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

[Trekker4747]

I'm sick of people bringing up Avatar's box office as a reason it should win Oscars. The amount of money it made has absolutely no bearing on its quality. Were that the case, Transformers 2 should have had a Best Picture nomination as well.

This, money is not quality. If that were the case, should the Transformer movies had wom Oscars? BS.

Avatar was a good movie, it furthers the craft of film-making, and it was well made. But it wasn't that substansive. I've not seen "The Hurt Locker" but I gather from reviews and others who've seen in that it was a "deeper" movie. Just because Avatar made 2-Billion dollars doesn't mean it's worthy of an Oscar.

Such thinking is:

 

[stj]

It may be that Hurt Locker is suffering by misplaced praise by stupid and emotionally stunted reviewers. It's not the way I'd bet, unfortunately. So I can't say that I feel much interest in watching the movie for myself, because the reviews praise Hurt Locker for its tight focus on war as addiction to thrills, abstracting from political concerns.

But, war is not an addiction. It is not caused by masculine lust for thrills. Christian beliefs condemning Islam are a major factor in what actually happens on the ground in Iraq. Why soldiers must go thousands of mile to another country is inescapably part of the story. And if you don't tell any part of that story, you're not honestly telling the story at all. The reviews praise Hurt Locker for being morally obtuse, but unencumbered by intellectual integrity, such as noticing that the US government has savagely attacked the Iraqi people for decades.

Avatar's feeling that a decent human being would respond to such an invasion by joining the other side, is by contrast at least an honest and understandable human emotion. It's also why Avatar did not win Best Picture. I'm quite certain people loved Hurt Locker, it's much, much safer.

Jake is not heroic enough for the people who want their Mighty Whity trope. The Pocahontas love story doesn't follow through on the cliches (e.g., no Billy Zane on Pandora,) enough to get all three hankies wet. True, God comes to the rescue but it's not because Jake is so pure or self sacrificing, so it feels unearned. It's amazingly exactly the movie doesn't even intend for Jake to be The Chosen One. The problem with Avatar is that Cameron can make up Eywa, but since Eywa doesn't exist, it calls into question the resolution of the movie. But no one dare question religion, so we get hundreds of pages of nonsense posing as criticism.

 

[Harvey]

You could take The Hurt Locker to task for not having a broader focus. It doesn't care one bit about the ideological origins of the war nor the history of American intervention in Iraq. The closest moment to a political statement is when the main character opens fire on an Iraqi driving a car, and afterwards states, (I paraphrase) "If he wasn't an insurgent before he sure is one now." But that moment primarily serves to portray the lead character as a losse cannon, not to make a political statement.

Mostly, it's an action picture that happens to be set in Iraq in 2004, although it has little interest, even, in fidelity to that period. It is also extremely well-crafted (it's a triumph of film editing and sound design, and it was justly rewarded for that work during last night's ceremony). But I doubt the latter would interest you, so I wouldn't waste your time with it.

Personally, I would have preferred Tarantino's film or the Coen Brother's film over it, but the Oscars rarely give me what I want.

 

[RoJoHen]

Yeah, "The Hurt Locker" really wasn't about the war, nor did it have anything to really do with politics. The war was just used as a setting.

 

[Trekker4747]

Personally, I would have preferred Tarantino's film or the Coen Brother's film over it, but the Oscars rarely give me what I want.

As the philosopher Jagger once said, "You can't always get what you want."

 

[Blue_Trek]

It may be important for some people but AFAIC in terms of war movies I've seen better and I'm still scratching my head over how Saving Private Ryan didn't win and say what you want about the Hurt Locker but I thought Spielberg's film to be more involving and memorable than the one-note Hurt Locker.

Made more money too.

Saving Private Ryan was robbed big time, there is no question on that one.

 

[Bishbot]

This, money is not quality. If that were the case, should the Transformer movies had wom Oscars? BS.

Actually they should have. Transformers 1 should have won for visual effects in 2008 and Transformers 2 should have been nominated for the same category in 2010. Just because the films themselves are less than great doesn't mean that the Academy should snobbishly fail to acknowledge the one piece of artistry in them that was pretty much beyond reproach. The Golden Compass indeed...

 

[T'Baio]

Transformers 1 is debatable, but Transformers 2 did not deserve a nomination. It did very little to build on what was done in the first film. It was most likely made using engines and software already developed...hardly Oscar worthy.

 

[Kegg]

Mostly, it's an action picture that happens to be set in Iraq in 2004, although it has little interest, even, in fidelity to that period. It is also extremely well-crafted (it's a triumph of film editing and sound design, and it was justly rewarded for that work during last night's ceremony). But I doubt the latter would interest you, so I wouldn't waste your time with it.

Personally, I would have preferred Tarantino's film or the Coen Brother's film over it, but the Oscars rarely give me what I want.

I pretty much exactly agree with that.

But, war is not an addiction. It is not caused by masculine lust for thrills.

The film is more of a grunt's eye view than the governments; so the 'why we fight' of the story isn't why America invaded, but why the soldiers (in particular the lead) do what they do. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that some of them do it for the adrenaline rush and the job satisfaction of being the best bomb defuser around, but I'd also avow complete ignorance on this subject (if there's one thing I find very foreign about America, it is the marines and the army and that ethos.)

 

[Deckerd]

I haven't seen it. Is it better than Generation Kill?

 

[Harvey]

^^
No. Not in my eyes.

 

[Caliburn24]

^I've seen both and I liked Generation Kill more.

But then again I went on several hundred EOD missions while in Iraq(As part of their escort) and got to see how they work in reality. On the other hand I was not there for the initial invasion of Iraq.

So Generation Kill seems much more realistic to me then The Hurt Locker, which goes wildly off the rails at times. It doesn't hurt that Generation Kill is also more entertaining.

 

[Deckerd]

I'll never be able to listen to Minnie Ripperton again without bursting out laughing.

 

[Blue_Trek]

I was reading an article that said they feel they left some money on the table so they are going to re-release it later this year when IMAX is free, with new scenes, call it the directors cut. Good for another 100 million, lol.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, about ten minutes more - there's evidently about forty minutes of cut footage, but 170 minutes is the max length for IMAX 3D at this point.

Can't wait to see the new stuff.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

I've seen Gen Kill and Hurt Locker... HL is not "that" far off, but lets face it, it's a 90min movie. You cannot be that accurate with it... war really is 99% boredom and 1% stark terror.

Both were very good films and I liked both for different reasons.

 

[D Man]

Yeah, about ten minutes more - there's evidently about forty minutes of cut footage, but 170 minutes is the max length for IMAX 3D at this point.

Can't wait to see the new stuff.

Right on, me neither. Do you happen to know if that IMAX time limit is a hardware issue, or just one of those nebulous "rules"? I'd be happy to watch a hilariously long cut of Avatar, but I can see where theaters wouldn't want really long films. Harder to schedule, and can't fit in as many showings.

 

[Hyperspace05]

There was a hard limit of 170 minutes for IMAX film projection. Digital IMAX does not have that limitation. (but it not as high quality)

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

I've written off the Oscars a long time ago, it's mostly a political/popularity contest among Hollywood insiders. My guess is that 1. they hate sci fi films as evidenced by the continued snubbing and 2. I think they're still POed at Cameron for his "I'm King of the World!" announcement when he won for Titanic and it's payback.

Here's a crazy, naive notion:
They may have liked Hurt Locker.

Anyone think that was important?

It may be important for some people but AFAIC in terms of war movies I've seen better and I'm still scratching my head over how Saving Private Ryan didn't win and say what you want about the Hurt Locker but I thought Spielberg's film to be more involving and memorable than the one-note Hurt Locker.

Easy. Saving Private Ryan was up against The Thin Red Line at the time. the Thin Red Line had it's critics and was more...slower than Private Ryan but equally as good, if not a little mundane. It split the votes, some going for the Thin Red Line, others for Saving Private Ryan. You also had a very strong year in 'historical films' as Elizabeth, Life is Beautiful and Shakespeare in Love were also all nominated. Life is Beautiful is another World War II, thus diluting the subject a little more. It doesn't hurt either that all of these were very strong movies, all equally deserving.

I've also noticed that...well there's been a lull in the quality of movies lately. I mean to me there hasn't been a year like 1998 in a while.

1999 was a bit strong with American Beauty, Cider House Rules, the Green Mile, the Insider and the Sixth Sense but...I don't know something feels off.

2000 wasn't a strong year either, nor 2001.

2002? 2003?

2004 was okay.

2005, meh. 2006 eh. 2007 meh.

2008 was weak. And 2009 even expanding it didn't really help.

 

[Blue_Trek]

This comes out to rent on April 22, it will still be in some cheap theaters, an maybe even some odd IMAX's.

I wonder if the DVD will do as good numbers as the theater did?