The Hot Blog

Is this not a criticism? Surely any other director would be slammed for trying to stuff their narrative with so many threads?

I think the most amusing thing about Avatar is the idea that Cameron's flipped from the pro-military machismo to hippy-dippy as some kind of subversion when it's just him horribly behind the times. That's just my opinion. Not hyperbole stated as fact which seems to be the order of the day with some of the early reviews I read.

Any hyperbole as fact jumping out at you, Owsler?

I wouldn't call this criticism off the bat, since it had taken more than a single viewing to see these angles. That implies that it was overbearing in its goals.

Pardon?

Take out #1 and you have ATTACK OF THE CLONES and REVENGE OF THE SITH.

Speaking of Militarism v Hippie...

Has anyone seen the latest Avatar trailer?

You start off with the Colonel giving an Aliens-like warning about the planet, then cut to an Na'Vi horde-like attack. The end shot is an Alienesque spike crashing through the pane of the Battletech armor and stopping an inch from the soldier. It actually paints the humans as good, the Na'Vi as the hostiles. No stars, no storyline, no romance.

When a studio blatantly distorts, isn't this usually taken as a sign of fear? I understand dropping the Narnia/Spielbergian/whimsy-world bullshit they originally went with, but this trailer is a lie. You would think it was Starship Troopers 4.

And now, ladies and gents, my fearless predictions for the weekend:

Avatar will make money than you can shake a stick at.

Because Avatar does not make more money than you can shake a stick at PLUS THE STICK, many Instant Analysts will declare the opening weekend take is disappointing.

David will counter by writing that Avatar eventually will make more money than you can shake a stick at PLUS THE STICK and the tree it was carved from.

IO will write that Sherlock Holmes will make more money than you can shake a stick at PLUS THE STICK and the tree it was carved from and all the leaves on its branches.

JeffMcM will correct IO by pointing out that the word he means to use is “leafs,” not “leaves.”

IO will counter by claiming that JeffMcM and The Big Perm beat each other with tree branches before indulging in anal sex (with the branches).

Nicol D will opine that Avatar is a movie made for and by tree-huggers.

LexG will report that the sight of Michelle Rodriguez in IMAX 3-D gave him a woody.

That just about covers it, don’t you think?

Joe,

I am chuckling over my morning coffee. But seriously...you know be better than that...I will most definitely assert they are treehuggers who went to a bad film school!

Best

That was awesome, Joe.

As if the "Ferngully" comparisons are not enough, "Avatar" is gonna get killed by messy weather in the East.

Blizzard watch for Long Island ... winter storm warnings from New Jersey to South Carolina ... flooding rain in Florida and the Southeast ... no record-breaking opening!

"Take out #1 and you have ATTACK OF THE CLONES and REVENGE OF THE SITH."

Luke, don't you know saying anything nice about the prequels (or Lucas) is akin to admitting to voting for McCain, i.e., simply not done in polite company? Really, you want people to think you're a barbarian or something?

Joe: I have not laughed so hard since the last time I watched The Big Lebowski, particularily the scene where the dude crashed his car into a dumpster while tyring to put out a fire on his pants (by dousing it with beer) caused by trying to flick a roach out the closed window of his car.

I am an old petroleum geologist currently living in Luanda, Angola, Africa. The only thing my Angolan National coworkers were talking about this past week is when is the best time this weekend to go to the Bella Shopping mall in Luanda Sul and watch Avatar. I think the estimates are low.

Forget it, Jake. It's Avatar.

Thanks, LYT for stating what should be the obvious. It amazes me that the Prequels aren't even getting a mention in most Avatar reviews, not even to make an unfavorable comparison.

And what's strange is that Avatar's supposed shortcomings (mentioned even in the positive reviews), like weak dialogue, cardboard characters, and an overload of CGI action in the final section of the film, are criticisms that were HEAVILY thrown at Lucas for his films.

I'm not saying that George did it better, but people were all guns blazing before, and now seem to be willing to give Cameron a pass for the same crimes.

Hey, some of us still like the prequels (okay, 2 of them), even if they are highly flawed.

Lucas could only dream of making/writing a film like Avatar. The similarities may be there (I suppose, though not really), but the real difference between Avatar and the Prequels is that Avatar never gets bogged down by its story.

Joe: if you did not look like Santa...

I love the prequels. Being one of the two people that actually get them. I would say something trite, but I have Clone Wars to watch later day. So I am hoping to watch it without the baggage of disillusioned people who wanted Vader to kill Jedis, but not force sensitive kids. Damn those lines people draw in the sand.

Oh yeah, Caddyshack up there points out that this already happened before in Attack and Revenge. You also have to realize that Avatar exist because of the New Trilogy. Those effects are straight out of the prequels, but let us all act like 25 year old with issues. Who seemingly lack the ability to get subtlety. WOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Brack, you mean the story that's very similar to countless movies we have seen before? Really? Bogged down by story? Oy to the vey Brack. OY TO THE VEY!

"but let us all act like 25 year old with issues. Who seemingly lack the ability to get subtlety."

That's okay. You've got it covered for everyone.

Wait a minute, hold on...is it really "leafs?"

No. But it was still funny.

IO - I'm not sure what point you were making with your reply, but I was going by the comparison to the Prequels, and yes, I believe those movies at times got bogged down by the story, except for maybe Revenge of the Sith.

Revenge of the Sith is my favorite movie of the decade. I'm on-record several places with that call.

In the litany of "things I like that others despise," it's far from the most barbarous.

"Revenge of the Sith is my favorite movie of the decade. I'm on-record several places with that call."

Darn, I was hoping I was the only one. Oh, well, I guess this club's big enough for two.

Revenge of the Sith???

I liked that movie..I actually liked all of the prequels well enough (because I don't care about Star Wars too much overall so they didn't rape me). But...yow!

Martin S, you sir know very little what makes a "Spielbergerian" film.

I can't wait to finally see the entire Avatar for myself though as someone who actually read "Call Me Joe" I admit to being turned off by some things I've seen.

Actually, I'd hoped IO would appreciate the leaves/leafs thing as an allusion to the time when I mistakenly -- well, OK, stupidly -- "corrected" him for his use of the word "populous," and he politely pointed out that I was full of shit.

I'm sorry, I gotta call BS on this one. You can't cut-n-paste wornout storyline from this or similar genres and call it original or ingenious. I was getting angry at all the things I HAD seen before. The Avatar thing I'll give you. Though I didn't see Surrogates and don't remember Total Recall.

New creatures? Yes but how diff from any of the Jurassic Park sans the day-glo? Plus, you watch any cartoons sat morning and you see new creatures in strange planets.

Massive machinery of war on a Never Before wah?? They showed nothing that could even blow up the Death Star let alone top anything seen in half the Star Treks or Tranny movies.

I think I saw just about all of those lines when I was a kid secretly watching a videotape of Heavy Metal in my friend’s basement. It's like sitting in a middle school English comp class and listening to some kid dazzle the class with fantastical journey that end w/the line "...but then I woke up in my bed and found out it had all been just a dream." Every kid in the class is blown away by how "original" it is but meanwhile the teacher is thinking, "Umm, yeah, not so much.

Both Surrogates and Gamer this year used the idea of avatars...but none of the other storylines.

There's a sense of, 'if we don't believe this to be the ground-breaking piece of cinema we were promised, the world will cease to exist, so we do'. That's the kind of hyperbole I'm talking about.

The fact you have to look at this film in terms of 3-D, Imax and 2-D just irritates the hell out of me. It's easy to dismiss this as snobbery, but I'd rather go and watch an epic like Lawrence of Arabia or hang off a simple image like the ending of The Searchers if I want that ankle sweeping awe. Maybe wow us with something that won't be a fad (again) in a few years. And I'm obviously kidding myself with that statement. If it makes money, that's the direction we're headed.

Still though, that's only an expansion of the already existing argument: should I see the movie at the Beverly Center, or in digital projection at the Arclight, or wait for DVD, or insist on Blu-Ray and a hi-def flatscreen...3-D adds another variable, but it's still all about how purist a cinephile you want to be.

You're absolutely right. I guess I worry about about exactly how disconnected we're going to get from the movie experience. And I'm not saying people shouldn't go to the cinema (that's the goal for any production, obviously), but I think a movie should still be able to stimulate at the smallest, and most transferable, level (and that's what I mean by disconnected, as I wonder how Avatar will play on Blu-ray in the living room compared with say, Transformers 2). How many critics or movie-goers have seen Avatar in 2-D or feel they should, for example. Is 3-D this almost lobotomising medium that makes comparing their impact with the impact of 2-D movies in a similar genre, unfair?

I'm interested to see if people's opinions change. Like Devin over at CHUD said, it could end up being this year's Kong.

"Is 3-D this almost lobotomising medium that makes comparing their impact with the impact of 2-D movies in a similar genre, unfair?"

owsler, you haven't seen the 3-D in 'avatar' have you? i know this because you call it 'lobotomising', when in fact it is a subtle enhancement that you forget about about 20mins into the film.

(there should be a rule that people can't trash talk a film they haven't seen. oh, and devin farace is a TOOL)

sorry typo, faraci is in fact the tool

I have actually, but thanks for winning the argument with that assumption.

I'm not talking about how subtle it is, I'm talking about how overwhelmed people have been by the film. And yeah, amongst some people this reaction has gone down slightly through discussion. That's what I meant by lobotomising and so it's not the best word for it, I'll admit.

Okay, I'm not sure which thread is the best at current (Hey, DP, can I ask for an All-spoilers Avatar discussion thread for those who have seen it?) so I'll just start here:

I'm in the weird place of leapfrogging Nicol so I'll just say it: Great visuals, terrible screenplay, and terrible in the sense that, for me, there was WAYYY too much political agenda at play. I don't have a problem with a movie about 'imperialistic war machine bad' angle, but I do have a problem with the level of one-sidedness and simplicity of this scale.

Let me reiterate, though, that I don't agree with IOI's hatred of the movie AT ALL. I've actually seen it.

Gonzo Knight - you sir know very little what makes a "Spielbergerian" film.

You sir, can't write a grammatically correct sentence.

As to your "point", I was referring to the delivery of the original trailers, not if Avatar belongs in some forced sub-genre.

i don't care about 'winning' any arguments, i'm just trying to figure out exactly what your problem is, that people are overwhelmed by the film? is this no longer allowed? of course that feeling of euphoria dims after time and reason sets in, it's like falling in love. it's as if you don't believe what people are saying and think there's some brainwashing/trickery involved, people giving false reactions when in fact if they REALLY thought about it they'd see the error of their ways, that they don't REALLY love the film and instead feel about the way you do, apparently.

you feel what you feel, others feel what they feel; that's art.

^^ to owsler if that's not clear

Have not seen Avatar yet...but after reading Jeff's post...

...oh dear...oh dear...how heavy handed is this thing?

...or maybe I will have to love it on principal to go against Jeff.

Nah. Can't wait to see it in the next couple days and get in on this.

I don't have a problem with them being overwhelmed, I just find it funny that some of these people are now settling down and accepting that the movie might have faults.

I'm talking about how effusive they were after seeing it to now. I'm wondering if that's 3-D's effect, no matter how subtle you think it is. Or whether that's something else.

Nicol, I think your take on it will actually be extremely similar to mine: Great craft in the visual effects, the look of the planet and the aliens and creatures, the action sequences, etc. Aside from that...Not sure how far to go because it's obvious I'm going to be in the minority on this one and I don't want to rub too many people the wrong way, right away.

But yeah, for me it was like an unsubtle Michael Moore movie, with explosions.

"...oh dear...oh dear...how heavy handed is this thing?"

what are you, nicol, the white rabbit?

'avatar' is pretty much the most heavy-handed environmentalist mutherfucker ever committed to the big screen, it hits you over the head with its stunningly beautiful recycling bin, and it's BONZA!

what is this notion that a movie has to be 'fair and balanced', that the villains can't be one-note, type A assholes? fuck that shit

(a woman, swearing? get NIC his smelling salts, STAT!)

Leahnz, thou art beautiful in thy wrath.

Leah, if you must be wrathful at Nicol, you have to be wrathful with me too.

(Okay, you can be more wrathful with him.)

Leahnz

"(a woman, swearing? get NIC his smelling salts, STAT!)"

What are you, 65 years old? Get outta the 50's, babe.

Oh dear, Nicol called Leah "babe"...get Leah her local human rights tribunal! She is oppressed!

"what is this notion that a movie has to be 'fair and balanced', that the villains can't be one-note, type A assholes? fuck that shit"

Oh no. You misunderstand m'deary. A film can be anything it wants. If you are making a one note, one diminsional film that costs 5 million go for it.

If you are making a film that costs 200 million + and is a major financial risk and you are trying to appeal to all four quadrants of a film audience...you better make a film that is at least slightly more subtle than Kirk Cameron's Left Behind series.

See how that works, love?

Kirk Cameron is a fine and upstanding young man, and he gave a very affecting performance in Fireproof. Why do you hate Christians so, Nicol?

NIC of narrow mind

cow-towing to pressure to make a film that appeals to PEOPLE LIKE YOU is for cowards and hacks. cameron is neither

(sheepishy thanks joe... i did rather like the bit about the recycling bin)

Joe,

Your joke would work if I made a crack at Cameron. I did not. I took a shot at his Left Behind movie which is as subtle as a ten pound hammer.

Much like, Avatar if its fans are to be found correct.

Nicol, why are you spending so much time arguing about a movie you haven't seen?

I mean, Leah and Joe should really be calling me names etc.

Nicol: OK, either you have a problem with subject/verb agreement, or you're saying your "shot," not the Left Behind movies, "is as subtle as a ten pound hammer."

(Yeah, I know: That's a cheap shot. But I've recently spent a week grading student essays and -- oy vey! -- my head hurts.)

Jeff,

I am actually not arguing anything about the movie which I have acknowledged I have not seen. I am only dealing with perceptions of it. But Jeff, read the thread...I have not started with Leah or Joe...I could write that Christmas is December 25th and Leah would ...oh nevermind.

Joe,

I start teaching again in January...my head still hurts from the fall session, I do not have time to double check all of my posts for proper grammar.

Hey...shouldn't you be preparing lessons and final reports? Now - that - was a cheap shot, just my way of illustrating.

(jeff, i know your just being honest and not trying to provoke a brouhaha, or a melee for that matter! i may not agree with you but you're genuine rather than paranoid and persecuted)

"I could write that Christmas is December 25th and Leah would ...oh nevermind"

add to that delusional

Leah, I agree with you 1000%.

Nicol D: Actually, I'm preparing for what they call a mini-semester session -- one full course taught within a 15-day period -- at UH. It's another edition of Social Aspects of Film, again focusing on the New Hollywood period, where I screen such diverse titles as Bonnie and Clyde, Easy Rider and Coming Home. Of course, I plan on indoctrinating my students so that they'll become radical leftists bent on destroying capitalism as we know it. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. (Just to provide some semblance of balance, I'm also tossing Dirty Harry into the mix.)

God, it's funny that people are arguing whether a genre movie is subtle enough.

Really. What's that all about? The deft sophistication of... what big, loud action movie?

Avatar is not going to be #1 on my Top Ten this year. Not close. Could edge into the ten, but I have never said it's one of the great films of all time. It's one of the great action adventure films of all time. It's GENRE.

The reason people are overwhelmed by it is that it is overwhelming. It's not King Kong, though that film was way overattacked.

And with due friendship and respect to Devin, am I really supposed to worry about the contrarian opinion of the guy who liked GI Joe, Terminator Salvation, 2012, and State of Play?

Devin has been lining up to be Mr. Anti-Avatar since last summer. Zzzzzzz...

DP, (to get briefly feisty) 'It's genre' is no excuse for underdeveloped characters and sketchy plot threads.

I think Armond was more right than anybody's saying.

jeff, i read armond's review and he also said 'gamer' is a more deft and honest examination of the 'human occupies avatar' concept in regards to our relationship with technology, and then he goes on to say that michael bay has a clearer understanding of the military industrial complex as depicted in 'trannies deax' than does cameron in 'avatar', which is frankly sheer idiocy.

you may agree with white, but please don't say he's more right than anyone is willing to admit, that's a little insulting. particularly re: a film critic who misses the point more than a blind woman knitting a scarf

re: "underdeveloped characters and sketchy plot threads", apart from the mercenary marines and company men who are very obviously not supposed to be developed characters but rather symbolic minions of imperialistic greed, what plot threads are sketchy to you? and which characters are 'underdeveloped'?

the only main character that comes to mind as being particularly underdeveloped is michelle's trudy, the other main characters (esp. jake, neytiri, grace and spellman) are nicely fleshed out to the degree that such fleshing is necessary to propel the story in a meaningful way.

(and i'm not being a poop, i'm honestly interested in your thinking)

Well, I never saw Gamer, so I have no idea about it, and when it comes to Transformers, White's definitely seeing something that isn't there. And it sure would be nice if he wrote his reviews in some manner style other than 'incensed fever dream'. But where I agree with his review is that the whole movie felt, to me, and I know I'm going to be in the minority, as "hippie naivete". It felt too simplistic and obvious in its subtext and by-the-numbers as a story, and quite simply, there was a point where I had the thought "I'm bored" somewhere in the middle.

When I said 'underdeveloped characters', I meant just that. I mean, while I was watching the movie (and it's entirely likely that this is just me) it felt like every ten minutes or so there was a scene missing. Who was Jake before he got injured? I would have liked to know. I would have liked it better if Selfridge and Quaritch had been more than just cardboard villains, and there was plenty that could have been done with them, not necessarily to waste time, but simply to heighten the drama. I mean, Quaritch does all but kick puppies in every scene that he has, and I would have liked a tad more dimension to him. And Michelle Rodriguez was basically just a plot device. I mean, did anything she do have any motivations?

I liked the performances from Worthington, Saldana, and of course Sigourney Weaver.

"'It's genre' is no excuse for underdeveloped characters and sketchy plot threads."

Well, I agree with that. But it's such a broad comment that it is impossible to discuss without pointing.

DID you think that the side characters needed more screentime... because too much focus on the ensemble can also be as great a sin.

Armond's review, in general, is one of those reviews when the critic decides what the movie IS and won't bother to let the movie get in the way of that piece of political positioning. He didn't get it... because based on what he wrote, he had no interest on what it actually is, just what he decided it represented.

i get what you're saying re: the villains, jeff, they're just mean fuckers with no depth or humanity.

but i think that's the point in this context, which isn't meant to be subtle and complex; selfridge couldn't do the horrible things he does if he had even a shred of empathy or decency. do sociopathic captains of industry wrestle with their conscience? no, sociopaths don't have a conscience to wrestle with, so in a way perhps this is a more honest depiction of self-interest and corporate greed. do bad men really stand around ringing their hands, lamenting their humanity and 'hard decisions' before they commit some terrible atrocity against people to get their hands on something of value they want? is there really conflict or depth of character there to examine and dramatise, or are they just self-serving assholes who, like selfridge, crinkle a brow for a fleeting moment before going ahead and doing what they damn well meant to do all along. i don't know

(as for quaritch, he's just a mean, twisted hombre who uses jake to get what he wants, infuriated at being betrayed and crossed; i guess we could have been show why he's mean and twisted by i'm not sure that would really help advance the story and would have added yet another thread to an already busy tapestry)

in a way 'avatar' strikes me a bit like the bizarro world 'aliens': on a technicolor mushroom-trip world, the wise-cracking marines are the creeping, deadly, identity-less alien horde with 'burk, carter j's distant, more ruthless relative at the helm against the aliens, who are the sympathetic beings aided by grace as 'ripely-had-she-lived'.

"And Michelle Rodriguez was basically just a plot device. I mean, did anything she do have any motivations?

i'd have to say yes --- SPOILERS --- when the gunships are about to take out home-tree, she hesitates, listens to her conscience and cuts out, defying authority. she is clearly motivated by a need to do the right thing and acts accordingly from then on. not to say she isn't rather thinly drawn, which she undoubtedly is

Avatar aka WHITE PEOPLE IN SPACE!

Like your precious Star Wars movies?

I think as an action movie it's certainly a powerful experience, but are people really treating it as just an action movie? If Cameron hadn't touted it as some almost religious experience (yes, hyperbole, oh how hypocritical), I'd say it wasn't fair on him, just because some groups feel it deserves nominations for Best Picture or some hooey.

I think my biggest issue is how backwards it feels. It's almost an apology for Aliens. It seems as light and fluffy (and I'm talking thematically) as that was dark and ugly. And if we're looking at a movie purely as a genre exercise I'd go for Aliens as an adrenaline rush everytime. But that's just me. I'm not talking or forcing people like Leahnz to agree. Incase they have a coronary.

how 'backwards' it feels?

'people like me'? i'm sorry, do you know me?

did you read what i just wrote above about avatar being like the bizarro-world aliens?

i'm not about to have a coronary over anything you might say but i just might slap you upside the head for being annoying. blech

Sorry, wasn't sure if you regarded that as a criticism or just an observation. I've gathered you feel I'm forcing my opinion on others so I wanted to make it clear that wasn't my intention.

As a spectacle, Avatar is something to behold. It really is up there with Blade Runner, Jurassic Park and Lord of The Rings.

But I don't think it's in the classic realm of Star Wars, E.T. and Titanic. The "nature as technology" message is commendable (and a timely evolution of the Lucas "faith and technology" theme), but the movie simply doesn't make the dramatic and metaphoric impact of those other generation-defining films.

The Na'vi are also going to turn off a lot viewers with their Al Gore politics, their derivative characterizations ("tatonka! tatonka!") and the sheer otherworldliness of their rendering. While they do come off as real, living creatures in this world, how are people with all their flaws supposed to connect with these goody-two-shoes aliens? (At least Kevin Costner gave us evil Native Americans for good measure.) My asshole friend sitting next to me was openly rooting for the humans to drill-baby-drill their way into the forest and root-out these blue state/blue skin hippies.

As much as it pains me to agree with IO (who has the taste and communication skills [and probably sex life] of an 11 year old), the audience for this one will be limited. Cameron's film doesn't go down as easy as it needs to. It's too long and weird and pedantic.

That said, I can't wait to see it again.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)