|
|
|
Alright, kiddies. Time for me to explain everything wrong with this movie after seeing it.
First of all, a part of corporate America is after some unobtainable metal on a planet (technically a moon) called Pandora. What's the metal called? Unobtainium. Really? The absurdity of this name is never referenced in the movie, so one can only assume the writers actually found this clever. All's it'd take is an off-hand remark like, "Know why they call it unobtainium? Because you can't get it anywhere else." Something to suggest that even people in the Avatar universe find the name ridiculous, but for whatever reason, the name stuck. But no, we're led to believe that they take it seriously. Seeing as it's only mentioned a handful of times in the movie, it's easy to ignore, so it's not a huge gripe.
Second, the storyline. It's like a cross between The Last Samurai and the colonization of America. Except ***SPOILERS*** this movie doesn't end with a bunch of blue aliens gambling on reservations. But the whole 'good guy joins the bad guys and learns there ways and becomes sympathetic to them' story is time-tested and works, so it's not so bad. And the act of genocide and expansion is so intertwined in humanity that calling that aspect of the storyline unoriginal would be, though correct, like saying that the fact that the humans breath and argue with each other is "unoriginal".
Thirdly, the CG didn't look 100% real. James Cameron said you wouldn't notice the difference between real and CG. In the scenes where the two were mixed, this is true. The giant robots and epic scenery behind the characters were obviously CG, though the blend was seamless. It seemed to me that the actors were maybe enhanced with CG, so they appeared maybe 95% real, so when coupled with a 90% real looking CG environment and creatures, the difference was impossible to tell. But the entirely CG shots, though breathtaking, were more-or-less clearly CG.
What am I getting at with all this? Well, given the late release date of the movie, I'd have to consider this a movie for the year 2010 because it will undoubtedly still be in theaters. That being said...best movie of '09/'10? I'm calling it. Because other than the above mentioned things, I CANNOT find something wrong with this movie. This movie clocked in at about 2.5 hours and there wasn't a single moment where I was bored. Ever. I was under the impression that this movie would be a visual feast with a decent storyline and would be enjoyable, probably worth buying. But a 'visual feast' is an understatement and the storyline was incredible. I realize I said it was unoriginal and reminiscent of The Last Samurai, but the execution of the story and the dialogue and the acting made it so much more engrossing and amazing.
I'm far too harsh of a critic to call this movie perfect, but where my standards are at in relation to where Josh's standards are at, I'll have to agree with his earlier statements. It was simply amazing. Easily the best looking movie of all time. No competition.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, a part of corporate America is after some unobtainable metal on a planet (technically a moon) called Pandora. What's the metal called? Unobtainium. Really? The absurdity of this name is never referenced in the movie, so one can only assume the writers actually found this clever. All's it'd take is an off-hand remark like, "Know why they call it unobtainium? Because you can't get it anywhere else." Something to suggest that even people in the Avatar universe find the name ridiculous, but for whatever reason, the name stuck. But no, we're led to believe that they take it seriously. Seeing as it's only mentioned a handful of times in the movie, it's easy to ignore, so it's not a huge gripe. I'd just like to point out.. UnobtainiumThey didn't invent it, it's sort of a classic term.
|
#intj (Mastermind)^
|
|
|
|
|
DO NOT read this if you have not seen the filmLucifer: Unobtanium is a classic nickname for a material that is the centerpiece of a plot conflict. The fact that they didn't rename it just seems, to me at least, like James Cameron having some fun and actually calling the material by its real name. Not to mention it was incredible foreshadowing to keep it like that, since, well, the material was unobtainable. The CGI? Yeah, the only way you could tell it wasn't real was the fact that it was impossible. I didn't spot anything that looked CG, besides the fact that it was impossible here on Earth. As for the humans, every single character in the film was done using motion capture, if I remember correctly. Everything was CG. If you go back through the history of CG, there has never been a movie that looked that... real, the seamless, that perfect. The plot was simple. It was a tried-and-tested story arc: Guy joins conflict on bad side, guy joins good side, guy defeats own side. It works. It always has, it rarely fails. Even though the plot was simple (there were a few curveballs, though, like a few of the deaths, the dog thing helping out the girl, etc.), I don't think they could have possibly made it any more complex. You were unable to do much more than just sit there in awe of what James Cameron managed to do; this is only the second time this decade that a film franchise successfully created its own world, its own universe. This has the potential to be a franchise like Star Trek or Star Wars where there are a thousand pieces to the continuity and I can guarantee we will start seeing novels, games, and more movies made as soon as the weekend receipts are finalized (Right now, it's looking like it made $232 million worldwide). I fully expect a sequel to be greenlit before the end of the week. Now, you called in to question my standards of film. I'll throw a few things out there: I love sci-fi/fantasy. It's the greatest thing in the world (or out of the world, I suppose). My favorite films of the year happen to be three (four, including Avatar) sci-fi films: Moon, District 9, Star Trek. I also enjoy CGI, when used correctly. It was not used correctly in Transformers or GI Joe. They used it as the film. You can't do that, you have to use it as a part of the film. Granted, Moon only used miniatures but it was done so, so, so well that it was hard to tell. And the throwbacks to the Star Wars sequels' retro futura was just amazing. So, maybe I am a tad bit biased here and was meant to love Avatar from day one. However, I generally agree with critics on films. I've grown out of the popcorn flicks. I look for movies that are either well written, revolutionary, or just deep films now. Recently, my favorite (older) films have been Lord of War, Sunshine, A Beautiful Mind, and Children of Men (two more sci-fi films, haha). All four were heralded for their screenplays, acting, and overall composition, and had something deep within them that just... touched me, you know? Avatar went above and beyond any blockbuster film has done since Lord of the Rings. It pushed the boundaries of film making to new heights. It did 3D the right way. You didn't even notice it was 3D most of the time, it just felt natural (and the embers flying around when that tree crashed made me wish that I had seen it in IMAX). It created tech that we will be using for years to come (seriously, how is it that no one ever thought to make a stereoscopic camera? That's why the 3D was so natural). It used a time-tested plot and made the necessary alterations to it. To me, there is absolutely no way that film could have been better. So... yeah.
Last Edit: Dec 20, 2009 20:52:25 GMT by Josh
|
|
|
|
|
The CGI? Yeah, the only way you could tell it wasn't real was the fact that it was impossible. I didn't spot anything that looked CG, besides the fact that it was impossible here on Earth. As for the humans, every single character in the film was done using motion capture, if I remember correctly. Everything was CG. If you go back through the history of CG, there has never been a movie that looked that... real, the seamless, that perfect. The people were real, they were greenscreened in. They had some nifty cameras so they could visualise in real time what the characters would like look in the CGI background. They sometimes look CGI because they changed the colours to match the background (or to make it so it doesn't look too real in an unreal world (But NOT "fake")) The CGI sometimes looks pretty weird, but never "fake". EDIT: I'm also now planning to go see it again tomorrow. Happy times!
Last Edit: Dec 20, 2009 21:30:47 GMT by Simie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can you not be interested?  It looks boring, dull, and completely unentertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can you not be interested? It looks boring, dull, and completely unentertaining. Have you seen it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It looks boring, dull, and completely unentertaining. Have you seen it? Note how I said it looks, not that it is/was. I have not seen it, and I have little intentions of paying to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to see it today with a lot of friends in Imax 3D!  Not all that pumped up about seeing it, but we'll see how it goes.
Last Edit: Dec 28, 2009 15:31:39 GMT by Hotshot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Simie! lol I was going to watch it Yesterday, but I didn't think it would be good. But the good feedback makes me want to see it.
I will see it in iMax, with my girlfriend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw it in not 3D, intend to see it in 3D, possibly iMax 3D. Anyways, epic movie. Simple plot, but epic in execution. CG was great. I noticed some spots where it was easy to tell it was CG (not due to impossibility mind you). I wish I could vocalize how I knew it was CG, but I can't find the right way to explain it. However, aside from those spots I'd have to say it was damn near perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to see it today with a lot of friends in Imax 3D! Not all that pumped up about seeing it, but we'll see how it goes. Please tell me you are not seeing it at AMC in IMAX and you are going to Greenfield Village to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to see it today with a lot of friends in Imax 3D! Not all that pumped up about seeing it, but we'll see how it goes. Please tell me you are not seeing it at AMC in IMAX and you are going to Greenfield Village to see it. I don't know what you guys have. But here I have Muvico (which is awesome compared to everything else I've seen), as well as MOSI (museum of science and industry, but they play movies in their imax theatre).
|
|
|
|
|
Please tell me you are not seeing it at AMC in IMAX and you are going to Greenfield Village to see it. I don't know what you guys have. But here I have Muvico (which is awesome compared to everything else I've seen), as well as MOSI (museum of science and industry, but they play movies in their imax theatre). IMAX in anything but a true IMAX theater isn't IMAX. Read MeAMC IMAX ≠ Greenfield Village IMAX (it's a true IMAX theater)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what you guys have. But here I have Muvico (which is awesome compared to everything else I've seen), as well as MOSI (museum of science and industry, but they play movies in their imax theatre). IMAX in anything but a true IMAX theater isn't IMAX. Read MeAMC IMAX ≠ Greenfield Village IMAX (it's a true IMAX theater) I'm assuming they're "true" IMAX theatres, because I have been to one in AMC and it was crap in comparison. Basically the ones at these you can't look somewhere without seeing a screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i saw it in 3D and the movie was amazing, have to say hands down the best movie i have seen sofar this winter.. I would go see again but i have a hard time sitting at the movies more than 2hrs due to some lower back problems *shrugs*
|
|
|
|
