Discussion in 'Community' started by Clonuscant, Jan 8, 2007.
Plot of Dances with Wolves, message of Ferngully. In Space.
There is no IMax on my island. 3D will just have to do.
So, the story was completely unoriginal. A reviewer I know also called out the movie's "thematic bluntness." I have to agree. Still, Raven over in SFF:FTV has said the plot has grown on him, so I've got hopes. I'll be seeing it again, perhaps twice again, and definitely in iMax next time. I should enjoy it even more than I already did now that my expectations are out of the picture. Having followed the movie for several years, you can bet my expectations were uncontrollably high.
Still, the most visually impressive movie created yet.
You should write to Weta and complain that you can't watch Avatar in all of its glory because there isn't an IMAX in NZ.
Hey, whatever works!
I heard Cameron's pitch to the studios for TITANIC was, "Romeo and Juliet Get Dunked."
Still thinking about the film. I have to give it full marks (four stars) despite my complaints about the story. There was just simply so much to do here, like create a whole new fictional universe that made so many demands on technology (the Na'Vi, primarily). The visuals are just so overwhelmingly impressive and the potential for story and visuals to intertwine (not unlike the connection the Na'Vi can make to the plants and animal life) in sequels cannot be denied. This new franchise had better live up to that potential.
edit: oh, and I have to retract my Titanic-sinking prediction.
There's one in Auckland, but none down here.
It is as good a science fiction movie as you could ever hope to see. It steals from great science fiction novels and all those movies that offer up pop reverence for native Americans and their alleged harmonious relationship with the environment - but it delivers with such a good movie the constant homages, even to Cameron's own sci fi movies, just add to the experience. To me it was the perfect merger of Titanic and Aliens.
So, did anyone find themselves trying to swat a few insects that got in the way of the screen?
Multiple times, I found myself annoyed by bugs and leaves "getting in the way", only to realize a second later that they were part of the movie.
So I go in, purchse my ticket, and take my seat. During the previews there was a screen command that said "put on your 3d glasses for a 3d demo" to which is showed an Airforce commercial.
At this point everyone in the theatre looked around and we all relized this was not the 3d theatre showing.
So I get home and looked it up and of course there is an Avatar, and an Avatar 3D. AAARRRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!
So, I will have to see it again. Not that I am upset about that, it is a good movie.
Maybe I will give a review/recap tomorrow after I see it again if I feel like going tomorrow. I recall reading the other day that James cameron saw Star Wars in 1977 and walke dout of the theatre angry because it was a film he wanted to make. Well it took him 30 years, but here it is in Avatar. Make no mistake, it is a Star Wars movie.
Somebody need to send a copy of Avatar to Michael Bay,coz this is how it's done.
I stayed after to watch the credits.It was the best of best.
James Cameron,WETA digital and ILM.
It shows too, awesome movie.
If you can see it in 3D,spring for it,you won't regret it.
[hl=black]My only quibble with it was that the Na'vi had only 4 limbs.
well it's 6 like the other creatures if you count the caudal growths
and neural interface lekku.[/hl]
I left the IMAX 3D after about 20 minutes and went to see it in regular digital 3D. The IMAX 3D was just too much and had me searching for exactly where I was supposed to be looking on the screen which ended up just making everything blurry and me dizzy. The regular 3D was very well done and only stood out badly in a couple of spots.
The visuals are gorgeous and I can't wait to see it in 2D where the colors aren't squashed by the 3D glasses. As for the story and its point, dumb, dumb, dumb -- but if you're going to the movies for moral guidance, then you're not worth worrying about. It was what it should be, a big, beat-you-over-the-head script so that no one's bothered by having to think during the awesome battle scenes.
In other words, go for the FX and 'splosions, stay for the FX and 'splosions.
That's what I was thinking. Everyone kept saying Dances With Wolves, but it's more Dune than anything.
Saw it today. The first half contains some of the finest filmmaking I've ever seen. I leaned over to my friend during it and said, I quote, "This is one of the best movies I've ever seen." Absolutely amazing, beautiful imagery, incredible story that draws you into the world that Cameron created.
The second half, on the other hand, I felt crammed a sequel into the movie, which is exactly what happened to last year's mega-hit, The Dark Knight. I think it should have ended when [hl=black]the Na'vi start seeking help from other clans following the humans' first attack and the badass speech from Jakesully.[/hl] After that point, I thought it dragged on a little bit with a few too many endings. There were literally a couple shots where credits could've come immediately after and I would have been very happy.
As it stands, though, it's still a wonderful film with an absolutely brilliant first half that gets dragged down by an overlong climax.
The script definitely gets the job done in terms of not getting in the way (except for the whole "thematic bluntness" thing I talked about earlier). One really, really positive thing I can say about it is that it's infinitely better written than the latest Transformers.
I find it difficult to find words describing the stupidity of Transformers 2.
Although who knows, maybe it could have used a couple of scenes of the big rhino things humping.
Actress who is Neytiri.
I think I saw a bit of nipple somewhere in the film. I wondered if I was dreaming or if they really managed to sneak it by the MPAA.
I'm going to be seeing it tonight at 8:55................................I don't know what to expect. As one of my pals said last night, there's never been a bad James Cameron movie, so that's a good sign.
[hl=purple]2008-2009 L.A. Lakers: World Champions![/hl]
I disagree there- if it ended there, you'd have had a big build up for something that never happens, with unresolved character arcs/threads. Unless you're suggesting it be a cliffhanger/serial that requires you to watch another movie or two to finish the story?
One thing about the early reviews is I think those early reviewers that complained about bad Iraq War metaphors are a bunch of hogwash. There are some rcent terms and phrases used, but people suggesting Cameron was equating the Na'vi with Iraqi or Afghan natives are really stretching things beyond credibility given that the Na'vi have so many overt Native American characteristics and context. He just used the modern terms to apply to the past situation in a sci-fi setting.
There's another way to look at this: in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. The race of the people involved doesn't matter; it's about the person with the knowledge of both worlds being the one uniquely qualified to change the future. The natives can't win because they don't get the invaders, and the invaders are screwing up badly because they don't understand the natives. Only someone who understands both sides can have any true influence. (This isn't how it works in real life, but it's a long-standing theory in fiction.)
Or you could say that as flawed as the story is, he's trying to reach for the dark idea that our current society has developed into something fundamentally flawed, with a large number of people behaving destructively because they have no personal ethical code and no purpose to drive them. He could be trying to say that the majority of people in our society would give this physically easy, consumer-driven life up for something different if they were exposed to it in a fashion which broke through their learned value system and forced them to reevaluate their priorities.
Keep in mind, too, that the USA isn't the only place where settlers screwed over natives. Pretty much anyplace anyone came into contact with other cultures was an epic disaster. In South America it was the Spanish, in Canada it was the French (they seem to have made less of a hash of it than anyone else, to be fair), in Australia it was the British, in India it was the British, in Europe it was the Romans, in Rome it was the Mongols, in Japan it was the Chinese, in China it was the Japanese.... wait, some of those weren't white people. Guess conquest and subsequent stupidity aren't limited by color.
James there is telling an old, old story. Even kids get this one: it's cowboys versus Indians (feel free to swap out those names to include any race since the dawn of time). It's the same damn thing that's been happening throughout human history. The color of the people involved is based purely on the coincidence of our timing in the history of life: that white folks are the people in this section of history on this piece of continent who played the part of cowboy, versus the part of indian. Your anger over the story being about "white guilt" is very US-centric.
Well since the Na'vi are considered only humanoid and not fully human,they get a pass
But yes you did see them,they were sorta in you face with the 3D effect and all.
VLM just posted something from another site about that over in the jCC thread. It was a very good insight.
They were kinda obscured by her necklace, though.
The more I think about it, the more the story grows on me. Same thing happened to Raven.
Yes, I wanted it to set up a sequel where the Na'vi take the fight back to the humans.
I only wish it had ended when [hl=black]they were gathering the tribes for war[/hl] just because I really needed to use the restroom, but at the same time, I was just so pumped for the end battle because I knew it was going to be epic.
And I totally disagree on the Iraq thing too. I didn't see any of that; if I had to link it to a war, I was getting more of a Vietnam feeling, but overall I was just seeing the message about deforestation and forcing "people different than us" out for our own means.