[Slade]

Hey look, a post by someone who isn't a spambot!

Why are so many people raving about this film? It was primarily a cookiecutter plot with almost-existent or static characters, and the only dynamic characters grew exactly how you'd expect, had you heard anything about the film at all. It was spectacularly long, trite and preachy (and I say this as a very left-wing person), and the McGuffin's name was "Unobtanium." even Ebert liked it.

I will say that the world, while named Pandora, was lush and pretty-CG and had some interesting and badass creatures in it, and something about a cranky Sigourney Weaver makes me happy, and it was entertaining for the most part, but only in that Hollywood action flick sort of way.

This post has been edited by Slade: 19 January 2010 - 06:08 PM
Reason for edit:: Punctuation.

[Gobbler]

Dancing with Smurfs (or, alternatively, Thundercats) was alright, met the expectation.

After the first two hours I actually thought that it was going to end quickly, just when the Na'vi's took their first big beating. I really got my hopes up there for a not-so-happy-but-oh-so-educational end, but noooo... but oh well.

The scenery and style of the characters was fantastic and I liked to see that world, say what you will.

[Mr Pye]

It was long and that may hurt it through the years, but it was mercifully free from the kind of utter stupidity and infantile banality that has pervaded many movies in the last decade. The latest Star Trek train wreck beeing a good representative. I liked and enjoyed Avatar. I won't go see it again, there was little in it beyond the visuals and effects, but I mostly liked what little there was, and the effects were neat.

[Gobbler]

Mr Pye, on 21 January 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

The latest Star Trek train wreck beeing a good representative.

Absolutely.

And I really don't get why everyone's complaining about Avatar's predictable storyline - it's a Cameron movie, that alone should have prepared anyone. It's not like the sinking of the Titanic came as a big surprise, right?

[Spoon Poetic]

Of course the plot was predictable. I haven't watched a movie - or read a book - in the last 10 years that wasn't predictable. But the Pocahontas-plot was at least done pretty well. And from the start, anyone with half a brain knew we weren't going to see this movie for its brilliant writing. We went to see it for the art. I was blown away by the art. It was beautiful. And while the plot wasn't super original, the writing certainly didn't *detract* from the movie.

Honestly, I'm pretty tired of people who think they're sooooo cool because they're going against the grain in saying that Avatar sucked and everyone who liked it is stupid, etc. It's like the "hipsters" that think their cool level rises based on the obscurity of the things they like.

Also, anyone that knows sci-fi knows that the term "unobtainium" has been used for years. I thought it was cute that they paid homage in that way. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Unobtanium Though I can see how that would be groan-worthy to someone who didn't get the reference.

If you know anything, anything at all about the time, technology, and creativity it takes to make a movie, and then multiply that by the time, technology, and creativity it takes to create CGI, then you should realize how amazing this movie was. It did things with existing technology that no one's ever seen before. It paved a new path for the art medium that is film. I think that alone deserves plenty of raving.

[Madam Corvax]

There was one thing that I did not know whether I should be annoyed or happy about - basically Cameron paying homage to bloody HIMSELF. I was annoyed, because hey, just how narcistic can you be to quote your own film!It was Aliens from the very beginning, complete with Sigourney Weaver. SInce I absolutely love Aliens, one part of me was happy about it, but the other part was just going sheesh, how can you re-heat all thet old stuff all over again.
(No Michael Bhien, though - pity - I had a biiiig crush on Michael Bhien back in 1980s, almost equal to my crush on Luke Skywalker - please note the difference, Luke Skywalker NOT Mark Hamill).

What annoyed me to no end was also The Most Hated DUI Celebrity Fired from Lost, Ana-L. How come that she landed this part? To be in the highest -grossing film ever made is enough to make her immortal, ans sure as hell SHE does not deserve it, not any more than other mediocre actors from Lost.

Last but not least - I KNOW that the film had huge environmental MESSAGE, which I wholeheartedly agree with (we cut down too many trees on our own planet and it will end in disaster), but does it really have to scream to me from the screen so loudly - natives firing their harmless poisoned arrows against armoured choppers - yes, yes, I know it was a MESSAGE, but please, a little more in the subtlety department would not hurt the film.
All in all, I paid my 7,5 EURO to fatten Cameron's pocket. I only wish that some tiny percentae of it would go to preserve Amazonian rainforest.

[Spoon Poetic]

I guess since I watched Fern Gully not too long before this film, the message seem to didn't beat me in the face quite as much as it might have otherwise.

I've never seen Alien/s so I missed any references to it. Can someone point them out to me? I'm just curious.

I definitely agree that it would be wonderful if some of the proceeds from the film went towards rainforest preservation. You know what? I think I'm going to write a letter to Mr. Cameron to that effect. Will it do any good? Probably not. But I might as well try.

[Madam Corvax]

Love to give you the references
1. Landing scene, marines preparing to disembark at an alien world - directly taken from landing scene from Aliens
2. Ditto marching to the base
3. Funky robots driven by men inside them - only here as deadly killing machines rather than forklifts - the same as driven by Ripley in Aliens
4. Guy who might have been directly quoting Burke from Aliens - representing big corporation with nothing but profit on mind, not stopping even at risking the lives of people
5. Sigourney Weaver against overwhelming forces, one of the few tough ladies on screen who do not seem ridiculous at the same time.
I am sure there are many more, but these are those I spotted without even thinking or looking for them. And music, I believe, the same, or similar great scope. As I said, I really do not know wherther I should love or hate it.

Please let me know if your letter to Cameron bear any fruits. Really, it this man amassed so much dough for his work he should spare some for the good cause he preaches about so much. Good idea to write him.

[azerty]

I thought Avatar was pretty good, and I normally dislike everything.

Anna Lucia wasn't too bad as Vasquez, I mean at least she's really latina and not just pretending. The real Vasquez died when the Titanic sank, so I guess she wasn't available. Though why Cameron has to have his main character say "Yo, bitch das what I talkin bout..." like some stupid seppo transplanted out of 2009 straight to the future is a bit jarring. And him never have the sense to keep his mouth shut around the natives is irritating too... "Yo, what's going on, what's happening, what's he saying, what's all this, who's that, why isn't everyone paying attention to ME?"

But otherwise it's an entertaining 2 hours on another planet, and even the boring stuff isn't boring. Sure there is an environmental message, but that's the in thing again. Doesn't really matter that it takes a massive 400 million USD corporate empire movie to tell us that massive corporate empires are evil. In fact it fits right in with Copenhagen having to ship in 1200 limousines for foreign environmental dignitaries who tell us we should all be riding public transportaion. It's brilliant.

Cameron might just donate some cash to preserve some trees somewhere - remember he did a lot for undersea archaeolical stuff after Titanic. On the other hand, why should we force the Amazonian Indians to live in a shitty jungle full of Malaria and Dengue and chiggers and ticks and piranhas and chagas and yellow fever and unpotable water and typhoid and no airconditioning? It's inhuman!

[Madam Corvax]

azerty, on 30 January 2010 - 03:08 PM, said:

Cameron might just donate some cash to preserve some trees somewhere - remember he did a lot for undersea archaeolical stuff after Titanic. On the other hand, why should we force the Amazonian Indians to live in a shitty jungle full of Malaria and Dengue and chiggers and ticks and piranhas and chagas and yellow fever and unpotable water and typhoid and no airconditioning? It's inhuman!

Very true. But it is not the Amazonian Indians wanting t-shirts and light beer after running aroung in leaf skirts and drinking ant juice that destroys the amazonian forset- it is the Amazonian Indians being taken advantage of by big companies cutting down their most ivaluable resource and trading it for said beer and t-shirts. Maybe Cameron would just provide the t-shirts and beer so they would not trade their father land. On the other hand, Sting did that some time ago and was on television with some bigh chief with realy big bone through his nose - Sting gave the chif the money, and chief instead of preserving the forest, kept selling it and used Sting's money just to buy more t-shirts- so there are no easy answers and solutions.

Giving money directly to people always ends in big disaster, since it kills any will to be active (why do things when they just keep coming to me for free?)

Accidentaly, COpenhagen "summit" on global warming coincided with the harshest winter in Europe for years - trains froze under the English Channel and so on. Not to mention my record gas bill. But this is completely another story.

[J m HofMarN]

I've heard some criticism of this movie for the fact that, as usual, it takes a white human to pop up and save the poor confused natives from whatever. This could actually have been interesting and meaningful if it had just been a straight character study, told from two sides separately, wherein the guy is there, becomes disilusioned with what they're doing, and decides to help the natives out by sabotaging his own side from within, but, nope, instead he becomes a native, and, also, Jesus, and then everything is fixed.

[Madam Corvax]

Sadly, in reality, as this guy redlettermedia pointed out in his hilarious review, natives are not "poor and confused", and neither that are "holy children of nature" but they are eedy and weak just like any other human beings. Living close to nature does not make you saint, just less hygienic.

Another point - this cripple guy, forgot his name, he basically sold out the natives to the military and thanks to his intelligence they were able to bring down the tree. And he is "just like that" forgiven. He might have fed the military wrong intelligence. He might have at least warned the natives NOT at the very last minute. I would have been really mad at him, but instead the natives love him, becaus he rides some sort of pterodactyl. *Shrug*

[arnottfigaro44]

It is intended to become a classic of early childhood for many small too young to be on this forum. It will be spoken in male and female high school as spectacular. It will be followed repeatedly by the fans. I liked it, but beyond my appreciation for the film itself is the message of love enters the film that I hope comes into the air time as other elements Cameron stories. At heart is a soul.

[barend]

the whole time i watched tha film I kept swearing I'd seen it before because i could tell everything that was going to happen. I havea friend in the army who saw it like 10 times at the movies... it made him believe in stuff.

I must admit I was trying to spit out insects, so kudos to the 3D.

Also I was tripping balls so it i might need to watch it again one day.

Eitherway, I don't think Cameron should be allowed to make films without Michael Biehn. There are Cameron films I love and ones I don't care about, Michael Biehn is difference between the two I have noticed.

[J m HofMarN]

there are tons of people who think Avatar was real. Somethingawful did an article on their forums.