|
I posted some of this in the Avatar thread in General already but it didn't really got much attention as it has turned into a "seen it, best i've ever seen / seen it, wasn't impressed, but great sfx" thread.
I guess in the internet era everybody finds him- and herself a good movie critic/reviewer. Giving something a rating is a very subjective matter and everyone has their own say on things. But really, it's very obvious that some people just have less talent than others when it comes to giving out objective ratings.
When I want to check out whether a movie is worth watching or not I usually go and check out some online reviews. The two most popular sites for this are obviously IMDB & Rotten Tomatoes. IMDB used to be known for having a lot of hardcore movie critics on there, making any movie rated 6 or higher worth watching. These days you can't really trust any website anymore since they all are full of 'love it:10/10 / sux:1/10' idiots, but I guess it's ok to check those websites anyway to get a global indication.
I don't find myself a good reviewer because I have a really hard time giving out ratings. I think the hardest thing to overcome is the 'enjoyability vs quality' barrier. It's usually really easy to figure out if you enjoyed watching a movie, but often I find myself enjoying shitty movies too. With shitty I mean movies with a shitty plot, movies with no in depth characters, movies that are predictable, etc. But hey, movies are supposed to be entertaining right? So if you still enjoy a movie even though it's a 'shitty' movie, apparently it did its job and doesn't need a shitty rating.. right?
So how are you supposed to rate a movie? Let's take a look at Avatar.
Basically, before I went to the cinema to see Avatar, I told the 2 girls I went with that I had a strong gut feeling that it would be a rather disappointing movie; fun, with a lot of awesome special effects, but with poor acting/storyline etc.
So we watched the whole movie and I totally lost track of time since it was pretty immersive, but apparently it almost took 3 hours... The first thing I got thrown in my face after the movie finished was "WELL??? WAS IT DISAPPOINTING OR 5/5 STARS?!! I TOLD YOU SO".
I told them I really, really, did enjoy it and I thought it was definitely a must-see movie, but also that it wasn't a perfect movie and that people who do generally not enjoy these type of movies will find it just another superficial movie (but one with a lot of pretty & awesome special effects).
After I had seen the movie I was thinking about what I had just seen. It really reminded me of Disney's Pocahontas, the plot was very identical, even some of the core elements were copied.. The plot was sorta cliche/superficial, character development wasn't really there, etc. Nevertheless I had a GREAT time watching it. This movie is now on my must-see list and I hope it set a new standard for future movies.
However I am also a critic. While I don't think a movie necessarily needs to be original to be a good movie, it really did feel it lacked in certain areas. I felt the movie should've gone more in depth on a lot of things, there should've been more attention being put towards character development, they shouldn't have put these silly things in such as + Show Spoiler +sending the humans back home so they can come back with a massive destructive force? Having a crazy/dumb general and some loser/dumb business-type guy ruling over the destiny of an entire human colony? Then there hardly was any history on how they all came to be there.. What's the unobtainable material good for? Since we already have such advanced technologies going on I would suspect that human society would rather be a scientific one than an aggressive/conquering one, etc, etc... Some things just didn't make too much sense.
But what could be done to this movie to improve it? Some better dialogues could've helped a little to create some more memorable scenes I guess, but the movie almost lasted 3 hours already. Was there any room left for improvement to elaborate more on certain areas at all?
Perhaps these flaws are bound to its hero/adventure genre. Good character development is usually shown in suspense movies, which usually are really slow movies. I have yet to see a fantasy/adventure/hero movie which actually has a tight story/good history and everything included. The best and only one I can think of is Lord of the Rings, but I am very familiar with the books, and when watching the movies everything seemed to fall into place. Next to that, when making this comparison you have to take in mind that Avatar (for now) is a stand-alone movie, while LotR had a 3 in 1 thing going on, but even LotR has its flaws.
What Avatar had going on were amazing special effects. The best graphics I've ever seen, great story telling, great pace/flow, and last but not least.. the creation of a new magical place. The world they created is beautiful and very detailed, making it so interesting that one can only want to know more about its flora & fauna. Amazing.
So how is one supposed to rate this movie? A 7/10, keeping both its perks and flaws in mind? A 5/10, for being ok but nothing special? A 9/10 for its immersive quality and superb special effects?
I think personally it is worth a 9/10. It really was highly enjoyable, it made me lose track of time. But what about my thoughts I had about the movie afterwards? Rating a movie has to be an objective thing right?
I still think it is worth a 9/10, since if there were things I 'missed' in this movie, it's my fault for going to see this one instead of seeing a different type of movie. If you want to see an immersive movie with a lot of suspense, obviously you're not going to watch a comedy. If you are looking for great dialogues you're not going to watch a musical type of movie, etc. I think that Avatar was really great for its genre.
I guess there are multiple things I am trying to point out with this blog post.. it probably seems really unorganized since it's a random collection of my thoughts (wish posting a blog had a preview post button >.< ).
I guess I'll just stick to: Discuss.
  
|
5/5 avatar was a good movie regardless of plotholes
not all movies have to have an elaborate story or character development
if it entertains for its duration its good enough for me
|
Avatar is the shit. Anyone who didnt like this movie doesn't like to have a good time.
Any BLOW THE SHIT OUT OF STUFF ON ALIEN PLANETS movies with Sigourney Weaver in them are bound to be badass.
And who couldn't fall in love with a 10 foot tall blue woman who like refuses to ever wear clothes?
|
Don't you think that's a little superficial though?
To copy this into a StarCraft related example:
Imagine Jaedong plays an EPIC 45min ZvT vs Flash. 45mins full of micro/macro intensive battles. The best ZvT game we've ever seen, 5/5.
3 weeks later Boxer plays in PL and wins his game. Boxer, being our most famous and beloved old school hero wins a game. Everyone (most of us at least) would be cheering for him. Everyone really enjoys watching him play. Obviously his skills aren't as top notch as the current top tier of progamers, but it's boxer.. Now, he won his game but it wasn't nearly as good (intensive & mechanic wise) compared to JD/Flash's game. Yet, you've enjoyed yourself watching Boxer play just as much as you enjoyed watching JD&Flash play. 5/5! A very subjective rating, but everyone loves it and everyone thinks it's 5/5.
Now this new guy comes around that has Savior has his old school hero, and has never seen any of boxer's games before he went into the army. He thinks Boxer's game is shit and rates it 2/5. Now how does this work?
|
About your spoiler...
+ Show Spoiler +
I have a feeling you understand the plot and just object to whether such a plotline is realistic, but I will explain anyway for completeness.
The troops weren't a government entity. They were hired by a private corporation in order to take over a planet in order to harvest unobtainium. The human colony isn't there to make a living -- it's there to rape the resources. It's not like it's the last bastion of human hope in the universe and they need to survive or else. The crazy / dumb general I agree with you is a bit one-sided, but the one guy calling the shots as CEO of the company paying for the military is not so far off from what we see today.
In response to your objections to people being so greedy, you could argue that people in the 12th century could have had the same objections to some dude riding out in his ship for "new worlds" and killing all the indigenous people there in order to take over their land (mistakenly thought to be India, of course) and harvest the resources. With all the fancy new technologies and sophistication developed in the 15th century, why would mankind have to conquer and be aggressive / animalistic? I mean, they had telescopes and shit!
Humans will never grow out of their own greed. If you don't have something, you want it. If you have enough, you want more.
Just replace Na'vi with Protoss, unobtainium with minerals, and Tree of Life with Xel'Naga Temple and it'll all make sense. Heck, there's even Goliaths and Tanks in there.
Or Na'vi with Night Elves, unobtainium = gold, Tree of Life = Tree of Life, and those white flying things = wisps.
|
On December 23 2009 12:59 StRyKeR wrote:About your spoiler... + Show Spoiler +
I have a feeling you understand the plot and just object to whether such a plotline is realistic, but I will explain anyway for completeness.
The troops weren't a government entity. They were hired by a private corporation in order to take over a planet in order to harvest unobtainium. The human colony isn't there to make a living -- it's there to rape the resources. It's not like it's the last bastion of human hope in the universe and they need to survive or else. The crazy / dumb general I agree with you is a bit one-sided, but the one guy calling the shots as CEO of the company paying for the military is not so far off from what we see today.
In response to your objections to people being so greedy, you could argue that people in the 12th century could have had the same objections to some dude riding out in his ship for "new worlds" and killing all the indigenous people there in order to take over their land (mistakenly thought to be India, of course) and harvest the resources. With all the fancy new technologies and sophistication developed in the 15th century, why would mankind have to conquer and be aggressive / animalistic? I mean, they had telescopes and shit!
Humans will never grow out of their own greed. If you don't have something, you want it. If you have enough, you want more.
Just replace Na'vi with Protoss, unobtainium with minerals, and Tree of Life with Xel'Naga Temple and it'll all make sense. Heck, there's even Goliaths and Tanks in there.
Or Na'vi with Night Elves, unobtainium = gold, Tree of Life = Tree of Life, and those white flying things = wisps.
+1
In all regards, i agree with your review. you were right on the dot.
Though did you have an opinion on watching in which format and how would it be different?
I don't think it would have been nearly as good in good ol' fashion 2-d screen
|
On December 23 2009 12:59 Smorrie wrote:
Don't you think that's a little superficial though?
To copy this into a StarCraft related example:
Imagine Jaedong plays an EPIC 45min ZvT vs Flash. 45mins full of micro/macro intensive battles. The best ZvT game we've ever seen, 5/5.
3 weeks later Boxer plays in PL and wins his game. Boxer, being our most famous and beloved old school hero wins a game. Everyone (most of us at least) would be cheering for him. Everyone really enjoys watching him play. Obviously his skills aren't as top notch as the current top tier of progamers, but it's boxer.. Now, he won his game but it wasn't nearly as good (intensive & mechanic wise) compared to JD/Flash's game. Yet, you've enjoyed yourself watching Boxer play just as much as you enjoyed watching JD&Flash play. 5/5! A very subjective rating, but everyone loves it and everyone thinks it's 5/5.
Now this new guy comes around that has Savior has his old school hero, and has never seen any of boxer's games before he went into the army. He thinks Boxer's game is shit and rates it 2/5. Now how does this work?
Well I think this is why it's important to include explanatory text with a rating. I think a good 'objective' reviewer will be cognizant of a wide variety of tastes when writing his/her review.
As an example - I thoroughly enjoyed the most recent Transformers movie, but I am aware of issues which may interfere with enjoyment for others, and I would include them if I were to write a review. Even though these issues weren't that important to my raw enjoyment of the experience, they would negatively affect the rating of the movie. Undoubtedly though, I would rate the film higher than many others because of the fact that I just plain liked watching it. Ultimately, you never have a super objective review, you just do your best to discuss any issues that seem to be important to people (in my opinion anyway).
|
On December 23 2009 12:59 StRyKeR wrote:About your spoiler... + Show Spoiler +
I have a feeling you understand the plot and just object to whether such a plotline is realistic, but I will explain anyway for completeness.
The troops weren't a government entity. They were hired by a private corporation in order to take over a planet in order to harvest unobtainium. The human colony isn't there to make a living -- it's there to rape the resources. It's not like it's the last bastion of human hope in the universe and they need to survive or else. The crazy / dumb general I agree with you is a bit one-sided, but the one guy calling the shots as CEO of the company paying for the military is not so far off from what we see today.
In response to your objections to people being so greedy, you could argue that people in the 12th century could have had the same objections to some dude riding out in his ship for "new worlds" and killing all the indigenous people there in order to take over their land (mistakenly thought to be India, of course) and harvest the resources. With all the fancy new technologies and sophistication developed in the 15th century, why would mankind have to conquer and be aggressive / animalistic? I mean, they had telescopes and shit!
Humans will never grow out of their own greed. If you don't have something, you want it. If you have enough, you want more.
Just replace Na'vi with Protoss, unobtainium with minerals, and Tree of Life with Xel'Naga Temple and it'll all make sense. Heck, there's even Goliaths and Tanks in there.
Or Na'vi with Night Elves, unobtainium = gold, Tree of Life = Tree of Life, and those white flying things = wisps.
lmao me and my friends kept comparing the movie to that after watching avatar
|
several more possible influences:
The Last Samurai
Princess Mononoke
|
If you want to find influences: Dances with wolves. It's the same thing, except in space and with aliens and future technology.
That said, Avatar is such an amazing movie. Watch it in theatres, it is spectacular.
And that is how you review a movie.
|
I just came back from the theater and after seeing 3 hours of Avatar my brain is completely shot. All I can remember is that it was awesome, and that's the most important thing. So what if the story was hollywoodish and had plot holes; it worked for what it was. Even if it did follow a strict Hollywood formula it at least followed a traditionally successful protagonist based one.
|
Good points Stryker. As I was rambling on I guess I got a little inaccurate.
+ Show Spoiler +You are right, I am objecting its realisticness in certain ways.. While not every movie has to be realistic, I think for this movie it was a bit more important (as the idea was to make pandora come to life as a real world with real people interacting with a new, real, alien entity). With realistic I mean, not so much in the sense of "our current society would never do that", but rather just not silly like people in a movie such as lizzie mcguire would act. (which i sorta felt it was like at times). Also, people certainly are greedy but we're not retarded  But that aside, that just was the storyline.. Maybe not so original but that's ok I guess, it just could've been a lot more subtle or more in depth. I found the one scene in which the unobtainium was shown was really silly too.
|
On December 23 2009 13:20 Fallen_arK wrote:
+1
In all regards, i agree with your review. you were right on the dot.
Though did you have an opinion on watching in which format and how would it be different?
I don't think it would have been nearly as good in good ol' fashion 2-d screen
Very interesting point. I do think it added to the immersion. At a few points in the movie I was taking of the glasses to see what it looked like on screen. Funny thing was that I sorta felt that whenever I took of the glasses I got back into reality, and when I put them back on I was back on Pandora I think that feeling was strengthened by the fact that our main character also had to get into his machine to get in his avatar.
On the other hand, I had the glasses on for so long that eventually I didn't really noticed it anymore and I was just watching a really good movie with awesome graphics and special effects.
The effects play a big role on how real the movie would feel to you, but I suspect that for people who haven't been able to watch it in 3D, it still was really awesome.
Aside from all that it's good for the movie industry that we have technologies that really boost your viewing experience like that. Gives us another reason to actually go and buy movie tickets rather than downloading movies onto our computers 
|
Smorrie i have a feeling that you and many others who rated this movie anything below 10 either did not read enough science fiction or had some unfounded expectations from a movie of this "genre". I do hate to even bring this up since this movie was so astounding and shocking that trying to prove a point arguing about it seems absolutely unnecessary. Its the biggest thing since star wars first came out. This is huge. Im not a fan of transformers, lord of the rings, pixar animations w/e else could classify as "similar". There is nothing similar, this is revolutionary.
My point about not reading enough science fiction - it feels like this plot was based of multiple novels. Many of them were mentioned already but one that wasnt - Harry Harrisons Deathworld - one of the most amazing series i have ever read. The "cliches" are so irrelevant to the absurd humongousity of that world and the storyline that it doesnt even make me angry when people say that, i just smile and say to myself "they DONT KNOW". Yes the movie is huge, its above senseless arguing. Its fucking Monumental.
I want to say so much more but i dont feel like i need to. If this isnt 10 out of 10 you should not watch anything else even remotely related for many many years. Chances are nothing will top this in near future.
|
If I may answer what I think qualifies as a good review (just in general, as I haven't seen Avatar yet), it's a review that is "timeless."
What I mean by this is the following: a movie that you enjoy because it somehow appeals to you at a higher intellectual level is going to appeal to you regardless of how special effects and cinematography have changed. And we know that they will change just as surely as time marches on. So as jaw dropping and ground breaking as the special effects might be today, thirty years from now they won't be special at all -- if anything, they will be substandard.
A review that is "timeless" can be read by someone thirty or even a hundred years from now and tell them all they need to know about the movie to decide whether or not they want to watch it.
|
pretty sure Star Wars (1977) received generally favorable reviews
|
have to realize james cameron is only good at making blockbusters. Asking for literature or a plot is not very realistic. Hes good at something not many other directors are good at, and camerons not only good, hes one of the best ever.
Imo blockbusters only need to do what blockbusters are supposed to do. Save the rest for other genres.
|
On December 23 2009 15:26 azndsh wrote:
pretty sure Star Wars (1977) received generally favorable reviews
Seems you're right. I removed that part of my post. I was more aware of the negative reviews (and there certainly were some) than the positive ones.
|
Just let people form their own opinions. Is that really so hard?
|
On December 23 2009 16:40 GunSlinger wrote:
Just let people form their own opinions. Is that really so hard?
I don't know what you believe in but...
If I were to say stuff like 9/11 was the government's fault, would you say anything?
Or maybe if I said, "You'd better repent for your sins or else you're going to Hell."?
Different people have different opinions but there's nothing wrong with talking about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
