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

[Agent Richard07]

Saw the movie today. And thanks to all the comments here, I broke down and saw it in 3D, which I swore I'd never do. 3D was interesting, but I didn't enjoy that aspect of the viewing experience nearly as much as some people here did. My eyes were mostly relaxed, but sometimes, there was a bit of strain, and the actual imagery, while a bit nice, also looked more like cutouts against various backdrops than a real three dimensional environment. Also, I found myself lowering the glasses every now and then just to see what the picture looked like without them. I don't think I'll do this again anytime soon, but I'm still glad I gave it a shot.

As for the movie itself, pretty much everything has already been said. I loved it. It was visually stunning, had a nice story and I really felt for this new world and its people. I give it an 'excellent'.

 

[Trekker4747]

I must say I love seeing all this newfound love for original stories. Hopefully the same analysis and grading will be applied to future films you see.

Otherwise it seems like many are grading this on 'hype' - and while that isn't exactly wrong (your grade is your grade), I get the distinct feeling that quite a few are grading this lower than TF2 and/or 2012. And that just blows my mind.

With or without hype, this is certainly the best film I have seen this year - beating out "Star Trek" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (ok so sue me - I just saw it on DVD for the first time recently)

The story didn't have to be original, but it's a pretty strong, and rather blatent, rip-off of DwW and, I dunno, storywise it just wasn't re-told very well.

THIS is the story that Cameron has wanted to tell for the last 15 years but just HAD to wait for technology to catch-up in order to it right? Somehow I expected better.

 

[cubbie]

I saw it yesterday. I give this a C=average. While the visuals seemed stunning in the beginning (I gasped at some of flora), it wasn't enough to carry me through the rehashed and predictable storyline. I was yawning by the middle of the movie and bored by the end.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

The problem with this movie is it borders on almost cliche. Hell, even the 'enemy' was paper thin at best.

The technical achievement of the film is more important than the story. A new threshold has been crossed. Yes, the narrative is light-weight at best. That was never the point. Cameron's purpose was to create a new benchmark in cinemetography, and he did.

So...Star Wars the Phantom Menace. That's an apt analogy.

 

[davejames]

So...Star Wars the Phantom Menace. That's an apt analogy.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but I doubt that's really a fair comparison. The problem with TPM wasn't a lightweight or cliched story, it was a really dull and muddled and lifeless story-- something I just can't see Cameron being capable of, and that I don't see a lot of reviews complaining about with Avatar.

 

[davejames]

THIS is the story that Cameron has wanted to tell for the last 15 years but just HAD to wait for technology to catch-up in order to it right? Somehow I expected better.

I'm sure it was more the world and environment he dreamed about, more than the specific story. Although I agree, he probably should have spent a little more time ironing out the script first...

Of course, fans continue to bitch about T2 and The Abyss, or talk about how "dated" Aliens is, and I think they're all as perfect as can be. lol

 

[Gryffindorian]

The problem with this movie is it borders on almost cliche. Hell, even the 'enemy' was paper thin at best.

The technical achievement of the film is more important than the story. A new threshold has been crossed. Yes, the narrative is light-weight at best. That was never the point. Cameron's purpose was to create a new benchmark in cinemetography, and he did.

So...Star Wars the Phantom Menace. That's an apt analogy.

What were you expecting from a sci-fi movie? Depth of plot? Profoundness? Artsy storytelling, perhaps? This isn't exactly The Notebook or A Very Long Engagement. It's a rollercoaster ride with stunning visual effects. You might want to lower your expectations a couple of light-years; then you wouldn't be so disappointed.

 

[Dark Gilligan]

So...Star Wars the Phantom Menace. That's an apt analogy.

Not even close. There were no great technical achievements pioneered in The Phantom Menace. In Avatar, technical achievement was the entire purpose.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

So...Star Wars the Phantom Menace. That's an apt analogy.

Not even close. There were no great technical achievements pioneered in The Phantom Menace. In Avatar, technical achievement was the entire purpose.

I kind of feel like Jar Jar was kind of a great technical achievement. Emphasis on TECHNICAL, as in, only technical. *shudders*

 

[Greylock Crescent]

What were you expecting from a sci-fi movie? Depth of plot? Profoundness? Artsy storytelling, perhaps? This isn't exactly The Notebook or A Very Long Engagement. It's a rollercoaster ride with stunning visual effects. You might want to lower your expectations a couple of light-years; then you wouldn't be so disappointed.

That kind of argument doesn't exactly work when the movie in question was billed as a "revolution." And, really, why should I lower my standards? There's plenty of really good sci-fi storytelling. In fact, T2 was a much, much better constructed story than Avatar -- whose story was hardly worthy of credit, let alone analysis. I actually enjoyed Avatar quite a bit (I actually enjoyed The Phantom Menace quite a bit, too). But that doesn't mean that the films are above reproach or criticism for poorly constructed, paced, or executed storylines.

Kudos to Cameron for his world-building and the visual presentation of the film ... but he gets demerits for not paying as much attention to detail in the story as he did in the look of Pandora.

 

[AnyStar]

So...Star Wars the Phantom Menace. That's an apt analogy.

Not even close. There were no great technical achievements pioneered in The Phantom Menace. In Avatar, technical achievement was the entire purpose.

well, it might have been a purpose, but the real purpose was making ungodly amounts of $$$$$$$$$$ and they're succeeding

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

So...Star Wars the Phantom Menace. That's an apt analogy.

Not even close. There were no great technical achievements pioneered in The Phantom Menace. In Avatar, technical achievement was the entire purpose.

Jar Jar Binks comes to mind as a huge technical achievement. I believe there were some other achievements done in that movie that was cutting edge at the time as well.

The technical achievement of the film is more important than the story. A new threshold has been crossed. Yes, the narrative is light-weight at best. That was never the point. Cameron's purpose was to create a new benchmark in cinemetography, and he did.

So...Star Wars the Phantom Menace. That's an apt analogy.

What were you expecting from a sci-fi movie? Depth of plot? Profoundness? Artsy storytelling, perhaps? This isn't exactly The Notebook or A Very Long Engagement. It's a rollercoaster ride with stunning visual effects. You might want to lower your expectations a couple of light-years; then you wouldn't be so disappointed.

I expected a little more depth to this story than a very hacked plot. It was mindlessly predictable and dragged in some area. While I didn't expect a major revolution in story telling, the story telling lagged behind the artistic achievement of this movie. It was like, here look at the shiny thing, but don't pay any attention that this plot is mundane at best.

There was absolutely no motivation, no conflict really. It was a very shallow story at best.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Anyone thought Titanic in space?

Huh? I have seen people compare it to "Dances with Wolves", "The Last Samurai", and "Dune"... And there are valid points for all those comparisons.

But "Titanic"? Is that seriously the first comparison that jumps to your mind? They both have a romance - that's about the only thing they have in common.

Yes. The main object in the story (the large tree...whatever they call it) is destroyed. Or well big tree falls and people fall off. There is also a forbidden romance in the movie as well. Plus, it was Cameron's last movie

But meh...it was a very mediocre plotted movie.

So the Tree equals the Titanic????? I think you might need to watch both movies again.

Forbidden romance. I guess Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story are the same as Avatar too.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I don't get the complaints about the villain. I thought Stephen Lang did a great job. Perhaps his character was a little thin, but I've seen worse bad guys out there. I don't recall any over-the-top moments. Actually, the acting all around was pretty great. Sigourney Weaver, once again, was magnificent.

Is it wrong that the "sex" scene between Jake and Neytiri turned me on?

This is non-surprisingly Sam Worthington's best performance. I even thought he did a good job in Terminator Salvation but working with a better director in James Cameron brought out the best in him. I can see him as lead material now.

How would they do an Avatar 2? Since we all know what happens to Jake at the end of the movie, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the plot of this one? I mean, it would have to be an entirely different story.

My friend, who was not looking forward to this at all, was pleasantly surprised walking out of the theater, which is good news for people not at all interested.

 

[Hyperspace05]

There was absolutely no motivation, no conflict really. It was a very shallow story at best.

I'm sorry, but I think you need to check your ticket stub, and ask the theater for a refund. Because you clearly were shown a different film than the rest of us. Avatar did not have the most complex stury, but geez...
- No motivation? Most characters from the outset had very different motivations. (Jake, Grace, Quaritch, RDA guy, Neytiri)
- No conflict? I guess the RDA/Na'vi and Security Forces/Scientists has no conflict. Sure.

With your first statement (about Avatar = Titanic) and now this... The evidence seems to point to you trolling rather than being interesting in a discussion.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I loved how we were taken straight into the story. Cameron doesn't waste a minute.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I don't get the complaints about the villain. I thought Stephen Lang did a great job. Perhaps his character was a little thin, but I've seen worse bad guys out there.

To me, Lang's performance was by far the worst in the film. It wasn't just the paper thin characterization, but Lang's delivery only seemed to reinforce the Bad Guy caricature, rather than provide any depth or even entertainment. The performance, to me at least, was as robotic as the mech-suit and a liability for the film.

And I, too, thought that the sex scene was effective, both for romance ... and for a slightly erotic sensibility.

 

[JacksonArcher]

To me, Lang's performance was by far the worst in the film. It wasn't just the paper thin characterization, but Lang's delivery only seemed to reinforce the Bad Guy caricature, rather than provide any depth or even entertainment. The performance, to me at least, was as robotic as the mech-suit and a liability for the film.

Show's what I know. I thought Lang delivered a fantastic performance. I think he could have been a lot more over-the-top, but to each their own.

 

[Hyperspace05]

I liked Lang too... Even though I realize he was playing an obvious villain. I cannot remember seeing Lang in a previous film, but I will be sure to look out for him in the future.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I liked Lang too... Even though I realize he was playing an obvious villain. I cannot remember seeing Lang in a previous film, but I will be sure to look out for him in the future.

He was just in The Men Who Stare at Goats, which was the only other movie I've ever seen him in. He was pretty good in that one too, and played another hard-edged military guy, of the other slightly satrical sort. Funny story: When I went to see Men Who Stare at Goats with my friend the box office dude gave us 3-D glasses. For a second I was like, "Woah, Goats in 3-D?!" until he realized he obviously gave us glasses for the wrong movie.