0 members (),
36
Murran Spies, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Previous Thread |
|
Next Thread
|
|
What? No Avatar movie thread? (possible spoilers!)
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,215
Time Trapper
|
OP
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,215 |
Just saw it in IMAX 3-D. Well, it was awesome!!! I loved everything about it, even the Pocahontas storyline and a touch of preachiness.
Just beautiful and exciting!
|
|
|
Re: What? No Avatar movie thread? (possible spoilers!)
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,724
Deputy
|
Deputy
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,724 |
Saw it yesterday (3D but not in IMAX though)- Cowboys and Indians (am I allowed to call them that these days?) in space.
Absolutely incredible. Breathtaking.
Throw your own superlatives here and they'll probably stick.
Hic!
|
|
|
Re: What? No Avatar movie thread? (possible spoilers!)
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,178
Deputy
|
Deputy
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,178 |
i loved "Dances with 10ft tall Smurfs" but seriously the plot was not original but it was still visually stunning and i enjoyed the film alot.
|
|
|
Re: What? No Avatar movie thread? (possible spoilers!)
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17,872
More Polyanna than Poison Ivy
|
More Polyanna than Poison Ivy
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17,872 |
Here's the Avatar review that I originally posted on my blog . James Cameron is a director I've long admired, but for too long his reputation has rested on two brilliant genre films: 1984's "The Terminator" and 1986's "Aliens". Beginning with 1989's "The Abyss", he began to devolve into a cold technician for whom emotional resonance remained out of reach; 1991's "Terminator 2" was bigger than the original but far from better, 1994's "True Lies" had no redeeming qualities other than a few standout action sequences, and 1997's "Titanic" enveloped ripe cheese in an elegantly expensive package but proved in the end that cheese is still cheese.
After a 12-year hiatus during which he made documentaries and worked on new technology, Cameron is back with "Avatar", his biggest and boldest film ever. I want to say that this is the return to form I've been waiting for since "Aliens", but honesty forces me to grudgingly admit that Cameron comes ever so close to hitting the bullseye, only to end up with what is strictly a qualified success.
For most of the running time, though, Cameron temporarily restored my faith in the possibilities of cinema. "Avatar" takes a simple skeleton of a plot, a sturdy metaphor for man's inhumanity to nature and to The Other, and drapes it in seamless special effects (Cameron is the only active director other than Peter Jackson who can pull of modern fx credibly) that tell a larger-than-life tale of space travel to alien lands, and one renegade's stand against the twin evils of big business and mindless militarism. What makes it work is that Cameron is no wimpy liberal -- he respects the timeless values of the warrior while decrying those who would impose themselves on others by brute force.
The fantastical imagery is simply astonishing, a flora and fauna of Cameron's devising which suggests classic sci-fi paperback covers come to technicolor life. And the dazzlingly choreographed action sequences show up Michael Bay and his ilk as a bunch of slop-artists. Cameron is also an underrated actors' director -- Sam Worthington proves he has what it takes for a bright future as a leading man, and Sigourney Weaver is at her authoritative best. As the alien princess, Zoe Saldana has all the spark she lacked in Star Trek (which bodes well for the film version of The Losers), while as the king and queen, Wes Studi and CCH Pounder are positively iconic; and, miracle of miracles, Michelle Rodriguez is tolerable, her usual spoiled-brat sneer nowhere to be seen here.
But a genre film is only as good as its villains, and here is where Cameron comes up short. Stephen Lang (dishonorable warmonger) and Giovanni Ribisi (corporate twerp) try their best with their cartoonish roles, but Cameron's dialogue, always his weak point, defeats them, particularly Lang, who also must struggle with a climax that streches the suspension of disbelief to its breaking point.
Still, this is overall the kind of MOVIE-MOVIE that gives popcorn cinema a good name, and for that alone it deserves respect, though not reverence. I want to give it an A minus or a B plus, but it'll have to settle for a solid B.
|
|
|
Re: What? No Avatar movie thread? (possible spoilers!)
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,193
#deleteFacebook
|
#deleteFacebook
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,193 |
Rarely have I seen a movie that ddrrraaggeedd ssoo hhoorriibbllyy. At two-thirds of the length, it might have been decent. As it was, it was so decompressed that by the halfway mark I was begging for the thing to end.
The movie equivalent of a Jemas-era Marvel comic.
|
|
|
Re: What? No Avatar movie thread? (possible spoilers!)
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,055
Long live the Legion!
|
Long live the Legion!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,055 |
It was a great retelling of James Smith (Jake Sully) meeting Pocahontas (N'tiri), the critics say.
But I don't really care about the criticism. It was a fantastic visual experience. I absolutely loved the creature graphics. The Banshees, the little glowing helicopter bugs, the six legged giant panther, they all looked so amazingly real.
The bad-guy was pretty two-dimensional, but the good-guys were a combination of complicated and flat-out unlikable at points (heck, the chief warrior of the tribe wasn't tolerable until 30 seconds before his death-scene, when it suddenly became apparent that he didn't get that title just be being a jerk to everyone...), which made for a better film, IMO, than if the good-guys had been all lily-white and too good to be true.
Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez's characters were both awesome, if a bit understated at times (with so much focus on the big blue peeps).
The colors and the spectacle were amazing. I don't think I've seen a movie this *vibrant* since What Dreams May Come, and this was light-years beyond that. About the only quibble I'd have with the set-up is that the size of the natives became easy to forget, when the scene included only natives, so that it was a bit jarring to see the Banshees and six-legged panther at the end of the movie next to flying aircraft or walking mechs and be reminded how freaking *huge* they must be.
Like all movies, it had it's occasional plot hole that made no sense (flying mountains, which, one assumes, have something to do with that Unobtanium stuff, the deployment of ground forces at the end, which served no purpose whatsover, a final conflict up in the flying mountains that somehow involved a thousand horsemen and a stampede of hammerhead rhinoceri that *had no way to get up there,* etc.) but it was the kind of movie where I was willing to overlook some plot-holes-big-enough-to-pilot-the-Queen-Elizebeth-II through to just sit back and watch the spectacle unfold.
Supposedly the film had some 'agenda' or whatever, but I didn't even notice it. Probably because I've seen this exact movie a dozen times in the past, with Unobtanium replaced with Inca gold or blood diamonds or oil or elephant tusks or buffalo hides or some Weyland-Yutani attempt to weaponize xenomorph aliens.
The movie was scripted according to a formula that's been around for over 50 years, and this particular recipe was extremely tasty.
|
|
|
Forums14
Topics21,067
Posts1,050,337
Legionnaires1,731
|
Most Online53,886 Jan 7th, 2024
|
|
Posts: 56
Joined: August 2005
|
|
|
|