First Review of Avatar Special Edition 387
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? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, I have get into this "movie sucks" bandwagon because I also thought that as a movie Avatar sucked.
See, I saw the movie first in 2D and *then* in 3D, both in the theater. When I first saw it in 2D I though it sucked; it reminded me of Final Fantasy movie... just a bunch of computer animation with a *veeeeery* thin storyline which is a rehash of Dance with Wolves (I like the name someone gave "Dance with Thundercats").
Then I saw it in 3D and I thought the 3D effects made the movie OK, just OK for the nice effects you could see...
So yes, I believe the reason of this "movie sucks" bandwagon you see is because nowadays most movies suck...
A fun review of Avatar (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA [youtube.com] (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0 [youtube.com]
Re:Really? (Score:1, Interesting)
Someone that worked at sony apologised for the final fantasy movie. I can't remember if it was head of square or sony itself. Square made another final fantasy movie, advent children, to make up for it. Its really good (i like it anyhow) , and features the characters from final fantasy 7. Good music too.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Well, considering how poorly executed most plot twists and moments of suspense are in roughly 99% of all movies out there I actually found it rather relieving that Avatar didn't have a bunch of "gotcha!" moments that anyone with an IQ above room temperature could spot thirty minutes in advance. Really, if you feel the need to put a plot twist in your movie at least make it clever and new, if it's the same plot twist that's been used oh so many times before then it'll just annoy the audience (or at least those of us who actually pay attention to the plot).
And that's not to say the plot of Avatar was good, just that they at least seemed to resist their urges to add pointless gotchas and plot twists.
The 10-year-rule (Score:5, Interesting)
Every director has about 10 years of peek creativity, give or take a few years. And Cameron is well past his creative prime (basically from about 1983 to 1992).
There are some notable exceptions to the 10-year-rule, BTW. I would argue that Stanley Kubrick and John Sayles are two of the VERY rare exceptions. Many would include Scorsese as well.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Advent children was awesome and the sound track is great..
I don't knock the original FF movie because of a couple of things.. First it was way ahead of it's time in terms of render and animation quality - as far as i'm concerned it put toy story to shame (especially when you look at the time lines for when rendering started) It's only major flaw was being called FF.. people expected something like Advent Children and not what they got.. if they had given a better name it don't think people would bash it as much.. but then again not nearly as many people would have watched it.
Re:The 10-year-rule (Score:1, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Special Edition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.
Check out his TED talk [ted.com]...
1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.
2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...
3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.
4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.
I bring this up because you seem to be taking Cameron as some sort of artist who'd be interested in your critique. In reality, he's met all of his goals, and now has further funding for his true passion - exploration.
Rather interesting, don't you think?
Re:The 10-year-rule (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize that, given enough thinking, you can extrapolate any rationalization for a weak point in a movie. But the problem is, the filmmakers didn't clearly answer those questions during the movie.
Consider for a second a theoretical movie: it consists of one shot of egg. 10 seconds into this shot, the egg disappears. The movie ends.
Now, you could find some rationalization for why the egg disappeared; perhaps it was just a hologram. Your rationalization may even be halfway plausible. But the fact remains that the filmmaker didn't go that extra step to convey a coherent, credible, original story. That's the problem with Avatar.
To address your points one by one:
1. Home territory: I believe it, but they should have had a scene where the N'avi come up with an actual battle plan that exploits their opponent's weaknesses. Remember in Star Wars, when the rebels meet before the attack on the Death Star, and Ackbar says that the Empire doesn't believe in the threat of a small strike force? That's how you tell a story.
2. The humans are vulnerable: This isn't supported by any of the shots or dialog in the movie. All we see the entire movie is an extremely well-equipped base.
3. The humans go soft for PR reasons: Again, this isn't supported by either the shots or the dialog of the movie. Instead, we have many scenes with the militaristic commander saying stock bellicose action movie dialog. We have a few shots of the corporate manager second-guessing himself after he orders the attack, but he doesn't take action and tell the commander to pull back.
4. The corporation is watched closely: Also not supported by any shots or dialog in the movie. There are no shots of the corporate managers talking to Earth, and Earth warning them about their actions. And most of the militaristic commander's dialog is to the effect of bombing them into submission.
This is what I mean about filmmaking laziness. Any scenes filling in the story points you've referred to would have made this a better movie. But the scenes just aren't there.