Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: James Cameron's Avatar - Your take?

  1. #1

    Default James Cameron's Avatar - Your take?

    I'd like to know how many people went to see this film. I finally got a chance to attend last night and came out with my own very strong opinion about what I thought about it. I'm curious to know -- has anybody seen Avatar, and if so, what did you think of it? What did you think it did well? What do you think it did poorly? Was this movie the wild-and-crazy blockbuster of our decade that it was hyped up to be, or was it overrated?

    I'm curious to know! My own review is forthcoming.

  2. #2

    Default

    I enjoyed every mintues of it. I give it 11/10. I enjoyed it so much that I saw it twice.

    I believe that James Cameron doesn't mess about when making movies. He wants to tell a story and not something that is heavy on action/blood/gore/sex or whatever unlike some movies today (i.e Freddy vs. Jason, Hostel) that don't have much storyline. I don't think that CGI was too much because only CG can make your imagination become real.
    Sure $200 - 500 million was a lot of money but think of how much new technology was brought out or perhaps invited to make it and release it. Now also there are going to be 3D TVs coming out at some point this year.

  3. #3

    Default

    I really really enjoyed it. I had been anticipating it for quite some time, so I went all out and saw it in IMAX 3D. Some will argue that the story was predictable, which I'll have to agree to some extent. But, as far as a 'move-going' experience, it was something you don't see everyday. Visually, it was just stunning. I really did feel immersed into the fictional world, and I think Cameron did a good job of making a bunch of CGI characters feel very believable.

  4. #4

    Default

    I liked it a lot mainly because I know way to much about Native Americans. My little brother knows even more and he was sitting next to me. The Na'vi were exactly like Native Americans to the point where me and my brother were naming the types of clothing they were wearing. What really got me was the connection between the Na'vi and nature exsisted with Native Americans, and the only difference in the movie was that the connection was literal. Seeing them as Native Americans made the movie much less predictable because the Native Americans didn't win the war.

  5. #5

    Default

    The story was quite bad. Seriously, the only stories that have been done more often on the silver screen are rip offs of the Seven Samurais and movies based on A Christmas Carrol. And the characters are about as flat as they can be made.

    That being said, the thing that Cameron did really well is make it all believable, and make you feel that Pandora is a living, breathing world. I certainly enjoyed it, but I doubt its the kind of movie my kids will want to watch 20-30 years down the road.

    Oh, anybody else feels its ironic that a pro-environment and anti-war and capitalism movie has been made for over 250 million USD and was financed by the guy that owns one of the most conservative news station in the world? Not that it takes away from the movie, but it certainly takes away from its message...

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Dawes View Post
    I'd like to know how many people went to see this film. I finally got a chance to attend last night and came out with my own very strong opinion about what I thought about it. I'm curious to know -- has anybody seen Avatar, and if so, what did you think of it? What did you think it did well? What do you think it did poorly? Was this movie the wild-and-crazy blockbuster of our decade that it was hyped up to be, or was it overrated?

    I'm curious to know! My own review is forthcoming.
    I went into it blind. This guided my thinking.

    It was an orgy of special effects draping a philosophically empty story-line.

    Only "The Box" and "Wall-E" were worse than this in terms of content and agenda, respectively.

    I think it modeled the flow of mist from waterfalls well; however, this was far, far, far overshadowed by what it did poorly, and that was to create a story to bloated with agenda that it was unwatchable.

    I'd not go so far as to demand my $8 back from the director (as I hope to do with "The Box"), but I'd like $7.50 back.

  7. #7
    secretdl26

    Default

    I thought that the imagery (especially since I saw it in 3D) was far beyond anything else I had ever seen and was simply incredible.

    The story, however, was similar to many of the same "industry is bad, people can be evil, natives and the earth should be respected, etc." It was kind of stereotypical, including the inclusion of certain things (like the Na'vi/Native American comparisons).

    However, it was still a great movie.

  8. #8

    Default

    It was entertaining, but not enough to get me bouncing in my seat. I'd partly agree with H3g3l on the "philosophical empty story-line" but it was just a fairy tale to entertain children under 8. I watched in 3D as a Christmas gift from my Mum. She never saw a film in 3D, and neither had I. Given that hype I was expecting it to be good, but came out slightly disappointed. It was just eye candy to me from all the tech and effects they put in. And although off topic, I think I'll stick to 2D animated pictures.

    I wouldn't recommended it to anyone, but given the hype and it not being unbearable, I don't actively negatively comment on it.

    I found Sherlock Holmes more entertaining tbh. But that share a little hate for Dr. Who in me.

  9. #9

    Default

    I'm glad to see that a few people share similar feelings. I'm going to break it all down regarding my opinion with simplicity:

    It was one of the worst movies I believe I've ever seen.

    It was overlong, awfully predictable, illogical, poorly-paced, non-continuous, cliche, overbearing, unenjoyable, and tried to feed me social commentary like I was some fucking pathetic, moral-starved child. I went into the film not having been very excited for it, but I chose to give it a chance, and even after I had gotten myself excited for the flick, I couldn't believe how not just disappointed, but disgusted I was in it as a film.

    Let's start with a the plot. Seriously, who didn't not only know the plot before they went into the film, but saw the predictable ending from the beginning, from Sully's first encounter with the antagonist? There was nothing to surprise a watcher, nothing to engage the audience emotionally or mentally. The movie involved a lot of visually-stunning special effects and tried to tie them together with an abridged Dances With Wolves kind of plot. There are no spoilers in what lies below. You all have seen this movie a hundred times. Believe me.

    The characters. The characters. Cameron apparently doesn't believe in some of the essentials of character creation, i.e., development. None of the characters in Avatar grew. Sully was always Sully, always making the same idiot mistakes. The antagonist was the most cliched, unoriginal, expected antagonist ever created. The native race was unrealized and unimaginative -- they were a stereotype of so many tribal cultures wrapped into one blurry ball. I cared about none of the characters. When any of them kicked it, I didn't give a shit. Why? They were paper-thin and vacant.

    The world. I didn't find that the world in Avatar was given anything but a cursory thought. It was a bunch of painful-to-look-at flourescent shit that made no sense. I believe that in a movie or book where fantasy elements take precedence, the believability of the world is paramount -- before any events in that world can be believed, the setting must have ample explanation behind the nuances that are different from that with which we are familiar.

    I think this is probably looking into things way too much, but I'll disclaim it with this: I'm very sensitive when it comes to fantasy worlds and how they should be established. In reading (and trying to write) fantasy, one of the first things an audience is going to requie is a world with reliable, explained rules. I didn't feel that the world in Avatar adhered to that requirement, and it felt like the setting was infirm and unrealized to me, because I couldn't really trust (or even knew enough) about how the world functioned to expect boundaries. A few examples:

    1) The Binding. Okay, conceptually, I loved the idea of binding. I liked the fact that the Na'vi could connect themselves to other creatures through this neural conduit and communicate. But if we look at how the connection happens, there is no specific dominant party in the connection, and it appears to function mutually. Yet, what explains that the Na'vi have control over their "horses" and that the animals don't have control over the Na'vi? If the Na'vi can say, "Go forward and bank left," why couldn't the animal say, "Go fuck yourself, I want to run towards this water instead, and you'll do nothing but like it!" There was no hierarchy. If there was a simple line cutting out my disbelief ("Oh, Na'vi are far more mentally fortified, so we can make commands that the animals can't deny"), then I'd have not had a problem with this.

    2) The Omitacaya (is that how it's spelled?) go back and forth on whether or not they know about Avatars or whether they don't. The female lead knows at the beginning what Jake Sully is, and then the tribe knows. Then, later on, after they teach him their ways, they suddenly seem surprised that they should have never trusted him, because he's a "demon"? This is the most bi-polar group of natives I'd ever met. Not to mention that if they have the ability to transfer a human to a Na'vi body in a spiritual sense, why the hell wouldn't they say, "Okay, I tell you what -- you want to be one of us? Instead of learning our ways and us just trusting you on a whim, how about you give up your previous life, we grab your real body, put you in the Avatar for permanent, and see if you really do want to learn about us! Make the ultimate sacrifice! Be one of us that we truly can trust!"

    3) Arrows. Let's talk about arrows. Halfway through the movie, Big Bad Sergeant Shitfest is drinking his coffee in his helicopter and arrows are flying at the thing and bouncing off. Yet, later on in the movie during the last fight, Na'vi arrows can break through this fortified futuristic glass without a problem! Convenient. I hate it when a movie just completely denies its previously established conventions.

    I know that sounds nit-picky, but when a movie completely forgets what it had already developed or just doesn't put enough thought into the skepticism of an audience (and let's face it, audiences are far more skeptical of fiction than they are of reality), then they forget the true purpose of a story: It's all self-contained, should make the reader or watcher forget about their own world, and give them everything they need from the get-go. Avatar didn't do that for me. Plenty of other movies don't either.

    And was I the only person who came out of that too-long sonofabitch with a pounding headache and a desire never to see bright colors again?



    Quote Originally Posted by UnMarth View Post
    I found Sherlock Holmes more entertaining tbh. But that share a little hate for Dr. Who in me.
    I loved Sherlock Holmes. Wholly different and exciting experience, there!

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Dawes View Post
    1) The Binding. Okay, conceptually, I loved the idea of binding. I liked the fact that the Na'vi could connect themselves to other creatures through this neural conduit and communicate. But if we look at how the connection happens, there is no specific dominant party in the connection, and it appears to function mutually. Yet, what explains that the Na'vi have control over their "horses" and that the animals don't have control over the Na'vi? If the Na'vi can say, "Go forward and bank left," why couldn't the animal say, "Go fuck yourself, I want to run towards this water instead, and you'll do nothing but like it!" There was no hierarchy. If there was a simple line cutting out my disbelief ("Oh, Na'vi are far more mentally fortified, so we can make commands that the animals can't deny"), then I'd have not had a problem with this.
    I'd agree with this if humans didn't already do this without the connection. A horse rider can control the animal seemingly without question, and the Na'vi can do the same; they just communicate with the animal differently. I'm sure that they had animals that wouldn't listen to them, but we just didn't see them. As for the flying mounts, I think they listen because they were physically subdued and put in their place as a mount and not a mutual partnership.

Similar Threads

  1. R.I.P James Whitmore
    By Pramrider in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-Feb-2009, 03:17
  2. william james
    By williamjames in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-May-2008, 19:37

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.