If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Whatever) Spiffy SF writer John Scalzi reviews "Avatar," finds it visually impressive, and "unlike, say, George Lucas, Cameron actually does attempt to tell a story and to give his actors something else to do except stand there"   (whatever.scalzi.com) divider line 195
More: Spiffy, George Lucas, John Scalzi, Zoe Saldana, 3d movies, computer animation, Roger Ebert, movie directors, computer-generated imagery  
•       •       •

2244 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 21 Dec 2009 at 1:16 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



195 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-21 01:18:47 PM
Great movie, one of the best I've seen in many years.

Call the story simplistic if you like, but it was very nice and straightforward, and I found that refreshing.

It was 2:42 long, and I honestly wished it had been longer. It was immense and beautiful.
 
2009-12-21 01:19:03 PM
I didn't think George Lucas used actors anymore.
 
2009-12-21 01:19:38 PM
I think that the ewoks could kick 'the peoples' asses. Look at the facts, the ewoks took on the EMPIRE, where 'the people' only took on future marines working for a lousy company.
 
2009-12-21 01:20:20 PM
Good Behavior Day: I didn't think George Lucas used actors anymore.

George Lucas doesn't even use himself anymore; he has replaced himself with a CGI robot.
 
2009-12-21 01:21:12 PM
no, this movie was "hyped" and you are not allowed to enjoy it.
 
2009-12-21 01:24:00 PM
Did he subtitle the review "The Rough Guide to Brown-Nosing James Cameron?"
 
2009-12-21 01:26:02 PM
Oops! Wrong thread!
 
2009-12-21 01:30:28 PM
If you haven't done already, check out the 70 minute long review of The Phantom Menace on YouTube.

The guy found plotholes in that movie that even I hadn't spotted.

FormlessOne: Did he subtitle the review "The Rough Guide to Brown-Nosing James Cameron?"

Have you ever seen a bad James Cameron movie? I haven't and I've seen all of them but Pirahna 2.
 
2009-12-21 01:32:19 PM
Visually stunning, story was straightforward, not overly complex but still gets you involved emotionally. One of the best movies I've seen in years. Wow.
 
2009-12-21 01:33:21 PM
Considering James Cameron's work, did anybody really think this would suck? I mean, it obviously wasn't going to be a terribly original piece of work, but did you really think that the guy who farking dominated action movies of his day would cock up? I mean, his worst films were things like True Lies and The Abyss - both very good movies by their own right.

He ain't Shakespeare, but he's not Michael Bay either.
 
2009-12-21 01:37:28 PM
Troll Headlines get insta-greens more and more these days.
 
2009-12-21 01:38:29 PM
This:
He ain't Shakespeare, but he's not Michael Bay either.


I'm sorry, could rephrase that with more things exploding, please?
 
2009-12-21 01:39:54 PM
myspamhere: I think that the ewoks could kick 'the peoples' asses. Look at the facts, the ewoks took on the EMPIRE, where 'the people' only took on future marines working for a lousy company.

The ewoks took out imperial storm troopers with inconsequential armor that was white (great camo there in a jungle setting) that can't hit the broad side of a barn and have a superiority complex (you're never more vulnerable when you think yourself invincible).

The only reason they're still alive is because Chewie knew how to work an AT-ST.
 
2009-12-21 01:42:35 PM
What, the haters haven't shown up in giant slobbering droves yet?

I'll check back later.
 
2009-12-21 01:44:00 PM
The criticisms are all valid, but this movie was the most visually mind-blowing thing I've ever seen. Awesomeness to the 10th power.

/See it in 3-D or don't see it at all.
 
2009-12-21 01:44:17 PM
This thread is now about if ewoks ran the corporation, would they have lost.......GO.
 
2009-12-21 01:44:20 PM
farkeruk: If you haven't done already, check out the 70 minute long review of The Phantom Menace on YouTube.

The guy found plotholes in that movie that even I hadn't spotted.

FormlessOne: Did he subtitle the review "The Rough Guide to Brown-Nosing James Cameron?"

Have you ever seen a bad James Cameron movie? I haven't and I've seen all of them but Pirahna 2.


Yes. Just because he has a reputation for good movies doesn't make this one suck any less. Imagine applying your logic to, say, George Lucas. Or Steven Spielberg.

Nor does the astroturf push improve it - over the last few days, the sudden uptick in "Avatar"-related links pushing a positive spin for the flick is noticeable, not just for the quantity, but for the quality as well.
 
2009-12-21 01:44:56 PM
img121.imageshack.us

"LOL this is the part where the script says we have to act like we are falling in love even though I am a whiny douchebag and your acting in this movie sucks."
 
2009-12-21 01:45:55 PM
FormlessOne: farkeruk: If you haven't done already, check out the 70 minute long review of The Phantom Menace on YouTube.

The guy found plotholes in that movie that even I hadn't spotted.

FormlessOne: Did he subtitle the review "The Rough Guide to Brown-Nosing James Cameron?"

Have you ever seen a bad James Cameron movie? I haven't and I've seen all of them but Pirahna 2.

Yes. Just because he has a reputation for good movies doesn't make this one suck any less. Imagine applying your logic to, say, George Lucas. Or Steven Spielberg.

Nor does the astroturf push improve it - over the last few days, the sudden uptick in "Avatar"-related links pushing a positive spin for the flick is noticeable, not just for the quantity, but for the quality as well.


does it feel good to hat everything, no exceptions. Astroturf....you never go full retard man.
 
2009-12-21 01:49:32 PM
One of the things that I've yet to see reviewers comment on is the level of detail of dust, pollen, bugs, etc. in the air in the Pandoran forests. The first time I saw that yesterday, in 3D, it was amazing and made me really feel like I was there. It will be a decent enough movie to watch at home on Blu-ray, but everyone should make an effort to watch it in 3D. It really is worth it.
 
2009-12-21 01:51:04 PM
The thing that disappointed me about Avatar was that the plot was *exactly* what I guessed it would be at about the five minute mark. Visually arresting and completely engrossing, but literally the most predictable movie I've ever seen. I guess with all the positive reviews, I thought there would be more complexity.
 
2009-12-21 01:51:08 PM
This:

He ain't Shakespeare, but he's not Michael Bay either.


Pretty much. It's "Pocahontas in Space." I think the anti-Bush Doctrine slams (which aren't exactly subtle) will help the box office overseas.
 
2009-12-21 01:51:09 PM
Brostorm: FormlessOne: farkeruk: If you haven't done already, check out the 70 minute long review of The Phantom Menace on YouTube.

The guy found plotholes in that movie that even I hadn't spotted.

FormlessOne: Did he subtitle the review "The Rough Guide to Brown-Nosing James Cameron?"

Have you ever seen a bad James Cameron movie? I haven't and I've seen all of them but Pirahna 2.

Yes. Just because he has a reputation for good movies doesn't make this one suck any less. Imagine applying your logic to, say, George Lucas. Or Steven Spielberg.

Nor does the astroturf push improve it - over the last few days, the sudden uptick in "Avatar"-related links pushing a positive spin for the flick is noticeable, not just for the quantity, but for the quality as well.

does it feel good to hat everything, no exceptions. Astroturf....you never go full retard man.


If that's the best you can do, take a walk. I enjoyed Avatar's CGI and approach - the "white guilt in space" bit has been overplayed, though, and "District 9" did a much better job of approaching a similar story. Simply put, it's a meh movie with good CGI, as I've stated before.

The annoying part of this is realizing somebody in the marketing department flicked a switch and said "quick, push this on the web, because we're getting killed in other media."
 
2009-12-21 01:53:22 PM
Of course he tells a story. Granted it's a clichéd, unoriginal, ham-fisted lecture of a story where there is absolutely no grey area. But it's there.

Not a bad movie by any stretch. More of a 3D glorified Disney film. Works in that niche.

Oh, and there's really awkward 300-style sex smack dab in the middle of it. Bring the kids.
 
2009-12-21 01:53:36 PM
Kaeishiwaza: The thing that disappointed me about Avatar was that the plot was *exactly* what I guessed it would be at about the five minute mark. Visually arresting and completely engrossing, but literally the most predictable movie I've ever seen. I guess with all the positive reviews, I thought there would be more complexity.

This. Yes, it's a pretty movie, but from a plot standpoint it's a 30-minute Disney cartoon stretched across more than two and a half hours, with added violence. Can't market it to young kids, and adults keep asking "where's the meat," so it's now a "teen flick?"

It's a great display of visual effects, but it's not a good movie.
 
2009-12-21 01:56:01 PM
FormlessOne: It's a great display of visual effects, but it's not a good movie.

That's been pretty much what I've heard, and the main reason I haven't bothered. No amount of special effects can "wow" me.
 
mhd
2009-12-21 01:56:24 PM
Well, I've read Old Man's War. Scalzi really shouldn't complain about predictable stories...

What does Orson Scott Card say about it? Are any of the smurf-elves gay?

/"Smelves"?
 
2009-12-21 01:56:38 PM
Quasar: Of course he tells a story. Granted it's a clichéd, unoriginal, ham-fisted lecture of a story where there is absolutely no grey area. But it's there.

Not a bad movie by any stretch. More of a 3D glorified Disney film. Works in that niche.

Oh, and there's really awkward 300-style sex smack dab in the middle of it. Bring the kids.


For folks claiming it's not marketed to young kids, ask them why you can find toys at McDonald's for the movie. Lots of violence, some sex, and... toys? Really?

I get the feeling that there were changes in both approach and marketing for the movie based on early reviews (and "District 9" kicking their asses) so the message is now muddied.
 
2009-12-21 01:57:54 PM
Kaeishiwaza: I guess with all the positive reviews, I thought there would be more complexity.

Well, that's what the positive reviews flat-out say. Excerpts from Rotten Tomatoes:

"It is cool. But all this "change the way you look at films" hype is just that. While Avatar is impressively seamless, you're never fooled. This doesn't look like a documentary film; it looks like a video game."

"For all the grandeur and technical virtuosity of the mythical 3-D universe Cameron labored for years to perfect, his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected. But for much of the movie, that hardly matters."

"Along with the eye-popping visuals in writer-director James Cameron's sci-fi epic, there's also a lot of eye-rollingly silly stuff."

"As visual spectacle, Avatar is indelible, but as a movie it all but evaporates as you watch it."

"If only Cameron, who also wrote the script, had spent as much time on the story as he did the effects he uses to tell it."

"If your exhilaration with the (approximate) first half is undercut by an increasingly deflating pffffftttt sound, Cameron nonetheless has delivered the screen's most anticipated and persuasive blend of live-action and motion-capture animation to date."

"Did everything make sense? Nope. And you know what? Who cares! Avatar is thrilling, exciting and, best of all, something new that your eyeballs didn't even know they very much wanted to see."

"A movie whose effects are clearly revolutionary, a spectacle that millions will find adventure in. But it nevertheless feels unsatisfying and somehow lacks the pulse of a truly alive film."

Again, not a bad movie by any stretch. Just not particularly good beyond all the spectacle.
 
2009-12-21 01:58:44 PM
I'll probably rent it or something.
 
2009-12-21 01:58:48 PM
A decent flick. But did anyone else feel 3D added nothing to the film?
 
2009-12-21 02:02:17 PM
bravian: A decent flick. But did anyone else feel 3D added nothing to the film?

I liked the 3D, though actually I enjoyed it more in the lab scenes than flying through Pandora itself (primarily because the lab scenes looked more real). Felt like I was really standing in these labs, watching these neat technologies whirring and humming.
 
2009-12-21 02:02:19 PM
farkeruk:
Have you ever seen a bad James Cameron movie? I haven't and I've seen all of them but Pirahna 2.


Titanic? Sucked. Hard.

I rooted for the Iceberg.

/it had the best acting performace in the film.
 
2009-12-21 02:04:33 PM
I felt like it was during the quiet moments where the 3-D really was amazing (moments where the characters were interacting with the environment around them). During the action sequences, the 3-D added little to nothing to the experience. I also think the length of the movie meant an immersion that the left the viewer used the the effect such that I stopped noticing it many times.
 
2009-12-21 02:04:45 PM
I Like Bread: I'll probably rent it or something.

That would completely defeat the purpose. That's like watching the 4th of July fireworks on TV.

bravian: A decent flick. But did anyone else feel 3D added nothing to the film?

I think that was the point. I think Cameron wanted to make 3D just part of the film's effects, rather than the tacky "shiat flying at the camera" crap that marked other 3D films. He wants to make 3D movies the standard in blockbusters, and the first step to doing that is an end to tacky overbearing "ooooooh, I'M REACHING OUT OF THE SCREEN" shenanigans.
 
2009-12-21 02:06:26 PM
It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. They did a good job of blending the CGI & the live action.

The storyline was a little corny & predictable, but not so bad as to ruin the movie.
 
2009-12-21 02:08:49 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: Titanic? Sucked. Hard.

I rooted for the Iceberg.

/it had the best acting performace in the film.


This just in, a farker doesn't like the highest grossing film of all time, and is one of the most award winning films, being awarded 11 Academy Awards.

/to be fair, it didn't win any awards in acting - but still won best picture.
 
2009-12-21 02:10:01 PM
bravian: A decent flick. But did anyone else feel 3D added nothing to the film?

The 3D added some but not much IMO. I have seen it in 2D and 3D. 3D is a gimmick to make people want to watch the movie in a theater rather than just wait for the DVD and/or watch a bootleg copy so that the film can make the money it needs to in order to justify it being made to begin with. Without this you end up with budget movies and, well, crap.

Actually I think the main thing that Cameron did from a technical aspect was that, at least for alien things, he has crossed the uncanny valley.

When watching the movie I bought into the suspension of disbelief of the CGI characters 100% (with a couple exceptions on the eyes of certain characters early in the movie). If he can do this with a near-human alien then CGI human actors are not far behind. Granted, pulling this off with a near-human and a human are miles of difficulty apart. But after seeing this, I finally think we are close to getting there.
 
2009-12-21 02:10:11 PM
farkeruk: Have you ever seen a bad James Cameron movie? I haven't and I've seen all of them but Pirahna 2.

I hated Vanilla Sky, but was actually kind of fond of Elizabethtown.
 
2009-12-21 02:13:01 PM
MrSteve007: Philip Francis Queeg: Titanic? Sucked. Hard.

I rooted for the Iceberg.

/it had the best acting performace in the film.

This just in, a farker doesn't like the highest grossing film of all time, and is one of the most award winning films, being awarded 11 Academy Awards.

/to be fair, it didn't win any awards in acting - but still won best picture.


This just in, farker doesn't believe film awards mean shiat. (Especially when you look at what it was up against)

I thought it was a shiatty movie through and through. I never understood the praise for it.
 
2009-12-21 02:15:20 PM
I Like Bread: I'll probably rent it or something.

This
 
2009-12-21 02:16:56 PM
This: I Like Bread: I'll probably rent it or something.

That would completely defeat the purpose. That's like watching the 4th of July fireworks on TV.

bravian: A decent flick. But did anyone else feel 3D added nothing to the film?

I think that was the point. I think Cameron wanted to make 3D just part of the film's effects, rather than the tacky "shiat flying at the camera" crap that marked other 3D films. He wants to make 3D movies the standard in blockbusters, and the first step to doing that is an end to tacky overbearing "ooooooh, I'M REACHING OUT OF THE SCREEN" shenanigans.


This
 
2009-12-21 02:19:14 PM
12 foot tall blue woman with a prehensile pony tail........

Did Kirk ever bang one?
 
2009-12-21 02:20:56 PM
This is Fark so this movie stinks.

/every movie stinks except for Citizen Kane and a handful of snooty foreign movies.
 
2009-12-21 02:24:57 PM
Wombatzu: no, this movie was "hyped" and you are not allowed to enjoy it.

To be fair, the day they made half an episode of "Bones" into a promo for the film (including nerds getting laid by hot chicks while camping out in line for tickets) was the day they may have crossed into "hype overdrive."

I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it, but their saturation-bomb marketing isn't winning them any points.
 
2009-12-21 02:28:24 PM
Saw the Movie -- Loved the Movie.

Clearly one of the best this year!

For those of you who haven't seen it, think Dances with Wolves on LSD -- but with a great story that makes sense!
 
2009-12-21 02:30:13 PM
chuggernaught: This is Fark so this movie stinks.

/every movie stinks except for Citizen Kane and a handful of snooty foreign movies.


Oh, sure, just because I think Zombi 2 is a cinematic masterpiece, I'm some kind of hipster. You douchebag.
 
2009-12-21 02:30:31 PM
Zombalupagus:
The 3D added some but not much IMO. I have seen it in 2D and 3D. 3D is a gimmick to make people want to watch the movie in a theater rather than just wait for the DVD and/or watch a bootleg copy so that the film can make the money it needs to in order to justify it being made to begin with. Without this you end up with budget movies and, well, crap.

Actually I think the main thing that Cameron did from a technical aspect was that, at least for alien things, he has crossed the uncanny valley.

When watching the movie I bought into the suspension of disbelief of the CGI characters 100% (with a couple exceptions on the eyes of certain characters early in the movie). If he can do this with a near-human alien then CGI human actors are not far behind. Granted, pulling this off with a near-human and a human are miles of difficulty apart. But after seeing this, I finally think we are close to getting there.


The 3D little bugs and foliage were great. As were the 3D cliff edges that set off my fear of heights (first time a movie has tapped into that part of my subconscious). The 3D faces of actual humans were not. It was though their heads were 3d, but their skin and features were not, as if you had taken a picture of a person and stretched it over a sphere. It reminded me of the face textures of, say, the first Quake. So, while we did a great job getting the CGI humanoids over the uncanny valley, we inadvertently put the real people into it. I saw it in IMAX 3D, your 3D mileage may vary.

Regarding the uncanny valley of the Na'vi: in retrospect, I too had suspended disbelief. But, I have to wonder how much of that is due to the intense CGI I've been exposed to since Toy Story and continuing on through the years with the star wars prequels, etc. Has the uncanny valley moved farther toward CGI, so that my brain is now more accepting of imperfection? Or, to put it another way, if you took someone from 1960 and transported them here to watch the film, would they feel the same way?
 
2009-12-21 02:30:37 PM
The Lucas thing is about 2% of the entire review. The rest of the review is fairly decent, but doesn't really add anything to the dozens of similar reviews out there.
 
2009-12-21 02:37:38 PM
Hey... I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen many of the commercials for it, and I have a question... How did they get past the "Aliens don't speak English thing"?

It's an interesting question, and one I feel is (somewhat) indicative of the overall quality of a sci-fi movie, depending on how well they approach the dilemma. I wouldn't call it a deal-breaker, but it gives me an idea of the amount of thought that went into the details of the plot.

Yes... Yes... I know, suspension of disbelief and all that nonsense - but even with things like Universal Translators or bugs (or fish) you put in your ear, and all that kind of stuff, there's still issues to deal with (see: ST:TNG's episode "Darmok")
 
Displayed 50 of 195 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »