Avatar (not the airbender)(POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERTS)

[limpport]

I find that, for me at least, reviews have little to no correlation to my enjoyment of a movie. For example, one of my favorite movies of all time, Cube, got 58% on the tomato site.

Cube? Astro...nomical!

Just bought it on iTunes about a week ago! I liked it a lot.

[Squintus]

"Avatar" is a hollow film that tries to make you forget about it's lack of an original thought with cutting edge effects. There are so many things wrong about this movie it is hard to know where to begin.

I agree. It was a very nice-looking tech demo, but an average movie.

PS - Why didn't he cast Michael Biehn as the military shmuck? He would have been WAY better!

According to Wikipedia:

Michael Biehn was considered for the role of Colonel Quaritch. He met with James Cameron three times and saw some of the 3D footage, but in the end it simply came down to the fact that Cameron did not want people thinking it was Aliens all over again, as Sigourney Weaver had already been cast.

[jones]

I thought it was a flashback to his brothers funeral/cremation. Well I was slightly distracted with the kids and all.

*edit* Every review says that he goes to Pandora AFTER he learns of his brothers death. It was a flashback apparently*

I did forget that during the first 5 minutes of the movie the sound kept cutting out for a few seconds at a time. So it is entirely possible that I missed something as it was a bit disorienting. That aside though, my opinion of the movie as a whole remains the same.

My point with the Rotten Tomatoes reference is that an awful lot of the positive reviews that I saw basically said the story is weak, but the effects are so good that you won't care. Granted there are reviews that loved it in it's entirety as well and that's fine. I just question the integrity of any "critic" who gives a film a free pass for having great effects.

Overall my #1 problem with the movie is how derivative it is. If I hadn't already seen the following movies prior to seeing "Avatar" I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more:

"Dances with Wolves"
"Atlantis"
"Aliens"

In all seriousness, the first 2 hours and 15 minutes of this movie are a complete ripoff of "Wolves" and the final 20 minutes or so are the end of "Atlantis". I think that's why I found myself to be so bored watching "Avatar". I'd seen it all done before and done much better.

I don't mind it when movies reference others, but when it is almost a carbon copy of what came before I'm not going to find it interesting. If I wanted to watch "Dances with Wolves" again (Which I should do as it is an amazing movie) I would have done that and saved myself 15 bucks.

[jones]

PS - Why didn't he cast Michael Biehn as the military shmuck? He would have been WAY better!

According to Wikipedia:

Michael Biehn was considered for the role of Colonel Quaritch. He met with James Cameron three times and saw some of the 3D footage, but in the end it simply came down to the fact that Cameron did not want people thinking it was Aliens all over again, as Sigourney Weaver had already been cast.

Thanks for the info! It's funny that Dale, Ben, and I were talking about this very subject tonight and actually came to the same conclusion. Interesting to find out that is what really happened.

Ironically enough, parts of this movie ARE lifted directly from "Aliens"!

[limpport]

How many of the movies that Avatar "ripped off" were made before 1995?

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi4033742105/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He wrote the script in 1995, but put it away because CGI and visual effects at the time were not good enough to do what he wanted.

[jones]

Dances with Wolves came out in 1990. This is the one that was borrowed from the most heavily and Cameron is known to love the movie. I don't blame him for loving it. It's a great film!

Aliens came out in 1986 and was actually directed by Cameron himself.

Atlantis was in 2001 and the only one released after he supposedly wrote "Avatar".

In addition, I highly doubt that the script hasn't gone through some revisions over the years. As an example, Quentin Tarantino had the story for "Inglourious Basterds" worked out 10 years ago. According to him, he wrote the first two chapters at that time and the remaining 3 chapters were written, modifed, altered, etc. over the last 10 years with a good part of the polishing coming in the year or so before the movie went into production. Changes were even made to those first 2 chapters while filming them. Nothing is set in stone when it comes to a script.

EDIT: Actually, I just watched that video you linked to. Cameron says he wrote the "treatment" in 1995, which is not a screenplay. A treatment is kind of like a short story and is a step in the screenwriting process. Generally this is used to sell the movie when looking for funding to get it made if you have no script. It sounds like he wrote this up, shoved it in a drawer, and then dusted it off a few years back and wrote the screenplay. That last bit is admittedly conjecture though.

[limpport]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Came ... 16143.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thought this might me interesting to share as well.

[benheck]

Yeah gotta agree with Jones and Rekarp. on this one. I find it amazing how many reviewers give this movie a pass just because it looks good. Since when was that a proper alternative to story? Yes I appreciate Cameron keeping the camera steady and letting us see all the action, but when we don't care about the characters it doesn't mean zip.

It's not that the story in Avatar is bad, it's just that it's been done to death (and better) in countless prior movies. The characters are pretty lame too... "Evil Corporate Guy" is completely one dimensional, like Alien's Burke with all the subtlety of Titanic's Billy Zane. Scratch that, it's an insult to Billy Zane.

Sigourney Weaver is given nothing to do, "Evil Marine Guy" is just Rourke from (Disney's) "Atlantis" and I just didn't give a crap about the Native Americans, I mean Na'vi.

Hell, even the comedy "Galaxy Quest" - also with Weaver - actually made me care about the alien race. Avatar is just flashy yet flat filmmaking. I would even go so far to say that in some ways it's worse than Phantom Menace. That movie may have been languid, but it did set up the story of the Empire in an interesting way.

If you want an awesome movie about the destruction of Earth go rent WALL*E instead. I can buy that love affair more than a CGI Sam Worthington and Uhura.

[kibble]

Is CGI even that spectacular anymore, at least among us gamers? I mean, we play games that have crazy visuals and put you right into the action and allow you to make choices for yourself. In a movie, you're just being led around and shown what happens, you don't actually take a part in it. This movie, among many others, just doesn't attract my attention, even for the visuals.

I found that site limpport linked to as being pretty funny.

[hackmodford]

I must not care if the the charectors were "0-deminsional" I still think it was the best movie I have ever seen in my entire life... It's the second day since I've seen it and my mind is finally starting to slow down... yesterday and right after the movie I was just THINKING about it all the time... The only other movie that has done that to me is The Matrix...

I hope it succeeds and there is a sequel... I want more Pandora!

[Rekarp]

if that's the best movie you have seen .....

hell for even mentioning The Matrix

[J.D]

I actually thought this was a decent movie. Not the greatest movie, and there was poor character development, but a lot better then other movies I have seen this year.

[limpport]

I find it amazing how many reviewers give this movie a pass just because it looks good. Since when was that a proper alternative to story?

Not to jump subjects, but that seems to be the case in many video games (tying into the eternal Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony debate). Their selling point is how shiny and pretty they are, because they can't sell it on their crap storyline. I buy a game because I want it to be fun to play, not because I want to see the characters every nose hair.

[vskid]

I saw it last night (if anything, it was to keep me from thinking of Avatar the Airbender everytime I heard about it). I thought it was pretty good. Not the best movie ever like some people say, but it was decent.
I'm not one of those that really thinks about movies deeply (character development, plot, etc). As long as it isn't horrible, I don't care. What gets me is the technical parts. Like where is Pandora, and will we really have technology like that in 150 years? I doubt we'll have ships that could get there in ~6 years. The mechs and choppers will probably be possible, but why would the windshields not be strong enough to stop arrows, especially where there is a possibility of being shot at?
And the final battle, there was no strategy to it on the Na'vi side. Just charge an opposing force that has superior weaponry and hope it works out? And why start attacking when they're almost to their target? It gave them no chance to regroup and attack again. Guerrilla type warfare would have been much better for them. Hide on the floating rocks or in the trees, ambush the humans, and leave before they can organize themselves. And why not drop rocks on the enemy? That would be just as effective, and reduce the Na'vi's losses.

[limpport]

Hide on the floating rocks or in the trees, ambush the humans,

Did you really see the movie?