___AVATAR Review Thread___

R

radex

New member
Some of the reviews are mind blowing.....with some saying it reminded them of when Star Wars came out :eek:

I'm seeing this Thursday afternoon :D
 
there are some very encouraging reviews currently doing the rounRAB. the biggest danger was that the CGI was going to look ridiculous, apparently it looks incredible, that the 3D was just a gimmick, when it is reported to enhance rather than be a bit of a stunt, that the story was old hat, but it is reported to have depth and emotion.

i can't wait, i'm a big fan of JC
 
Harry Brown. The best role Michael Caine has had in many years. Superbly acted by all concerned, and really shows the savage underside of British society in the modern age. The kind of stuff we all know exists, but which our so-called leaders appear powerless to combat. Caine's character reminRAB us of what it is to be a decent person, and also gives a warning of what will happen in reality, it governments continue in their failure to clean up the scum that are destroying our inner cities.

EDIT -

Ooops. Not looking what I was doing. Thought this was a thread about the last film seen. :o
 
Exactly my thoughts. I am way to uneasily impressed to go "ooh look at that lovely CGI isn't it rea lookingl". I like a film with a good story and so far the synopsis of Avatar has not pressed my buttons. I'll have to go though if I get a free ticket.
 
For me it was sometimes gimmicky and distracting. If you notice it, then it's failed. Despite promising restraint, Cameron wasn't above poking you in the eye with a long gun barrel. He neeRAB to learn that making it look like it's raining inside the cinema doesn't make it more immersive. Rather, it's distracting and takes you out of the film. I think it would have been a better film had it not been made in 3D.

(Which isn't to saw a 2D viewing would be better. I saw Monsters versus Aliens in 2D, and you could spot the moments that were designed for 3D even with a 2D scene, and they were still distracting. It neeRAB to be made in 2D from the start, not made in 3D then flattened.)

It looked good, yes, but it didn't seem to me like a real ecology. For example, it had plants that glowed in the dark because they looked cool and magical, and there didn't seem to be a real world behind it. I never figured out where, in a world where flying things had leathery wings like bats, the Na'vi got the feathers from that they used in their hair and on their arrows. Or what was the evolutionary story behind the Na'vi themselves? Why did they have 2 arms when most other large species had 4? They were so humanoid they were sexy. How did that happen? This was science fiction from someone who doesn't much care about science.

It worked better than I expected. I quite enjoyed it at the time. I think because you do have this new world to assimilate, it may be better to keep the plot simple, at least to start with, else there might be too much to take in.

The problem is that it's not just simple, but simplistic. It portrays the Na'vi as Red Indians, right down to their war cries, but also makes them into noble savages which the real Red Indians weren't.
And not only does the hero salve the American conscious by becoming accepted as one of them, he becomes the best one of them, their hero and saviour, as if Americans are truly superior beings even when clothed in Na'vi bodies.
The underlying message here is disgusting.

One of the worst elements for me was calling the desired mineral "Unobtainium". It's like the writer couldn't be bothered to come up with a more imaginative name. It's lazy and insulting. Worse, it covers up what the humans needed it for. Why is it so valuable? Maybe it cures a disease which billions of people are suffering from. Maybe the humans do need it more than the Na'vi need their tree. Omitting the detail makes the moral argument even more one-sided.

Well, all of them were. There are few surprises in this film, and none of them came from the characters. They all just did what the plot demanded. Compare it with, say T2. There's a bit in T2 where they figure out that all the bad stuff in the future happens because of a scientist called Dyson, and Sarah takes off on her own to kill him. She's doing this alone partly to protect her son, who is still young, and she has plenty of guns and ammo cached from her preparations. We see her stalking Dyson and psyching herself up to kill him, but when it comes to the crunch, she can't go through with it. It's a fantastic character moment and there's nothing like it in Avatar.

I am especially disappointed in some of the minor characters:
Sigourney Weaver's character, Grace, for example, was an irascible scientist who might have been more ambivalent. At one point she wants to take samples from the Na'vi holy of holies. But she never has any kind of decision moment. Likewise the Michelle Rodriguez character, Trudy: we see her break off from the bombardment of the tree, but there's nothing to it. She doesn't get court-marshalled for abandoning her position while under fire.

The nearest is the big corporate honcho, Selfridge, who I think might have made the good choice had he been in possession of the facts. He doesn't because no-one can get through to him: he believes the tree is just a tree and the natives can move to another one, and the military convince him they can move them on humanely.

The lead Na'vi, Neytiri, to me is always a cypher. She angry or happy or sad as the plot demanRAB, but there is no depth there, no surprises. She picks Sully over the native she was expected to mate with, but there's no scene in which she agonises over the decision or considers the implications. Sully likewise changes sides, but we always knew he would and again there's no depth to the decision.
I don't mean to be picking on you, James, by the way; your post was just a convenient hook for me to hang what I wanted to say. I think it's possible to simultaneously love and hate this film. I liked and hated it. It's better than Titanic, for example. I enjoyed it and wasn't bored while watching, despite its length. But even then, it wasn't great for me, and the more I thought about it afterwarRAB, the angrier it made me.
 
Despite the problems that there still are regarding 3D, this was visually one of the best 3D features i have ever seen.

However, the plot as i predicted was crap and it was way way too long.
 
"Every director who decides to crank out a blockbuster from now on will cry themselves to sleep at night, in the firm knowledge it probably won't be even three per cent as good as Avatar... Best film of the year? Easy. Best film of the decade? Don't be daft - that's There Will Be Blood. Second best film of the decade? Yes, I'll have that."

Brillant Quote :D
 
Watched it last night and was surprisingly impressed I had no expections and thought that it was a great depiction of the colonalism of African indigenous tribes.
 
I went to see it tonight in 3D. Although I was not that amazed at 3D (it seems to be better for slow motion sequences) I really, really liked the film.

I went in with a sceptical mind because it looked and sounded like some epic sci-fi fest. It kind of was but I really enjoyed it.

I am normally quite pretentious and picky with films so I instantly assume massive budget films are just for selling tickets and nothing else.

The graphics were simply stunning. I never knew most of it was CGI. It looked so real. The trailers do not do it justice. I think you need to watch it on a good sized cinema screen (preferable digital) to see how realistic it looked.

The ending opens up the door for "Avatar 2", of course ;)

Here's the pretentious bit... the film is a clear representation of what we are doing to this planet. It kind of sums us up as a species; destroy what we need to in order to make people richer.
 
If, as he keeps repeating, Cameron waited ten or so years to make this, then it took at least five years and probably $100 million more than he needed to. The two biggest selling points of this - the CGI and the 3D - didn't justify Cameron's claim that he was waiting until technology advanced to match his vision. The CGI, whilst very good, was not that good. It was half-way between animation and photo-realism, so whilst I never considered it an animation/ live action hybrid, at no point did I ever think Pandora, the avatars or the Na'vi were live-action either. They were just different styles of portraying the two environments that never blended, if they were intended to. Is the CGI in Avatar five years advanced from LOTR: TROTK, or Spiderman 2, or Harry Potter 3? I'm not sure it is.

As for the 3D, again whilst it definitely elevated it above a flat 2D experience, I never felt immersed in Pandora, as some reviews would have you believe. Maybe Cameron deliverately avoided such gimmicks that would have you ducking or grabbing in front of you so that you wouldn't even notice the 3D, but then what's the point of using it, if not to make people believe that they're really there? Up and Ice Age 3 employed 3D to better effect I feel (maybe it's much easier to do well with animation?). I promise you, the biggest 'ooooh' from the audience came from the 'Please put on your glasses' message.

On, then, to the rest of it. Plot is pretty awful, with bits and pieces cribbed from other sci-fi films. The script had every cliche known to man - the soldier who comes to realise he's on the wrong side; the doesn't-give-a-crap-about-anyone company man; the ultra gung-ho commander; the ice-cold scientist who gradually thaws up; the magical force that explains everything without needing to explain anything; the tribesman who resents the outsider but eventually comes to respect him. Did I miss any out? The acting is, at best, functional. Worthington was just dull, dull, dull. If anything he was more alive in avatar form than real-life (possibily deliberate?). Weaver was ok playing the sort of role she could do in her sleep by now.

I'd say this is 3/5; 4 if seen in 3D.

BTW - the interaction between the Na'vi and the avatars puzzled me. Did the Na'vi know they were avatars, or at least understand they were human in Na'vi form? It wasn't explained why they would so readily embrace the 'good' humans. Is there a backstory that I missed? Grace I can sort of understand. I think she's supposed to have set up education, but why would she need to? They Na'vi weren't exactly a backward culture that didn't have the resources to educate their children. Why would whats-her-face fall for Jake, knowing full well he was an outsider? Considering the whole point was that he immersed himself in her culture, what was so great about him to her? I never got that.
 
Pretty much my thoughts too. It kinda felt like the plot had been pieced together from numerous other movies and didn't really try to disguise the fact. If I was a kid seeing it without all those reference points there's no doubt I'd be totally blown away, but as it was the story left me pretty cold. The scenes with the natives were definitely the least interesting for me, it was all very 'me Tarzan you Jane'-ish with paperthin characterisation, but tbh it's what I expected.

I don't think it's the new Star Wars; there's nothing as remotely 'cool' as lightsabers or Jedi in there, nothing so iconic - but the CGI definitely is spectacular. The characters are more expressive and believable than any CGI that has gone before - I found myself forgetting that they weren't real. There are a few action scenes where the movement looks a little dodgy and the awareness returns, but for the most part it is very impressive. The thing is though, we all knew this was coming sooner or later, so it doesn't really shock as much as it should. I'm not sure how much of the effect was down to the 3D exactly, but I can't help but feel a lot would be lost in a 2D screening. The thing I did find interesting is that Sigourney completely lit up the screen whether she appeared as her human or avatar self. Many of the other performances felt flat and slightly removed (like voice overs); her presence was much more immediate and almost physical. The movie could probably have benefitted from a slightly more charismatic cast.

I find myself in agreement with most of the reviews that I've read. Just treat it as a showcase of what is to come and enjoy the spectacle (and trust me you will enjoy the spectacle!). The story isn't the greatest but it's perfectly serviceable, and the dialogue, pacing, direction etc. is all more than adequate. It's definitely one of the better big money 'blockbusters' of recent years - just take it for what it is.
 
Well I finally went to see it last night at the IMAX in Manchester...got half way through the film and the bloody projector broke!!!!!! They managed to fix it once, then 20 minutes later it broke again and we were told it wouldn't be fixed again that evening. Was absolutely gutted. We did get a couple of guest passes each as compensation, but its sold out now until after Christmas :cry:

Loved what I did see though, the CGI was incredible and the sound (as is usually the way in IMAX) was fantastic. Really looking forward to seeing the 2nd half :)
 
Saw it this afternoon.

Not really sure whether I liked it or not.

The 3D was ok, I could appreciate the fact that the intention was to create an immersive experience, using the depth of the 3D process, rather than throwing things at the screen. Though in places there were some very effective 3D effects with plenty of objects in the foreground.

But there was a nagging feeling of it not quite being right, some objects looked out of focus in the foreground which I found distracting at times.

What impressed me the most was the realisation of the world of Pandora. I found myself becoming immersed in the world, and also not being concious of the cgi created na'vi. I thought they were very believable.

In fact for large parts of the film I tended to forget about the 3d, and indeed it became almost a distraction.

I don't think any of the actors stood out in any way, indeed the cgi characters came across as more compelling than the humans.

I kind of got caught up in the action sequences, and even felt sorry and a little emotional for the na'vi when they were being attacked. The battle sequences were very well done indeed, some great hardware on display and lots of colourful and interesting creatures...and I still say Cameron owes a debt to Roger Dean, with the floating mountains, colourful flying creatures and strange rock formations.

I can't honestly say it was in any way revolutionary, which is not to say it was a bad movie. The 3D was good to very good at times, but it didn't have the 'wow' factor for me.

I suppose thinking of it in the cold light of day, it was very derivative, cliched, and kind of a big dumb action movie.

Obviously Cameron knows how to put together good action sequences, but I'm not sure if the movie as a whole hangs together.
 
I loved it, the CGI blew me away. I literally forgot the characters and animals were computer generated they looked so real. It's the most realistic looking CGI I have ever seen and blows 2012's CGI away, it doesn't even compare.

The storyline was good and the acting, I loved everything about it.

9.5/10
 
Back
Top