james cameron's AVATAR in 3-D

[Doctor Strange]

Here is the thing though for all the posters praising Avatar. If you strip off all the 3-D and bells and whistles is the movie still enjoyable? Is the plot any good? What about character development? If the story is derivative (which it is) does it do it in a way that adds something?

As I said in my review above, stripping away the stunning visuals/action, there is basically no character development, and an extremely familiar recycled plot.

It's the same "soldier goes native and leads the fight against the invaders" story as Dances With Wolves or The Last Samurai. Also a chunk of plot detail from Pocahontas, a touch of Ewoks vs. Stormtroopers, and a big helping of an Ursula Le Guin SF novel called "The Word for World Is Forest" where tree-dwelling, living-in-harmony-with-nature humanoids must face technologically superior invading humans who are devastating their habitat. (Surprisingly, very few reviewers have noted this, even though it's a quite well-known story that won a Hugo Award in 1973).

And aside from the main character's developing respect for the natives, there is no real character development. The characters are all two-dimensional stock characters: the rapacious businessman, the hardass military leader, noble tribal leaders, dedicated scientists, tough marines, etc.

Having said all of this, it's still an extremely enjoyable film experience. But apart from its visual splendor and great biological/technological art direction, it doesn't really add up to much. (To paraphrase one reviewer, "A magnificent filmgoing experience that virtually evaporates once you leave the theater and start thinking about it.")

 

[JimWagner]

Cameron has made it possible to see on the screen what previously we were only able to see in our mind's eye as we read an epic scifi book.

That pretty well sums it up for me.

3D was a plus, but frankly I'd have enjoyed it with or without 3D.

As for plots, well I can't say I've seen anything in years that I couldn't find done previously at some level. And that particular plot line has been done many times in SCIFI as well. So what?

 

[Doctor Strange]

I don't want to come off as too negative. Though it's unoriginal in some ways, the film is definitely a milestone. In terms of redefining epic SF, this is as important a film for today as Forbidden Planet was in the 50s, 2001: A Space Odyssey was in the 60s, Star Wars was in the 70s, etc.

 

[Feraud]

^^ That is mostly my reasons for wanting to see it.

 

[Tiller]

I don't want to come off as too negative. Though it's unoriginal in some ways, the film is definitely a milestone. In terms of redefining epic SF, this is as important a film for today as Forbidden Planet was in the 50s, 2001: A Space Odyssey was in the 60s, Star Wars was in the 70s, etc.

I'm not a huge sf fan, but I don't think it is anywhere near the level of Star Wars. I don't see it developing a huge cult following, and I doubt there are going to be prequels, sequels, and other storyline being written about it for over thirty years. Maybe I'm majorly wrong, but I just don't see it making that huge of a cultural impact.[huh]

Will it be talked about in the future? I'm sure it will, but I don't know if it's going to reach those levels. Will other SF films (or films period) be measured against it? When it comes to computer generated images, yes it will. When it comes to storyline though? I highly doubt it. It's not Gone With the Wind, or The Searchers, it just isn't that compelling of a story.

 

[Richard Warren]

My college student daughter watched it and came home and told me it was rather heavy handed propaganda (her actual words, not mine), so I guess I am sorry you guys liked it so much.

 

[Lady Day]

Well I finally saw it, in 3D, in the Hollywood Dome no less, and it has got to be one of the most forgettable movies I have ever seen.

I felt detached the entire time, not because it was 3D but these characters showed *no* emotion, only reactionary emotion. Oh an outsider, we are cautious. Oh someone died, we cry in sorrow. There was no real personality to them at all. There is nothing that I can recall that evoked some sort of reaction from me. Im trying to think of an awe type moment that Ive had even in bad movies, and I cant find it here.

Is it that the entire planet is one organism and the natives are merely a faction of that, because I could not grasp the evolution of so many appendages on the natives (a long hair veiny thing AND a tail), and all the extra things growing out of everywhere that everything on that planet had. What is the evolutionary path/need for 6 legs on most of the wildlife there?

Sure it was pretty, and the day glow night, and the day glow spots in their skin were a nice touch, but I am *so* tired of story lines where an unwelcomed outsider comes and in a matter of months becomes the greatest warrior that civilization has ever known. Whatever!

I was floored that the Dr. wrote this really thick book about these people and we really walk away knowing nothing about them. Are they one with nature by instinct or choice? Does the planet (Pangea was a silly name BTW) have seasons? How long is a year? How long are their pregnancies? Do they have pottery? Do they have a written language? Agriculture? Is this 'warrior' thing their entire culture or just a branch of it? When do they hit puberty? Whats their life expectancy? How different are they from humans, not that much? Is that why the avatars can happen?

The language was beautiful (I read an article on it) and I *really* wish Americans didnt hate subtitles because I really think they should have done most of it in the native tongue. But in the end I didnt feel like this world was flesh and bone. It didnt feel like I could reach out and touch it and feel thte texture of their skin or warmth or whatever.

I went in with no negative expectations, expecting to be floored, or at least to have a good time. It was colorfully boring, disappointingly so. I will probably never see it again.

LD

 

[Lady Day]

Cameron has made it possible to see on the sceen what previously we were only able to see in our mind's eye as we read an epic scifi book.

Id have to respectfully disagree, for the same reason the monster is always scarier when its not on screen. The violence is always that much more gruesome when its not on camera. Your mind's eye is the masterpiece and no one will ever reach that. Ive always thought it was the filmmakers job to elude to it, but making it, they will always fall short.

It reminds me of 'its not the destination, its the journey'. Well the effects were the destination, but the journey we take (the story) was mournfully flat.

LD

 

[Christy]

I was floored that the Dr. wrote this really thick book about these people and we really walk away knowing nothing about them. Are they one with nature by instinct or choice? Does the planet (Pangea was a silly name BTW) have seasons? How long is a year? How long are their pregnancies? Do they have pottery? Do they have a written language? Agriculture? Is this 'warrior' thing their entire culture or just a branch of it? When do they hit puberty? Whats their life expectancy? How different are they from humans, not that much? Is that why the avatars can happen?
LD

I saw Avatar last weekend in 2-D and I agree, I wish there was more development and history on the Na'vi tribe. I don't think there was enough depth and explanation and it would have been awesome to see this fictional tribe come to life. They did develop the language, so I think they should have gone all the way and developed this whole culture.

While watching this movie I couldn't help but feel sad the whole time. However, I did like this movie, I would probably watch it again. I did really like the visuals, I thought they were beautiful. My only complaint is that I wish there wasn't a romance, and I wouldn't have had an "outsider" be the hero. That being said, I think the film would have been more poignant if there was not a happy ending, if it was more realistic.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Avatar in IMAX 3D. Fascinating! I did come away with the feeling I was watching 'Dancing With Wolves' updated to the 22nd Century. Not unlike 'Star Trek' had been an updated 'Wagon Train' -Did you??

-dixon cannon

 

[Hemingway Jones]

(Pangea was a silly name BTW)

The planet's name was Pandora.

I saw this film yesterday and was once again pleasantly surprised. I am so often disappointed, but have been on a bit of a roll with big Hollywood films as of late.

This film is wonderful and not just because of special effects, which are dazzling and almost so sublimely beautiful that I felt myself tearing up at the mere sight of them, more than once, but because they are not the main focus. It would have been easy to dazzle with these effects, to throw everything in in a kaleidoscope of color, movement and strangeness a la George Lucas, and forgo story and character development as is often done, but Cameron takes the blockbuster formula, and its bones are visible here: the Hero's journey, the character archetypes, the obvious use of them reinforced over and over; he takes these bones and puts new vibrant flesh on them.

Why? Why does he do this? Because the old boy has an message. Perhaps all of those hours of staring at the wreck of the felled Titanic in the cold North Atlantic has impressed upon him the ephemeral state of nature and the fragility of all life. Perhaps he imagined what a primeval Earth may have looked like, may have evolved into. Finally effects have caught up to this vision.

This is a clever film. It is the most affecting and subversive anti-war, anti-imperialism, pro environmental film that I have seen in a generation. It does what few films do; it captures the zeitgeist. It presents a choice that reflects the crossroads of where we are as a people. It mixes in a nature-based spiritualism evocative of Native American religions and speech. It creates a giant 3-D Rorschach test through which you can derive a variety of messages and analogies. From Black Water to non renewable mining to materialism to environmentalism to the synthesis of science and nature, it's all there.

I think it was better than all three Star Wars prequels combined. Not that this is too high a bar to jump. It is one of the most viscerally emotional films I have seen in a long time. If you're a lover of nature and natural beauty, I challenge you not to become affected by this film.

THERE BE SPOILERS:
As a writer, there were some funny things to me. There is literally a deux ex machina here! Literally! Loved it, but I hope he was being ironic! "Unobtainium" as the McGuffin? Clever, but obviously clever? I was also happy to see the same technology as used in "The Terminator" and "Aliens." He really loves that duel blade design. Also, Sigorney Weaver has a similar part as her Dian Fossey (I edited this. I wrote Jane Goodall. I always get them confuse!) roll.

Some of this film was obvious. Who didn't call that Jake was going to ride the big colorful dragon thing-y? Who couldn't figure out that he was going to inhabit the avatar forever?

Lastly, is there something wrong with me that I thought the ten foot tall blue chick was kind of hot?

 

[Lady Day]

The planet's name was Pandora.

Thats even more unoriginal.

LD

 

[Lone_Ranger]

I don't want to come off as too negative. Though it's unoriginal in some ways, the film is definitely a milestone. In terms of redefining epic SF, this is as important a film for today as Forbidden Planet was in the 50s, 2001: A Space Odyssey was in the 60s, Star Wars was in the 70s, etc.

That's truly sad! We've come full circle from a good plot, supported by weak special effects, to great special effects supported by a weak plot. The triumph of symbolism over substance.

James Cameron said that much of the evil of the world “can be attributed to the concentration of wealth and power with a few."

Then he makes an blatantly anti-Capitalist, anti-military, and anti-American, movie that grosses $73 million, on opening weekend.

The irony? PRICELESS!!!!

For everything else, there's Mastercard. (Insert picture, of Avatar themed MasterCard here)

But don't mind me. I thought the original Terminator, was ten times better than any of the sequels.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Thats even more unoriginal.

LD

When else was it used? Beside the obvious Greek Myth reference and the moon of Saturn?

 

[Lady Day]

Lastly, is there something wrong with me that I thought the ten foot tall blue chick was kind of hot?

You were suppose to. Thats whats so easy about it. Would this movie had been made if the natives had those tentacle things for heads, and legs like hooves? No. Its the same reason in sci-fi movies that all the robots have to look like humans (or human like form) in order for us to empathize with their plight.

Would we care about killing a race of robots (or aliens) if they all looked like Rubix cubes? Prolly not.

I couldnt find anything deep or thought provoking about this film. Sadly it was the flattest narrative I have seen in years.

LD

 

[shortbow]

To all the naysayers, I have one question: Can you say "jaded?"

 

[Edward]

Inevitably, given how much revenue the film has generated, it'll go down in history as a classic - irrespective of the relative quality of the story. Yay capitalism.

I can't review it harshly, it's not something I'm prepared to actually spend the cash on gonig to see. I'm a sci-fi person, but this just doesn't appeal to me. Were money and time infinite, I probably would head the the Imax to check it out with a reasonably open mind, but as both of those are in short supply these days, I won't be spending either on this, as I've not seen anything to convince me it's more than a typical Hollywood B-movie with impressive effects. Given his post-Jedi output, the comparison with Lucas seems as if it may be very apt indeed.

Nonetheless, if this 3D technology catches on - and let's face it, once somebody makes a big bag o' money off something, it typically does (see the major revival of the vampire genre post-Twilight) - Avatar will no doubt go down as the turning point. I have seen something similar used before. Some years ago for Children in Need (an annual BBC charity fundraiser telethon type affair), they made a special short episode of Doctor Who i 3-D. This used glasses with one shaded and one clear lense to create the 3-D effect, though it only worked when the action on screen was moving one direction horizontally, not the other. The story itself was toe-curlingly awful, but the technology had possibilities. It seems this 3D stuff works on something of the same principle?

I gather they are already developing 3D for BD, which will be able to be viewed on a regular HD TV, using a regular BD player. That'll be interesting if it comes to pass. One step closer to a three-dimensional, holograph TV... lol. If this is going to hit the mainstream, they really will have to be sure the glasses fit nicely over regular specs like my Ronsirs.... I'd hate to have to put in contacts every time I wanted to watch TV... lol.

The other thing I wonder about this newer type of 3D.... am I right to say that it's still comfortably viewable in 2d, without the glasses?

 

[Lady Day]

To all the naysayers, I have one question: Can you say "jaded?"

To all the yaysayers, I have one question: Can you say "indoctrinated"?

Its a McDonalds story served in a couture wrapper. A missed opportunity to not only change everything technologically, but story-wise as well. Its gonna do awesome, like Edward said because contend doesn't a classic make. Its all about numbers, baby!

LD

 

[xwray]

The other thing I wonder about this newer type of 3D.... am I right to say that it's still comfortably viewable in 2d, without the glasses?

I dont think it would be comfortable without the glasses...not nearly as bad as watching the colored 3D without the glasses but more subtle in it's effect.

I believe what might be happening is that the 3D effect is created by alternating differently polarized images - one image at a time - on the screen. The polarized glasses only lets one eye see a given polarized image without ever seeing the "other" image which is what the "other" eye would be seeing. Take the glasses off and your brain tries to fuse two slighly different images and can't make up its mind which is the real image. You quickly get into an eye strain mode which looks a bit fuzzy and you can't quite figure out why. I probably didn't say that very well but it should convey the idea.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

You cannot argue someone's opinion. Everyone is the foremost authority on their own opinions and they are as much entitled to theirs as I am to mine. Some people are better at supporting their opinions than others. Some people attack a film without supporting their points and they are well within their rights to do so. It's just that contrarian's opinions tend to carry less weight, since it is so very easy to simply disagree and to snipe.

Personally, I would encourage everyone to see this film. You get your money's worth. It is worthy of the time and effort. The effects are dazzling.

The film is impressive not so much for its original premises or unoriginal premises, not for how creatively planets are named, but for how emotional it is and how it affects you. Go in with an open mind and no expectation.

I can say that I went in ready to hate it. I had heard that it was only good for its special effects, but it entirely moved me and I am critical, intensely critical. This may be an experience unique to me.