Cameron's Avatar...

[Paul D]

Saw the 3D version last night, and agree with just about everything redshift says. A nice looking piece of fluff.

Are the 2D and 3D films identical? I got the feeling there was a lot of poor camerawork-type shots just to emphasise the 3D, like pointless zoom shots. Are they in the 2D film too? I guess so.  

[rogerzilla]

However bad Cameron's Avatar is, I bet it's not as bad as "V Vankhead's" new one.

[LEE]

But the bluefellas say "woah" and fall in lurve (awwww), the faun was a right little bastard. 

The Faun in Pan's Labyrinth was pretending to be a bastard.

[Wascally Weasel]

Saw it yesterday and while reasonably impressed with the visual effects, thought that the story was, erm, light to the point of absent.

It's enjoyable, a great spectacle, just not that brilliant a film.  I saw it in 3D but this doesn't really work with my eyesight (I don't have true binocular vision, have astigmatism amongst other eye defects - oddly enough they mostly cancel out so that I can see reasonably well without glasses but most 3D stuff doesn't work for me - I was seeing it with other people who do get the benefit of 3D effects or I would have seen it in 2D).

I agree with others that it plays largely like a sci-fi remake of A Man Called Horse/Dances with Wolves (Wes Studi even plays (by 3D capture) one of the Native Americans aliens).

There's a lot 'noble savage in tune with nature' stuff but supposedly with science to back it up so that we don't all end up shouting "Die, space hippies!" at the screen.

My feeling was that this could have been done as an animated film for a fraction of the cost and it wouldn't have been any worse for it.

[GlasgowDave]

My feeling was that this could have been done as an animated film for a fraction of the cost and it wouldn't have been any worse for it.

They did, see Fern Gulley...

I thought the environmental stuff was incredibly heavy handed. I can see a point without being beaten around the head with it so often that I'm crying out "Die blue alien scum"

Pretty, dull in bits, and very preachy

Dave

[tonycollinet]

Hot smurfs.

...er...



No.  reaally no.

No, she is.

Just got back and I loved it. I went expecting only to see eye candy - and there was plenty of that. The whole film *looks* gorgeous.

However, I also loved the whole film. It is not massively intelligent true, but then I've never needed masses of intelligence to enjoy a film*. As a piece of fantastic escapist entertainment, it is superb. I also (strangely) found it quite emotional (I must be shallow).

Definitely one of the best films I have seen this year.

PS - dances with smurfs is an episode of southpark



*lucky - because I don't have masses  

[citoyen]

I heard someone say the story is more or less... 'Dances with smurfs'.  

"Smurf-ahontas" was another name I heard for it. And "Fern Gully In Space".

d.

[FatBloke]

Have just seen the 3D version of this.

WOW!  

[LEE]

I'm going to see it on Tuesday, 12:15, in 3D.

Watch this space

[FatBloke]

Watch this space

           
             
             
               

[LEE]

I'm going to see it on Tuesday, 12:15, in 3D.

Watch this space

What's not to like about this film?

OK, it's fantasy/Sci-Fi so, if you can't suspend disbelief, then you will spend the entire film saying "How can mountains float?" but, if you can lose yourself in a film then it's simply amazing.

They story is an old one (and a more recent one), it's Europeans' colonization of <insert name of country here> meets the battle for Iraqi oil.

The CGI is beyond belief and 3D really does make a difference I think.

If I lived near an IMAX then I'd pay whatever it cost to see it in IMAX.  Roger Dean (of YES album covers) would have had a stiffy just watching the visuals, it's beautiful and stunning.  The attention to (CGI) detail is mind-blowing.

I doubt I'll ever feel the need to watch it again, the story is only good enough for one 3 hour viewing, but any movie buff should see it in 3D for the sheer spectacle.

9/10 (Because I'd read many reviews that made it sound a lot worse than it actually is, so I got a very pleasant surprise.)

[woollypigs]

Just back and feck me was that good, didn't notice that it was 2h30+ long, fantastic!

(click to show/hide)

So they are under attack from humans who fly in helicopter like flying things, they are ABOVE the humans on the flying mountains. Is it just me who had the idea of using the rock that makes these flying mountains to throw down onto these flying helicopter things ?

Though that would just make a 5min battle

Go see it now.

[David Martin]

(click to show/hide)

So they are under attack from humans who fly in helicopter like flying things, they are ABOVE the humans on the flying mountains. Is it just me who had the idea of using the rock that makes these flying mountains to throw down onto these flying helicopter things ?

Though that would just make a 5min battle

Yebbut it's floating rock so you chuck it sown and it just comes up again.. Like throwing non floating rock into the air.

[woollypigs]

Doh why didn't I think about the reverse Newton law

[gonzo]

They story is an old one (and a more recent one), it's Europeans' colonization of <insert name of country here> meets the battle for Iraqi oil.

It looked to me like it was written by Wilbur smith on an acid trip. Replace the tall lanky blue things with short African San* and it's the same story (apart from the gun ships and flying beasties). [Language was very similar, rescources was gold/diamonds, poisoned arrows being primary weapon, very similar religion and organisational structure]

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen

edit - the film was pretty good though. The 3D is clearly still an effect rather than a part of the story telling process though. What I found strange was only being able to focus on what the camera person wanted you to focus on!

[mrcharly-YHT]

Just seen it with wife and kids.

(click to show/hide)

It gets a thumbs up, although at one point I thought it was going to totally disappear down the militaristic crap line and have the  nice blue people winning, arrows against guns.

Sigourney looks like she's enjoying herself.

Michelle is a hot chick in uniform again.

[Hummers]

Loved it.

Went to see it with the Family Hummers and Mrs H, who was all set to huff and puff her way through the 3D adverts to the credits, really enjoyed it.

Yes, it was 'Dances with Smurfs' but I do not think that makes it a bad thing.

H

[Flying_Monkey]

I thought it was beautiful crap. I want more out of cinema that just pretty pictures.

When, when, when are SF films going to approach even half the intelligence and imagination of good SF writing? Much like George Lucas, Cameron can't do characters, narrative or dialogue so you are left with 'concept', cliches and (amazing) visuals.

[redshift]

FM, as far as I can tell, it's the difference between directors from a 'technical' background, and directors from an acting/performance background.  Cameron, Lucas and the Scotts do fantastic concept/art/visuals, but don't appear to know a good performance from an indifferent one.  Spielberg cocks it up from time to time too, but as long as there's an obsession with the tech, these people will be first in the queue for film money.  Avatar was openly a 'proof of concept' rather than story or performance driven.

Even working on something as 'simple' as a soap, it's easy to see which directors are technically-oriented, and which performance-oriented.  (And which ones simply shouldn't be allowed to direct, but that's another conversation.     )

[citoyen]

When, when, when are SF films going to approach even half the intelligence and imagination of good SF writing? Much like George Lucas, Cameron can't do characters, narrative or dialogue so you are left with 'concept', cliches and (amazing) visuals.

Hmm, there's a question of definition here. Is Avatar even sci-fi? Star Wars certainly isn't - it's fantasy, or maybe even a Western set in space. It has more in common with Lord of the Rings than Blade Runner. Just because a story is set in space and/or the future and/or has aliens in it, that doesn't automatically make it sci-fi in my book. I know popular opinion says otherwise, but I don't care!

But in any case, whether or not you regard Star Wars as sci-fi, it's an error to use Star Wars as a yardstick by which to judge sci-fi films as a genre. Intelligent, imaginative sci-fi films do exist.

d.

[woollypigs]

well it is an old story

[mattc]

I thought it was beautiful crap. I want more out of cinema that just pretty pictures.

When, when, when are SF films going to approach even half the intelligence and imagination of good SF writing? Much like George Lucas, Cameron can't do characters, narrative or dialogue so you are left with 'concept', cliches and (amazing) visuals.

Probably the day after the literary world takes the books seriously.

[most award-winning SF (e.g. Margaret Atwood's stuff) has been marketed as 'mainstream' )

[Flying_Monkey]

But in any case, whether or not you regard Star Wars as sci-fi, it's an error to use Star Wars as a yardstick by which to judge sci-fi films as a genre. Intelligent, imaginative sci-fi films do exist.

Um, I certainly don't regard Star Wars as a yardstick. I think I made that pretty clear.

And yes, of course Avatar is SF. It may be many other things as well, but none of those rule out its being SF, just as Alien is a Horror pic (well a haunted house story) as well as an SF pic.

And there really aren't that many intelligent, imaginative SF films compared to the number of intelligent, imaginative SF novels - which was my original point really. They also tend to be low budget and not much seen like The Quiet Earth, Primer, Pi, or most recently, Moon. 2001, Bladerunner, Alien, Brazil and Twelve Monkeys are the only big budget and moderately clever SF films I can think of of the top of my head. I suppose you can include Total Recall and Starship Troopers if you can give Verhoeven the benefit of the doubt... but they are really caricatures of decent SF rather than seriously good.

In contrast look what happened to William Gibson's work. Keanu Reeves in Jonny Mnemonic... I rest my case! 

[mattc]

FM:

You need a decent budget to make SF (well, all other things being equal etc ...).

Intelligent movies tend to have a narrow audience => less profit => low budget.

So really, although I share your disappointment, it really is a pretty inevitable situation. At least until the public show a larger appetite for intelligent SF.

[citoyen]

I think I made that pretty clear.

Maybe I'm just being dense but it wasn't clear to me. You mentioned the lack of intelligence and imagination in SF films and made reference to Cameron and Lucas, which suggested to me that you were intending Star Wars as an example. But I'm being picky. It's not important.

And yes, of course Avatar is SF. It may be many other things as well, but none of those rule out its being SF, just as Alien is a Horror pic (well a haunted house story) as well as an SF pic.

Sorry, me not making myself clear now... it was a genuine question. I've not seen Avatar so I really don't know whether it's genuine sci-fi or just space opera.

And there really aren't that many intelligent, imaginative SF films compared to the number of intelligent, imaginative SF novels - which was my original point really. They also tend to be low budget and not much seen like...

Well, you could say that about films generally, not just SF.

By the way, Total Recall is a truly great film - for a Hollywood action blockbuster. Starship Troopers is pretty good too, even though the allegorical message is somewhat transparent. And I think you rather underrate Brazil, which is better than "moderately clever" - it's totally brilliant.

In contrast look what happened to William Gibson's work. Keanu Reeves in Jonny Mnemonic... I rest my case! 

Gibson is partly responsible for that himself, since he wrote the screenplay. But surely all that proves is that his books don't translate well into films. Which probably explains why it's taken so long to make Neuromancer. Yet Blade Runner, which has many similarities to Neuromancer, is generally regarded as the best sci-fi film ever. Also look at the superb and rather Gibson-esque Videodrome. (I know Cronenberg isn't generally considered sci-fi, but I'd argue that much of his work has far more right to be called sci-fi than anything George Lucas has done.)

d.