criterionforum.org

Looks even more like a videogame than before! Or I guess videogames look more like Avatar than before.

Either way, they've met in the middle.

I wonder how many people that are very casual moviegoers at best will be tempted to see this film like they were with the first. The novelty is probably going to diminish with each of these new films and I'm actually hoping a little bit that this doesn't meet the financial expectations because I really dread the idea of American mainstream cinema turning into nothing but 190 minute cutscenes.

The response to this footage is universally positive, somehow. I’ve learned my lesson and am not betting against this being another hit. I don’t get it either, but collapse of modern society etc

Yeah, I’d be absolutely shocked if this scores less than a billion.

I feel like I'm the only person alive who will still admit to liking this "most successful movie of all time". It has all the flaws and virtues of any Cameron film but the good usually outweighs the bad. Apart from Spielberg, who has lost interest in that type of film, I think he's the greatest living director of special effects driven blockbusters. I recently rewatched Avatar on my projector in 3D and was yet again blown away by it.

Titanic was widely and gleefully tipped to be a gargantuan flop before it opened.

On the subject of three-hour running times for commercial blockbusters, the critic Anne Billson recently wrote that the main reason why she never delved into Indian cinema much was because three-hour running times were the norm rather than the exception. But now that it’s becoming the norm with American films, she’s very tempted to watch more Indian films instead, not least because the ones she has seen (S.S. Rajamouli’s RRR being the one under discussion at the time) were infinitely more entertaining than the latest Marvel bloatfest.

The Curious Sofa wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 7:37 am I feel like I'm the only person alive who will still admit to liking this "most successful movie of all time". It has all the flaws and virtues of any Cameron film but the good usually outweighs the bad. Apart from Spielberg, who has lost interest in that type of film, I think he's the greatest living director of special effects driven blockbusters. I recently rewatched Avatar on my projector in 3D and was yet again blown away by it.

The Chapo Trap House hosts have endless enthusiasm for the movie––Chapo episode 478, "World Tree Center," discusses their decently deep and funny take on the film. They posted the whole ep. on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7CtTo8 ... oTrapHouse

Personally, though? My gripe with the film is totally superficial, but it completely removes it from consideration as a good movie for me. I have always thought the Navi look really, really weird and unappealing––and also I found it hard to pay attention to the story. I've tried to watch it again with this leftist reading in mind, but I still can't get through it the ham-fisted story, the leaden characters, the miserable mis en scene, disappointing dialogue...I feel the same way about the new trailer. It's not the computer animation, per se; it's the aesthetic design of the characters that never worked for me. The way people got into the so-called "beauty" of the first movie, and apparently cried about not being able to live there...I will never understand it.

When I saw the first images of the Navi, I thought they looked goofy but within the context of the film and its environment I was surprised how well they worked. Their execution still holds up incredibly well. I suppose it's a matter of aesthetics and taste, the whole thing looks like the sleeve of a 70s prog rock album come to live, which is fine by me.

Cameron's really leaning hard into the Navi = aboriginal people thing. In the original the link was non-specific enough for some plausible deniability, but now we outright have Navi South Pacific islanders. This series is about to spawn a cottage industry worth of think pieces, isn't it?

The Curious Sofa wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 2:26 pm When I saw the first images of the Navi, I thought they looked goofy but within the context of the film and its environment I was surprised how well they worked. Their execution still holds up incredibly well. I suppose it's a matter of aesthetics and taste, the whole thing looks like the sleeve of a 70s prog rock album come to live, which is fine by me.

To the point where the production got sued by one of said artists.

The Curious Sofa wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 7:37 am I feel like I'm the only person alive who will still admit to liking this "most successful movie of all time". It has all the flaws and virtues of any Cameron film but the good usually outweighs the bad. Apart from Spielberg, who has lost interest in that type of film, I think he's the greatest living director of special effects driven blockbusters. I recently rewatched Avatar on my projector in 3D and was yet again blown away by it.

I've now seen the original twice, and the first time I felt the movie was pretty good, but my expectations were really low based on feedback I got from a fellow cinephile. Seeing again during its re-release in IMAX 3D, I felt that it not only aged well, but whole heartedly agree Cameron makes the best special effects driven blockbusters. The sample footage of Avatar 2 shown before the movie was spellbinding. And all silent!

knives wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:48 pm Yeah, I’d be absolutely shocked if this scores less than a billion.

Especially when one considers how weak its competition is for two months. Aside from DreamWorks' Puss in Boots sequel and the Whitney Houston biopoc this is the only film angled to even try to be a crowd pleaser for broader audiences until the new Ant-Man film in mid-February.

I have literally never even heard of the two films that it’s competing with

Just learned about the Whitney Houston biopic the other day when looking up other movies by Kasi Lemmons after watching Eve's Bayou.

brundlefly wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:40 am Just learned about the Whitney Houston biopic the other day when looking up other movies by Kasi Lemmons after watching Eve's Bayou.

Unfortunately the screenplay's credited to the same guy who wrote The Theory of Everything and Bohemian Rhapsody, two gigantic piles of trash larded with Oscars. Doesn't help that he and Arista's founder/Svengali are also producing.

And quite supposedly the inspiration for Hesh on The Sopranos

If I had to put a finger on what bothers me about this film (series), it’s that it’s trying to be a critique of western imperialism but using an anthropomorphized alien race that are about as foreign as some Californians who like to go hang gliding and scuba diving a lot. They’re also taller and more feline with radiant blue skin— wow tough sell, how will audiences sympathize? (90s Star Trek did great things with anthropomorphized aliens, but wore its limitations on its sleeve being a TV series of the time.) They’re also a hodgepodge of indigenous stereotypes, which while not quite cultural appropriation, is kind of ironic for them (in 3D) to be drawing the highest grossing box office of all time in the west. There’s a strange lack of self awareness to it all. Then you have the environmental message, which is where Pandora comes in, and the only problem with that is that it’s a pristine, wondrous paradise. There’s never any resistance in opposition to its ideas. The film’s message is the rhetorical equivalent of saying “Save the Earth” or “We shouldn’t invade other countries”.

If only there was some sarcastic wit behind it, like how Paul Verhoeven can create such believable fictions but then pull you back to reality after a moment’s reflection. Instead with Cameron you get earnest, open mouth shots of na’vi doing their next ‘xtreme sport challenge. Are we supposed to be living through them vicariously, like avatars ourselves— is that the point of all this technology? Maybe my reading is all wrong.

The first wave of critical reactions following the premiere seem to largely range from tolerant to rapturous, with near universal praise for the technical achievements and the third-act action sequences

If only I could actually remember what Sam Worthington actually looks like. He’s probably the most forgettable actor to ever star in a Hollywood franchise

beamish14 wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:01 am If only I could actually remember what Sam Worthington actually looks like. He’s probably the most forgettable actor to ever star in a Hollywood franchise

I haven't read X-Men in years and every time I hear Sam Worthington's name, I think it's referring to Angel.

I know he's not Sam Waterston but my brain's image cache apparently only has room for one of them

hearthesilence wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:04 am

beamish14 wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:01 am If only I could actually remember what Sam Worthington actually looks like. He’s probably the most forgettable actor to ever star in a Hollywood franchise

I haven't read X-Men in years and every time I hear Sam Worthington's name, I think it's referring to Angel.

wasn't that character's real name Warren Worthington?

black&huge wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:29 am

hearthesilence wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:04 am

beamish14 wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:01 am If only I could actually remember what Sam Worthington actually looks like. He’s probably the most forgettable actor to ever star in a Hollywood franchise

I haven't read X-Men in years and every time I hear Sam Worthington's name, I think it's referring to Angel.

wasn't that character's real name Warren Worthington?

Yes, but that was part of what I meant - I haven't read the comics in a while so it's easy to conflate the two.