James Cameron's Avatar
 

The reviews are coming in and they are pointing to this being a badass movie. Roger Ebert, who is a great Sci-fi fan, absolutely loved it. I am officially excited to go see it.

I'll see it during a Matinée, but wont pay full price.

Honestly I'm worried it'll be Dances With Wolves only with really tall Smurfs and an over-riding No Blood for Oil message.

It opens here in IMAX 3D!!!! I'm so totally stoked!

Upon first hearing about this project many months ago, I've been pretty excited about it.

But I've been wary about this for a long time. I've been praying that this didn't suck.

It looks like my prayers have been answered.

Which is weird, because I'm non-religious.

Avatar has been advertised and hyped up way too much that I have a bad feeling about this movie. I think I will go in with low expectations just so I am not disappointed with the movie.

I'll watch it at IMAX 3D after Christmas. It's impossible to get good seats for the next two weeks.

I think I am okay with this.

Dances with Thundercats in Waterworld the Last Rainforest?

Look, I have no doubt that this film is going to be visually astonishing. If the movie doesn't look amazing (assuming you see it in a theater capable of showing it off), then Mr. Cameron's going to have wasted untold millions of dollars. But everything I've seen and/or read about the plot makes me literally want to go drown in a big bathtub full of movie cliches filled with piranhas or electric eels.

Cameron has made some great movies, but what has really kept them above trash action has been the heart at their core. I've not seen a shred of that with this movie. I'll be seeing it, but my hopes are not great. And the hype has done nothing to assuage that.

James Cameron has never disappointed me. I don't think he'll start now. The movie looks amazing. Hopefully it avoids the uncanny valley.

Seriously, Stop comparing James Cameron films to Kevin Costner films, wtf..

The Wired article on Avatar this month describes this film as a decades-long vision and labor of love for Cameron. I think it's worth seeing. Early reviews are glowing too hot to print because they burn the paper.

control-f sucks, no results found...sweeet! I will be seeing this post haste!

I know almost nothing about this movie, only that (a) it's supposed to be something amazing and (b) the trailer looks like robots fighting dragons. What else should I know about this?

I've been looking forward to seeing it because of James Cameron's track record.

Hey Baraka, when do you think you'd like to see it? Wanna go together? What about Aberkok?

And you know what? I hope it's wildly successful and lives up to the hype, purely as an FU to the pre-emptive fanboy bitching that has become the standard for film criticism on the internet. I'm so tired of rabid, negative speculation about upcoming films based solely on scraps of concept art or casting. It's juvenile and self-aggrendizing.

It will have to be after the 28th, as I'll be in Vancouver for a week. Plus I need to drop into Kingston to visit the fam, so I'll let you know what's going on around that time.

When are you available?

I'm sorta shielded from the hype so far. I mean, I've seen it mentioned, but not to the degree that others have been claiming. My exposure to this movie has been through trailers mostly. At first it looked like a lame CGI orgy, but then the idea started to sink in and I warmed up to it. All it really takes is an endorsement from Roger Ebert to get me interested and that it has.

I had no idea what this movie was until about a week ago. Then Ebert's review comes out and he says it's like seeing Star Wars for the first time in 1977 and gives it 4 stars. A sci-fi movie being described this way from Ebert = me seeing it in the theater.

Wow, Ebert said that?

I'm totally seeing it for sure now. Yeah, in the theatre.

Avatar :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews. Somewhat spoilerish towards the middle of the review, it seems.

Yeah, I have no idea what this is about so thus far, I have no big desire to see it.

Nothing more than previews have told me already.

Well, though it looks visually spectacular upon seeing the trailer, there is a little too much CGI and quirky creatures that are not quite believable to me. I don't know why but fantastical creatures never sit quite right with me, for the most part. But, after that I read the story also on the official site and that made it sound a lot more interesting. I just wish there was finally a film with supposed aliens that didn't look either slimy and gruesome (not the case here) or like their face was as smooth as a baby's bottom (check).

Guess I'll have to watch it to decide.

Having read that review, I maintain that "Dances with Thundercats in Waterworld the Last Rainforest" is a perfectly descriptive title for this movie. His review confirms precisely what I expected it to be. I'll look forward to the spectacle and remember to keep my brain firmly turned off.

That was the best way to go into Titanic.

Pretty much any evening. I may need to see it sooner but I'll try to hold on.

I should say that I'm definitely keeping my expectations in check and not reading any reviews. It's the only way to approach a blockbuster these days.

Ebert spoils the shit out of movies in his reviews and even admits it so be careful if you don't wanna know anything about it. I still haven't read past the first paragraph in his review on purpose.

My 71 year old stepmother has already specifically requested seeing this movie in 3D when she is here for Christmas break. None of her friends back in Charleston, SC want to see it.

deleted

I am expecting a really fun and great looking action movie, and not a whole lot more. I would love for it to exceed my expectations and have wonderful dialogue and be meaningful or moving in some way, but I doubt it. I'm fine with that, I'll go to have good time, and I'm sure that will happen! :) (Assuming that my new prescription works and I can actually see in 3D! :( )

Fantastic movie, horrible headache.

I used to really trust Roger Ebert's reviews but more and more I think he's being paid off by Hollywood. I'm really quite sick of CGI-Suckfests like Transformers and Watchmen. I don't have high expectations for Avatar. I hope I'm wrong, trust me.

I think the main thing people are entranced by is the worldbuilding and the epic scope of the thing. I haven't heard much of the plot.

I'll see it. For sure.

Went to see it in 2-D, and I'm glad I did. The world is so well built and intricately layered, that I can imagine 3 hours of 3-D would have given me a stroke.

Plot = predictable, but still an excellently paced exposition, and action-filled climax. I sat there thinking that the plot plays out like an RPG, which I suppose is the idea. Not quite a Bioware RPG, but a solid one nonetheless (Ubisoft or Bethesda). That's my review, folks: 4.5/5.

It's like 10 hours later and I still feel odd. Maybe some folks just aren't built to watch 3D.

Like me :( I only have one "good" eye, and so my depth perception is bad and I can't see 3D. I finally have a new and better prescription though, so I'm excited to go and see if it works!

We just got back from seeing it in 3D. Wow is all I can say.

I have terrible issues with traditional 3D. Horrid, can't see it for anything. The stuff that looks like it's "coming out" of the screen always looks blurry and purple-green. THIS however, was spectacular. Instead of looking like the movie is coming at you, most of the time, you're more acutely aware of the depth. LOVED IT. And the 3D glasses actually fit over my glasses for once... score!
The story is such an old one, folklore-wise, and Cameron chose exactly the right story to draw people in to this technology. No headache this time. All stars. :)

This is encouraging to me! :)

It took about 15 minutes for my eyes to get comfortable so don't get discouraged if it takes a bit. S and I both found that after about 45 minutes, we didn't even notice the 3D glasses anymore.
And the images just popped.
I have a fairly gnarly astigmatism and I've been told that this is why I have some issues with traditional 3D. I'm embarrassed to say that My Bloody Valentine was the last one I saw in 3D... but I just eventually took the glasses off because I didn't see anything different with or without them. :)

Saw it last night, my thoughts are as follows:

Sadly, it's a largely negative review :(

And I apologize for the *giant* post.

Spoiler: First of all, I'll say that I wanted to like this movie. It had a lot going for it, but I can not just turn my brain off for 2 and a half hours. The main problem that I had were the giant drive a train through, park it, and build a train station around it holes. The main points are as follows:

Pandora is supposed to have low gravity, and its supposed to weaken the strength of people. As noted by the constantly working out Colonel, and the withering frame of Jake. Yet the Na'vi were atleast 10 foot tall and clearly stronger than humans. Seems odd that they had "carbon fiber" bones as well. As that is, as far as I know, not naturally occuring.

Really, I can actually suspend my disbelief of other things, like the islands that floated yet had water constantly flowing off of them. If this was caused by the metal they were mining, which is what I imagine most people would say, why were these not mined? As they obviously had a very high concentration.

The absolute biggest problem I had with the movie, is the idea that the natives, who's most advance weapons were bows and arrows could have stood a change against an absurdly more advanced society that can clearly travel faster than the speed of light.

Lets just be realistic here, helicopters do not move slower than birds.

Where were the jets? Simple question. And don't say they couldn't fly without radar. That's bullshit. They did it at the end of WW2 and Korea.

Where were the tanks? I absolutely loathe this. It's just like in the third matrix, WHY WHY WHY would you design a military vehicle that exposes the pilot, or only protects him by glass, which the magical super powerful bows of death can penetrate? Perhaps you'd put some..I don't know...metal? Over it, and then toss a few webcams on the hull? It's just insanity.

Second, the "bombing mission" to destroy the holy site of the Na'vi was not accomplished by bombers, like it would of been done in world war 2, vietnam, korea, iraq, etc. NO NO! We're instead going to get pallets of TNT, attach detonaters to them, and wheel them out of a freaking cargo hulk that moves at roughly 13 MPH. And the defensive abilities of this giant cargo hulk? A bunch of dudes, in totally exposed machine gun pillboxes. You think they'd have turrets with steel mesh covering..or just armor with video feeds? And why would they have the 'bomb bay' door open before they were even remotely close to the drop zone? Simple answer, they wouldn't.

Lack of cruise missiles, nukes, or any tech more advanced than we have today. Again, in reality, if they wanted to destroy this holy site, they would have launched 15 cruise missiles at it, and called it a day. No need to even leave the base.

Other questions, what the hell was that metal even used for? 20,000,000 dollars a kilo? What the hell does it do? If the answer is "float" that's pretty lame.

The movie *should* have ended half-way through, and it would have in any realistic sense, when the Colonel said you've got a ticket home tomorrow, and your legs, I'm fairly sure he would have just gone home.

I realize that this movie was a very thinly veiled political statement, but that does not excuse the absurd level of shit that happens in the movie, that we are just supposed to accept.

I can not stand when movies give a complete lack credit to the military, or military organizations. If that end battle were to really of gone down, the humans would have lost a few soldiers, but otherwise, it would have been a wholesale slaughter of the natives.

Sorry for the rant, but I just can't stand when movies require a complete disbelief of everything you know.

Sadly, I didn't even really disagree with what the evil giant corporation was doing. They apparently offered everything they could, and the Na'vi were having none of it. I have no empathy for the natives.

The ending was just insane. Does anyone actually think they wouldn't go back? 20,000,000 dollars a KILO. Whatever that shit does, it's obviously worth all the investment. There is no way they would just abandon it.

I, for one am looking forward to "Avatar II: Return of the Sky-People".

Look for it in theaters next to, "Return to Ewok: The wholesale slaughter of teddy bears by disgruntled stormtroopers"

Having served in the USAF for 8 years I can't stand it when movies treat military issues so absurdly. And for most of the issues listed above you don't have to have a military background to be able to pick out the silly stuff. You just have to have an IQ a little higher than that of a turnip.

I've not seen it, but all of your comments in relation to plot weaknesses annoy me in films too - the argument that narative expediency calls for something ridiculous is just an excuse for bad writing. I shall not be dropping £15 to take my wife to Avatar, but may wait a year and drop £5 to pick up one of the inevitably over stocked DVDs.

While this movie is unquestionably a landmark in cg animation and world building, the plot is so utterly cliche that it was hard for me to care. Someone above admonished me for comparing this movie to Kevin Costner movies, but my entire family that I saw it will all said "that was just like dances with wolves combined with fern gully." sampling bias aside, this was a derivative movie with a heavy handed message that I'm not sure I liked very much anyway. Watch it for the spectacle, but I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed with how this movie does.

It's no Terminator or Aliens, that's for sure.

---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 AM ----------

Addendum the first: I dig Sam Worthington and hope to see him continue to be cast. He was great in Salvation and here.

Addendum the second: there sure was a lot of fire for an atmosphere with no oxygen.

Wasn't this partly a family movie?
I'm not going to get nit-picky on the plot, which was definitely Kevin Costner-esque, but for me, it was all about the technology.
I didn't go to see it for the story. We went to see what they could pull off with this new technology. This is the first time I felt totally engrossed in the movie and had to pee like a mother and didn't budge for three hours. It was Disney meets Kevin Costner... so what?
It was a kick ASS 3D experience, in my opinion. It wasn't supposed to be realistic or plot-rich, come on. They made me feel like I was in the movie for the first time. So, I enjoyed it. And I was with a techno-geek who felt the same things I did, which totally enhanced the experience.

If you're going for the story, skip it.
If you're going to see what James Cameron and his team accomplished with new technology and the bar that has been set, go see the real 3D.

Whilst the movie does require suspecsion of disbelief, I have to say that you sound quite the bitter technocrat. There are a few things that can be explained easily enough, if only to stir you up a little to peek outside the box.

As far as you know, there are no other sentient races either. your post exhibits a very biased frame of reference. Hey, I share the sentiment with 90% of all time-travel stories, but its all theoretical. Did you dismiss Evolution because it had silicone-based lifeforms? As far as I know, that's not naturally occurring either. =/

I might have missed it, but I didn't pick up that the metal's quality is that it floats. The sample was on a suspension pad on the guy's desk. It didnt float by itself. So I saw no connection between the mountains and the metal. In fact, the geek says "no one knows why it floats" when they fly there.

You may have missed it, but the natives choose a low-tech way of life. Spoiler: They are clearly more "advanced" than humans in various ways. If you want to look at it another way, they most advanced weapon is that they can call upon their gaia to drive every organism on the planet. Pretty awesome stuff, if you ask me.

The above also explains your issue with the ending. Spoiler: Do you want to fight a whole planet? In any case, its not over. Cameron said that he wants a trilogy.


There was a bird vs chopper race? where? The birds had an aerial manoevability advantage. Those did not look like Rooivalk attack helicopters to me.

Where were the runways? The issue of radar is secondary. They were still busy building the first road through THE JUNGLE, which you may have missed, is over terrain that tanks cant cover. And why would they fly in tanks? They weren't flying out to war. They are private mining company. The use of a multi-purpose chopper makes more sense.

Again, its a mining company. Not a war campaign. The "bomber" looked to me like the mining transport. Its built to carry stuff, not for fighting. Ditto for your call for all other sorts of ballistics. Private company nukes? Hmm, I guess nation-states sold out to companies in 2154.

Go you little colonialist go!

I think you have it backwards. Why deny yourself the immersive 3D Bigscreen experience?

I saw it last night, and while in hindsight the story was derivative, it was incredibly well executed. If anything, Avatar confirms Michael Bay and George (Prequel) Lucas as captial-H Hacks. The action scenes were inventive and coherant, the characters were worth rooting for, and the world itself was jaw dropping.

I was riveted throughout, despite the story tropes.

I say, hold on to your grim assessment as you go in, but definitely go see it!

I am sure not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but they made up an entire language, which is fantastic and I want to learn that language.

Just saw Avatar.
It's pretty great.
I'll agree with so many reviews that say that it's more about the way the story is presented than the story itself. Though the story is pretty good - at almost 3 hours there are a good deal of plot changes. In fact, I'd say that the over-arching plot line could of been spread out over 2 or 3 movies, and the rest filled with with richer character development and sub plots.

My biggest gripe with the movie was the protagonist. Any time the plot got a millimeter deeper than surface level, he had to start talking and spell it out to us - which instantly cheesed out the plot. Furthermore, he never really came across to me as someone who actually got down/up to the level of the alien race. He was always crude and stupid, even when i could sense the actor struggling to turn this character into something more three diimensional But that character was SUCH A DOUCHE.

oh, and the reviews that say you'll forget that it's a CGI flick are wrong. The CGI is amazing, boundary pushing stuff... but you'll never believe you're looking at another world. It all very much looks rendered, save for a few key scenes.

I hope I don't sound like I'm whining too much.. really, I'm whining about reviews that get your hopes up. In the end, this is a super fun, awe inspiring movie that has a moving story line that 99% of the world can relate to and empathize with. I hope everyone does, and I hope the "simple" message it has resonates with people in a way history lessons often fail to.

There's no denying it's a visually stunning film. There can be no gripes about the technical achievements of both the jaw-dropping environments and believably lifelike characters (which successfully avoided that dreaded "uncanny valley").With that said, I lost interest in the story partway through the movie.

What bothered me was that you knew how a scene was going to end because you've seen it before. Example: The main character tries to do something the natives do, fails, and they ridicule him. More of the same, then a montage, and now he's super skilled. It's not predictable because it references a specific movie or scene, but that it follows the same storytelling that's been expressed in other films/stories. The freaky part is that you know how long it's going to take for that scene to end, so you're staring at the background until it's time. The whole movie was like this for me. A scene would start, I would zone out, and the scene ends in predictable fashion. There's nothing complex about the plot to keep you interested and it's a shame. This pretty much could have been James Cameron's version of "Planet Earth," complete with Sigourney Weaver.

Evilbeef, did you like Star Wars (A New Hope)? That story was fairly plain and predictable, but it was executed superbly and had a few subtleties thrown in. It also set you up for the best sequel in history. I don't think movies need to be complex in order to entertain.

Star wars is predictable when watched now, it wasn't in 1977.

It defined the genre, the genre didn't define it.

93.2% of future movies will be CGI-fests. And that will be just fine with most movie-goers. Not me! I miss good acting and story-lines. The mouth-breathing masses will be happy with flashing lights and loud noises. CGI will make them quite happy. I really do blame Lucas. Funny how "The Empire Strikes Back" still looks cool almost 20 years later but the prequels look like aborted video game demos.

It makes me sick.

RIP, Hollywood.

I have seen quite a few 3D movies at my local. Being 3D is no more a draw to me now than colour or sound. No film ever looks as good as the films in my head when I read. I guess that's my point - as an inveterate reader I look for plot, character, mood etc. before I look for spectacle.

I love the theatre - one of the best show's I've seen recently was Patrick Stewart in Hamlet last Christmas, and that was played on a plain simple empty set, but the STORY held me for 4 hours or more.

Agreed.


Star Wars : A New Hope was a classic wandering hero/eternal prince story - there's nothing in it that isn't in a thousand years worth of fireside tales from all over Europe. If you look at the number of characters, the pace, the spectacle and so on, you'll find that it is slower, has less in it, and only a few set pieces - and is better for that.

I do agree, and A New Hope is definitely a film that defines Sci Fi epics for me. But it seems like other Sci Fi epics since that movie have just been mimicking it without adding something new (aside from the obvious technological advances).

I'm disappointed because Cameron has proved that he doesn't need to settle for storytelling or characters that are now so cliche and stereotypical. With Avatar, I never felt the suspense and anxiety you should feel for the main characters because the pacing follows other heroic stories without changing or switching it up. There's a rhythm that all stories follow, which is why stories can feel predictable. Adding complexity changes the rhythm, giving the viewer something unfamiliar and therefore a reason to pay attention. I just never felt that way with Avatar's story or the characters.

Well, I saw it.

It IS Dances With Wolves... but it is done really, really well.

Go see it with the 3D glasses. Will take you about 10min to get used to them, but this is the first movie I actually thought was worthwhile seeing 3D.

Go see it at an IMAX if you can too...

Yeah, I have to say, my wife and I just got back from seeing it, and we fucking loved it.

OK, so the screenplay had derivative elements: most stories do. If you ring the right notes and people enjoy it, it's a retelling of classic themes; if you hit the wrong notes or people get pissed, then you're cliched. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I thought there were a couple minor continuity issues, but I don't think any of them rose to the levels of the titanic plot-sinking holes that were enumerated above. I think the answers in terms of military tech in what is explicitly called a private mining operation, and the "technology" of the native peoples vis-a-vis their "holistic" global approach are more than satisfactory enough for me.

In the end, what I wanted was epic entertainment that would sweep me away for a couple of hours, great visuals, and some themes I could get behind. I didn't walk in expecting it to be "War and Peace," and I wasn't disappointed. It was fun. It was fun and big and exciting and gorgeous. That was enough for me.

I'm not even sure War and Peace could be adapted well to film. Zach Snyder would do it as close to the story as possible and it would be panned by snobs looking for attention and not understood by everyone else.

Pretty sure will just compared The Watchmen to War and Peace...yeowza...

I agree.

Saw it last night. The CG is phenomenal. In the scene where one of them was holding Weaver, it looked like she was actually being held by one of them. Of course, the plot was cliche, and it kind of dragged on for a little too long in the middle. Also, some of the evolution choices really annoyed me. For instance, why did the Navi have 4 limbs yet every other creature on that planet had 6?

I'm looking forward to seeing this in Humongo IMAX.

Humongo IMAX is def the way to go. I don't remember the last time a movie was able to rekindle my fear of heights. Makes your testicles shove back inside you like a startled turtle.

Yeah, I think I set the bar too high when I tried to compare Magneto to Israel. :expressionless:

OK, so I've seen it now.

In 3D.

Visually it could not be faulted - totally fantastic.

On to the things that ticked me off.

The plot was totally stolen from Anne McCafrey.

Every image on screen was stolen from Roger Dean (floating islands? stone arches? pur-lease), or Rodney Mathews (creatures), or Chris Achaellios (characters).

The plot was so full of holes it hurts - many covered in the spoilers above.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it a great deal - but is was lumpen, derivative schlock.

And another thing...

...the native creatures all had 6 limbs and 4 eyes. Except the flying ones, which have 4 limbs and 4 eyes. And the aborigines which have 4 limbs and 2 eyes.

Pretty odd way for evolution to operate, n'est ce pas?

I agree, except for the real 3D bit. Don't go see it in RealD.


.... Go see it in IMAX 3D. :rolleyes:

You are really complaining about the evolution in a make believe world? You do realize that there are examples on Earth of animals walking on 4 legs, or spiders with 6 legs, dragonflies with compound eyes, fish that have no legs and can breathe underwater, and birds that have feathers and fly.

I saw it at the IMAX 3D in the second row. It was perfect. The CGI was very well done.

It was more political than I was expecting (I only knew the name and that there were blue aliens on a distant planet going in). It combined the Native American/indigenous people, environmentalists, religious freedom fighters, anti-oil, and anti-war groups in one movie. And it turned out that the good side won out in the end.

I do wonder if they will be able to come up with something to allow my projector to turn into a 3D projector. It might be active glasses, but it didn't look like there was anything special about the image on the screen besides it being blurry. But, it would be cool if it would work with a normal DVD player.

I saw it in IMAX 3D, my mind is a little blown. What a .. BIG movie. Huge. It was an experience. The visuals were a landmark. Weta does it again.

The story was a mashup of just about every "military/corporations/humans are cruel and heartless" movie ever made, but hey, at least I agreed with it.

Is it wrong to have a hard-on for the Na'vi ladies?

Abbbsolutely not. I read a blog post a few days back which described exactly why they're designed to give you a hard on, but I can't find it at the moment.

Sigourney Weaver's character's avatar was totally hot. I love powerful women, so I've always loved Sigourney Weaver, and seeing her a bit younger again (albeit also 10' tall and blue) was quite a treat.

I was about to post "Whenever Neytiri hissed in Avatar" in the "GUYS; What gives you an instant erection?" thread.... ;)

Plus Mo'at is a total milf.

* * * * *

Oh, and I enjoyed the film immensely. If I wanted realism, I wouldn't have gone to a Fantasy/Sci-fi epic.

I'm rather good at suspending disbelief. It's a good trip.

I just got back from it, and I have to say, I found it phenomenal. Sure, there were certain plot pit-falls, but they didn't bother me in the slightest. I got very into the movie, I loved it! I saw it in 3D which was awesome, and I'll buy it in 2D because it'll be awesome then to. I loved the underlying messages and the history, I just loved it.

And to Jove : Na'vi language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point was that there are so many films and books that handle this better.

In the run-up to the launch, I was told over and over how it had been in gestation for many years - that Cameron had originally wanted to make it over a decade ago but had waited for the technology to be right, and so on.

In the end, almost everyone I've seen writing or heard talking about this film has said (in essence) "it looks great, but the story has problems".

This film cost mind-numbingly large sums of money, was made by some of the most talented and creative people in the world today, and yet the story hangs together badly, like it's an add on to the ACTUAL point which is the visuals.

My point was that I'd rather see a fabulous story on a plain stage (i.e. visit the theatre), than a shoddy story on a fabulous immersive 3D experience (i.e. Avatar). My overall point however, was that what would have made it the best film ever made is if they had slung the script to half a dozen jaded Sci Fi novelists and said - point out where this sucks, and make it better, and make it internally consistent.

Case in point.

Is is rational (in corporate situations) for your most expensive and valuable project to be being run by a young angry man, who seemingly can be over-ruled by his chief of security? Where was the local board of directors? Even if the film wanted to not fanny about with the weight they'd place on the plot, at least explain in a brief exchange that "it's a pain running the place on my own, but all the bosses died when they ate the salmon mouse", or something.

So I finally went to see Avatar. I'd avoided all reviews and stuff on the web like the plague since I wanted to see it as pure as possible.

Well it was definetly pretty. Visually it was one of the nicest things I've seen in a loooong time. If the story had even a fraction of the effort put into it that the visuals did, it would have probably been amazing.

As it was I kept being annoyed by the cliched crap he was throwing on screen. Also for the love of god, long doesn't mean good.
Spoiler: The last fight between Sully and the colonel on the ground was completely pointless and could have been cut without affecting anything. Plus since they were just planning on bombing the place what was the point of the ground troops other than to draw out the big battle at the end?

I don't know, maybe I was just expecting a decent story out of the guy who gave us Aliens, the Abyss, and the first two Terminators. Hell even True Lies.

So is it worth all the hype its been associated with? I'm sure visually its stunning, but how's the story/acting?

I respect everyones opinion here and I guess most will classify me as a cinematic novice but I loved every aspect of this movie.

In the end arent movies a piece of someone's art expressed through a medium of multiple senses.

Most movies are inspired by other works. Kind of like todays music which seems it has all been done. Its not to say some movies are may be made with the direct goal of making money.

Could he have done things differently? Doesnt that possibly come close to: should this movie have been made it all? I for one am glad it was.

Just got back from seeing it in 3D.

First, the negative: the 3D aspect was very cool and I do think it added to the movie (felt more like an experience than a movie) but there were certain parts that seemed to blur and I couldn't focus correctly. It's almost like if you tried to focus on certain parts of the screen instead of viewing it all at once, it got blurry. But I honestly think the 3D was a huge benefit...just some kinks to work out. Also, the primary antagonist character is too one-sided. They could have added some depth to him. :( Reminds me of the main bad guy in Iron Man.

Now, the positive: HOLY GOD this movie is amazing. My favorite critic says that it's not what a movie's about, it's how it's about it. And he's right. Sure the plot may be fairly generic but if you look at movies, all of them are fairly generic. Show me another movie that accomplishes this. It's funny how Terminator 2 has better CGI than movies today even though it came out almost 20 years ago. James Cameron knows how to use CGI to his advantage. During this movie, there is not a single shot in the entire movie that I thought to myself, "overboard with the CGI." The Na'Vi are simply amazing looking. Their mannerisms and the way they move, talk, act....everything about them makes them seem like living, breathing creatures. I don't know what made Cameron choose to make the Na'Vi 15 feet tall, but it was a very, very smart move. The movie wouldn't have worked as well otherwise. Just this small fact alone made it seem like the humans are invading another world rather than "we're watching a movie with fake looking aliens shot on Earth."

The world of Pandora is one of the most breathtaking worlds I've ever experienced in any medium. I would never have been able to dream of a world this beautiful, much less put it on the screen in a capacity like this.

Every single second of this movie is pure elevation (a scientifically proven emotion felt during certain movies). I didn't want this movie to end.

The action scenes are well executed but just watching Jake and Neytiri walk through the forest was just as entertaining. Every scene that had humans and Na'Vi on the screen at the same time were particularly well done. The Na'Vi are majestic, powerful creatures that simply want to live out their lives in peace and I honestly felt heartbroken at what happened to them during the movie.

There's no way to describe why this movie is amazing. It just is. It set out to accomplish something and it did it better than I've ever seen.

Absolutely, without a doubt 4/4 stars. The most expensive movie ever made and worth every single penny.

Still thinking about this movie days later. I think I liked it even more than the people who liked it. I forgot to mention how amazing the soundtrack is in the movie (worth buying).

I will probably see it. The plot sounds dumb to me but I will see it for the visuals. I've heard they are amazing and the scope is huge.

Also,

Proof that Avatar is Actually Pocahontas in 3D

Saw the movie. Was awesome. No, the plot wasn't the best ever made, not sure why people expect that, but the visuals were one of the best ever made. And that's a movies strong suit. If you want an amazing plot, read a book. But with all the negative talk about the plot, I figured it'd be horrendous holes, turns out that wasn't true at all. Either people didn't pick up on certain things or they aren't used to scifis or something. I'll try to explain.

Some **spoilers** ahead. Not going to white them out since its been awhile, so just don't read it unless you've seen the movie.

Correction: It has *lower* gravity than Earth. Nowhere did it say it has the gravity is as low as our moon or some such. For all we know the gravity is only 5% less. Jake withers a bit because he's a cripple that's in the driver tube 98% of the time...the Colonel is a freak, that's his character quirk. Nowhere else does it show anyone else needing to work out extra to keep fit. The Na'vi also are clearly run through trees and climb mountains most of the day. That right there would keep them quite strong.

Welcome to scifi/fantasy. They don't need to give reasons for this. Our universe is fantastic enough frankly. And no, I don't think much metal was in those islands. But they mentioned that the metal was throughout the planet, they needed high concentration areas, and the na'vi tree was on the biggest one. I'm guessing refining the metal was very costly.

All of that can be answered by logistics. Space travel is expensive. Launching things into and out of the Earth's gravitational pull is insanely expensive. None of their weapons, helicopters or machines would be made out of the toughest stuff available because of weight and cost issues. Nor would it be the fastest or best. It is very likely in that kind of situation that they would be made of some cheap light material like aluminum.

Still think the natives can't deal with 85% aluminum helicopters with minimal equipment? Bombs are also very heavy. Nor did they did expect to have to fight the natives. I think the trip took 6 years or so one way? They can't exactly order a nuke. They also aren't military. They were mercenaries. Ex military. Big difference. They don't have the authority to order weapons of mass destruction. They had to improvise with what they had. i.e. mining charges. Hence the big bundles of explosives they had to drop out of a cargo helicopter. This was not a military operation to take over a planet. They were not even military.

As far as jets go, exactly. They're dealing with "savages" on the ground. Why take jets? They have no room for "just in case the natives have a fleet of terradactyl things they end up using against us."

Who says those mechs were military vehicles? I'm guessing all the vehicles they had were for civilian use converted to mercenary use. I'm guessing those mechs were originally for clearing trees or rescue operations or some such. Hence the lack of permanent guns on them and why they had to hold them with their hands. Hence the lack of bullet proof glass and such (also weight issues again).

He had plenty of reasons to stay by then. He was busy falling in love and having tons of fun with his awesome avatar body. I'd want to stay too.


They might go back indeed. But that's not really a plot hole. But anyways, reasons why they wouldn't: it's a company that just lost megatons of money. It takes years to get there and they already fended them off once. It now has an even higher risk, why would the company, they are a company, not *military* don't know how you missed that, risk even more when they already failed? Companies don't do that. Individuals do, but individuals don't have the resources to mine a planet/go into deep space.

No offense if I came off a bit harsh.

To the evolution comment someone mentioned: LOL and you think we're any different? I guess humanity is a plot hole! There aren't any other humanoid bipeds on Earth, I guess we must be in some bad story. Or maybe since they only showed about ~20 species their might be more types...

---------- Post added at 01:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

Seemed rational to me. "Young"...he could easily be 50 or 60 in the future. Or he could be the son of the CEO. Its dangerous, he might have been the only one willing to go. Or he might be the third one after the other two had died. There are so many reasons he might be in charge I really don't need them to tell me one in a movie (a book would be a different story but movies have limited time and I wouldn't want them wasting it on such a silly detail). The board of directors probably wouldn't want to go to a "hellhole" for years and years...

All of the "plot holes" mentioned in this thread aren't really plot holes, they're just comments on how things could have been done differently, or why something was done a certain way, some things were done inefficiently, etc. Those aren't plot holes. Just because something happens in a sci-fi movie doesn't mean it's considered the best way. Maybe they loaded up a gigantic bomber with TNT in a big pallet because that's all they had. Or maybe someone just had a really bad idea. The corporation wasn't really known to make good decisions, right? Why is it the director or screenwriter's job to explain every single little event in the movie and why it's a great idea? I hate movies that have dialogue that exists simply to move the plot forward and that's what it seems like some people in this thread wish for.

If you look at most movies today, even the good ones, all of the plots can be boiled down to something that's happened before. I don't get how people can walk into a movie and simply pick apart the plot and lines. If the movie works, it works, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. I love this line so I will say it again: it's not what a movie's about, it's how it's about it.

While that quotation is fine, I spent much of Avatar looking at my watch. The "how" of the movie (other than being visually stunning) didn't do anything to make me care about...anything. Apparently I'm in the minority here, but the four people I saw it with all stood up and said, "So what?" I think people are nailing the plot because, quite simply, it's so far out of sync with how good the worldcraft is.

I think most of the people that dislike the plot has a lot more to do with them not being used to scifi concepts more than anything else.

+1 to what laserath said.

I echo Frosstbyte's thoughts about the quality of the story/writing < the quality of everything else. It's insane but admirable to think about the lengths that Cameron went in the creation of this movie. We've established how amazing the technology and special effects are, but consider everything else: he hired a linguist professor to create the language, consulted with a botany specialist to create and classify the plantlife, consulted with a music professor to create a "tripartite scale structure for the alien music." He hires a friggin expert in astrophysics to calculate the world's atmospheric density!
I just feel that the writing is not up to the standard that he set for everything else. For the first 60 minutes I loved this movie, but it just didn't hold my interest once I knew where it was going.

It has nothing to do with not being fimilar with sci-fi concepts, it's that the movie had the most generic paint by numbers plot possible so that anyone could see it and "get it".

What's wrong with that?

Slumdog Millionaire: a boy plays Millionaire. How he knows the answers is the plot.

No Country For Old Men: a man finds a lot of money in a briefcase and runs from the guy who is looking for it.

Titanic: two people find love and try to survive on the Titanic.

Braveheart: the leader tries to free his people

Juno: a teenage girl gets pregnant and we see how she deals with it

These movies are considered masterpieces and they all have painfully simplistic plots.

It's not just the basics of the plot it's about the content within said plot. There was absolutely nothing I didn't see coming in Avatar.

With this much effort (and cash) invested in a movie, taking a risk with the plot as opposed to using elements people are familiar with and have enjoyed immensely in the past would be at least a little bit foolhardy. I'm sure Cameron was aware of what the plot is. He was also aware (sometimes painfully, I'm sure) of the weight of the stakeholders in this film.

spoilers
I think you're over exaggerating a bit. There was no hint as to sigourney weaver's character dieing (I figured the transfer thing would work,) I wasn't certain if they'd destroy their tree, or if they'd fight a pitched battle around it, I wasn't convinced their'd be a happy ending, etc. It wasn't a "OMFG WHAT A TWIST!" Kind of movie, but not every movie needs a twist to be good. In fact, usually for me, the movies with the "twists" are the easiest ones to see what's coming.

This wasn't my favorite movie ever or anything, but I am just not seeing this supposedly bad plot some of you are.

Its OK to dislike a movie just cause, you don't have to blame the plot.

amazing.

Spoilers
How about the fact that the military acted like complete morons? Tell me that ground battle wasn't tacked on to have a big fight scene since there was no reason to have ground troops deployed.
What about that no one, in a society where everyone flies, thought "Hey maybe trying to fly above the big flying thingy" before him?
How about the "oh no he's running out of air, but his girlfriend saves him at the last possible second!"

The plot is my only reason for disliking this movie. The characters were, if a bit cliched, well done and the visuals were better than anything I've seen but the plot was horrible.

I thought the same thing, I saw it in IMAX 3D in the large IMAX not the fake shitty converted theater IMAX, and then I d/l a very good quality torrent. The video quality was very good, but it was very different.

Not the same experience at all. Even just the computer screens and HUDs were just incredible to look at in 3D.

Who is "blaming" anything? The movie bored me. When I find a movie boring, the usual culprit is the plot and the characters.

There's a difference between a familiar, engaging plot and a familiar, boring plot. I didn't need Avatar's plot to be revolutionary. I agree that with $500M riding on this movie between production costs, doing something crazy and avant garde would be an unnecessary risk. Remaking Pocahontas+Dances with Wolves+Ferngully was, in my opinion, trite, lazy and boring.

I am familiar with a lot of great science fiction literature and movies, so I haven't the first idea what you mean when you say I'd get it if only I knew something about the genre. As I've said, Avatar is a visual spectacle that ought to be enjoyed on the biggest and most expensive screen you can find. I didn't find the story interesting or compelling. Obviously, some people did, which is fine. I don't understand what there is to like about the plot, but the plot is adamantly what I did not like about the movie.

As I've said, they weren't military, they were mercenaries. Mercenaries are usually the scum of the ex-military and tend to act like morons, or at least that is the popular conception. The charges were to destroy the tree for shock and awe, not to destroy all the na'vi. The ground troops were to mop up and kill the actual na'vi. Umm, they didn't try because they didn't want to die? Why bother? He released it at the end, it was one of those desperate measures things. They had never been threatened so badly before. And we don't know why or the circumstances surrounding the previous 5 who had done it. Ok, so you named 1 moment in a 3 hour movie that was predictable. I can do that with every single movie.

Don't forget to add a dash of Dune in there for the Unobtainium, aka The Spice.

Spoiler: Oh and as far as Weaver's character dying goes, you really didn't see that coming? They kinda told you over and over again how it probably wouldn't work.

The film Pocahontas (1995) was based on a real historic figure, while Dances with Wolves (1990) and FernGully (1992) were based on books of the same titles (published in 1986 and 1991, respectively). None of those films had original plots. A question: why are these films the only creations that should be able to tell these stories? Do we have to keep going back 15 to 20 years and watch a Kevin Costner film and two animated productions to get these stories? Should we read the books?

Even Shakespeare overtly retold stories in his plays by rehashing them. It is well known that medieval audiences were keen on hearing stories they were familiar with told in new ways.

You might not like it; you might prefer novelty or something derivative beyond recognition. Fine. But obviously there are many who do like it.

I'll put this in movie terms with the hope that it makes some better sense, because apparently what I have been describing has not worked. Movies (and plots) don't need to be revolutionary to be good and engaging, and they don't have to be familiar to be engaging. You're right that no plot is truly revolutionary, nor were the plots of the movies I listed.

With the exception of FernGully, though, which is mostly in the list as a joke, both Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves worked as engaging movies for their respective target audiences. Pocahontas isn't a Disney masterpiece, but it's certainly a fun animated movie, and Dances with Wolves (whatever else Costner did afterwards) is a pretty fantastic movie. Avatar bothers me because Avatar's plot is similar to Dances with Wolves, but feels like it was written by the people who wrote FernGully. It has an immense, obvious agenda that it spends the whole movie pounding into your face. The characters are all exaggerated archetypes. There's no nuance. There's no tongue in cheek. No texture.

I don't think people are getting lost in the story of Avatar; I think they're getting lost in the world. And, for all the money and time James Cameron spent making this movie, I think he could've done a better job making the story as compelling as the world is. Maybe he'll be able to pull off a second act as good as the Empire Strikes Back to redeem Avatar's shortcomings the way Empire redeemed many of A New Hope's, but standing alone, it's pretty bare.

Avatar might be the first movie in many, many years that has me willing to go to the theater to see it.

I'm trying hard to pry hubby away from all the football playoffs this weekend to go along with me!

Luckily, I've avoided reading too many reviews although I'm going to see Avatar with low expectations...

What is the running time of James Cameron's Avatar? I have heard many different things from many different sources, and I could really use some help. Ive heard people say it's everywhere from 100 minutes, too 190 minutes. It looks like an amazing movie, but I don't wanna get over excited for a movie that's only an hour and a half long. Please help me out.

IMDB: Avatar says 162 minutes.

I bash but I still want people to watch it. The Chinese Govt doesn't even want anyone to see it.

Full story over at the GuardianUK.

I think James Cameron may have been thinking about a lot of things when he made this movie, but I feel pretty safe in saying that the plight of Chinese vulnerable to displacement by predator property developers was nowhere on his list. Awesome.