posted
Supprised no one beat me to it, but any one else out there seen it, excited about it in any way or just a little bit curious?
Saw it this afternoon with my equally nerdy girlfreind, so failed on the "taking the girlfriend to the movies" front cos we both actually watched it, but can say it was pretty good.
First things first, this is not the best film ever, or even of the year. But it is quite enjoyable, visually stunning and you don't have to think too much. It's also in 3D.
Now, IMO, the 3D is not totaly needed. The film is exciting enough on its own. But its not just a gimic either. If you do see, do see the 3D version.
Any way, plot: There is one. Its not the best ever but it works in as much as it gives the CGI a horse to ride. Essentially it is a retelling of that 90's eco-fairytale Fern Gully. Add to this two eggs, a generous helping of return of the Jedi, a pinch of The Wrath of Khan, and a good slosh of Dances with Wolves with a touch of Pocahontas.
Essentially the humans want this mineral (humerously named in the film "unobtain-ium") that is on this moon called Pandora where the blue guys (the NA'Vi live. They are a tribal society of hunters. Our hero is given the job of learing their ways and gaining their trust so he can shift them out of the way of the human miners.
In order to do this a cloned version of the NA'Vi (made by Sigourny Weaver) are made, into which the minds of unconsious people can be effectivly transfered using some tecobabble and an imersion tank. Good guy soon finds himself as a part of the tribe, realises humans are baddies, falls for the chiefs daugther, gets rejected by tribe and cheifs daughter, wins their trust again and saves the day. And all (when he's a NA'Vi) in CGI.
Oh yes, the CGI.
Well, it's good. Very good. You can almost forget it's not real in quite a few places (allthough a suspension of disbelief is required once or twice). It looks real, which I guess is the point.
But the funny thing is I was more impressed (mostly because it was in 3D) with the little details, like the falling ash looking like falling ash dancing in front of me. In this resespect the 3D does not help, but rather distracts. You are looking for cool stuff in 3D while not noticeing other bits.
There are essentially two parts to thios films world. The human world and the NA'Vi world.
The human world is epic. It looks like a real place 150 years in the future. The screens are like projections (much better than in Trek '09) but totaly believable. The stuuf lookis used where it should be and new where it should. It also is shown off (such as where one curved screen fixed in mid air has the information it displays taken from it and "slid" a la iPhone ap onto a handheld device), but mostly unobtrusivly, as if it is just the stuff these guys know, grew up with and use every day. Good SFX, good acting.
The same goes for the NA'Vi world (mostly). You think it's real. I don't know what is totally CGI and what isn't. Unlike films such as Peter Jacksons LOtR or King Kong, the transition is near perfect from real to fake (allthough King Kong was still quite good).
It's not the masterpiece some are calling it. But it is a very good example of how far this stuff's gone and it is (I think) a good look into how action films will look from now on. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not. It's also pretty damn corny and has a simplistic plot. But as I say, it looks pretty sweet.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Sorry Mars - my mouse went funky and hit post before I'd finished.
Basically (and a bit crudely) yes it is, but unlike Pocahontas I'd say it's worth seeing.
It's a bit like an RPG playerd nerdgasm.
I don't give a crap about the 'message' the film gives off, but I'd still see it again, if only to see it 2D so I can pay more attention to the big picture.
As a side note, I hope that 3D is a passing fad again, because you do need to see every film twice (once 3D and once in 2D) as, especially if very effects driven, they become two different films.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
A more recent film that comes to mind for me that bears a superficial resemblance is The Battle for Terra. In both films, the humans are depicted as coming from a dying world looking for a solution for their immediate needs and, in the process, a continuation of the species. In both films, a human comes to accept the native culture and chooses to fight for this culture. The endings are very different. In The Battle for Terra, the humans and natives resolve their immediate differences and learn to co-exist. In Avatar, the humans, with a few notable exceptions, are exiled from the moon.
I have a query about this film. Early in the film, we learn that the hero fought in a jungle in Venezuela. However, the hero, when speaking to Eywah, says there is no green on his world. How do we rationalize this discrepancy?
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Is it basically Pocahontas in Space?
Or Neon Genesis Evangelion, in a way?
'NA'Vi Unit One, GO!'
But yes, i'm flush with good emotions from this film. Human greed vs Natural Ethics. Or Colonials vs the Indians? The CGI, was impressive. The visuals made me believe. The only thing i wish was the time line. 200 years into the future? That implies that something speed up our entry into deep space because, even with sleeper/cyro storage of people on long distance trips, it would still take 100's of years to travel, right?
and you go do work, in the private sector, for decendants of stock holders? There's more to the back story, but im sure this will come to light in some means...
*sigh* Very. Good. Film. It'll bring the Chaotic Good tree hugger out, in you...
posted
I am hearing from other forums that this film is not very original. Honestly, I think this is one of the weakest arguments one could make against this film. Humans have been re-purposing elements of stories for as long as they have been telling them. It's analogous to a cook using the ingredients at hand when creating a masterful meal. The question, then, for me at least, is, does Cameron succeed in his efforts and make a satisfying feast of sight and sound? Yes.
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
They put a trailer for ~The Battle for Terra on before the main picture. I thought it looked like the Warner Brothers movie that gets made after Disney anouces their next one.
And as far as I can work out (mind, this is from interviews I've seen) Pandora is meant to be quite close to Earth. I think it's meant to be a moon around one (implying more) gas giants around Alpha Centuri (don't know which one) so it's not that far. The trip suposedly took more than 6 years so fast, but not impossibly fast.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Avatar? Pandora? Looks like Cameron is a bit of a Frank Herbert fan. I don't suppose there's any WorShip in this film?
Seriously though, I'll wait for the DVD. I'm sure it looks great but 3D isn't really an option out here (I sure as hell ain't going to London just to watch a film!) and the local cinema is just rubbish. Cameron has yet to disappoint me in any of his previous films so I have no concerns over the quality or integrity. I'm a little confused over the repeated occurrence of the phrase "it's no masterpiece" in reviews I've read so far. I don't recall Cameron or any marketing claiming it was so. Bit of a straw man criticism if you ask me.
posted
Well, it was supposedly touted as this OMG AMAZING movie in all the hype generated. But, having seen it here in 3D and being very pleased with the movie, the first thing I said to my friends was "Okay, so who's up for driving to Halifax to see it in IMAX?" (a 4 hour drive, probably equivalent to Rev driving to London).
I actually really really enjoyed this movie and would definitely see it again. However, I am a little curious as to the reasoning behind floating mountains...
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
You didn't see the naked chick singing and causing all the rocks to float?
o.O Oh, sorry. had a Macross Zero moment...
possibly the rocks contained amounts of Unobtanium?
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: (a 4 hour drive, probably equivalent to Rev driving to London)
Oh, you have no idea how wrong that is to say. Driving in London is akin to sticking your head in a blender - if it can be avoided do so.
And when you get there you can't park either.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:I don't recall Cameron or any marketing claiming it was so.
Maybe not literally, but they did spread the details that it is the most expensive Cameron film ever and that they've taken the concept of blank, blankblank and blankblankblank to a whole new level (something many people seem to agree with).
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: (a 4 hour drive, probably equivalent to Rev driving to London)
Oh, you have no idea how wrong that is to say. Driving in London is akin to sticking your head in a blender - if it can be avoided do so.
And when you get there you can't park either.
Too true. The M25 is like the first circle of hell, in more ways than one.
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Well, they DID design and build a new type of camera specifically for this movie. That would add to the budget.
Exactly. Pretty much all of these "claims" from Cameron that I'm aware of relate specifically to the technical advancement of film making, which by all accounts is well justified. It's hardly Cameron's fault if certain people equate technical achievement with storytelling quality.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
