I've ever seen, by a lot (for the 3D version). 2D previews do it no justice whatsoever. Meanwhile the story is awful. Whether it's ham-fisted politics, recycled plot, or sub-2D characters, there's a remarkable gap between how wonderful it is to watch and painful it is to hear. I mean, I guess something like Transformers was even worse on the creative end, but that wasn't trying to be anything other than a big dumb blockbuster. Here, the revolutionary visuals are weighed down by the script. 4.5/5 for the IMAX experience, but for anything else probably 2/5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2010 09:21
|
|
|
Neat special effects wrapped in a lovely story, as has been said several times in this thread already. Still worth the price of admission for the special effects alone, especially in IMAX 3D. Because holy poo poo those special effects. But special effects only go so far, no matter how spectacular, James Cameron. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2010 10:06
|
|
|
Lets forget the plot of one dimensional imperialistic rear end in a top hat westerners vs in-tune-with-nature native ameri...Martian furries. The special effects were fun and beautiful. 3/5 FreddyJackieTurner fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jan 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
This is a challenging movie to rate. On one hand, the story and dialogue are not the best. Indeed, this might be Cameron's worst movie to date in that regards. There are an awful lot of cliches packed into this film. On the other hand, one must consider what Cameron was trying to accomplish with this film. Was it to be the Great American Movie, like Citizen Kane, the Godfather or Pulp Fiction? Or was it to be a visual spectacle where the story existed as a bare canvas for Cameron to paint a gorgeous picture upon? Make no mistake about this film: it is the most stunning film I've seen. It reminded me of seeing Jurassic Park for the first time, in the theater and how in awe I was when the first brontosaurus walked into the frame. Prior to this, I'd only seen dinosaurs as jerky claymation or stop-motion entities. Avatar makes the same visual leap that Jurassic Park did. And like Avatar, the story behind Jurassic Park will never be mistaken for great literature. This is why watching Jurassic Park now, one can see how dated it is and that it is a rather mediocre film. But Jurassic Park will forever be a great film because of how it changed cinema. Avatar is going to do that same thing. It is a great film, because it did exactly what it was supposed to do - be an amazing sight for audiences to behold. On this mark, it succeeded. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 08:13
|
|
|
This film has convinced me that 3d is a worthwhile addition to my movie going experience. The depth of your visual field is really striking and unlike a lot of previous efforts isn't all about going "LOOK THIS IS FOR THE 3D PART SEE ITS 3D!" It was a truly enjoyable spectacle to watch. Was the story the best piece of cinema I've even seen this year? Not a chance, but its a familiar story executed competently as the framework for the visual ride. The script has some really bad points in it, and Sigourney Weaver is really the only character with any value in the film, but I guess I just didn't need the story to be the best part of the film. It wasn't distracting for me and didn't pull me out of the pace of the film. The pace honestly is to be commended I think, it was a long film but it moves along quickly and doesnt really bog down at any point. I think it is worth seeing in the theaters in 3d. I don't know that I would go see it again, and I don't think it'll be worth owning for my home cinema experience. That said I would have felt like I really missed something if I hadn't gone to see it in the theaters, its where it shines and is well worth the time and money to see it there. 3.5/5 - Competent story with stunning and spectacular visuals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 07:16
|
|
|
The most visually stunning movie ever. Too bad it contained a vapid plot that barely rises above propaganda. I'm conflicted - the visuals are too flawless to miss, but the story is too stupid to suffer. The most impressive 3D movie ever has the most 1 dimensional characterization ever. Plot - 1/5 Visuals - 5/5 End result: 3/5 Go see it for the revolutionary graphics, just turn your brain off so you don't hurt yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 12:10
|
|
|
The plot is mediocre. The script is execrable. The delivery, painfully reminiscent of a bad high school play. The pacing is horrid: the film is a jumbled, overblown, boring mess. Cameron has done much better in these areas in the past - Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator and True Lies all had fairly witty dialogue, decent delivery and tense pacing. Cameron has spent over a decade getting jacked off in his little Hollywood dream bubble, and it's made him lose touch with reality. Avatar gives the unmistakable impression of being the masturbation fantasy of an overgrown millionaire manchild. But the whole sci-fi fantasy aspect is actually quite taking. The alien plants and animals are interesting if not always thrilling. They're certainly more fascinating than the supposedly intelligent creatures, whether human or Na'Avi. The new car smell of the 3D gimmick wears off after an hour or so, but it really does help bring you into the alien world. In conclusion: The people are more wooden than the trees. But it's worth watching for the trees alone. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
I really liked this movie. The only Cameron movies I've seen are Alien, Terminator, and Titanic. So far this is easily the best I've seen from him (I wasn't really a fan of any of the above). As the OP stated, I too just got sucked into the atmosphere of the movie. The whole place just has all these little details that make the place seem more real, the scene with the horse creature comes to mind as showing off some of the great little biological details. I also don't get the hate for the plot, but then again I've never seen any of the movies people are saying it rips off (the only Western I've seen is Blazing Saddles, which doesn't count, so I don't really see this whole Noble Savage thing as a predictable cliche). The movie just really engaged me into feeling for the Na'vi guys, and I got sucked into the whole training sequence with hem being all one with the trees and poo poo. Also, I felt awful when Sigourney Weaver's character died after getting to see how awesome she thought the Na'vi were, she seemed to be the only character that cared about them at all from the beginning, even counting the other scientists who were good guys at the end. Almost every negative post in this thread seem pretty drat snooty since I'm apparently enjoying the work of an overgrown millionaire masturbating all over THE NOBLE CINEMA. If liking cool movies like this make me an idiot, then hot drat where do I sign for my social worker big brother. 5/5 On another note Ebert called the girl Na'vi sexy, which was kinda creepy. edit - I forgot to mention the 3D. This is only maybe the 4th or 5th 3D movie I've seen (the first RealD one or whatever). This movie gets major bonus points for actually using 3D as another medium (eg sound or color) instead of a fancy special effect. Every other 3D movie I've seen always has a dozen or so scenes with stuff flying right at you to show off the 3D, its much more subtle in this movie and it works great. I also like 3D if only for the reason text is displayed. I can't explain it but subtitles no longer take away from the beauty of the movie when they appear to be "outside" of the screen. Xinlum fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jan 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
I saw it in 2D because the cinema's 3D projector was busted and I was still in awe of the world that was created for the movie. But the more I mull over the movie the less I like it. The most surprising thing about this entire movie is how unsurprising the characters, dialogue and the story are. If you switch your brain off and just admire the view then you will get enjoyment out of it. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
The movie looks like an amazing videogame at the best of times which I suppose is pretty cool. The world of the Na'vi is interesting and contained a lot of imagination. I will even say that while the premise is a little tired, I don't even mind it that much. It's somewhat of a new take on it. I hated the characters in this movie. They are all underdeveloped or terrible. All of the character interactions are bad. While I wanted to know where the story would end up heading, the individuals taking us there were horrible. For a nerd movie with cool imagery and action, I'd probably take this year's Star Trek over this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2010 19:16
|
|
|
Avatar is a complicated movie to explain, especially with how tainted any avid movie buff has been from the barrage of details leaked about it's almost 500 million dollar budget. The Effects The effects base they used to make the movie is astounding. I still feel the praise about this being the first movie to adequately use 3d is extremely off however. When scenes move through the forrest at eye level with the Na'vi it does look good, but when the camera goes flying through the air I can't help but feel like I'm watching a very well made video game and not a movie. I feel like Cameron really just wanted to get lost in his world rather than follow any particular story. I kept hearing how great and diverse and alien the native life would be, which prompted me to see the movie and was a huge motivating factor. After all, Alien truly was something unique, and the Abyss had some spectacular visuals in terms of alien tech right? Well I was massively let down. Almost everything on screen resembled something that was just something we've seen irl that happened to have extra arms, or maybe a bent horn and misplaced nostrils. It was really more like a bunch of 5 year olds designed the creatures. The Characters Almost every single character is two dimensional, with the occasional one dimensional one walking around. Most of them can be summed up with a short sentence to describe them, and will never stray from that description. The colonel basically feels like someone threw every military stereotype into a blender and mixed, without anything to make him stand out. His extra gusto really just comes off as silly. The line between good and evil is so cleanly cut that there's a complete lack of ambiguity in a movie that primarily is meant to center around challenging world views, which seems like a terrible way to go about such a thing. The substance "Unobtanium" is never explained as to it's purpose, just it's dollar amount. Surely there's a reason it's 20 million dollars a kilo, hell maybe even something that begins to justify the action of the cartoonishly evil corporatists. Even the simplest of explanations would have gone a long way. And the dialogue. 500 million can't buy you an editor? Almost every line in the movie could have been heavily improved and I spent the entire movie wondering why each thing wasn't changed in small easy ways that would have improved them greatly. A stirring example comes to mind. Not even sure this should be spoilered, it's early in the movie so you're not missing much Jake Sully, in his new Avatar is greeted by a set of beasts, one of which begins to charge him. In response to one of the beasts he asks if he should run. He's immediately prompted by Weaver "Run, yes, RUUUUUN!". How much better would this scene have been if he had just asked if he should have run, looked back, and saw his two comrades with a head start in the opposite direction? And then you have the end, in which there's two modes of attacks that the Na'vi seem to take. One is somewhat well done, but the other is just about the dumbest idea ever, especially considering that Jake Sully had intel knowing it would be a terrible idea and seemed content to just act like a fool. The Na'vi Here's where the massive racism comes into play with this movie. Considering that the Na'vi were basically carbon copies of Native South and North Americans with a dash of a few African groups, why on Earth didn't they ever mention it? Are these human scientists completely unaware of human history? It would seem that when you're trying to effectively colonize a people that have an eerily similar culture to those of people's colonized before, you'd spend some time finding an expert on those kind of relations. Both the science team AND the corporate advocates had something to gain. I mean even a simple throw away line from Weavers character of "We've noticed striking similarities to _____" followed with it being referenced through the movie by the various scientists would have buffered this somewhat. The Neuronet idea was fun, and should have had a far larger focus than the "Bones through nose" tribalism that seemed to dominate the screen. Ultimately this is a movie where you watch it craving to change every aspect, wondering how Cameron missed so many great opportunities. But then later I got a list off of CHUD of things that were on the original script that were cut, and almost all of them felt like the type of things that you'd normally expect from a Cameron film (in a good way) but were cut for one reason or another. Overall, 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
From a technical standpoint, Avatar has great special effects going for it. The would of Pandora feels realistic the folks at WETA should feel proud for what they've done. The story however is some of the worst hackneyed garbage I've seen on a movie screen (though not the worst, thank you Scary Movie 2). The plot reads as a combination of Aliens (Weaver and "bad-rear end" Latina, extraterrestrial locale, military industrial complex) and Al Gore's wet dream (Nature, fore go technology, eco-everything). The McGuffin that is Unobtinium seems to have no reason to be there except to drive the company's desire the destroy everything in sight (it doesn't help the reason why the stuff is valuable is never explained except that the shareholders want it). The 3D is too gimmicky though even though it was filmed like that probably for the purpose of getting more money from a movie goer. The only people who benefits from the film are News Corp., Stanford (whose constant referencing is essentially product placement), and James Cameron's wallet being refilled. I can't blame him for wanting to make the film but there's no reason for it to exist. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
Nothing I could write about this movie hasn't been written already. Visually it is a masterpiece, clearly a lot of time, money, and care was put into the environment and world of Pandora. I feel like Cameron designed the entire environment, and look of the characters, then threw together a script that is as wooden and typical as they come. I was actually amazed by how cliche everything managed to be surrounded by such ground breaking effects. Cameron simply can't formulate a script, and unlike Titanic, this movie doesn't have strong actors to make up for his lack of ability to write. This movie is certainly worth seeing, but don't expect any worthwhile storytelling or acting. Effects - 5/5 Story - 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
While being a very well crafted movie, I found the characters to be very dull. My main problem with this movie was the Colonel - A complete douchebag who isn´t given any sense of humanity - at all! In the end, I felt this was just another "black & white" movie. Good vs Evil. Enviromentalists vs Capitalists. Stereotypes are basically littering the screen. Asides from that, I really enjoyed this movie. The visual effects are stunning and the character animations are jolly good too. This is a real popcorn movie with a wonderful setting. As far as stories goes, the story here is gripping as long as it lasts - but if you´ve ever seen Pocahontas, you´ll know what will happen. They are the same. I´ll say 4/5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 13:55
|
|
|
An awesome cutscene from a video game, without the video game. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2010 08:44
|
|
|
I did not like this film. Along with its shopworn script and boring, flat characters, it's almost completely devoid of humor and humility. The Na'vi are the dullest, cookie cutter type of noble savages that make appearances only in movies with heavy handed themes about nefarious Western colonialism. I was expecting the visuals to blow me away at least, and while they are okay, even they come up short with sets drenched in what looks like ultraviolet light. Some battle scenes are quite exciting, however. Just wished I cared enough about the characters to root for them. Effects: 3/5 story: 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
Reminded me a lot of Jurassic Park in the sense that the acting, dialog and plot isn't revolutionary or even particularly well done but I still enjoyed the poo poo out it. Yea you can get all hurf durf about native americans and THE MESSAGE but I went to the movie to go see an alien planet and it really pulled that off. I enjoyed all the creature designs and the plantlife and the general scale of everything. Expecting this movie to leave you with some serious thoughts like Platoon or something is a silly expectation, if you watch it expecting anything other than an adventure you might be disappointed. Otherwise it is very enjoyable. Saw it once on IMAX 3D and one normal theater 3D and I would suggest you see it in a normal theater, the IMAX 3D didn't seem to be as focused or clear. I had no eyestrain or problems watching it in a normal theater in 3D. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
The plot to this movie was terrible. As others have stated, it's like one long video game, without the gaming part. Shepard was way too generic and the same could be said about all those other characters. The 3D effects were interesting to begin with but, after around 30 minutes, you realise they add absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. By the 2 hour mark, I was hoping the film just end already since it so obvious what the ending would be like. Fun as a 30 minute theme park ride, but way too long and overatted as a movie. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
I'm with the great-effects-terrible-plot gang. This movie is an amazing technical achievement for visuals and depth of field. But the plot is so "haven't I seen this before... like a million times?!?" and very shallow to say the least. I'd recommend anyone to see this at least once. Having seen it, I don't really feel compelled to watch it again. Once will do. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2010 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
The story is generic and the characters are almost caricatures of themselves but it's very well produced, has a good pacing and great special effects. Don't expect to be surprised or challenged - just sit back and enjoy the pretty colors. There's some generic boring subplots in it which serve no real purpose other than being there and I feel cutting them out in order to focus more on the characters would have made a big difference. As it is, the characters are so stereotypical and clichëd that I couldn't relate to them in any meaningful way. The problem is that special effects can't carry a movie by itself and the story told here presents nothing new and because the lines are drawn up in black and white it's also very predictable. It's very, very pretty but the story pulls it down, 2/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2010 17:11
|
|