So I’m going to throw this out there and be the first one to say it.
Avatar isn’t that good.
I saw this movie already, years ago when it was called Ferngully: The Last Rain Forest.
The entire film was predictable from beginning to end. Don’t get me wrong, the visuals are stunning, characters somewhat likable, but the story is an empty shell hidden by pretty effects, other-worldly scenes and the occasional blue cat nipple slip. I saw it in 3D and I must say its impressive for the first while, the 3D is really nifty at first but you stop noticing it about an hour into the film. I dunno it might just be me, and I’m prepared for the slew of hatred coming my way from fans of the film, but you gotta remember, its just a movie, its been over hyped to the point of no control. It was okay, but another example how easy it is to make money re-using scripts as long as its pretty.
BUT EVERYONE SAYS ITS GREAT!
Then I’m the odd one out.
Movies wont ever be the same. Flashy effects and greed have murdered creativity and art. Enjoy your new boat Mr. Cameron.
—Fuck you Hollywood.
This article appears in Jan 7-13, 2010.
I somewhat disagree with your last remark. Although flashy effects may stifle creativity and art in the special effects department, they are not the be all end all of what makes a movie great. There are plenty of great movies out there still being made, and sometimes you do get a gem that does contain great effects (i.e. Return of the King).
Imagery is a form or at least a portion of “Art” so “Flashy Effects” ergo must also be a form of art. Sure it may not be art that you enjoy or speaks to you personally on a level that you require, but that does not automatically preclude it from being art.
Not at all tryin to put a hate on at all here, to each their own when it comes to entertainment choices…but I thought it was a beautiful movie and the 3D effects were impressive the entire way through (it was the depth perception I liked the most…not just the outward effects like the embers or bugs “coming out of the screen”) . Sure the story was a blatant rehash of a very successful Disney film SPOILER ALERT (not Ferngully…though that it may also be the same too…I didn’t see Ferngully, but I did see Pocahontas and Avatar was pretty much Pocahontas in space) but with a happier ending, and sure the writers choice for calling the precious metal “unobtainium” was rather weak; the movie taken as a whole was pretty good.
It was definately waaay better than Titanic that’s for sure….I would rather endure that bug from Wrath of Khan than sit through Titanic again.
Movies have always been about making money, i.e. greed. You are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.
I recognised the fact that ‘Avatar’ had a very simplistic and predictable plot, but that’s okay with me. I thought the special effects were quite nice, and worth seeing it in 3D IMAX. It was an interesting experience and quite nice. I went in ready to be disappointed but I was pleasantly surprised. While I didn’t think it was high art, I did think that the special effects were quite creative and amazing when considering effects from just 20 years ago.
Movies with overly complicated plots and endless twists are must worse than simple movies. I saw ‘Sherlock Holmes’ two weeks after ‘Avatar’ and I thought that movie was very bad because of the convoluted and nonsensical plot.
‘Avatar’ was playing to it’s audience. James Cameron is very good at that. That’s why the two top earning movies every were made by him. It might not be ‘Citizen Kane’, but it is enjoyable.
Stop being a bitter pretentious movie critic and enjoy yourself.
Not remotely interested. Well unless a good looking woman wants to go down on me in a theatre. LOL. Now wouldn’t that be ironic.
Avatar = Pocahontas
RIPOFF
White guy from a technologically ‘superior’ culture infiltrates the (blue) coloured “noble savages”, has a change of heart thanks in part to some Kirk-esqu alien sex…and (good thing for them) decides to join/lead them in finally standing up for themselves…
*yawn*
sounds boring
Blue nipple slips?
Um, I thought Avatar was great, but not because of the weak characters, laughable dialouge, or a plot full of holes. I just didn’t give a shit. Visually stunning, and ground-breaking…the movie was fantastic.
BTW, “Film will only become art when the materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper” -Jean Cocteau
LOL FURNGULLY.
I actual lol’d at that…BECAUSE IT’S TRUE.
And yeah, I spelled FERNGULLY WRONG.
“BTW, “Film will only become art when the materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper” -Jean Cocteau”
Well many consider Coutre Jewelry a form of art…and the materiels are quite expensive.
It is definately not the best movie ever made…but it is now well on the way to making the most money.
The most money lol… that distinction shouldn’t even be considered anymore. Sure it may make the most money but I bet more people went to see Star Wars when it came out. Ticket prices are insane now. I think that a measure of a movie’s success should be how many people went to see it.
Totally agree with you on that, tickets sold should be used, considering the 3D non-imax version is pretty pricey (I saw it on IMAX 3D and Digital 3D).
I felt the IMAX 3D version was better because the glasses were bigger (so they covered more viewing angle) coupled with the bigger screen…it was way more immersive.
Avatar does Dallas? – Deep Avatar? Behind the Green Avatar? – guess where I spent my formative years? wait until the adult industry gets ahold of 3D
I have to see the flick honestly. Along with the OP, I’m somewhat tired of people claiming that its the greatest movie ever done because its flashy and full of graphics, imagery and all that crap. Really, nevermind the plot (if there is one).
Cameron’s an amazing director and writer still. However, I remember people saying that Transformers was the greatest movie ever when that came out. Also, I’ve heard people dare say that Nicolas Cage is a good actor. Opinions must be like assholes.
DER?: “Well many consider Coutre Jewelry a form of art…and the materiels are quite expensive.” Fashion isn’t art either 😉 Just sayin’.
“Art produces ugly things which frequently become beautiful with time. Fashion, on the other hand, produces beautiful things which always become ugly with time.” – Jean Cocteau
Actually fashion is a form of art…though it’s not art that connects with me on a personal level, it’s still art. I have seen some extremely FUGLY fashion that made absolutely no sense to me…but I still accept the fact that an entire industry views it as art.
Your definition of art or your understanding of it is that it needs to be a painting or a statuesculpture etc, and unfortunately that is just not so. Just because Cocteau said something 35 years ago does not make it entirely relevant today…just as one man’s perception what is art does not define what is art.
There is some guy out there that makes “art” with dogshit (and other questionable mediums)…now I personally don’t think that is a productive or worthy piece of art…it is still apparently art.
Don’t take my stance as meaning I believe that Avatar is a major piece of art…but it is still made within an art medium (Film and Imagry) and the animators that worked on the film are in fact modern day artists. There was a time when film itself (of which Cocteau himself was an early adopter) was not accepted as an art form….
actually,avatar sucks,and not the good kind.yuck.
“Nicolas Cage is a good actor” Kay has said that on this very forum….which just goes to show you how warped she is.
Spoiler Alert!
FernGully is about a forest fairy ‘Crysta’ that has trouble with performing magic. She accidentally shrinks Zak, a human city boy/logger down to her size while exploring the forest. Zak lies to her about what the humans are doing to the forest. They embark on a journey back to FernGully so that the elder fairy ‘Magi’ can change him back. They befriend ‘Batty’ (a paranoid rapping lab bat escapee voiced by Robin Williams), flirt, and say “tubular” a lot.
Meanwhile the badass pollutant Hexxus escapes the tree Magi trapped him in (many years ago) when the loggers cut it down with a mean not-so-green tree-chopping-machine called ‘The Leveler”. Hexxus feeds on pollution and is hellbent on exacting his revenge by using The Leveler to destroy FernGully.
Meanwhile Zak and Crysta reach FernGully, Crysta’s jealous friend Pips makes a comment about the size of Zak’s penis, and everyone dances to 80s music. Much to Pips displeasure, Zak and Crysta go frolic to romantic music.
As Hexxus and the loggers approach FernGully Crysta finds out that Zak lied and that the humans are actually destroying the forest. Magi gives Crysta a seed and then evaporates for reasons unknown. With the help of Batty and Pips, Zak turns off The Leveler just in the nick of time. Crysta traps Hexxus with the seed, proving her magic abilities. Zak and Pips make up and Crysta turns Zak back to his regular size. Zak goes off to join Greenpeace or something.
http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot…
I really liked Avatar. It’s not going to win any awards for screenwriting, and the morality is pretty black and white..but this is James Cameron, the most complicated morality he’s ever explored is a Terminator who doesn’t kill people.
I like that the 3D aspect was used to give the film increased depth rather than make things jump out from the screen, but it seemed to me that a lot of the time there was conveniently placed objects in the foreground to draw attention to the increased depth. That got on my nerves a bit.
I HATED the Imax version. The reason- the live action portions of the film were shot in 1080p video. When HD video is transferred to 70mm film, it becomes extremely soft, so there was a very noticeably difference in quality between the live-action and CG elements of the Imax version.
So, great use of depth (a little ham fisted at times, but forgivable) beautifully done CG and performance capture, and excellent cinematography.
I used to think that a film had to have a great story to be enjoyable…then I saw Mulholland Drive. a A film can be carried on style alone, if the style is unique. Avatar had enough story combined with incredible innovation in all the other aspects to make a really great film.
I didn’t think much of Avatar either. Visuals were amazing and that’s new (for a feature film) and awesome, but I’m waiting for the movie that has everything; a great plot, amazing visuals… IN 3D!!!
I don’t really see the connection between FernGully and Avatar OP has drawn… and I’ve seen both. I had to watch FernGully to find out what Pips said to Zak about his penis lol. Avatar is much closer to Pocahontas.
Chill out OP, movies went downhill a LONG time ago. You are not the first pompous young film student to piss themselves over this sort of thing. Don’t worry, you’re not the odd one out either (as much as you’d like to be). There’s tons of people like you who hated this film before you did. Your criticism didn’t surprise anyone, nor did it blow anyone’s mind. You are not a martyr “whose superior intellect saw through the bullshit. Alone, speaking the truth in the name of art, prepared for the ‘slew of hatred’ from all the crazed Avatar supporters.” The Avatar fans who were supposed to spew all that hatred at you (didn’t quite meet your expectations did they?), are just regular people who enjoyed the movie and don’t give a shit about what you say… thus the lack of “hatred”
After all… you gotta remember, it’s just a movie.
I love film students…most film schools are great at making dreamers and critics, lousy at making filmmakers.
Honestly though, there are times when you need to just put into context when you watch films like Avatar. Avatar and other spectacles like it are just our generation’s “Jason and the Argonauts”. Despite really being the first film to use stop motion animation with live action to it’s fullest, what do you remember the film for? Nothing, because it wasn’t all that remarkable. Sometimes, you just want to get “wowed”, you know? Cameron’s shown us that he can make a masterpiece (Terminator and Aliens) a commercial film (Terminator 2 and Titanic, ugh), now he’s showing us that he can push the boundaries of technology.
DER?, to me, art is art, and fashion is fashion. Art is functionless, and fashion is functional.
Look at my wingspan…I will DEEEEEstroy you!
If you’re going to be a professional critic you should have already been a creator of what you’re going to critique.
fizz- ha, that’ll be the day. It’d be nice, though.
Sarey, Fashion is art, and art is functional, but not in a tangible sense. Why do we make movies, music, paintings, sculptures, etc? To entertain, to challenge our minds and hearts. That is its their function, and they do it well. High fashion is about wearing art, not about function.
Yeah, it would be nice…
I wonder how many professional food critiques were once chefs… working at McDonald’s doesn’t count.
my name is batty, my logic is irraty, potato in a jacket, the door’s in the attic, I rock and I ramble, my brain is scrambled, rap like an animal but I am a mammal….
Batty is awesome.
Sarey: “TO ME, art is art, and fashion is fashion.” You just qualified my statement:
“Your definition of art or your understanding of it is that it needs to be a painting or a statuesculpture etc, and unfortunately that is just not so. Just because Cocteau said something 35 years ago does not make it entirely relevant today…just as one man’s perception what is art does not define what is art.”
isn’t “art is art and fashion is fashion” too much of a tautology to be a sensible statement or really derive anything from it?
logic is logic, pens are pens, water is water….
I mean, did I REALLY say anything?
“this statement is false”
however… now there a whole new can of worms…
“Flashy effects and greed have murdered creativity and art.”
Oh, this one gets my goat. Try walking onto a film set and telling the hundreds of people who work there that creativity and art are dead. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it.
I love these fucking wannabe critics and would-be filmmakers who think that anyone who doesn’t make masturbatory dogme-style films are soulless capitalistic pawns. Big-budget films let talented artists and technicians make a livable wage and give them a venue to let their skills and talents really shine. And at the end of the day, the sum of their skills will entertain millions of people and allow a few sour grapes to whine about how it doesn’t meet their standards of soulfulness.
Fuck!
Lehova, for me it’s not that a poorly written film doesn’t have artistic merit, it’s just always so much better when good writing, good directing, good acting and good production (SFX, lighting, editing etc) come together in one film. It’s a shame when some aspects of the film can be amazing and others simply mediocre.
Also, while creating something people enjoy for a moment takes some talent, creating something that people will enjoy many times over and for generations to come is a little more difficult and represents a true mastery of the art form.
not to say this is a ‘good movie’ by everyone’s standards, but 300 was all green screen and I think it was the flashy new style and effects that made that movie so much money.
Movie’s need not ALL have flash and pizazz… but then if they were all the same, no-one would want to go see them.
Oh, I agree with you, Miles. I vastly prefer a film that excels in all aspects. But I can appreciate one that comes up short in one area, even the story.
I don’t think mastery of the art is required to create something people will enjoy through the ages. That happens by fluke fairly often, in the film world.
I agree, Miles. That’s the challenge of working in any collaborative art form, if all the elements aren’t there and working in harmony, then the end result will always be less than satisfactory.
You could easily draw comparisons to music: if you have a talented band, maybe even a superstar guitarist, but the songs are poorly written, then it’s going to make for a mediocre album. You may get some enjoyment out of the way the guitarist solos on a track, or be able to appreciate the musicianship overall, but ultimately it’s a letdown.
Frankly, it’s these huge productions that are no way lacking in talent, resources, and funding, but yet still manage to be somewhat lacking in substance, that I find the most disappointing.
“Frankly, it’s these huge productions that are no way lacking in talent, resources, and funding, but yet still manage to be somewhat lacking in substance, that I find the most disappointing.”
YUP…like Star Wars Episodes 1-3, totally not up to par compared against 4-6 (A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi). What made it worse was the fact that they had such an improved medium to use and yet…they created Jar Jar Binks and “Roger Roger”.
Apparently good old George Lucas is going to take yet another whack at the earlier movies…and update them with 3D. It’s like making the Mona Lisa’s hair a different color or painting some bling on her wrist. George, George, George when will you ever learn.
The funny thing is, George said he was never happy with the original 3 movies because the technology was too limited at the time. Thank god we got those movies (eps. 4-6) in spite of his best efforts to turn them into shit like episodes 1-3. There’s a man that went from Hero to Zero in my books.
I am just glad I have the DVD set that has the originals and the altered…so whatever he does next to them, I will always have the originals un-doctored (other than the THX sound improvements). I like seeing the tinfoil coated sticks when the lightsabers are point directly at the screen or how R2 doesn’t fly, it makes what was actually accomplished that much more amazing.
Poor George is certainly getting diluted with time…he is a perfect example of how we as humans need real challenge and true obstacles to overcome to really shine. When we get comfortable and things are easy…we lose some of our greatness that comes from overcoming the odds.
“A special effect is just a tool, a means of building a character. A special effect without a story is pretty boring thing.” George Lucas, 1985.
Oh, how things have changed.
“Frankly, it’s these huge productions that are no way lacking in talent, resources, and funding, but yet still manage to be somewhat lacking in substance, that I find the most disappointing.”
That’s what drives me crazy about mediocre scripts. You can have an incredible DoP whose lighting is Oscar worthy. You can have an AC who keeps focus (arguably the hardest job on set) and a sound team who negates the need for ADR and a design team who make incredible sets and props and the list goes on…but if the one or two writers don’t do their job well, then the movie gets shit on and everyone else’s hard work is disregarded by the majority.
I don’t know if that’s entirely true, lehova. I think those who know and understand film are able to break down the contributions of various departments and keys on a production and evaluate them based on their individual merit, reserving criticism for what deserves to be criticized. Most of what I’ve heard about Avatar was just that, people saying they were blown away by numerous elements of the film, but let down by the thin plot. Of course, there are always people whose ability to critique a film only goes so far as “It sucks!” or “It’s awesome!”, but I generally disregard their opinions anyway.
Flimsy plot or not, I’m still going to go see Avatar because it’s something I want to experience for myself. Personally, I have a lot of films that I return to despite the uninspired plot or whatever other flaws because I simply love the art direction, or the costume design, or the cinematography.
You may be right, me0w. I work in film, and it really gets under my skin when people write an entire film off as awful because there was a plot hole or two. I understand, I wish every script that got produced was rock solid, but the people who back these things aren’t always (or even often) all that concerned with good writing as much as they are with what will generate a 500% return. Sigh.
It sucks hearing how much someone hated a film you worked on just because the script was flimsy. But most people don’t notice or consider how hard it is to light a shot, or keep a camera focussed, etc etc.
I work in film as well, lehova, so I can totally sympathize. I think the biggest problem is that the average movie-goer has really no concept of how all the various elements of a film are achieved, and are so used to being dazzled that they take it all for granted. That, and the box office tends to favour style over substance.
I get where you’re coming from though. On one hand it’s nice to have the insight to be able to appreciate all the different aspects of a film, but on the other, it can be so frustrating to see so many people’s hard work disregarded because of a shitty script, a clueless director, or a money-minded producer.
“isn’t “art is art and fashion is fashion” too much of a tautology to be a sensible statement or really derive anything from it?
logic is logic, pens are pens, water is water….
I mean, did I REALLY say anything?”
I meant they are two distinct things. Pens are pens, water is water, therefore pens are not water. One is not the other.
I don’t understand why people go to Sci Fi movies and complain because the story wasn’t flawless…. I didn’t watch When Harry Met Sally and bitch because there were no fuckin’ aliens!
If you went to Avatar and didn’t like anything about it I recommend never bothering with the Sci Fi genre ever again because you just don’t get it.