Seeing as how everyone is talking about Avatar, I'll re-post my review from several pages back:

----------------------------------------

Well, last night I was finally able to see James Cameron's "Avatar". I went in with moderately low expectations for the overall story, but was hoping to be blown away by the visuals. Thankfully (or not so thankfully depending on your view), I was not disappointed.

I feel their is no reason to restate the plot seeing as how everyone has at least heard what the basic story is. From here on out, I'll break down the basic components of the movie and review each one before giving an overall score.

-----------------------------------

Story:

The story is basically what you would expect from all the other reviews floating around: predictable, yet entertaining. It was easy to see where every scene was going: from Jake wandering through the forest of Pandora before stumbling upon a predatory creature to Ney'tiri telling Jake about a special rider that brought peace to the Na'vi (guess what happens later in the story?)

The only somewhat unpredictable part of the film was the end battle, though even that sequence had it's "of course that was going to happen" moments. The story is definitely fun, but terribly predictable (something that Cameron's earlier Sci-Fi film, "Aliens" completely avoided) and heavy handed on the whole "save the environment" message. The undermining green message only gets two really big preachy moments in the film, which unfortunately feel rather out of place to the rest of the film.

----------------

Acting:

A truly mixed bag here. Some of the actors do a good job with their characters, though most come off as too stiff (think the Star Wars prequels but with a little more range of emotion). Sigorney Weaver unfortunately is one of the worst when it comes to rather bland acting, especially in the first half of the film. Sam Worthington does a good job as Jake, giving you a character you can actually relate to in a way. All the the other human characters give decent performances.

Now surprisingly or not so surprisingly, the best performances are given by the "performance capture" characters: Jake in Avatar form and Ney'tiri. After getting over the initial impression of seeing giant blue cat/human aliens, the avatar and Na'vi characters actually blend right in to the film to the point that you're not thinking "Oh, that looks so fake!".

One little problem though with Mr. Worthington: his accent is all over the map. Sometimes he sounds like a guy from NY while at other times his Australian accent is quite heavy. Same thing with Zoe Saldana as Ney'tiri. Sometimes she speaks in broken english like the other Na'vi while sometimes she has an almost Valley Girl accent.

----------------

Special Effects:

Alright, this is really what the film is all about and all I can say is..... WOW! Even on a small screen without the 3-D vision this film looks amazing. There are a few shaky blue screen moments throughout the film when live action actors are standing in-front of CGI backgrounds, but these are few and far between.

Where the film truly excels is with the Na'vi, avatars and the wild life/locations on Pandora. Obviously a lot of time was spent on fine tuning the production design and it shows. The whole world of Pandora looks and feels real. The creatures on Pandora while alien, have just enough of a familiarity to them that they still work (the Banshees are the best creature designs).

The Na'vi and avatars were created by using "performance capture", an advanced version of the same technology that brought us Gollum and Davy Jones (from PotC 2-3). Thankfully, the Na'vi and avatars look and perform like real actors. No blank eyes or too fluid movement, the animation is good enough that you sometimes forget that they are completely CGI creations.

The military air craft are also handled well, looking both extremely cool and realistic. The mechanical battle suits are some of the coolest sci-fi creations in a long time.

---------------

Score:

Alright, I've already pretty much said what I had to say about the soundtrack on my Blog (go read it, hint, hint), but I'll add a few more thoughts here now that I know how the score works in the film.

As I figured, the score fits the film very well, though there are a few moments where the music could have been better. The score is still "James Horner's Greatest Hits" with practically everything he's ever done thrown into the score. While this is annoying in-and-of itself, what's really disheartening is the fact that Horner failed to give the Na'vi and Pandora a distinct sound. Instead we get African-esque singing and percussion with synths.... lots and lots of synths.

Also most infuriating is the fact that the end credit suite is mostly made up of Leona Lewis singing "I See You" with only 2 and a half minutes of score finishing up the credits. If that wasn't bad enough, the end credits music is simply pieces of the Na'vi music taken from earlier in the film. GAH!!!!!

-------------------

Of being alien, yet familiar:

Understandably when you have aliens that are main characters you try and give them traits that are familiar to the audience so that you can relate to them. This is good.... when handled well. Unfortunately, the Na'vi come off as simply a cat-like, blue skinned cross between African tribes and Native Americans. From their skimpy cloths and piercings (African) to their ceremonies and ideas about the spirit world (native American), they are too familiar to be taken as a truly alien race.

Something else I noticed that no one else seems to mention: the sound effects in "Avatar" are way too familiar. Several of the dinosaur roars/cries from "Jurassic Park" make their way into the sounds of the Pandora creatures. Also, the black lizard/cat things that chase Jake near the beginning of the film sound like a combination of a dog and a hyena.

---------------

The Battle:

Once again, Wow. The end battle between the Na'vi and the military is truly epic and is nearly flawless when it comes to effects and staging. After the initial introduction to Pandora, the final battle is worth seeing the film alone. It's truly that good.

Oh yes, and the evil marine Commander gets a great death scene at the end.

---------------

Content warnings:

Alright, first off their is a TON of cursing. Pretty much every word that could fit into a PG-13 film is said at least once. Why all the cursing? I really have no idea. Most of it is completely unnecessary.

Since the Na'vi basically wear only loin cloths, there's a lot of blue skin on view. Though, unlike what some sites have said *coughpluggedIncough* it's not very problematic. Their big blue cat aliens, not very attractive if you ask me....

There is one quick make-out scene where Jake (in avatar form) and Nay'tiri kiss and hug. Nothing graphic is shown or heard.

There is a good deal of bloodless violence, especially during the end battle. Lots of humans get shot through with arrows while Na'vi are ruthlessly gunned down. There are also a few bloody scenes.

And there is a good deal of strange mysticism throughout the film. Be forewarned.

---------------

Closing:

Despite the films flaws, I highly enjoyed watching "Avatar". Is it an instant classic worthy of being called the best film of the decade? Heck no! Not even close!! But it is a grand tour de force of special effects and how far CGI has come since the early days way, way back in the late 70's.

So, if you watch it, don't go in expecting much. Just enjoy it for a fun ride through an amazing CGI world.... which really, at it's base, is what the whole film is.

One last thing: the film translates very well to a small screen minus the 3-D. So, if you missed it in the theater (as I did), it will still look very impressive at home.

---------

Rating

3 1/2 out of 5

---------------------------------------------

*Awaits GB or bkey to either agree or rip my review apart.... *

I think in order to be objectively considered a "Worst Movie", it should have NO redeeming qualities. I don't think any of the films mentioned are bad enough to be in that category.

And I'm not particularly fond of Twilight either (the Sullen Edward Cullen). Nor did I think Transformers 2 was very good (horrible dialogue, lowest-common-denominator humour, farcical characterizations), but both of those films did have some entertaining moments, and some good visuals--rather average I would say.

Battlefield Earth tops a lot of "Worst" lists (not entirely undeserved ), but even that film had a moment or two.

Of course it's hard to separate out personal aesthetics from the actual technical flaws or successes of a film. And some weak films are saved by being "so bad they're good", or appealing on an instinctive level despite rather obvious failings.

Prince Cor re: Avatar, I personally thought the acting was fine, and the story was good (not entirely original, but a new twist on an old story). But I have no particular beef with your review. Your comments fall well within "I can see where you're coming from" range, even though I did have a different experience from yours.

GB

Did someone say Aliens?

Don't worry, I won't post my original "response" to your review.

I've very much like to see Avatar, although I would have liked seeing it in the theater, which I've read (not only here but elsewhere) makes the experience that much more enjoyable.

GB, how does one hate James Cameron? I mean...he made Aliens. I do try not to jump on bandwagons where "popular" persons, music groups, movies, or books are involved, and I do try and judge based on originality, merit, and where books and movies are concerned, storyline, special effects, and so on. Twilight is not the worst film I've ever seen (that odious honor goes to so popular by so many others. People generally want to be considered as "their own person" and falling in lock-step with a bunch of others who like or love a particular movie (like Twilight, and its sequels) is insulting to them, thus the movie/book/band/person becomes that person's new public whipping boy. Now what I'm not saying is that Twilight is a good film...it's mediocre at best and admittedly filled with plot points and characters that seem custom made for derision (I will never get over the sparkly vampire thing...ever ).

lys: was the voodoo on the good side, or just the bad side? If it was on the good side, that's what I'd have problems with.

It's almost totally on the bad side. I say almost totally because there is a minor character named Mama Odie who does practice magic, although I'm not sure it's mentioned whether it's "voodoo" in specific. Really, though, she's only in one scene, and her major function is to give the heroine some advice, make some gumbo, and do a musical number. I hope you can see this and that it doesn't bother you - it's a really fun movie, IMHO.

bkey, I agree with almost everything you have to say about An Education, although I think I would have enjoyed Sarsgaard's performance more if I knew less about the movie going in. It was too easy for me to see through him as it was. But he is a very fine actor, consistently good in everything he's in.

Oh, and good call on The Day the Earth Stood Still! What an awful movie that was.

I watched Mel Gibson's new movie Edge of Darkness last night, and thought it made for a great ride. The trailers made it look a bit like Liam Neeson's Taken, but in the end it was quite different and, I think, better. The last scene is corny, but other than that it is consistently thrilling and moody throughout. Gibson gives a brilliantly unhinged performance - one of his best - and Ray Winstone steals the show as the wonderfully ambiguous Jedburgh. Recommended (although both the violence and the language are quite intense and the film is R-rated, so be warned).

I don't hold the same political/religious views as Cameron but that's not why I don't like Avatar. Nor did I jump on the bandwagon of Hate For Popular Franchises - I love Star Wars, Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings etc. and they're immensely popular. But just because something is popular, it doesn't mean it's well-made. Personally I greatly disliked Avatar because it's a very average piece of film-making. Great visuals alone do not make a movie. I have nothing against people who enjoy it (some of my friends love it), I just don't share their views.
As for not liking Cameron's movies, I really enjoy several of them - The Abyss, Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2.

I like Avatar!! It follows the Joseph Campbell's strategy of great storytelling for books and movies. I don't merely like it for the reason of it being popular, the visuals and effects, merely because it is a great story with a well flawed out hero. Try paying attention to story and character next time and not just because of you think that the movie is all because of the visuals. basically what half of you are saying is that it never should have been shown in 3D. Because once you saw it without it it wasn't at all exciting.

Lys, I saw Edge of Darkness last week. Pretty much agree with everything you had to say. It was a nice change from the typical action movie, more intelligent than the usual run around shooting people stuff.

A Damsel after my own heart . YAY! Finally someone who recognizes and appreciates the Mythopoetic Storytelling in the traditions espoused by Joseph Campbell and Jung. All the best stories are re-tellings of Old Stories made relevant for a New Era. Lewis and Tolkien both knew that too as both Middle Earth and Narnia reveal.

Films and Stories like Avatar, The Matrix, Harry Potter and Star Wars all tap into that Mythic Awareness that lurks in our Imaginations, and that is a large part of their success (the special effects help , but are Icing on the Cake).

GB

Interesting to read all the reviews of Avatar happening in here. I haven't seen it yet; but almost everyone I know who saw it raved (and raved, and raved...) about it. So it can't be all that bad -unlike Twilight, which although insanely popular and I have friends who obsess about -it can't be said they've ever raved about how well-done the movies are.

I remember seeing an interview with Sam Worthington on the telly while Avatar was still in theaters and thinking, 'this bloke is connecting with me about as much as the thought of a sandpaper sandwich' (and perhaps it was just a bad interview, but I've heard elsewhere his acting is not as epic as his movies).

I came in here to mention Independence Day. It was on the other night and I got sucked into watching it with my brother; but had to rush off somewhere before the end and was actually surprised at how into it I was for an alien movie. I think it was just the fact that I like Will Smith's acting. I think it goes back to the Fresh Prince of Bel Air days.

I like Avatar!! It follows the Joseph Campbell's strategy of great storytelling for books and movies. I don't merely like it for the reason of it being popular, the visuals and effects, merely because it is a great story with a well flawed out hero. Try paying attention to story and character next time and not just because of you think that the movie is all because of the visuals.

Really, it's totally unfair for you to jump to conclusions about our motives for seeing the film. I went in to Avatar thinking it was actually going to be good (I was terribly mislead by the movie reviews and the trailer). I expected a good storyline and solid characters. Let me make one thing quite clear: I DON'T go to movies for the visuals, and if I had thought that's all Avatar was, I wouldn't have gone to see it. That being said, I found myself completely bored and uninterested in Avatar. I tried liking the story; I tried getting involved in the character's emotions, but when I could find little to no character development and such a predictable storyline that I guessed what was going to happen every minute (almost literally) than how can you blame me for not being able to? Can I ask you what exactly you thought was good about the storyline and the characters?

I'll always be a,
NL101

can you blame me for not being able to? Can I ask you what exactly you thought was good about the storyline and the characters?

You obviously have a different opinion on watching movies. Many people do. I'm a film major therefore I learn different techniques from Campbell to Volger's strategies of storytelling. I'm not critizing you or anyone else, Please understand that first thing. It's just since I've learned the different strategies I go to see movies with a different point of view then most other people.

Obviously Jake Sully is the main character and his ordinary world is loneliness and his flaw is being crippled, he didn't ask to take on the job at first after his brothers death and is thrown into his call to adventure without knowing what to do and is very naive at first. The main point that I'm trying to get at is that a story cannot be good unless the main character goes through a change, which Jake did. It was a swell and very original change too that was done brilliantly.

The villian was well made too, you already knew him from well the beginning of the movie who negotiates with Jake and quickly becomes very threatening. It is done very smoothly and everyone loves a good trickster.

The movie even has a mentor, Weaver's character. Not many movies has one these days that are really good. As well as the allies, they are fleshed out nicely and Jake knows who his friends are and who he shouldn't mess with.

Then you have Jake's love interest, whom the both you could tell didn't really like each other to start off with. (I don't know what you mean by the character development was not good) they so beat Suspian 100 percent, they go from not liking each other to this native training him and you can tell that weeks to months is passing by, the native does a few things that impresses Jake and Jake impress her before their actual romance takes off. It is shown by actual storyboarding.

These are what I find great qualities and great storytelling in Avatar. These kind of stories have been told since the Dawn of time.

I'm struggling to understand what you're saying. You're a film major and yet you believe Avatar is well-made? Yikes. Jake Sully is bland. His 'disability' is pretty much a non-event and the villain is as one-dimensional as they come. Yes, Avatar follows a similar journey identified by Campbell but that doesn't make it good, just easy to identify with. The movie takes an old formula and does nothing new with it.

What I was trying to say is that most people wonder why the new generation of movies have to be so cheesy. Campbell's strategies are often following the same structures of events from the Bible. He makes the strategy realistic and loveable. I'm not saying that he takes stories from the Bible.

example: We all should know Moses how he was first placed in the basket and flowed across a river until the Eygptians discovered him and raised him as their own.

This structure if you think about it sounds like Superman and Horse and his boy. Why do you all think HHB is very popular among Narnia fans? Because this structure is genius and shouldn't have something new to be added.

I'm not trying to be all derogatory, I'm too a Christian. I just want to say is that this structure is not bland or boring.

I don't think any honest film critic, even those who might agree with some of your points, would say the film Avatar was badly made W4J. A lacklustre film can still be technically well-made (which is how I feel about Tim Burton's Batman--a woefully miscast and aesthetically disappointing film).

Many critics DO take issue with Avatar's "derivative" plot. But the charge that Cameron does nothing new with it is unfounded. It's like The Last Samurai, but in Space with Aliens via a Matrixy type of technology. I'd say that's "something new" .

Sully's disability actually IS an issue that the film deals with explicitly, as he interacts with his human fellow soldiers who question his abilities, and every time he shifts between his human body and his Avatar. It is used in the story also to raise the political/economic issue of who can afford access to health care. It even becomes a key plot point as his CO tries to use Sully's disability and his financial inability to change it, to manipulate him.

A Hero's "blandness" is sometimes built into his role (everyone knows that Villains get all the best lines), and sometimes subjective. In Sully's case, I see it as largely subjective. Sully is a flawed human being who learns to overcome his flaws. Had Worthington (or the director) chosen to amp up Sully's inner struggle emotively, no doubt some critics would have leveled the charge of overacting. As it was, I thought the emoting was nuanced, and "just right", not too little and not too much.

As to the Colonel being a "one-note" villain, one could just as easily say that he is a "well-defined" villain. But whether one sees the character as half full or half empty, I think the character had some complexity. I didn't see the Colonel as simply "evil" with no redeeming qualities. I saw him as a man who let his Pride and Xenophobia rule him, often at the expense of some of his better qualities.

To sum up, I don't think the particular issues you raised objectively demonstrate poor quality film-making. But of course you are very much entitled to your subjective opinion . A forum would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.

GB

. These kind of stories have been told since the Dawn of time.

Which is why I'm tired of seeing them. Why should I be interested in a character who's fate I had mapped out nearly from the beginning and who's personality is next to zero? I simply can't care about a character like that, because he hasn't been made real to me.

As far as these "techniques", I understand such techniques can be important, but as an artist I don't look at film as a technical thing AT ALL. Films should be treated as pieces of artwork, and should never be slapped into a "technique" that works. As Elijah Price said in Unbreakable: "Real life doesn't fit into little boxes that were drawn for it." Perhaps this is where we differ in our opinions in movies; film is an art form to me, and always will be. I will never be able to truly appreciate films that are boxed in by "technique." That doesn't mean I think less of people who do or that I think you are one of those people; I'm just speculating here...

I'll always be a,
NL101