• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)

Grade "Avatar"

  • Excellent

    Votes: 166 50.0%

  • Above Average

    Votes: 85 25.6%

  • Average

    Votes: 51 15.4%

  • Below Average

    Votes: 11 3.3%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 19 5.7%
  • Total voters
    332
C

chrisspringob

Commodore
Commodore
So, I saw Avatar earlier this evening. (Yes, it's already out here in Australia.) I'm terrible at writing reviews, but I'll just say this: The visuals superb, and the 3d effects are as breathtaking as what I saw in the "Avatar Day" footage back in August. (Actually, moreso, as the ~15 min. shown on Avatar Day went by too fast for me to get used to the 3d.) I'd compare the difference between 3d as used in this movie to 2d movies as something like the difference between HDTV and regular TV. It's quite a step up in the viewing experience.

Aside from the visuals though, how is it *as a movie*? I'd probably give it something like a B-. Reasonably engaging, but nothing spectacular. Cameron seems to enjoy heaping the cliches one on top of each other, and the "Na'vi as Native Americans" trope is really played to the hilt. Dialogue is OK.....I was expecting it to be worse, as there were some cheesey lines in the Avatar Day footage, but I guess they just didn't work as well when taken out of context.

All in all, I'd call it a reasonably engaging flick, pushed up to "must see" status by the amazing eye candy. But I can't really imagine that this will be joining Aliens or Terminator in Cameron's stable of sci-fi classics. People won't still be watching this movie in 10 years, when the FX no longer look so special.
 
I'm looking forward to this. I'll be seeing it with friends on IMAX 3-D as it should be seen probably on Sunday. Can't wait.
 
Not going until next tuesday but am looking forward to it more then I thought I would. I like Cameron's work and that's the main reason why I'm going. That and mechs.
 
Going to see it on Saturday. I don't think I've been overhyped for it, but it does look like it'll be worth a watch:)
 
Very impressive. I'm not going to harp on about the visuals, which were stellar, and the 3D was amazing, as we all know by now. The story wasn't original at all really, and the script presented us with one example of Chekov's gun after another (even a couple I missed). However, not all that many stories ARE original, and Avatar's fairly predictable story was told brilliantly by all involved. James Cameron really showed us how it's done when it came to the action. I mean... I could even tell who was shooting at who and when, which is quite the achievement in an action movie these days.

Haven't really got time to write an in-depth review right now but I voted "excellent" and will no doubt weigh into the discussion later.

One last thing: For the love of God see it in a cinema and see it in 3D. Don't pirate this one you cheap fuckers!
 
Yes, that's a good point. It's not just that the FX were fantastic, but the action scenes were also staged very well. Contrast that, with, say, Transformers (the first one...I haven't seen the sequel), where I couldn't keep track of what was happening, because we kept getting extreme closeups of robots that looked nearly identical to one another.
 
chrisspringob said:
Contrast that, with, say, Transformers (the first one...I haven't seen the sequel)....
Click to expand...

Bang your head against a brick-wall really hard 10 times after drinking an entire bottle of tequila and then spin around in a circle for 30 seconds. Look at a semi-truck parked next to a late-model sports coupe with a two douchebag young men and a hot young woman standing nearby.

There, you've now seen Transformers 2.
 
So how much did it seem to ape from Dances with Wolves? I've been hearing a lot of comparisons, but I don't know how much of that is true versus how much of that is just online bickering.
 
Torg said:
So how much did it seem to ape from Dances with Wolves? I've been hearing a lot of comparisons, but I don't know how much of that is true versus how much of that is just online bickering.
Click to expand...

I've never seen "Dances with Wolves", so I'm afraid I can't do a comparison. Like I said though, the "Na'vi = peace-loving Native Americans" thing is beaten over the head of the audience over and over.
 
I just returned from the movie. Magnificent.

The only negative thing I have to say is that the story was just about as standard and cliche as you can get.
But you can forgive that because Cameron knows how to tell it and the actors (real & CG) know how to act it.

The Visual effects were spectacular and simply beautiful. Effective & convincing about 95% of the time.
The 3D was effective and gave real depth to what you saw on the screen without the usual 4th wall breaking.
The actors did a very good job and I'll be damned if some of those Navi girls were not sexy :p
Even Sigourney looked hotter as a Navi than she's ever looked as human :lol:

Oh and please someone call Bay and tell him to see how they do a final act battle scene. Maybe he will learn something for Transformers 3.

Just don't miss it folks.
 
Above average. Entertaining? Yes. Great CG? Mostly. Awe-Inspiring? Nope. Game-Changer? Absolutely not. But well worth a looksie if you wish real life looked more like a video game. And the extra $$$ for 3D is very much worth it.
 
Saw it last night and, well, in many ways it was a lot better than I was expecting. Visually, it is incredible. Let me qualify that. Conceptually, it is incredible. The design of the movie, the world of Pandora, the creatures, the flora and fauna so to speak are so detailed and complex, it is a pity the CGI work lets it down somewhat. We still haven't cracked the realistic vs. animated look in CGI. During the Pandora sequences, I felt like I was watching a beautiful , highly detailed animated movie. It was a little jarring to come back to the 'real world'. Facially, the Na'Vi were wonderful, full of character and nuance but in full body shots, they didn't convey real weight, they didn't have a physicality which would make them more realistic (insofar as a giant blue alien can be realistic!!). The green screen shots were quite poor I felt and when it comes to spaceships, gunships or whatever, again, they lacked the weight a model would have. The best CG ship I've seen recently was the Enterprise in this year's Star Trek. It felt and looked real, like the old ILM models used to look back in the day.
Storywise, well, original it's not. I counted at least 5 movies that it 'borrowed' stuff from and, as with 'Titanic', the dialogue was poor and cliched. The score was, well, to be honest, I never noticed it, apart from Horner's old 'ting, ting' steel drum action beats. Come on James; something new next time perhaps?
The quieter moments between Jake's Avatar and Zoe Saldana's Na'Vi were good; again, the facial effects were excellent and really conveyed emotion, humour and character.
So, on the whole, not bad at all but not the groundbreaking, game-changing epic some would lead us to believe. Oh, and I did see it in 3-D. I want to see it now in 2D because I'm not sure what the 3rd D actually brought to the experience other than window dressing.
 
Visually it's stunning, breathtaking and so on, probably the most beautiful movie I've ever seen. Storywise, it's basically Dances With The Wolves with a big blue aliens. I could also swear that some of the music came from Civilization 4.

It should be seen only in theaters with 3D, no TV or computer screen will do it justice.
So, despite the really cliched story I give it excellent.
 
I think this movie might be the first good test of my new Samsung HDTV and its accompanying Blu-ray player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top