Avatar

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Post by Uri »

ITALIANO wrote:I don't know, I wasn't that shocked honestly, maybe because I don't go to a James Cameron movie expecting a masterpiece. I got my roller coaster ride, I admired the technical achievement (this is something American cinema, so disappointing lately in so many other areas, must be certainly appreciated for), I was slightly less bored than with other movies of the same kind (including one or two Lords of the Rings and Jackson's lethal King Kong), and that's all. Of course I will fight anyone who considers such a thing a work of art; but those who take it as well made, superficial entertainment (and, like me, forget about it the day after) aren't wrong.
Life isn't fair. Had it been treated for what it really is at heart – another retard, sorry, mentally challenge action movie aimed at 8 to 14 year olds – one could forgivingly accept, or even embrace whatever works about it and move on with one's life. But no, it's officially the second coming, so we, Jews, must stick whatever pins we got in this ridiculously inflated balloon.

But when you're right, Marco – which is always – you're right. I did enjoy it more than the Rings' stuff – at least I could register some kind of brain activity while watching Avatar, whatever its quality was, as opposed to the comatose state I was in while wasting those accumulated nine hours I'll never get back.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

I don't know, I wasn't that shocked honestly, maybe because I don't go to a James Cameron movie expecting a masterpiece. I got my roller coaster ride, I admired the technical achievement (this is something American cinema, so disappointing lately in so many other areas, must be certainly appreciated for), I was slightly less bored than with other movies of the same kind (including one or two Lords of the Rings and Jackson's lethal King Kong), and that's all. Of course I will fight anyone who considers such a thing a work of art; but those who take it as well made, superficial entertainment (and, like me, forget about it the day after) aren't wrong.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Post by Uri »

Sonic Youth wrote:As I've said, I didn't think the 3-D did much to enhance the film, but you will lose some effects if you see it in 2-D.
I was fortunate enough to see Avatar with Hebrew subtitles and they were floating all over the place (they placed them so they'd fit the composition of the frame). Great fun.

Anyway, that's the way to go, Sonic! I'm not as emotionally invested in my contempt for this monstrosity as you are, but I'm glad we have you to be a (very loud) voice of reason.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

Sonic, have you considred that an extraorinarily-filmed tourist attraction could be the best film of the year, even if it doesn't have anyting meaningful to say about the human condition?
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I saw it in 2-D since I didn't want to risk a headache but I got one anyway.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Uri wrote:As a "pure" cinematic ride it was entertaining enough. At 47, this was my first 3d movie experience. I had the same sense of excitement I had when I was hustle into taking a tour at the Universal Studio theme park – non lethal boredom seasoned with a touch of contempt to the cheering masses around me.
That's an excellent analogy. "Avatar" felt more like a tourist attraction than a movie.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Damien wrote:5/10

Since Damien has officially lost half his mind (the 1-5/10 half), I had better elaborate and fast, before you all fall prey.

"Avatar" is stupid, it is brainless, it is boring, it's second-hand inspiration, it's fake-looking, it's a glorification of the immaturity of the heroic American man-child, it's a priceless opportunity for Italiano to scoff at the decline of Western civilization (sorry, I didn't mean Western Civilization. I meant civilization that's west of Europe and the Atlantic Ocean), it's a fucking three hour long cartoon! I've come away from films disappointed, disgusted, etc. I don't think I've ever come away from one feeling outraged, unless it was the film's intention to provocate. And it's not because it's a bad movie. It's not quite because this is the "event film" everyone is convincing themselves to go see and to do their duty to attempt to break a box office record. (Why, they'll even pay extra to watch the 3D version!... which - other than the effect 3D images have by their very nature - is mostly zero value-add.) No, mostly it angered me because it's the most expensive movie ever made... and THIS is what $500 million gets us? A cartoon? I mean, I can't say it enough. IT'S A FUCKING CARTOON! Were we ever told this during all the pre-release hype? What a con job. It's the latest experiment in trickle-down economics. Cameron spends half-a-billion of his own money, and I'm the one feeling ripped off.

Now, as a CARTOON, ... yes, before the torpor kicks in it's impressive to look at. If it's an advance in anything, it's an advance in animated film techniques. But is it? In some ways, sure, but there are a lot of films - animated and live action - with special effects of similar quality. I think the difference here, and the difference everyone is responding to, is the QUANTITY of effects. This isn't meant to disparage. No one could deny that Cameron put lots of work into his world. Everything was painstakingly thought out, the landscape, the ecology, the flora and fauna. So maybe when you have a large quantity of quality special effects, it gives the impression that the quality is greater than in other films, but what we're really responding to is more quality rather than better quality. But still, CGI is CGI, and when your in the immersive Pandora world, there is absolutely nothing in the frame that ISN'T CGI. And since cartoons are all CGI now ("Princess and the Frog" excepted), it means this is just another cartoon. This does has its benefits. In most action/sci-fi films, when CGI interacts with real people, objects and settings you often (if not always) can detect the contrast between the two (and maybe there's so much whipflash editing, in order to keep the audience from detecting what's fake and what isn't). But virtual worlds tend to not have the same impact as real ones constructed from real materials. Rather than involvement, it felt distancing.

And unfortunately that also goes for the film's greatest technological acheivement, which are Na'avi's facial expressions. It sounds like a small matter, but it isn't. Cameron has nearly, and I mean nearly suceeded in creating a plausible expressive humanoid face whereas everything that came before had an eerie blankness, a void. And yet, and yet... there's still an "uncanny valley" here. The facial expressions are as authentic as anything I've seen yet, but the faces are still cartoons. There's no weight, no gravitas, no presence to them. They are expressive abstractions. It's probably not Cameron's fault. There may be no solution to this, or at least not yet.

As I've said, I didn't think the 3-D did much to enhance the film, but you will lose some effects if you see it in 2-D. You won't get the full impact of certain shots, for example whenever a gentle swarm of insect or a bunch of dust motes fly by in the foreground. It's your call. It depends if you like to watch special effects for their own sake, or if you appreciate special effects as an enhancement to the film itself. Avatar's most definitely belongs in the former category. As I was watching the action sequence during which Worthington-as-Na'Avi was flying his trained blue teradactyl-like creature, and the glowing red teradactyl-like creature swoops down at them and chases them through a forest of overhanging vines, I was thinking "How gorgeous! How beautiful!" Never once did I think "How exciting! How frightening!" Frankly, I thought 3-D was used to much better, more breathtaking effect in "Coraline" than it was here. And that's pretty much my take on the FX in general. Most CGI in today's movies stink and are self-evidently fake. "Avatar" is one of the few very good ones, but it's not necessarily better than anything else that's among the best. There are some very pretty images here and there, and the colors are striking, all glow and luminosity. But "District 9" did so much more on less than 10% of Avatar's budget... and with a more interesting premise, screenplay, narrative and filmmaking aesthetic. The deck is stacked. Thanks to the hype, box office, etc. "Avatar" is going to win every technical award at the Oscars this year. But in a race among equals, it wouldn't get my vote.

So much for the technical aspects of the film, which are it's strongest ingredient. As for the acting, the screenplay, the themes, the direction? I'll get to them after the New Year, and I'll be far less kind. The movie really is excrement. I know it's difficult to stand up to the hype, but if you really think you're going to hate this film yet find the pull of fulfilling your duty as a member of society by seeing the film the rest of the world is flocking to irrestible... take the risk. Years from now, you can claim to be among the meagre few who fought against the swell of cultural domination.




Edited By Sonic Youth on 1262283360
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

For me, the 3D elements that struck the right chord with me are the little flourishes and the depth. Early scenes in the long corridor of opening hyperbaric chambers was a nice scene, somewhat forced, but felt natural. There were several of these, but what really caught me in the gut were the very very minor things (the aforementioned little flourishes).

Perhaps the simplistic story and dialogue helped me pay attention better to the effects, but there are several scenes like this, but the most emblematic for me is right after (SPOILER WARNING) the tree is destroyed and we're looking at the aftermath. Ash falls through the air and it's not just any old ash fall, we've seen it so many times in film before, but little flecks of ash floating outside of the screen, in front of action. It was breathtaking for me. It may not have affected others the same way, but it really impressed me.

That's the kind of simple detail that someone like Michael Bay would completely miss. It's what makes the medium so much more capable. Up was a perfect example of this. Instead of the hokey "throw shit at the camera" thing that was so deliberately used in Monsters vs Aliens and most of the 1980s 3D flicks), we've got depth of focus, vast environments that make the world vivid and interesting. Up's effects were more subtle than Avatar, but Avatar also performed these actions quite well.

As for the action whizzing by? I have to disagree. If there's one difference between Cameron and Bay it's how quickly effects are used. Bay favors a frenetic, choppy edit that make the effects difficult to perceive and process, perhaps covering up a lack of technical detail. Cameron's effects linger long enough for the viewer to process what they're seeing and not feel like they are being beaten upside the head with editing.




Edited By OscarGuy on 1262278795
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Heh. Fair enough.

My biggest complaint was with the screenplay. I mean - "unobtanium?" "Na'vi"? This is elementary school level wit (and most of the humour was targeted so broadly). They played the bad guys so broadly (Giovanni Ribisi's character, the muscular sargeant), and no one would say that the characters were sketched with any depth.

But in an action movie, we can forgive that, if the action is good. Here, it surprisingly wasn't. The big battle had no build whatsoever (compare that to the battles in Lord of the Rings, which function as entire acts and have things like build, momentum, ebbs and flow). And where was the awe? When Jakesully flies on that winged reptile thing, shouldn't there be some exhilaration? I felt nothing. We should be soaring right beside him, but I'm never at that level of engagement (again, compare that to say the third Harry Potter movie - Buckbeat's flight. Now, I hate Harry Potter, so for me to compare something negatively to it should give you an idea of how unimpressive it was).

Lets say nothing of the really stupid message of : "Empty headed American goes to primitive culture, falls in love, and leads the hoardes against the evil invaders." Make no mistake, for all Cameron's technophilia, that's again, targetted at the masses who for whatever reason view science with more skepticism than they view faith. Not something that I appreciate.

Now, lets talk about the design. It's truly amazing, yes. Well thought out? Not really, but still, intriguing, and gorgeous to look at. The flora, the fauna etc. I would love to watch a National Geographic Special or a Reggio exploration of Pandora. And the visual effects... yes, these creatures are more expressive than CGI's ever given us before.

But who cares? Now, I love Lord of the Rings - probably my favourite films of the decade, so I can't pretend that visual effects epics don't work on me. But Avatar? This is progress? Seriously? Does anyone really want to see 200 million dollars (we'll remove the presumed R&D budget for the effects that go beyond this film) used on films like this? More generally, if you didn't see another film with CGI as expressive as this, would you really give a rats ass? I know I wouldn't.

And finally, 3D sucks here, and I'm convinced in general. Your brain already interprets 2D images into 3D perception. We simply speaking don't need it. But more than that, this film doesn't need it (or maybe it does). But you're focusing so fully on the various planes going in and out of the screen that what's actually going on ON the screen wizzes by with nary a breath. And here, given that relative blandness of the action direction, I can't help but think it's all much smoke and fire designed to hide the deficiencies in Cameron's direction.

Oh, and James Horner's "ethnic" score set my teeth on edge.

So basically, what Sonic said: "$500 million dollars for a boring cartoon? You've got to be fucking kidding me."
matthew
Graduate
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: australia

Post by matthew »

Okri wrote:This was crap.
Thankyou for your insightful comments...
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

This was crap.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

danfrank wrote:
Damien wrote:This is Manhattan, we don't have malls.
What do you call "The Shops at Columbus Circle" or whatever its official name is. Not your average mall (an average mall wouldn't have a Michelin 3-star restaurant), but it's a mall all the same.
The Time-Warner building is a shopping complex, not a mall, :D

I should have been more specific -- we don't have malls with movie theatres in them.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Post by danfrank »

Damien wrote:This is Manhattan, we don't have malls.

What do you call "The Shops at Columbus Circle" or whatever its official name is. Not your average mall (an average mall wouldn't have a Michelin 3-star restaurant), but it's a mall all the same.




Edited By danfrank on 1262202870
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Uri wrote:Anti Bush my ass – this is all about American supremacy and the so deeply inherently American notion that the American way is the only way to achieve anything – it takes a good intentioned American marine to save the world, after all.

He's no longer a human when he saves the world. He's one of whatever those creatures were called.

It's simplistically anti-Republican values, but Cameron's not bright enough to make it truly subversive. For a real left-wing action film, there's V For Vendetta.

One thing I didn't like with the 3-D is that Cameron didn't have people throwing thongs at the camera. I remember seeing a 3 Stooges short in 3-D and it was like Moe's fingers were actually poking you in the eyes.




Edited By Damien on 1262205965
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Post by Uri »

Was there ever a case of greater dichotomy between text and subtext than here?
Yeh, it's all about anti capitalism, ecology friendliness, anti corporation and global (or rather universal) capitalism, pacifism and all the other pc stuff, yet what we get with this movie – onscreen as well as off – is the greatest, unapologetic celebration of everything it declares it's against. Anti Bush my ass – this is all about American supremacy and the so deeply inherently American notion that the American way is the only way to achieve anything – it takes a good intentioned American marine to save the world, after all. As Sabin said elsewhere, it is the dumbest movie.

As a "pure" cinematic ride it was entertaining enough. At 47, this was my first 3d movie experience. I had the same sense of excitement I had when I was hustle into taking a tour at the Universal Studio theme park – non lethal boredom seasoned with a touch of contempt to the cheering masses around me.

Esthetically it felt like a high tech remake of Fantasia: mainly The Pastoral Symphony segment combined with flora of The Nutcracker Suite one, add some creatures from The Rite of Spring, a pseudo abstract element from Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, the flying mountains were inspired by The Sorcerer's Apprentice, and the final had the apocalyptic feel followed by a regained serenity not unlike the Night on Bald Mountain-Ave Maria stuff. They only seemed to leave the Dance of the Hours references out. I only wish they hadn't replaced the original score with that horrible, horrible music.




Edited By Uri on 1262164261
Post Reply

Return to “2009”