Easily the most hyped movie of the year is almost upon us.  The effects look a bit more Star Wars Episode I than I had hoped for but as I have some amount of faith in Cameron's ability to direct action and effects I'm hoping to enjoy it as a fantastical if slightly animation-esque spectacle.

Here's Dark Horizons' review:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/reviews/996

After reading Roger Ebert's hyping of this movie, I might even go watch this on a theater, thanks to knowing that my city has a theater cabable of playing 3D-stuff. If I do that, I sure do hope to post my comments, but knowing my current intoxicated state, I probably even forgot to go see this movie. :D

The majority of the reviews appear to agree that it's a fairly recycled but well-told plot, drawing most of its inspiration from Dances With Wolves and The Last Samurai.  The biggest draw of the movie will undoubtedly be its visual prowess and immersive world of Pandora.  To that end, I'm pondering IMAX for this one.

Personally, the movie sceams flaming piece of $h!t to me.

What I do remember those movies, it ain't a bad thing you know.

Okay, consider me gobsmacked.

I had been under the assumption all this time that this was some sort of big-screen adaptation of that Avatar: Last Airbender cartoon, but the related wikipedia article shows a distinct lack of connection between the two. Holy shit, do I ever feel like a retard.

I'm going to have to agree with you on this one.

What a bunch of haters....come on now....I've been waiting for Cameron's next film...surprised he's taken so long to make another film, but I have a feeling this one is going to be one kick ass ride.

So I take it no one is allowed to have an opposing view? Personally, I hate threads that are nothing but praise and ass-kissing.

I don't really see how that second statement applies in this instance as the thread was hardly chock-full of praise in the first place.  Also I've always felt that expressing a harshly negative view of a piece of art or entertainment gives one a bit more responsibility to explain that position than in the opposite case.  Otherwise it leads more to anger and bickering than to discussion.

Anyway compared to the many trailers for movies that are clearly awful from the outset, I don't think the Avatar ones fare quite that badly.  But if you get that bad a feeling from the trailer then reason enough to pass on the movie.

I just saw the trailer to this. This movie has been hyped? I'm still not sure what's it about. At first I thought maybe it's a video game (seriously)! Yup, I'm thinking pass on this one. I'm tired of 90% visual, 10% plot. Granted, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe it will be a good movie, but I doubt it. Instead, I'm going to go see me a Disney film Sure, it might not be in the same league as earlier Disney films, but at least it's a real cartoon and not just computer animation!!

cheers,

-avatar!

Are you talking about The Princess and the Frog?  It always amazes me how you can make such preemptive proclamations on a movie without, you know..... actually seeing it first.

I'm curious to hear why you feel it might not be in the same league as earlier Disney films.  I'm at least assuming (nay, hoping) it's not because the lead character is black.

This isn't rocket science. There are things called trailers, and about 10,000 movie critics out there, and when they all say it's a fun film, but not in the same league as earlier Disney films, you can be pretty sure the film is not in the same league as earlier Disney films. Your last statement is both insulting and retarded, so I'm not even going to bother giving it a proper response.

Trailers can be misleading, and movie critics aren't the end-be-all say.  But then, I think we've had this same sort of argument several times in the past.  I'll say this much: you're a slave to your ethics.

Deliberately so.  I was certain that wasn't the case, so I used a tongue-in-cheek (albeit extreme) allegation.

Anyway, you seem to be committed to seeing the film, so I'm hoping we'll be able to hear a more DEFINITIVE take on how YOU felt about the film -- and not just the word of ten thousand critics.  In this thread, of course.

Learn a bit about the movie before dismissing it!  I'm sure that there will be those who argue with me, but for years James Cameron's movies have been go-to examples of films that push the boundaries of visual effects that serve merely to underscore solid stories and exceptional characters.  Aliens, the first two Terminators, and The Abyss are all among my favorite sci-fi films of all time.  It's extraordinarily exciting for me to see the man return to writing and directing after a 12 year absence.  Ignoring the stupid internet hype, I want to see it just to see another movie by the guy who inspired me to want to do that way back in the day (God that was a long time ago, I feel so old now).

I'll go see it before I pass judgement on it.  I don't really have much expectations for it, but I'll give it a try.

I'm looking forward to the movie! Cameron hasn't let me down yet!

(Yes, I even enjoyed Titanic. )

Anyone heard James Horner's score yet?  I've given the hefty near eighty minute soundtrack the once over, and I'm slowly warming up to it.  The first half goes for something of a minimalist, jungle-percussive ethereal approach, undoubtedly the accompaniment for our introduction to the world of Pandora.  And then the second half quickly builds momentum, presumably for the preparations for the big end battle.  It's at this point the score begins to hit its stride, culminating into the impressively epic eleven minute track "War".  Musically, I'm definitely looking forward to this particular sequence in the movie.

There's a main theme evident in there, who's melodic strains at first blush reminds me of the Radical Dreamers/Chrono Cross "On the Banks of a Dream ~ Another World".  Leona Lewis' vocal rendition of the theme in "I See You" is quite lovely.

I need to listen to it a few more times. The first time, I was heavily distracted by Horner's usual practice of taking themes from his old scores and putting them in the new ones. The main romantic theme sounds eerily like the love theme from Titanic, among other things. I also heard Glory, Mighty Joe Young and The Four Feathers in there.

Oh, and that damned three-note "Khan" motif that he's used in like twenty scores. At this point, I'm convinced he just throws it in there as a trademark.

Still, no one else beats Horner at scoring the heart of a film. I'm sure he did his job very well. But with 18 months to work on this, I wish he had been a little more original.

It's such a long movie. And the theater nearest me doesn't have a showing until 12:40 PM. That's the problem with theaters; you pay but abide by their agenda. I'm really fed up with it and if I'm going to pay for something, then I should also be able to set my own agenda. Movie theaters are going to die. I will not miss them, not miss the f---ing teenagers that won't shut the f--- up, not miss all the cell phone screens, not miss the stupid fat guy that tears your ticket and tells you where to go, as if you can't figure it out. And these people they get to tear tickets...they've been getting uglier and fatter. Shouldn't one try to put good-looking people in a position that is in view of every customer? I remember I saw a sign once - YOUR APPEARANCE DOES MATTER.

God blast it. I'll have to interrupt my schedule to see this, get told where to go by some guy that's probably never seen his penis, and listen to the inane ramblings of teenagers.

I don't care who ya are...that's funny...Post of the year Jodo -

Swing on by the cinemas in NYC sometime -- where the attendants are dressed in uniform, and the audience generally respectable.  A higher class of movie watching. 

Just braved the snow storm currently hitting over here to see Avatar.  The entire movie is indeed derivative as all heck, but it's all done extraordinarily well.  One can practically check-mark each and every one of the story structure's beats, but we get everything we need during the perfectly paced and satisfactory two hour and forty minute run time.  The concept of the titular Avatars, how the world of Pandora and its inhabitants function, the rite-of-passage montage, the obligatory turn of betrayal and redemption, and then the massive, showstopping battle at the end.  All of which to say that it's all incredibly enjoyable, if highly predictable.

The CG technology is impressive, but not the genre-defining evolution that many are making it out to be.  That said, the integration between live-action and CG is consistently believable, and the motion capturing is well done.  Weta's work is commendable, especially on the eyes of the Na'vi.  I love the facial work and posturing every time they do one of their trademark hisses; they look and sound venomously real. 

Zoë Saldaña makes for a wonderful Na'vi: graceful, lithe, but kickass when she needs to be.  Sigourney Weaver also has a meaty supporting role here as Dr. Grace Augustine, while Stephen Lang's Quaritch is a generally one sided but great love-to-hate villain.  Even Michelle Rodriguez has a couple of cool cheer-worthy moments.  That leaves Sam Worthington as the odd man out.  Like every other Cameron movie before it, the dialogue isn't exactly high art, but a lot of Worthington's lines stick out like a sore thumb, particularly when he's conversing amongst the Na'vi.  Now, I can see that as a deliberate choice on the director's part -- Jake Sully is supposed to be a stranger in a foreign land, after all.  But then you take into account Worthington's dry Australian accent, which really took me out of the movie. 

The only other thing bugging me is the idea of the co-existence between the Avatars and the Na'vi.  I like that right at the start of the film they've established that the Na'vi are.... *moderate spoilers* ...... already fully aware of what the Avatars are.  It's not a story where the big reveal is that they discover that Jake is really a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing.  But then that begs the question: just what line are they supposed to tread when it comes to trusting humans?  One would imagine the simple fact that they're being replicated is enough to send up a red flag.  And I get that the program was originally created for the purpose of bridging Na'vi/human relations.  And I also get that Neytiri witnesses an abundance of spiritual Eyra seeds around Sully, thus sparing him -- but if she was willing to be so quick to kill, who's to say any one of the Na'vi wouldn't have done in Augustine and the rest so early on?  Ah, maybe I'm thinking too much into it.

Anyway, excellent movie overall.  Is it worth the hype?  Not quite, but this is definitely a James Cameron flick, for better or for worse.  There's little innovation going on here, and the dialogue could've used some punching up,  but the visual world he's created is impeccably beautiful (made all the better in 3D), and the action sequences are totally top-notch.  At nearly three hours, this is definitely my "most bang-for-the-buck" movie of the year.

I watched the early showing of Avatar today, to save money. It cost $7.25.

The main appeal of science fiction is the fact that it can challenge cognition with new ideas. What I felt was the main idea is good, but it did not surprise me. If this were the first time I was exposed to such an idea, then it would have been far more significant. But I first read this kind of story at age 18. City collects short stories written by Clifford Simak in the 1940s. In one of the stories a group of astronauts went to Jupiter and they were converted into creatures that could live there. One after another the converted astronauts did not return to base. Eventually one man was left and he had to know why they did not return. He found out.

But there is a story even more similar to Avatar than City. In fact, the similarity is such that I was kind of annoyed in the theater. Timothy Zahn wrote a novel called Manta's Gift that involved a guy in a wheelchair given the opportunity to be transformed into an alien (and live on Jupiter). I doubt many people have read that book, so I was one of the few that caught that little detail.

The imagery in the movie reminded me of The Hero of Downways, a novel by Michael G. Coney. It was the enormous amount of bioluminescence and variety of colors.

In some sense, the far less successful Pandorum was more appealing, since it brought something new to the table. Pandorum did not make me think of any previous science fiction I have read. Even District 9 was more original. Avatar is a very good interpretation of extant (already in existence) ideas in science fiction. As a further example, the Dragonriders of Pern series came to mind, when he had to choose his pterodactyl.

So I can summarize the 3 big science fiction movies I watched this year (haven't seen Moon yet):

1. Pandorum = New ideas, very disturbing.
2. District 9 = New ideas, hyper-violent.
3. Avatar = Old ideas, incredible interpretation.

I also watched these, but I correlate them with 'action' rather than 'cognition':

Star Trek (read A.E. van Vogt's early novels for the real deal)
Watchmen (more Super Heroes)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (only the addition of adamantium to bone seemed particularly interesting)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (a concomitance of technological and puerile prowess)
G.I. Joe (fun nostalgic trip)

Saw this tonight and quite enjoyed it.  No it's not the next Star Wars (the original one) in terms of visuals and special effects, but as the Dark Horizons review mentions it's probably as close as we've gotten since Lord of the Rings.  The news stories about the immense amount of thought and detail put into the extraterrestrial world the film is set in are not merely hype - it's perhaps the most spectacular and convincing use of effects to create an original fantasy world I've seen in a film, and I would gladly pay the price of entry just to watch it as a silent film and soak it in the amazing color and imagery.

Cameron's imagery is well spent on the action as well, from the advance VTOL aircraft to the mecha to the plentiful explosions that come at the end.  I found the first scene of the Na'vi in motion to be somewhat CGI animation-looking, but after that their movement and expressions were for the most part convincing and fit in with the environment perfectly - to my surprise I did actually feel like I was watching a film and not an animation for a great part of the movie.

The performances suffice and I think Worthington was just fine in the lead.  (I never noticed an accent and as the humans weren't linked to a certain nationality don't see how it figures in anyway.)  Some of his lines were a tad annoying but to some degree I suppose it is a part of the character.  The other characters, whether major or minor, were fairly predictable but by Hollywood action movie standards not bad, even if the main bad guy's behavior (and unceasing scowl in the final act) was extreme even for a baddie.

Unlike Angela I felt the pacing was one area that fell short.  I love the first act establishing the conflict and the new world, as well as the middle one where the lead character finds his home with the Na'vi, but I wish the end to the second act (no spoilers I promise) would have led more quickly into the final battle without some excessive, mostly inconsequential narrative.

Fortunately Cameron avoids the mistake of SW Episode I (the movie the trailer footage most reminded me of) and any number of Hollywood blockbusters of littering the final battle with multitudes of CGI drones that we care nothing about - yes there is tons of CGI and there is action everywhere but the quality of the effects and of Cameron's cinematography keeps the movie interesting at its climax.

Avatar doesn't redefine the sci-fi fantasy nor does it completely avoid the action movie trappings that even Cameron's highly regarded previous efforts have succumbed to, but as an in ways unmatched visual spectacle that can be enjoyed without having to sacrifice one's brain for the privilege, it's a somewhat rare cinematic success, and one that would certainly best be enjoyed in the theater.

As an aside, I hate James Horner's music and the score to Avatar reminded me of the fact.  I noticed the same thing when watching Troy again recently, but Horner's heroic themes and action fanfares are incredibly trite, to the point that they interfere with the movie.  His ethnic-tilted music fares no better - after realizing the immense amount of planning and detail behind the visuals of the alien planet's environment it's sad to hear the music accompanying it be so formulaic.  And then, as Angela mentioned [edit: as Wanderer mentioned], there are those same few ominous brass notes that Horner throws in every other score of his.  I would have much preferred the movie with only Horner's percussion or without his score at all.

(I'll admit to enjoying the scores for Apollo 13 and Braveheart but am leery of anything recent the man churns out.)

That would be a Wanderer mention, actually.   But I too agree with the sentiment. 

As for the contextual use of the music in film, I did find much of it blurring together, even though I had most of the soundtrack's basic structure tattooed into my mind before sitting down in the theater.  Notable cues include the latter part of Gathering The Na'vi Clans For Battle, and the entirety of track 10. (This one's title is a big spoiler, so I'm labeling it as such.)  "War" is still the score's major highlight for me; there's little subtlety to it, but the menacing militaristic overtones, awash with the heroically soaring main theme pretty much MADE the sequence for me.

By the by, I'd just watched the film's second trailer for the very first time.  Despite revealing just a bit too much (I'd definitely recommend holding off until you see the movie), I think it's absolutely SPECTACULAR.  Way, way better than the first trailer.

Horner IS a talented guy. His 80s stuff holds a place in my heart (especially Star Trek II, The Land Before Time and Willow) and even his early to mid-90s music is pretty solid (Apollo 13, Legends of the Fall, Braveheart) but for some reason, once he got to Titanic, everything afterward was very streamlined and dull. He just stopped taking risks. Maybe he feels he doesn't have to work as hard after the big Titanic paycheck (and residuals).

Wow, was that really him?! That movie makes me tear up everytime.

Back when I first saw it as a 5 year old, it was just me and my mom, so the imagery of Littlefoot losing his mother seemed to be just the most horrible fate imaginable. ;_;

The movie is a heartbreaker and a good portion of the credit belongs to Horner. It's just such a shame that they went on to make a dozen or so terrible direct-to-video sequels.

For fans of the movie and its stylized visuals, this purchase would seem like a gimme.  At just 100 pages, though, one might feel short-changed.

The Art of Avatar:
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Avatar-James- … 827&sr=1-1

Conversely, this one looks a bit more interesting.

Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora:
http://www.amazon.com/Avatar-Confidenti … 827&sr=1-3

Jodo, you will eat this related article up with a ladle:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440

Wow, I didn't realize Horner did Land Before Time. That soundtrack is awesome.

FWIW, I've been taking a listen to the music in the Avatar videogame, by Chance Thomas. Not amazing, but not bad either. I'll have a full review on OSV for that bit o' music at some point.

And if anyone's wondering, the Avatar videogame is not a good game. Visually impressive (except on Wii). But not a good game at all.

Thank you, that was rather tasty.

I find it odd that I've never in my life bothered to look up the word 'avatar' in my dictionary. Here's the 1992 American Heritage definition:

1. The incarnation of a Hindu deity, especially Vishnu, in human or animal form.
2. An embodiment, as of a quality or concept; an archetype: the very avatar of cunning.
3. A temporary manifestation or aspect of a continuing entity: occultism in its present avatar.
[Sanskrit avatarah : ava, down + tarati, he crosses]

I used to think it was a word invented in the computer age, to signify a representation of a user.