Long Smurfs
Because I do pride myself on being a budding movie buff, and because there's plenty to say about it ... I think it may be time for me to give an opinion.
Oh yes. I'm talking about "Avatar."
Here's the thing:
I heard about the movie for much longer than I care to admit. Years, in fact. Turns out I'm on the outside edge of enough nerd circles (and, admittedly, right in the middle of others) to hear about a movie that first required a complete revolution of The System in order to exist. And since it was James Cameron on top of that -- the director of a movie that continues to rank in my top ten -- I was naturally quite curious.
After twelve years of waiting, do I feel a bit let down? Well, yeah, actually.
Don't mistake me. Visually, this movie is so far beyond the realm of what I imagined possible. The transitions between CG and live action are practically seamless (and at times overlap in ways you don't expect). It is a lot of fun to watch, particularly in 3D.
Did it revolutionize the way computer graphics will be used in years to come?
Heck yes.
Is it one of the best films of all time?
No. Not in the way that used to be defined.
I'm aware of how well it's done in the box office. (I'm also aware of how much more I paid for that ticket than I did for any of the "Lord of the Rings" movies or "Titanic.") I refuse to base the value of a movie on how much money it makes.
Because, you see, I'm also aware that it's not up for any screenwriting awards, and that makes perfect sense to me.
Normally I try to approach things with some delicacy here, but I don't think I'll bother with this one. The biggest issue I have with the movie is that there isn't a single subtlety to it, as there never is when you pit two (or in this case, three) religions against each other. In this case, it was Materialism vs. Naturalism, with some Science sprinkled in (yes, I'm treating science as a religion, as it was used in this context). Granted, there's a certain irony in a movie that takes aim at big, ugly commercialism and ends up breaking records in commercialism, but that didn't change the fact that I felt like I had spent two and a half hours being simultaneously awed by the effects and bashed over the head by the script.
After twelve years of waiting, I would have deeply appreciated a movie I couldn't map out ahead of time, right down to, "Oh! Enter the inner conflict of the protagonist. Colonel What's-His-Face isn't going to like this" followed by, "Ah, nuts. That one's the next to die." That was easily my biggest disappointment.
So -- was it a good movie?
Yes. Thoroughly entertaining and fairly thought-provoking -- afterwards, when I was given the chance to tone it down a bit and have some original thoughts.
Would I watch it again?
Under the right circumstances, absolutely.
Will I buy it when it comes out on DVD?
Doubtful. I could never get the same visually stunning effects on my little(ish) screen and then I'd be far more irritated with the movie itself.
I'm almost afraid to put this out there (anyone else notice how rabid some people are getting over this movie?) but -- thoughts to share?
Oh yes. I'm talking about "Avatar."
Here's the thing:
I heard about the movie for much longer than I care to admit. Years, in fact. Turns out I'm on the outside edge of enough nerd circles (and, admittedly, right in the middle of others) to hear about a movie that first required a complete revolution of The System in order to exist. And since it was James Cameron on top of that -- the director of a movie that continues to rank in my top ten -- I was naturally quite curious.
After twelve years of waiting, do I feel a bit let down? Well, yeah, actually.
Don't mistake me. Visually, this movie is so far beyond the realm of what I imagined possible. The transitions between CG and live action are practically seamless (and at times overlap in ways you don't expect). It is a lot of fun to watch, particularly in 3D.
Did it revolutionize the way computer graphics will be used in years to come?
Heck yes.
Is it one of the best films of all time?
No. Not in the way that used to be defined.
I'm aware of how well it's done in the box office. (I'm also aware of how much more I paid for that ticket than I did for any of the "Lord of the Rings" movies or "Titanic.") I refuse to base the value of a movie on how much money it makes.
Because, you see, I'm also aware that it's not up for any screenwriting awards, and that makes perfect sense to me.
Normally I try to approach things with some delicacy here, but I don't think I'll bother with this one. The biggest issue I have with the movie is that there isn't a single subtlety to it, as there never is when you pit two (or in this case, three) religions against each other. In this case, it was Materialism vs. Naturalism, with some Science sprinkled in (yes, I'm treating science as a religion, as it was used in this context). Granted, there's a certain irony in a movie that takes aim at big, ugly commercialism and ends up breaking records in commercialism, but that didn't change the fact that I felt like I had spent two and a half hours being simultaneously awed by the effects and bashed over the head by the script.
After twelve years of waiting, I would have deeply appreciated a movie I couldn't map out ahead of time, right down to, "Oh! Enter the inner conflict of the protagonist. Colonel What's-His-Face isn't going to like this" followed by, "Ah, nuts. That one's the next to die." That was easily my biggest disappointment.
So -- was it a good movie?
Yes. Thoroughly entertaining and fairly thought-provoking -- afterwards, when I was given the chance to tone it down a bit and have some original thoughts.
Would I watch it again?
Under the right circumstances, absolutely.
Will I buy it when it comes out on DVD?
Doubtful. I could never get the same visually stunning effects on my little(ish) screen and then I'd be far more irritated with the movie itself.
I'm almost afraid to put this out there (anyone else notice how rabid some people are getting over this movie?) but -- thoughts to share?
Comments