DiabloFans

I'd have to agree, the visuals and overall atmosphere it created is what blew me away and is probably what will make this movie memorable which isn't to say that that is a bad thing.

I thought it was a pretty bad movie with only the visuals keeping me interested. They were definitely great although I don't think they were as dazzling as some people seem to think.

The plot as has already been discussed was full of cliches and the characters were black and white, boring archetypes. The acting didn't help either, I didn't find any of the actors bringing subtlety or life to the cardboard cutouts they were playing. I thought Sigourney Weaver was especially bad in the first quarter with her line delivery ("Where's my cigarette? What's wrong with this picture boys? Aren't I just such a badass?") The pilot woman took the cake for the worst actual lines though. The script as a whole was as cliched as the story. Check out the Braveheart-esque speech towards the end.

But yes the visuals were very cool and brilliant to look at. The 3D perspective is fun but not as fun as I expected. It really didn't seem that much better than 2D although in some scenes it really did make all the difference.

I still can't believe Cameron spent twelve years making this film using such an enormous budget. You'd think he could have gotten better writers with all that money. And to think, just a few days before the movie premiered, one of his associates was raving about Cameron's incredible story-writing faculties on Charlie Rose. What a joke.

To me, Avatar epitomizes all that's wrong with Hollywood blockbusters nowadays. It's all "style over substance." You see the same stories being remade (think romantic comedies) over and over again and action movies piling on special effects to make up for weaknesses in plot, acting, and direction. I found Avatar entertaining, but it's definitely something I'd only want to see once. Not a great film by any means.

I'm going to watch it in about an hour..I'm sure I'll leave an hour in to have a cigarette..it's so fucking long.

Quote from "Musica" »

I found Avatar entertaining

You would have been better off with just this.

Thats all Avatar was supposed to do. Entertain. It was not supposed to compel you to some revelation, nor was it supposed to make you think to hard. It was merely supposed to leave you entertained with a fun story, the best graphics of all time, and a good message.

The message is not so much cliche as it is relevant. He had a purpose behind the film. One that I appreciated.

The main character was a little dull. But that's because he is a freaking marine. How many engaging marines have you met? Neytiri was done perfectly. The general guy was ok. The pilot had some awful lines I will give you that.

I still can't believe you attempted to say anything against the cgi. It kills your argument because you clearly don't know what your talking about.

I agree. Why does everyone think that every movie can not have any similar story line to any previous movie. "What, the main guys turns on his team to fight for a more noble cause, seen that before." Classic stories are just that, Classic.

Maybe because 90% of the movie industry is like that and some of us want it to stop?
Did he seriously spent 12 years making Avatar? That's ridiculous for any movie...

Entertaining movies entertain you once.
Good movies entertain you forever.

So "entertainment" is really a soft term for "lousy one-time movie with nothing going for it", because good movies are also entertaining, they just have deeper meaning on top of it.
I found "In the Valley of Elah" very entertaining.

The problem with classic stories is not that they're classic but they've been bad to begin with and need some serious changes.

Well, luckily this movie doesn't fit into the category of bad.

So I watched it. This is what the fuss was all about? It was seriously like watching a National Geographic documentary about some alien planet, but with some additives here and there. What the fuck was up with the flies? They were here, there, everywhere, everytime. The year is 2150 or something, and the health care system, the pay a marine gets, and wheelchairs are still all the same? You'd think that in 200 years, where they're cultivating fucking avatars, going to other planets, and have all these cool little gizmos, that something as simple as a wheel chair would improve, but nooooo, the dude still has to pedal through it.

Yeah, ok, the CGI is good, better than most other movies....umm, so what? You can watch CGI porn, where the CGI is mind blowing and breathtaking, but the girl getting banged looks like the Grinch..CGI just ain't gonna make your soldier stand up for duty. Likewise, in Avatar, the CGI is ravishing, but wtf? The story wasn't dull, it was completely and utterly expectable. There was nothing in the film which, to me at least, wasn't as clear as sunshine. My friend who went with me already saw it, and everytime I expected something to happen, I'd tell him "so no this and this will happen, leading to this" and he would be like "you've seen it, haven't you?".

Once you get through all the wrapping of this gift, you realize that all that's inside it is an empty wine bottle. People are just pissing me off going on and on about how amazing the graphics are. Even you guys here..you're pissing me the hell off. Why? YOU LIKE DIABLO FFS! It would be like saying that Crysis is so damn amazing because its graphics are unlike any before in this industry, and saying that Diablo is any less fun (it actually rapes Crysis like a rhino would rape a chihuahua). Do you seem where I'm coming from?

To top that, Sigourney Weaver was just...wow..completely and utterly useless. None of the actors slightly appealed to me, bar the general dude. You also have all these silly..silly lines that put Braveheart and Transformers II to SHAME. THIS IS OUR LAND! Dude, shut up. What the hell is up with the robots that the army were using? We've seen it in The Matrix already, it's a dull concept now. Maybe he though of it 11 years ago when there was no Matrix, but I guess the Wachowski brothers really stuck it in his face, didn't they? Chipmunks, baboons, Tarzan, and a crapload of other entities also beat James Cameron when it comes to those godawful sounds that Na'vi make..they were so annoying. The way Neytiri cries and does a lot of things is also funny, really taking away from the moment.

So apparently Cameron wants to put out the message that resources aren't worth human lives. Yeah, no shit. I don't think Bush will watch the movie and really think "man, I really should go to Iraq and say "THORRY GUYZ!"". It's good, but nothing worth mentioning.

I don't want to come off as a guy who just wants to rant on about how much he didn't like this movie. The music was great, and several parts in the movie were really sweet..but seriously, it doesn't deserve all this hype, it really doesn't. There are plenty of others things that I didn't like, but I'll just leave it at this.

5/10 from me.

Quote from "emilemil1" »

You are in group 2 ^^



(it is actually way better than any other movie)

A movie doesn't have to be perfect in all areas, just look at Diablo. Diablo has 1 quality: gameplay. It doesn't have polishment, graphics, whatever (and it is full of holes, glitches and bugs). Many of us would say that Diablo is the best game ever made, but how can that be when it lacks so many things? I can enjoy Diablo because the gameplay is so damn awesome that it takes my mind away from all the flaws. Avatar does the same thing, but for other reasons (that I can't express in words right now). If a game can be super awesome purely on gameplay, why can't a movie be super awesome purely on something like visuals? Or because of one actor? Just like a song can become super awesome just by switching singer (the voice made the song awesome).

Just shut down the brain FCOL! You play Diablo so don't complain about stereotypes and poor lines...



Imagine someone saying that in a movie...

Because movies aren't like video games in that specific aspect. You play a game and continue playing it and love it based on its gameplay. You may enjoy it for the graphics, but you're not going to be playing it and enjoying it 6 or 7 or 8 years later. A movie needs to have a strong plot in order for you to be able to watch it again and again. Avatar is only really fun the first time you watch it. The second time feels like a task (just like my friend pointed out to me today, since he watched it a couple of days back). Just like Don said, with all the raving about this movie, one would expect it to have a solid storyline, solid graphics, solid everything. All it had was solid graphics, and a bit of fun to offer the masses.

Imagine Akara saying that in a movie? Yes, I can. If done by a good actress, at a good point in the movie, with the right vibe and atmosphere, it might sound actually great.

Quote from "Don_guillotine" »

Now don't assume that with "visuals" I'm merely referring to graphics. I refer to the whole thingamabob; graphics, world, character looks, minor details, etc.


PS: I dig some pretty bad movies, because some aspect in them will appeal to me personally. However, those movies are nowhere near good or the best. Their subjective experience is merely personally satisfying.

Like I liked watching both Hellboy movies, while they were utterly crap movies, their visuals and the world presented in them are very catchy. I wouldn't call them even "good" - merely appealing in a personal and subjective way.

Like for example I absolutely loved how these Angels of Death looked like:

<input type='button' class='bbc_spoiler_show' value='Show image' />

Have you ever watched a movie called Interstate 60? It's my personal favorite by miles and miles. You should really...REALLY see it..it's great.

No problem. It's one of those movies that really has substance in them. I never get bored of watching that movie.

Meph you sound like a broken record. Your saying the same thing that every other negative nancy is saying about the movie. Your as unoriginal in your critique as you claim this movie to be.

Quote from "Umpa65" »

Meph you sound like a broken record. Your saying the same thing that every other negative nancy is saying about the movie. Your as unoriginal in your critique as you claim this movie to be.

And you're sounding the same unoriginal thing that any crazed fanboy of an over-hyped movie says. I'm sorry, but if I watched the movie and what I wrote about it is what I honestly thought, then I don't think you're in any place to say rubbish like that without answering to my points in a reasonable, respectful manner. I don't care if you think I sound like a broken record, it's what I thought about the movie. If you like it that much that you're willing to bring out your guns at me or whatever you call what you just did, then that's seriously something wrong with you. Every person has the right to his own views about this movie, all that you can do is either disregard what I said and maintain the fact that you like it regardless, or answer back to my points in a proper manner. Until then, keep such comments to yourself, my angry little muffincakes

Sir, I shall be a crazed fanboy all I want. And you will like it!

Secondly, I understand that you would have liked me to respond to all of your points. But the thing is, I already have in previous posts. Different people said the same stuff in one way or the other. And us crazed fanboys have retorted. So for me to respond to every single point would make this thread a circle. Do you want to be stuck in a circle? I don't. I would get dizzy. So instead I resort to "No u".

Plus, theres nothing to really respond to. I can't say that your opinion is wrong because it isn't, it's your opinion. But I can say it's a shitty opinion because I don't like it in MY opinion!

So, what do I really think?

Your Crysis analogy was very valid. However I enjoyed the story so I simply don't agree. The cliche stuff was pretty bad but I personally loved the story. I don't think the plot was cliche so much as it is relevant to what we have done in our past present and what we will most likely continue to do in the future, exploit certain technologically undeveloped civilizations. I understand that at some point certain people no longer enjoy "blockbuster cookie cutters" like this. But I think critics such as yourself set the bar too high as Bashiok put it and expect more than is possible. My honest opinion and first inclination is that your a person who hates mainstream stuff just because it's mainstream. I'm usually someone who hates mainstream. But I don't do it just because it's mainstream, some of those radio songs are pretty good, most are just terrible. But the people who are like "ugh you only listen to mainstream, I don't, Im HARD! I listen to underground!" piss me off. To not listen to something because a majority does is the stupidest thing ever. You may be saying, what does that have to do with anything? Well, what I mean is, that I feel like your pulling the hard critic card just because the story is similar to other big movies. I disagree with that move because I don't feel you appreciate the relevance of the story. Just my opinion but, I feel like you looked at the plot as 2 dimensional, unoriginal, and black and white, when really it's so much more. The director didn't choose to do it like everybody else because it was easy, there is an actual message in the film. If you know anything about literature then you know that in movies, books, and video games, the same stories, characters and ideas always pop up fora reason. Such archetypes are reflective of what we see in life and it's got a lot to do with how we percieve history. Simply because it isn't a brand new story means nothing. As I said in a previous post "The Simpson's have already done it". If that makes no sense, go read the post. Allow me to bring this little commentary full circle. I said your Crysis analogy was a great and valid argument. However, with a decent plot along with these amazing graphics I think you lack an appreciation for the true art of this film. It was absolutely gorgeous. Maybe you don't appreciate it because you don't understand all the work that goes into this stuff I'm not sure. However, either way it makes me sad to see people who can't appreciate this films beauty AND relevance.

Now, for comments not part of my overall summary critique of your critique.
There were a lot of cheesy lines but "THIS IS OUR LAND" was not one of them at all you loser!!!:( I'm going to go with my previous statement that the film and this statement was relevant to the situation. It's easy to relate to! Can you come up with a better speech? I'll give you a perfect example as to why this is relevant. Go watch a football movie. Are all the clutch time speeches the same? YES! Why? Is it because they have nothing better to say? Noooooo. It's because this is what coaches ACTUALLY say in locker rooms. Believe me, I've been subjected to more than one of those speeches in a locker room. In fact, upon reflection, I've heard that very speech that Jake Sully gave more than once during a home game and they went something like: " What the fuck are you doing out there!?!? This is OUR house! Get out there and show them why they need to be scared when they come to our field! Knock em' on their asses" Is that not basically the same thing as what Jake said? It's not so much that it's cliche as it is RELEVANT. People ACTUALLY say this stuff.

Now, what did you have against the Na'vi cries?! I loved them. They the culture of the Na'vi the same way Blizz made the cultures of their different races and characters. You may have disliked it but I thought it was awesome.

What was wrong with Neytiri?! I thought her various sounds and responses were awesome. I love the voice of that actress, her name slips my mind. She played the part perfectly.

On a last note, people need to stop hating on the way the Na'vi look! I thought they were a perfect mix of human and cat. Elongated bodies, tail, cat ears, slightly wider eyes, cat like noses usually, wider brow lines, and last but not least, human hands with three fingers! They built them in a way that made them very believable, and on many levels attractive because they have human anatomy.

Done with the response to you now Meph.

I thought it was really interesting that they were given human hands and feet. That is a very odd decision. Usually hands are the first things to get a makeover when combining human anatomy with that of a beast. I was struck with a look of "?!" when I saw the human hands, I simply wasn't expecting it. When I say human hands I mean of course the structure of the bones, not necessarily that there are 5 fingers. You know, same wrist, joint, knuckle, finger, fingernail structure. The same goes for feet.

My first thought when I saw this was "Wow, that's unrealistic! What are the chances that a species probably light years away not only has our same basic muscle anatomy, but also the same exact bone structure in the hands(hands are really complicated and such an occurrence would be crazy). He is clearly just doing this so that they don't seem ugly and unattractive to us." But then I got to thinking. The art director may have done this because he/she wanted them to be attractive or relatable so that we liked them and felt emotional attachment for them so that we cared about what happened to them and got into the movie. OR maybe it was something else? This thought keeps popping in my head. There is obviously a feeling that their is a deity in the universe. The Na'vi worship their god in a way that brings it up all the time and makes it a focus of the film. But it becomes apparent that this god is more than just a figment of their imagination when certain miracles occur. The director may have made the hands human to show that all throughout the universe there is a god and he made creatures that look almost identical in structure and overall appearance. This applies to all of the structure of the Na'vi but the hands are especially noteworthy.

I'm sad because nobody is going to read this because of how long it is.
Meph, read it please and make me feel better?

Umpa65, I actually read your entire post and agree with a lot of the things you said (though, to be honest, it seems like when it comes to this movie everyone on both sides of the fence are just repeating themselves over and over again). I think it's important to think of a movie like this less as "have we experienced this idea before?" and more like "what does this new version of the idea offer us?". In many cases, the answer will just be "entertainment". In this case, though, I think there is more.

Beyond the obvious 'splosions and pretty shiny things that keep this movie interesting to the eye, the relate-ability of the characters was tremendous, despite their obvious physical differences. They still felt genuine (at least to me) within the context of the film and the na'vi were an interesting, if not totally original, group of primitive warriors.

I think, perhaps, the most important point to make about this film, though, is that James Cameron has been imagining all this since he was a child. The script was finished over 15 years ago. The only reason this story didn't exist many, many years ago was because it was not technically possible at the time. How much less 'cliche' would this story have been in 1995 than it is now? Considerably.

In the end it just comes down to personality of the viewer. What they feel they have seen enough of vs. what they care enough about to see again. What they enjoy vs. what they would rather avoid, etc, etc. As long as you watch it before you bash it, I have no problem with anyone disliking it - not to mention, as long as they let me keep my own opinion as well.

Emilemil1 read my part about the cliche lines if you have not already. Those lines are not cliche! They are relevant!

Thanks for reading Nyalite (and welcome, never posted in your opening thread )

No, that stuff WAS cliche. You missed what I was saying. The speeches were not cliche. The war speeches seem cliche but thats what he would have probably actually said. The pilot was a TERRIBLE character. lol.

Quote from "Don_guillotine" »

The biggest plot hole as somebody who knows my economics is the fact that I found it unfeasible that the mineral the whole plot was centered would be that expensive, even accounting inflation and assuming it cures cancer and solves the energy crisis and hands out candy to children while doing all that.

This is where you lost me. I started laughing my ass off at this point. Really? Economics is where it becomes unrealistic? The blue people with almost identical anatomic structure doesn't bother you at all? I just thought it was funny imagining you sitting there watching the guy talk about the price of the ore and be like "Oh, this is the last straw! I'm out of here!" lol.

But seriously, great critique. Most balanced and insightful I have heard yet. Those 3 stars are valid!

No, I just meant by comparison, if there are blue people that ride dragons the economics should be minor.

But yes, I see your point. It was a bit outrageous. And when I think about it, it's quite an odd mistake considering Don took so much into consideration as to even get a linguist to create the language of the Na'vi.

Quote from "Don_guillotine" »

Well, blue people is something you just have to accept as a part of the sci-fi movie.

It's the same case as when somebody knowing physics or any other scientific subject well goes to see a Hollywood movie it is pretty obvious where Hollywood has taken some liberties.

And yes, I find it funny how for 500 million USD Cameron could've had someone notice some of the issues with the movie.


Like at one point, Dr.Augustine held a pipette containing a sample upside down. Scientists would never do that, as it messes up the sample and should strictly be avoided.

(I know, nobody will notice that. *laughs*)

Believe it or not, I laughed my ass off when the dude said how much the unobtanium costs, and I did actually notice that she was holding the pipette upside down (when you're majoring in Medical Lab Technology, you tend to notice such things even more so than you notice that the Na'vi have only 4 fingers..I bet Donal Duck and Mickey Mouse felt the relation). I didn't include those in my review because I just knew someone would quote me and go like "IS THAT WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT IN THE FOSHIZZLE MA NIZZLE RAZZLE MA DAZZLE MOOVEH?@!?!?!@?" y'know?

Very neat review by the way.

I was reading about dystopian literature in the 80's and 90's the other day, so I fully agree with you on the fact that whether the film conveys and dystopic reality or not. If you ask me, I would say that it scratches the surface, but is a far cry from actually putting forth an image of a dystopic nature. I don't know if you understood what I'm aiming at, but whatever.

I also felt that 3D technology was very well implemented in the movie, where they don't want to cause everything to fly out of the screen and scream out "YEAH BITCH, THIS IS 3D!" like a couple other 3D movies did. My friend, who watched the 2D version before he watched the 3D one, was like "I don't know why there weren't many 3D elements in this one..the 2D version is the same in terms of beauty"; I thought he was sadly mistaken.

Character development isn't really taken into consideration in several of today's movies (A Perfect Getaway, and many many others), but done well in several others (The Blind Side, Law Abiding Citizen (in a manner)..). Avatar on the other hand, really stomps all the movies which had no character development, because you have all these characters who's back story would be magnificent to tell, but wasn't, to leave place for all the other unnecessary elements in this really long movie. He could have left off somethings which are of lesser importance, to make place for this really important thing. Whatever, though.