Avatar

it's a tree huggers wet dream but a good and very entertaining movie and the best special effects of any movie ever made.
 
there is a definite slant to the movie, but it was really entertaining. it was a long movie but it flew by.
 
One thing i forgot to add.

Did the main character really need to be in a wheelchair?? Really???

######spoilers###############

just two scenes. The marines made fun of him for being in a wheelchair when he got off the spaceship

He struggled to get his mask before his girlfriend put it on for him..

other than that, what was the point?
 
SPOILER IN RESPONSE TO SPOILER




































I think it is nothing beyond the obvious, a way to get his legs back. The scientists and others knew he would likely take the job to experience walking again. I don't think it is more deep than that but adds a lot of affect to the two different worlds.

When "awake" he is restricted. Not so when on Pandora. It built him as a protagonist and endeared him to the audience.
 
Had the chance to see the regular non-3d version a couple of days ago and then the 3d version today. No comparison. While I would have loved it regardless, I strongly endorse the 3d version. Made a great film a phenomenal one. And I was expecting cardboard 3d glasses ( haven't been to a 3d film since jaws 3d) and was pleasantly surprised at the decent quality glasses. Wow, what a treat this was.
 
#####Spoiler##################


They offered him the job because his brother shared his DNA. They already built the AVATAR for his brother. It was cost effective for the company. That was all. And they paid him "really well" remember?

Also, the seargant didn't offer him his legs back until after he did his bidding. So, if in the future, wouldnt it be more cost affective to fix paralysis if it is possible than to make space ships handicap accessable?
 
Spoiler Alert








smokin.gif
 
Did the main character really need to be in a wheelchair?? Really???
_________________________________________________

yes, they were showing a US government without free healthcare and had to show this guy suffer because he didnt have the money to get surgery.
 
for some reason i couldn't get into it. and i am a huge cameron fan. his resume was so impressive i thought there was no way i wouldn't like this movie.

it was beautiful and the CG was the best i have ever seen.
just overall it felt corny to me.



spoiler

didn't everyone see it coming a mile away when the animals were going to end up saving the day?

michelle rodriguez looked stupid when she and her gunship were all painted up.
 
Finally saw it.

Like everyone else agrees, the visuals were terrific. Bravo. A minor complaint would be that it was maybe a tad too psychedelic (like those old blue light posters with mushrooms on them). But whatever.

The main issue I had was with the the story itself -- which was screenwriting 101, at best. The plot is as unoriginal as the special effects were original. After the first 5-10 minutes, anyone who saw Dances With Wolves or Last Samurai could see the entire narative through the ending. I would have hoped for and expected more complexity and less predictability from James Cameron especially in light of the fact that he had been working on this project for 15 years.

In addition, this film is heavy on cliché and stereotype, whether of the general Hollywood type or enviromentalist specific. The list of Hollywood blockbuster "bad guys" were the standard: corporations, the US, imperialism, white people, yuppie MBA-types, and, of course, the US military. Was the technology alone not enough to guarantee the big foreign gate without these these worn out elements ? One person in my group said that it was set out early that the soldiers were all merceneraries. I guess he is correct but OTOH they definitely referried to themselves as Marines throughout. Not to mention all the soldiers were male and white except for Michelle Rodriquez [who was great IMO but whose character all-too predictably saw the error of her ways in the end] and one white female who could easily pass for a male (which, I think, was supposed to be humorous). Perhaps Cameron thought that blantantly pandering to Hollywood politics the sure path to Oscar consideration? (in the same light many in the industry see Holocaust films). We will see.

Botton line -- strictly as an action and/or special-effects film, this movie is entertaining. However, I say it would be: (1) better without the preaching, (2) much better with an interesting storyline; and (3) possibly even great if it had all that and did not encourage the audience to cheer to death of American Marines at the end.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I couldnt really rmbr myself -- I think I was still getting used to the cool glasses.

However, I dont really recall any later seperation in the movie between regulars (Marines) and mercenaries (Blackwater-types), do you?
 
Why you are were thinking too hard?

- The "soldiers" were all mercenaries. As much as said in the first few minutes. Many were former Marines, which is why they referred to themselves that way.

- All the soldiers were male and white???? Hahahahahahaha. Please watches movie agains. They reminded me of Zod's army on Smallville more than anything.

- The "company" was very diverse, and I believe were portray a large multi-national corporation.

No, the plot was not complicated, but it wasn't preaching to the "white man" either, but rather all of us. Somehow that didn't take away from the enjoyment of the movie. I think we've fallen into this trap that unpredictability = good movie? We know what is going to happen in most of even the best movies. Most movies, even the best are grossly stereotyped. Not saying any of it is right, but I'm saying it usually depends on who is being stereotyped for some to enjoy.
 
My favorite part was when the Na'vi were charging the Gatling guns and Tom Cruise threw his sword and impaled the bastard sitting in his fighting vehicle thingie.
 
Very, very good movie, even apart from the incredible visuals. The only part that I felt was over the top was the rapid-fire mention of "hit them first" and "Shock and Awe". That's not even satire; it's just whining.
 
Aside from the Will Ferrell type movies- it seems like most movies have a 'message' inserted inside. Sometimes its political- sometimes its personal. Wasn't the entire decade's worth of 1980's movies from Red Dawn to Rocky, Rambo and more focused on telling us that we are the strongest and will beat Communism?

So, this movie is about natural resources and imperialism.
 
Went yesterday with my parents and my kids -- everyone liked it a lot. Saw it in 3-D -- I can't imagine it's nearly as good in regular format. The 3-D was the best movie 3-D I've seen, even better than the Disney World 3-D shows (and no cheesy effects like a ping pong ball flying in your face).
The screenplay wasn't always the greatest, but that wasn't relaly the focus of the movie anyway.
Oh -- and I agree, NONE of these were current Marines. All were mercs, working for the "corporation." That was made very clear in the beginning, and the corporate guy was ultimately in charge
 
Saw it today.

I can't stress enough how important it is to see it in 3D and IMAX. The visuals completely live up to all advance billing. It's truly a magnificent piece of technical art.

Which is good because the story is so corny as to be borderline insulting. Ironically enough, there's not a three-dimensional character to be found. Characters drop in and out of the movie with little to no explication of motive or background.

For a movie so transcendent in its use of colors and shading in the visuals, everything else is in stark, flat black and white.

Recommended highly for its technical aspects, though. I'm not sure anyone but Cameron (and maybe his fellow lunkhead artist Lucas) could make this movie right now, but in a decade - maybe sooner - it's going to be the norm I bet. At least for action movies. I'm not sure how much better Up in the Air would be in 3-D.
 
When you note the technical accomplishments of this film- seamlessly blending real humans with accurately portrayed animated robots, it basically lets you know that any piece of video you see for the rest of your life has the chance of being fabricated. While that's nice for movies- it is a feeding ground for conspiracy theorists for events yet to occur.
 
I saw it in IMAX 3D... and besides it being 3D and IMAX, it was one of the worst movies I have seen in a theatre. It was certainly the most overrated movie I have seen since another stinker... Titanic... Common Connection? Cameron.

The dialogue of the screen play was MUCH better in Avatar than Titanic, but the plot was way worse. There was LITTLE plot in Avatar besides the, 'we have already turned our world brown.' that quote from Sully pretty much sums up this movie. I shouldn't be too upset for having been talked into seeing it, but it really was a Michael Moore style propaganda in video game graphics setting.
You want a visual stunning movie? How about Open Range. How about that Tibet movie that Brad Pitt did? Both are beautifully shot films of real landscapes. Blue humanoid lemurs running around trees in a world where mountains hang in the sky is absurd, at the least.
3 hours I wish I had back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top