Avatar

[Menotti80]

Just saw it (not in 3-D). What a visual materpiece. Incredible. Completely made me look past the weak storyline.

 

What did you all think of this movie? Is it worth going again to see it in 3-D?

[thebruce44]

Is it worth going again to see it in 3-D?

In a word, yes. I saw it in 3-d on Monday and it was absolutely unlike anything I have ever seen before. I am trying to think of an analogy to compare the difference between this in 3d and regular movies in a theater but I can't. There is just so much to see in every frame besides the actors. I have never seen a movie more than once in the theater but I am sure I will see this again, just to pick up all the detail.

[danzig6767]

Just saw it (not in 3-D). What a visual materpiece. Incredible. Completely made me look past the weak storyline.

 

What did you all think of this movie? Is it worth going again to see it in 3-D?

I agree that visually the movie was incredible, but the weak plot frustrated me because the movie could have been so much better. It didn't have to be a visual masterpiece with a cliche riddled plot.

[twobrewers]

FernGully, errr "Avatar", was pretty good in 3D

 

I spent the first 30 minutes thinking "this is really cool" - but by the end I didn't even notice that it was still in 3D. Point being, at some point, the story takes over and you kinda forget about all of the visual effects.

[Paulus88]

I saw this at the Mayfair Imax and it was worth it just for the visuals, undescribable. That said the plot beats you with ham hands. The planet is named Pandora, the final battle is code named Valkyrie, not to mention the absurdity that is Unobtanium. The politics were equally unnuanced. The hype likely made my expectations unrealistic.

[bjkrautk]

Watched Avatar on opening weekend, so I've been thinking about this for a few days now. The technology and the experience of seeing Avatar (in 3d) are both better than the film itself.


The movie's plot is essentially Dances With Wolves (I've heard others say 'Pocohantas') in space with blue-skinned aliens replacing Native Americans. At no point did I have any real doubt about how the movie would end, and the movie answered the last question I had (how they would get to that ending) somewhere around the 3/4 mark.

That said, looking at commercials for the movie after-the-fact, I can't help but notice how....well....flat the detailed background images seem to be. When I saw the film as intended, there was a real depth of field, a stretching out of those background details that really brings something extra to the presentation: a sense of awe and of beauty. I'm not sure if the film crosses the "uncanny valley" based on the animation being in 3d, or the technology used in capturing the actors' performances, but it amazes me that the film is all CGI. Avatar ultimately succeeds as an experience, even as the movie itself has its share of flaws.

[Oldcity]

The experience itself, that is largely the special effects/3D, was probably as revolutionary as Star Wars IMO. I was blown away.

[OldHoss]

How intense is the movie? My 7-year old is clamoring to go and see it but the PG-13 rating has me worried. Can you give me a movie that it might be like as far as its general suitability for younger audiences, e.g., it is as intense as Star Wars Episode III, but with worse language and some sexuality/sensuality. I'm just looking for something to compare it to so I can decide whether it'll be o.k. for him.

 

Thanks.

[bjkrautk]

How intense is the movie?

SPOILERS

 

(As if that weren't obvious enough)

 

 

I wouldn't be that concerned about the sexual aspect of the film; there is a sequence where the protagonist 'gets with' the Na'vi female lead, but my recollection is that it was "tastefully done" (which is to say, I don't remember much about it....so it couldn't have been that bad).

 

The violence may be another story. I've mentioned the 'Dances with Wolves' parallels. While the 19th century American soldier had guns instead of the bow and arrow (I'm simplifying)....the Humans in this movie have flying fortress bombers, attack helicopters, and giant mech robots. The Na'vi still have bows and spears. Relocation of the natives is a major plot point; let's just say, when the U.S. did the same thing, they didn't call it the trail of smiles. Characters die, and some are tearfully mourned. Most of the people you meet over the course of the film....aren't around by the film's end. It's not a graphic, orgy-of-blood type film, but they lay it pretty thick thematically that a lot of 'good' people lose their lives.

 

Not being a parent, I couldn't begin to guess whether or not it's right for someone that age. I tend to think that my parents would have taken me to see it at that age, and I turned out okay (despite any inferences to the contrary)....but it's probably in the realm of a judgment call.

[thebruce44]

I remember it being fairly violent and extensive use of the word for a female dog.

 

Other than that, it really depends on your 7 year old. Its definetly something that could be upsetting if they don't understand fiction or get too attached to characters.

[razzzorsharp]

They said the "s" word at least 10 times, all of which were unneeded. Also, I thought the movie was really really bad besides the visuals.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Finally went and saw this last night......

 

I'm really glad I saw this in a theater, there's no way a rental even on my sweet HD tv would have had near the visual impact.

 

I'm also really pissed I spent $35.00 on tix and snacks to watch a remake of Dances With Wolves.

[Oldcity]

I don't get all the backlash over this movie. Sure... It's Dances With Wolves if Dances With Wolves featured an entirely made up world, language, animals and people. And the special effects were mind-blowing. Star Wars has incredibly cheesy lines also, and nobody seems to mind.

[RayKingsForemanGrill]

Also, Pocahantas:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdIIqoDakHU

[thebruce44]

And the Last Samarui, The New World, hell even to a lesser extent Point Break and Fast and the Furious.

 

I too don't get why people put down the plot of the movie just because it is somewhat familiar. Since Star Wars was already brought up, its not like anything about Lucas' adventure movies isn't following standardized themes. Its been done for years in Hollywood to varying degrees of success.

[TooLiveBrew]

Han: "Hey! Hey!"

Luke: "I knew you'd come back -- I just knew it!"

Han: "Well, I wasn't gonna let you get all the credit and take all the reward"

Leia: "I knew there was more to you than money!"

 

 

*vomits*

[jjfanec]

I will put down this movie because the plot, dialogue, and acting were all subpar at best. Cameron had 15 years or something to wait for the technology to be ready to make the movie so he could spent a little time work on the plot and dialogue. I do not really think of Star Wars as a best picture type movie either, by the way. Formulaic plots (and yes this was very formulaic) in my mind are not what best picture movies are all about. Give it all the cinematography oscars available, but it is not best picture.

 

A movie needs more than mind-blowing special effects to be good in my mind. I think that is what it comes down to. There is a crowd that is able to lose itself in the special effects and there is a crowd that wants to lose itself in a plot. I am in the latter and thus think Avatar is overrated. I will tell everyone to go watch it, but there is no way I think it deserves best picture or to be in the category of best movie ever like I see some people talking about it as.

 

Edit - I do not mean to sound pompous or imply people who are plot first people are better than others. It is just something I have noticed when talking to friends about movies. A lot of our tastes differ on the grounds of plot/acting vs action/special effects. They usually like movies that make more money so I am probably in the minority

[RobertR]

I saw it this weekend. I enjoyed it for what it was, but I'll go with the concensus and wish that Cameron had spent as much attention and care on the human side of things as he did on the Pandora side. And I really hated the video diaries and narration which told us how he was conflicted, etc. instead of showing us that. Then again, I suspect that Sam Worthington simply isn't that good an actor. Certainly not up to the quality of actor that Cameron had worked with prior.

 

But it is a marvel of spectacle and imagery. And it's probably taken for granted that everyone has seen Dances With Wolves, which I'll bet isn't true for the vast majority of the audience. Particularly the teenage audience.

 

Robert

[TooLiveBrew]

I think one thing that some are overlooking wrt to "Best Picture" status is that the filmmaking itself has to be factored in imho. I have to think the Academy considers not only *what* the film is as a finished product, but also *how* said finished product was made.

[jjfanec]

I think one thing that some are overlooking wrt to "Best Picture" status is that the filmmaking itself has to be factored in imho. I have to think the Academy considers not only *what* the film is as a finished product, but also *how* said finished product was made.

You are completely right and that is why I have no problem with it being nominated. It is a visual spectacle. It is something never before seen. However, if is the best ever in one aspect, but average or below in other aspects it is hard for me to give it the nod overall.

[thebruce44]

I will put down this movie because the plot, dialogue, and acting were all subpar at best. Cameron had 15 years or something to wait for the technology to be ready to make the movie so he could spent a little time work on the plot and dialogue. I do not really think of Star Wars as a best picture type movie either, by the way. Formulaic plots (and yes this was very formulaic) in my mind are not what best picture movies are all about. Give it all the cinematography oscars available, but it is not best picture.

You make good points, but I don't think anyone here was even discussing it in terms of a best picture. I was simply saying that for what it is (a blockbuster action movie) it does really well. Besides Titanic (which is my least favorite Cameron movie) Cameron hasn't really done anything to make me expect good dialogue and acting. The plot for the two Terminator movies was pretty good, but beyond that what were people expecting besides great special effects, awesome action sequences, great imagination, and lots of explosions. Its not like the plot in True Lies, Aliens, or Titanic were anything original.

 

And Cameron's past serious dialogue? "I came back for you Sarah." "On your feet soldier." When its satire it works thanks to Tom Arnold in True Lies.

 

Robert, you know a lot more about movies than I do. Who in the past was much better than the cast in this movie? I like his usuals like Michael Biehn and Bill Paxton, but don't consider them great actors (and Paxton is seriously annoying an Aliens). Ed Harris was pretty solid in The Abyss and Leo and Winslett in Titanic of course. But other than that he is working with Arnold as a robot (theres a stretch), Tom Arnold, his ex-wife Hamilton, Weaver over and over again, and of course Paul Reiser.

 

I guess I thought Avatar was very fulfilling of my high expectations in the key Cameron aspects. The stuff I didn't expect him to do well in he lived down to expectations. But is the movie fun? Is it enjoyable to watch? Just like every other film he has made outside of the first 2 hours of Titanic hell yea it is.

[RobertR]

Robert, you know a lot more about movies than I do. Who in the past was much better than the cast in this movie? I like his usuals like Michael Biehn and Bill Paxton, but don't consider them great actors (and Paxton is seriously annoying an Aliens). Ed Harris was pretty solid in The Abyss and Leo and Winslett in Titanic of course. But other than that he is working with Arnold as a robot (theres a stretch), Tom Arnold, his ex-wife Hamilton, Weaver over and over again, and of course Paul Reiser.

 

I guess I thought Avatar was very fulfilling of my high expectations in the key Cameron aspects. The stuff I didn't expect him to do well in he lived down to expectations. But is the movie fun? Is it enjoyable to watch? Just like every other film he has made outside of the first 2 hours of Titanic hell yea it is.

No, I don't consider Lance Henrickson, Biehn, Paxton, or Hamilton great actors either. But they're not blocks of wood or ciphers either. And, of course, Arnold isn't a great actor, but he is charismatic.

 

But Kate, Leo, Ed Harris, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Jamie Lee Curtis, and, of course, Sigourney Weaver in a lead role are better than the leads in this movie. Gloria Stuart and Kathy Bates too. Zoe Saldana does hold her own, but Sam Worthington really brought nothing to the role. He's probably the worst central performance in a Cameron movie since Eddie Furlong.

 

But even in the supporting roles, Paul Reiser was a memorable corporate weasel in Aliens. The corporate weasel in Avatar is unmemorable. There's no reason with just a little care and attention that the human side of the equation couldn't have been significantly better. Heck, Cameron has done better with similar characters in the past.

 

Cameron is a skillful technical director, but he's starting to resemble George Lucas. And not the George Lucas of American Graffitti.

 

Robert

[DuWayne Steurer]

I made the Dances with Wolves comparison earlier in the thread, so I feel it necessary to plunge back in.

 

I liked Dances with Wolves. It was one of the few movies in which I felt Costner didn't suck. Also, the story really was meaningful to my mom, as there's an ancestral tie there. It had historical meaning to the U.S., and actual people that have lived and breathed. I know it's 'just a movie', but it had a central theme that had a lot of meaning for me personally.

 

Avatar is a knock off, with awful acting. I'm sorry, the visuals were fantastic, yes, the best I've ever seen, but the acting was terrible, in my opinion of course. The grizzled bad guy was so ridiculously cliched and over the top it was laughable. Worthington, as others have pointed out, put in a really Keanu Reeves-esque performance.

 

Yes, I took it for what it was supposed to be, a summer blockbuster with gaudy visuals (didn't disappoint, no sir) and a crummy plot. I actually expected more.

 

I know that every movie or book out there nowadays draws inspiration either directly or indirectly from some source material. I'm fully aware there's no 'original' ideas out there anymore, and that everything from this point forward will, to some degree or another, be a 'remake'. This one was, however, in my opinion, poorly done.

 

The fact that I was still able to be somewhat awed and entertained should be a nod to the visuals, if nothing else.

[RobertR]

Frankly, I think you're not giving Keanu enough credit. Far from a great actor, but I'd put him as a net plus in the Bill and Ted movies, Parenthood, Speed, and The Matrix. That's more than I can say for Worthington, although maybe Clash of the Titans will change my mind. So far, I'd say he's no better than Vin Diesel.

 

Robert

[thebruce44]

Mostly agree with your posts guys.

 

One thing I really took away from this movie that hasn't been mentioned is the sheer creativity that was put into the planet and ecosystem. The lighting, the reaction of the plants, the way they could all connect, and of course the floating islands. Obviously the Navi were a knock off of the Masai, but aside from that the amount of imagination that went into the creatures and plants was awe inspiring.