Dante Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Best special effects I've seen. 3D is nice. But, as happens a lot crappy story. Bored after 30 minutes when effects wore off and the it started to depend on the story. Again laughably cliche'd plot and characters much like 2012. Forget it. Same old story with predictable lefty political overtones.
CosmicBills Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 I'm still not sure what I think about it yet. It was fun for sure. It was beautiful. But the story was so ... meh. It was a hodgepodge of Biblical parables, Dances with Wolves and Braveheart. Not that those are bad things ... it just was lacking that cool (story) factor and instead was just Cameron showing off his new toys -- albeit quite spectacularly. The story didn't give me any chills or swelling of tears or even a kick ass applause moment -- but for maybe when the evil Colonel escapes the plane crash. A couple of nitpicky, screenwritery story issues kept bugging me -- though I doubt most "normal" audiences would notice (failure to describe the rules, very low stakes through much of the first 2 hours etc). It just shows the one thing that Cameron is really missing -- he's not much of a writer. He's a brilliant director and came up with a couple super cool ideas. Terminator was a fantastic concept that carried both movies through some dodgy storytelling. Aliens was terrific, but not an original story (he rewrote it). The Abyss is another cool concept (UFO's that live under the ocean) but is so chalk full of cheese that the concept is JUST barely able to carry our attention. True Lies is a favorite, but it's almost beat for beat the same as the foreign film it's based on -- just with some great action sequences. Titanic ... can't say cause I never saw it, but it's another great concept (a love story on a sinking ship). Then with Avatar, he doesn't have that cool new concept. No killer robot, no great husband/wife spy story, no famous acid blooded aliens. Instead, his new hook is HOW the movie looks. And that's fine ... but at 2:30+ running time, I'm not sure it's enough to carry it into the same, rarefied air as his other hits. Really, at many points, it was a Pixar movie for adults. Both are gorgeous, both are fun, just Avatar cost a whole **** ton more to make. When it was the Na'avi on screen, there was very little tension or fear because ... they weren't real. This stood out really for me when we suddenly switched to the real actors running from the base to the helicopter (where SPOILER: Sigorney Weaver gets shot). That moment was VERY cool because it was real. I think in Pixar type movies the tension works because EVERYONE in the world is animated ... so your mind goes along for the ride. But with this, because it was half and half, it was very difficult to make that FULL leap and suspend your disbelief. SPOILERS: When the warrior brother died? Meh. When the flying banshee died? Meh. When Sigorney Weaver died? That felt like something. Because she was real. The rest of the action ... was just a lot of very pretty lights and sound -- the best looking video game ever made. All that said, I respect the hell out of Cameron for sticking to the stories he wants to tell. This is a story he's wanted to do for over a decade and he did it the way he wanted to do it. That's cool and awesome. It's kind of like Lucas and Cameron are opposite sides of the same coin. Lucas did the same thing creatively with Star Wars (the prequels) ... he told a story he wanted to tell how he wanted to tell it, and got mascaraed for it because it tampered with a cultural touchstone -- regardless of the fact it was a touchstone he himself created. But Cameron is doing the same thing ... just with an original story. And, because he's Cameron, he can do it without flack whereas Lucas can't. Of course, Cameron is a WAY better director than Lucas so that probably has something to do with it. Just interesting to me. Not sure why. But as a storyteller I was jealous watching the movie because it's clearly very personal and cool story for Cameron. There were a couple good lines that were typical Cameron. There were some spectacular sequences in conception and execution -- just not enough meat on the story for me to really hold up and say "this is the best movie of the decade -- or the year". Though I will say, if I was 8 years old and this movie came out -- it would be a seminal movie for me because I'd be unaware of a lot of the story issues that bugged me and I'd be way more pure as far as my cinematic slate goes (I wouldn't be aware of Dances with Wolves, Braveheart, etc etc). Still, I took my father to this movie and he said it was the best movie he's ever seen. Period. He was "in it" the whole way.
apuszczalowski Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 I would go to see it in 3d just cause of the effects, but I have heard from many that the plot and movie itself was alright at best
Fan in San Diego Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Just curious, when they finally release this on DVD, will it be in 3D as well?
TheChimp Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Truly the underlying message in that movie was one about conserving nature, specifically the rainforests, and I couldn't help but laugh when I got home and saw that McDonald's is a sponsor. McDonald's. The largest single destroyer of the Brazilian rainforest to date. It truly is a schizophrenic world.
ajzepp Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Just curious, when they finally release this on DVD, will it be in 3D as well? Pretty sure I read Cameron say it will be, but not right away.
Wacka Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Truly the underlying message in that movie was one about conserving nature, specifically the rainforests, and I couldn't help but laugh when I got home and saw that McDonald's is a sponsor. McDonald's. The largest single destroyer of the Brazilian rainforest to date. It truly is a schizophrenic world. "There's a place called the rainforest; it truly sucks a**. Let's knock it all down and get rid of it fast. You say, "Save the rainforest," but what do you know? You've never been to the rainforest before. Getting Gay With Kids is here! To tell you things you might not like to hear. You only fight these causes 'cause caring sells. All you activists can go f*** yourselves! Someday if we work hard, boys and girls, There'll be no more rainforests left in the entire world! Getting Gay With Kids is here! To spread the word and bring you cheer. Yeah! Getting Gay With Kids is here! Let's knock down the rainforest! What do you say?! It's totally gay! It's totally gay!"
DC Tom Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 There were some spectacular sequences in conception and execution -- just not enough meat on the story for me to really hold up and say "this is the best movie of the decade -- or the year". Though I will say, if I was 8 years old and this movie came out -- it would be a seminal movie for me because I'd be unaware of a lot of the story issues that bugged me and I'd be way more pure as far as my cinematic slate goes (I wouldn't be aware of Dances with Wolves, Braveheart, etc etc). In other words...just like Cloverfield.
Phlegm Alley Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Saw it (not in 3-D) and thought it was amazing. Told my brother-in-law immediately afterward that it was a futuristic "Dances with Wolves". I would see it again, but in the 3-D. I read that Cameron wasn't too keen on it being shot in 3-D because the viewer would see a strobe effect with it being shot at 24 frames per second, but from what I have heard, the strobe effect isn't too big of a deal.
LeviF Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Saw it (not in 3-D) and thought it was amazing. Told my brother-in-law immediately afterward that it was a futuristic "Dances with Wolves". I would see it again, but in the 3-D. I read that Cameron wasn't too keen on it being shot in 3-D because the viewer would see a strobe effect with it being shot at 24 frames per second, but from what I have heard, the strobe effect isn't too big of a deal. Saw it in 3-D and didn't even notice a strobe effect.
KD in CA Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 "There's a place called the rainforest; it truly sucks a**.Let's knock it all down and get rid of it fast. You say, "Save the rainforest," but what do you know? You've never been to the rainforest before. Getting Gay With Kids is here! To tell you things you might not like to hear. You only fight these causes 'cause caring sells. All you activists can go f*** yourselves! Someday if we work hard, boys and girls, There'll be no more rainforests left in the entire world! Getting Gay With Kids is here! To spread the word and bring you cheer. Yeah! Getting Gay With Kids is here! Let's knock down the rainforest! What do you say?! It's totally gay! It's totally gay!" Each year, the Rainforest is responsible for over three thousand deaths from accidents, attacks or illnesses. There are over seven hundred things in the Rainforest that cause cancer. Join the fight now and help stop the Rainforest before it's too late.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 I'm still not sure what I think about it yet. It was fun for sure. It was beautiful. But the story was so ... meh. It was a hodgepodge of Biblical parables, Dances with Wolves and Braveheart. Not that those are bad things ... it just was lacking that cool (story) factor and instead was just Cameron showing off his new toys -- albeit quite spectacularly. The story didn't give me any chills or swelling of tears or even a kick ass applause moment -- but for maybe when the evil Colonel escapes the plane crash. A couple of nitpicky, screenwritery story issues kept bugging me -- though I doubt most "normal" audiences would notice (failure to describe the rules, very low stakes through much of the first 2 hours etc). It just shows the one thing that Cameron is really missing -- he's not much of a writer. He's a brilliant director and came up with a couple super cool ideas. Terminator was a fantastic concept that carried both movies through some dodgy storytelling. Aliens was terrific, but not an original story (he rewrote it). The Abyss is another cool concept (UFO's that live under the ocean) but is so chalk full of cheese that the concept is JUST barely able to carry our attention. True Lies is a favorite, but it's almost beat for beat the same as the foreign film it's based on -- just with some great action sequences. Titanic ... can't say cause I never saw it, but it's another great concept (a love story on a sinking ship). Then with Avatar, he doesn't have that cool new concept. No killer robot, no great husband/wife spy story, no famous acid blooded aliens. Instead, his new hook is HOW the movie looks. And that's fine ... but at 2:30+ running time, I'm not sure it's enough to carry it into the same, rarefied air as his other hits. Really, at many points, it was a Pixar movie for adults. Both are gorgeous, both are fun, just Avatar cost a whole **** ton more to make. When it was the Na'avi on screen, there was very little tension or fear because ... they weren't real. This stood out really for me when we suddenly switched to the real actors running from the base to the helicopter (where SPOILER: Sigorney Weaver gets shot). That moment was VERY cool because it was real. I think in Pixar type movies the tension works because EVERYONE in the world is animated ... so your mind goes along for the ride. But with this, because it was half and half, it was very difficult to make that FULL leap and suspend your disbelief. SPOILERS: When the warrior brother died? Meh. When the flying banshee died? Meh. When Sigorney Weaver died? That felt like something. Because she was real. The rest of the action ... was just a lot of very pretty lights and sound -- the best looking video game ever made. All that said, I respect the hell out of Cameron for sticking to the stories he wants to tell. This is a story he's wanted to do for over a decade and he did it the way he wanted to do it. That's cool and awesome. It's kind of like Lucas and Cameron are opposite sides of the same coin. Lucas did the same thing creatively with Star Wars (the prequels) ... he told a story he wanted to tell how he wanted to tell it, and got mascaraed for it because it tampered with a cultural touchstone -- regardless of the fact it was a touchstone he himself created. But Cameron is doing the same thing ... just with an original story. And, because he's Cameron, he can do it without flack whereas Lucas can't. Of course, Cameron is a WAY better director than Lucas so that probably has something to do with it. Just interesting to me. Not sure why. But as a storyteller I was jealous watching the movie because it's clearly very personal and cool story for Cameron. There were a couple good lines that were typical Cameron. There were some spectacular sequences in conception and execution -- just not enough meat on the story for me to really hold up and say "this is the best movie of the decade -- or the year". Though I will say, if I was 8 years old and this movie came out -- it would be a seminal movie for me because I'd be unaware of a lot of the story issues that bugged me and I'd be way more pure as far as my cinematic slate goes (I wouldn't be aware of Dances with Wolves, Braveheart, etc etc). Still, I took my father to this movie and he said it was the best movie he's ever seen. Period. He was "in it" the whole way. Some of it was based upon native american history. Trail of tears, little big horn, etc. with a helping of the Iraq War for good measure I didn't like it too much though
CosmicBills Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 In other words...just like Cloverfield. 100% correct. But, in my defense, Cloverfield was never meant to be anything other than a cool, new perspective in the cheap monster movie genre.
CosmicBills Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 I read that Cameron wasn't too keen on it being shot in 3-D ... I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. In fact, Cameron ONLY wanted to do this movie in 3D. It's how he envisioned it, how he blocked it, and how he wanted people to see it. It was a big risk on his part because in today's Hollywood, Studios are (almost) making movies more for DVD sales than actual Box Office performance. But Cameron designed this to be an in theater, in 3D experience. DVD, HBO be damned. I did not work at ALL on this movie and have zero inside insight or anything, but I did get to go to set for a few hours and overhear a conversation with Cameron and my old boss about the making of. It was pretty cool to see how passionate he was about it.
Astrojanitor Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. In fact, Cameron ONLY wanted to do this movie in 3D. It's how he envisioned it, how he blocked it, and how he wanted people to see it. It was a big risk on his part because in today's Hollywood, Studios are (almost) making movies more for DVD sales than actual Box Office performance. But Cameron designed this to be an in theater, in 3D experience. DVD, HBO be damned. I did not work at ALL on this movie and have zero inside insight or anything, but I did get to go to set for a few hours and overhear a conversation with Cameron and my old boss about the making of. It was pretty cool to see how passionate he was about it. Say what you want about Cameron (and I only have bad things to say about him---outside of Terminator all his films are boring as a dog's ass. Just fancy effects and no soul) he at least makes big screen movies. I know he planned Avatar to be 3-D all along. I was totally underwhelmed by the film. I thought it was a soulless bland slab of nothing. Nice eye candy but immediately forgettable.
Mantis Toboggan M.D Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Say what you want about Cameron (and I only have bad things to say about him---outside of Terminator all his films are boring as a dog's ass. Just fancy effects and no soul) he at least makes big screen movies. I know he planned Avatar to be 3-D all along. I was totally underwhelmed by the film. I thought it was a soulless bland slab of nothing. Nice eye candy but immediately forgettable. Wow really? You must be a tough film critic. Aliens and True Lies were definitely not as "boring as a dog's ass." If you meant Titanic on the other hand. I have no argument.
justnzane Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 I took my 15 year old cousin to see it, he was amazed by the special effects and thought the story was amazing. I on the other hand, thought the storyline was rather generic in the mold of dancing with wolves, WWII enemy love story, Iraq/Indian occupations. The 3-D effects were unfreakingbelievable, which amazed me how you can perceive the clouds flying at you.
Astrojanitor Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Wow really? You must be a tough film critic. Aliens and True Lies were definitely not as "boring as a dog's ass." If you meant Titanic on the other hand. I have no argument. I can be pretty tough on the big Hollywood films. But as far as "Aliens" goes I am obsessed with "Alien"...I think it's one of the coolest movies ever made. Works as sci-fi, drama, a haunted house movie. Just insanely cool and perfect. "Aliens" is just kind of a big dumb action film that would be fine if it wasn't a sequel to one of the best genre films ever produced. "True Lies"? meh. Tom Arnold is in that movie. Is there a greater metaphor for suck? and yeah man, "Titanic" is barely watchable. 3 hours of people walking down hallways.
CosmicBills Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 I can be pretty tough on the big Hollywood films. But as far as "Aliens" goes I am obsessed with "Alien"...I think it's one of the coolest movies ever made. Works as sci-fi, drama, a haunted house movie. Just insanely cool and perfect. "Aliens" is just kind of a big dumb action film that would be fine if it wasn't a sequel to one of the best genre films ever produced. "True Lies"? meh. Tom Arnold is in that movie. Is there a greater metaphor for suck? and yeah man, "Titanic" is barely watchable. 3 hours of people walking down hallways. Being tough on big Hollywood films is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel with a bazooka, though isn't it? The big, tent-pole movies are for the eyes and senses first and the mind second. That's not to say that there aren't amazingly well done popcorn movies, because there are, but the big event films like the Aliens, True Lies, Avatars, Star Treks, Gladiators etc are not really meant to be much more than a fun ride. Obviously they have to work on basic fundamental story levels (and the worst of the popcorn movies don't). But if you're looking for layers or dramatic fireworks, you aren't likely to find much ... unless it's a very, very rare film.
Astrojanitor Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Being tough on big Hollywood films is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel with a bazooka, though isn't it? The big, tent-pole movies are for the eyes and senses first and the mind second. That's not to say that there aren't amazingly well done popcorn movies, because there are, but the big event films like the Aliens, True Lies, Avatars, Star Treks, Gladiators etc are not really meant to be much more than a fun ride. Obviously they have to work on basic fundamental story levels (and the worst of the popcorn movies don't). But if you're looking for layers or dramatic fireworks, you aren't likely to find much ... unless it's a very, very rare film. yeah man, that's true. but every now and again those tent pole movies kill it (and end up making giant piles of money) which makes the bland nothing blockbusters (Transformers 1/2, Avatar etc etc) even worse. Star Trek was actually a pretty decent movie. the Bourne movies are solid, The Dark Knight is amazing, the first 2 Spiderman movies are great...lots of examples. Cameron, to me, has gone the way of George Lucas. He has crawled way too far up his own special effects ass. The film merely is a delivery system for whatever new effects program he commissioned.
Recommended Posts