Avatar

[mauchow]

No thread for this movie yet other than the one talking about how its a ripoff from Terra whatever...

It was a pretty decent flick. CGI was indeed a step up from most CGI-dominated movies(King Kong, action scenes in Spiderman).

I give it 9.5/10.

My wife also enjoyed it after being skeptical.

Well worth the admission price... although I'm pissed that I spent $9 on Soda and Butterfinger.... when will I learn? lol

[sovereignstar]

Very pretty on the screen, but the plot was very "meh".

6.5/10

[Peregrine]

I really, really enjoyed it. Nothing special on the plot but I expected that - everything else was fantastic.

[sovereignstar]

Definitely do the 3D though. It took several minutes to get the hang of it, but it worked very well.

[Matthean]

Plot was too lacking to give it anything really high. The environment was outstanding though and by far the highlight of the movie. Would love to see a sequel without humans.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[JediKooter]

Estimated to have made 27 million dollars for Friday.

[whomario]

basically the most beautiful piece of crap you´ll ever see.

Story ? Who cares ?

It´s truly amazing how far film technology has gotten and Cameron isn´t shy using it ...

I really liked the premise of the story, but the interlinking of the 2 worlds leaves a lot to be desired, making me wish they wouldn´t bother with it in an eventual sequel.

Pictures : 11/10
Story idea : 8/10
Execution : 4/10

overall : 8/10

i 2nd the "3D" notion, awesome experience :)

@ JediKooter : It better did, this apparently cost some 500 million dollars all in all.

[Lathum]

Estimated to have made 27 million dollars for Friday.

I wonder if the storms in the NE will hurt sales to bad.

[Eaglesfan27]

Estimated to have made 27 million dollars for Friday.

basically the most beautiful piece of crap you´ll ever see.

@ JediKooter : It better did, this apparently cost some 500 million dollars all in all.

27 million in a day doesn't seem like enough when you factor in the rumored cost and the early bad/average reviews.

[jeff061]

I've seen pretty good reviews all around so far. Most critics saying it lived up to the considerable hype. 83 on rotten tomatoes right now.

I was going to watch today, but not with the storm. So nature certainly isn't helping them.

[Eaglesfan27]

I've seen pretty good reviews all around so far. Most critics saying it lived up to the considerable hype. 83 on rotten tomatoes right now.

I was going to watch today, but not with the storm. So nature certainly isn't helping them.

Most of the reviews I've read and heard from friends is that it presents a great environment, but that the story (or execution of the story) hampers the movie.

[Honolulu_Blue]

27 million in a day doesn't seem like enough when you factor in the rumored cost and the early bad/average reviews.

$27 million is very average. I think that's about what Watchmen pulled on its first day and it wasn't considered a commercial success.

[mauchow]

Not as good as they probably hoped for their opening weekend but I don't see it dying quickly, especially with it being Christmas week. It could have some good staying power as I do believe it will get good word of mouth for the average movie-goer.

[Capital]

I saw the movie in 3D and thought it was very good. They could have used a bit of editing in the first third of the movie but then it was great. The action scenes were phenominal. It is amazing just how far the tecnology has come. There was a15 minute expose on the subject on HBO, which was quite interesting.

Be aware that the movie is 2 hours and 40+ minutes.

[JediKooter]

The 27 million on Friday was the 3rd largest ever for a December opening. I don't think it's opened in Europe or Asia yet, so I'm sure this will make it's fair share of money back.

It's definitely not a story we haven't seen in one form or another in the past, but, it was entertaining, so it will do pretty good. I don't think it will do Titanic numbers though.

[BishopMVP]

Would love to see a sequel without humans.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">Cameron's already on record saying he wants 2 sequels, which is part of why he spent sooo much time focusing on the environment and the world he created in the first part of this one.

[Matthean]

Also note that Cameron spent 10 years developing the 3D technology. He can now go and have other companies use it as well as another way to cover the cost of the movie, think George Lucas and Industrial Light and Magic. It's a big part of the reason Cameron isn't worried if the movie makes profit, or not.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[NewIdentity]

This has to be a huge dissappointment for its opening weekend.

Biggest Opening Weekends at the Box Office (http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/)
<table width="98%" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffff99"><td align="right">31</td> <td>Avatar (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm)</td> <td>Fox (http://boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?studio=fox.htm)</td> <td align="right">$73,000,000</td> <td align="right">100.0%</td> <td align="right">3,452</td> <td align="right">$21,147</td> <td align="right">$73,000,000</td> <td align="right">12/18/2009 (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=bydate&release=theatrical&date=2009-12-18&p=.htm)</td></tr></tbody></table>
31st on the all time list for the most expensive movie ever made, must be a huge let down for Cameron and company. I am stunned it did not at least break the $100 million dollar barrier. Last month's Twilight had a an opening weekend of $142 million.

And, next weeks Sherlock Holmes will probably knock Avatar out of first place.

[Matthean]

Last month's Twilight had a an opening weekend of $142 million.

Built in fan base that already had a movie before it. Even if the previous movie sucked, it sold. It's also not like a $142 million opening is common place either.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Honolulu_Blue]

This has to be a huge dissappointment for its opening weekend.

31st on the all time list for the most expensive movie ever made, must be a huge let down for Cameron and company. I am stunned it did not at least break the $100 million dollar barrier. Last month's Twilight had a an opening weekend of $142 million.

And, next weeks Sherlock Holmes will probably knock Avatar out of first place.

I think it's opening weekend haul is pretty much exactly what they expected. As I mentioned in the general movie thread, box office analysts predicted a solid, but not spectacular opening weekend and that's what they got.

This movie has no built in audience (as mentioned). It's not a sequel, based off a book or comic. It's an entirely original (well, not the basic story) film.

I know a lot has been said about this being "The Most Expensive Film Ever!" and it is, but like someone mentioned, the bulk of the expense behind the film was generating the specific 3D technology. While some reviews have been less than flattering, almost everyone agrees that the movie looks gorgeous and the 3D techinques are astounding. So, the money will be made in licensing the techonology. Think of it like a video game that has an awesome graphics enging, but a horrble story or some such.

Money will be made.

Its made over 232 million worldwide this opening weekend.

Oh, and this.

[saldana]

Don't forget the monster snowstorm that slammed the northeast.

[Galaril]

I think the picking of last week in particular was part of the problem. I and Mrs Galaril wanted to go see it but was like " too much stuff to do in preparation of the holidays" to relax and go see a movie. I bet next weekend will be much better.

[Maple Leafs]

31st on the all time list
According to Box Office Mojo, it was "...the highest-grossing opening ever for a movie that's neither a sequel, a remake nor a direct adaptation".

I have no idea if that makes the opening good or bad, but wow, Hollywood just doesn't make original movies any more.

[gkb]

My wife and I saw it this weekend. She cried, but it never really connected with me emotionally. I thought the dialogue was weak in spots. I didn't hate it and I wouldn't call it a bad movie, but ... meh. It was visually pretty stunning though. Like Christmas on steroids.

[Matthean]

Adding in even though it was highly advertised, there really wasn't much buzz in regards to the quality of the movie itself. I remember there was an extended preview of it and the vast majority of press that came from it was "meh." So yeah, new series with little actual excitement about it that does 232 million worldwide in it's opening weekend with future DVD/Blur-Ray sales and a technology to let other people use. I'm sure Cameron is really "disappointed" making back almost half of the cost of in one weekend.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[revrew]

While it was a very pretty, moving picture, the story, dialogue, and soundtrack were pathetic. The political beat-you-over-the-head message and religious mumbo jumbo just ruined it for me.

While acknowledging the spectacle was awesome, I trashed it in my review:

Is there anything that redeems 'Avatar'? (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119657)

In summary, "FernGully" on steroids.

[RendeR]

While it was a very pretty, moving picture, the story, dialogue, and soundtrack were pathetic. The political beat-you-over-the-head message and religious mumbo jumbo just ruined it for me.

While acknowledging the spectacle was awesome, I trashed it in my review:

Is there anything that redeems 'Avatar'? (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119657)

In summary, "FernGully" on steroids.


Ok, I'm sorry but frankly you saying this makes me laugh at anything you have to say. I mean REALLY?

The constant repeating of the "you stole our land" storyline got redundant, but if you went into this movie not knowing that was the premise then you need to read more or something.

I thought the soundtrack was excellent. not sure what you felt was off on that score, no pun intended. The soundtrack fit very well with the timing and action of the story.

The only thing I wasn't really impressed with was falling back on the very VERY overdone "humans just take whatever they want by force" storyline. I would think they could have found something a little less overused.

I'l still shaking my head that you of all people made a statement about religion being "mumbo Jumbo". just wow.

[RendeR]

Went and read your review. Frankly, I feel dirty for having read it. You rant and insult the film for its positions and views while doing so purely for the benefit of your own.

You turn a movie review into a pulpit thumping preaching zone. While that might work for your regular viewers I hope you really don't think its going to make anyone actually believe your review of the movie is a valid one.

Oh and if you're going to trash something, get the names, titles and words right. Your review is littered with mistakes that it would appear stem from it being written in a irritated huff. At first reading it would appear you didn't bother paying attention to a movie you say you actually watched.

You'd think the movie was trying to insult your religion directly the way you reacted to it.

Color me unimpressed.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I liked Doug Benson's review: Feliz Na'vi Dud

[RendeR]

I liked Doug Benson's review: Feliz Na'vi Dud


Link?

[cmp]

I loved it. I'd probably give it a 9 or 9.5 out of 10.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Hm. Might be disappointing for you, but here we go.

http://twitter.com/DougBenson/status/6898716582

FWIW I haven't seen the movie and will see it over Christmas. I'm not endorsing his negative opinion, the review made me chuckle.

[terpkristin]

...but if you went into this movie not knowing that was the premise then you need to read more or something.

I don't know, I still have no idea what the movie is about, though I've admittedly seen only a handful of trailers and not read about it at all. All I know is that there are blue things.

Reading the posts here, I'm not sure it's going to be up my alley, as I really like plot and don't care much about special effects/CGI, but I feel like I should go watch it at some point before it leaves theaters. I have little to no patience to sit in movie theaters these days, not sure I'm up for a 3 hour slog.

Also, I know that he intended it to be watched in 3D, but 3D gives me such a headache, I doubt I will.

Maybe if my family wants to see it Saturday or Sunday...

/tk

[RendeR]

I don't know, I still have no idea what the movie is about, though I've admittedly seen only a handful of trailers and not read about it at all. All I know is that there are blue things.

Reading the posts here, I'm not sure it's going to be up my alley, as I really like plot and don't care much about special effects/CGI, but I feel like I should go watch it at some point before it leaves theaters. I have little to no patience to sit in movie theaters these days, not sure I'm up for a 3 hour slog.

Also, I know that he intended it to be watched in 3D, but 3D gives me such a headache, I doubt I will.

Maybe if my family wants to see it Saturday or Sunday...

/tk



Most of the trailers and pre-reviews have made statements/comments that give you the idea of the us vs them plot, but I've also paid close attention to them too so maybe I got more coverage there.

The 3D is not a requirement, but you should absolutely see it on the big screen. I saw the 3D version and it really was spectacular, but the regular version should do just as well for the effects.

If the most important thing for you is a solid plot then you may well be disappointed. it carries the story along fine, but its not an original story in any sense of the term. Its one that's been rehashed many many times.

if you can enjoy the immersion in an entirely new world and really dive into the environment then you'll enjoy this.

I went in expecting the plot and I was still very very entertained. Cameron does a great job of pulling you into the hearts and minds of the characters.

[SportsDino]

It's plot is light and predictable, but I think people just have too high a standard they are measuring it against. Its a standard action tale, only a die-hard neo-con could get offended by the 'liberal dogma'... we all know Hollywood likes to take its little jabs, but for the most part its forgetable.

It mostly is a pretty movie, not very deep, but reasonably entertaining in my opinion. I think people are walking into a popcorn blockbuster and expecting it to be best picture oscar material. If that is what you are looking for, why waste the money?

[RendeR]

It's plot is light and predictable, but I think people just have too high a standard they are measuring it against. Its a standard action tale, only a die-hard neo-con could get offended by the 'liberal dogma'... we all know Hollywood likes to take its little jabs, but for the most part its forgetable.

It mostly is a pretty movie, not very deep, but reasonably entertaining in my opinion. I think people are walking into a popcorn blockbuster and expecting it to be best picture oscar material. If that is what you are looking for, why waste the money?


Stated far more succintly than I ever could.

[JediKooter]

I didn't really get too much of a religous feel to the movie. Other than the Navi being 'connected' to the planet and the brief explaination by the blue chick and Riply, that was really it. There was, however, corporate greed that was all through the movie and unless someone makes the stretch of immenent domain, there was nothing political at all in my opinion.

[Sgran]

Also, I know that he intended it to be watched in 3D, but 3D gives me such a headache, I doubt I will.

/tk

You, too? I took the kids to see Monsters Vs. Aliens and had to look away from the screen every 10 minutes or so.

With that said, I've been told that there are actually two current forms of 3d technology, and the one I suffered from (ie the red/blue one) is the cheap, bad one, and the other (ie the kind his theaters used) is much better.

[RendeR]

You, too? I took the kids to see Monsters Vs. Aliens and had to look away from the screen every 10 minutes or so.

With that said, I've been told that there are actually two current forms of 3d technology, and the one I suffered from (ie the red/blue one) is the cheap, bad one, and the other (ie the kind his theaters used) is much better.


Yes the one for Avatar is MUCH better than the old red/blue styles. The glasses appear to be a smokey color at first.

I will warn anyone going to the 3D that the opening scenes are in free fall and it gave me a bit of motion sickness at a couple points.

[DaddyTorgo]

While it was a very pretty, moving picture, the story, dialogue, and soundtrack were pathetic. The political beat-you-over-the-head message and religious mumbo jumbo just ruined it for me.

While acknowledging the spectacle was awesome, I trashed it in my review:

Is there anything that redeems 'Avatar'? (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119657)

In summary, "FernGully" on steroids.

like RendeR said - :lol: . Although I guess it's a part of "knowing the audience you're writing for" and writing to them.

[revrew]

This guy put it far better than me, I'll admit:

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Time to Call Out James Cameron (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2009/12/22/time-to-call-out-james-cameron/)

[BrianD]

This guy put it far better than me, I'll admit:

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Time to Call Out James Cameron (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2009/12/22/time-to-call-out-james-cameron/)

I nearly quit after the first paragraph, but I forced myself to read the rest of it. This reads to me like someone with an argument to make forcing that argument on to the movie. The fact that he can't even credit the special effects shows that he isn't willing to say anything good at all.

It doesn't matter how many movies I see that contain an "evil corporation", I'm never going to translate that into "America sucks". I don't know if Cameron made this movie with an agenda in mind, but the reviewer definitely had one.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This guy put it far better than me, I'll admit:

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Time to Call Out James Cameron (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2009/12/22/time-to-call-out-james-cameron/)


As for his whole "cultural war" thing with Hollywood and the liberal elites vs. conservatives, this angry dude, is missing the boat. This isn't about liberals vs. conservatives. That's what THEY want you to think. THEY want us to get embroiled in this silly two-sided war (democrat v. republic, liberal v. conservative, etc.) so that we fight amongst ourselves and become weak. This angry dude is playing right in THEIR filthy "hands".

Who are THEY, you ask? The aliens. That's right. The motherfucking aliens who have taken over Hollywood.

Who were the "good", sympathetic guys in "District 9"? The aliens. Who were the "good" and "morally" righteous people in "Avatar"? The aliens. All the big blockbuster sci-fi movies are about aliens as the "good guys". (Don't even get me STARTED on George Lucas. I mean, the fucking Ewoks!? Why was Ewok society so morally righteous? Why are the deaths of our America fighting men (who care called STORMTROOPERS (OMG!) in those movies no less) something you think ought to bring cheers from the audience? Fucker.)

THEY are softening us up for the inevitible invasion. So long as THEY keep pumping that crap out, we may actually emrbace the aliens when they make themselves known to us and then KILL US ALL or make us food.

THEY are winning this war. There is a pocket of resistance left in Hollywods, folks, but that pocket is weak and dying. You know the "V" re-make? The kind of shitty one? Where the aliens are, you know, actually bad? What happened to that show? Its ratings suck and it gets put on hiatus until March. What about those two alien invastion shows that premiered back in 2006? "Threshold" and "Invasion". What happened to those shows? Cancelled. After one season, if that.

THEY have all the talent. THEY have all the power. So long as THEY keep putting out successful movie after successful movie about "good" aliens and "evil" humans and sabotaging all of the "good" human and "bad" alien works, we are doomed, people. Fucking doomed.

How can we fight against this? Isn't it a losing battle?

No, it’s not a losing battle, because the mere act of raising the issue defeats the Hollywood ALIENS' insidious power to infiltrate and undermine. If the viewer sees the agenda, he can evaluate it, consider it, and then decide whether to accept or reject it. That’s not a process we HUMANS fear. We don’t have to disguise what we’re selling like our ALIEN – oops, I mean “extraterrestrial” – friends. That’s why the ALIENs value a discussion of its agenda like Darth Vader values underlings who lose the Millenium Flacon.

We need to confront the agenda not just because we like picking apart movies – though we do enjoy holding foolishness up to ridicule – but because every time the silly ideas and clichés of the Hollywood ALIENS pop up, someone has to be there to play alien whack-a-mole. After all, those who send these messages succeed only through misdirection — “Humans sucks. Now quick, look over there at that explosion!”

And we need to respond, “Wait, Humans what?”

Hey, ALIENS, you made your stupid movies. Now we’re going to make you make your case. We will NOT stand by why you prepare for your invasion. We will NOT be your food.

[SportsDino]

Another off the wall review, somehow the slightest parallel is call to mention the awesomeness of taking North America from the native population, the disasters of third world socialism, and global warming? The last two were not even in the movie, and the first has been present in a number of movies (a better attack on Avatar is a lack of originality than its 'dogma').

As much as the right gets sick of seeing movies made by liberal leaning producers, I get sick of reviews of conservative party line that mention one line vaguely resembling a movie's content before pushing out the old laundry list of how they 'love Ameruka' and no one else apparantly does.

Seems like no one can criticize excessive greed (thats offending CAPITALISM, as if anyone who writes these reviews could adequately describe capitalism to begin with, yet alone what is happening in America). Apparently showing a primitive culture is supporting third world socialism (guess what, most economic literature separates out tribal societies from socialism). Being against knocking down a huge ass tree for a fancy rock, oh the blasphemy (I know I would love living next to a giant hole in the ground, or a lake of pig poop, or any other environmental atrocity that all of you red-blooded Americans would scream about if it was in your backyard).

Guess what, you can sympathize with someone fighting against evil and stupidity without being a leftist!

[Drake]

All I know about this movie based on previews, reviews and the article I read about it in Wired has convinced me that this is maybe the single least anticipated science fiction blockbuster for me personally in the last ten years.

That says nothing about the quality of the movie. What it means is that the marketing has failed to reach me, and I'm part of the target demographic. When I've talked to the other sci-fi guys I work with, the reaction has been uniformly meh. It's sort of a "Are you going to see Avatar this weekend?" - "Meh. If I don't have anything else going."

Not the reaction you want from your blockbusters.

[RendeR]

Wow, where are these people getting this shit from? I mean are Rev and this other guy literally pulling this stuff out of their ass or what?

If you enjoy Science Fiction, you will enjoy Avatar. Period.

If you're so much of a mental shut in that everything you see and hear is just another attack on your belief systems and your political agenda then perhaps you should just stay home.

Just wow.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Poor plot development + weak, overused plot to begin with = pretty terrible storyline. It wasn't laughably bad or anything, just predictable and boring. I'm not really sure how a nearly three hour movie felt like they rushes the develoment, but they managed it.

Visually it was easily the most impressive movie I have ever seen. Overall, I'd give it a 7.5 / 10.

[RendeR]

No argument on the overused storyline. I like that they tried to mold it into a twisted version of the storyline, but as you say there is definitely a high level of predictability in it.

[Tigercat]

I think the plotline would have been more forgivable if the characters were stronger. Weaver had the deepest character in the movie. The main character's seperation between his two lives could have been an interesting and complex look into his character, instead the way they handled it just felt like sloppy storytelling.

[RendeR]

I think the plotline would have been more forgivable if the characters were stronger. Weaver had the deepest character in the movie. The main character's seperation between his two lives could have been an interesting and complex look into his character, instead the way they handled it just felt like sloppy storytelling.


I think they tried to look deeper into the main guys dual-life by using the video-log thing, they just didn't use it enough as far as I could see.

[Pyser]

i loved it. the story was good enough to justify the visuals.

[NewIdentity]

I finally got around to seeing the Movie and really enjoyed it. But, I did have one major problem?

Where did the boobs go when the aliens turned to face the camera? There were a lot of side boobs, but as soon as they would turn and face the camera. POOF! no more boobs. In a side shot it was total nudity, boob and nipple, topless for everyone to see, and then you would get a front shot and nothing???

Peter Griffin would have loved the side boobs in this movie.


I would have liked a little more background on the brothers.

[NewIdentity]

Anyone see Avatar twice?

Just wondering if anyone knows if you can bring you own glasses and save the extra $3.50 the theater tacks on?

[RendeR]

Anyone see Avatar twice?

Just wondering if anyone knows if you can bring you own glasses and save the extra $3.50 the theater tacks on?


What theater is charging more for 3d glasses?

I went to the IMAX 3d and the standard ticket was 14 and they handed us glasses for free. I'd be mildly pissed if they charged for the glasses.

I am taking my mother to see it next week so I will be seeing it at least twice, probably 3 times in the theater.

[NewIdentity]

What theater is charging more for 3d glasses?


The 3D version was $3.50 more than the 2D version for me. Same theater, same size screen just $3.50 extra to see it in 3D with the glasses they gave you.

[PackerFanatic]

The 3D version was $3.50 more than the 2D version for me. Same theater, same size screen just $3.50 extra to see it in 3D with the glasses they gave you.

Yeah I believe our theatre charged a couple extra bucks for 3D too.

My buddies and I just saw it on the Ultrascreen, no 3D. Very, very amazing. Absolutely loved it.

[PackerFanatic]

And a lot of the comments on here (and even other negative reviews I've heard) are why I hate reading reviews. Some people are just too damn hard to please. I thought this was one of the better movies made (especially in this day and age of sequels and remakes upon remakes upon remakes) and Cameron really outdid himself.

[MikeVic]

At least here, they charge the extra money for 3D every time. And then they ask you to recycle your glasses after. Pppffft, I have about three pairs at home now. If I'm paying for them every time, they're not getting them back.

[RendeR]

At least here, they charge the extra money for 3D every time. And then they ask you to recycle your glasses after. Pppffft, I have about three pairs at home now. If I'm paying for them every time, they're not getting them back.


Seriously, if they're gonna charge you for the glasses they can't rightly ask you to give the damn things back...sheesh.

[BrianD]

Just saw this movie in 3D. Amazing film. I went in looking for the liberal agenda and saw less than 2 minutes that could reasonably be called that
This movie needs to be seen on the big screen.

[Pyser]

so about this disappointing at the box office...it made 75m this weekend. no dropoff from opening weekend. add in the weekday take, and its up to 220m domestically already

[Alan T]

I went with my wife to see Avatar. Like many others have said, the visual presentation was great in 3D, was fantastic to the point my wife loved them as well.

I actually disagree with many here about the storyline/plot. I didn't have a problem with the storyline at all, I felt that I preferred it to what we usually get these days which are remakes of old movies/comics/tv shows. I'm not sure how those story lines are any less overdone than this one. So I really didn't get any less enjoyment from the movie because of the plot.

My only complaint about the movie really was that I felt the acting was not that great. The lead alien female I felt was very disappointing acting wise. The main male human character also did not provide very good dynamics either for me. In fact, really the only two characters that I enjoyed the acting and felt they did well was the head Corporation guy and the head human military guy.

I'm not sure how much of that was because of the animation effecting what I normally would see from facial expressions/body language and how much of it was just bad acting though. Even with the poor acting for the most point, I still enjoyed the movie and didn't feel it a waste of time. I'm not sure how much of that is simply getting time away from the kids out with my wife alone either though :)

[Icy]

The 3D version was $3.50 more than the 2D version for me. Same theater, same size screen just $3.50 extra to see it in 3D with the glasses they gave you.


You need to pay also 2€ more in every theater in Spain for the 3D glasses, and you need to return them back after the movie is over. They claim that they are esterilized after that, because the flu but... i'm pretty sure are just used again without being cleaned at all.

[terpkristin]

I posted in the Last Movie thread, but figure I'll post here.

I saw it in Real 3D and was disappointed to find that Real 3D gives me headaches, just like the "older" 3D did. :( To be honest, though, I'm not sure that the 3D added that much to it.

I didn't particularly like the movie. I thought the scenery was gorgeous, and that it was created without a traditional green scene is pretty cool, but the scenery is the only reason this movie got 6 points (out of 10) for me. The story was bland (it's been told before and been told much better) and the "acting" was mediocre. I felt way too often like I was watching things I'd seen in Jurassic Park. I didn't care for the characters, I was just bored. :\

I recognize, though, that my tastes in movies are not "normal" by any stretch (I can't stand Star Wars, for example), and I'm quite OK with being in the minority here. Can't fault people for liking it, but it did almost nothing for me.

/tk

[Matthean]

so about this disappointing at the box office...it made 75m this weekend. no dropoff from opening weekend. add in the weekday take, and its up to 220m domestically already

$615 million worldwide. So, that covers the record cost of $500 million in it's 2nd weekend.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[mauchow]

So, the $615 million worldwide is the box office totals, not necessarily what the movie has made after the theatre gets their cut.. so, have they made their money back yet? How much does the theatre get for their cut? I know its not much.

[panerd]

Render = James Cameron, why so worked up?

While I don't think this movie went too overboard on the liberal agenda the speech at the tree was typical liberal Hollywood. I also do kind of find somebody who is allowed to fund a $500 million dollar movie taking potshots at corporations a bit silly. But like has been said a million times, who cares???

As far as the plot goes I turned to my brother about 20 minutes in and quoted one of our favorite movies "Thunderheart" and told him there was going to be a "This land is not for sale" ending. Again who cares though? Braveheart, Gladiator, Star Wars, etc all have the same storyline. What Hollywood action movie doesn't?

Great special effects and scenery. And the 2 1/2 hours flew by. A must see in the threater for this alone. I give it a 95/100.

[MrBug708]

Solid movie. Worth the price of admission, but I don't have any interest in watching it again.

[MrBug708]

You need to pay also 2€ more in every theater in Spain for the 3D glasses, and you need to return them back after the movie is over. They claim that they are esterilized after that, because the flu but... i'm pretty sure are just used again without being cleaned at all.

We returned ours after our movie, but when we got them, they were in vacuum sealed bags

[Edward64]

I saw it but skipped the 3D. It was fun, not sure if its the "star wars" for this generation though. It dragged on a little but effects were great. The floating islands and getting the banshee had me gripping my chair arms.

The one thing I thought was weak was why they needed to send the entire armanda? Surely they had cruise missiles that would do the job?

[RendeR]

I saw it but skipped the 3D. It was fun, not sure if its the "star wars" for this generation though. It dragged on a little but effects were great. The floating islands and getting the banshee had me gripping my chair arms.

The one thing I thought was weak was why they needed to send the entire armanda? Surely they had cruise missiles that would do the job?


Cruise missles require guidance, in "the zone" guidance fails, remember? =)

They needed to protect the shuttle because it had no inherent defenses of its own. That and the fact that the Major was a nuke the anthill kind of guy. Overkill is his middle name.

[boberot]

In my humble opinion:

James Cameron wanted the visual effects he worked on for so long to be the star of the show. He didn't want it overshadowed by an A-list megastar. He made a pastiche of tried-and-true plot elements [as others have said, a little "Dances with Wolves" here, even a hint of "Rambo" there] that he knew would be sufficient to carry a "blockbuster" and made his visual effects the reason you bought your ticket.

I can't think of a single blockbuster that has a plot worth a damn.

And in my opinion, he accomplished this perfectly. There were several points in the movie when I thought to myself that I had never seen the things I was watching executed so well. Especially the bioluminescent terrain of Pandora and the simply perfectly rendered beasts to be found there. Never have I seen such a seamless marriage of live action / CGI / 3D / etc. I really felt like I was watching something that raised the visual bar to a whole new level, and it was a lot of fun to watch.

I actually found myself enjoying the first half of the movie, exploring Pandora and the Navi's sociology, much more than the explosion-fest of the second half.

I'll go 9 out of 10.

[Glengoyne]

Avatar=Dances with Wolves in space.


I can't let this go. Dances with Wolves was a great movie in its own right. Avatar had incredible effects, and .... and, I'm sure something else. I think James Cameron needed a different screen writer. His idea of foreshadowing includes a sledgehammer across the forehead.

[markprior22]

Saw this in 3D last night and really enjoyed it. I am the type to sit back and let the movie come at me...don't do much trying to figure out whodunnit and that sort of thing. I liked the effects and the movie (although I thought it was probably 1/2 hour too long).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I actually found myself enjoying the first half of the movie, exploring Pandora and the Navi's sociology, much more than the explosion-fest of the second half.


I would agree with this wholeheartedly. The first half was transcendent until the plot bogged it down. Still, I was skeptical going in and I thought the movie was great. Well worth the money spent on the ticket.

[sterlingice]

I've been wanting to see this since I started hearing about the technical feats of the movie but Christmas got in the way so I just got around to seeing it in 3D IMAX today. Definitely the way to see it if you have a chance since part of the movie-going experience is being engulfed in the visually spectacular world.

And a lot of the comments on here (and even other negative reviews I've heard) are why I hate reading reviews. Some people are just too damn hard to please. I thought this was one of the better movies made (especially in this day and age of sequels and remakes upon remakes upon remakes) and Cameron really outdid himself.

I don't know about one of the better movies made comment and it's hard for Cameron to outdo himself as he is probably the best action movie director out there, consistently setting the bar in one form or fashion (Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, especially T2, True Lies, and Titanic). But, yeah, I do agree with the sentiment that, wow, some people are hard to please. T2 is still one of my favorite movies ever made so I don't think I can knock it off the Cameron pedestal in my book and, frankly, I've only seen this movie once so I need to see if it stands up to repeated viewings.

That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. The effects really do make this the next movie that pushes the effects bar just as they were in T2 and also, in Jurassic Park (and later The Matrix, to a lesser extent Matrix:Reloaded, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy). Again, iIt's a must see in 3D unless you get sick from 3D. But it's an amazingly visual world and one that viewers should try to enjoy.

I didn't particularly like the movie. I thought the scenery was gorgeous, and that it was created without a traditional green scene is pretty cool, but the scenery is the only reason this movie got 6 points (out of 10) for me. The story was bland (it's been told before and been told much better) and the "acting" was mediocre. I felt way too often like I was watching things I'd seen in Jurassic Park. I didn't care for the characters, I was just bored. :\

I actually think Jurassic Park is a good comparison only it has the "magic" of aliens rather than dinosaurs. The acting in Jurassic Park wasn't particularly memorable. It might have made Jeff Goldblum popular and made Sam Neill some cash but the stars of the show were the fantastic creatures and the effects. Hell, for an action movie, I thought the acting was at least part to maybe a little above, again, *for an action movie*- the standards and what is expected are different. (Hell, this should be evident when Johnny Depp barely gets mentioned for Pirates of the Caribbean in a really weak year for the Best Actor Oscar in a movie where he carried an excellent action film.)

It mostly is a pretty movie, not very deep, but reasonably entertaining in my opinion. I think people are walking into a popcorn blockbuster and expecting it to be best picture oscar material. If that is what you are looking for, why waste the money?

My wife and I were talking about this earlier today, wondering how many people who go along looking for Oscar material actually enjoy going to the movies. It seems like a group who watch so many movies that all they care about is seeing something "new" but can't appreciate something somewhat unoriginal but very well polished. Not only that, but when they find that something "new", will ignore all other failings of said movie, acting role, or whatever- it sounds like a sad entertainment existence to me.

In my humble opinion:

James Cameron wanted the visual effects he worked on for so long to be the star of the show. He didn't want it overshadowed by an A-list megastar. He made a pastiche of tried-and-true plot elements [as others have said, a little "Dances with Wolves" here, even a hint of "Rambo" there] that he knew would be sufficient to carry a "blockbuster" and made his visual effects the reason you bought your ticket.

I can't think of a single blockbuster that has a plot worth a damn.

And in my opinion, he accomplished this perfectly. There were several points in the movie when I thought to myself that I had never seen the things I was watching executed so well. Especially the bioluminescent terrain of Pandora and the simply perfectly rendered beasts to be found there. Never have I seen such a seamless marriage of live action / CGI / 3D / etc. I really felt like I was watching something that raised the visual bar to a whole new level, and it was a lot of fun to watch.

I actually found myself enjoying the first half of the movie, exploring Pandora and the Navi's sociology, much more than the explosion-fest of the second half.
I'll go 9 out of 10.

Yes to the first point (about how it really did look so amazing) and yes to the second, as well. I actually liked the first part of the movie as much if not more so than the second part and I like my explosions.

At the end of the day, I saw it like a modern remake of Aliens with one important distinction. The corporation is back and more evil. The military is still singularly focused and missing the big picture. But rather than making the aliens terrible killing monsters, you had sympathetic, sentient well, frankly, Native American stereotypes. So instead of a defensive fight for survival, it's an offensive genocide in search of the cynically named unobtanium. Oh, and hi, Ripley! Apparently she's back but a scientist.

Yes, the plot was pretty much predictable after the first half of the movie set all the pieces in place. But it's still satisfying and fun.

SI

[sovereignstar]

QUIT EXPECTING OSCAR MATERIAL EVERYBODY

[sterlingice]

(warning: this rant got a lot longer than I expected but I have been kicking it around for a while with the top 10 movies of the decade thread)

QUIT EXPECTING OSCAR MATERIAL EVERYBODY

Vaguely, I guess that's the argument I was making. But I think it's bigger than that because it implies that the Oscars are the standards by which we should judge movies by. Even more importantly, I think there's a sense of elitism that some derive from that. If you don't agree with critics about what is good and what isn't- then you clearly don't get what makes a good movie.

Hell, the Oscars have all sorts of stupid biases. In the last 5 years, you can break down these categories and get
Biopic/Fictional Biopic (7): Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, Michael Clayton, Capote, Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Ray
Scene-chewing actors duel/duet (3): Frost/Nixon, The Departed, Brokeback Mountain
Historical piece (6): The Reader, There Will Be Blood, The Queen, Letters from Iwo Jima, Munich, Good Night/Good Luck
Other (7): Benjamin Button, No Country For Old Men, Juno, Babel, Little Miss Sunshine, Crash, Sideways
Unknown to me (2): Atonement, Finding Neverland
*Please correct me for inaccuracies on this list as I have not seen all the movies in question but am placing them based on what I know

Hell, many of those fit two categories (Good Night/Good Luck, Frost/Nixon, etc) and you could loosely place most of those in the "Other" category into one of the three above it (for instance, No Country for Old Men as a historical piece, Sideways as an actors duet, or Juno a fictional biopic as a character study). But, in short, over 2/3rds of the ones I'm familiar with are in 3 basic cliche plots that studios know to make their "prestige" pictures out of to get nominations. And, hell, if you played fast and loose on the definitions of these "genres", which they are too narrow even to be called that, we're talking well over 3/4ths.

Where's the logic in that bias? How is that not being "hackneyed" and "cliche"? Where are the other genres represented? It's not as if these are the pinnacles of movie-making. It's just the ones that these particular mostly old white bitter males drew up as what they like. Not only that, but their biases are accepted as reasonable biases and worthy of acclaim when it makes no sense. We're putting the cranky old guy on the corner on a pedestal and telling him that what movies he likes are best.

Here's just a couple of the recent Best Picture nominations that I've watched and some impressions I had off the top of my head. How are these (and I'm not asking because they are mine but because I am curious where the mentions of them even are) specific criticisms essentially ignored while others are allowed to stick?

* I enjoyed Frost/Nixon a lot as Frank Langela's acting was great and I loved the way Nixon was portrayed as he was more than a one-dimensional villain. I loved that it basically played like a boxing match but with debate as that was an interesting way to do the confrontation. However, there were serious script issues as, for instance, David Frost goes from being Little Mac to Mike Tyson in a week and any time anyone except Frost and Nixon were onscreen, they were just wasting our time as they were woefully underdeveloped.

* Brokeback Mountain was basically a "chick flick" but with guys. Put Sandra Bullock in Jake Gyllenhaal's place and people are laughing at it. Hell, or it might as well just be a Lifetime movie. Yes, because it was about homosexuality, it made it a significant topic. I understand that. But that doesn't explain away from the cheesy dialogue.

* The Departed- wow, can Scorsese suck the life out of a movie like anyone? I loved the idea of the juxtaposition of the good bad guy next to the bad good guy and the conflicts that would ensure. But, man, was it dry and slow. I was checking the clock on my dvd player pretty much every 15 minutes wondering if more time had gone by.

* Slumdog Millionaire was fun but was anyone wowed by the acting? Hell, was the acting any better than the movie we were talking about in this thread? There was nothing even particularly new about the plot of the movie other than the setting. That didn't stop me from the enjoying the movie- it was a fun movie. But, how did that get nominated, much less win?

You can do it with any movie. No movie is perfect, not by any stretch. And it's really interesting how many blind spots one will overlook. To me, I feel I have a minimum level of many characteristics that any movie must meet to enjoy it. If, for instance, the acting is awful or the jokes too stupid and blue or the plot too full of holes, and so on... the movie fails on all accounts for me. However, once you meet that baseline, it's a matter of how far "above replacement level" are you in all areas compared to another movie.

One could argue that it's a matter of granularity. Maybe I only have a scale of poor-acceptable-good-excellent whereas critics see 1 thru 10 or 1 thru 100. But it seems to me that most critics baselines are way too low that they see a shiny bauble of something new that they haven't seen in their infinitely more hours of movie watching that they grab onto it and could care less about a movie's many other shortcomings.

It's like dragging out Moby Dick, a dreadfully boring tale. People are forced to read it in school because of the symbolism. I'd put forward that the only reason we notice the symbolism in that dusty tome is because everything else about it is awful so the only thing that stands out is in the symbolism.

I guess what I'm arguing is not only whether a particular movie is Oscar worthy but why we even should be arguing that the quality of being "Oscar-worthy" is even worth anything. It's not as if these critics can even tell what will stand the test of time, which is what they, in theory, should be able to judge.

I can't tell you the last time anyone mentioned, cited, or showed The English Patient unless it's in the context of "awful movies that won the Oscar" but I still see or hear about, in some fashion: Independence Day and Happy Gilmore and The Rock and Twister and Mars Attacks and Eraser and Scream and Rumble in the Bronx and Star Trek: First Contact and Space Jam and Tin Cup and Trainspotting and... you get the idea, and those are all from the same year. (Hell, even more people remember Jingle All the WayKazaam, tho maybe those are more for infamy than fame.)

SI

[sterlingice]

Oh, and back to Avatar.

I was watching an interview with Stephen Lang (who plays the colonel). He was on CNN with the headline "Avatar's hidden message" talking to someone on there- I dunno, maybe Larry King. And his answer to the question was something like "Secret hidden message? I thought it was pretty overt." I love the idea about some hidden or obscured message in the movie when it had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

SI

[Chief Rum]

Interesting thoughts, SI. FWIW, I agree completely that there is a certain elitism in how people pick out "quality" in a movie, and also more than a few "holes" in how people recall movies.

But there are very few "perfect" movies. In fact, I'm not sure that such a thing exists--I'm sure we could pick apart even the most hallowed movies of all time. Godfather II had inconsistent pacing because of jumping back and forth between timelines. Casablanca had way too many cheesy lines. Titanic was a melodramatic downer (literally).

I think it's better to enjoy movies for what you like about them, rather than looking for ways to disparage them where they have flaws (although, I think that was sort of your point when you pointed out some of the recent Oscar movies).

And in any case, those flaws are in the eye of the beholder, what's important and what's not important for an individual viewer. Some examples:

Day After Tomorrow-- People will tell you this is an awful movie, and I suppose by most measures, it is. Some decent to good actors (Gyllenhall, Quaid, the cute chick Rossum from the Phantom movie) trapped in about as cliche-ridden a script that didn't allow for any depth or actual acting chops to be required. A formula Hollywood ending. Plot holes galore. And that's besides issues with the science to glaze over, or the sledgehammer political message (which I am more or less directly inclined politically to reject). And yet for all of that, I enjoyed and own this movie. Why? Because I absolutely love well done special effects and disaster movies, and I don't discredit movies because the good guys win in formulaic fashion--I just want to root for the winners, however it happens.

There Will Be Blood-- There are people here that seem to swear by this movie. And it is artistically well done. The whole movie, from the barren terrain well captured in the cinematography, to the awful off-kilter "music", to the ugliness of the characters, in particular the devious lead played masterfully by DDL, is intended to be an affront to the senses. The director wanted to display the depth of evil in the human heart, and he pretty much succeeded. And for all the quality that went into it, I couldn't stand it. Sorry, not a good time at the movies, Oscars be damned. It's just TOO ugly.

Braveheart-- I feel like this is one where the "regular guy" kinda snuck one in under the critics' radar. This is a classic guy flick, all blood and gory, rousing speeches, good versus evil, huge battles, love stories, etc. etc. the grand epic. And Gibson and company managed to turn it into an Oscar flick because they lied a little (okay, a lot) about history (and bet no one would really know or care, and they were right), they made Wallace out to be a freedom-fighter motivated by true love rather than the 13th century Scottish terrorist he actually was, and they painted everything in black and white, with grandiose themes and in terms of great heroes and villains, stuff Hollywood loves. It's all cliched BS, but, being a guy, I of course love it. Watch it anytime it comes on.

A couple you mentioned...

Slumdog Millionaire-- Nothing you said is wrong about this movie. The acting is in a range from poor to mediocre, and outside of the Indian setting and the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire concept, it was entirely unoriginal. But much like Braveheart, the critics and Oscar voters, for whatever reason, all bought in, despite the flaws. I love this movie, too. So what if it's unoriginal. It's still nice to see a poor boy succeed against all odds to win both a fortune and the hand of his beautiful beloved, formula or not.

The Departed-- Yeah, Scorsese overdoes things here, just like he does in most of his movies. Come on, who the heck cares? I don't know how anyone could watch this (the first time at least), and not be on the edge of their seat the whole time, watching the interplay between Damon and Sheen and DiCaprio and Nicholson, and wondering how the twists are going to play themselves out. It was a massive criminal chess game. Were most of the accents contrived? Sure. Was the dialogue at times obviously trumped up purely for "Oscar dialogue" purposes? Of course. Was there too much death and blood? Dude, it's Scorsese. Who cares. It wasn't boring. It was fun. It had guys to root for and guys to root against.

Or another Scorsese one...

Gangs Of New York-- This is another one a lot of people swear by, and are mystified Scorsese didn't get his Best Director statue here. DiCaprio and DDL were both brilliant, and the mid-19th century picture of the nether regions of NYC was well put together and intriguing stuff. It was right up my alley. But I didn't entirely enjoy it, for a handful of reasons. One, Cameron Diaz's character just flat sucked. And Diaz sucks. Sorry, I have only ever liked her in two movies, really (The Mask and Something About Mary), and even the second one, she's more just a target rather than earning credit on her own merit. Two, Scorsese got away from his story to drag in the Civil War crap. Real or not, it took away from the story. Three, and the one that kills it for me-- I'm a guy; I like big movies with big fights; I am set up across over two hours for a huge ending battle between the Dead Rabbits and the Natives; and what do I get? Cannons firing absurdly in between the two gangs, scattering everyone and depriving me of the primary reason I stuck with the movie that long. Dude, WTF?!? (And, no, the smoky mano-y-mano didn't make up for it).

One where I seem to break from general consensus...

Signs-- Mostly, I see people say not really scary. The CGI (especially with the alien at the end) is awful. The story is too formulaic. Shyamalin does his same spring a surprise at the end schtick. And, a favorite of a wanna be director of mine, a scene where you can actually see the boom mike at the top of the screen, lol. And yet, this is a favorite of mine. The tension buildup with the injection of humor to break it all up (usually provided by Joaquin Phoenix) is very well done. To me, at least, the concept IS scary. I do jump at strange creatures in the dark, sudden aliens in alleys in Brazil, weird crackling noises on two way radios. IMO, it was very Hitchcockian. The basement scene that is central to the intensity of the "attack" is brilliant, IMO, because there is so much to be scared about that is NOT seen. Shyamalin lets your imagine do the work while actually showing you very little. And the battle of faith Gibson's character goes through, IMO, is very well done, no matter whether you're religious or not (and I am not). For many people, this was Shyamalin finally starting to come down to his current level of crapitude. For me, it didn't start until The Village.

So, you see how my own peccadillos and what I want to see in a movie affects my impressions of how "good" a movie is. It really has very little to do with quality, and everything to do with how well it fits what the viewer wants to see, what they get the most enjoyment out of.

And, besides, the Oscars are pretty much a bunch of political claptrap anyway. A Beautiful Mind over the first LOTR? Are you fucking kidding me? Shakespeare In Love over Saving Private Ryan? Give me a break!

[BishopMVP]

I would agree with this wholeheartedly. The first half was transcendent until the plot bogged it down. Still, I was skeptical going in and I thought the movie was great. Well worth the money spent on the ticket.Shit, I saw at Boston Common, paying $14+ for non-IMAX, and it was worth it. And after seeing it this thread's tone was funny, because as derivative as the plot was the visuals were a transcendent experience that any person who wants to speak relevantly to pop culture had to see. I really disagree with the overall political bent of the movie and feel anyone who can count above 10 can figure out where the plot is going, but yet I've encouraged/demanded everyone I know to see it. And I'm going to end up seeing it again (on an IMAX screen), which I didn't do for the last 50+ movies that I'd consider "better" movies than Avatar.

[sterlingice]

I loved the thoughts, CR.

Interesting because I feel the same way about both Gangs of New York: I really wanted to like it going in, so I was predisposed to look favorably but it just didn't do it for me; and Signs: particularly the line about Shyamalan's "descent"- I really enjoyed a lot of that movie: the suspense, the "coincidences"/religion plot- I feel his first three movies are all very good and future ones are of lesser quality

But I differ with The Day After Tomorrow. I like Roland Emmerich and think Independence Day will take a very, very long time to top as a "disaster" movie, if it ever is topped, since it was close to note perfect *for the genre*. But there was a base level of sloppiness that I just couldn't overcome. The cold chasing people down the hall as a major plot point that pushed the story was inexcusable to me as it drives two parts of the story. One, how all the kids stay inside the building. And it's badly overlooked in another spot I forget where there are animals running around in the cold that would kill a human... unless he wears a really big coat and is named Dennis Quaid.

And it's funny because I'm ok with three super hurricanes that suck air from the atmosphere and destroy everything in their path because Emmerich spent a minute of the movie putting a scientist in front of us, telling us it could happen. It's just like since Jeff Goldblum is a brilliant MIT guy who has spent his whole life as a glorified cable programmer, he knew to find the mystical alien signal in the satellites *and* knew how to program a Mac to upload a virus into an alien space ship, sure *jedi mind trick hand wave*. The important distinction in my mind is that the director went through a lot of trouble to explain to us that it would work so we should take him at face value.

To carry this yet another example further, I have heard people say stuff like "I didn't believe Signs because why would aliens weak against water go after Earth" and I can overlook that but not a similar complaint in The Day After Tomorrow and I can't really put my finger onto why. My only real justification is that in the universe Signs take place in, I find it believable and plausible but in TDAT, I don't. But I cannot give you a concrete reason why.

Maybe it's because deep down, I just don't like most of the characters in The Day After Tomorrow so I was happy with them dying while Will Smith's wife being saved in an almost identically stupid way in Independence Day (fire in tunnel vs ice in hall). But I do so dislike when writers could make equally believable likable characters and choose to make them unlikeable. I find that a cardinal writing sin, but I'm digressing way too far off the path.

As you said- a lot of things come down to expectation, not just overall of the movie, but of the director, the universe he creates as each movie is a new one, the actors' capabilities versus performance, etc.

Also, I think there's an interesting footnote I was thinking about with regards to source of criticism. I remember a scene from The Critic in the episode with Siskel and Ebert where they are getting in a fight on screen and their fight about a completely unrelated movie breaks down into "And this, from the guy who liked Benji the Hunted" and "Hey, you liked Carnosaur".

Ultimately, it ends up in this mutually assured destruction sort of game where the only way to win is, well, not to play. If you don't like any movies, you don't have to defend your picks or your standards. Or it creates this incestuous pool of critics where it's only safe to like a certain type of unassailable movie and hence the three genre pigeonhole. It's not that they're any better but that they're safe. They're rarely, if ever, going to get more than a 7 in most people's books because they shoot for. We'd rather reward perfect mediocrity than imperfect greatness.

SI

[Pyser]

This has to be a huge dissappointment for its opening weekend.

Biggest Opening Weekends at the Box Office (http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/)
<table width="98%" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffff99"><td align="right">31</td> <td>Avatar (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm)</td> <td>Fox (http://boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?studio=fox.htm)</td> <td align="right">$73,000,000</td> <td align="right">100.0%</td> <td align="right">3,452</td> <td align="right">$21,147</td> <td align="right">$73,000,000</td> <td align="right">12/18/2009 (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=bydate&release=theatrical&date=2009-12-18&p=.htm)</td></tr></tbody></table>
31st on the all time list for the most expensive movie ever made, must be a huge let down for Cameron and company. I am stunned it did not at least break the $100 million dollar barrier. Last month's Twilight had a an opening weekend of $142 million.

And, next weeks Sherlock Holmes will probably knock Avatar out of first place.

not to beat a dead horse, but:

ALL TIME WORLDWIDE
1. Titanic $1,842,879,955
2. Return of the King $1,119,110,941
3. Dead Man's Chest $1,066,179,725
4. Avatar $1,018,811,000

and avatar made another 68m this weekend, its 3rd. its dropped off less than 10m in 3 weeks. ridiculous.

its an absolute lock to be the 2nd biggest movie of all time, worldwide.

[sterlingice]

Those are just amazing with no week-to-week drop. I'm sure we'll see a substantial one next week because we're out of the holiday season but that might change how people release blockbusters at Christmas. If they think they have something good, they can milk it for 3 straight weeks.

SI

[Glengoyne]

Ya know about two days after I posted vehemently that comparing Avatar to Dances with Wolves was flat wrong.... I uh got the comparison.

I originally thought it was a reference to the taking of native lands, and that parallel just didn't make the cut for me. Then suddenly it hit me that Jake Sully literally became a Na`Vi. I can't believe I didn't get that the first time. So yeah. A pretty apt comparison. Except that the formulaic plot and dialog were quite well executed in DwW. I can't say the same about Avatar.

Yes it was Pretty, but it isn't like I'll be lining up to buy this when it comes out. Very cool, and probably worth owning, but this won't be appearing on any of my top movie lists.

[larrymcg421]

"You shouldn't expect Oscar material" has to be one of the lamest defenses of a movie, yet it is constantly trotted out on this board. That means we couldn't criticize any movie.

"Gigli was a stupid story with awful acting."
"Well, I'm sorry it wasn't up to your Oscar winning standards!"

It's just a cheap way of getting out of the argument. Why not just respond to the arguments being made and say why you think the person is wrong?

[Chief Rum]

"You shouldn't expect Oscar material" has to be one of the lamest defenses of a movie, yet it is constantly trotted out on this board. That means we couldn't criticize any movie.

"Gigli was a stupid story with awful acting."
"Well, I'm sorry it wasn't up to your Oscar winning standards!"

It's just a cheap way of getting out of the argument. Why not just respond to the arguments being made and say why you think the person is wrong?

I disagree. While you're right that using it as a catch all defense is ridiculous, there are clearly movies that are made with the intention of winning awards, and there are clearly movies made in the hopes of entertaining/making money.

It's a valid defense, IMO, when the subject movie is of the latter sort, and its standards only reach average for a movie of its type. Now, if it fails to even reach the low standards of its own genre/target audience/etc., now that's a pretty crappy movie, by any standard.

[sterlingice]

I'm not sure this was directed at my points or something else, but I'll take a stab if it's after mine. This is what I tried to explain and take a step further in my longer screeds above. To go with CR's the point, the standards are different. But I tried to take it a step further and, in a roundabout way, say that genres create different standards and that I think it's unfair to just blanket rate one or the other as superior.

There is a different type of acting in an action movie- if you put Frank Langella as the military bad guy in Avatar, does that do anything more or less for the movie? If you spent $10M to put some sort of better special effects in Frost/Nixon- would one even notice.

SI

[Chief Rum]

I'm not sure this was directed at my points or something else, but I'll take a stab if it's after mine. This is what I tried to explain and take a step further in my longer screeds above. To go with CR's the point, the standards are different. But I tried to take it a step further and, in a roundabout way, say that genres create different standards and that I think it's unfair to just blanket rate one or the other as superior.

There is a different type of acting in an action movie- if you put Frank Langella as the military bad guy in Avatar, does that do anything more or less for the movie? If you spent $10M to put some sort of better special effects in Frost/Nixon- would one even notice.

SI

Nixon's nose...in 3D!!!

[larrymcg421]

Well I think good acting can elevate an action movie. For example, the only Seagal movie that I can stand is Under Siege and that is because of Gary Busey and Tommy Lee Jones. And the only Michael Bay movie I like is The Rock and that's because of Nicholas Cage, Ed Harris, and Sean Connery.

But my point is that if some plot hole or awful performance really bothers me, that doesn't mean I was expecting an "Oscar winner". It doesn't mean I don't like action movies. That's just a strawman used when someone can't defend a movie from the criticism someone has offered.

And this isn't meant as an attack at SI since he didn't even really say it, but it's one of my pet peeves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nixon's nose...in 3D!!!

I know this is kind of a drive-by posting but ... that sounds like something out of a Family Guy episode (or The Critic)

[JonInMiddleGA]

And the only Michael Bay movie I like is The Rock and that's because of Nicholas Cage, Ed Harris, and Sean Connery.

Not even Bad Boys?

[Chief Rum]

I know this is kind of a drive-by posting but ... that sounds like something out of a Family Guy episode (or The Critic)

Heh...well, it came purely from the nether regions of my noggin', but, sure, it sounds like something they would come up with. ;)

[SportsDino]

My whole 'oscar' line of thought comes from the increasing negativity I see out of the crowd compared to the past. Comparing Avatar amongst its peers, I think it does okay, comparing it on metrics it was never meant for... it would get destroyed. If those factors make it so you do not enjoy the movie, that is fine, say so.... but acting like it is the most terrible movie ever made and won't make a buck... that is where I draw the line (and it doesn't make any common sense and we have the billion bucks apparently to show it).

It is like the movie 'Shoot Em Up', I love that movie because it outright goes campy from the start and never lets up. Perfect popcorn movie, just stupid jokes and insane unbelievable action. For its class, its awesome... but switch standards it is not suited for it would be hated.

I dunno, I just hate too much exageration in a review. Just put your view of the facts of the movie out there, along with your personal rating... don't blow things out of proportion like a political fanatic (it seems everyone desires polar positions these days, blind to simpler reality is the new ignorant bliss).

[Matthean]

Over 1.1 billion worldwide for 2nd all-time in a mere 20 days. Getting the last 700 million to pass Titanic seems doable and doing that kind of sales alone would put a movie at #35 all-time. Crazy.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[NewIdentity]

I wonder if Avatar will qualify as an Animated/CGI movie for the Oscars?

If you put a stop watch to it, I would think this movie would be more Animated than Live action?

[cthomer5000]

Very pretty on the screen, but the plot was very "meh".

6.5/10

I read 2 pages of the thread... but sov really nailed it with the very first response.

The story is totally mediocre... which means is OK, not terrible. Even for a movie so long it moves quick enough that you aren't really given time to linger on the absurdity of some stuff until you're driving home.

The visuals ARE that good. I went into the movie with no expectations and was damn near floored by how good it lucked (IMAX 3D, fwiw).

If you don't see this movie in the theater, don't bother seeing it at all.

[cthomer5000]

I saw it but skipped the 3D.

Note to anyone else reading this: DO NOT DO THIS.

The movie would just be total 'meh' without the 3D effect (and if you've got an IMAX option, go for it).

This movie is about nothing but it's groundbreaking visuals... so dont skip that but keep the mediocre writing.

[Flame Eater]

Love the movie. 3D effects were absolutely amazing.

All of the action/acting was filmed with "motion capture" technology. The actual actors were "wired-up", filmed in a huge sound stage and then all of that was put into the computer. They even had tiny motion capture cameras for their facial expressions. I found a video online about the technology. Pretty amazing stuff.

[Sgran]

How many of you have watched Star Wars recently? I watched it with my daughter and loved it. We then watched Raiders of the Lost Arc several times and I get excited every time Indy says "What truck?" Here's the question: is there any way you'd get sucked into watching Tron? I think Avatar is this generation's Tron. All effects and a plot-by-numbers. Call it: Tron 2: Dances with Elves.

[gstelmack]

I loved this:

Avatar Plot Fail or Observation Win? « FAIL Blog: Epic Fail Pictures and Videos of Owned, Pwnd and Fail Moments (http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/)

[DaddyTorgo]

still haven't seen it...

[Toddzilla]

Note to anyone else reading this: DO NOT DO THIS.

The movie would just be total 'meh' without the 3D effect (and if you've got an IMAX option, go for it).

This movie is about nothing but it's groundbreaking visuals... so dont skip that but keep the mediocre writing.

:+1:

[jeff061]

Yeah, I finally saw it. Everyone should get out and see it in the theater. I couldn't see myself watching it on the small screen.

[sterlingice]

I loved this:

Avatar Plot Fail or Observation Win? « FAIL Blog: Epic Fail Pictures and Videos of Owned, Pwnd and Fail Moments (http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/)

I think that had already been posted, but, yeah, it's funny.

SI

[Izulde]

As I said on facebook a few days ago, this was the prettiest movie I've -ever- seen. I particularly enjoyed the night scenes, because those luminescent flowers and plants were the -exact- image I had in mind when I wrote up a small piece on night flowers in case I ever decide to write a fantasy novel.

Yes, the plot is predictable to the Nth degree and the message has zero subtlety to it, but so what?

For all its predictability, for all its transparency, this is a movie I fell in love with. I became emotionally invested in the characters and the storyline and in this case, the long run time felt just about right. I knew what was going to happen, knew how it was going to end, and I didn't care. I just enjoyed the beautiful, thrilling ride that it was.

I agree with those who say the first half was much stronger than the second half, but I enjoyed the second half anyway, because for me personally, the first half did such a good job of making me give a damn about the characters and the situation.

I would've liked to have seen the backstory between the brothers developed more, but if Cameron's planning to make sequels, then okay, fine, since I imagine he'll go back to that and fill it in with the later movies.

And yes, it's definitely a must-see in theaters. The sheer artistry of the thing is what carries the film and much of it would be lost in translation to a small screen. Some people would say that makes this lesser of a movie, but I'd disagree, because it's one of those movies that's *meant* to be seen in all its bold, majestic glory in 3D/IMAX.

In short, it's a beautiful, fantastic escape. I would like to point out one character detail that I thought worked excellently to that end, but I'll spoiler it, even though it's a small one.


The male lead as a disabled person I think plays a fairly significant role in the power of the emotional connection and the audience's rooting for him. Not out of pity, but out of empathy with him, because he and the story reflect our own desires.

How many of us will never achieve our highest and most powerful dreams, because of lack of opportunity or lack of ability? We, too, are disabled in our own way and prevented from having the hopes and wishes we had as children come true. This movie, in a very quiet way, lets us go to a place where we can achieve our lost dreams. The protagonist was able to find the physical freedom he lost when he became wheelchair bound and the love he lost when his twin brother died. That's a powerful, if overlooked story of redemption and restoration in its own right.

[ISiddiqui]

Just saw it on IMAX 3D. The visuals were absolutely brilliant. I mean, wow. Some of the scenes just took your breath away. Especially the first time seeing the Na'vi lands in the dark and the waterfalls. Just jaw dropping and especially in 3D.

As far as plot... meh. It's very predictable and cliched. Dances with Wolves 2 or Ferngully for Adults.

7/10 for the stunning visuals.

[Lathum]

I thought it was absolutely amazing. I go to a movie expecting to be taken away for a few hours and this movie did that and then some. Was it predictable, sure, but it was how they got to the predictable ending that made it so phenomenal.

Something funny my wife and I were discussing. Cameron has now directed the two top grossing films of all time, and in both films the ending was not any surprise at all.

[Raiders Army]

We saw it on the IMAX 3D. It was good, but not good enough IMHO to justify the expense....I mean, it's better than a chick flick and the whole family liked it, but the 3D wasn't what I expected at all.

To describe it, it seemed as if there were a few things that popped out but the predominant 3D effects were into the screen instead of coming out. It seemed as if the screen were the beginning and the other objects were inside of it. I don't know if the Real 3D experience was the same, but that's my two cents.

[Tigercat]

We saw it on the IMAX 3D. It was good, but not good enough IMHO to justify the expense....I mean, it's better than a chick flick and the whole family liked it, but the 3D wasn't what I expected at all.

To describe it, it seemed as if there were a few things that popped out but the predominant 3D effects were into the screen instead of coming out. It seemed as if the screen were the beginning and the other objects were inside of it. I don't know if the Real 3D experience was the same, but that's my two cents.

That makes a huge difference for most of us though. The difference between the screen seeming like the beginning of a stage, or just like an ordinary screen. (With the occasional pop-up book effect if we are talking old school 3D.)

[jeff061]

I didn't really have any expectation either way. I can say I much prefer it being into the screen , which I think is more immersive. Popping out at you is distracting, good for some scenes but not continually.

[Icy]

Just back from seeing it in 3D, totally agree with Izulde post, even with the spoiler.

Awesome visuals, predictable story but with nice characters that make you immersed in the movie. Even knowing what was going to happen all the time, i was excited waiting for it.

I also agree that the whole avatar thing would be a dream for me, to have the chance to live other lives... come on, who of us wouldn't want to be an NFL QB? :)

[bob]

Just saw this yesterday, and had a question.



Did they ever explain why the corporation bothered with the alien-body avatars to begin with? I mean, the aliens (can't remember what they were called) knew they were dreamwalkers / humans anyway, so it wasn't to sneak in and infiltrate. Obviously it is necessary for the storyline that was developed, but I can't remember why they went to all that trouble.

[Dutch]

I rarely go to the movies anymore, but did for Avatar because everybody told us we should see it in the theater. Here in Germany that cost me $81 at a regular theater (using 3D glasses) for me, my wife and my two teenagers to see it. We each got a coke and we split 2 large popcorn's between the four us.

Hopefully it's not that expensive for a family of four to see a movie in the states.

[mauchow]

$40(tix)+12(popcorn)+20(soda)= $72 about in America.. Sounds about right. That is disgusting. I get upset if my wife and I spend more than 20 at the theathre.

[Lathum]

Plus the3d adds a few bucks to each ticket. I think it was 13 for our tickets so about 80 fir family if 4 is accurate.

[terpkristin]

I wasn't going to bring it up, but since this thread has been bumped, I'll just briefly mention it. My big gripe with the movie was that the story sucked, and I am not one who can just watch movies for the amazing sights. I agree that the visuals in the movie were, in some cases, breathtaking, but without a decent plot, I got horribly bored and felt, in the end, that it was a waste of my time (and money).

Anyway, I was listening to the Skepticality podcast (http://www.skepticality.com/) this past weekend and they had Phil Plait, a/k/a The Bad Astronomer (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/) on. They asked him what he thought of the movie and he confessed he didn't see it. He had heard that the story wasn't worth the price of admission, and he couldn't be bothered to pay all that money just to see spectacular sights, as he sees them everyday (for free). I think he's dead-on. Especially to somebody in his line of work who gets paid to look at literally out of this world images from Hubble and the like, even the world of Pandora seems dull by comparison.

Anyway. Can't fault people for liking the movie for the effects, but it still wasn't for me. I need a story.

/tk

[JeeberD]

I rarely go to the movies anymore, but did for Avatar because everybody told us we should see it in the theater. Here in Germany that cost me $81 at a regular theater (using 3D glasses) for me, my wife and my two teenagers to see it. We each got a coke and we split 2 large popcorn's between the four us.

Hopefully it's not that expensive for a family of four to see a movie in the states.


Was that the base theater or on the economy?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I wasn't going to bring it up, but since this thread has been bumped, I'll just briefly mention it. My big gripe with the movie was that the story sucked, and I am not one who can just watch movies for the amazing sights. I agree that the visuals in the movie were, in some cases, breathtaking, but without a decent plot, I got horribly bored and felt, in the end, that it was a waste of my time (and money).

Anyway, I was listening to the Skepticality podcast (http://www.skepticality.com/) this past weekend and they had Phil Plait, a/k/a The Bad Astronomer (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/) on. They asked him what he thought of the movie and he confessed he didn't see it. He had heard that the story wasn't worth the price of admission, and he couldn't be bothered to pay all that money just to see spectacular sights, as he sees them everyday (for free). I think he's dead-on. Especially to somebody in his line of work who gets paid to look at literally out of this world images from Hubble and the like, even the world of Pandora seems dull by comparison.

Anyway. Can't fault people for liking the movie for the effects, but it still wasn't for me. I need a story.

/tk

I have to disagree here to some extent, but really only as a matter of semantics.

The story didn't "suck". It's not a bad story. In fact, it's an incredibly archetypal story and really quite a good one. It's just not an "original" story. It's been told dozens of times before and told better.

The problem with Avatar is that, beyond the incredible effects, it really didn't add anything new to this archetypal story. It was very much by the books and many of the scenes from the movie were taken almost directly from other movies that told this same age old story (i.e.m "Dances With Wolves", "Braveheart" (to some extent), "Last of the Mohicans" and others). The dialogue wasn't all that great either, which didn't help.

So, the problem with Avatar's story was that it wasn't "original", not that it "sucked".

[terpkristin]

I have to disagree here to some extent, but really only as a matter of semantics.

The story didn't "suck". It's not a bad story. In fact, it's an incredibly archetypal story and really quite a good one. It's just not an "original" story. It's been told dozens of times before and told better.

The problem with Avatar is that, beyond the incredible effects, it really didn't add anything new to this archetypal story. It was very much by the books and many of the scenes from the movie were taken almost directly from other movies that told this same age old story (i.e.m "Dances With Wolves", "Braveheart" (to some extent), "Last of the Mohicans" and others). The dialogue wasn't all that great either, which didn't help.

So, the problem with Avatar's story was that it wasn't "original", not that it "sucked".

I take your point (I've taken a few classes in classic myth and storytelling, I know what you're saying here). Though I know what you're saying about the classic storyline and agree it was a classic archetype, I will also say that part of storytelling is making your audience interested, and making them care about what's going on. Not only did I not care about the characters, I was BORED by them.

Opinions can differ, I totally respect that, but even with a standard plot, by my standards, this one sucked (for me). I've read many books and seen many movies with the typical plot that this one used and wouldn't put them into the same "suck" category I put this one into.

/tk

[Desnudo]

Just saw this yesterday, and had a question.



Did they ever explain why the corporation bothered with the alien-body avatars to begin with? I mean, the aliens (can't remember what they were called) knew they were dreamwalkers / humans anyway, so it wasn't to sneak in and infiltrate. Obviously it is necessary for the storyline that was developed, but I can't remember why they went to all that trouble.



From what I remember, they mentioned something about the aliens finding it easier to relate to something that looked like them.

[sterlingice]

I rarely go to the movies anymore, but did for Avatar because everybody told us we should see it in the theater. Here in Germany that cost me $81 at a regular theater (using 3D glasses) for me, my wife and my two teenagers to see it. We each got a coke and we split 2 large popcorn's between the four us.

Hopefully it's not that expensive for a family of four to see a movie in the states.

Probably about that much, but I can't remember the last time I bought a coke or popcorn in theaters because suddenly your expenses go from $50 for that family of 4 up to $81.

SI

[Dutch]

Was that the base theater or on the economy?

The $81 was on the economy...(60 Euros).

[Dutch]

Probably about that much, but I can't remember the last time I bought a coke or popcorn in theaters because suddenly your expenses go from $50 for that family of 4 up to $81.

SI

You're not the first person to say this. But my insistance on having popcorn and a coke is a holdover of my youth when every trip to the movies had those things. I hate spending that kind of money and not having those things...so I make it worse by spending more...but at least I feel right while watching the movie.

[bob]

From what I remember, they mentioned something about the aliens finding it easier to relate to something that looked like them.

Seems kinda flimsy - not sure wearing blackface when talking to leaders in Africa would go over so well.

[stevew]

I think it was so that they could move freely through the country, without need of gas masks, etc. Plus you're also talking about 6 years to bring in reinforcements, so every person is vital.

[Sgran]

From what I remember, they mentioned something about the aliens finding it easier to relate to something that looked like them.

Right. It was basically the Peace Corps getting some token money to sugar coat the military presence. There was also a blatant quote like "so much for diplomacy." For an admitted left-winger it was one of those "yeah, the heart was in the right place but the delivery was ham-fisted and clumsy" type stories. It reminded me of the Day after Tomorrow in that sense. I imagine it's how true conservatives cringe when listening to Rush or Palin.

[JeeberD]

The $81 was on the economy...(60 Euros).

Duh, Jeeber. Avatar won't be at the base theater for another six months, at least...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Huge first day sales for Avatar on Blu-ray format. Previous first-day sales record on Blu-ray was 600K for Dark Knight. Avatar destroyed that record. It sold 1.5M Blu-ray copies on its first day of sales.

‘Avatar’ Blu-Ray Sets 1st-Day Sales Record – Deadline.com (http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/avatar-blu-ray-sets-1st-day-sales-record/)

[stevew]

I like how they're double dipping with the 3d Blu Ray to be released in the winter. And, actually, I will say that it seemed to sell well as I couldn't find more than 1 copy at my local WalMart. $25 is too much for a meh movie. And I will probably get the 3D stuff in the fall, so I don't want to buy two copies of it.

[sterlingice]

As much as I loved seeing it in theaters, bringing it home to a smaller screen doesn't hold much appeal to me. For instance, Dark Knight, I definitely wanted a home copy. Avatar, I'm not sure. Again, I think Avatar was an amazing in-theater experience and should have been awarded/rewarded for that but a large part of that was the spectacle of the in-theater experience. I'll probably get a copy of it when it gets cheaper but as I don't have a BluRay player or a nice HD tv, it loses a lot of appeal.

SI

[PilotMan]

What would be the youngest age kid that you would take to see this?

[gstelmack]

What would be the youngest age kid that you would take to see this?

I have the same question. This was the first preview on the "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel" Blu-Ray (really? Avatar in front of this one?) so both kids now want to see it. I figure this is a clear "Mommy and Daddy preview it first" kind of movie, so I need to wait for it to hit Netflix.

[lungs]

I've had this on DVD for months

[Alan T]

What would be the youngest age kid that you would take to see this?


It is rated PG-13. My oldest daughter is 10 and I definitely wouldn't take her to see it or let her see it on dvd but I may just be a stick in the mud.

One of the sites I use at times for this type of thing is this:

Avatar [2009] [PG-13] - 5.7.4 (http://www.kids-in-mind.com/a/avatar.htm)


Generally though any movie like this I'd personally review first. I don't honestly feel comfortable telling you or Greg what you should let your kids see or not see, so that site I listed above does a pretty decent job of listing out all of the "questionable" material for kids and lets you decide which would be too much or not too much for your specific parenting style.

[PilotMan]

I saw the movie today, and it wouldn't be very good for my 8 or 6 year old. Personally, it was quite graphically intense. Lots of action and thrilling scenes along with some swear words I am sure my kids hear on the bus but don't really need to hear in a movie (and on a tangent, Back to the Future has way worse language then I remember). The bad guy is pretty intense and vile, and there are a number of scenes of sadness and loss. All of that is really too much for the younger kids. Although I will say that one of my 8yr old's second grade classmates told him when he was here for a birthday party that he was going home to watch Zombieland. I was blown away by that. To each his own.

It's way more of a boy movie, and I think that perhaps when they get to 10 or 11 I could see letting them watch it with us. Hope that helps Greg.

[MacroGuru]

Meh...I took my 4 yr old, 9 yr old and 12 year old to see it when it came out at the IMAX.

My kids loved it, it kept everyone glued to it, my 4 yr old loved it, knew the story line and what not, so I wasn't to concerned with it....then again...my 4 yr old is crazy and wants to watch zombie movies when he sees them on our netflix streaming account on the xbox360.

Again, to each their own...

[Alan T]

Meh...I took my 4 yr old, 9 yr old and 12 year old to see it when it came out at the IMAX.

My kids loved it, it kept everyone glued to it, my 4 yr old loved it, knew the story line and what not, so I wasn't to concerned with it....then again...my 4 yr old is crazy and wants to watch zombie movies when he sees them on our netflix streaming account on the xbox360.

Again, to each their own...


yeah, that is why I gave the URL link that I did that explains everything in the movie. I fully understand that other parents have a different standard of what they will or won't let their kids see. I don't feel it my place to say what other parents do.

So the URL I provided pretty much lists all of the "issues" in the movie and then a parent can determine what is best for their kids I suppose. (Even though I still tend to preview anything I consider borderline just to be sure ahead of time.


Once again though, I may just be a stick in the mud :)

[gstelmack]

Yeah, our plan was to watch it first definitely, we just weren't sure if it was even worth trying.

[MacroGuru]

yeah, that is why I gave the URL link that I did that explains everything in the movie. I fully understand that other parents have a different standard of what they will or won't let their kids see. I don't feel it my place to say what other parents do.

So the URL I provided pretty much lists all of the "issues" in the movie and then a parent can determine what is best for their kids I suppose. (Even though I still tend to preview anything I consider borderline just to be sure ahead of time.


Once again though, I may just be a stick in the mud :)

No...I had talked to others before going to determine if I should take them. I was given a slight warning about the language and the battle.

Other wise, I am a stick in the mud 70% of the time.

[JeeberD]

Although I will say that one of my 8yr old's second grade classmates told him when he was here for a birthday party that he was going home to watch Zombieland. I was blown away by that. To each his own.



A couple of months ago I was talking to a guest while they were waiting for the rest of their party. The topic of kids came up, since he had a young daughter with him and my wife had recently given birth to our first kid. The dude proceeded to tell me how his 4 year old girl can recite entire scenes from "The Hangover" because it's her favorite movie and she watches it at least once a day. My jaw hit the floor...

[PilotMan]

That was a good link Alan, I hadn't seen that one yet, and I like their methodology. Thanks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I like how they're double dipping with the 3d Blu Ray to be released in the winter. And, actually, I will say that it seemed to sell well as I couldn't find more than 1 copy at my local WalMart. $25 is too much for a meh movie. And I will probably get the 3D stuff in the fall, so I don't want to buy two copies of it.

Hmmmm. I went to Wal-Mart yesterday and picked up the BR + DVD version for $20. There was plenty available. Heckuva deal to get both for $20 when the DVD version alone was $16.

[cuervo72]

I'd been semi-boycotting Avatar, but the parents of a friend of my daughter's sent it home with her to borrow so I kinda had to watch it with the kids. They're 10 and 8; my son thought it was "AWESOME!" (he had wanted us to buy/rent it anyway), and I guess my daughter thought it was ok. Neither really flinched at the action (my daughter was more concerned with a thunderstorm) and the language...well, it was tolerable (heck, they've seen Spaceballs, which was worse than I'd remembered).

My take: basically a really pretty action movie. Nothing really surprising with the plot (though I guessed the twist in Sixth Sense about 20 min in, so...). Good bad guy, and you end up rooting for the "underdogs". But certainly more notable for effects and artistry than story.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Blu-ray sales record set in four days (2.7M sold). It took Dark Knight over a year to compile the same sales numbers. Also, overseas sales has 60% of all unit sales as Blu-ray. Pretty impressive.

'Avatar' shatters DVD and Blu-ray records - Entertainment News, Box Office News, Media - Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118018252.html?categoryId=3762&cs=1)

[Castlerock]

Just saw it this weekend (3D). I had zero expectations going in and was blown away. As others have said, "The most visually beautiful movie I have ever seen".
So, the problem with Avatar's story was that it wasn't "original", not that it "sucked".
Yesterday, my kids were watching Disney's Pocahontas. It's the exact same plot. The story was good enough to keep me entertained while the visuals swallowed me. 9 out of 10. See this move as it was meant to be seen - in a theater - while you still can.

[whomario]

Just saw it again yesterday (on TV screen this time) and honestly can´t say i wasn´t highly entertained once again.
Sure the story isn´t original, but it´s not that terrible either that it would distract you from watching the movie. Actually rather like the basic idea of "dreamwalking" f.e., the video-log (and the premise of the story actually being told that way) was a nice touch.
Also thought the human actors weren´t half bad, really liked Sigourney Weaver brushing up her Dian Fossey (you could say that´s another non-original thing, but i liked it), also liked Joel Moore and for some reason even Rodriguez.
The villain role really wasn´t bad either.

Didn´t like the ending. Dunno how exactly to make that different, but was a little too straight-forward and black/white to me.

Then factor in the great visual elements and i saw a really good film.

[Matthean]

See this move as it was meant to be seen - in a theater - while you still can.

Their bringing it back with an extended version of 6 minutes. Cameron admits that with the timing of other IMAX movies coming out the film didn't max out it's chance at being as profitable as possible. (cue snarky remarks) They are just waiting for the right timing so they can have another go with IMAX theaters. Case in point, my local IMAX theater didn't buy the IMAX version of the movie and I'm trying to recall if they ever did end up showing it. If they did, it was much later on and only for a small period of time since other films were coming out. Yep, the highest grossing film ever left money on the table.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Pyser]

Case in point, my local IMAX theater didn't buy the IMAX version of the movie and I'm trying to recall if they ever did end up showing it. If they did, it was much later on and only for a small period of time since other films were coming out. Yep, the highest grossing film ever left money on the table.

are you serious? what did that genius theater run instead of the biggest movie of all time? there are only 2 imax theaters in los angeles, and they were sold out for about 3 months at peak times.

[stevew]

Went and saw the Special Edition last night. If you didn't see the movie before, you really should try to get there before it leaves the theatres for good. Yes, I know it's available on DVD now. But it should be experienced in the theatre.

[stevew]

Bump-
Supposedly 3(!) Sequels are ready to go into production soon. I am really curious to see how these movies do. At 60 years old I wonder if this is going to be Cameron's last hurrah.

[sterlingice]

Bump-
Supposedly 3(!) Sequels are ready to go into production soon. I am really curious to see how these movies do. At 60 years old I wonder if this is going to be Cameron's last hurrah.

That's kindof a shame. I really liked the first one, particularly the 3D movie watching experience in theaters. It really was unique and still hasn't been duplicated or exceeded. However, I don't think there was enough source material in the universe they created to make 3 sequels.

SI

[Desnudo]

I thought the 3d was great. The movie and the plot were boring once the gee whiz factor wore off.

[Matthean]

I wonder what three movies he's ripping off this time. :D

I know people have compared the first one to some films, but I came away with the idea he had been watching films from Studio Ghibli. To me that was the aspect I liked the best. The world he created was interesting.

[stevew]

I guess they could do some sort of Navi vs other species fight on one of the movies. Then the humans could get pissed and come back and maybe destroy the world or something. Maybe Jake Sully brings his tribe to earth in the final chapter? I can't see the demand for unobtainium going away soon.