Avatar

[socketlevel]

derek i agree completely, since when does asking for something have anything to do with it?

besides couldn't it be argued that the moment people ask for something might potentially be the worst time to give it to them. I would think so, very few movies have impressed me because i felt like it was the climate for such film to come out.  the best shit comes outta left field and lays you out, wanting more.  the moment you actually get more, it sucks.

[Pubrick]

you missed my point.

like king kong, it was a story that no one cared to hear. i HOPE it's great and i HOPE i like it as much as that, at least, but the only reason anyone i know is mentioning the film is cos it cost a lot of money --- NO ONE is saying "hey that sounds like a good story, i wonder what pandora is like"..

i made a direct comparison to District 9 -- and i realise that no one asks for any story that isn't a sequel -- but the point is from experience with that film, everyone i knew was actually intrigued by the story, the premise caught their interest. if everyone watches this it will be because of the hype, and that's smart business obviously, and i hope it's good cos i like cameron and i'm a titanic-defender, but no one cares at this point about the story whatsoever.

[Pozer]

i somehow lose more and more interest in this everytime i see its TV spot. unless you band of fools convince me otherwise, i will not see it theatrically as no one i know will make room for this on their mustsee holiday movie list. im saying it sinks into the Abyss opening weekend.

[Gold Trumpet]

On a tv show I was watching, it said the budget was $300 million and advertising will cost $200 million so I don't know how this will be able to get its money back, but I remember in 1998, there was little hype for Titanic. Before the film was released, E News actually ran a segment about how overblown that budget was and since there were no stars in the film it was going to be a guranteed bomb. If I also remember correctly, the film never scorched any weekend records (or even came close), but it's consistent good sales week in and week out is what propelled it to the juggernaut that it is now.

Like I said, I don't know how Avatar will do good business considering its budget is inflated even by Titanic comparisons, but even if it fails financially and is still a good movie, I will be happy. It could be a Cleopatra level bomb and almost destroy a studio (like that film did for Fox in '63) and if it's good, it's quality is that all that will matter for me. I'm pretty convinced the visuals won't live up to the hype, but the story and filmmaking still could.

[matt35mm]

I don't care about any of the numbers.  I'm going to see this as soon as I can on the biggest screen I can find in L.A.  I expect that I will be entertained.  The reviews so far are good enough for me to be confident in that expectation.  The big-ass screen will also help.

If you think you're ever going to see this, why not watch it in IMAX 3D?  I kind of regret not seeing The Dark Knight in IMAX because I know now that nothing can duplicate that experience.  I'm excited that the IMAX and the 3D aspect of Avatar aren't afterthoughts, but were always planned for as the ideal way to experience the movie.

I've kinda fallen out of love with going to the movies, except for danky art cinemas.  Any mainstream movie, I wait until Blu-Ray.  This is the first time in a long time that an "event movie" seemed worth actually going to see in the best theater you can find with ear-blistering, bowel-shaking 7.1 DTS ES sound and a screen so big you kind of want to wet your pants before anything even starts playing on it.  So even if this is James Cameron's worst movie, I'm gonna have a lot of fun come Friday.

[modage]

Remember, it's not real IMAX.

Also: after the good reviews I actually bought tix for (fake!) IMAX 3D this Saturday. 

[Alexandro]

I had very mild interest in seeing this. It was only cameron's involvement what called my attention. never cared to see any of the footage of trailers, all i've seen are a couple of stills. but now the reviews are too ecstatic. and really, the only cameron film i can't rewatch form time to time is titanic, and only because it takes three fucking hours to offer something different.

now i'm dying to see on digital 3d and enjoy the hell out of it... this is going to make a ton of money in the end. not only on box office, but dvd and blu ray sales, etc etc...studios don't take risks THAT big, by this time they probably found a way to have a worst scenario that's not even a worst scenario. in the end, who gives a shit?

[Derek]

One thing I like about Cameron's films are the simple, identifiable archtypes and straightforward good vs. evil stories, cliches as some might call them. He does these well, and they're relatable to everyone in the audience. I think it frees him up to push the envelope in areas such as the technical side of things. I would argue this simplicity is part of what makes the original Star Wars movies work so well and are considered classics, where the prequels got bogged down in convoluted trade embargo and tax storylines.

[pete]

titanic wasn't too straight forward on the good vs. evil.  or the abyss.  don't oversimplify great filmmaking.

[Alexandro]

well if i remember correctly, billy zane had the "obnoxious villain boyfriend who mocks the poor boy and thinks he's above all"  attitude from pretty much the moment he enters the movie, and winslet's mom has that "antagonist mother in law" thing going on from the get go. di caprio went for the "bohemian vagabond" who (quote): "wants to float through the wind like a leaf". so yes, as great as the filmmaking was, it was HEAVILY into this simplistic crap and that's mostly why I can't stand it save from the breathtaking moments and the awesome climax.

and I'm not even counting the villain's sidekick: the mean buttler. or the celine dion song at the end.

[Derek]

Yea boss.

I'm not oversimplifying great filmmaking. I'm talking about not overstuffing the background which takes away from the forward narrative. Cameron writes broad characters, you disagree? Take a look at Cal in Titanic or David Warner's character. Or Paxton's pirate-who-finds-his-real-treasure-where-he-least-expects-it. Or any of the colorfol cast of characters in the Abyss.

I'm not knocking it, I like it. Simple's good, and it works. He's not re-inventing the wheel with his dramatic arcs or his characters but they serve well his vision. That's why he gets the large audiences he gets, but he excels in other areas like the visuals and effects. Take away the spectacle and see how many people go see a Cameron movie.

And I love Cameron.

[Stefen]

I ain't gonna lie. I saw Titanic 5 times in the theater. I preordered the double VHS in full screen. lulz. 

[Pas]

oh no.

[Pubrick]

firsties?

this was amazing. Pandora is gorgeous and the last hour of the film is just about the best action film ever made.

it's classic Cameron, for better or worse. the dialogue and characterization is almost unimportant in a film like this. it isn't exactly about the intricacies of the human condition, it's about huge broad spectacle on the grandest scale you can imagine. personal discomfort with 3D might affect your interest in the first hour, which might also be tedious upon rewatching it (and i definitely WILL see this again), but like Cameron's other films i mostly just rewatch the climaxes.

without giving anything away, for all its broad characters (the "bad guy" is especially ludicrous in his one-note evilness), there's a lot of heavy-handed subtlety in the film. there's some great references to Cameron's other action classics, some quite major and i would say very clever, which i'll talk about once others hav seen it.

it's a bit flawed. some of the worst dialogue is self-aware enunciations about its own grandeur. for example when we first see the flying mountains, which you've already seen in the trailer, Michelle Rodriguez says "you should see your faces right now.." well my face was all like "seen it!". no, the most special parts of the film are where it forgets to be self-consciously impressive and just goes balls to the wall for good storytelling through action.

i'm ready to defend this film cos i don't love it blindly. its got a few holes, mainly in Sigourney Weaver's character whom you get an idea must hav had some scenes cut. the way the Na'vi treat her is just not consistent but i believe it doesn't ruin the film. in the end, it's not like king kong cos even tho the story is made out of old elements it still holds lots of surprises. and i don't think we've ever seen anything like it before.


worked
pandora and its people,
the last hour,
sam worthington

failed
very little,
could have used more info in general about pandora and earth

winner
district 9

[Stefen]

Your reviews are always the best. You always deliver on the bulletpoints. I hope you're not pulling a GT (loving popcorn more than you should), but I trust you.

Worthington is actually good? The dude was probably the worst thing about TeG and I was ready to give up on him, but this gives me hope.

I'm sort of stoked. Jim Cameron is doing it big and that's always awesome, and a bit silly. I'm gonna try and catch a weekend showing.

Is it a gamechanger?