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

Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw this on bluray recently. This movie was ok. Unwatchable a second time. The first viewing was.... I guess interesting but, even while I was watching it, the movie needed some editing. Some scenes were just overly long. The Mrs. Weaver nude scene in particular just took way too long. There were also some highly illogical behavior on the part of the marines that bothered me. It was an entertaining movie but not worthy of all the praise it got. Not even worth buying since it just can't be viewed a second time without wanting to rip your hair off with such a slow pace.

In short, disappointed.
 
GhaleonEB said:
You have a different opinion that someone on the internet, news at 11.
Click to expand...

Not an opinion. Fact.

If you'll allow me a Bill Hick's quote,

I can prove it on scratch paper and a pen. Give me a fucking Etch-A-Sketch, I'll do it in three minutes to prove the fact, the factorum, I'll show my work, case closed.
 
what the fuck, you already saw the movie? Why the hell did you care why others liked it? You're a weirdo...
 
Solo said:
:lol
Click to expand...

I like you Solo. Let's not become enemies over this one. :lol

I stand by it, though. I felt like the action scenes in this movie were tantamount to the atrocities of the Star Wars prequels. There's a big difference between a well choreographed action scene and an action scene that has as much garbage thrown onto the screen as possible just because the filmmakers can thanks to computers.

I think it's sad that people confuse fireworks with artistry.
 
I agree with trafmalmador64 (?). The dialogue was pretty bad. The plot was pretty bad. The worst of it is that some of it was illogical. It's like a transformers movie, it got to a point where the plot was there only so you would have a big action scene.

I just remembered another overly long scene, the entire big bird is caught by blue man and impresses everyone. In my head I kept screaming "I get it, they are impressed, move the fuck on!".

-oh yeah. blue guy fighting giant mech warrior thing was so fucking ridiculous. Everyone who was watching it with me went WTF?
 
Tralfamadore64 said:
everything that happens is to lead into a (poorly done) action sequence
Click to expand...

While much of the film is flawed, one of the things it does really well is the climactic battle sequence. Cameron hasn't lost his touch when it comes to shooting action, imo. Everything from the moment the helos spin up to the Quaaritch-Sully-Neytiri fight is fantastic.
 
Tralfamadore64 said:
And I guess it's these last few large paragraphs that sum up why I'm so aggravated with the Avatar situation. There are better filmmakers making better films that deserve praise for their story, for their direction, for their social relevance, but people are making Avatar, what will ultimately be a forgettable popcorn flick, out to be a very important film, one that deserves awards such as best picture, which it clearly doesn't.
.
Click to expand...


Was Forrest Gump "a very important film"? No it wasn't. It was a ham-fisted, well-paced movie held together by special effects and baby-boomer nostalgia. Yet, it won Best Picture. Was the English Patient a "very important film"? It was not, it was merely a well-acted period piece held together by incredible cinematography.

So, quit acting like "Best Picture" is some kind of sacred award handed out like the Nobel Peace Prize.


Thanksfully, we live in a world where not every piece of film has to have this greater, overarching meaning or depth that speaks to a select few. Some films can be aimed at the widest audience possible and provide them 3 hours of respite from their daily lives where they can be awed by the visuals provided on the screen. Alongside those "very important films" you hold so dear. And yes ... both are worthy of praise and golden baubles handed out at the end of the year.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Was Forrest Gump "a very important film"? No it wasn't. It was a ham-fisted, well-paced movie held together by special effects and baby-boomer nostalgia. Yet, it won Best Picture. Was the English Patient a "very important film"? It was not, it was merely a well-acted period piece held together by incredible cinematography.

So, quit acting like "Best Picture" is some kind of sacred award handed out like the Nobel Peace Prize.


Thanksfully, we live in a world where not every piece of film has to have this greater, overarching meaning or depth that speaks to a select few. Some films can be aimed at the widest audience possible and provide them 3 hours of respite from their daily lives where they can be awed by the visuals provided on the screen. Alongside those "very important films" you hold so dear.
Click to expand...

Forrest Gump is a much better movie than Avatar and the one action scene is superb. There's more chemistry between Forrest and Bubba during those few minutes than blue guy and blue girl in the entire avatar movie.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Was Forrest Gump "a very important film"? No it wasn't. It was a ham-fisted, well-paced movie held together by special effects and baby-boomer nostalgia. Yet, it won Best Picture. Was the English Patient a "very important film"? It was not, it was merely a well-acted period piece held together by incredible cinematography.

So, quit acting like "Best Picture" is some kind of sacred award handed out like the Nobel Peace Prize.


Thanksfully, we live in a world where not every piece of film has to have this greater, overarching meaning or depth that speaks to a select few. Some films can be aimed at the widest audience possible and provide them 3 hours of respite from their daily lives where they can be awed by the visuals provided on the screen. Alongside those "very important films" you hold so dear. And yes ... both are worthy of praise and golden baubles handed out at the end of the year.
Click to expand...

I don't think it IS some kind of sacred award.

Also, don't quote "very important film" as though I think any film is "very important" or as though I think every film SHOULD BE "very important". I was referring to Cameron's self righteousness in promoting a pretty mediocre shitfest of a movie and subsequent fan reaction to said shitfest.

So, you know, read more closely.
 
Avatar was an escape. Some of it was cheesy as fuck, but it was brainless, and beautiful, huge-scale entertainment. I loved it, and still do. Despite it being a 'shitfest'. Funny you would call out Cameron for his self-righteousness then bleat on about how you can't believe anyone could enjoy the film.

And I hated Forrest Gump. But I don't question why others enjoy it.
 
Tralfamadore64 said:
I was referring to Cameron's self righteousness in promoting a pretty mediocre shitfest of a movie and subsequent fan reaction to said shitfest.
Click to expand...

Normally, when I come across some pap in mainstream media I merely shrug it off with indifference. Like Justin Bieber or Sex in the City.

For you to show such passionate dislike for this film it must comes from somewhere else. Obviously, your political bent or Cameron's disposition (a legendary Hollywood blowhard) has affected you in such a manner that you can not be subjective. You watched the movie not to be entertained, but to feed your hate and give you ammunition on message boards.

Let it go, man.
 
julls said:
Avatar was an escape. Some of it was cheesy as fuck, but it was brainless, and beautiful, huge-scale entertainment. I loved it, and still do. Despite it being a 'shitfest'. Funny you would call out Cameron for his self-righteousness then bleat on about how you can't believe anyone could enjoy the film.

And I hated Forrest Gump. But I don't question why others enjoy it.
Click to expand...

I'd appreciate it if you'd read this. I feel like this article sums up my thoughts on brainlessness in films much better than I'm able to on my own:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/1...VOCATE-TERRY-SCHIAVO-AT-THE-MOVIES/Page1.html
 
ToxicAdam said:
Normally, when I come across some pap in mainstream media I merely shrug it off with indifference. Like Justin Bieber or Sex in the City.

For you to show such passionate dislike for this film it must comes from somewhere else. Obviously, your political bent or Cameron's disposition (a legendary Hollywood blowhard) has affected you in such a manner that you can not be subjective. You watched the movie not to be entertained, but to feed your hate and give you ammunition on message boards.

Let it go, man.
Click to expand...

Actually, my political bent is pretty in line with Cameron's own, and it's a bit presumptuous to assume that I'm against his message just because I dislike the way in which he chooses to convey it, which simply isn't true.

And I didn't watch the movie to feed my hatred or to give me ammunition on message boards. Again, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but you're wrong.

The three movies I mentioned above, T2, The Abyss, and Aliens? I love those movies, and I think they're examples of how great their respective genres can be. I have the utmost respect for Cameron as a director for those movies alone. It's the same reason I'll always love Spielberg for the good he did in spite of how bad and unnecessary Indy IV was. The guy gets a pass from me. And I'm aware of his history of big headedness, and I don't have a problem with that in and of itself. The problem I have is that Cameron was either blinded by something when making this film, whether it was the technology or the message, or he was just plain lazy in making the movie.

Was I excited for the movie? Not really. The trailers didn't grab me. But I kept saying, "I'm going to see this, because it's a James Cameron movie, and I really, really hope it's good." I kept thinking, "My god, what if he pulls it off? What if he manages to do something on par with his work in the late 80's and early 90's?". But these were pretty low-key hopes and expectations. I never succumbed to the hype, so that's not why I was let down.

And I never go to see a movie just to hate on it. I think that's stupid and a waste of money and time. If I pay to see a movie, it's because I want it to be good.

I realize that a lot of assholes on the internet who complain about EVERYTHING really do seem like they go out of their way to find things to hate, but I honestly don't. I love having a good time at the movies, and I get a big kick out of well done action movies, same as I get a big kick out of a well crafted thriller or a drama that hits all the right heart strings. But the thing is, my love of any one genre doesn't cloud my opinion of every movie in that genre, as it shouldn't yours or anyone else's. Any genre of film, any genre of music, any book, any joke, any anything has a chance with me, and when I find something that I like, man, I latch onto it like it's my life's blood. But we shouldn't be so blinded by spectacle that we allow any flashy thing to distract us from things of true worth.

The way I see it is that you're so distracted by this girl's big tits that you're oblivious to the fact that she has a terrible personality.

Or:

All that glitters is not gold.

So, to counter your argument against me, I went into this movie set up to love it, wanting to love it (without being so hyped up that I would be disappointed no matter what), and still came out hating it. I think that says something.
 
Yeah, Avatar in no way earned the right to be nominated for an award for best picture. So much of it didn't make sense, or was dumb, or was recycled. It wasn't good, worthwhile art, and it didn't change cinema. And if it did, it wasn't in a good way.

Then again, District 9 got nominated and was really well received critically, so I'm not sure what to think anymore. That movie went straight stupid in the last 30 minutes. Action movie cliches left, right, and center. Unjustified dumb shit happening all the time. The movie really didn't make much sense in a lot of ways, actually. It was a fairly superficial allegory that turned into a typical action movie romp. I guess you could say the same thing about Avatar, except that it's basis was on something far more typical and generic.
 
beelzebozo said:
kanye west says "glitters."

the new authority, motherfuckers.
Click to expand...


Yo beelzeboro, I’m really happy for you…I’ll let you finish. But Shakespeare is one of the best wordsmiths of all time! One of the best wordsmiths of all time!
 
Tralfamadore64 said:
Ahem... yeah... THAT'S what I meant, guys. I wasn't wrong after all!
Click to expand...

hope so

The 'glitters' version of this phrase is so long established as to be perfectly acceptable - especially as 'glisters' and 'glitters' mean the same thing and are essentially synonymous. Only the most pedantic insist that 'all that glisters is not gold' is correct and that 'all that glitters is not gold', being a misquotation, however cobweb-laden, , should be shunned. John Dryden was quite happy to use 'glitters' as long ago as 1687, in his poem, The Hind and the Panther:
Click to expand...
 
vas_a_morir said:
See, GaryWhitta, you are just being a pedantic polemicist.

I think it takes more than white guilt to make a meaningful movie. In this way, Avatar had nothing really to offer as far as I was concerned.
Click to expand...

you know as well as anyone how vociferous and angry i get when this movie is brought up in casual conversation :lol
 
ToxicAdam said:
Was Forrest Gump "a very important film"? No it wasn't. It was a ham-fisted, well-paced movie held together by special effects and baby-boomer nostalgia. Yet, it won Best Picture.
Click to expand...

This is probably rather subjective, but I get the impression that most people readily acknowledge that about Forrest Gump these days and think it was basically a product of its time, nothing more. I don't know many who still regard it as a great, important film, even if they once did.

So they're right about that. And the same might happen to Avatar. I'm not saying it will though.
 
Tralfamadore64 said:
I'd appreciate it if you'd read this. I feel like this article sums up my thoughts on brainlessness in films much better than I'm able to on my own:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/1...VOCATE-TERRY-SCHIAVO-AT-THE-MOVIES/Page1.html
Click to expand...
I read it; and replace 'Iron Man' with 'Avatar' in this sentence (I also quite enjoyed Iron Man):

Iron Man won't be winning any non-technical awards this year, but it's a movie that gave me characters I could enjoy, scenarios that were plausible within the world it created for itself, and action that was fun and exciting.
Click to expand...
I also don't need to read something urging me to 'turn my brain on' - I enjoy all types of cinema, not just blockbusters.
In ten years, I probably won't give a fuck about Avatar. Who knows. Maybe even 2 years :p But for the moment, I enjoy watching it.
 
julls said:
I read it; and replace 'Iron Man' with 'Avatar' in this sentence (I also quite enjoyed Iron Man):


I also don't need to read something urging me to 'turn my brain on' - I enjoy all types of cinema, not just blockbusters.
In ten years, I probably won't give a fuck about Avatar. Who knows. Maybe even 2 years :p But for the moment, I enjoy watching it.
Click to expand...

So do I. I'm not asking that everything be Citizen Kane here. In fact, I'm not even arguing that people should hate Avatar. I initially asked that somebody explain its merits beyond having flashy special effects, which nobody has done yet, and I ended up with my longer reactions to a) a claim that the film told its story well, which is absurd and b) that I was trolling the movie and watched it just to have a reason to bitch, a conclusion which is understandable but wrong. If you like Avatar, that's great! Really. I'm happy for you, and I'm not being sarcastic, I swear. I wanted to like it. Sadly, I didn't, but I firmly believe that that's a fault of the film, not of my critical eye.

I'm sure you've got this image of me sitting in a dark basement somewhere, eating cheetos, guzzling mountain dew, rubbing my hands together like a super villain and going out of my way to be a prick just because you guys like something, but that isn't the case.

The thing is, there is a positive reaction to Avatar that is wholly disproportionate to its actual value as a film, a point that I think will become more clear as we distance ourselves from the newness of the film, and I think that that's a conversation worth having. Perhaps I tried to initiate that discussion in the wrong way, but I still stand by my original request as well as everything else I've said in this forum. I think we should have standards for what we consume, action films included. Avatar didn't have to be perfect. I'm not saying that it should be. But if it is going to get the praise it's getting, it should be minimally competent, which, beyond its effects work I don't feel that it is.

I'm not saying that every film every person sees should be rewatchable in 10 years time. But I think that whether or not we still care about a movie once the release hype has dissipated says a lot about whether or not the film is worthwhile as a work of art. It's okay to like something disposable. I like things that are disposable. But I think, as I said before, that it's also important to not confuse art with spectacle, which Avatar clearly is. It's completely disposable. If this wasn't one of the most expensive films of all time, wasn't being praised as a milestone in filmmaking, wasn't being hailed, in some circles, as a great piece of environmentalist art, then I wouldn't be so offended by the film's hollow meaninglessness.

If you like Avatar, that's fine. I like more than my fair share of crap, believe me. But if somebody comes to me and asks why I like something that's garbage, I at least have the balls to admit that the thing is essentially valueless without trying to make excuses on its behalf.

Regarding Iron Man: It's not perfect, but it possesses a lot of charm and personality, a lot of charisma, really, that is completely lacking from Avatar, which came out feeling like a rough plot outline instead of a final draft of a screenplay.
 
Tralfamadore64 said:
I'm sure you've got this image of me sitting in a dark basement somewhere, eating cheetos, guzzling mountain dew, rubbing my hands together like a super villain and going out of my way to be a prick just because you guys like something, but that isn't the case.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It's just one of those things where I enjoyed it so don't really spend time wanting to explain to others why they should too. I'm not sure why I should- is it really a discussion worth having? Heaps of people enjoyed the film - you obviously didn't. I don't mean that in a smartass way either - there just isn't much more to be said :lol Are you wanting people to admit they secretly thought it was horrible?
 
julls said:
Not at all. It's just one of those things where I enjoyed it so don't really spend time wanting to explain to others why they should too. I'm not sure why I should- is it really a discussion worth having? Heaps of people enjoyed the film - you obviously didn't. I don't mean that in a smartass way either - there just isn't much more to be said :lol Are you wanting people to admit they secretly thought it was horrible?
Click to expand...

Nope. Not at all. If it's a conversation you don't deem worth having, then don't. But, really, beyond your quick draw presumptuousness about my motivations for criticizing the film, I don't think you've really said anything worth arguing against. I do think it's interesting, however, that nobody claiming that the film has a well told story has yet to come forward with a retort.

I'll leave it at that then, but I consider the battle won. :D
 
Eh, they simply weren't going to take that many chances, even for Cameron, on such an technologically ambitious and expensive movie, so I suppose that is why the story is so simple and the eye-popping effects so numerous in the end.

Also on that same line, blame Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Expensive at the time, risky as all hell and bombed so hard it made Squaresoft stagger. I wouldn't put it past them to have learned from that example.

At any rate, whatever you may think of Avatar, it will fund at least two movies of Real Cameron Caliber (tm), and for that I will love it, because that will be the best thing ever.

It better, or I'll eat a ban.
 
Brannon said:
Eh, they simply weren't going to take that many chances, even for Cameron, on such an technologically ambitious and expensive movie, so I suppose that is why the story is so simple and the eye-popping effects so numerous in the end.

Also on that same line, blame Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Expensive at the time, risky as all hell and bombed so hard it made Squaresoft stagger. I wouldn't put it past them to have learned from that example.

At any rate, whatever you may think of Avatar, it will fund at least two movies of Real Cameron Caliber (tm), and for that I will love it, because that will be the best thing ever.

It better, or I'll eat a ban.
Click to expand...
Avatar 2 and 3 :P
 
Tralfamadore64 said:
I would like for someone, anyone, to explain to me why Avatar is worth watching WITHOUT referencing the special effects, which few if any people will care about in ten years.
Click to expand...

It's not. It really isn't. I was wowed by this movie in theaters, but rewatching it at home (first time since theatres) I fucking despised this film.

It's worse than Titanic too. I really admire what Cameron did with the tech. But my God, these characters are terrible. Tsu'tey especially, I remember him from Pocahontas. And that stupid dragon-legend shit, oh who would have guessed Sulley would tame it?

Cameron better write an actual story next time.
 
Gary Whitta said:
So I can only enjoy a film now if I'm also going to care equally about its technical proficiency ten years from now? Thanks for the heads-up.
Click to expand...

if technical proficiency is the only thing in it that's worth even a bare whiff of a scent of what might be a shit, then i would just reconsider its worth in the first place. but hey, the "us" that exists a decade from now is always wiser, so that's probably not fair.
 
Gary Whitta said:
So I can only enjoy a film now if I'm also going to care equally about its technical proficiency ten years from now? Thanks for the heads-up.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point, Gary Whitta Gary Whitta Gary Whitta Gary Whitta.
 
Gary Whitta said:
So I can only enjoy a film now if I'm also going to care equally about its technical proficiency ten years from now? Thanks for the heads-up.
Click to expand...
I can't see your movie which only came out a month ago in Australia! Everyday we were available to see it, there was no ~6pm session and only ~9pm, every other day, there was both! The last week and the next are busy, I fear I'll never get to watch it!

Please fix this! ;_;
 
Finally watching TEH BLURAYZ.

Honestly I don't know how well the movie is gonna age technically, some of the CG already looks spotty.

I also miss the 3D a lot...there are a lot of memorable 3D shots that simply go by unnoticed in the blu-ray. This really is meant to be watched in 3D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RIP Cora (my avatar)
46
733
gamingforum1 replied
Funk musician Sly Stone, 82, has passed away
11
576
GeekyDad replied
What's the deal with your avatar.
2 3
131
1K
Sand Dan Glokta replied
Brian Wilson Legendary founder of the Beach boys dies at 82
28
890
LiquidMetal14 replied
Avatar Error?
7
489
Nocty replied
Top Bottom