I usually agree with your respect your opinions on films (sometimes both at the same time, even!), but Avatar was embarrassing. The only good thing it gave to the world is the mild chuckle elicited by describing it as "Avatarded."
Man, I really need to find time to sit down and watch this already as everyone seems to have an opinion on it. I really haven't made time for movie watching. The only reason I even saw Zack and Miri make a porno is because it just happened to be on and I needed something to keep my attention while using the exercise machine
I've had The Wrestler and that animated Batman Gotham Knight movie in my backlog for ages now
RyaNtheSlayA wrote:
Seriously. Screw you Shao Kahn I'm gonna play Animal Crossing.
I usually agree with your respect your opinions on films (sometimes both at the same time, even!), but Avatar was embarrassing. The only good thing it gave to the world is the mild chuckle elicited by describing it as "Avatarded."
No, I wasn't high. I genuinely thought that it was an engaging visual/action extravaganza (saw it in 2D on Blu-Ray). It's a good - not great - genre film that has its faults (which I've mentioned) but it would be hard to argue against it not being a strong sci-fi/fantasy film. It's not LOTR caliper, it's not Empire Strikes Back or anything, but it is still a very strong film for the genre. Was the hype-train deserved? No. Did it deserve a Best Picture Ocsar nod? Probably not. But strip all that away and you are left with an impressive action sci-fi film that is fun to watch and represents an impressively realized vision.
Why did you think it was embarrassing? For who? The people who fell in love with the film and wanted to join/become the Navi? Sure. But the rabid anti-Avatar sentiment is just as ridiculous as the over-the top adoration (the same can be said for almost any film/series). In the end, I felt the story, dialogue, acting, and characters are mostly serviceable and I gave the grade I gave it based on what I took to be the strengths of the film. Take away most of the action/visuals, and the film would probably be a 3/5 at best.
I'd give the last half an hour a 4/5, the rest 2.5/5. I only wish someone had advised me to just skip all the fluff and jump right into the final confrontation. I really had little empathy for the blue critters, it almost felt like watching a really long game cutscene.
And the whole premise is flawed beyond reason. Newcomer aka the Chosen One triggers Gaia in order to help primitive natives who were clueless as to how to tame their own dragons. Yawn. It's even more ridiculous than The Last Samurai. Feel free to verbally assault my sacrilegious remarks
Pulsar_t wrote:I'd give the last half an hour a 4/5, the rest 2.5/5. I only wish someone had advised me to just skip all the fluff and jump right into the final confrontation. I really had little empathy for the blue critters, it almost felt like watching a really long game cutscene.
And the whole premise is flawed beyond reason. Newcomer aka the Chosen One triggers Gaia in order to help primitive natives who were clueless as to how to tame their own dragons. Yawn. It's even more ridiculous than The Last Samurai. Feel free to verbally assault my sacrilegious remarks
I agree that the film fosters a lack of empathy. I also didn't know if I should be worried for the avatars, as they never said (unless I missed) whether or not a dead/injured avatar affects the actual person behind it at all. So yeah, there are plot holes and some of the premises are a bit weak. Still, as a mindless popcorn flick it is a solid film that pushes the right buttons, even if it falls vicitm to typical genre pitfalls. I'm almost with you on your scoring breakdown.
Ok, I am done defending my review for now. Figured I might have to - the anti-Avatar sentiment is strong in this crowd!
dsheinem wrote:
Avatar (2009) – I finally saw it, and quite enjoyed it. No, it isn’t an amazingly told story or some kind of transcendent film; it wouldn’t be fair to evaluate it as such. What it is, though, is a clinic in how to wed stunning visual effects to well-directed action sequences in science fiction film making. This is especially true for the scenes in the last half hour or so of the film – the battles are truly epic and bumped the grade below by a full half point. So yes, there were problems. I thought the characters were all fairly unsympathetic. Parts of the film drag on (which surprised me, as I have Cameron pegged as an expert in pacing). Yes, parts of it are derivative of other films (Dances With Wolves comes to mind, as does Cameron’s other sci-fi classic Aliens), but the same complaints could be said for most films in this genre. As a genre film though (sci-fi), it hits all the most important notes: it introduces a believable and well-designed world, it includes an intriguing blend of technology, fantasy, and morality, and it features some expertly crafted action.
Grade: 4/5
I agree that it certainly wasn't perfect, but it was still enjoyable to watch. In theaters the 3D was subtle instead of "gee whiz" stuff flying over your head all the time. I do take one exception though.
it introduces a believable and well-designed world
I'll suspend my disbelief and go with the anomolous gravity and the floating islands. But what bugged me was the fact that the waterfalls were behaving as if there was normal gravity. Make up your mind, funky gravity or not. Also, if these are floating little islands of rock, where is all the water coming from? Yes it made for beautiful scenery at that point of the movie, but that pulled me right out of my enjoyment for several minutes.
People keep mentioning Dances with Wolves. I don't know why, but they keep forgetting Ferngully: The Last Rainforest. Now, I wasn't crazy about Ferngully, but Avatar is practically a remake of that one. James Cameron made a kids movie; it should have just been a cartoon. Instead he just combined a children's movie with high-tech special effects, a huge budget, and sex and violence. He wrote a script targeted toward seven-year-olds, but then included a lot of stuff to get a PG-13 rating.
Hobie was correct to be bothered by the floating mountains with waterfalls, and that's far from the biggest problem the story had. Dr. Grace What's-her-name was all great and got along with the Na'vi, teaching the children. And what did she teach them? English!?!?! I guess there might have been something else she could have taught them that would be slightly more useless to them, but nothing springs to mind. It's just the same white imperialism that characterized the colonial era that we're not supposed to be emulating today.
And speaking of white imperialism, the movie's kind of racist. The Na'vi are quite obviously stand-ins for African and Native American tribal societies. Just look at their hair. The females have African-style braids, while the males have hair commonly associated with Native Americans circa two to four hundred years ago. And they wear goofy warpaint and have tribal elders, living close to nature.
As, I believe, Pulsar_t mentioned, it really does fall under the white savior stereotype. Those primitive Japanese, I mean African, I mean Native Amer--, I mean Na'vi are respectable because of how they live despite being savages, but boy, a white man can be a better Na'vi than any of them in just a couple of months!
And it's a good thing all of those Na'vi are tall, thin, and beautiful with huge eyes and long, gorgeous hair, huh? James Cameron really challenged us to root for the incredibly gorgeous people against an ugly old man with a scar. I found it a lot less bothersome than when 300 did the same thing because 300 didn't take itself so damn seriously.
And yes, the movie was embarrassing. I was embarrassed for everyone involved, and I was embarrassed to be watching it. The crowning point of the film was certainly Neytiri's incredibly awkward and cringe-inducing whooping noise. I'll confess that I was already looking at my watch twenty minutes in, but the first time she did that was when I really just felt uncomfortable being in the theater. It was also really embarrassing because it was so self-righteous and confident in its importance. It really took itself too seriously for what it was.
And I believe this film came up for an oscar for editing. What the heck?!?! The film was way too long, and plenty of the scenes either dragged on too long or were completely gratuitous shots meant to wow us with plants that light up, as if that was a new idea we hadn't seen before.
And maybe the last half-hour battle scene was good. I really don't know. Since I didn't give a crap about anyone in the movie and was just wondering when it was over, I confess that I wasn't really in the frame of mind to appreciate it. I do know that they made a big deal about a couple of characters that I guess I was supposed to care about dying.
If I can't give a crap about ANY character in the movie, then James Cameron has failed as a director. I'm really not that demanding. While I really appreciate films like There Will Be Blood, if a movie just gives me something to care about I'm usually pretty easy to please. If I see a movie, I usually at least enjoy it, even if it's not very good. Avatar was boring enough to not even be enjoyable.
There are worse big-budget films out there-- Pearl Harbor, for one. But this one just offered absolutely nothing except pretty visuals, and I can't just look at a pretty picture for three hours.
Limewater wrote:There are a bunch of reasons why Avatar sucks.
Wow! What do you really think!?
In all honesty I pretty much agree with most of your points, although the "racist" thing is a bit of a stretch as the film is clearly anti-imperialist/colonialist. That huge part of global history is common fodder for the genre, so I didn't dwell on it in my review. In fact, saying sci-fi or western films are generally reflective of racial conflict past and present is like saying horror films are generally sexist. It's part of what defines the genre, and I saw no particular problems with Avatar that didn't exist elsewhere in similar films. That's not to say it isn't a problem, but that it isn't enough to derail a film in which the story is clearly secondary to the action and effects. I guess I didn't think it took itself as seriously as you seem to.
I'd suppose this is Adam Sandler's first Mary Sue fan-fic turned to film. While all the other actors play down-on-their luck weirdos (Kevin James is an unemployed wanna-be big-shot, Chris Rock is a Stay-At-Home Husband who's overly sensitive about his cooking abilities, etc.), Adam Sandler is the number one high-powered Hollywood agent, the star of the basketball team who apparently never misses a shot, is married to Salma Hayek, and lives a life of complete luxury. Kinda sickening, honestly.
The movie is a complete and utter bore. The jokes rarely impress, and mostly go for tired-old gross-out moments. Perhaps that wouldn't be such a problem if they'd just keep shooting jokes out, but there are so many points where you just wonder to yourself "When the hell is SOMETHING going to happen?"
I was well aware of the bad reviews it had already received, but then I thought, "Ya know what? Big Daddy and Happy Gilmore got awful reviews, and I loved them. Might as well give this one a fair shot." And I feel like I really did give it a fair shot. Either I've grown out of this type of humor, or Happy Madison Productions has lost it's luster. I'm going for a little of both.
However, the movie wasn't a complete waste. It did clue me in to the existence of Madison Riley and Jamie Chung. Oooh, sprechen sie sexy.
