|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 23, 2009 5:05:53 GMT
May or may not do a full length review, since everybody and their mother will/already have posted their thoughts.
Remember that ABYSS review where I called the ending corny? Man I take that shit back after seeing AVATAR.
Really, I'm surprised...or shouldn't be...with how autopilot this story is. Unlike his TERMINATOR pictures or ALIENS or shit even ABYSS, there is no real emotional backing for the audience to naturally get behind the protagonists beyond a giant neon sign flashing "cheer for them!"
No that James Cameron I'm afraid is gone. The man we have now is the one from TRUE LIES and TITANIC, where the sheer awesome FX/action spectacle overwhelms any audience questions of story, character, etc., by sheer force. $270 million at least in production is the current reported budget number, and to be fair it's there to be seen. Wished more than a nickel was spent on the script.
And to be fair, very few still can cut a meaner, more thrilling action sequence than Cameron. At its best, and there are some terrific scenes, AVATAR is very much an Edgar Rice Burroughs-inspired fantasy adventure story. Hell with a plot of an Earth warrior going to an alien planet to meet the local exotic indigenous lifeforms (both beautiful and deadly), win the local princess, save the day....
This probably is the closest we'll...or me at least...will ever get to a PRINCESS ON MARS movie. So yeah, I liked AVATAR.Its barely above TRUE LIES and TITANIC, but below THE ABYSS, because at least I cared about Ed Harris and his wife. That was a good love story. I never gave a shit for the people in AVATAR beyond the action narrative.
Its not the game changer, it doesn't meet the insane historical-record hype, but if you do go....do 3-D bitch.
***1/2
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Dec 23, 2009 17:09:12 GMT
I remember reading $500 million on yahoo. I am seriously in two minds - on one hand, I almost know that I will not like the film (going by he trailer), but I am strangely curious to see the much-talked-about FX and what might have taken up the $500 mil (or $270mil, either way BIG money).
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 23, 2009 19:41:01 GMT
It looks like the sort of film I would have loved almost by default this time two years ago.
Now...
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 23, 2009 20:15:16 GMT
I liked it about as much as Titanic.
I quite like Titanic...
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 23, 2009 20:22:58 GMT
I liked it about as much as Titanic. I quite like Titanic... Haven't seen TITANIC since the theatre, but based off my memory.... You're right. It looks like the sort of film I would have loved almost by default this time two years ago. Now... What is the relevance of such a sentiment, and why would you be different now? If anything, my review will come off as being kind compared to yours inevitably. It's that sort of feeling I have.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 23, 2009 20:37:10 GMT
whats the relevance of italic/that/italic?
just announcing what thoughts i have going in - very minimal, almost indifferent
i'd be different now because i no longer simply approach a film wanting to be awed by emotions inspired by aesthetic - since aesthetic is never really or italic/should/italic never really be down to 'style' or 'presentation' alone not if you're a fully functioning intellectual human which maybe you're not i don't know you don't really strike me as one goodbye
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 23, 2009 20:50:53 GMT
whats the relevance of italic/that/italic? Because bold might come off as rude. just announcing what thoughts i have going in - very minimal, almost indifferent Then just write: "Just announcing my thoughts here, minimal as they are, but I feel pretty indifferent." Or something better. Which you would. i'd be different now because i no longer simply approach a film wanting to be awed by emotions inspired by aesthetic - since aesthetic is never really or italic/should/italic never really be down to 'style' or 'presentation' alone The whole fucking movie is aesthetic. You don't like it, but aesthetics are a storytelling tool. Sometimes (way too many) movies use it as their whole clutch, and other times there is a relevant thematic point to the coloring book. Without the crayons, there is no reason to bother with AVATAR. Unless blue cat-women are your thing... Yet in contradiction, I stand by my petty "emotional response" that many AVATAR sequences that said aesthetics did provoke that sort of daydreaming joy and inspired-creativity that I used to get from Burroughs' fantasy adventures. Before "fantasy" got hijacked into the sword & sorcery bullshit. I tell you a good comparison. Read up my CLIFFHANGER reivew. That was a decent action experience, where 3-4 enjoyably good sequences based around the plot gimmick (Die Hard on a Mountain) kept my attention. Not the story, not the characters, not even John Lithgow as the baddie. Or TRON, where (at that time at least) you have some rather compelling experimental aesthetics, filmatics, whatever one wishes to call it. The lightcycle race is in this age of AVATAR and CGI is still rather impressively well executed. The geeks don't remember TRON for the (too basic) plot or (paper thin archetype) characters. So in short, two decent actioneers or adventurers or however one may label them. AVATAR comes off as TRON 2009. not if you're a fully functioning intellectual human which maybe you're not i don't know you don't really strike me as one goodbye Merry Christmas to you too.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 23, 2009 21:12:05 GMT
An excerpt from a review posted by my buddy Aaron Leggo at another website:
"Few filmmakers could rescue their movie from such a mountain of flaws and make the mixture of positive and negative so effectively intriguing, but Cameron pulls off another amazing feat with Avatar. Somehow, all of that visual magic punctuated by Saldana's enchanting performance adds up to a movie that emerges victorious. It may be beaten and bloody, bruised and broken, but it still escapes the narrative rubble standing tall and proud. What a glorious mess, what an eccentric endeavour, so unique, so redundant, so clumsily contradictory, all packaged and delivered by no less than the King of the World. "
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Dec 24, 2009 6:42:13 GMT
Is the aesthetic even impressive?
Just a bunch of neon shit if you ask me, but I've never been awed by special effects.
Even if it is I find it hard to look past all of the other weak aspects of the film.
I mean $300 million CGI movies with themes of modern man's separation from nature.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 24, 2009 15:37:04 GMT
Is the aesthetic even impressive? For December 2009, it was. Will it be in 10 years? Who knows, probably not? Just a bunch of neon shit if you ask me, but I've never been awed by special effects. One may or may not take FX into consideration for a film's quality, but surely there must have been a moment in your life when a FX moment did grab your attention in some form or fashion. Even if it is I find it hard to look past all of the other weak aspects of the film. Yeah I almost came there with you with the (non-existent) story and (lack of developed) characters. Plus I usually get an allergic reaction to movies with the simplified "good" scientists versus "evil" military. Save for DAY OF THE DEAD, I can't remember where someone makes that manipulative plot template actually work. Maybe THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (original), if one agrees that fits the template. And I'm not sure it does. I mean $300 million CGI movies with themes of modern man's separation from nature. I thought interesting (or annoying) how there was many themes Cameron either decided not to explore, or was never interested in. I mean you basically have a technology-superior race without any sign of religion, while the technological-primitives (who triumph) have their "God." Then again, CAmeron has toyed with that technology-deficient hero who win over the tech-superior adversary a few times. His TERMINATOR movies, and in reverse, ALIENS.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 26, 2009 1:20:00 GMT
I don't think any work of art as complex as a narrative film is 'only aesthetic'. That's as relevant to Avatar as it is to Norman McLaren's Neighbours.
Yes, unavoidably. I've never said anything to the contrary, either, by the way.
Formalists might reduce 'aesthetic appeal' to the stylistic structure and presentation of a film - its camera angles, its photography, the music, its 'tone' (mise-en-scene?), etc. - but I think 'aesthetic' is a lot more complex a thing to grasp. Perhaps crudely, it envelopes both 'style' and 'content'.
I'm not going into Avatar with the assumption that it's simply a lengthy exercise in style and technology. It's a film being made for cinema theatres, it's being marketed as a work of cinema; it's not some looped projection in an art gallery.
If it were 'simply a lengthy exercise in style and technology', without betraying its inherent cultural values as a product of narrative cinema, then it'd just be a possibly interesting gimmick. And I don't expect it will be just this.
Saying that, I do expect I'll be disappointed by it, judging by comments in this thread - yours included. What I mean by disappointed is not that I think it will be amazing, but that I'll come out feeling it didn't go as far as it could have, with its 'story'...
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 26, 2009 1:23:35 GMT
...but then I'm not accounting for the possibility that I catch it in just the right mood, that I find myself in such a patient, tolerant frame of mind that I can, for the duration of the film itself if nothing more, 'escape' into its visually inspiring style.
I'm seeing it on an IMAX screen. I've never 'done' IMAX before.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Dec 26, 2009 4:23:16 GMT
I just saw it...
I can't appreciate it for anything but being a "lengthy exercise in style(not so much) and technology(a LOT)", at which it does a really good job.
I need to get used to 3D films. I find it annoying to see blurry foreground (as in shallow depth of field) - it gives me an impression that some parts of the frame are not properly done in 3D. I am not sure if I conveyed what I am thinking of.
And does any one else get eye strain with those 3D glasses?
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Dec 26, 2009 5:00:31 GMT
I usually get horrible eye strain during 3D, but only once during "Avatar"'s length did I have to remove the glasses and rub my eyes. That foreground stuff you were talking about made sense. Possible SpoilersI was definitely caught up in the moment while seeing it. I went with some out of town friends. We had to buy our tickets early, so we went to a Sushi place and ate first. Also had a pitcher of beer and sake. This led me to love the movie when it started, getting bored in the middle (and sleepy feeling when the buzz wears out), and having renewed faith in the end. The script got worse as it went along. The whole story was really by-the-numbers. Here is a funny blog response to "Avatar" on Ebert's site. I concur with this fellow: By Steve Real on December 19, 2009 9:54 PM
Avatar is a classic scenario you've seen in Hollywood epics from Dances With Wolves, Dune, District 9 and The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its most awesome member.
If we think of Avatar and its ilk as white fantasies about race, what kinds of patterns do we see emerging in these fantasies?
A white man who was one of the oppressors switches sides at the last minute, assimilating into the alien culture and becoming its savior. These are movies about white guilt. Our main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color - their cultures, their habitats, and their populations.
The whites realize this when they begin to assimilate into the "alien" cultures and see things from a new perspective. To purge their overwhelming sense of guilt, they switch sides, become "race traitors," and fight against their old comrades. But then they go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed.
This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare. It's not just a wish to be absolved of the crimes whites have committed against people of color; it's not just a wish to join the side of moral justice in battle. It's a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside.blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/12/the_best_films_of_2009.html#comment-836612
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 26, 2009 16:29:03 GMT
Saying that, I do expect I'll be disappointed by it, judging by comments in this thread - yours included. What I mean by disappointed is not that I think it will be amazing, but that I'll come out feeling it didn't go as far as it could have, with its 'story'... I'm pretty sure you will. I'm certain everyone at FCM will agree that the "story" in AVATAR was easily the cheapest note on the budget line. ...but then I'm not accounting for the possibility that I catch it in just the right mood, that I find myself in such a patient, tolerant frame of mind that I can, for the duration of the film itself if nothing more, 'escape' into its visually inspiring style. I'm seeing it on an IMAX screen. I've never 'done' IMAX before. It's possibe. I mean that sorta sums up my experience, except I did plain ole 3-D since no IMAX theatres in my area. Interestingly, with that Burroughs comment I made earlier (and I still stand by), I apparently convinced my girlfriend to go see it. So now I'm probably have to take her, and I'm not sure if I'm really interested in "experiencing" AVATAR again. If I do see it again....Capo, using your thoughts, I would say that I'll probably think even less of the script the second time around. Here is a funny blog response to "Avatar" on Ebert's site. I concur with this fellow: By Steve Real And he's right. Then again, its not the plot in itself that bothers me. I remembered being compelled and getting involved with DANCES WITH WOLVES when I saw it in high school. I also remember despising the complete shit out of THE LAST SAMURAI (but that's Ed Zwick, I should have known better). So I would say AVATAR fits between the two.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 5, 2010 1:10:37 GMT
Certainly box office shouldn't matter at all whether a film is worth watching or not, and yet with our capitalist infrastructure that cinema is inevitably and unescapably tied to, I guess I'm sorry when I bring this up.
To say AVATAR is burning up the box-office is like saying water is wet. It became the 5th movie to make a billion bucks world-wide (over $350 million in America alone) in theatres, and sad enough, the only non-sequel of the bunch.* Yet whats really stunning and inexplicable is this fact:
Fastest to $1 Billion
Avatar - 17 days Dead Man's Chest - 63 days Return of the King - 67 days Titanic - 73 days The Dark Knight - 200+ days
--------------------------------------
You know, I've debated with some friends a time or two about how TITANIC became, well TITANIC. At least some of those hypothesis and theories have some hold that makes sense. The universal appeal of the rich/poor class divide (who in the world doesn't hate snobby evil rich pricks?), DiCaprio at the height of his teen girl idoldom at the right time, right property, the mesh-mash of genres (romance, mystery, disaster, FX spectacble, boobies), and so on so on this capitalist drabble.
But AVATAR? I just don't get it.
Sure the higher IMAX/3-D ticket prices account a few millions, but surely people must be enjoying this on some level to which account for this insane business. I mean on its 3rd weekend, it did $68 million. After its first two weekends, $77 million and $75.8 million. This shit doesn't happen in Hollywood today, where the industry usually expect a 20-40% drop after opening weekend.
My only guess might be that this has been billed and spread by people (most on Internet) that they must see it in theatres, and in 3-D or whatever glasses shit. The charge is worth it, or something. Apparently a super successful blockbuster reaches a point where everyone must watch so they can partake in what the hell the big fuss is all about.
"Must see Mommy!"[/i]
Then again, there is the fact that as much as we agree the script was shit and characters nonexistent....I suppose the action cinema and the pitched "underdog" narrative is what is selling besides the CGI and glasses. Or am I talking out of my ass again?
*=All also are pretty long movies. 2 and half hours at least, give or take.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 5, 2010 15:23:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jan 5, 2010 16:39:35 GMT
My only guess might be that this has been billed and spread by people (most on Internet) that they must see it in theatres, and in 3-D or whatever glasses shit. The charge is worth it, or something. Apparently a super successful blockbuster reaches a point where everyone must watch so they can partake in what the hell the big fuss is all about. I am guilty on both ends - I bought the hype myself before viewing and also suggested people to check it out only on 3D. I didn't recommend anyone to watch it , but my advice for whosoever that opted to watch it was to not waste money on 2D.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 7, 2010 2:53:30 GMT
AVATAR is interesting regarding that 3-D.
I mean think about it. Most recent movies of the "3-D Fad" use it as a supplementary gimmick to score more tickets. Yes CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS and THE DARK KNIGHT had (smaller) 3-D releases, but most screens were the 2-D release most folks saw. AVATAR though, the 2-D shit is put out to make more cash out of theatres unwilling or unable to install the 3-D projectors.
EDIT - And in surprising news, despite this upcoming weekend being AVATAR's 4th in release....Its got 80%+ of pre-sale tickets bought on the Internet.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 7, 2010 12:58:14 GMT
I don't know of any UK screens that have Avatar only in 2D.
|
|