Anybody else not enjoy Avatar?

[merlinmunstache]

I only went to see it, to make sure i wasn't missing out on something seeing it in 3D, and i wasn't. It was deemed as the re-birth of cinema? What a crock!
I think all reviewers (apart from a few) are scared of slating the big guns crap films (Indiana Jones 4) for fear of not being invited on the set of their next film for an exclusive.
It was like watching a very expensive video game, and nothing i haven't seen before. I was expecting a Jurassic Park or Terminator 2 moment, but sadly not. The story was an awful re-tread, I thought Dances with wolves in space with giant blue cats.
I just kept thinking it must get better until eventually I left and watched The Road to get it out of my head. Which was quality.

Bring on the onslaught of abuse.

[Panther]

I agree it'[s not the world shaking film it's been hyped up to be (Total Film being as guilty as anyone). It's good but never a 5 star film.

As for 3D? Phooey! $300 mllion and that's as good as it gets? Just a gimmick.

If you're watching a film in 3D, 2D, black and white or just reading a book, once you get into the story and are absorbed by it the look of it becomes irrelevant.

[Serrano]

It wasn't awful, but I'd say I enjoyed True Lies a heck of a lot times more.

You're Fired!

[thedude]

I bloody loved it, and thought the use of 3-D was the best yet, it may well be a gimmick, but at times what a gimmick!!

[Ancient One]

I have to say that as a film, yes it was derivative and did strongly resemble Dances With Wolves.As an experience however it was amazing and like Dude I LOVED it. Well worth going to see.

[Zippykins1]

Originally Posted by Ancient One

I have to say that as a film, yes it was derivative and did strongly resemble Dances With Wolves.As an experience however it was amazing and like Dude I LOVED it. Well worth going to see.

I heard Kermode call it Dances with Smurfs which I liked. I'm going to watch it again before I totally make up my mind, but based n one viewing, no I didn't like it very much.

[fortunesfool]

Seen it three times now. It's a flawed narrative for sure but it's so bloody well made and spectacular. Such a breath of fresh air to see a big Hollywood movie that is helmed by someone who understands what they're doing - not an over-edited shaky-cam in sight, just 'proper' film-making.

There is some clanging dialogue though - It's definitely more 'Titanic' than 'T2' as far as Cameron movies go.

[MrSilly]

Originally Posted by Zippykins1

I heard Kermode call it Dances with Smurfs which I liked. I'm going to watch it again before I totally make up my mind, but based n one viewing, no I didn't like it very much.

That's a reference to an episode of South park that came out a couple months back.

As for me, I thought it was an appalling film. No lie, appalling. Cameron is an abysmal writer, and this was damn near painful to sit through. I consider this film a major turning point in my viewing of film, it appears that I can no longer be satiated by some pretty colours and other nonsense, I do happen to like an involving storyline, memorable characters and dialogue that doesn't leave me smashing my face into the fire exit.

I'm not even that impressed by Cameron's action directing anymore. I've gotten tired of it. After watching pieces of maniacal genius such as Crank: High Voltage, Cameron leaves me cold. The scale was impressive, but I've seen better in videogames. In fact, after Avatar, I've found that my opinion on every James Cameron film has changed massively, like I'm seeing it from a fresh perspective. The man has always been a horrible writer, jsut thinking back on some fo the atrocious dialogue he's written over the years brings me close to tears. Yeah, I'm not a fan.

I've said to a friend recently, what would've made for an infinitely more interesting film was if they had gone to the lengths of making Pandora and all that jazz, and instead made a fictional David Attenborough-style documentary, akin to Planet Earth. Tell me that wouldn't have been mind-blowing.

[fortunesfool]

See, that's not 'maniacal genius' ,that's just shaking a camera about and then editing the resulting mess together so quickly that no one has time to realise that you don't have a clue how to actually shoot, edit and compose this stuff.

The majority of 'film-makers(?)' working today are practically illiterate as far as film language is concerned and a movie like Avatar shows that very clearly. It's a bit sad that well thought out, composed and edited action scenes are now considered a bit slow and boring.

Chalk up another nail in the coffin of cinema to the ADD generation.

[MrSilly]

Originally Posted by fortunesfool

See, that's not 'maniacal genius' ,that's just shaking a camera about and then editing the resulting mess together so quickly that no one has time to realise that you don't have a clue how to actually shoot, edit and compose this stuff.

Now here's where I have to vehemently disagree. For soemthing that is always moving and shaky, there is a remarkable amount of skill involved. The camera is never lost in the action, it is in fact very simple to keep up with it, and it makes some clever uses of the archetypal establishing shot. Also, the shooting and editing are breathtaking examples of how far it can be pushed, without turning into a mess. Neveldine/Taylor are pretty much the only ones I've seen (and perhaps Paul Greengrass) who make a such a method work, without descending into a jumbled mess. Far from being jarring and off-putting, they actually flow quite well, and of course their subject matter and story is built around it. Something like Avatar wouldn't work with them, but soemthing like Crank does.