Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Good Movies => Topic started by: Fausto on December 18, 2009, 06:49:21 PM



Title: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Fausto on December 18, 2009, 06:49:21 PM
Caught it last night. Yes, it may be, for all intents and purposes, a remake of Dances with Wolves. Yes, the storyline is riddled with cliches. Yes, in some places, the dialogue is awful. Does any of that really matter, or hurt the viewing experience in the least? HELL NO. Seeing this in theatres, complete with 3d glasses, was incredible (granted, this was my first experience with the new 3d, so my opinion may be somewhat skewed in that reguard). Please, see this movie on the big screen while you have a chance.  :thumbup: :thumbup:


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Jim H on December 18, 2009, 08:09:43 PM
Yeah, there were a few weak spots of dialogue, I'd agree.  Most of Cameron's dialog is solid though - makes me think he needs a more critical script editor or something.  Terminator 2 also has a few rough dialog spots. 

As far as Dances With Wolves - notice the Na'Vi chief is played by Wes Studi, who played the villainous lead Pawnee in Dances With Wolves?  Thought that was an interesting choice.  He's a good actor though, so whatever. 

Basically, Avatar is a familiar story told very well.  It's very enjoyable, has great action scenes, and has the best CG in any film ever made.  Sam Worthington is a good hero, Zoe Saldana is great as Neytiri, and Stephen Lang is one of the best and most badass villains in years.

It does have its problems - some bad dialog, some so-so character development (in particular, I thought the treatment of Sigourney Weaver's character is a little odd - she just kind of disappears for long chunks of time, then reappears later), it's pretty predictable, and so on.  But, in the end, for myself these were mere trifles, and not a serious problem. 

I saw 32 films theatrically in 2009, and Avatar was my favorite.  It's on the line inbetween very good and great, I think just barely edging into greatness.

9/10.

PS: I saw the film in 2D, for what is worth.  3D breaks up for me and I see a lot of ghosting, so the illusion is often unconvincing and distracting from the storyline.  But, I'll be seeing Avatar again in 3D, most likely in a few days.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Fausto on December 18, 2009, 08:44:49 PM

Basically, Avatar is a familiar story told very well.  It's very enjoyable, has great action scenes, and has the best CG in any film ever made.  Sam Worthington is a good hero, Zoe Saldana is great as Neytiri, and Stephen Lang is one of the best and most badass villains in years.


Also liked Michelle Rodriguez as Trudy. She didnt get a lot of screen time, and one could argue she's a clone of Vasquez from Aliens, but I still liked the character.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: WingedSerpent on December 22, 2009, 04:13:15 PM
When the end credits started to roll, many people in the audience started to clap.  I...put on my jacket and quitely walked out of the theater.

Maybe I just got swept into the hype a little, but I was sort of disappointed in this movie.  It wasn't really a bad movie, just not a very good one.

Setting aside the story, which is what a lot of other people have complained about-here's the shocker- I don't think the 3D made a lick of difference in this movie.  Only a few times did I feel like I was in the same setting as the characters, or something was coming at me ( and even then it was the subtitiles).  Honestly, if I had seen it in 2D, I really don't think it would have made that much more of an entertaining film.  



I can tell already, this is going to be one of those love/hate movies for a lot of people.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Rev. Powell on December 22, 2009, 10:57:18 PM
I have to say, putting extensive CGI and James Cameron---two things I tend to dislike---together does not sound very promising. 


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Jim H on December 23, 2009, 02:39:33 AM
I saw it again in 3D.  I have my own problems with 3D, and Avatar had less of these than most...  But they still distracted me from the storyline.  I felt less pulled in than in 2D, as is usual for me.  Unless we get the alternative system with the motorized glasses, this will be the last film I see in 3D for quite a while...

I'd say it is also possible I didn't enjoy it as much because I'd seen it so recently before, or perhaps that it didn't stand up to repeat viewing.  Time will tell how true that is when I see it again on DVD/Blu-ray.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Neville on December 23, 2009, 06:28:06 AM
Saw it yesterday in 2D and was mesmerized. It's true that the script is a patchwork, though. I noticed strong tastes of "Dances with wolves" and "The new world", traces of Miyazaki's "Princess Mononoke" and "Nausicaa" and a bit of "Aliens" and Orson Scott Card in the aftertaste. Not entirely a problem unless you expect a film as revolucionary in its storytelling as it is in its visuals. And well, Cameron has a history of recycling and making covert adaptations, so that's not exctaly unexpected either.

But this little things considered, it is indeed a great film, and despite all its action, a strangely moving one. As I said, we've seen all this before, but I've rarely felt so moved as I was this time. I "blame" this on Cameron, who despite falling on some of his usual mistakes (he really needs co-writers or produces to restrain his magalomania) proves to have matured somehow since his old days, and on the acting by Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana. Their relationship and how it affects those around them is the best part of the film, and I can't imagine other actors in their place.

As for the visuals, they alone are worth the ticket. You won''t see a more beautiful film in ages, no matter what.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Jack on December 23, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
I used to be a gigantic sci-fi fan, but after a decade of CGI spectacles...I might pick up a used copy of this DVD when it hits the 10 cents mark.  Oh who am I kidding, no I won't.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Derf on December 23, 2009, 09:13:17 AM
I saw this last night, in 2D. As others have said, the storyline is predictable, but solid, particularly compared to many movies coming out in the last decade. The CGI is incredibly well done; I haven't seen any that looks more credible. Granted there was too much bioluminescence for my taste (did everything have to glow somehow?), but it worked overall. I'm glad I didn't see this in 3D, though: With my (mild) vertigo, I'd have been nauseous through about half the film.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Neville on December 23, 2009, 09:26:24 AM
I had the chance to watch it in 3D, but a friend who came with me had already, and told me that it wasn't worth it. He complained that there weren't too many instances of 3D and that the glasses gave him a monumental migraine. Other people around the net also mention the 3D glasses to be too heavy and unconfortable.

It sorts of annoys me, because in theory the movie was originally developed to be shown in 3D, and also becasuse... well... duh... I'm a 3D virgin (unless Imax counts), there it goes, and I can wait to see a 3D film in theatres. But now, 2 hours 45 with unconfortable, headache inducing glasses... that doesn't sound like the future of entertainment, it sounds like the Inquisition.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Zapranoth on December 24, 2009, 05:24:30 PM
Some of the commentary has a feel of backlash against hype to it, to me.

I hadn't seen a 3D movie since Treasure of the 4 Crowns (remember that?)... Saw Avatar today in 3D.

I echo what I have read from others who have seen it.  The plot is familiar.  But -- hear this -- the hype is true.  You have never seen anything that looks like this movie, and it is strangely moving, indeed.   You can pick the plot apart in places, and if that's the kind of moviegoer you are, well you can do that.  But I enjoyed it very much, and I cannot imagine the work it took to create the world that I just saw.

So go see it!  If you are going to see it, don't screw around watching it on a screen at home, not if you can see it on a very very big screen first!


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Jim H on December 24, 2009, 07:39:26 PM
Some of the commentary has a feel of backlash against hype to it, to me.

I hadn't seen a 3D movie since Treasure of the 4 Crowns (remember that?)... Saw Avatar today in 3D.

I echo what I have read from others who have seen it.  The plot is familiar.  But -- hear this -- the hype is true.  You have never seen anything that looks like this movie, and it is strangely moving, indeed.   You can pick the plot apart in places, and if that's the kind of moviegoer you are, well you can do that.  But I enjoyed it very much, and I cannot imagine the work it took to create the world that I just saw.

So go see it!  If you are going to see it, don't screw around watching it on a screen at home, not if you can see it on a very very big screen first!

Yeah, I'd agree there is a degree of hype backlash.  There's certainly legitimate criticisms to be sure, but I've noticed a few online reviewers tearing up Avatar who loved the new Star Trek film.  That's baffling to me, as they both have notable script problems.  Star Trek has enormous gaps of logic and plot holes (I think Avatar's story logic is generally quite believable, within context, and I didn't notice any glaring plot holes), while Avatar has spotty dialogue and other issues.  If nothing else, Avatar wins for not having any shaky cam and not covering the entire screen with lense flares.

Both are good films I enjoyed, for what that is worth, though I do like Avatar more.

Quote
I used to be a gigantic sci-fi fan, but after a decade of CGI spectacles...I might pick up a used copy of this DVD when it hits the 10 cents mark.  Oh who am I kidding, no I won't.

Fair enough on that score.  What's pretty interesting about Avatar's spectacle is how low key much of it is.  Yeah, there's a big battle at the end, and there are giant aerial shots of Pandora and what not, but aside from these key scenes, much of the spectacle is more akin to a nature documentary or a travel film.  I found that pretty refreshing, actually.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: D-Man on December 25, 2009, 11:59:05 PM
I decided to see it today, in 3-D, and I was surprised at how much I ended up enjoying it.

I seem to be in the minority when I say the 3-D really added to the experience.  I see so many people saying "Ohhh it's a gimmick!  It's a gimmick!"  Hey...I grew up in the era of Jaws 3-D, Amityville 3-D, and Friday the 13th 3-D...Real-D is way more than a gimmick when it's used right, and the fact that people would even think to compare a movie like Avatar to garbage like the films I just mentioned is a huge slap in the face to everyone who obviously put so much hard work into this film. 

Yes, the story is familar...but in this case, that's a positive.  The environment is so strange, and so unfamiliar, that you need a familiar storyline to keep from alienating the audience, or making them too uncomfortable.  Too often, I see films that try too many new things at one time, and it's just too taxing for the viewers. 

James Cameron has often spoken of Ray Harryhausen as an influence of his, and that certainly shows here.  Harryhausen always went for "fantastic" over "realistic" when it came to his creations, and Cameron clearly wanted his "fantastic" to look as good as possible. 

Plus, if you've read about Clash of The Titans, you know that Harryhausen wanted the character of Calibos to be completely animated, even when speaking, but the technology wasn't there yet...Avatar, to me, is an even bigger realization of Harryhausen's idea.

   


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Fausto on December 26, 2009, 03:22:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg&feature=related



Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Flick James on December 29, 2009, 03:51:30 PM
They said it was going to change the way movies are made. Sadly, that's probably true.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on December 29, 2009, 04:13:06 PM
I enjoyed it but it did get way overhyped. The story is solid but familiar (Overbearing Mililtary/Corporate Vs "Bleeding Heart" Scientist) To anyone who watchs Sci-Fi movies. The CGI is beautiful as is the entire movie and reminds me what Jurassic Park did to put CGI on the map.

The envoirmental message is bit to ham fisted for my taste. I was rolling my eyes like "I get it" at some parts. Still it is a movie you should see once on the big screen.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: D-Man on December 29, 2009, 08:53:50 PM
*The following contains possible spoilers*


I think some of the people who nitpick the dialogue and characters just want to hate this movie, for whatever reason they can find.  I think the 2 big problems people have with Avatar is:

1.  It's colorful.  It seems, these days, that Cinephiles only like movies that are dark, gritty, and "realistic".  Just look at District 9, which is similar to Avatar in a lot of ways.  I liked both movies, but I notice that District 9 is automatically treated as the superior film, because it's so dark and gritty, and made on a low budget, another thing that film snobs seem to have a hard-on for.  These guys just love to complain about how they're part of some kind of dying breed, when so much of Hollywood today, the Academy in particular, obviously caters to them on so many levels.  Well, hats off to Cameron for actually trying to make a fantastic, colorful event film.  (This is coming from someone who didn't particularly like Titanic.)

2.  It has a happy ending.  That's another thing Cinephiles seem to hate, especially those who only seem to like movies made in the 70's.  I'm sure if Avatar ended with Sully being killed, all the Navi being uprooted, and the Humans taking over everything, and being pounded with the message of "oh, we're so much poorer for having lost the natural world!" or something similarly depressing, then cinephiles everywhere would be hailing this movie as a masterpiece.  Again, I go back to District 9, which conforms to the standards of the depressing ending, and thus garners more praise from film snobs. 

As I said in my last post as well, a world as new and strange as Pandora needs a familiar story around it as padding for the viewer.  That's part of what makes it so enjoyable for me.  I agree that Blade Runner, for example, is a wonderful film, but every time I watch it, it's very overwhelming and tough to sit through, because it throws too much new stuff at you. 

James Cameron set out to make a movie that everyone can enjoy, including guys like me who enjoy ALL forms of film, and not just a few select genres or styles.  This is ultimately why he's so heavily criticized. 

Well, nuts to them, I liked this movie. 


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: indianasmith on December 31, 2009, 09:24:05 PM
I saw this one Tuesday night, and my reaction was twofold:

THE MOVIE worked beautifully.  Visually stunning, emotionally engaging, and well-acted, it was a viscerally satisfying popcorn flick of the best kind.

THE MESSAGE was incredibly overdone, and more of the same stuff Hollywood has been doling out since the late 1970's:
NATIVE CULTURES = "good"
ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISM = "good"
MILITARY = "bad"
CORPORATIONS = "bad"

If you can ingore the constant slaps at capitalism and the military, or if you approve that sort of thing, the movie works on all levels.  If you find that sort of preachiness tiresome, just watch the movie and don't think about it too hard.  It really is a visual gem, and reminds you just how good CGI can be.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: The Burgomaster on January 01, 2010, 03:52:07 PM
I saw this today (in 3-D) and really enjoyed it.  This is one of the few instances where the movie is actually better than the trailer would lead you to believe.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Monster Jungle X-Ray on January 02, 2010, 06:34:08 AM
I saw it a few days ago in 3-D, and was pretty impressed. Sure we've seen the core of this story many times before, but as D-Man pointed out the audience needed something familiar to relate to a world that was anything but familiar. I was not that jazzed about the film by what i saw in the trailers, it seemed like a was going to be a 3 hr long video game cutscene. Let me say my first impression was dead wrong, this is a darn good action film, and the pacing is such that you do not feel the time.

I am all for more traditional effects and a lesser reliance on CGI which I think is a crutch, but this film excells in the use of computer animation. The motion capture technology used here is the best I have seen so far, and the 3-D was incredible. One thing I did like was the military here was basically mercenaries hired by the corporation as opposed to an all out Starship Troopers like war/colonization. It has a lot of elements in common with the Alien universe, and I would like to think it exists somewhere in relation to it. Overall I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Avatar, and it makes me excited to see what Cameron does with Battle Angel.   


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: D-Man on January 02, 2010, 10:01:18 AM
Ever since I heard the Filmspotting Podcast rip into this movie, Adam Kempenaar and I got into it a little via e-mail.  In one of the messages he sent me, he referred to the dialogue as, and I'm quoting here, "Lucasian".  He claimed it made him suffer the whole way through. 

I haven't responded since, because...I just don't know how to respond to that...that's just stunning.  What on Earth did James Cameron, or anyone else involved with Avatar, do to deserve an insult like being compared to George Lucas? 

Avatar's dialogue may not have been perfect, but it certainly didn't give me the same kinds of groan-inducing feelings that all the Star Wars Prequels, AND Kingdom of The Crystal Skull combined gave me.  (I defended the latter before, but upon a more recent viewing...everyone else was right, I'm convinced.)

You don't have to like this movie, but a statement like that just crosses the line, to me. 


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Neville on January 02, 2010, 10:48:25 AM
Same here. The dialogue was never a problem for me. Some people think lines such as Sigourney Weaver asking for a light after being reanimated or the soldier talk in general are stupid. I think they are understandable given the context.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Jim H on January 04, 2010, 11:58:30 AM
I saw this one Tuesday night, and my reaction was twofold:

THE MOVIE worked beautifully.  Visually stunning, emotionally engaging, and well-acted, it was a viscerally satisfying popcorn flick of the best kind.

THE MESSAGE was incredibly overdone, and more of the same stuff Hollywood has been doling out since the late 1970's:
NATIVE CULTURES = "good"
ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISM = "good"
MILITARY = "bad"
CORPORATIONS = "bad"

If you can ingore the constant slaps at capitalism and the military, or if you approve that sort of thing, the movie works on all levels.  If you find that sort of preachiness tiresome, just watch the movie and don't think about it too hard.  It really is a visual gem, and reminds you just how good CGI can be.

I'm not entirely sure how deliberate it is on Cameron's part, but the situation between the Na'vi and the corporation and its goons in Avatar is pretty similar to the ongoing treatment of remaining tribal groups in South America and the military/corps/private goons.  The main differences I see: the Na'vi are far more capable of defending themselves (as well as more peaceable, from what we see), and the corp/private goons are actually WORSE in the real life situation than in Avatar. 

Just some food for thought when thinking about the film's message.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: 3mnkids on January 04, 2010, 12:14:18 PM
I finally got to see this yesterday and I agree with some of what has been posted. The dialogue was a little rough(cringe inducing in fact) I never want to hear the phrase "come get some" again. Seriously, how old are these guys? come get some? ugh.

Referring to worthingtons character as a moron throughout was a little much for as well. Because he was a jarhead and not a scientist does not make him a moron.

It was beautiful to say the least and I liked the "message".. then again I am a tree hugging liberal.  :thumbup:    

ETA~ I just noticed this was post # 666...  :smile:   I wish I could think of something evil to say.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Neville on January 06, 2010, 07:00:29 AM
I should let you know the Na'vi lawyers are moving on those who criticise the movie dialogs:

(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/4959/thedailyshow20100104mic.jpg)


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: lester1/2jr on January 22, 2010, 03:03:14 PM
I just saw it.  I was really blown away.  I didn' t realize how edgy the politics were.  I think that impressed me as much or more than everythign else. 


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Vane on January 28, 2010, 11:42:01 AM
The flick was good, but as everyone else says it just a mish-mosh of other movies and lame cliches. I saw it in 2d. the whole 3d thing in movies recently p**ses me off. If you cant make a good film without the snazzy 3d dont make a movie.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on January 28, 2010, 06:57:13 PM
Well, for those who have seen it . . .

It is on its way to be the highest grossing film of all time at the box office, beating out the previous record holder which was James Cameron's "Titanic," and it is--at this time--the odds on favorite to be awarded the Oscar for Best Picture at the next Academy Awards.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Vane on January 29, 2010, 12:58:13 PM
Oscar huh? Well i disagree. There is a simple formula ive discovered for finding the winner of best picture,
Most hype = Oscar for best picture
(most of the time)





Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Silverlady on February 01, 2010, 10:45:39 PM


I saw Avatar today and loved it! I agree with a lot of the comments all of you have made about this film, but it still beautiful to look at if nothing else!


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: wickednick on February 03, 2010, 07:12:47 AM
Was the movie overhyped? Yes, is it bad? No. I thought Avatar had a fairly decent script and I didn't have much problem with the dialog, every body played there roles very well. The problem with this movie is that its kinda cliche. Cameron doesn't do anything really unexpected I knew who was going to die  as soon as they came on screen, I knew how the plot was going to progress, I had most of the movie figured out in the first hour.
I guess I was kinda disappointed that this movie didn't take anything but the special effects to the next level. It's better at least than the Starwars Prequels but I doubt that this is going to topple Starwars off its lofty throne.
But over all its a fun movie to watch and I'll probably buy it when it comes out on dvd. There will most likely be extended scenes that will help fill in some of  the gaps the theatrical release had.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: Neville on February 03, 2010, 08:43:46 AM
I for one was quite disapointed on seeing how easy it was for Jake Sully to capture a Last Shadow.


Title: Re: Avatar (2009)
Post by: SPazzo on February 04, 2010, 02:29:28 AM
So I just saw it in 3D today.  Hmmm....

Well, I did like it.  The effects were great, the world was amazing.  You could really tell that they had some amazing artists working on this film.  My only complaint; the faith aspect.  So, the Na'vi's deity seemed pretty peaceful at first.  But then Jake prays for them to fight off the humans.  It seems like it could have a message here about God (or a god) not fighting peoples battles for them.  But then the god just goes apes**t on the humans.  A little strange...

I sort of have an idea about it.  Maybe their god represents Mother Nature.  It's sort of a message that while Nature is brutal and violent, it can still be peaceful too.  I guess living on a farm that message is nothing new to me.  Oh well. :lookingup:

I just guess that I dug a little too deep into it.  Anyway, the 3D was pretty cool.  This was my first 3D movie and I really did enjoy it.  It was the Real D 3D, and they had some sweet Buddy Holly 3D glasses which is a bonus.

All in all, a 8/10.