• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So those theaters are just retrofitted standard theaters that use digital projection but are not actual IMAX sized? Is the seating the same in these theaters?
 
Scullibundo said:
Liemax at least use digital screens for the most part. If you can't go in proper IMAX for the first time, LIEMAX is definitely the next best option.
Click to expand...

Shit's a blower, honestly. How is IMAX Corp. getting away with this?

And how the hell can there only be two legitimate IMAX screens in the entire goddamn DC area that aren't in a fucking Smithsonian?
 
Karma Kramer said:
Would you recommend REALD over a non-digital but big screen IMAX?
Click to expand...

Depends on the movie. And I've heard some Real D screens aren't digital, but assuming they are, it would depend on the movie entirely. I mean, I saw Coraline - a relatively small movie that isn't too fast-paced or quick with its pans etc in Real D and there was still considerable ghosting. It didn't feel like it was a digital projector (I'm actually guessing it wasn't - this is at one of Fox Studios' regular cinemas by the way) and as such when I saw the digitally presented Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (at Fox Studios' LieMAX), the difference was night and day.

So based on my one experience with Real D, which may not have used a digital projector, I would go non-digital IMAX over Real D any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
So, the overall summary I'm getting from the reviews is that the visuals and action sequences are simply beyond any kind of reproach and earn all the credit they can get, while the story and characters are cookie-cutter and one-dimensional (with some preachy tree-huggery thrown in for good measure). This correct?
 
Combine said:
So, the overall summary I'm getting from the reviews is that the visuals and action sequences are simply beyond any kind of reproach and earn all the credit they can get, while the story and characters themselves are cookie-cutter and one-dimensional (with some tree-huggery thrown in for good measure). This correct?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, though quite a few of the reviews also praise the romantic connection that develops between Jake and Neytiri.

Stephen Lang keeps getting lauded for his performance as well.

CHUD particularly loved him:

CHUD said:
And the best thing about the film, the absolutely engaging and unforgettable gritty epicenter to what makes this thing not only manna for geeks but something everyone will get a kick out of?

Stephen Lang.

There should be a special Oscar for the man for one-upping nearly every hardass military guy we've seen onscreen and chewing scenery in the most appealing and iconic way possible. Every moment the man is onscreen we are seeing an entire career of amazing character work oozing through one focused and delightful performance. He could have easily been the mustache-twirling villain and he embraces that villainy with aplomb but his work is so sublime that you almost want him to win. Almost want him to escape unscathed. I could watch this guy play this character forever.
Click to expand...
 
XiaNaphryz said:
DV101_screencompa.JPG
Click to expand...

LOL @ Lincoln Square.

ScreenComparison_UnderTheSea.jpg
 
Zeliard said:
Pretty much, though quite a few of the reviews also praise the romantic connection that develops between Jake and Neytiri.

Stephen Lang keeps getting lauded for his performance as well.

CHUD particularly loved him:
Click to expand...
And while it sounds like all the characters are archetypes, they're all played very strongly. The main criticisms so far are 1) the story arc is predictable; 2) some of the dialog clunks; 3) the theme/message is very obvious.

Which means it's a James Cameron movie.
 
GhaleonEB said:
And while it sounds like all the characters are archetypes, they're all played very strongly. The main criticisms so far are 1) the story arc is predictable; 2) some of the dialog clunks; 3) the theme/message is very obvious.

Which means it's a James Cameron movie.
Click to expand...

I now know why you cry. But it is something I can never do.
 
GhaleonEB said:
And while it sounds like all the characters are archetypes, they're all played very strongly. The main criticisms so far are 1) the story arc is predictable; 2) some of the dialog clunks; 3) the theme/message is very obvious.

Which means it's a James Cameron movie.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a pure James Cameron movie, definitely. CHUD labeled Avatar a masterpiece specifically using the strict definition of the word:

CHUD said:
If you want to go by the definition above at its most cut and dry, Avatar could be considered James Cameron's masterpiece. It's the culmination of his career's work, carries many of the signature throughlines and trademarks the director is known for, and seems to be a punctuation mark on a career filled with substantial genre milestones.
Click to expand...

I do have to say, it's quite a well-written review.
 
polyh3dron said:
Oh noes, it's like every other Cameron film! Soshalizms!!
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Aliens is my fav action film of all time. T2 a virtual tie. I was always aware of the slight anti-corporate/Vietnam nods in Aliens. But it never felt heavy-handed and was ALWAYS in total service to the plot. Here's hoping it's not true, but with Avatar it sounds like the other way around.
 
Zeliard said:
http://twitter.com/ebertchicago

Right below his latest tweet.
Click to expand...

Oh right. :lol

Yes it would appear that it is going to be the Ebert I don't care for reviewing this. Its a shame, because I would have liked to have seen some well-thought out critique from him on this film. But whenever he gets hung up in a mood, his reviews always come across as juvenile.

Reminds me of the Empire of the Sun review.
 
I wonder if we're going to have an employee screening at all...we'll at least have an Academy screening next week at the least I'm guessing.
 
Scullibundo said:
Oh right. :lol

Yes it would appear that it is going to be the Ebert I don't care for reviewing this. Its a shame, because I would have liked to have seen some well-thought out critique from him on this film. But whenever he gets hung up in a mood, his reviews always come across as juvenile.

Reminds me of the Empire of the Sun review.
Click to expand...
:lol
 
CassidyIzABeast said:
I can't believe roger ebert of all people has a twitter:lol
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that surprising. Ebert is one of the few big names on the Internet that I've seen who actually personally replies to user comments on his site. Seems Twitter is a natural fit for him.
 
Scullibundo said:
I now know why you cry. But it is something I can never do.
Click to expand...


I have a feeling Terminator 2 would be a lot more cringeworthy to watch now that I'm older. Thankfully #1 held up great when I watched it again last year.
 
GhaleonEB said:
Nah, that's Ebert's Twitter account. The Cameron tweet he linked to is fake though. :lol

Not sure why he linked to this review, but it's a good one: http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2009/12/11/avatar_cameron_delivers_joyous_cinema/
Click to expand...

I don't know if Ebert has anything against the movie itself, but he does seem to be backlashing against the hype and the embargo.

I hope he doesn't allow that to feed into his measure of the quality of the actual film itself. It bugs me when I see reviews for Avatar or anything else that start off by discussing something like its hype, and that goes for both positive and negative reviews. The hype has NOTHING to do with the movie itself, which is what you're supposed to be reviewing. You don't analyze the zeitgeist - you review and criticize what shows up on screen, and the people responsible for it.
 
Zeliard said:
I don't know if Ebert has anything against the movie itself, but he does seem to be backlashing against the hype and the embargo.

I hope he doesn't allow that to feed into his measure of the quality of the actual film itself. It bugs me when I see reviews for Avatar or anything else that start off by discussing something like its hype, and that goes for both positive and negative reviews. The hype has NOTHING to do with the movie itself, which is what you're supposed to be reviewing. You don't analyze the zeitgeist - you review and criticize what shows up on screen, and the people responsible for it.
Click to expand...
Ebert can be distracted by those things. He's hard to predict: will he review the movie as the Ebert who said, "it's not what a movie is about, but how the movie is about it", (execution is more important that story), or will he get hung up on some peripheral element and run with it.

I don't think Ebert's ever given a Cameron movie a poor review, so I'll be surprised if he starts here. It will be an amusing review, either way, I suspect.
 
GhaleonEB said:
Ebert can be distracted by those things. He's hard to predict: will he review the movie as the Ebert who said, "it's not what a movie is about, but how the movie is about it", (execution is more important that story), or will he get hung up on some peripheral element and run with it.

I don't think Ebert's ever given a Cameron movie a poor review, so I'll be surprised if he starts here. It will be an amusing review, either way, I suspect.
Click to expand...

It'll definitely be interesting to see. I hope he eases up on his insistence on running the review at a late date. I'd like to read it prior to watching the film, though I expect he'll have it out before then.
 
I seriously dislike Ebert... the guy is a hack who scores things based on how it will play off for his audience, instead of scoring things on his true opinions. Thats why the dude will seriously take minor nitpicks and focus/exaggerate on them to pan a good movie, such as Rumble Fish, Clockwork Orange, and countless countless other films. His scores are all over the place, and he views himself as some kind of film messenger...

When he wrote all the crap about video games not being art, I just had to wonder how big of a stick must be up this guys ass. He can't appreciate things he doesn't understand immediately. He makes up his mind far too quickly...
 
Karma Kramer said:
I seriously dislike Ebert... the guy is a hack who scores things based on how it will play off for his audience, instead of scoring things on his true opinions. Thats why the dude will seriously take minor nitpicks and focus/exaggerate on them to pan a good movie, such as Rumble Fish, Clockwork Orange, and countless countless other films. His scores are all over the place, and he views himself as some kind of film messenger...

When he wrote all the crap about video games not being art, I just had to wonder how big of a stick must be up this guys ass. He can't appreciate things he doesn't understand immediately. He makes up his mind far too quickly...
Click to expand...
Yeah no

e: also he reviewed A Clockwork Orange almost 40 years ago
 
Karma Kramer said:
I seriously dislike Ebert... the guy is a hack who scores things based on how it will play off for his audience, instead of scoring things on his true opinions. Thats why the dude will seriously take minor nitpicks and focus/exaggerate on them to pan a good movie, such as Rumble Fish, Clockwork Orange, and countless countless other films. His scores are all over the place, and he views himself as some kind of film messenger...
Click to expand...

I understand not liking Ebert's reviews (even though he's my favourite critic), but calling him a hack is just silly.

Also, he certainly didn't give A Clockwork Orange a bad review because of his audience. How does that even make sense?
 
John Dunbar said:
I understand not liking Ebert's reviews (even though he's my favourite critic), but calling him a hack is just silly.

Also, he certainly didn't give A Clockwork Orange a bad review because of his audience. How does that even make sense?
Click to expand...

His audience is the mainstream... if he starts scoring positive reviews for films that are "out there" ... his audience will stop finding his opinion as accurate, and he will lose money. I've talked with people who have been inside the industry for quite awhile and they have all told me Ebert is more in for the fame/money, then being a genuine critic.

He's definitely a good writer though.
 
Karma Kramer said:
His audience is the mainstream... if he starts scoring positive reviews for films that are "out there" ... his audience will stop finding his opinion as accurate, and he will lose money. I've talked with people who have been inside the industry for quite awhile and they have all told me Ebert is more in for the fame/money, then being a genuine critic.

He's definitely a good writer though.
Click to expand...
He gave Transformers 2 one star and pretty much waged a war against it at Michael Bay fyi, basically calling anyone who likes it a moron. You are pretty much clueless

e: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/07/i_am_a_brainiac.html
 
syllogism said:
He gave Transformers 2 one star and pretty much waged a war against it at Michael Bay fyi
Click to expand...

Transformers 2 sucked balls and I think most everyone agrees with this. I am talking about films that when they come out, are seen as "art films" or "experimental" ... he'll often pan those movies because he knows his audience doesn't want to hear their "favorite critic" start telling them to go see "a clockwork orange" and then end up finding it a waste of time and money.
 
Karma Kramer said:
Transformers 2 sucked balls and I think most everyone agrees with this. I am talking about films that when they come out, are seen as "art films" or "experimental" ... he'll often pan those movies because he knows his audience doesn't want to hear their "favorite critic" start telling them to go see "a clockwork orange" and then end up finding it a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...
The mainstream loved TF2. What do you think his audience was like in 1972 when he reviewed A clockwork orange?
 
Karma Kramer said:
Transformers 2 sucked balls and I think most everyone agrees with this.
Click to expand...
Mainstream audiences loved it, which is why it made mint. The same audience you are saying is Ebert's readership.

On the flip side, he's also waged a war against Ronald Emmerch, but liked 2012 for being big dumb fun. So he's very unpredictable.
XiaNaphryz said:
But didn't Ebert also complain about Star Trek not being sci-fi enough for him or something despite that film's shift towards a more mainstream-friendly focus?
Click to expand...
VERY UNPREDICTABLE.
 
Karma Kramer said:
Transformers 2 sucked balls and I think most everyone agrees with this. I am talking about films that when they come out, are seen as "art films" or "experimental" ... he'll often pan those movies because he knows his audience doesn't want to hear their "favorite critic" start telling them to go see "a clockwork orange" and then end up finding it a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...
But didn't Ebert also complain about Star Trek not being sci-fi enough for him or something despite that film's shift towards a more mainstream-friendly focus?
 
So which is the definitive version, 3D or no 3D? I can't see the 3d effects properly but i'm seeing it with friends so I would still like to know.
 
Karma Kramer said:
Transformers 2 sucked balls and I think most everyone agrees with this. I am talking about films that when they come out, are seen as "art films" or "experimental" ... he'll often pan those movies because he knows his audience doesn't want to hear their "favorite critic" start telling them to go see "a clockwork orange" and then end up finding it a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head he glowingly reviewed Primer, a niche, hard sci-fi indie movie. Here's the last paragraph:

The movie delights me with its cocky confidence that the audience can keep up. "Primer" is a film for nerds, geeks, brainiacs, Academic Decathlon winners, programmers, philosophers and the kinds of people who have made it this far into the review. It will surely be hated by those who "go to the movies to be entertained," and embraced and debated by others, who will find it entertains the parts the others do not reach. It is maddening, fascinating and completely successful
Click to expand...

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
 
GhaleonEB said:
Mainstream audiences loved it, which is why it made mint. The same audience you are saying is Ebert's readership.
Click to expand...

From people I talked to they thought it sucked... but thats besides the point... when it comes to films that the mainstream will already be interested in... it won't matter ... my point is focused on films that are mostly obscure or in some ways "ahead of their time"... he'll pan those movies cause he knows the majority of his audience "won't get it" and if he starts praising stuff like that, he'll lose readership.

Thats why he often all over the place and is often one of the few on rotten tomatoes giving a rotten, to what most consider now a "classic"

--

I'll also just say this... now that hes pretty much well known, he does go out on the limb more, but back in the day when he was just starting as a critic, he was far more in line with what I am talking about. His motivation is fame/money imo...

Lets get back to avatar though, ... if you guys like Ebert thats fine. I personally don't trust him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rottenwatch: The Bride!
37
588
CGNoire replied
RIP Cora (my avatar)
46
1K
gamingforum1 replied
Funk musician Sly Stone, 82, has passed away
11
623
GeekyDad replied
Avatar: The Last Airbender Movie leaks online months before release
News 
49
600
struggler_guts replied
What's the deal with your avatar.
2 3
131
2K
Sand Dan Glokta replied
Top Bottom