FS Reviews: Avatar / Nine
Filmspotting will be back in its usual format next week. There's no scheduled review, but Ain't It Cool News' Steve Prokopy aka Capone will drop by to share the Top 5 Lead Performances of 2009.
Labels: Avatar, James Cameron, Nine, Rob Marshall
posted by Adam @ 1:17 AM
78 comments
78 Comments:
with a writeup like that, I guess I'll just skip this podcast. I've heard enough "Dances with Smurfs" crap to last me a lifetime
Thank you, thank you, thank you Adam. Avatar was the first film I've ever walked out of. When the big battle started I decided that I couldn't take any more. Personally I don't even think the effects were that good either. I saw Sherlock Holmes a few days later and I was more impressed with the CGI for that by making a film shot in and around modern London make it look like Victorian London, rather than just creating a sophisticated video game.
Finally an Avatar review I totally agree with. Worst, most overhyped movie of the year. Thanks for making my 2010.
All I said was that this review will ensure a lot of hatemail... but I went ahead and edited it. There's something to be said for forcing people to download it and then turn away in disgust. Why alienate them from the get-go, right?
what's wrong with "unobtainium"?
Seems quite in line with other element names. germanium, rarium, etc...
I enjoyed the spectacle and visuals of Avatar but the amount of people that are willing to overlook or flat out ignore the paper thin plot and characters and proclaim the movie one of the best of the year are crazy. At least now I know I'm not the only person who thinks a movie, even a giant event one, should strive to have believable characters, especially when you're asking the audience to sit in one place for close to three hours.
I'm impressed by the very concise review of 'Avatar' which covers most of this criticisms that spring to mind while I was watching it in theatre. I expect you to recieve quite a few coments that agree with your analysis but that may be because of the kind of crowd who would listen to this podcast. In contrat, a link to your show was posted in a form I frequent where there is apparently boundless love for the movie.
Does a blockbuster film need to be reviewed on a higher level than a low budget one. If Godard or Jarmusch decide to put style over storytelling would they be as hated as Jim Cameron. Lx
So many people argue with me that one shouldn't judge a big-budget film so harshly, and that at least it relayed some sort of positive message to the masses (as well as "but it's so purty!") -- yet, it's a film. A film that happened to have a ginormous budget and many talented people involved, why the pass on telling a story that doesn't insult the viewers?
Count me in with other appreciative listeners for the confirmation on what a turd Avatar was. I thought I was losing my marbles after reading so many positive reviews.
Good review, guys. I'm with you in spirit.
I had a feeling that neither of you would like it. To be honest, your flat-out rejection of big-budget cinema has made me stop listening to the show a long time ago, and I find most of the small indie films that you praise I almost always end up hating. You have to admit that it is refreshing that a big-budget movie at least tries something new instead of mind numbing movies like Transformers 2 and 2012.
Our flat-out rejection of big budget cinema is flat-out fallacy. As a general rule, a film's budget, no matter how big or small, isn't something I spend a lot of time thinking about. However, I recall pretty clearly Matty directly crediting Cameron for putting every penny on the screen.
"Our flat-out rejection of big budget cinema is flat-out fallacy."
I don't know. I've come to distrust your podcast for anything other than straight up drama. I don't share your sense of humor (ie. Wes Anderson rules, Juno sucks) and I think more often than not you guys have some chip on your shoulder when it comes to action movies and blockbusters that make more money than your favorite films.
This has been my impression of your show from listening to the vast majority of episodes. Your show has merit and I don't generally turn away from opinions I disagree with, however if I know I'm just going to hear Costner's Law "Dances with Wolves in space!" again, I will gladly keep my hand away from the download link and be happier with the show spoiler than not.
And full disclosure of where I stand on the pic: I saw Avatar for the second time now, and I think I liked it even more.
I wasn't literally referring to the budget. That's just my term for mainstream cinema. It just seems that I feel you overrate smaller movies and underrate bigger ones.
Avatar as a whole wasn't perfect, but I was entertained throughout and I was reminded of the first time I saw the original Star Wars the first time as a kid. Strangely enough, both movies had bad writing problems
Just because we don't discuss a lot of big budget movies -- would everyone like a 15 minute discussion of Sherlock Holmes? -- doesn't mean we hold some kind of grudge against big budget movies? Where would that even come from? Did we try to make a movie and the Hollywood machine shut us down so we decided to only praise movies that cost 500k to make? I walk into every movie I see hoping/expecting it to be great regardless of budget or genre.
I didn't make the Dances With Wolves joke, a listener did... and we spent 20 minutes talking about Avatar, so can you imply that that's all you're going to hear?
All I'll say in defence of Avatar is this. Ebert often says "it's not what the film is about, it's how it is about it". It's with this is mind that I heartily endorse the film. I enjoy it beyond the spectacle and think the spectacle and feeling actually is important and part of those characters.
To me it's not all that different from the desert and emptiness being important to being swept away by Gus Van Sant's Gerry.
And this is coming from someone who has otherwise never been that impressed with James Cameron.
"...would everyone like a 15 minute discussion of Sherlock Holmes?"
Probably not from you guys. However there are other podcasts out there with people who are also stereotypically referred to as snobs, from the AV Talk to Row Three and beyond, who definitely can with insight and respect.
I listen to Filmspotting BECAUSE it usually avoids it's biggest weakness - blockbusters and comedies
"...would everyone like a 15 minute discussion of Sherlock Holmes?"
No, since Guy Richie sucks now.
Action movie, comedy, whatever... we're going to pick the film every week that we're most interested in seeing and that we think will provoke the most interesting discussion. Avatar fit that criteria. There's no other agenda than that, and we'll continue to follow that agenda.
And not that it matters, but for the record... I'm seeing Sherlock Holmes today and am quite looking forward to it. Do I expect it to offer a lot of fodder for discussion? No. But could be 2 hours of escapist fun. As long as it doesn't insult or bore me, I'm good.
Well one thing you could discuss if you go talk Holmes is the score, which is one of Zimmer's best, and would be my vote should it be nominated.
Well I guess it's just a matter of different tastes I guess. I might actually listen to your review of Holmes. I hope it's good. but I'm worried about Richie's direction.
I don't think will get to a review of Holmes... would rather talk about A Single Man. I know, yet another arthouse movie nobody has heard of. But people are raving about Colin Firth. I'll try to fit in a quick take on Holmes though.
Adam, pick your movies..have fun. I've been listening since around episode 15 or so and I've had it with you both now. Don't like you overlaying your politics (Iraq? Really??) and don't like your snobbery towards tent-pole events (even though it helps pay for your show, but why admit to it, eh?) and really, really dislike your condescension towards the opinions of others. You want to be on all sides of an argument, and not be accountable to anything.
So I'm done with Filmspotting. It's been a long time since I was eager to hear your reviews. You both sound completely tired and boring now.
For those of you sticking around, I thought everyone was getting along fine and this was just healthy back and forth with no condescension.
All I want is for the points we raised to be argued with and not have the entire discussion written off because of some crazy notion that we don't like mainstream movies. That's not a dialogue. I very much look forward to featuring the counter arguments during listener feedback.
Ignore the people who are too caught up in the spectacle of flashy images to actually look critically at a story. They never cared to hear you two talk about the film in the first place, they just wanted to hear their own opinions regurgitated back at them. If the only thing a person wants is a review that mimics their opinion then go to an aggregate site and just read the positive reviews.
And just to make it clear I don't always agree with you guys about films. But hearing an alternative opinion helps me grow as a film fan by making me reevaluate my own feelings and ask myself why I enjoy something other than 'just because I do'.
Also Hilversum are you trying to argue that there aren't any blatant Iraq references in Avatar? Did you miss it when Quaritch uses the phrases "shock and awe" and "we're going to fight terror with terror"?
Adam and Matty always bring great analysis and discussion to all manner of movies, based on the merit of the movies themselves. That's it. And from what I've heard, they not only welcome but revel in opposing opinions from both listeners and each other.
It's their show and they can espouse whatever damn opinion they please. Then the listeners should call/write in and do the same!
Takes a hell of a lot of work and balls to put yourself out there on the radio -- certainly more than hate via comment form.
"I thought everyone was getting along fine and this was just healthy back and forth with no condescension. "
I will actually concur with Hilversum that there is sometimes an air of condescension with a number of movies...
...however I think that's more of a complaint I'd lodge against Matt. The show has always been one that people might have called snooty or whatever based on tastes, but I think since Matt became co-host that specific taste has come across as more and more arrogant and derisive.
I don't normally totally disagree with your reviews but I did with this one. I was trying to work out why this film seems to be creating this rift and I think it comes down to emotion.
I too saw some of the plot-holes you mentioned in the review, but I found the film so moving and overwhelming that those things were really easy to overlook. In the same way I can see that being able to destroy the Death Star by dropping a bomb down a hole is ridiculous, but it doesn't really matter to the emotional momentum of the film.
That being said,if you didn't get swept up in the emotion, arguing about plot points is never going to prove that Avatar is a "good" film. I'm just happy that, for three hours, I was totally transported.
I enjoyed hearing a critical review and will definitely keep listening.
Adam and Matty were dead right about this movie. In fact I think they were even too kind with it.
People have to see that not all big budget spectacles are created equal. Terminator 2, and The Fellowship of the Ring for example, masterpieces of the genre.
While Avatar deserves comparisons with 10,000 BC. I've never seen a movie this big and praised, with such little merit. Even ARMAGEDDON, crap as it was, was better at taking us along for a ride.
The fact that Avatar is already a phenomenon and will be one of the highest grossing movies of all time is only going to make people who weren't into Avatar more violently opposed and snobby about it.
"Terminator 2, and The Fellowship of the Ring for example, masterpieces of the genre."
And I'm the one in the minority who thinks that Terminator 2 is boring crap and is hard to sit through for Edward Furlong along. In fact, I don't like any of the Terminator movies.
Wow! The AVATAR love/hate hostility has even reached the Filmspotting message boards!
I really dig how much everyone is loving AVATAR, but I'll be honest, I don't see what the fuss is all about. A terrific looking film, no doubt, an original or well crafted film, that's debatable.
I think what disappointed me most wasn't the clunky dialogue, cliche story, or forgettable score (there was music in this film?) but the lack of well rounded characters I could invest and believe in. Sam Worthington wishes he had half the charisma and charm as a Han Solo or Luke Skywalker but he comes up short thanks to a script from Cameron that is serviceable at best. It's no incoherent mess like TRANSFORMERS 2 or anything but the movie's plot feels more like a calculated math equation (a math equation we've seen time and time again) than it does a film with a true pulse. STAR WARS for it's day had groundbreaking effects but that isn't why 10 year old me watched that movie over and over growing up in the 90's. It's the characters that keep you coming back for more. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd rather hang out with Jake Sulley and Sigourney Weaver's Dr. Grace Augustine as opposed to Han Solo and Chewbacca.
James Cameron had a seemingly endless amount of money, carte blanche creative control, the ability to create another world, and instead of giving us a story to match his 21st century visuals he gave us a story that could've been told 100 years ago.
Adam and Matty, don't ever stop what you're doing. Filmspotting is a highlight of my podcast listening week and hearing your thoughtful and perspective discussions is a blast.
I generally agree with Jon on Avatar; this is a film that either grabs you in a way that makes the script forgivable, or it doesn't. When bad writing meets incredible visuals, it's very much going to be a personal experience and something hard to debate with concrete arguments.
But one thing I didn't like about this review is that it glosses over the depth of the story. Say what you want about the storytelling, but the simple, classic monomyth plot lends itself to multiple interpretations and endless debates over what Avatar was trying to say exactly (the NY Times had a recent article highlighting several analytical essays that have already popped on the web). You don't leave the theater forgetting this film, and at least crewing on some of many ideas in there. That has to be worth something, but I feel many of Avatar's opponents tend to simplify the story even further by comparing it to Dances with Wolves or Ferngully. There's a lot more going on in Avatar, and I think both Adam and Matty even acknowledged that in the podcast when they're questioning some of the decisions Cameron made, but they're quick to laugh it off or attribute it to a "happy accident". That analysis seems a little lazy to me. This wasn't just a weekend project that Cameron slapped together in his spare time, or a final paper project due for some class, yet some critics feel like that's the level on which they need to dissect this story. This director is one of the greats. He worked on this film for 14 years. He made every decision for a specific reason. Let's give this man some respect.
Also, I thought everyone should know that "Unobtainium" is actually a real word used by engineers, and Cameron intended it as an inside joke to that audience. It was also used in a similar way in The Core: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
And yes, this podcast is still the best one out there on film, hands down.
This is one of the few reviews on this show that I must disagree with. I do understand the many short comings of the film but I was able to look past them as I was too busy being thoroughly immersed in this world. The 3D is amazing and I was honestly transported back to my childhood, like watching Star Wars for the first time. I was in a state of just shock and wonder at what I was seeing and that is why I love the film.
Thank you Adam and Matty for your spot-on review of Avatar. The visuals were awesome, but the story was terrible.
I'm just wondering how these Na'Vi people went to the bathroom and such. I can imagine those G-strings could, um, produce frequent trips to the Big Blue Outhouse.
Been listening to the show since it debuted on iTunes. First time I've decided to leave a comment. I'm genuinely sorry if neither of you had a good time. Your nitpicks are all legitimate, but you are missing the forest for the trees. People had similar minor complaints about Titanic, and we know how that turned out. As escapist entertainment this is right at the top of the pack. Yes, it will be remembered 10 years from now. Visually its too important. And people like it. Third week and its still doing huge box office. This means that either people are seeing it again (First movie I've seen twice at the cinema in 10 years) or they're telling their friends. One of my coworkers was convinced Avatar was going to suck big time, so I offered to pay for his wife and his ticket if she didn't have a good time. She loved it so much she wants to see it immediately again, and even he admitted that he had a good time. Again, I'm sorry you weren't able to.
Predictable review. I’d love to hear you guys actually debate a film like this. Opposing positions often lead to more in-depth discussions. I liked Avatar, didn’t love it. The very many that do, seem to be swept away by the spectacle to the point where the thin plot and characters emotionally resonate because of the EXPERIENCE, and they revel in the b movie Saturday morning cartoonish villainy for the fun of it. With others (either the haters or the mildly enthused) the technical aspect/spectacle actually works in opposition and keeps them at a distance so they're left to coldly dissect the film; Pretty, but shallow, by now a very trite conclusion. Against the pre-release odds this film has undeniably become a phenomenon and I find it extremely peculiar that such a definitive line has been drawn between these two camps. You can, as Goon and others have noted condescend to those that found enjoyment, but this film refuses to be so easily dismissed.
In regards to the story one thing neither of you bothered to comment on is that Dances with Wolves was released 20 years ago and virtually no one bothered to see Terrence Malik's last film so this isn't overly familiar territory to a large chunk of the target demo. Personally, I think Cameron wired into the cultural zeitgeist communicating his love for the beauty of nature more poignantly than Malik, perhaps tapping into the notion of simulacrum and the hyperreal. For me this is the overwhelming strength of the film. BTW most of these ‘kids’ my age or younger, couldn't be bothered to watch 'those old Star wars film’s’ so their baptism into the hero's journey isn't old hat either.
I also found it ironic, Adam that you really enjoyed Nine despite the many criticisms lambasted against that film that you yourself acknowledged. It's that kind of knowing irony that often leaves me suspicious of you two. The snide little anecdotes at the end of the show just serve to reinforce this. So to offer my answer to those end show comments…
When Character ‘Trudy’ abandons the firebombing of ‘HomeTree’ her absence is irrelevant to the outcome of the operation so I doubt she was missed. O.S. she could’ve given any number of excuses why she abandoned her post. To keep things moving all we NEED to know is that she disagrees with the chosen course of action. Whatever trouble she may have gotten into I doubt she would’ve been locked in the brig since she didn’t directly confront or endanger the success of the operation. The security force isn’t running anything, they’re security. Grace Augustine has her own division functioning under the umbrella of the RDA Corporation, represented by Parker (Giovanni Ribisi), she probably receives outside/private interest funding as well. I don’t think the film NEEDS to go into this either, although there were broad allusions to avoiding bad PR. I imagine several interests back on Earth would be micromanaging such a massive endeavor, so I accept that Augustine operates under some degree of autonomy from RDA and likely has several outpost stationed to further the exploration and study of the Moon. This would be in the best interest of the expedition as a whole. She is the leading human expert on Pandora’s ecology as inelegantly referenced by the clunky dialogue, “she literally wrote the book.” You seriously didn’t get the ‘unobtanium’ reference? The soldiers in all of Camerons films speak in those camrony idioms, “Come-Get-sum.” Cheesy, but fun and silly, in that love-to-hate type thing cartoony for sure, but this isn’t the Hurt Locker. I’d rather have seen the 5hour version of this film or that outlined in the original Project 880 (BTW none of my above assessments is bolstered by being aware of this Un-abridged version of the story), but I guess it isn't practical when ½ billion dollars is a stake. If Cameron hopes his return to Pandora will be equally successful I agree he’ll need to expound upon the themes begun here by putting more meat on the bones. In the meantime I’ll join the party and have some fun.
I'm sorry, Peter, but I strongly resent any implication that during our discussion or in these comments we "condescend(ed) to those that found enjoyment" in the film Avatar.
It didn't happen on the show, will never happen on a future show, nor has it or will it happen with anyone I've encountered in my regular life.
To do otherwise would contradict everything I've ever said and believe about the nature of film criticism - that it's a totally subjective, wholly personal beast. My only concern is articulating the experience I had with the movie. Suggesting that there is one 'right' reaction to a movie is absurd and something I would never do.
Fair enough. I'll believe you that you don't actually think or feel that way. But I'm obviously not alone in catching this vibe. That said I never take it personally, despite my written demeanor, which I've taken to tempering since the great divide that is the internet makes tone difficult to translate.
I will say that I definitely agree with you guys on the plot, story script etc... BUTTTT.....I don't care. I enjoyed spending time on the planet (and I really felt that I was on that planet, the 3D really worked for me). I mean the story of Star Wars isn't all that creative and to be honest the A New Hope really does come off as cheesy and cliche with enormous plot holes when you allow yourself to watch it without the childlike wonderment and nostalgia. Sometimes it is ok to get swept up in technology and special effects and actual moviemaking. Sitting in the theater I must have felt like the audiences of those Melies "Journey to the Moon" films did a hundred years ago. A director has taken me to an amazing place I've never been before using the cutting edge technology of the day.
Now I know we can't give every film with great special effects a pass. I saw Transformers and was blown away but those robots. They looked fantastic and were so much fun to watch. But...the story was moronic and the action was incoherent. Do we take for granted what a well made action movie looks like these days? Have we just accepted that moving the camera alot and making big explosions is great action? By the time we got to the final battle sequence of Avatar I was just as amazed and excited as I was when I first saw the death star battle for the first time.
Ok James Cameron has never been the best at the dramatic stuff. The romantic dialog in Titanic is gag worthy and the whole premise of the Terminator franchise is based around an enormous plot hole (How does John Conners father see that his son will eventually become the leader of the resistance is he has yet to go back in time and father him?). But the man who gave us Xenogenesis, Aliens, Terminator 1 & 2, The Abyss and True Lies is really an extraordinary action director.
Would I have liked well rounded characters with an interesting plot? If I had to give a review on you show I would be forced to agree with what you guys were saying, but when i was sitting in that theaters lost on the planet of Pandora I wouldn't have cared if I was watching a remake of Juno with pregnant blue people. When a filmmaker transports me inside his world, like James Cameron has always done, I just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Hope I didn't come off as too much of a fanboy.
This may sound strange, but I wish that you hadn't put up a star rating for this film (or any other for that matter). I feel as if star ratings diminish any possible real dialogue that may be had when trying to analyze a film. Not having star ratings forces us (the listeners) to analyze your opinions subjectively and question why we may have different opinions.
Referring to Avatar, I saw the poor ratings that you gave it and dismissed what you had to say in the show. After listening to the show, I can see where you were coming from, however I still feel as if you guys nit-picked it to death.
I remember seeing Episode 1 six times (*sigh* yes, 6 times) in the theater. I was 17. I camped out and bought tickets. The experience was the most exciting part. It was a spectacle. I, like many others, was so wrapped up in the fervor and excitement surrounding the film that it didn't really matter if the film was even watchable.
I recall watching two of my friends having a MAJOR difference of opinion after seeing The Last Samurai. The friend who disliked the film for all its story flaws didn't know what to tell my other friend who was blinded by his love for swords and the way of the samurai.
One day in class that same friend who dissected Last Samurai did an impromptu film critique of the two ludicrous Matrix sequels. It was hilarious. "Neo, there was so much I wanted to tell you the first time I died." Lol I was dying from laughter. Other people did not find him funny. They loved bullet-time and how dare anyone say bullet-time was stupid (no one said bullet-time was stupid).
I think it's extremely telling that most of the furious objectors on here have attacked FS's professionalism as a film criticism show instead of making true counter-points or arguments. Accusations of condescension and insulting listeners' intelligence are all bogus. I don't always agree with the show, but I'm not so insecure as to think that just because someone doesn't like what I like or get what i got out of something, that somehow I'm wrong, angry, and they must PAY for making me feel insecure attempting to squash, drown out, and eradicate all opposing views is an act of fascism. That's why I love the podcast's quote: "I hear what you're saying, but you're completely wrong." It's a statement that begs the question, "Oh yeah? How's that?" It's called a DISCUSSION.
I wonder what a lot of people will say about this film 10 years from now. Will there be people like me with Episode 1, shaking their heads that they enthusiastically paid good money to see a film over and over again in the theater, and 10 years later happily admit that the film they thought they loved SO MUCH had major flaws that they can easily see clear as day? Undoubtedly there will be.
I haven't seen AVATAR yet, so I can't weigh in. I was way more interested when the buzz was about Cameron working on a film adaptation of Battle Angel Alita. But he had to make AVATAR first to perfect the technology.
As a film fan, for a while after seeing this movie, I felt ashamed about how much I enjoyed it. I felt shallow and superficial. Then I heard someone defend it on the Slashfilmcast. His argument was that if it was okay to like a movie that is weak visually because it does something incredible with its narrative or dialogue (the example he used was Clerks which is one of my favorite movies), why isn't it ok to love something for the pure visual spectacle of it. That brought me around. Avatar was the most exciting film I've seen this year. Every frame was filled with such beauty that I couldn't help but sit in awe of it. It was literally awesome.
I had a very similar reaction to Avatar as another commenter did (Sabbott1990). I loved Avatar, and it made me hope that it reminds viewers and directors alike that a giant made-for-happymeal blockbuster movie that may try to appeal to everyone at the same time does not have to be as bad as Transformers or Indy 4. I guess that’s the film snob in me. I started to feel disgusted with the fact that people went in droves to TF and told me how great it was. After leaving Avatar I felt some redemption and mostly relief that Cameron was back in the directors chair. As for the Filmspotting review: I can certainly see where you guys are coming from… but for me, I go to a film like Avatar for a different reason and expecting something different than what I go for and expect from say: Inglourious Basterds or Dancer in the Dark. As film reviewers, what is your honest opinion; are you guys slightly jaded? I mean, having, scratch that, getting to see so many movies, does it become harder to just check a part of your brain at the door and enjoy a thrilling movie (Avatar) without the context of having reviewed Seven Samurai the week before? You know, within reason. You would need a straight up lobotomy for Indy 4. Keep up the great work guys.
- Morgan
Great review, guys.
My take on Avatar is here:
http://steev.hise.org/content/tall-blue-hot-nature-mama-barbie-dolls-who-sway-their-hips-and-kick-ass
Thx for the review on Avatar. This one isn't in one of my usual genres, so I wasn't really expecting much from this movie. I was just dragged along to go see it with my friends (who truthfully I was jealous of after they left the theater so much in rapture). I thought that the plot and characters were remarkably thin and cliche for the long amount of time I had to spend in that theater, and so I'm glad to hear some professional film critics didn't think too highly of the film as well.
Anyway, I can see how it's amazing visually though. It looked so real I didn't disbelieve the alien world for a minute. One of my friends had to point out to me that it was all CGI.
Happy new year!
I really loved Avatar, weak plot and all, but chastising Adam, Matty and the show just because they didn't like the film is pretty ridiculous. There have been quite a few times I've heard discussions on the show that I disagree with in part or in whole, but I've never freaked out or even considered for a second not listening. In the case of Avatar, I can agree with most of their points - the plot is weak, the characters are cutouts - how can anyone argue that they aren't?? For some people (like me), they can latch onto the strong visuals and realization of the world. That wasn't enough for A&M. Cool beans. Definitely not worth getting up in arms over.
As for them being snobs to big budget films? 1) I know I could go and find discussions on big budget films that they enjoyed and 2) maybe Hollywood just produces lots of inadequate, junk blockbusters. Go blame Hollywood, not A&M.
For what it's worth, I agreed with just about everything you said about Avatar. I, too, sat in the theater thinking that I had seen this back when it was called Dances with Wolves when suddenly it became Braveheart (even down to the blue insurrectionists!) Still, like some of your other listeners, I was able to shut off my personal film snobbery for a little while. The movie passed my personal 'thumbs-up' test by keeping me entertained and holding my interest throughout the running time. I was groaning at the B-movie dialog and delivery as often as I was marveling at the state-of-the-art special effects and action sequences--but I wasn't bored. Even picking out the best groaners, over-obvious political allusions, and anachronistic slang became fun.
Cameron did all the things in this film that he does well, and the things he does poorly. Spectacular action sequences, shoddy romantic dialog. Does anyone remember Titanic and Kate Winslet asking Leonardo DeCaprio to "draw me like one of your French girls?" To this day, I think Titanic was one of the worst movies (measured in potential vs. outcome) that I've ever seen, but it was still visually amazing and kind of fun to watch once the ship started sinking. I wouldn't go so far as to say Avatar is in the same category of badness. The screenwriting is derivative at its best, laughably bad at its worst--but that's just me, and like I said, I enjoyed watching it. I'm not sure where the polarization comes in. I don't know why people are upset that you didn't like it--does everyone have to like everything?
I don't have trouble suspending disbelief when watching CGI, so to me, this movie wasn't any breakthrough when watching the blue people (as compared to Gollum in LOTR, or Shrek, Ice Age, Tale of Desperaux, etc).
Avatar wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it was 30 minutes too long, and the 3D was mostly unnecessary. Coraline is still my benchmark for how a film should use a 3D camera to tell its story and immerse the audience in another world.
I didn't hear you all discuss the one element of Avatar that was brilliant - how the Pandora forest was an analogy for our planet's oceans. That was visually beautiful and the truly creative element of the film.
Thanks boys, now I don’t feel like such a schmuck for being disappointed in this visually fun, but ridiculous movie.
Well I agree about the criticisms leveled against this films plot and dialog. I still couldn't help myself but have a good time. This was a summer blockbuster popcorn flick that Terminator Salvation and Transformers couldn't be. I was entertained and lost myself in this world like I was 9 years old all over again and for that I thank the film makers.
Sorry guys, your losing me. I fell in love with this podcast back when we had Adam and Sam. Adam was ever accurate although sometimes conventional and Sam could hold a discussion on art house cinema but still be excited about a film just because it was superman on the big screen. This led to emotive and fun debates and regardless of who I agreed with there was always an opinion that I connected with.
It was a nice balance of pop culture enjoyment and serious film criticism. Now I feel the reviews are taking themselves too seriously. Perhaps it’s an issue with Adam and Matty’s tastes being similar, or simply too much emphasis on negative criticism.
Which brings us to Avatar, I agree with all your points, all accurate, the plot was lazy and clichéd. But please… it was fun. Did we have to spend the whole time ripping the film rather than discussing how amazing and fun the world was.
Come on guys.. please make filmspotting more enjoyable.
The “checking your brain at the door” defense for any film became irritating long ago. I get what is trying to be conveyed, but I think the insinuation is reductive and unfair to this film. Dialing back the left-brain (analytical) in a right brain (intuitive) film is more to the point. That might be difficult for some, but are we so used to having art theory statements beneath our VISUAL art that we’ve forgotten how to ‘READ’ a painting. Make no mistake, this is a living, breathing pulp novel (cover) as much as it is a film, or for the more classically minded, a Titian painting (similar color palette) come to life. I haven’t read any recent critiques of his work, or the 1500+ years Art History, for re-hashing the Bible.
I agree with Lost Highway's comment. It's ok to just enjoy yourself in a silly, gratuitous, big budget action movie every once in a while. Yes, its ok even for we cine-geeks. I agree that the plot line was cliche and characters were poorly conceived and blah blah blah but guess what? I didn't walk into the movie to enjoy a thoughtful character study on a number of complex individuals. I don't think anyone that see's this would have that expectation. I walked in because I heard it would be a visual delight. It was. It's flawed yes but I found as soon as I let myself, I actually had a lot of fun with it.
It was a tad long though. :-)
Avatar has to be seen as one of the 'first' in its category.
There might be weak story plot,unimpressive build up and what not,I went to see the movie just so make out the technology they have used out there.
Avatar to me is not only a movie it is a showcase of what technology graphics Hollywood could use at its best and after so many dollars !
Though I cannot say I was impressed or not. They have worked on the details and the effort is worth it.
"Suggesting that there is one 'right' reaction to a movie is absurd and something I would never do."
You need to relisten to your own Synecdoche NY review and the way it went after the then-hosts of At the Movies
It was an opinion of yours I happen to agree with, but it is strong evidence that you guys are quite capable of being condescending.. and in this case it was in favor of a film.
You're right on one part, Goon... we absolutely condescended... to THE BENS, for failing as film critics, not to people who disliked Synecdoche, NY. I've read several take-downs of Synecdoche that I respect because they at least took the time to consider the film. The Bens were paid to review movies and showed up on set with "I don't get it." I'm sorry, but that's a joke as far as I'm concerned, and they deserved to be called out. It's not an issue of taste or even rejecting their ideas... it's that they had no ideas.
It's all there in mp3 if you want to re-listen to what we said.
We've been so open about this on the show over the years, and have consistently considered other viewpoints in listener feedback, that I'm a little surprised there could be any dispute about this. But just to reiterate...
We do not discuss movies to:
Tell you which movies to spend your money on.
or
Tell you which movies you should like and dislike.
I don't know you or your tastes. I only know how I reacted to a film, and that's all I'm throwing out for the world to consider or completely disregard.
P.S. For a really strong negative review of Synecdoche, Edelstein's is a great read. Not many as good as him. http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/51391/
Time to weigh in. I have been listening to the podcast for a year and a half. Don't always agree with the two of you (nor do you guys always agree with each other, which is, I think, healthy and realistic). But I always listen. After all, I might learn something.
I heard and saw the problems with Avatar. The exposition about Unobtainium alone made me cringe each time I saw the movie (three times - more later). Would you really call Grace into the office to show her the little rock and explain it's importance when she has been on the planet for a couple of years? But I digress.
I liked the movie anyway. My kids liked it. My wife liked it. Every friend I know that saw it liked it. I've seen it twice in 2D and once in 3D. Never looked at my watch once.
I know it is simplistic. I know the bad guys are almost all bad and the good guys are almost all noble. But damn it man...I just enjoyed myself. I was exhilarated like no time since seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time in the theater (not comparing the films, just the feeling).
I think I will look back on the film as a proving ground for the technology Cameron invented than as a classic film. That's OK. I feel like I got my money's worth each time I saw it and that's more than I can say for any number of movies I have seen in the last 5 years.
As an aside, my family and I all really liked the 2D version much better than the 3D version. Specifically, in the fast motion scenes, there was a lot of blurring in the 3 dimensional parts of the scene, the CGI mountains and scenery looked truly animated in 3D versus more realistic in 2D, and there were visible vertical bands in the light background areas in several scenes. Just some specifics for those of you that might be wondering.
Keep up the good work.
I basically agree with your review. Even so, I think Cameron used the mythology of science fiction more than you give him credit for. A lot of the flaws with the movie can be put under this umbrella. For example, on the "Unobtainium" name, I quote from wikipedia:
"Engineers have long (since at least the 1950s[2]) used the term unobtainium when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects save that it doesn't exist. By the 1990s the term was in wide use, even in formal engineering papers such as "Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]".[3] The word unobtainium may well have been coined within the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in reentry. Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials."
"The term has been used in science fiction for materials that have incredibly strong properties. For example scrith, the fictional material forming the foundation of the Ringworld in Larry Niven's novel of the same name, requires a tensile strength on the order of the forces binding an atomic nucleus together. Since no such material is thought to be possible, a ring world is therefore said to be built out of unobtainium. Unobtainium can be used in a disparaging context (e.g., "that idea is silly; you'd need unobtainium wires to hold the planet up!") or a hypothetical one ("If one were to build an unobtainium shell around a black hole's event horizon, what would happen to the material piling up on it?")
Unobtainium can also refer to any substance needed to build some device critical to the plot, but which does not exist in the universe as we know it. Examples are the anti-gravity material cavorite, or the improbably heat-resistant unobtainium in the film The Core. The term "handwavium" (suggesting handwaving) is another term for this hypothetical material, as are "buzzwordium", "phlebotinum" and "flangium" (from "to flange" meaning to make up something improbable, especially in fiction or interactive entertainment such as larp).
Unobtainium can also refer to any rare but desirable material used to motivate a conflict over its possession, making it a MacGuffin. Like gold, the material may also have technical uses, but the particular use or properties of the material are not important to the plot. Examples are dilithium in Star Trek, or a mineral actually called "unobtanium" in the film Avatar."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
My opinion of Avatar has evolved quite a bit. On first viewing I found it fun and a great "event" movie; Cameron controlling every single aspect of the movie and of the audience. I still think that, and I found his manipulation masterful. Then I watched it again in 3D and I thought... "Ah... meeeh...". I just basically want to watch the documentary on Pandora's nature.
I don't want to echo too much else that has already been said about this film - it was pretty much what I expected, visual marvels combined with a weak story, one-dimensional acting, and laughable dialogue - but while watching, I had a thought. I couldn't believe that anyone smart enough to get a $300M film made could write dialogue that bad without an intention, and the intention, I think, must be the global audience. We are past the days when a US-made blockbuster film can contain idiomatic expressions in its script which won't be easily translatable or comprehensible in 50 other languages. So in this film, instead of anything creative being said, we have random four-letter words used as expressions of surprise, shock, etc., and bland platitudes masquerading as bits of wisdom. Cameron even suggested this attention as much during his Golden Globes acceptance speech when he stated that "we make entertainment for a global audience."
Thank you for the Avatar edificaiton! After I saw the film, I was depressed and thought that I was going crazy... I *hated* that script. It completely lost the movie for me. Nobody else (other than my other-half, who agreed with me, wisely) I know saw any problem with the hackneyed, cliched, completely formulaic, predictable, BAD script and unintentionally hilarious dialogue. So I listened to your podcast and review THAT NIGHT, hoping for kindred spirits. Thank you. :)
Of course, I now think the Golden Globes are stupid.
:)
I think it was actually when I heard " "shock and awe" and "we're going to fight terror with terror" that I realized Cameron completely dropped the ball on the screenplay. I'm a fan of subtlety. I'm also about as left-leaning as a person can get, and yes, I'd love for the U.S. to get out of Iraq... but the heavy-handed and overly simplistic message completely turned me off. That clunky, obvious dialogue ruined the movie for me. I would like to see a more nuanced argument for getting out of Iraq and taking care of the environment, not this crappy "How to introduce these things to a 6-year-old" script.
Sure, the visuals were pretty, but I kept getting pulled out of my enjoyment of them every time a character spoke. I would have been happier if there had just been music and no dialogue at all.
While I have learned not to expect subtlety from Cameron, I did expect some original storytelling. After all, "Terminator" (and T2) have stood the test of time.
Oh well.
You guys completely missed the point. "Avatar" is a wonderful piece of pulp science fiction. You reviewed it like you were sitting through a new Hitchcock. I mean, I love to pick apart whatever Pedro Almodovar is pushing today, but with movies of this nature, I just let it all go and enjoy. You should too. I think you've robbed yourselves of the pleasure of a great pulp sci-fi flick.
But Cran, as we said on this week's show... we can't have robbed ourselves of anything since there isn't any other experience to have than the one we had. I didn't watch Avatar any differently than I watch an Almodovar or Hitchcock film. Maybe I should, but I don't. All three ideally should entertain and interest me. When one of them doesn't work, I try my best to explain why.
That's too bad. You missed out on a great piece of sci-fi pulp fiction.
I agree. So many good movies to see, it's unfortunate when you want to get up and leave one 2 hours in with 45 to go... but that's the experience I had.
Wonderful piece of pulp science fiction? I disagree. I would have had a lot more fun sitting through re-runs of the new "Battlestar Galactica" than I did seeing Avatar the first time.
I never liked the new "Battlestar Galactica;" I thought it was far too stylized and the acting at times resembled a day time soap opera. You can sense the crew there just behind the camera holding donuts waiting for the cut in action.
"Avatar" was, to me, a "Buck Rogers" or a "Star Wars." Simple story, possibly stolen from somewhere else and set in a new environment, wooden acting, etc. It wasn't meant to be taken too seriously.
I've enjoyed your podcast very much over the last year. I was relieved to hear your comments on Avatar, as I sat there wondering throughout whether I was completely off-base in finding the story, characters and dialogue so painfully clunky. As much as I enjoyed the spectacle, I found myself checking my watch toward the end because the movie really had nothing new or interesting to say. In any event, this is one listener who will keep on listening!
Right on Elysia! That's when I walked out, too. What a mess. The whole thing actually made me extremely angry, took me some while to calm down, both from the energy of the film and the implications. That people would be so easily seduced by a few pyrotechnics. Like you I can name any number of things I've seen that are more technically impressive and certainly more beautiful.
As far as the 3D goes - I wish I'd known beforehand that Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland' is shortly due out in 3D. Would happily have waited for that. Although - the glasses did also add somewhat to my headache. lol.
(On the other hand, I saw "A Single Man" a few days before. imo - perfect.)
Fantastic Avatar review. It always blows my mind to stumble upon critics and see what they have to say about their cinematic experience.
Being a first time listener and on a laptop with the slowest connection in the world, I was wondering if you guys always to over-analyze the film in review. The review seem to pound Avatar as relentlessly as Avatar's constant messages of anti-war and pro-environment... not that it's a bad thing. The message may have been preachy, but it strikes a universal chord that has relevance in today's society.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
All in all, expect me to tune in more.
--Berserker
Adam,
I agreed with your takes on Avatar, having just seen it last night and just listened to the podcast (try not to listen until after I've seen a film unless I'm not likely to see it any time soon).
The film was visually breathtaking and I was even OK with the 3D glasses and typical showoffiness of Cameron with the 3D features. But my goodness, this was the most overly preachy thing I've ever seen. We get it Jim, we're killing the planet and children of war! That horse is WAY dead by hour 2 (and 2.5) This movie would have been perfect at about 2 hours with only 1 expository scene of Giovanni Ribisi, who I just can't take seriously since Boiler Room, but I digress. I realize Cameron spent too much on these toys to cut it.
I think Cameron forgets his own rules as he goes along in this world -- the rule about the hair strands attaching to the "one" dragon (?) that chooses you -- where was Jake's dragon after he caught the big red Tarek dragon? Did he just disappear? I guess he wasn't the "one" after all? (Perhaps an ode to Cameron's marital history?)
And that Colonel, was he left over from Commando? Very, very stereotypical and one-note.
I enjoyed the movie for about an hour, but after that my watch was getting a lot more love.
Thanks for the reviews and keep up the good work.
Post a Comment
<< Home