Avatar

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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]

Originally Posted by NewIdentity

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by NewIdentity

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Icy

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey32

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]

Originally Posted by boberot

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by terpkristin

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.)

Originally Posted by SportsDino

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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)

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

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]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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]

Originally Posted by NewIdentity

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

Biggest Opening Weekends at the Box Office

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.