James Cameron's Avatar
#21
Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:06 PM
#22
Posted 08 January 2010 - 10:14 PM
This movie is completely visually stunning. I was fairly disappointed for the first 5-10 minutes of the movie, but when they finally get deep into the forest, I was in awe. There weren't many "in your face" 3D moments. It was more of a visual adventure that you are left to explore on your own. The visual effects and digital effects were simply amazing. The interactions between the indigenous population and the humans were amazing. The nature effects were beautiful and indescribable.
As far as the story, it is very well done. Is it familiar? Yes. Is it new? Yes. It is the basic 'we are the more technologically advanced people and we need your land' story, but the undertones of the story are different. I really felt for the 'aliens' and was moved several times by their plight. The religious and spiritual aspects of the movie are very strong and might be a little much for those who are apt to believe that they alone control their destiny.
The battle scenes were very dramatic.
There was some very week dialogue, especially toward the end of the movie and some of the characters were very one dimensional. Others I felt were well done. Weaver, Saldana, and Worthington put on some amazing performances.
Definitely worth catching in the theaters Don.
#23
Posted 11 January 2010 - 09:20 PM
1. the 3d experience was pretty poor IMO, I dont know if it was the theater I was at or if it was because of my one eye having better vision than my other one, but something just wasnt clicking for me or maybe I was expecting too much. For a point of reference I saw the Borg in 4D at ST:TE and the Bugs Life at Disney and both were far superior to this.
2. The story I thought was average at best. The Pocahontas comparison fits best in my mind and I think they went a little too far trying to replicate Native American tribal culture and at the same time adding a bit of African tribal culture as well. I thought most of the characters were one dimensional sometimes bordering on stereotypical. I got tired of the typical capitalist portrayal of the RDA employees that really didnt go beyond much of what you saw at face value. The only character that really went a little beyond my expectations was Jake. I thought it was interesting to see an ex-marine who was disabled in the war be put into this type of situation but honestly for all his character development through the video logs, the end result of where his character develops was pretty predicable if not completely obvious
3. The only real triumph this movie had IMO was the creation of an intriguing world that was completely developed and visually stunning. The creation of such an in depth language for this film was pretty impressive. The new type of 3d rendering of the actors was also pretty cool. I really wish my 3d experience was better because this was truly the highlight of the film.
Overall I would suggest to go see it in IMAX because the regular screen did nothing for me anyway. I would also say that it is nowhere near the hype it is getting from the major reviewers and Im actually shocked by some of the 4 star ratings it is getting. I almost think that if anyone besides Cameron put this film out it would only be getting 2 stars.
#24
Posted 12 January 2010 - 03:02 AM
Like I said above I saw it in Imax and RealD to get an idea of what the difference in technology was and I preferred the Imax too, but I didn't think the RealD was that bad, so maybe it was the particular theater that you went to?
I've read that there can be large differences in the quality of theaters, whereas Imax is usually pretty consistent.
I can see why people make the Pocahontas comparison, but for me, the "Dances with Wolves" comparison is a bit more apropos...simply for this reason... "As with Dances with Wolves or The Last Samurai, this is about a military man who finds himself transformed by the culture he adopts and ends up opposing his own people in an impossible battle." Unfortunately, John Smith never really "Adopts" the Native culture, he only comes to an understanding and a truce with it. Historically, Pocahontas has to adopt and transform to the "Invading" culture. Avatar comes off as a sci-fi version of Dances with Wolves to me... and I thought it worked for many of the same reasons.
Perfect? no. but it did exceed my expectations (but maybe mine where lower!)
#25
Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:10 AM
I havent seen Dances with wolves so the Pocahontas comparison spoke to me more. For me a "4 star" movie should have a bunch of components like originality, character development, well developed environment, great acting and really this one only succeeded on the visual and partially on the acting. I guess sometimes the hype does that, builds up something to the point where it will never be able to satisfy!
#26
Posted 12 January 2010 - 11:47 AM
I'm a sucker for 3D movies (I even turned out to see A Christmas Carol this year!), but this was the best 3D experience yet. Of course we made sure that we booked our seats in the first few rows because 3D is always best when the edges of the screen are outside your normal range of vision, and the cricked neck was worth it!! I also suffer with terrible vertigo, so for me it was just like bungee jumping!
It just goes to show how tawdry some of the recent bockbuster movies have been when compared to what Cameron can do. So, he takes a decade to do it, but this film was simply awesome in terms of FX and the way in which the planetscape of Pandora was realised - outdoing the previous king of the planetscape, George Lucas. Cameron simply takes care of every single detail.
So, okay, the strory was derivative (like what isn't?) but it's a Cowboys & Indians show bought bang up to date with overtones of New Age, environmentalism and even a sidewsipe at Iraq and the cultural imperialism of the US. The story alos filled the running time with good pacing (i.e. slower moments interleaving with amazing, fast action scenes). Yep, I predicted the ending because the story is pretty familiar, but this was a very fresh way of telling an old tale and it was very enjoyable. The dialogue was also a cut above Orci & Kurtzman's "genius level offender".
What was also lovely (Abrams take note) was ladies actually getting plenty of stuff to do. Sigourney is always a safe pair of hands, but Zoe Saldana was good in her role (oh that Uhura might get so much to do in the next flick!), and the female marine was good value too.
#27
Posted 12 January 2010 - 12:07 PM
Oh no no no! Dances With Wolves was a leaden, bloated epic, this is fresh, zingy and loads of fun!!
I hate preachy films too, but this is not that kind of a worthy movie bludgeoning home a message with all the subtly of a sledgehammer. Essentially, the message is the story and vice-versa, but I didn't feel patronised and lectured - maybe because it would preaching to the converted I guess, but actually there was a spiritual dimension to the story that transcended some other films of this kind. Very New Age.
Huh? The only reason why Star Trek got ressurected in 1979 was because a whole bunch of people stopped seeing it as a blameless family sci-fi show and began to trawl its greater depths. TOS was pretty deep for a Tv show of that era, and the most realised version of the franchise, Deep Space Nine, was also the show that overturned Roddenberry's happy, happy vision of Future Man and involved a timely war arc, as well as almost prophesying the War on Terror. It was as much a "demise" than the producers began to seek out a dumber audience that killed the whole franchise's mission.
Oh I agree about that, apart from the lesson that is - I didn't thibk there was one- the franchise has all but lost the thing that made it stand out from all other sci-fi franchises, which some of us feel is a shame. But then there's always my DVD collection, and NuBSG to enjoy once again!
#28
Posted 12 January 2010 - 12:11 PM
I saw the RealD version, and I think it was pretty excellent. What's the advantage with IMax - is it simply the bigger screen? I've seen 3D movies on IMax years ago, I couldn't say that it was that much better unless there have been advances made!
#29
Posted 07 February 2010 - 05:48 PM
Basically the main difference is the way the technology works. IMAX 3D comes out of the plain of viewing towards the audience, whereas REAL D goes into the plain of view... adding depth. But I simply found that the sharpness of IMAX was better. Real D had more of tendency to blur in high action.
Now, don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed both viewings. And it should be a testament to the movie that I wanted to see it twice... so I thought this was a great opportunity to see the same movie in both formats so that I could compare the technology on it's own merits.
#30
Posted 07 February 2010 - 09:00 PM
#31
Posted 08 February 2010 - 05:15 AM
#32
Posted 08 February 2010 - 09:53 AM
for example, on this list...
I would really only would ever want to see Star Wars and Avatar again...
#33
Posted 08 February 2010 - 10:33 AM
#34
Posted 08 February 2010 - 02:39 PM
#35
Posted 08 February 2010 - 04:33 PM
#36
Posted 08 February 2010 - 05:58 PM
for example, on this list...
I would really only would ever want to see Star Wars and Avatar again...
I hate to admit I have seen all the rated one's listed in the theater lol...
#37
Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:01 PM
#38
Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:11 PM
#39
Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:24 PM
#40
Posted 08 February 2010 - 08:26 PM
South Park already has, with "Dances with Smurfs"!! Anyway I finally broke down to see Avatar after my wife insisted. It's Ok IMO. Each his own you know.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users