Corona | Coming Attractions

Yikes! We are hive minded, Hicks! I just posted in the avatar thread. 8^O

But here you go:

http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/dec/11/avatar-review-james-...

So who has seen it?

I'm going until tomorrow (Sat) night.

I couldn't get into the IMax until the new year so I will be doing plain ol' 3D, possibly this weekend.

I saw it. I imagine most of the reviews waste a lot of space telling you it is a visually impressive epic with no narrative surprises. It is that. I could say that and have said my peace, but I will go on saying more, below. If you just want to know whether or not I enjoyed it, I will take the opportunity to tell you, here, that (more often than not) I did. Continue reading at your leisure's risk. What little I have to say (at length, as is my wont) only gets more convoluted and scattershot (and, I'm going to guess, entirely off-topic) from this point forward.

I saw it in digital 3-D. It hasn't come to St. Louis's IMAX screens, yet. Most of those screens are still committed to Zemeckis's A Christmas Carol.

Cameron knows we aren't at the point where CG representations of humans can fool the eye for an extended period, so he makes the smart decision to attempt semi photorealism not with a human, but with a humanoid. Zemeckis and Co. have been trying to render passable humans for the last half decade, but the effect remains uncanny and off-putting. By developing photorealism around anthropomorphic faces--rather than obvious attempts at wholly human faces--Cameron sidesteps this a bit. (There was a rumor going around that Quaritch was entirely computer rendered, and that they were going to reveal this after the first weekend and surprise everyone with their accomplishment. I'm pretty sure he was a plain ol' actor filmed in front of a green or blue screen [when not on a set], but I suppose I could be wrong.) The results are pretty good, and generally un-distracting. Distant shots of the Na'vi don't work as well as closeup shots, but they all work at least as well as higher-end CG shots tend to work. The main Na'vi characters are more convincingly rendered than the background characters. (A good comparison to draw would be to the semi-articulated masks for the main apes in the original Planet of the Apes vs. the motionless molds for the faces of the background apes.) Traveling with Jake Sully from the human, technologically centered world to Pandora is not as jarring a transition as traveling with Dorothy from Kansas to Oz. (Cameron tries to have the audience make the Kansas-to-Oz connection with a throwaway line of dialog that stands as an exemplar for the rest of the movie's sweeping acts of Cameronian-brand subtlety. I'm not sure how successful this is. Movie audiences have been told they were no longer in Kansas so many times that the returns have clearly diminished.) The Pandoran landscape is believable enough not to be questioned all that much by the brain.

The movie is definitely a spectacle, and I suspect the viewer will get more out of it going on opening weekend than another time. It's an event, and I'd wager it gains something from being experienced communally. I've seen people on-line (here, in fact) saying in the last months that the movie was not getting enough press, and that it wasn't flying high enough to be spotted on the pop consciousness radar. Whether or not this was untrue four months ago, it is no longer untrue. People knew Avatar was coming, and had been duly informed of its "game changer" high hopes by both the press and the movie's own PR machine. I'd say an appropriate aura of non-sequel mystique surrounded it, and I'm sure a fair portion of the moviegoers at my showing were there for curiosity's sake.

To continue what I was saying before my feet got sucked into the mire of discussing whether or not I found the effects to be passable:

The people who are going to criticize the movie are likely going to start with the telegraphed plot and paint-by-numbers character development. Does a movie need to be "deep" and "original" to be appreciated? Does art? I don't know if a movie "needs" any specific thing to connect to an audience, or to be considered a solid piece of entertainment. (Similarly, a movie doesn't "need" to be entertainment.) Does Marilyn Monroe's Playboy spread say all there is to say about Marilyn Monroe? It does not. For some people, though, it says enough. For some people, a photograph of a woman lying naked on a red backdrop has as much artistic value as a 500-year-old sculpture of a man chiseled from a single block of marble.

Star Wars is--famously, I'd argue--a good example of a movie with no narrative/story surprises. At this point, the majority (especially in places like fangeek movie message boards of CCA's variety) knows of George Lucas's desire to make a movie using mythological archetypes (as outlined by Joseph Campbell, et al.) and tried-and-true storytelling conventions. Once a person cites Star Wars as an example of this, what follows, typically, is the assertion that a person need not be surprised by the narrative's proceedings to be moved by them. What Star Wars lacks in narrative innovation it makes up for with its unique pastiche of genre and the fantastic. The same might be said for Avatar. (Before you ask, I'm not trying to give you the impression that Avatar will resonate with you the way Star Wars may have resonated with you as a child. In my experience, nothing resonates with me the way things resonated with the child version of myself. I don't look for grand-scale resonance, anymore. It's my belief that we encounter most of the movies that truly resound as children, and that movies we encounter later in life resound by helping us tap into our childhood movie memories.)

Talking about what's art and what's not is useless. I bring the topic up for no reason other than I wanted to bring up its uselessness. Luckily for us all, its uselessness has been brought up so many times in the past that bringing up its uselessness is useless. Or is it? I've gone on about this topic here, here, and here before. I get paid to go on about this topic outside of Corona Coming Attractions, and I sometimes bring my work home with me. Sorry, Folks. I find little use in talking about what makes art art, despite my constant return to the topic. I'm not the kind of guy who talks about useful things.

The best argument I've encountered (and I am sure I say this in one of the links provided above) for the continuation of the arts and discussion of the arts by those in the liberal arts is that recorded society has never been without art. We can't rightly say it is useless with any degree of certainty (even though I just did) since we've never properly removed it from society to see how society gets along in its absence.

Here's where I make the segue from a forced mention of the liberal arts to Avatar's liberal agenda.

Is it there? I'd say you could argue it wasn't if it weren't for [MILD SPOILER]the five minute's worth of slow motion reaction shots to the destruction of a giant natural landmark. Might as well cut to a Native American weeping in the heart of a litterbug's landscape.[/MILD SPOILER]

Is there anything wrong with the movie having a liberal agenda? I dunno. A kid could watch it and not recognize that it is there, perhaps. (A question for which there may be no good answer: Is putting a liberal agenda in a movie kids will want to see as indoctrinating as a parent influencing a child to adhere to the parent's religion? If so, is that good or bad? Are movies like Happy Feet and Wall-E to be commended or reproached for trying to impart a green message to impressionable youths?) An adult who managed to completely divorce the self from politics might could, too, but you'd be hard pressed to find an adult in the so-called first world who has managed such a divorce. If a liberal agenda turns you off, that part of this movie is likely to turn you off. If a liberal agenda turns you on, this may turn you off. Many people do not want to see their agendas hammed, because they feel it cheapens their agendas.

When I say a child can watch it without realizing there is an agenda, I say it because big guy/advanced technology vs. little guy/primitive technology (and/or an element of the mystical) is a tried-and-true trope. For me and my childhood experience with cinema-with-a-message, it goes back to Return of the Jedi and Secret of NIMH. For an older or younger person, it will go back to something else.

* * *

Some thoughts I'm not going to bother trying to integrate into the above:

You may want to ask, "Does it feel like a James Cameron movie?" The answer is yes, more or less. The "strong women" typical of Cameron's movies are present. The action is there, the serviceable performances are there, the tough talk and quips are there, and the blue color palette is there. Also, Sam Worthington manages to show an inkling of whatever spark inspired the money men to push him as the next big thing. (The industry's strong nudge in his regard reminds me of what is referred to in YTMND culture as a "forced fad.")

Only while watching a new Cameron movie did it become clear to me how obvious it is that Michael Bay wants to be James Cameron. (Even though it has been pointed out to me so many times by so many people.) It occurred to me that the existence of moviemakers like Bay has probably diluted the effects of the Cameron movie on modern audiences. Cameron's having to put out a movie in a post-Michael Bay world is a bit like Nirvana having to put out In Utero in a post-grunge explosion world.

I saw Avatar this afternoon in Digital 3D. I was absolutely floored by it. It sounds more than a bit corny to say I found it "magical" at times, but I did.

Perhaps part of this comes from my animation background. I was absolutely amazed at how organic and alive the entire world of Pandora felt. If Lord of the Rings didn't prove that the folks at Weta are geniuses (which it should), Avatar proves that those guys keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible with visual effects. If for nothing else, Avatar is worth seeing for the amazing quality of the visuals.

I've read that some people didn't like the story or complain that it isn't original. I can kind of see where they are coming from, but that isn't how I felt while watching it. I was totally sucked in by the story and the characters. There are a lot of good performances to be found, including Zoe Saldana. The marriage between her voiceover performance and the FX wizardry that it took to create her character is amazing. I would say that it is even better than Gollum from LOTR. Leave it to Weta to raise their own bar.

So Goiter up there enjoyed Avatar "more often than not". I absolutely loved it. I'm sure plenty of people will like it, many more will love it, and some may hate it, but Avatar is certainly worth checking out. I, for one, am hoping that it won't be another 12 years until James Cameron makes another movie.

I don't like movies made by computers. I saw the trailers for Avatar, and I doubt I'll even see on DVD.

What ever happened to original movies with real actors?

All we get now is cheesy remakes and CGI fodder. Audiences have become so jaded that anything Cameron, Bay and Burton, and Tony Scott (Jesus I hate him, he remade The Warriors, the bastard) crank out must be an instant hit. I think some people judge the weekend box office returns as to whether it's worth seeing or not.

I'd say see it before you judge it.

I liked it. Yes, the plot was incredibly predictable, but the high quality of the acting and the visuals gave it a freshness that keeps you interested and gets you to care about the characters. Alright, some of the dialogue was corny, and I don't think there's a subtle bone in Cameron's body, but it's interesting enough that you can forgive its shortcomings. Was it the eye-raping that many had predicted? No, but it got to third base! Every piece of technology, every plant and animal you see belongs in the world Cameron has created. There's nothing that's jarring or seems out of place. The story moves along at a brisk pace, there's not a sluggish second in it. I found myself disappointed when it was over that we wouldn't get to spend more time in this world. I don't think it's the greatest film ever committed to celluloid, but I think Cameron has created another engrossing, beautiful work that makes you yearn for more.

The bf and I were talking about the movie afterword, and he brought up the point that many people were claiming that this movie would change the future of filmmaking. He didn't really see what was so special about it other than the technology they created to film it. I think that what this will change is the way that big movies like this will be filmed and how 3D will be used. Previous movies that have used 3D seem to just be adding it as a gimmick. These movies can be viewed in 2D or 3D and there's not much difference. In the case of Avatar, I can't imagine viewing it in anything other than 3D. This is the kind of movie that 3D was made for. The visuals are so rich, so lush, so full of little details the 3D really brings out. In that sense, I feel like Avatar is a game-changer. Maybe studios will look to Avatar as what 3D movies should be. Coincidentally, we saw the 3D trailer for Alice in Wonderland beforehand. I thought it looked amazing. Then we saw Avatar.

It was "ok".

You're right, Hicks. It was OK. That's a much simpler way to put it than the way I put it.

Let's go plant some trees.

Coming from Goiter, I'd think that's a glowing review.

My favorite part was when they went all Gungan at the end.

Corporal_Hicks wrote:

My favorite part was when they went all Gungan at the end.

You mean they had an incredibly pedestrian battle that veered into slapstick with absolutely no sense of peril towards either side..... but with a character that was such a ball ache that by this point in the movie you actually hoped he would die?

I almost was rooting for the humans.

How about Stands With a Blue Fist? 8^D

Comparing Avatar to Dances with Wolves is unfair, as Dances with Wolves is a much better film.

Jesus Christ.

I just read an interview with Cameron on Der Spiegel.

It didn't shine a particularly good light on Cameron (in my opinion).

Funny: the Germans have no problem asking him "tough" questions about his philosophy and techniques...and Cameron gets all defensive because he's not used to this sort of experience.

Welcome to non-Hollywood world, dude.

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/kino/0,1518,667576,00.html

HAHAHA!!!!

Translation of one particularly pertinent line:

Cameron: "What do you mean by that?!?!?"

Jagoff.

In spite of the fact that half the people here like to accuse me of being some sort of Nazi.....I honestly can't read any of this shit.

Could you provide us with some sort of translation?

I finally had to just stop trying to wait for people's availability or whatever and decided to get a ticket online for the first available showing, which was 7pm tonight.

During the movie, I noticed only one little kid with their dad get up and come back. I'm sure dad would've rather the kid just went by himself, too. The place was packed, the Imax showings are still selling out. Not sure how it's doing in the regular theaters and after the wow effect is laying off now, I would have to say I am glad to have seen this in Imax rather than a regular theater, that truly gave the movie the event feeling it was striving for, and I must say as I sat there, I was staring at the screen with my mouth not entirely shut. But, the sense of urgency during the final battles didn't pack the wallop that they should have, because the tropes and storylines have been done so many times before, you know the dance but not the steps and that's what keeps you hooked. They're definitely interesting steps, too, but nothing you realize as "new". Even though Star Wars wasn't "new", when it was unleashed on the world it was huzzah-ed as a "fresh take" on the old. Too much has been released and rehashed since then for that to ever be the case again, but there were moments where it felt a little inside like watching that movie for the first time in 1977.

The corporate/military/invader villains were a bit cartoonish, I actually found the Na'vi to be more interesting, and in the moment, adequately believeable in their rendering. One thing I found to be a pleasant surprise was their blue skin didn't come off as garish and saturated as the ads, posters, etc make them out to be...not only that, but even translucent in tone.

The creatures of Pandora were all in various degrees of professionally done. What really got me, though, was the plant life, the diverse forms of it, and especially the nocturnal landscapes, and the Seeds from the Sacred Tree. The Floating Mountains as well, too.

Take into consideration, though, is that what also gets me is would I really be talking about any of this if I saw it in 2d on a regular screen. But then, when it comes time to get the dvd, maybe they'll have 3d perfected for blu-ray (which I'll probably have by then). I think the commentaries and extras would probably be interesting enough to see.

One thing I thought I would find overhwelming wasn't, and that was the soaring camera scenes where Jake was flying his, uh, bird-mate. Either the first one, whom he ditches for the bigger one later. ANyway, I would have thought some of the motion in those scenes would have been enough to give you a physical rush, but sadly, no.

The 3d was very well integrated, though. Never came off as a "gimmick", and it's the first 3d movie I've seen in all the mainstream movies I've seen, which is to say, other Imax travfelogues and such not included, but I haven't seen any of those in at least a decade, if longer.

I took my dad to see it in IMAX when I was visiting him in AZ, and loved it just as much if not more this time. I agree with Bill, that even though you know what's going to happen to the letter, you don't know how it's going to get done, and that's what keeps it interesting. Hell, even my 75-year old father loved it! He falls asleep at every movie (including Sherlock Holmes the day before), but he was awake and alert the whole film, even considering it was a 10:40pm showing! That's a hell of a review right there!

One thing I'm not sure about was whether it was true IMAX or not. The picture didn't fill the screen all the way to the top. There were about 8-10 feet between the top of the picture and the top of the screen. It touched the other three sides of the screen though. Having never seen a real movie in IMAX, and the last nature documentary I saw in KC was like 10 years ago, I'm not sure if I should be upset or not. Thoughts?

Yes, KV, great point there.....LOTS of over-50 people there, which is VERY welcome and refreshing.

There was an announcement before the lights went down about how the movie was printed to IMAX stock, so my guess is no, it was not filmed in Imax. I guess when I say that I prefer to see in only in Imax is because the size of the screen just draws you in. I think The Dark Knight had six of its action scenes filmed in IMAX, and I am not sure about the other things I've seen in it. Aside from TDK, My guess is that they were all standard movies printed to Imax film.

I find that the top of your screen at that theater being blank is a little curious, though. But ask the management, not the kids working there, if you say anything. 8^p

Now I'll have to go see it again to see if the top of the screen in our theater remained blank, thanks! 8^O

One other thing I've noticed in reviews is how I've noticed the song over the end credits gets ripped by everyone. I was expecting something hideous, and it was simply mediocre. Very "inoffensive" but ultimately very forgettable. In fact, Horner's score, while competent, also seemed somewhat generic. Nothing bad, but not really memorable, just serviceable.

I expect the theme song will end up with Trance mixes before long, if they already don't exist. Blech.

Quoi?

Avatar sex scenes on DVD?

Saw it a week ago. Magnificent. Some flaws, which I will discuss later.

I will probably take it in again this weekend, perhaps in glorious IMAX.

Loved it. Not the "Best Move Ever" but I was thoroughly entertained for the full duration, loved the visuals, loved the non-intrusive 3D and consider it an afternoon well spent at the movies.

I love how everyone's going crazy that it's already the #2 top-grossing movie of all time, but nobody seems too concerned by the fact that the prices of 3D tickets and 3D Imax tickets are 2-3 times the cost of a regular movie ticket, giving Avatar a huge edge in money-earning.

I was talking with a co-worker about an article he had read about ticket sales in general. Sure, Hollywood is making bank with the number of movie tickets sold, but apparently back in the 60s when Cleopatra came out, Hollywood sold 4 times the number of tickets that were sold this year. Just an interesting tidbit.