First Review of Avatar Special Edition

brumgrunt writes "Den Of Geek has the first review of James Cameron's extended cut of Avatar. Its thoughts? 'As opposed to, say, the extended cuts of Aliens, Terminator 2 or The Abyss, the new scenes add little of particular note to everything we've already seen.'"

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.

It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

I'm sorry to say but Avatar as a film was crap. Not saying it wasn't nice to see once, but it really wasn't good except for the art/effects. I was also bored after an hour or so and was quite happy that it was finally over after 500 years (or something close to that ;)). The storyline was so, so, so, apparent that there was no surprise or plot twists or anything and there definitely was no suspense (go watch Psycho or something, then come back about suspense). It was a nice showcase of 3d, but that's it.
Mind you, that is just my opinion, but it is an opinion which is shared by quite a few people that I spoke to.

Re:Really?

[xtracto]

BTW, to answer your question of "which movies I think are good" I can mention you one 3D movie which I think has both i) A good story and ii) Nice use of 3D effects, and that is Coraline.

Re:Big science plot hole

[oodaloop]

Non-chemical weapons could be possible, but that doesn't mean they're suited for combat. We have caseless ammo, lasers, rail guns, etc now, but the military doesn't use them for a variety of reasons, ranging from cost, weight, durability in the field, ease of field maintenance, etc etc. Combat weapons have to be cheap and effective, not necessarily the most technologically advanced.

Re:Really?

[aesiamun]

Well, I find it rude to mock movies while in the theater. There are other people there and they might be trying to enjoy the steaming pile that is projecting on the screen.

Re:Really?

[nelsonal]

A whole lot of the cinemetography and storytelling methods used in the film were new and developed for it, and have been used ever since by lots of other films. The most important were deep focus (keeping the whole scene in focus and effectively flattening the scene by removing depth cues), and the visual montages to indicate time passing. Finally it was a great thumb in the eye of a newsman who had vastly more power than Murdoch could hope to have, today.

Re:Really?

[vadim_t]

Avatar is not a good movie. It contains hokey dialogue, similar to that which has appeared in many other movies. It contains a journey of a main character through a race which is very similar to at least two other movies: Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves. It contains main characters -- the Na'vi -- who choose spectacularly ill-advised actions -- running their army of primitive warriors directly into a highly-advanced human force aided by machines. It also contains a very unlikely outcome of such a poor decision: The Na'vi win.

Actually I think the movie explains it pretty well. There are several reasons why the Na'vi can win against those odds:

1. The Na'vi are on their home territory. They're very familiar with it, and it favours them.

2. It costs an arm, a leg and both kidneys to ship something there. Even at a disadvantage, anything the Na'vi manage to destroy and anybody they kill hurt the humans a lot. Anything destoyed is very, very expensive and slow to replace, and see the next point.

3. The humans aren't doing colonization. They're not waging a war. What came to that planet is a corporation, which wants to earn money. As such, they can't blow the budget and leave it for the next president to deal with. Money, resource usage and PR will be watched very closely, and if somebody screws up badly enough they'll want their head on a stake, and now.

4. Back home, the corporation is being watched closely, and allowed to do what it's doing based on the understanding of that they'll try to reach a compromise with the natives, and not bomb them into submission. That the technological capability of nuking them all from orbit exists doesn't mean it's a viable option.