Avatar 3D
Mikey 17 comments
I have to say that I have a lot of respect for James Cameron for pushing the envelope when it comes to advancing cinema technology. Although he is famous for directing some really good movies, most don't know that he's also an explorer. This movie business actually gets in the way of his preferred passion of discovery. If you haven't seen his documentary, I enthusiastically recommend it.
Having just watched Avatar 3D though, it seems JC is getting lazy in his story telling. The CGI was undoubtedly fantastic - I mean it was jaw dropping - and nothing can rival those visuals. But I think there were too many times where I felt the director was insulting the audience. I'll get to that later.
Avatar is a very simple story at its heart with a slathering of CGI and overly long scripting to drag it out. You can plot the story in a handful of bullet points:
- Big evil corporation wants substance on peace loving planet
- Soldier sent in by evil corporation to infiltrate
- Soldier sees his own conscious, realises corporation is evil
- Soldier fights to protect planet and inhabitants
- Soldier and planet inhabitants are victorious
- Evil is punished, Good prevails
- Gazzilions of box office dollars FTW
Ok so it's not very original, but this movie isn't meant to have a ground breaking story line, it's really a technology showcase first and a story second so it can be forgiven for being in that order. If you go in with that mind set you wont be disappointed.
The main protagonist is pathetically sympathetic, as are the tree loving hippy aliens on the planet who are all CGI by the way, and designed to be as approachable as possible without actually being human. They have gorgeous big eyes and other feline qualities (everyone likes cats!), and are as pure as snow in their beliefs and care towards nature. They are essentially as far opposite to the evil corporation as you could imagine. So oppositely matched in fact I could just picture JC and crew having custom software written that automatically generates extreme opposing character sets. Anyone want to put money on that?
This corporation is made up of your your typical cliché stereotypes. The evil general who is 'just following orders' when he sips from his coffee mug while blasting the natives into oblivion, and the corporate douchebag only concerned with financial goals, in this case to obtain a rare mineral called - wait for it - Unobtainium. I kid you not. That's JC's way of saying "just in case you didn't get it, this mineral is supposed to be unobtainable". Thanks JC, my puny peanut brain couldn't have figured it out otherwise.
So JC has set us up to easily love the aliens and hate the corporation. It's a safe bet for a director to go down this path, so no points for originality there.
But the one thing that struck me as totally out of place in this movie, is that despite the obvious advances humans have made in this distant future, somehow there are still people with the same disregard towards other races that would have made them fit right in at any KKK meeting. There are even a few times when the aliens are referred to as monkeys and cockroaches.
This is even blatantly pointed out momentarily during a scene where the general is giving his pep talk to the soldiers, there is an obvious redneck complete with scruffy long hair and mustache sitting in the front row. Why is he there? This is JC's way of saying to the audience "Just in case you hadn't realised by now, nearly 2 hours into the movie, these are the bad guys and I'll make that obvious by throwing in a random close minded redneck". Thanks again JC. I was really confused with who I was supposed to side with, but that random redneck sure cleared things up for me.
I felt that JC went way overboard placing too much emphasis on character flaws. I mean c'mon. It's plainly obvious who we're supposed to be rooting for, we don't need to have our intelligence insulted by throwing in mind numbing clichés to boot.
When all is said and done, it wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't a particularly memorable one either. I won't be reserving a place for Avatar in my Blueray collection unless by some miracle I change my opinion of it.
What about the 3D? Well let's just say I would rather have watched it in 2D. JC is certainly advancing cinema tech, but I find it funny that he's leveraging off an idea that's been around since the 50's. I saw my first 3D movie about 20 years ago and wasn't impressed back then. But today the glasses were awkward, the 3D effects so prevalent that it was an actual distraction, the picture was significantly duller and less sharp when viewed through the specs, and the gimmick got tiring very quickly and I just wanted to view it the normal way. Essentially the effect hasn't changed at all, but the technology used to create the 3D effect is just different. That of course means nothing to the viewer.
Do I recommend it? I guess it's one of those flicks you just have to get out of your system, kind of like The Dark Knight (what was all the fuss? It wasn't that good). I've heard people say it's the best movie in the history of movies (that always makes me instantly sceptical), and others say it was a yawn-fest. I lean towards the latter, but I don't want a refund because I got to witness some mind-blowing special effects.
Joe Marco
Tuesday 16th February 2010 | 03:44 AMExcellent points. 300 years into the future and we still have red necks and we are still using bullets?...recommended by the red neck I'm sure.
There was so much post hype in regards to this being 'the greatest film' of all time and blah, blah, blah....cliche', cliche', cliche'....and what was up with Worthington's accent slipping from Bostonian and to at times southern.
In either case, I fell for it, was drawn by the hype as we all were.
Kim OJ
Tuesday 16th February 2010 | 03:51 AMI haven't fallen into the Avatar trap yet, and you sure doing make the bait sound any sweeter, so I think I will let this one slide into oblivion. I actually never saw The Dark Knight either. I enjoyed Batman Begins and Casino Royal, which I consider to be of a similar franchise reboot strain, but Quantum of Solace was so disappointing that it gave me Matrix II and III flashbacks, and decided not ruin my Batman experience by watching the Dark Knight.
Trent Greguhn
Tuesday 16th February 2010 | 06:30 AM...in response to this comment by Kim OJ. I'm with Kim there. I'm not falling into the Avatar trap. And I don't go see movies in 3D anymore, it just causes too much of a strain and headache for me.
The Dark Knight... eh, as many of you know I'm a completely biased Batman fan who loved the movie. Definitely not best movie ever, but it IS the best Batman movie. In my humble opinion of course. Though were it me I'd have added a little more detective work, but what can you do.
Quantum of Solace ruined bond for me.
Ben Thomas
Tuesday 16th February 2010 | 07:44 AMI think I am really lucky to be able to enjoy all of the movies that you guys have mentioned.
I don't take any of those action/sci-fi titles seriously, and I don't expect them to be perfect examples of cinema, so I really like seeing them
I also really enjoy great films like Bucket List, District 9, and Invictus.
Mark
Tuesday 16th February 2010 | 07:54 AMSo 2.5 stars = 0 for story, 5 for visual effects? Actually, the humans are the aliens in this movie! I went along for the ride with this movie and thoroughly enjoyed it, the dolby 3d glasses were actually pretty sturdy for me.
...in response to this comment by Mark. "So 2.5 stars = 0 for story, 5 for visual effects?"
That's exactly how I arrived at that score :-)
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 16th February 2010 | 09:43 AMI gave it 27 stars, and while I realise I'm an ass hole in many contexts, I liked Die Hard 4.0 and Dragonball.
aries
Tuesday 16th February 2010 | 02:33 PMSometimes I think we have to take our critic's hat off and just relax and enjoy these films. As a 'reviewer' or 'critic', our job is to find fault first ( CRITICise ), and give praise second, so only the truly flawless examples get praised.
Avatar was just good fun for me and mine. My kids (daughter and her bff) squealed with delight all the way through it and we all loved it thoroughly. We did it in iMax 3D too which supplied us with really cool oversized 3D glasses almost like goggles, so there was no chance of a frame obscuring your vision or you feeling confined whilst wearing them.
Trent and Kim, don't listen to the FUN POLICE, if you don't go and see it in iMax 3D you are missing out on both a technological masterpiece and a good fun movie.
TVBIZ(BOB)
Tuesday 16th February 2010 | 07:25 PMCome on guys - what will it take for you people to enjoy a good movie?
As for me I loved it!
I guess because I have worked in the industry on the Post Production side I appreciate everything that I see. The hard work that goes into these films is unimaginable for the average viewer. When you work on one shot for months on end creating layer upon layer of mattes, colour grading and lighting you really do appreciate what you see on the screen.
For the viewer it is over in a flash and in the end he or she thinks it may be too long or the plot and actors are unbelievable. You don't see the movie for what is really is and that is "A true work of art"!
As far as the 3d goes I personally would like to see all movies applying it. It gives the film that little extra treat. I mean we all see in 3d everyday so why should we see film in 2d?
The new polarized technology used has no comparison to the old Cyan and green lenses.
I don't see how people are getting headaches etc while wearing the glasses? Yes the old style did give me visual problems but all the new glasses do is direct the vertical and horizontal polarized light into the correct eye.
I think it is fantastic and I congratulate the movie companies for trying to revitalize what has become fairly boring.
You have to keep trying to reinvent the wheel if you want to stay in front!
So look out people 3d tv is just around the corner and again it will reinvent the wheel in the way we watch tv............
Avatar will be remembered for one thing. It brought back another 3d Revolution. I had to stop counting the cliches so that I could try to enjoy the film. I have to agree tink had this been done 2d only you not have had helf the hype, well that and if they had spent less than a half a billion dollars on the film between production costs and P&A.
This is another example of "if you put enough money behind it and tell people how good it is even it isn't it will make money."
Cameron may have told a mediocre story but the technology for the films visual look will be copied and built upon for years to come. Anyone remember how many movies had the revolutionary bullet time effect after The Matrix was released?
I watched this movie in 3D technology. It was awesome for me!
BitBurn
Thursday 18th March 2010 | 11:36 AMI thought it was aiight. Over-hyped naturally but on the big screen, in 3D, it was pretty cool to watch. But I also agree that the storyline was weak. Will I buy the DVD? Nah.
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 5th May 2010 | 03:53 AM...in response to this comment by aries. Didn't get to see it in IMAX 3D unfortunately, but I did see it in 3D. I think before I throw away 3D for good, I need to see a movie in IMAX 3D. Avatar 3D was on a pretty small digital screen (by my standards) and I want to see what IMAX is capable of. Until then, I'll enjoy my Avatar and other movies in high definitio only.
Henk V
Wednesday 5th May 2010 | 10:20 AMOK, i bothered to watch part of the movie again.. How does a story line and a cartoon (effectively) get so much kudos in this world?
I think "mediocre story" by S.F. standards is a pinnacle that most S.F. styled movies try to attain. Plot establishment and credibility are generally afterthoughts.
Rating, an anime on wheels....and a bad one at that.
Who is it marketed to?
Haven't seen any of the young adolescents rave about it nor the young adults.
Decry science fiction? certainly do. You didn't see much good SF then, you don't see much of it now. Its only that you have 100 years of the collective stuff to pick from. Treasure the good stuff. Read your hitch-hikers guide daily.
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 5th May 2010 | 11:27 AM...in response to this comment by Henk V. Alright, I think the story of Pocahontas is not a mediocre story, it's actually quite enthralling and a good commentary. What's in debate is the story's originality. And a cartoon? Come on, not only is that highly inaccurate, it suggests that cartoons have no credibility in the film industry. Have you seen Afraid of the Dark?
It's nothing like an anime. Probably should watch the whole thing before decrying it so loudly. 2001: A Space Odyssey? Alien? The Thing? I know good science fiction. It's not on the level of 2001 but you should probably switch your perception just a little and recognize the artistic design and achievement prevalent in the movie.
Just have fun with it.
andrew
Monday 15th February 2010 | 09:16 PMyep i hated the glasses,they kept slipping off. give me 2d movie on a clear screen.
james camerons former wife just made a movie called "hurt locker" very good!!