Re: Avatar
 

The movie is not bad, it has 85% at rotten tomatoes and Ebert gave it 4 stars. It's a great, highly entertaining movie. For me it was similar to watching Star Wars (originals) for the first time. If you guys were bored by the 10-15 minute flying dragon scene, which was easily one of the most amazing and thrilling scenes of the movie, then the movie was definitely not made for you.

Re: Avatar
 

I think it wasn't made for me, I agree with that - I rarely say that I absolutely hated a movie.

But to be honest, even though I can see why people liked it, I think 85 is an unbelievably high score for such a cliché movie.

Re: Avatar
 

I would go as far as to say, if you don't see the movie in theatres, don't bother watching it.

See, I think this is where the disconnect comes in. I thought the visuals and setpieces were awesome.

But the plot and characters, you know the thing that should hold the movie together, were bland.

And it created a stark comparison in my mind. I wanted to like the movie for being imaginative but it was so.... standard.

Re: Avatar
 

I completely disagree.

I think the storyline of the movie was great, I also think the characters were really well written. Could they have been better? Probably. But you can improve on every movie.

I stand by what I said about this being one of the best things I've seen in a long time. The movie without 3D would still be a good movie. But it wouldn't be an experience like it is in 3D.


What - to you - was cliche? Im not saying the movie wasn't, I'm just curious.
Because I want to know in what realm does a movie being "cliche" suddenly make it an abomination to movie-kind.

Re: Avatar
 

I am going to have to agree with Typhoid here.

Re: Avatar
 

I didn't really find the movie cliche but it was pretty predictable at some parts.
And it felt like some things weren't explained well enough.
But it was a good movie, and the crazy looking animals were cool.

Re: Avatar
 

I never said it was an abomination. I just said it was a bad movie, and that I hated it :)

It's not that it was just cliche, there were a lot of things, but especially the dialogue, plot, and the twists were very familiar.

For example, how many times have you heard this dialogue before:
-You knew about this?
+Yes, I came here to warn you. But then I fell in love with this planet, these people...with you..
-I trusted you, I trusted you!

Blech, that made me want to leave the theater right then and there. And why in hell did the Navi trust the guy and agree to train him in the first place? There was just no reason at all for them to do that.

How about Sigourney Weaver talking to somebody (:D), saying that the tree is a network or whatever, and that what they're about to do is wrong, and the reply is a badly acted "what the hell have you been smoking"? It's always the same, x is important, some guys want to destroy it, they drive the people out of their home. I agree with Bond's comment - it is like a Middle East movie.

And tell me that you didn't expect the security guy to turn bad and take a beating from our hero, but not before pummeling him half to death?

They tried to mix technology (which was straight out of the Halo universe) with sticks and stones, using some fabulous visuals (which for some reason reminded me of LotR in some places), added a dab of The Matrix and a hurriedly cobbled up love story (which was just like James Cameron's other blockbuster, Titanic - two people from different classes coming together despite family objections) into it, with no strong points at all.

To be honest, the reason I hated it was because it offered nothing new to me. Like I said in my first post, it was like watching the best parts of the best movies of the last 10 years. And that, to me, is a bad thing.

Re: Avatar
 

Edward Norton wasnt in the movie. What have you been smoking?




Hahahhahaha j/k.

Its Giovanni ribisi

Re: Avatar
 

I've known that guy as Edward Norton all my life. And I guess the friends I went with did too, as we all talked about him :D

Re: Avatar
 

I don't see how it would be a Middle East movie.
I mean, you can take what you want from something to morph the view to fit something else IE; Nostradamus' "predictions" - but if anything I would say this is just a combination of every anti-corporate movie mixed with Indians.


Many times.
It makes for a decent movie, which is why it keeps getting done in different ways. If it wasn't a good idea and didn't work, writers and directors wouldn't keep using it.

That would be a good point unless:
Avatar had been in development since 1994 by Cameron, who wrote a 114-page scriptment for the film.[5] Filming was supposed to take place after the completion of Titanic, and the film would have been released in 1999, but according to Cameron, "technology needed to catch up" with his vision of the film.


Also: as to the name of the mineral: "Unobtanium" - he didn't create that. It's a widely used humerous canon for any type of mineral that is hard to obtain.

It sucks - Bube, that you hate this movie. Because he's making 2 more.

Re: Avatar
 

Yeah, the unobtainium was a bit of an inside joke.

Really though, you should have been able to tell from the trailers that the story was going to be predictable.

As other people have said, it's been done before, but IMO never this well.

Re: Avatar
 

Oh well, whatever, I won't be watching the other 2 then, just like my decision to not watch Twilight after I saw the first one :)

My taste in cinema doesn't get along well with others, this isn't the first time :)

Re: Avatar
 

I would say that the story formula they used was definitely tried and true, but I would argue that the story itself and the way it was presented is what made the movie original. Never have I ever[ felt so deeply immersed in such a believable fiction. The cinemetography was astounding to say the least. I felt like Pandora was a real planet and the Na'Vi were a real people. Were there some cheesy moments? Yes, and I agree that unobtainium is the worst name for a mineral ever, inside joke or no. I thought the acting was pretty solid (although that general dude was a little too over the top G.I. Joe for my taste). Here in Rochester it was only $11.50 (and that's damn expensive compared to a non-3D movie at $8.00 a pop, $6.00 with my Mayo Clinic employee discount), and I thought that it was well worth it.

Re: Avatar
 

Everyone started arguing so I stopped reading.

The depth on screen created by the 3d makes it worth the $16. Holy crap was that amazing.

Sure the story is basically Pocahontas, but it didn't drag and even when it did, it was interesting enough to look at so that I wasn't bored.

Seeing it while high probably skews my opinion a bit, but I found it to be an incredible experience and I've been recommending it to everyone.

Re: Avatar
 

No, no - you got it all wrong.
Nobody was arguing. I was just informing Bube about how his personal opinion was wrong.