Posted on 02/16/2010 9:56:20 AM PST by RobRoy
That was absolutely hilarious! Spot on in so many ways too.
But like MST3000, it could probably make fun of pretty much any movie. Any movie.
Oh, I blew an entire weekend watching his reviews of The Phantom Menace, Star Trek: Insurrection, and the rest. This guy is hilarious!
Interestingly, I thought the last three star wars movies were awful on several levels. The acting by the Anikan Skywalker character was so bad it was comical. Literally.
And the stories were something I could never get into. I lost interest in the special effects some time ago.
It is one reason I didn’t think I’d be missing much regarding Avatar. I figured it was mostly just “special effects”. Well, yes, but there is value in being “first on the block” with some things.
Speaking frankly, I understand your enjoyment, but I have reached the point where FX simply isn’t enough. I have seen enough surface-pretty films for one lifetime and I much prefer films with emotional depth, intellectual honesty and spiritual truth.
James Cameron has none of these qualities and so, no matter how pretty his film, I simply don’t want to bother.
That’s just me, of course, but I think it is a point of view people might really profit from considering (it might save them some money and time, too).
>>Speaking frankly, I understand your enjoyment, but I have reached the point where FX simply isn’t enough.<<
I’m with you on that one. That is why I stayed away so long. It is also why I compared it to Star Wars. Both brought visuals to the table that were unheard of at the time. That made them worth it. But now I’ve seen it.
Same was true of CGI movies. It was only in the couple of years that I realized that I had just assumed that if a movie was CGI it would be good. And at first, they mostly were. But now they are like the rest of them. They need more than CGI to get your attention.
Avatar delivers on the visual side in a way it has not been seen before. That has value to the moviegoer as well as the producer.
>>I much prefer films with emotional depth, intellectual honesty and spiritual truth.<<
Movies are like books for me. Sometimes I read fiction and sometimes I read non-fiction. I’m not always looking for depth of story in a movie, but sometimes I am. My “desert island” movie is “That Thing You Do” BECAUSE it is simple, one dimensional, and is just fun.
I go to different movies for different reasons.
Oh, sure, I get that. Pretty fun film, all in all, though not that high on my list there. When going for that kind of thing, I actually go overboard: "Dude, Where's My Car" would be more along that line.
Actually, if I had to take just one movie, it would be...wait for it...'You've Got Mail'. :) We used to chant along with the dialogue we knew it so well and loved it so much. I bet there's CGI in there somewhere, but, whatever.
Thinking about it, if I was forced to make my desert island film one heavy with CGI, I would choose 'Iron Man'. That was MUCH better than I expected (I don't usually bet against Robert Downey turning in a great performance).
Did you happen to try ‘A Christmas Carol’ in 3-D? Only took 1 1/2 hours, pushed the envelope just as far and was true to the book (with one teensy tiny exception).
Honestly, one reason I love “That thing...” is that I have been in several bands. Frankly, whoever came up with the nuances of that script really understood the music business and how bands work. It is spot on in so many ways.
.
“little blue nipples”
Great name for an Indie band!
I saw this last night with the kids (7, 9 and 10 yo).
It cost us $50 to see it in IMAX and 3D. Pretty expense, but I’d say it was worth it.
The movie was good science fiction in it’s purist form. Visually stunning. Good story line. Uses believable technology. As a fan of the computer game ‘Myst’ I especially appreciated the plant life on Pandora. ‘Myst’ uses the same idea that it is all connected and the luminescence/reaction to touch/etc.
Yes there was the Gaia worship element, complete with actual scenes of worship. I tried to tell myself that this was how the residents of another world might act with all the connectivity, so that I could enjoy the movie (if I didn’t it would’ve bugged the heck out of me). There was a pro-hunting message in there as well, with caveats though.
My issues are:
- where did the natives get the guns that they used at the end of the movie?
- it will be all too easy for people to take a political view on the movie rather than appreciate it as good science fiction.
>>My issues are:
- where did the natives get the guns that they used at the end of the movie?<<
They had gone back to get the female doctor’s body and I assumed they collected the communications devices and guns then.
Just got back from the IMAX. My take: it’s definitely worth seeing, and the only way to really appreciate is in 3D. The 3D takes some getting used to, but by the movie’s midpoint it seems natural. They don’t get all cheesy with the 3D (thank God), they just let it enhance the immersion, and it’s a shame that more movies aren’t available in 3D.
The visuals are definitely nothing like anyone has ever seen before. I especially liked the glow effect that everything seemed to have on everything else. It reminded me a lot of the elven forest in the computer game Overlord, so much so that I started to wonder if there was an influence. Having seen the film, I can understand why some people might find themselves actually depressed at having to return to the real world, though I see that as an indication of two things: the idealized-to-the-nth-degree nature of Pandora and the lives of those who find themselves depressed. Pandora is not just stunningly portrayed in a visual sense: it is the Liberal Heaven made manifest: lives full of innocence, fun, play, and free of worry. Real life includes entropy, uncertainty, work, pain, and hardship, of which Pandora appears to have little.
Have we seen the storyline before? I would say no, in a strict sense, but certainly the themes have been done to death. Basically they took a lot of the themes as they were applied to Pocahontas or Dances with Wolves and reapplied them to this setting. That’s not to say that those are the only themes present, they’re just possibly the most familiar.
As for the political stuff, I didn’t get the impression that they were pushing a message so much as exhibiting a really biased and twisted view of certain things. It left me feeling not so much angry or offended as disappointed. The portrayal of the security forces leads me to believe that Cameron thinks that the military turns people into amoral psychopathic killers who laugh about murder and destruction and scoff at beliefs unlike their own. He apparently also thinks that stockholders are greedy and amoral, to the point that they would countenance murder and ecological devastation in the name of profits, and that the people their companies employ are only too happy to oblige them. I see it as a sign of pathetic ignorance and prejudice. If that’s what his thoughts are on those matters then I don’t feel anger or offense so much as pity. What’s more pathetic than prejudice? Prejudice that lasts due to stubborn and willful ignorance. I still think it was worth seeing, though I could have done without Cameron’s portrayal of everyone with a military background. If anything really rubbed me the wrong way, that was it.
My advice: do NOT think of this as a sci-fi movie. It is a ***fantasy*** movie. It makes a lot more sense that way. It’s a shame that it portrayed humans vs. Na’vi. If it was a 100% fantasy movie with some other race vs. the Na’vi, it would have been much more enjoyable in my opinion.
My kids and I had fun shouting out the different movie rip-offs of which Avatar is a collage.
MATRIX! LAST SAMURI! DUNE! BRAVEHEART!, ETC...
So James Cameron was just on the View Wednesday morning, and he was disarmingly frank about the premise and purpose of his film, Avatar. He plainly explained it was anti-corporate, and that his goal was to take that "subversive" message, and wrap it up in an entertaining vehicle in a way that America, or the world, would swallow it whole.
I admire the guy for admitting that. But I just don't see the subversion he's talking about. I can't remember the last time I saw a "pro-corporate" movie, which to me would be truly subversive. I mean, can you imagine a director making a film about a drug company that works tirelessly to come up with medications that saves millions of lives? That's happened in real life - more than a couple of times. Still, no movie. However, Hollywood craps out a pro-environmental, anti-big business flick faster than I can say "Pass the Charmin."
And I can say that pretty fast.
Anyway, I saw Avatar, and being from Fox News, naturally I rooted against the Navi. Not because they were holistic earthers. I just hated all the jewelry. It reminded me of a spa I went to in Santa Fe. Still, it was a great flick - as long as you separate fact from fantasy. In Cameron's fantasy, Marines become mercenaries who arrive to a peaceful place and destroy it. In our reality - around the same time that flick was making millions - Marines were actually landing in Haiti, saving lives during one of the worst tragedies in recent memory. In the world of make believe, we are evil. In the real world, we aren't so bad.
I don't expect the idiots who watch the View to get that. But I'm sure the rest of us do.
And if you disagree with me, you're probably a Navi-hating homophobe who kills blue people for fun.
Saw it last weekend IMAX theatre. Agree it was visually stunning but my husband and I were shocked at the dances with wolves story line. After spending all that time and money I would think they could have come up with an original story.
It’s original in places. That’s all I expect from hollywood. If I want real original, I read a book.
I’d love to see a few Varney books turned into movies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.