criterionforum.org

I'm really looking forward to this. Cinematic masterpiece? No, but I've always enjoyed Cameron's movies--the guy is a good storyteller. The evil corporation that puts profits above humanity (or tall blue felines) isn't anything new--Aliens anyone?--but Cameron's entire career has been about telling familiar storylines in a compelling (for his fans, anyway) manner. And at the risk of damning him with faint praise, he's certainly better at it than George Lucas.

Manohla Dargis, incidentally, gives it a glowing review.

No doubt about it, Avatar is a must-see, but you have to see it in 3-D! I just returned from a screening and the use of CGI and 3-D is simply awe-inspiring. I especially appreciated the care that they put into the Na'vi people's facial expressions, so that they come alive as characters. The 3-D avoids overdoing the in-your-lap gimmicks and gives you a visceral, immsersive impression of Pandora. Really, the film flies by at two hours and forty minutes.

Sure you can criticize aspects of the script, but I got a kick out of Cameron's rather obvious critique of corporate colonialism and the destruction of natural resources.

I'll definitely see this one again, preferably in Imax.

The story and characters are thinly drawn and simplistic, yet when it really matters, Cameron finds apt and beautiful images that work as emotional shorthands. It's funny; for vast portions of this film Cameron throws in everything and says nothing, but elsewhere he says a huge amount with a small detail.

It's a cartoon based around firmly established archetypes, but the world that's been conjured is wondrous. The 3D lives up to the hype. It's stunning when it needs to be, and the sense of depth to onscreen objects is more convincing than in any other application of the technique I've ever seen.

Like jsteffe I dug the incredibly obvious and simplistic yet sincere critique at the heart of the film. Hearing a mother discussing environmentalism with a bunch of kids in the foyer after the film made me willing to forgive a lot.

For all of the flaws in the storytelling in the rest of the film, the final quarter is masterful.

Cde. wrote:Like jsteffe I dug the incredibly obvious and simplistic yet sincere critique at the heart of the film. Hearing a mother discussing environmentalism with a bunch of kids in the foyer after the film made me willing to forgive a lot.

That's nice anecdote. While watching the film, I noticed that people in the audience were also picking up on the "war on terror" subtext and throwaway references to things such as "shock and awe." I say if Cameron succeeds in reaching viewers who don't usually think about such things, more power to him!

jsteffe wrote:[ While watching the film, I noticed that people in the audience were also picking up on the "war on terror" subtext and throwaway references to things such as "shock and awe." I say if Cameron succeeds in reaching viewers who don't usually think about such things, more power to him!

Heh. Isn't that basically Cameron referencing himself? Ironically, I'm pretty sure a lot of these "dumb" military catchphrases were popularized by Cameron in the 80s. Paxson's character in Aliens probably accounts for 80% of today's military buzzwords...

jojo wrote:Heh. Isn't that basically Cameron referencing himself? Ironically, I'm pretty sure a lot of these "dumb" military catchphrases were popularized by Cameron in the 80s. Paxson's character in Aliens probably accounts for 80% of today's military buzzwords...

There's no small irony in all this, as you so astutely observed. You could argue that films like The Terminator have had a catastrophic impact on American politics. Heck, isn't The Terminator now the governor of California? It's certainly true of the Dirty Harry films as well.

I see such films as crystalizing enduring aspects of the American psyche, perhaps even appealing reflexively to the reptilian core of our brains, which is why they resonate with the public. But by giving these aspects concrete and memorable expression, filmmakers such as Cameron have provided politicians with a ready-made vocabulary to activate those same reptilian centers in the minds of the voting public. It wouldn't suprise me if Cameron himself has even thought about this very problem since then.

Did Cameron run out of money (if that's possible) after reworking the first act? There are some really distracting CGI shots of non-alien actors (and really fake-looking soldiers walking by as well) that just looked uncanny crappy. The main part was gorgeous, however. (I watched it in 2D first and will check out the 3D version as well.)

So, since I'm skimming to avoid spoilers, can I assume that the "Real 3-D" version is better than the Imax 3-D version (and they're both better than the "regular" version)? Because one of the local theaters seems to have gone for every version of Avatar known to humankind.

One consideration: I wear glasses (*cough* bifocals *cough*), and I haven't seen 3-D in a theater yet.

Imax 3D is the real thing, trust me.

lady wakasa wrote:So, since I'm skimming to avoid spoilers, can I assume that the "Real 3-D" version is better than the Imax 3-D version (and they're both better than the "regular" version)? Because one of the local theaters seems to have gone for every version of Avatar known to humankind.

One consideration: I wear glasses (*cough* bifocals *cough*), and I haven't seen 3-D in a theater yet.

"Real 3-D" is an inferior 3D system, one loses a degree of brightness and color. Dolby 3D or Imax 3D are both superior I think.

lady wakasa wrote:So, since I'm skimming to avoid spoilers, can I assume that the "Real 3-D" version is better than the Imax 3-D version (and they're both better than the "regular" version)?

My friend saw the Real 3D and the 2D version and preferred the 2D (though he didn't like the movie much either way).

solaris72 wrote:"Real 3-D" is an inferior 3D system, one loses a degree of brightness and color. Dolby 3D or Imax 3D are both superior I think.

If your RealD cinema is properly calibrated (and a lot aren't) then loss of light is not an issue.
James Cameron edited the film wearing RealD glasses, so colour should be fine provided the brightness is correct.

It looked pretty amazing to me on a RealD system.
To me, the 3D in IMAX tends to look more like an assemblage of cardboard pop-outs than a representation of objects with depth and volume, but a lot of people think it's the best system.

lady wakasa wrote:One consideration: I wear glasses (*cough* bifocals *cough*), and I haven't seen 3-D in a theater yet.

Dolby 3D uses expensive, bulky glasses, and while the 3D effect they create is good (maybe the best of all the systems) I think they would be pretty uncomfortable sitting over bifocals. I think RealD glasses would be the best bet. I saw it with someone who wears glasses and had never seen a 3D film before and they had zero problems wearing the RealD-wear.
Some IMAX glasses are huge and comfortable, while others dig into the head a little, so you have to be careful there.

To me, Avatar was like a big dumbed-down remake of The New World, with aliens.

While I had problems with the storyline, it's undeniably beautiful. I enjoyed being plunged into such a lush and imaginative world, and I was able to accept the look and feel of the Na'vi much more easily than I thought I would. It wasn't an entire waste of almost 3 hours.
However, as much I appreciated in theory certain themes that the movie projected, they were related in such a clunky manner that it distanced me from any kind of emotional involvement in the story. As others have complained, the dialogue was really bad, and Sam Worthington inexplicably has fooled a whole lot of people into thinking that he is an appealing actor. Also, the movie was littered with unrealistic/illogical developments and plotholes, even within the constraints of the reality this fantasy film offered. And...I don't know how much to read into this...but it's disappointing to see yet another movie in which a white man arrives to save a race of helpless "savages". Walking out of the 3D IMAX theatre in a state of lippitude, I couldn't get that thought out of my head, and I wonder if anyone else felt the same...

As an aside -and I think kaujot would appreciate this- the font for the subtitles looked incredibly cheesy.

Thanks all for the info... although I can see there's no general agreement here, either!

I read a little more about the technologies, and while I'm leaning in one direction I'll probably make my final mind up when I get to the theater (or call them about it).

Of course, there's the little matter off the snow dumped here yesterday to get around first...

lady wakasa wrote: Of course, there's the little matter off the snow dumped here yesterday to get around first...

Heh. Last night, the theatre parking lot was the biggest clustercuss imaginable.

I kind of chuckled to myself when I saw twenty inches falling outside my window and thought, "That's not going to help Avatar's box office at all." And now I realize how sad it is that this is the first thing that came to mind, and not "WOW, SNOWWWWWWWW!"

It could have been worse - you could have been impressed by the ultra realistic 3D effect of the falling snowflakes!

$73 million opening weekend gross. Unless it gains next week (fat chance), this thing won't make much more than twice that in America. Whoops

Titanic only grossed $28 million on its opening weekend and it turned out pretty okay.

Domino, you're failing to account for the fact that teenage Nav'i girls are going to see this over and over and over...

Titanic was a perfect storm of appeal to women, teenagers, adults, everyone-- Avatar has a far far more limited range of audience. They do not compare on any level other than Cameron's involvement

EDIT: Ha, Swo's got me there. Furries turned out for Death to Smoochy too, right

domino harvey wrote:Titanic was a perfect storm of appeal to women, teenagers, adults, everyone-- Avatar has a far far more limited range of audience. They do not compare on any level other than Cameron's involvement

EDIT: Ha, Swo's got me there. Furries turned out for Death to Smoochy too, right

I dunno, this might appeal to women, too. Someone I know took his two daughters on opening day, and they connected with the love story. I suspect the film's appeal is more universal than you're allowing. But time--and numbers--will tell.

Just because it contains a love story doesn't mean it's of Titanic stature-- there really hasn't been anything equal to that film's mass appeal since, and two giant kittens nuzzling necks definitely ain't gonna match it. You really don't need time to predict that.

Worldwide grosses are out: a little over $230 mil total. That's definitely a better number. I still would be shocked if it makes enough to even break even for what it allegedly cost, much less its actual cost

Avatar will not overtake Titanic any more than Gordon Brown will win the UK general election, and both failures will give me no small amount of satisfaction.

Manohla's rave helped the box office immensely