Recent Posts
District 9 was such a tremendous disappointment. We rented it for a buck from Redbox and felt ripped off. Decent special effects, but the script was awful.Completely the opposite for me. I thought the script was rich, non-traditional, and inspired.
I enjoyed District 9 and watched it twice in the theaters. :)
I haven't seen it...
In 3D that is.
Our local cinema has just purchased top of the line 3D equipment (only 3 other movie theatres in the whole country has this newest equipment), though, and they're relaunching Avatar in two weeks, this time in 3-D.
So I'll go see it again.
Alice in Wonderland should be showing in 3D too then.
Completely the opposite for me. I thought the script was rich, non-traditional, and inspired.
I can't see how it is anything but completely standard Hollywood fare. Good-guy main character goes thru process to discern the bad guys surrounding him (and trying to get him to be bad like them) from the good guys who are assailed by the bad guys, after which he defeats the bad guys and the good guys triumph, and the white guy is the hero with special recognition by the natives. Basically every character is utterly predictable, you know the good guys when you meet them, and the bad guys are utterly obvious from their first scene. Nobody changes, beyond the main character's linear and predicatable siding with the blue indians. Even his alien love interest is obvious as such from her very first scene, she's remarkably more attractive than the other aliens, to the extent that the CG modelling for her is of higher quality*. Seriously, even going with the 1:1 correlation of blue aliens with indian savages against 'modern' colonial exploiters, there is so much more possibilities for exploration of psychology and the experience of film.
I also wasn't impressed with the 3-D effect, which I also saw the new Alice in Wonderland movie in (by my friends' choice). After a short while, you aren't so much noticing that it ISN'T a 2-D movie, but I've never had a problem thinking a 2-D movie was so horrible. The technology is also problematic because it isn't actually 3-D, which would require holography, but it is a projection onto ONE point of view. If you are at an optimum seat in the theater, that works mostly fine , though the point of view is controlled by the camera not your eye, so when you focus on the side of the screen, the 3-D illusion is destroyed (unless the camera is also focusing on that area exactly when you do). But if you are off to the side or up/down from that point to any significant degree it can give you a head-ache to some extent, because it is as if you brain is "twisting" itself to manipulate the image within it's visual cortex, and it is the same situation where the 3-D perspective doesn't match your viewing angle. It really doesn't seem to lend anything to the story-telling, and just seems a cheap thrill gimmick to sell over-budgeted mega-blockbusters. I will prefer to see the 2-D version of any future movie offered in this 3-D technology.
Oh yeah, I really DON'T get a hard on for 3D CG modeling. Just compare the original Star Wars movies to their "re-edited" versions with 3D CG instead of neoprene puppetry. That re-edit COULD have been done subtlety and where appropriate, but instead it over-wrote the true skill and artistry used in the original trilogy. Techno-power worship.
Completely the opposite for me. I thought the script was rich, non-traditional, and inspired.I can't see how it is anything but completely standard Hollywood fare. Good-guy main character goes thru process to discern the bad guys surrounding him (and trying to get him to be bad like them) from the good guys who are assailed by the bad guys, after which he defeats the bad guys and the good guys triumph, and the white guy is the hero with special recognition by the natives. Basically every character is utterly predictable, you know the good guys when you meet them, and the bad guys are utterly obvious from their first scene. Nobody changes, beyond the main character's linear and predicatable siding with the blue indians. Even his alien love interest is obvious as such from her very first scene, she's remarkably more attractive than the other aliens, to the extent that the CG modelling for her is of higher quality*. Seriously, even going with the 1:1 correlation of blue aliens with indian savages against 'modern' colonial exploiters, there is so much more possibilities for exploration of psychology and the experience of film.
I also wasn't impressed with the 3-D effect, which I also saw the new Alice in Wonderland movie in (by my friends' choice). After a short while, you aren't so much noticing that it ISN'T a 2-D movie, but I've never had a problem thinking a 2-D movie was so horrible. The technology is also problematic because it isn't actually 3-D, which would require holography, but it is a projection onto ONE point of view. If you are at an optimum seat in the theater, that works mostly fine , though the point of view is controlled by the camera not your eye, so when you focus on the side of the screen, the 3-D illusion is destroyed (unless the camera is also focusing on that area exactly when you do). But if you are off to the side or up/down from that point to any significant degree it can give you a head-ache to some extent, because it is as if you brain is...
I was talking about District 9.
I saw Avatar twice in 3D, and once in 2D. In my opinion, it is one the greatest films ever made; certainly the most memorable in my experience. It was a jaw-droppingly realistic presentation of a beautiful world, and a heart-wrenching story of a man's personal journey to become a part of it, and ultimately stand up to fight for it.
The special effects are incredible, and that certainly contributed to my enjoyment of Avatar, but that isn't what made it a great movie for me. I found it to be a profoundly moving story, beautifully told, and presented with an unparalleled attention to detail. There's nothing on the screen or in the script that doesn't enrich the story or the experience. It's crafted with purpose and skill to tell the story in a direct and rewarding way; a way that allows the viewer to experience the main character's journey, step by step.
As an example of how captivated I was by this film: I went into the theater with a box of candy in my coat pocket. When I stood up at the end, after the audience was finished applauding and the credits had come to a close, I was stunned to find it still there; I had not only forgotten that I had bought it, I forgot that something called chocolate even existed. That sort of immersion has never happened to me in a theater before.
(It's also, if I may digress on a personal note, a very spiritual movie for me. The Na'vi reverence for their world and the way life is interconnected on Pandora really mirrors the way real-life pagan spiritualities relate to and perceive our world. It was very refreshing to see that sort of interwoven tapestry of life made literal and vividly presented in a major motion picture.)
Anyway, the story is archetypical, which of course allows people to draw parallels to many other films. It's also told in a classical style, which makes the plot predictable to those familiar with traditional storytelling techniques. But those aren't weaknesses; they make for a strong story.
The problem is, we as moviegoers have become a cynical bunch. We cast scorn on anything presented in a straightforward manner, and condemnation on anything that makes us think too hard. If a movie is popular, were predisposed to dislike it. There's a counterculture at work here that makes it "cool" to criticize anything that's a major commercial success. That's a shame, IMO, because those who choose not to see Avatar because it's too popular, or because the plot has parallels with older works, are doing themselves a huge disservice, in my opinion. Love it or not, Avatar is a defining cinematic experience of our time; it's the kind of film event that comes along very rarely. It really is a masterpiece, and twenty years from now I'm going to talk about the experience of seeing it opening night with the same sort of pride that many people today feel when they look back on the premiere of Star Wars.
I saw Avatar twice in 3D, and once in 2D. In my opinion, it is one the greatest films ever made; certainly the most memorable in my experience. It was a jaw-droppingly realistic presentation of a beautiful world, and a heart-wrenching story of a man's personal journey to become a part of it, and ultimately stand up to fight for it.
The special effects are incredible, and that certainly contributed to my enjoyment of Avatar, but that isn't what made it a great movie for me. I found it to be a profoundly moving story, beautifully told, and presented with an unparalleled attention to detail. There's nothing on the screen or in the script that doesn't enrich the story or the experience. It's crafted with purpose and skill to tell the story in a direct and rewarding way; a way that allows the viewer to experience the main character's journey, step by step.
As an example of how captivated I was by this film: I went into the theater with a box of candy in my coat pocket. When I stood up at the end, after the audience was finished applauding and the credits had come to a close, I was stunned to find it still there; I had not only forgotten that I had bought it, I forgot that something called chocolate even existed. That sort of immersion has never happened to me in a theater before.
(It's also, if I may digress on a personal note, a very spiritual movie for me. The Na'vi reverence for their world and the way life is interconnected on Pandora really mirrors the way real-life pagan spiritualities relate to and perceive our world. It was very refreshing to see that sort of interwoven tapestry of life made literal and vividly presented in a major motion picture.)
Anyway, the story is archetypical, which of course allows people to draw parallels to many other films. It's also told in a classical style, which makes the plot predictable to those familiar with traditional storytelling techniques. But those aren't weaknesses; they make for a strong story.
The problem is, we as moviegoers have become a cynical...
This.
I myself am a hopeless romantic. Actually, most of my friends call me a mystic with a heart of gold. So... for what its worth. I despise cynicism, and have actually thought of writing a book called The Closet Romantic: How to Get Past Realism and Redundancy.
I myself am a hopeless romantic. Actually, most of my friends call me a mystic with a heart of gold. So... for what its worth. I despise cynicism, and have actually thought of writing a book called The Closet Romantic: How to Get Past Realism and Redundancy.
I'd buy it.
I too, am a romantic. However I'm also a cinephile and screenplay author who's seen and then thought about many thousands of films. So I do find myself autopsying movies that have bullet size plot holes, poor direction or acting, et al. I often do this while a film is still playing.
That said, if I'm talking to someone and I see that they were touched by a film, that it reached inside and resonated in a way that affected them deeply, it doesn't matter if I can create a ten point list of analytical reasons for why the film stunk. That's one half of the brain imposing on the other. I keep it to myself.
And that's why, when someone asks what my favorite films are, I first need to trust that they're not going to go film critic on everything I say. Same with books. I know what answers would impress the snobs, but those aren't actually my answers. I most appreciate art that makes me laugh or feel longing.
Avatar, at a glance because I haven't seen it, does look like Dances with Wolves and many many other films along that line, but as Chris West said, certain plot formulae are evergreen because they seldom fail to move people. Look at the pop music dynamic of the last 55 years. Verse-bridge-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus-break/solo break-outro chorus. That's 99.9 percent of all songs, designed to start slow and build... then start slow again and build.. then build.. then BUILD! As a composer of popular music I can tell you it gets frustrating having to jump to a different music style in order to break up that form... that... expectation of dynamic. But that's what the people say they want and are willing to pay for, so that's what they're given. Same is true with movies.
I can break any screenplay down and show you how at their fundament, they are all the same. They usually introduce all the important characters before the eleventh page. First act we introduce the characters. Second act we present them with an obstacle. Third act the main characters or characters have to overcome the obstacle. And around 70-80 minutes into a film there is always THE BIG GLOOM. This is the part of the film that makes you dread... the part where the hero is furthest away from their goal. Don't worry... it'll pass. Then the obstacle is overcome or sadly, overcomes (something Hollywood knows most people don't care for)... and then usually you have your denouement. Your cool down period right before the credits.
And yet despite these entrenched similarities in the form there are still films being made that feel daring and somehow unique. Those are usually the films I love best.
Haven't seen it either. Plan to, but didn't feel the need to rush to a crowded theater, stand in line for an hour, sneak in food and drink so I don't have to pay the same price for a large soda that would buy me a 12-pack in a grocery store, and sit with a bunch of people that might want to kill themselves afterward because their life sucks so much worse than what they saw on the screen.
[/tongueincheek]
From what I've been told, Avatar has something of a anti-technological message. Cameron, the message might come across better if you deliver via a medium that you don't spend half a billion dollars on for special effects. Just sayin'.
Ditto on the environmental themes. I laughed out loud standing out side of the theater, watching the 200+ people coming out throw 200+ pairs of plastic 3D glasses in the TRASH. Especially when there was a "Recycle your 3D glasses here" box 3 steps away.
Ditto on the environmental themes. I laughed out loud standing out side of the theater, watching the 200+ people coming out throw 200+ pairs of plastic 3D glasses in the TRASH. Especially when there was a "Recycle your 3D glasses here" box 3 steps away.
Which is doubly dumb since you can use the same pair of 3D glasses to see the movie again, or give to your friends to see, or save them for the next 3D movie to show in the theater.
Which is doubly dumb since you can use the same pair of 3D glasses to see the movie again, or give to your friends to see, or save them for the next 3D movie to show in the theater.
Ditto on the environmental themes. I laughed out loud standing out side of the theater, watching the 200+ people coming out throw 200+ pairs of plastic 3D glasses in the TRASH. Especially when there was a "Recycle your 3D glasses here" box 3 steps away.
... Or, dare I say it, even follow directions and place them in the designated receptical for the 3D glasses?
I haven't seen Avatar either but I had eye surgery on my left eye back in November and the eye isn't quite back to normal yet so the 3D would have been pretty much useless for my experience of the movie.
As for Titanic, saw it once in theaters and then, it was the inflight movie for a family trip to Vancouver, BC in the summer of 1999. What's funny about this is that more than half the passengers (not my family and I, though) on the flight were headed out to Vancouver where they would then board a cruise ship going up to Alaska and the airline knew about that subsequent travel plan. Great way to start an Alaskan cruise vacation - show a movie about a ship hitting an iceberg and sinking!
I finally saw the movie and I can sum up the plot in three words "Dances with Wolves".
The visuals are awesome but doesn’t make up for seeing Avatar two or three times in its original western setting.
It's just another example of James Cameron using special effects to bolster a weak story.
Overall an entertaining movie but nothing groundbreaking, I give it a B+.
Radavel
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
I finally saw the movie and I can sum up the plot in three words "Dances with Wolves".
The visuals are awesome but doesn’t make up for seeing Avatar two or three times in its original western setting.
It's just another example of James Cameron using special effects to bolster a weak story.Overall an entertaining movie but nothing groundbreaking, I give it a B+.
Still haven't seen Dances with Smurfs.
Some 'Avatar' Fans Struggle With Blu-Ray
According to the story, Blu-Ray players need to be occassionally updated with new software. Do DVD's have this problem? I've never had a problem playing a DVD, so I'm thinking no. To me this sounds like another reason for me not to upgrade to Blu-Ray.
Some 'Avatar' Fans Struggle With Blu-Ray
According to the story, Blu-Ray players need to be occassionally updated with new software. Do DVD's have this problem? I've never had a problem playing a DVD, so I'm thinking no. To me this sounds like another reason for me not to upgrade to Blu-Ray.
Blu-ray was in its infancy when released and really is a whole different beast from DVDs. The fact that most players allows the updates is great since its a format that is still developed, where DVD was complete upon release.
Most BD movies either somewhere before the movie starts or on the cases actually mention the possibility of firmware upgrades, they've been around since the beginning, just most people don't actually read the "Warning" stuff on the screen or the cases their movies come in.
Haven't seen Avatar and don't plan to. I'd rather watch The Last Airbender and mine it for material for my Exalted game!
; )
Being aware of the basic skeleton of the plot, though, I'm glad I missed it. There are many better ways to communicate your environmentalist message than rehashing Pocahontas. I never liked that movie, either, and nobody's going to sell it to me again.
I have not seen it, and frankly, I am sure that this "epic" movie will be SO kitsch in less than 10 years that it won't even be funny.
Noticed how the majority of blockbusters-out-of-space age so disgracefully? Once the excitement of technology fades away, what remains is the plot. And in the case of Avatar...
I still haven't seen it, but apparently the sequel comes out next year. There's even a trailer up. Just a sec I'll find it............. Here it is
I still haven't seen it, but apparently the sequel comes out next year. There's even a trailer up. Just a sec I'll find it............. Here it is
Smurf you. ;)
Anybody else think the re-release with something like 15 minutes of new footage is a bit of a money grab. Maybe Cameron was so busy with trying to stop the oil leak, he couldn't be bothered to make a new movie.
I've seen them do this before, re-releasing a popular movie just before it went to DVD, etc. I suspect it's a money grab and, in latter cases, has also been a bit of an Oscar-grab. (Not sure if that's the case this time, or it's already gotten all the Oscars it's going to, since I have no idea if they had them yet...)
I appreciate it, because my mom didn't get to see it in the theaters the first time around, and she'll *love* this movie.
I would have changed a few details, particularly regarding the presentation of the dead brother and more egregiously anvil-dropping that the mercenaries pretending to be soldiers were in fact not a metaphor for the US Army or some anti-American screed (as their leader even explicity calls out that he wishes he had more *real* ex-soldiers, like the main character, and less jumped-up thugs that wouldn't have qualified for actual service), but overall, it was a cool movie. Over at Giant in the Playground, they statted up quite a few of the beasties, like the big dragon-things (banshees?).