 
|
||||||||||||||
           |
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
(2009) RITOS and Kenny Farino weigh the good and bad of James Cameron's Avatar.By RITOS and Kenny Farino of The Horror Corner
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a special treat. Two of our head review writers, RITOS and Kenny Farino of The Horror Corner, are going to review the Hollywood blockbuster, James Cameron's Avatar. What sets this review apart from so many others is the fact that we have two very contrasting reviews of Avatar that both highlight the positive and the negative respectively. We leave it up to YOU, the reader, to make up your own mind, rather than tell you what to think. Enjoy!
RITOS's ReviewIf at first 'White-Guilt' doesn't succeed, try try again...
James Cameron's Avatar has been held up (mostly by Cameron, himself) as 'a reinvention of the movie'. Having (supposedly) having this epic story in his head for the last 15 years or so, James Cameron has said from time to time that his film was so epic that he wanted to wait for film-making to evolve to the point where his vision could be realized. After his hit film 'Titanic' failed to sink in the box office and instead set countless records world-wide for box office gross, Cameron has spent the last several years re-cooperating from his directorial smash hit, and pondered about his masterpiece.
Apparently watching Ferngully and eating Cheetos is a sign of film-making genius.
So Avatar starts out with the main character, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic soldier whose brother has just been killed in battle. Confined in a robotic wheelchair, he is sent to a remote outpost on the planet Pandora where his local military-industrial-complex, lead by Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), wants to mine a precious energy source and drive the blue-human-cat-aliens, the "Na'vi" off their land. In exchange for the spinal surgery that will fix his legs, Jake gathers intel for the cooperating military unit spearheaded by the R. Lee Ermey look-alike, Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang). To infiltrate their culture, Jake will use an "avatar", a biological Human/Na'vi body that will house his consciousness. While Jake begins to bond with the native tribe and quickly falls in love with the beautiful alien Neytiri, the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand - and fight back in an epic battle for the fate of Pandora. The theme of Avatar isn't bad at all, and the concept of an "avatar" is fairly unique, and should have been explored better. However, outside of the sci-fi elements, Avatar absolutely nothing new in terms of storytelling. If you've ever watched Dances With Wolves or The Last Samurai, then you already know the plot and an approximate outcome of the story. If James Cameron thinks that Avatar is going to 'redefine the movie' then he's been smoking too much 'wacky-tobaccy' while watching Disney's "Pocahontas". If you want the Avatar experience, dig up your copy of Dances With Wolves, set your television's blue-levels as high as they can go, and pretend that the horses are mech-suits or weird alien beasts. Presto! The story development is above par, but unfortunately with modern movies that is a low bar to hurdle. Character development is fair at best because character motives are as transparent as a Disney cartoon. Actually, this is what Avatar feels like, a big budget cartoon: Imaginative but unsubstantial, unfulfilling, and transparent.
The CGI in Avatar is actually overwhelmingly good. The world of Pandora and the Na'vi are extremely detailed in an enchanting but alien way. The details, like clothing in the wind, is very fluid and convincing. The cinematography is excellent and Avatar has amazing scenes that are worth the price of admission. I will give Cameron and crew credit that they managed to create a fantastic, fanciful world with vibrant characters and locations that are familiarly beautiful, but very alien. The problem is that there is TOO MUCH CGI in Avatar. Christ it seems like James Cameron got a case of the George Lucas syndrome and had to do every damned thing in CGI. Even the actors are CGI and my opinion is that if you have to do the motion-capture and facial tracking on an actor, just shoot a regular fucking movie. I don't believe that CGI will ever hit the point of fluid 'realism' and though Avatar comes close, in a few years this movie will be like all of the other overblown CGI movies and be unwatchable because something better has come along.
The Na'vi are a Furry's wet-dream (ie: a 'Furry' is someone who gets off on humanoid animals. Let that haunt your nightmares suckers). You have these tall, blue, half-people half-cat aliens that look even more anorexic than both of the Olson Twins combined but still manage to have a decent set of tits. And of course, to bring the message home that these are very 'Native' peoples who are in tune with the earth, every damned one of them is wearing nothing more than a leather loin-cloth and maybe a beaded bra. Talk about 'Au Naturale'. But the part of Avatar that threw my suspension of disbelief out the window was the way that the Na'vi use their pony-tails to interact with nature. Flying monsters, trees, and even dead ancestors, they connect their hair to whatever they want to communicate with just like a fucking computer keyboard.
The humans are no better. A majority of the soldiers are the knee-slappin', banjo-twangin', redneck and white-trash stereotypes that Hollywood loves to hate. Half of them wear 'civilian clothing' ala dirty plaid shirts and Budweiser hats. If you ever watched Republican Space Rangers in Grand Theft Auto IV you'd be in the ballpark. Am I the only one who sees this as a stereotype of white people? Meh, I guess no one in Hollywood cares.
The only exception to the rule is Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) who is so overblown, and so gung-ho that he is entertaining as hell to watch. If you think that Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket is the cock-of-the-walk for military badasses, then Colonel Quaritch is a close second. Colonel Quaritch is so hard core he jumps into battle before even putting on his oxygen mask. He leaps out of exploding helicopters wearing a mech-suit and knife-fights the monsters on Pandora. Colonel Quaritch gasses countless Na'vi while sipping his mug of coffee like he just finished his TPS Reports. "Yeah, that's a good cup of genocide." This guy is a rabid pitbull whose only objective in life seems to be skull-fucking Na'vi, even though the Na'vi have barely even interacted with humans up to this point in the story. As fun as the Colonel is to watch, there isn't really any method to his madness, save for the scars inflicted on his head by either a Na'vi or some Pandoran predator. I honestly want to see a new Predator movie that includes Colonel Quaritch with Stephen Lang reprising the role!
The final battle is epic with some awesome camera angles that keep the action tight and intense, however towards the end it falls pretty flat. The death of some main characters is about as emotional as falling down a pit in Super Mario Brothers. In my opinion, CGI is still years away from delivering a 'human performance' with true emotions and the small quirks and body language that draw me into a character. Either that, or the character development was so rushed that I didn't have time to care about them. Human essence can't be captured by a computer. Not yet. The final battle also evokes some real fantasy BULLSHIT, like when the earth-mother-spirit-thing helps the Na'vi by summoning all of the animals of Pandora to fight off the humans. It is so reminiscent of old Disney cartoons where you would have animals and nature itself fighting off villains, and for a movie that was supposed to take itself seriously, it was too jarring and abrupt and ABSURD.
OVERVIEWIn 2009, films such as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Terminator Salvation and Fast & Furious have proven that audiences don't need originality or character development to engage audiences. When audiences all think they have some sort of attention disorder, Hollywood is their candyman. Big explosions, flashy CGI and millions of dollars invested in media hype are all that's needed to make pill-popping partakers think that they have witnessed the greatest thing since Ritalin. The eye candy, like real candy, gives a sugar rush but isn't a filler. Not for this critic. And while Avatar delivers a decent story, it uses a cookie-cutter method of 'imitating' greater - and lesser - movies. One thing that REALLY bothers me is the tried-and-true 'White-Guilt' syndrome that apparently bit Cameron right in his over-inflated ego. Alright everybody, we all know that some white people have treated some other races like shit over the course of history. It's a sad fact, but a fact none-the-less. But does that mean that I need to get it driven into my head like a nail? Does that give you some right to patronize me like I am some kind of Hitler Youth? Fuck you, Hollywood. I do not condone racism or genocides, so you don't need to keep skull-fucking me with your "Holier-than-thou" bullshit. My final word is this: Outside of the nitpicking I was actually entertained. Is Avatar worth full price? Hell no. Maybe a good matinee unless you get IMAX or 3D glasses for the bonus eye-candy. Is Avatar revolutionary in terms of storytelling? Fuck off. Avatar brings nothing new to the table that will be discussed in film schools or mimicked in future movies. At best, it will get spoofed in one of those horribly lame 'Movie' movies ('Disaster Movie', 'Meet the Spartans', etc). Was this honestly the best that James Cameron could do after 10-15 years? Wait a minute... Dances With Wolves came out in 1990... Add 15 years... Add a few more years for filming and development... Nah...
Kenny Farino's ReviewAnd now for something completely different! A few days ago, I came into the theatres with my dad and brother, during my visit to sunny Florida for the holidays, to look for a movie to watch. We heard about the new science fiction movie out, "Avatar," and we all decided to see that since it was the only movie that seemed... different. After I got out, admittedly I was like a person who just saw "The Dark Knight" as it first came out, thinking this was the greatest film of the year by far. However, after cooling off and having a few days to sit on it, I still think it's pretty damn good. It's not the greatest movie ever (that would be reserved for either "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca", both of which often pop up on the top spot of many Top 100 lists), but it's easily one of the coolest films that I've seen in a long while. Unlike many special effects movies that have popped recently, though, this doesn't depend on just the wows of the pretty sights like many people claim. I saw "2012" last night, and it was almost as long as Avatar. Comparatively, the latter kept my interest the entire way through while the plot of the first mentioned seemed more like filler to pad the time between every city or house crumbling into oblivion.
Anyway, before we begin with the review, let me give out a few disclaimers: my opinion was built not from what the critics said on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic. People who go "Oh, this movie's gunna suck- what's that? The critics say this is great? THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!" are not credible, primarily because it isn't their opinion speaking, it's the opinion of the critics. I came in with no expectations, and before I was told what James Cameron directed, I had no idea what his past achievements were. Therefore, I didn't have the preconceived idea that this was going to rule or suck, I just came into Avatar with a clean slate. Also, don't expect a numbered score like I usually give at the end of this review, because even though I'd encourage you to give this movie a shot, I'm not going to tell you HOW good it is; that is something you'll have to see for yourself.
-The Review-1. StoryFirst and foremost, let's get this out of the way: Yes, the plot of this film is like "Pocahontas," "Dances With Wolves," etc. However, let me tell you this: it's extremely difficult to have a purely original idea nowadays without making something utterly ridiculous and flat-out stupid. Why do you think that many movies nowadays are either remakes, based on true stories, or adaptations. For those who think "The Dark Knight" is the greatest movie ever, for example, let's keep in mind that The Dark Knight wouldn't have existed in its current form if the source comics (The Long Halloween, The Killing Joke) weren't written.
Besides, it's not about the story itself, but about how it's told. Case and point, The "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" vs. its remake. They were completely different experiences because the stories were told in different ways, and they have their certain appeals to different fans. One of the main points of discussion in reviews are the stories, because bad and good movies have stories that are told in different ways. Again, let's use TCM as an example. With the original Tobe Hooper movie, you are given something that is disturbing, macabre, and scary as hell. With its remake, it has a nearly-identical plot but it is much, much worse. But this review isn't about "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," it's about "Avatar".
Avatar's story may be identical to "Dances with Wolves" or others, but the way this was told was in such a way that kept my attention; the story was simple enough to understand but didn't treat the audience like idiots, and the appeal actually reminded me of other James Cameron movies like "Terminator 2". This movie had a certain humor about it, but it also told its story in a fun and emotional way. For the first time in a while, I actually gave a crap about the characters who were presented to me, and the actors really helped give this movie a certain quality that one could hardly feel in most modern films like, to use as an example again, "2012". In "Avatar," you had a range of different personalities that added a charm to the movie, whereas in "2012," most or all of the characters are interchangeable with each other, and you could easily forget about any of them in an instant.
Now that we're on the subject of characters... 2. CharacterizationWhat makes a good story great? Characters, and this film is full of actors who do a groovy job at portraying them. The characterization gave the film a whole new personality that is rarely seen in many modern films, and the cast is to thank for this.Take Sam Worthington, for instance. He was the main character, Jake Sully, an ex-marine who is taken to the planet Pandora for a second chance at life, and who is, rhetorically and literally, reborn as he is taught to live like the native Na'vi tribe through his 'avatar' body. The main story is already described in the first part of this review, so I won't go over it again. Provided that Worthington's first mainstream role was in "Terminator Salvation," where his accent was changing inconsistently and the overall film proved to be horrible, he proves to us that he is a competent actor who gave Avatar some of its wit, and gave a memorable performance that, to me, stood out from the rest of the films out right now.
The supporting cast also provided some memorable roles, including Stephen Lang as the antagonist Colonel Quaritch and Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine. Lang provided an over-the-top villain who can best be described as somewhat psychotic when he shows his true colors, fighting like a 'man' to the very end. I know I complained about cartoonishly cruel villains in my "Dexter Season Two" review, but with Quaritch you can relate with him on some level before he turns into a villain and breaks all of those connections with the audience. That's what the case was in Scarface, and that's what the case was in "Avatar". Sigourney Weaver, returning from another Cameron film "Aliens", provides the movie with a clever sense of humor. However, aside from giving some snide remarks, Dr. Augustine is also a multi-dimensional character that the audience is able to care for, and that's something rare these days.
Let's do a comparison with "2012" again: with the characters in "2012," as I said, they are interchangeable with each other. 2010 tells you that you are supposed to care for them without providing any grounds for why we have to like them. There is no character development, and they remain the same awkward people throughout the entire thing. The deaths that occur in "2012" are also instant, and there is little to no reaction when main characters die, like the step-father. He gets crushed by a turbine, but he is never mentioned again despite the fact the children supposedly think the world of him. In "Avatar," when people die you know it, and you feel bad for them. I won't elaborate too much on what happens because I don't want to give anything away. 3. Special EffectsThere's a reason why this has the most expensive special effects budget to date in any film, and it certainly shows! The alien environment is gorgeous, and it is probably the most vibrantly colorful world I've seen in a long while. Most of the other movies nowadays go for this drab, dreary look that presents nothing new to the table. With "Avatar," the CG atmosphere gives us luminous plants, bizarre aliens, and an overall beauty that, I believe, can't be beat so far. It reminds me of some of the science-fiction pictures of the past, like "Forbidden Planet," and that's a very good thing! I won't go on too long about the 3D atmosphere because a lot of people probably have talked about it already, but I give a massive two thumbs up to the CG nonetheless! This made the battle scenes also look amazing! The animated characters are also pretty realistic for what computer technology can achieve, and that can only show us how advanced cinema has become!
4. Technical AspectsThis part will be the shortest because there is not much to talk about here; the sound design was well done, the direction was great, and the camera shots were well-done without a problem! The lighting was also pretty realistic for a CG film, so that's also something that can be said for "Avatar". -The Verdict-All in all, I think this movie was pretty well-done, and it deserves praise. I'm not going to say that this movie is the greatest film of the entire decade, but it is certainly one of the best visual experiences of the 2000's so far. From what I have said in this review, I think you can say I think pretty highly of this movie. However, I'm not providing a score because I still want you guys to make your own opinions, and try to give this film a shot to see what you think. Hope you enjoy!
Comments
ThatOneDudeWiththeSomething 23 Dec 2009, 14:57
Very very very very good review. Very yin-yang with the positive and
negative. Do you have any more reviews that are polar like this?
Kenny farino 23 Dec 2009, 15:55
I think the other review that comes to
mind is the devil may cry anime review.
Vincent7 24 Dec 2009, 10:16
I saw a movie today, by James Cameron. It had people in it who became
blue. It was called Titanic.
bob 10 Jan 2010, 22:20
Why the hate for Avatar? I thought it was a great movie full of action and
cool effects. It was a little hyped but it still wasnt a bad movie. James
Cameron makes great original movies like the first two Terminators and
Titantic. The movie was very original in its own way.
KennyFarino 23 Jan 2010, 17:03
Like it or not, haters, Avatar's still going strong in the Box Office :P.
And a Golden Globe? Yup. The potential to topple The Dark Knight's overall
profit? Very possible.
That Fellow In The Coat 25 Jan 2010, 19:37
Not just The Dark Knight, Kenny. Avatar is now the highest-grossing film of
all-time worldwide. Yep, it actually beat Titanic. Never thought I would
live to see a film beat Titanic's gross.
Kenny Farino 26 Jan 2010, 09:20
Well hot-diggidy-damn!
LaughingMan 26 Jan 2010, 11:08
Gag... I knew Dark Knight would never keep it's records, but it lost to
Transformers 2, Twilight: Full Moon, and Avatar. Three movies undeserving
of such praise and viewership.
Hollywood: "A good movie is made by sex appeal and special effects."
Kenny Farino 26 Jan 2010, 15:12
Well I don't know, I personally think The Dark Knight is undeserving of its
praise. Transformers 2 and Full Moon blow, but Avatar keeps running into
the same argument: it has a conventional story. Can someone explain to me
why a conventional story is a bad thing?
LaughingMan 26 Jan 2010, 15:25
Avatar doesn't have any controversy (unlike what RITOS says) but it's
uninspired and just really fucking stupid IMO.
It's a cookie cutter formula (like RITOS says), and it's just absurd when you have tall blue aliens with spears and bows and arrows killing Marines in giant-ass mech-suits with missiles and miniguns. Even more retarded was when 'the earth spirit' summons all the animals to come to the rescue of the Na'vi like it was the end of a Disney Cartoon. I lost my 'disbelief' when that came rolling around. The Dark Knight at least had a hell of a lot of depth and a somewhat original story plot. It questioned morality of a superhero and played a great game against the human condition by slowly shattering the sanity of everyone in Gotham. The action scenes were not comprised mostly of CGI (seeing a real car get blown up is always a plus now adays) which kept me engrossed in the movie. Villains and heroes had depth, and the line between villain and hero was progressively blurred, which was also very interesting. The Joker (while a great character and fun to watch) was a little too invincible for my tastes; i mean, EVERYTHING went perfectly for him which was bullshit. Finally, I really hate 'magical elements' in movies that aren't considered Fantasy right off the back (LotR, etc are good). Dark Knight was down to earth and raw, which has a stronger impact on me. That's just my 2-bits. Was Dark Knight perfect? No, but it was exciting and deeper than I expected from a superhero movie. Avatar was a recycled concept with an oversized budget and total BULLSHIT moments.
LaughingMan 26 Jan 2010, 15:29
Nothing is really wrong with 'Conventional', but when you tote your movie
as 'a landmark in cinema' and it gets a ton of praise, it should be
original and not just pretty.
Imagine a new movie being considered the greatest movie of all time, except that the movie is about a knight rescuing a princess. That's it. No spin on the story (ala 'Shrek'), but just a knight on a horse climbing a tower, killing a dragon and living happily ever after with the princess. It's been done 1000x before, and it's been done BETTER in terms of story telling. Just because you make it look prettier does NOT make it 'revolutionary'. Period.
Kenny Farino 26 Jan 2010, 16:10
But it is a landmark in cinema for the reason of 'being pretty.' Yeah, it
was a weak story if it's been done before with no real twist, but that's
missing the point of what makes it a 'landmark in cinema'. It's a pioneer
for what can be done with modern effects, and obviously pioneers aren't
going to set the bar for what can be done in anything (hell, the first
aeroplane didn't fly that far); the story almost took the backseat because
this was the first film to use special effects to such an extent, showing
people what can be done so future directors can make greater films with
deeper stories.
From a technical standpoint, the landmark came in the use of digital effects to completely create an environment and some characters using the hugely advanced digital technology that has developed since the birth of digital effects. "King Kong" is a monumental movie in the same respect because of how amazing the special effects were for the time, saying nothing for the story for the sake of argument. That's the reason why it's a landmark in cinema: not for the story, but for the technological achievements that can be pulled off in cinema using digital effects. It was a pioneer in that respect, and now more movie makers can make grander, more epic stories using the same kind of digital 'magic.'
LaughingMan 26 Jan 2010, 16:16
Then by your argument "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" should have been
considered a massive landmark movie too, because it was FF:TSW that was
really one of the first 'realistic' CGI movies. But people hated it back
then for having a weak story with too much fantasy elements.
"The times they are a'changin'" *insert Harmonica solo* And even from a FF fanboy prespective: Spirits Within BLEW. Maybe if it was re-released in theaters the Transformers and Avatar junkies would get enough eye-candy to get diabetes.
LaughingMan 26 Jan 2010, 16:20
Same applies to "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children": weak story to
non-FF-gamers, spectacular eye-candy (especially on Blu-Ray. OMG).
Very mindblowingly awesome to watch, but little substance. Same as Avatar. @RITOS: HEY RITOS? YOU THERE? READ YOUR FUCKING COMMENTS ONCE IN A WHILE.
Kenny Farino 26 Jan 2010, 20:38
First, before I begin:
- We can branch off The Dark Knight for a whole different debate so let's shy away from that. - "Finally, I really hate 'magical elements' in movies that aren't considered Fantasy right off the back". Logically speaking, by saying that, although you have the right to dislike fantasy elements, this may also put you into the pitfall of making others believe that your 'bias' against fantasy elements is part of what makes the story suck for you (biases weaken credibility to your argument). Whether this is true or not, I can't say, but be sure to watch out on that because other people may call you out on it. Now, on CGI, it's really anything that can be computer generated, so by definition that can include movies like Tron, which used: Extensive use (15 min. fully computer generated) of 3D CGI including the famous Light Cycle sequence. Also, ground-breaking CGI doesn't necessarily have to mean "realistically human". It could mean a full CG movie like "Toy Story," which no doubt is widely praised for its achievements with computer-generated graphics. There are good films and bad films that break ground, but if Spirits was widely hated by critics and fans alike, and Avatar is widely liked by critics and fans alike, then what does that have to say about the quality of the movie itself? I could write a paper on why I don't like The Dark Knight but it doesn't change the fact that critics love it and so do millions of other people. To make an assumption (which is in poor taste, so my apologies), if it's because the mass-populace doesn't know the meaning of a real movie, then too little credit may be given to them. That's also known as a sweeping generalization, which is a fallacy; the same crowd of people who despised "Day of the Dead" during its theatre run, to use an example, rediscovered it on VHS and changed their opinions of it. Critics even did this to the film, because they missed the point of it before they could watch it again and actually pay attention to it. Of course, this could turn my argument on its head and the reverse could happen with Avatar, but that hasn't happened yet so that would be dipping into making predictions about the future, which doesn't help the debate.
LaughingMan 27 Jan 2010, 12:19
Actually, I remember Siskel and Ebert giving 'two thumbs up' praise to The
Spirits Within for their technical achievements, so unfortunately that
doesn't disprove my theory that "good looks = good movie".
But anyways. On CGI: But we ARE talking about realism, and a majority of those critics who are praising Avatar are praising Cameron's special effects and his creation of a 'virtual-world': "Embrace the movie -- surely the most vivid and persuasive creation of a fantasy world ever seen in the history of moving pictures -- as a total sensory, sensuous, sensual experience." - TIME "A quantum leap in movie magic; watching it, I began to understand how people in 1933 must have felt when they saw "King Kong." - CHICAGO READER When critics dig into the STORY aspects, things start to take a negative turn. http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/avatar?q=avatar Cameron has, to his credit, created a living-breathing world (though the magical floating mountains and waterfalls are never explained...) No one can argue that the movie LOOKS great because it really does. BUT if you were to strip out the pretty special effects, and all of the aliens were either claymation or used animatronics or just painted people blue would you have a good movie? No, I don't think so. If Toy Story (another really good movie) had been done in claymation, you would still have an extremely good, ORIGINAL and exciting story to tell. The same goes with the majority of Pixar's work where they blend very good looking CGI with well-told stories and interesting characters. Take Wall-e for instance: the fucking robot doesn't say a damned thing in the whole movie, but he is still a very charming character. Tron is extremely outdated in terms of visual effects and video game technology, but the characters and a unique story still make the movie fairly entertaining to watch. But there are so many problems in Avatar that the CGI is so obviously covering up: Why are the scientists even on the base if their opinions are never even considered? Why are the human characters (minus the 'noble' scientists) so stereotype: military is 'shoot first, questions later' and the corporate weasel who is a mix of Bernie Madoff and Heinrich Himmler (if genocide is profitable!!). Why is the story so black and white? All humans are greedy murderers, and the Na'vi are so loving and peaceful that they can do no wrong? Is there any explanation to the floating mountain physics of Pandora besides "it's magical"? Judging by the attitudes of the military and the corporate heads, exactly what kinds of 'negotiations' did they ever attempt to make? If the movie was not some 3D CGI extravaganza it would be almost LAUGHABLY BAD. Here's an idea, find a BOOK about the Avatar movie and give your honest opinions about it. Without something 'shiny and pretty' to distract you, will you honestly think that Avatar has a good story?
Kenny Farino 27 Jan 2010, 13:20
Actually, I remember Siskel and Ebert giving 'two thumbs up' praise to The
Spirits Within for their technical achievements, so unfortunately that
doesn't disprove my theory that "good looks = good movie".
That doesn't disprove my argument, either. Those are two people in an ocean of reviewers and audience members, and the general reaction to Spirits Within was poor regardless. Concerning CG: And I was talking about the achievements that CG made as a whole, as in what technology was able to achieve through a developing technology that had its pioneering feats throughout the 30 years it's been around. "Toy Story" could have been with claymation, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was made in CG, and was a milestone in what it could do. Avatar is a milestone in that respect, as well. Then again, we've started agreeing with each other in that respect, and (I'm assuming) we've come to the agreement that it was a landmark in cinema for the reason of the effects it used. However, your main problem with it is the story so let's address this: To tell a good story calls for good characters, and there are two breeds of story where two types of characters branch off from: - Character-tales, where the 'plot' usually runs along the lines of following the exploits of a specific character. If my wording is confusing, then we'll use "The Big Lebowski" as an example. That's a character film that focuses more on The Dude and his group of friends than the story itself, which almost becomes irrelevant. Most of the humor in that is based off of the characters when faced with an obstacle or situation. - A more traditional "plot-oriented" movie, where you inevitably run into some form of archetype within the characters involved. You know what had archetypal characters that's considered good? "Star Wars." To explain, you have the old master in Yoda (like in many stories from the East where you have a master figure), you have the pure hero, the one who always runs into trouble and manages to save the day in the end (Luke), the badass who works for the team (Han Solo, aka almost every Western created), and the damsel that needs rescuing, ala Leia. This last point can happen to some varying degrees, and they DO go to save her from some form of danger in both A New Hope and Return of the Jedi. Then, of course, you have the Big Bad ala Vader and the Puppet Master, ala Palpatine. You know what has archetypal characters that is also considered good? "Avatar." Yes, they are dated archetypes that would have fared better in the 1990's, but they are still there. You know what other film has archetypes that are less dated? "The Dark Knight." I'm not meaning to spark debate about this film again, but what you said above got me thinking: "It questioned morality of a superhero and played a great game against the human condition... the line between villain and hero was progressively blurred" Again, what parts of that haven't been explored in comic books before the film was made? That conflict has been going on for Superheroes ever since we entered the Comic "Dark Ages," to use a Linkara term, and The Dark Knight wasn't the first story to delve into that. Also, there were still archetypes to work from in there as well, and Batman's is obvious enough. What about the Joker? The Trickster, albeit a darker shade, who is a force of nature often there to cause chaos, closely related to Loki than anything else. In fact: "In Native American traditions, the Trickster alternately scandalizes, disgusts, amuses, disrupts, chastises, and humiliates (or is humiliated by) the animal-like (Bat?) proto-people of pre-history, yet he is also a creative force transforming their world, sometimes in bizarre and outrageous ways, with his instinctive energies and cunning. Eternally scavenging, he represents the most basic instincts of chaos." But anyway, way off topic. It's been established that Avatar has (dated) archetypal characters, but what else are there complaints about? "Why are the scientists even on the base if their opinions are never even considered?" "Why are the human characters (minus the 'noble' scientists) so stereotype: military is 'shoot first, questions later' and the corporate weasel who is a mix of Bernie Madoff and Heinrich Himmler (if genocide is profitable!!). Why is the story so black and white? All humans are greedy murderers, and the Na'vi are so loving and peaceful that they can do no wrong?" I've already explained this at length, refer to above discussion. "Judging by the attitudes of the military and the corporate heads, exactly what kinds of 'negotiations' did they ever attempt to make?" If you pay attention, some way into the movie it's said that they've been on Pandora for a little while and have tried giving them what the humans think they want; Grace opened up a school but was banished when relations were getting worse, and it's been mentioned that they've tried to give them a trade-off or diplomatic solution before Sully even got there. "Is there any explanation to the floating mountain physics of Pandora besides "it's magical"?" I've noticed this come about a lot in your discussion, but let me bring forth something that cinema is made for: suspension of disbelief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief There doesn't have to be a logical explanation for everything; why do the mountains float? Because it's an alien planet. Why do their religion center around nature and trees? Because some religions do that, like the Celtic people around around 400 BC with their druids, who specifically went into Oak forests for rituals and religious ceremonies around the sacred mistletoe. The same principal applies because those religions are nature-based. It isn't hippie-ish or tree-hugging to have a religion based on nature, it's been done by ancient or native civilizations all the same. Anyway, back on track: suspension of disbelief almost has to be used constantly in movies, or people are going to be trying to think every little detail through. For instance, in "Star Wars" before it was actually explained, what the hell was "the Force"? Why was King Kong so friggin huge? Why was it that The Joker had almost supernatural luck, and he wasn't just gunned down by the thugs in the pencil scene? Do you see where I am trying to go with this? A primary function of cinema is escapism, and it is meant to help audience goers get away from the problems of real life. Yes, some of them tell really big, complex, deep stories, but was that the main point around the inception of film? Is that still the point for a lot of movies today? Maybe people like lighter films that just tell a simple story without the need to analyze every little detail, and maybe "Avatar" is one of those films. While we're on the perception of other people, you never really answered my question: If Spirits, although mesmerizing in effects, still got low scores from critics while Avatar, which totes the same thing, got exceptionally higher scores, than what does that say about the film itself?
Kenny Farino 27 Jan 2010, 13:34
Oh wow, I forgot about this point:
"Why are the scientists even on the base if their opinions are never even considered?" Again, everybody's been there a while before Jake Sully came. Maybe they tried diplomatic solutions before, but they didn't work? This goes back to my response on why the military didn't negotiate. This kind of thing's been happening a million times before in history: The foundation for the mutilation of General Custer was because the white folks came into a reservation that they forced Native Americans into, after they discovered gold, and mined illegally. This forced the Natives from the reservation, and pretty soon they started sacking white homesteads. Custer was called in to exterminate them, and the men with superior technology were defeated by numbers more than anything else, just like in Avatar. The 'Battle' of Wounded Knee in the 1890's is another example of why these stereotypes are probably well-founded: to get them off of their land, the white people used machine guns and slaughtered countless Native Americans.
LaughingMan 27 Jan 2010, 13:37
I'll dig into your argument a little deeper after work, but the first
complaint is your use of defending "archetypes". It's irrelevant to the
debate because A) every movie has them, and B) I've never argued
for/against them. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is a great movie even if
it is all just one huge (and epic) western archetype. It's what they did
DIFFERENTLY with the archetype characters that was interesting.
Also I'm wondering if we should take this to the forum for easier readability?
|
||||||||||||||
