|
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.
|
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.
+ Show Spoiler +I found the plot to be very believable because the 3 days prior to seeing it my US history class watched a movie about the relations between Native Americans and the USA after the civil war. At some point gold was discovered on the Indian land, so the US tried to relocate the Indians. When the Indians refused the USA broke all their treaties and used their vastly superior military to slaughter Indians until they willingly moved to hellish reservations.
Looking back these events seem like a tragedy, just like in Avatar.
|
Netherlands13554 Posts
The word 'cliché' too often has a negative meaning. Cliches don't necessarily have to be bad for a movie... they are cliches for a reason and one could argue that they are good for movies.
Why would something be 'overused' if it works every time? Should romantic movies come up with a different way to say 'I love you' in every new movie? I hate the way the word cliché is interpreted by these so-called critics who have to find a reason why a movie would be bad.
Sure you can point out faults in a movie, but a few faults doesn't make a movie bad. Not to mention that people who dislike almost every movie out there that the general pop likes say so with a false sense of superiority; like they know better than the average movie-goer because they dislike the movie and use 'big' words like plothole or character development. A movie doesn't have to be perfect in every regard to be enjoyable. If James Cameron wanted to explain everything about this world, introduce the characters with their background and where they came from, he would either need 3 movies or a movie that was cropped and still 5 hours long.
That said I pretty much agree with this review. If you look at the movie objectively, you can see some faults in it of course, but they didn't bother me at all while watching the movie because it was really enjoyable to me. Something that's good can always be better and to not like this movie you'd have to be a pretty negative person.
|
entertaining: yes
revolutionary: no
|
blockbusters shouldn't be rated 10/10
|
On December 24 2009 00:22 Shauni wrote:
blockbusters shouldn't be rated 10/10
Just because you said so? Lmao. I am deeper than the masses thus i cant enjoy whatever is good for the masses.
If you dont mind, answer a few questions. Lets randomly pick Braveheart and Kill Bill. Blockbusters. But they cant be rated 10/10 even though they were best movies in their respected genres at the day. So Braveheart was not 10 out of 10 in 1995?! Im not calling you insane, just give me an explanation.
Now list a few movies that you would rate 10/10 just to provide some insight on your taste.
Now list movies that are superior to Avatar in its genre.
Not answering these questions will only solidify the fact that you are making baseless assumptions. I know you dont care but if you can spare some time id love to hear your points.
|
Newer movies almost always gets a high rating while they are on the cinema, it feels like young people finds every new movie as "the best movie they have ever seen" (like when the batman movie almost became top one on imdb). I haven't seen Avatar and probably wont go see it on the cinema since it doesn't interest me.
|
On December 23 2009 20:39 DeathSpank wrote:
entertaining: yes
revolutionary: no
|
On December 23 2009 15:08 sassme wrote:
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.
Avatar is BIG but not revolutionary. Everybody knows the old 3D glasses where one eye was red and the other one was green, because of the contrasting colors. Having this technique being used in movies is old as well. I know Disney has used these techniques over more than 20 years back for Michael Jackson's Captain EO & Hunny, I shrunk the audience. They even upped the experience by using special chairs, real water and warm/cold air.. In terms of a technical revolution, I think the last one we've seen in movies has been the Matrix's bullet time.
So. Avatar made use of this old 3D technology and used it to enhance its beautiful graphics and special effects even more. Beautiful graphics that are up to par with cinematics that we often see in games, but then in 3D. They brought a whole new fantasy world alive, like George Lucas did in Starwars & Peter Jackson did in Lord of the Rings. Not revolutionary.
The plot doesn't give you that much to think about either. I never said not being original is a bad thing. But obviously you "you don't know" what you're talking about. Mentioning Transformers, Lord of the Rings, Pixar animations, and "whatever else" on the same line and calling them similar says enough. Starwars, in its own time, was revolutionary in multiple ways.
Having or not having read science fiction and/or fantasy novels has nothing to do with this. People always use each others work as inspiration. All ideas are born of earlier ideas; you need to start somewhere. Some people find certain ideas so inspiring and just copy them.
Avatar definitely is a great movie. It's highly enjoyable and very entertaining. It's a new step up from special effects as we know them, and all we can do is hope that they raised standard for new upcoming movies visual wise.
Basically my blog was partially aimed on people who jump the bandwagon and blindly will rate this movie 10/10. You're one of them. Also saying people who don't agree with you are retarded is just dumb. Saying something is 10/10 means that everyone in the world will absolutely love it. Then how come not everybody does? Because you're a shitty movie reviewer. Thanks for your contribution, you can go back to IMDB now
|
On December 24 2009 02:36 sassme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2009 00:22 Shauni wrote:
blockbusters shouldn't be rated 10/10 Just because you said so? Lmao. I am deeper than the masses thus i cant enjoy whatever is good for the masses. If you dont mind, answer a few questions. Lets randomly pick Braveheart and Kill Bill. Blockbusters. But they cant be rated 10/10 even though they were best movies in their respected genres at the day. So Braveheart was not 10 out of 10 in 1995?! Im not calling you insane, just give me an explanation. Now list a few movies that you would rate 10/10 just to provide some insight on your taste. Now list movies that are superior to Avatar in its genre. Not answering these questions will only solidify the fact that you are making baseless assumptions. I know you dont care but if you can spare some time id love to hear your points.
A good movie is timeless. A lot of newer 'blockbuster' movies end up hyped while the score slowly falls within a few years. Therefore I don't see why you added 'in 1995'. I agree with h0rizon on this.
But my main problem with blockbuster movies is that their main goal is to earn cash and make it big, a movie designed for that can't out of principle become 10/10 to me. Plus, I don't see why technical progression like 'beautiful 3D' should hold ANY SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER to your rating of a movie.
I am going to see Avatar in three days though so I don't feel like I can discuss whether or not this was a good movie, but I doubt I'd rate it a 10/10. I wouldn't appreciate a movie just done for entertainment enough to consider it a masterpiece. Braveheart was definitely not 10/10 and not Kill Bill either...
As for my own taste HMMMMM
this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0255589/
this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101985/
and this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330229/
are definite 10/10 in my eyes.
As for very known movies, I might consider C'era una volta il West, The Godfather and Once Upon A Time in America masterpieces.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 24 2009 03:11 Smorrie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 15:08 sassme wrote:
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. Avatar is BIG but not revolutionary. Everybody knows the old 3D glasses where one eye was red and the other one was green, because of the contrasting colors. Having this technique being used in movies is old as well. I know Disney has used these techniques over more than 20 years back for Michael Jackson's Captain EO & Hunny, I shrunk the audience. They even upped the experience by using special chairs, real water and warm/cold air.. In terms of a technical revolution, I think the last one we've seen in movies has been the Matrix's bullet time. So. Avatar made use of this old 3D technology and used it to enhance its beautiful graphics and special effects even more. Beautiful graphics that are up to par with cinematics that we often see in games, but then in 3D. They brought a whole new fantasy world alive, like George Lucas did in Starwars & Peter Jackson did in Lord of the Rings. Not revolutionary. The plot doesn't give you that much to think about either. I never said not being original is a bad thing. But obviously you "you don't know" what you're talking about. Mentioning Transformers, Lord of the Rings, Pixar animations, and "whatever else" on the same line and calling them similar says enough. Starwars, in its own time, was revolutionary in multiple ways. Having or not having read science fiction and/or fantasy novels has nothing to do with this. People always use each others work as inspiration. All ideas are born of earlier ideas; you need to start somewhere. Some people find certain ideas so inspiring and just copy them. Avatar definitely is a great movie. It's highly enjoyable and very entertaining. It's a new step up from special effects as we know them, and all we can do is hope that they raised standard for new upcoming movies visual wise. Basically my blog was partially aimed on people who jump the bandwagon and blindly will rate this movie 10/10. You're one of them. Also saying people who don't agree with you are retarded is just dumb. Saying something is 10/10 means that everyone in the world will absolutely love it. Then how come not everybody does? Because you're a shitty movie reviewer. Thanks for your contribution, you can go back to IMDB now
Smorrie your post is laughable. First of all, you stooped down to personal attacks. Theres nothing worthy left in your review. Youre saying your blog was aimed at people who will blindly rate this 10/10, yet you call for discussion in opening post. Youre contradicting yourself. You cant just walk out the door saying "i made this to troll retards who autorated this movie 10/10", its too late.
I almost never read reviews and i didnt read reviews in "official" TL avatar thread either besides pages 1 and 4, didnt feel like continuing. In fact, most people that post there have YOUR point of view, not 1/10 or 10/10. Youre not special, calm down. Whatever you brought up about 3D technology is irrelevant, this is the first movie to implement it thoroughly into an amazing realism.
You brought up LoTR and star wars as the movies where the imaginary world comes alive, they nowhere close to Avatar in this department. If this isnt revolutionary i dont know what is, actually its hilarious you call me out on not knowing what im talking about, you bring up some shaking chairs and hot air, thats ridiculous. How is this even relevant? And you obviously dont care that knowledgeable people do say its a revolutionary concept for the movie making, you know better hahaha. You googled some salty critiques who will always 1 up you no matter what, just like we can clearly see here with Michael Jacksons 3D glasses ROFL. "This is nothing, was already done in 1962". This is revolutionary not because it invented something, it IMPLEMENTED something on a level that was never even touched before. LoTR falls on its knees while compared to this.
10/10 doesnt mean everyone in the world will love it, THERE WAS NO MOVIE THAT EVERYONE LOVES. Its absolutely retarded assumption. 10/10 is subjective but if this isnt 10/10 for its genre in your book than what is?
Thank me for contribution and go back to imdb? Is this a joke, didnt you MAKE this thread to discuss in the first place? I never read anything on imdb either and i would never rate LOTR( previous blockbuster btw) higher then 7-8.
Youre pathetic.
|
Avatar was very good at what it was for. The plot was meaningful, although it wasn't too deep (it was pretty obvious what the deeper themes of the movie were). There was something for everyone, action, special effects, an actual meaning, etc.
It wasn't the best movie ever, but it delivered. It kept me entertained for the duration of the movie, it didn't seem like 3 hours to me. Any movie that can keep you drawn to it for its entirety and make you lose your sense of time is pretty damn good IMO. It wasn't revolutionary, but it was solid. It was probably one of the better sci fi movies made. Just like Dark Knight was one of the best superhero movies ever.
|
Smorrie, I think the problem I have with your review is the definition of the word revolutionary. Dictionary.com's definition of revolutionary is 'radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedures, principles, etc.' This definition absolutely applies to Avatar's visuals and the ways in which they are presented towards the audience. Avatar's visuals are simply beyond anything ever seen before. Yes, it's true, most of this technology has been used in one way or the other, but Avatar's brilliance is the way it combines all these things together to create something that looks so unique and innovative.
One of the things I noticed that a lot of people haven't picked up on is how excellent the Nal'Avi faces looked. I'm aware that its the same technology that Peter Jackson used with Gollum in Lord of the Rings, but the implementation and execution of this technology is far greater in Avatar. The Nal'Avi really look very human, and this helps the viewer sympathies with their plight. I still love the Lord of the rings movies, and I feel that they were also revolutionary at the time. But I've tried watching them again recently, and the CGI unfortunately looks dated compared to the brilliant visuals in Avatar.
Finally, you argue that 3d is nothing new and not revolutionary in Avatar. I actually think they did an excellent job implementing the 3d in ways that wont bother the audience. The problem with older 3d films is that they always tried throwing objects in the viewers faces, as if saying 'look at that hand coming at you, isn't 3d so cool?' Avatar never does tricks like these, and only uses the 3d to bring the movie towards you. In that respect, I think the 3d is revolutionary.
Again, remember that creativity comes from using old ideas and combining them in new ways. In that respect, Avatar is very, very successful.
|
On December 24 2009 03:31 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2009 02:36 sassme wrote:On December 24 2009 00:22 Shauni wrote:
blockbusters shouldn't be rated 10/10 Just because you said so? Lmao. I am deeper than the masses thus i cant enjoy whatever is good for the masses. If you dont mind, answer a few questions. Lets randomly pick Braveheart and Kill Bill. Blockbusters. But they cant be rated 10/10 even though they were best movies in their respected genres at the day. So Braveheart was not 10 out of 10 in 1995?! Im not calling you insane, just give me an explanation. Now list a few movies that you would rate 10/10 just to provide some insight on your taste. Now list movies that are superior to Avatar in its genre. Not answering these questions will only solidify the fact that you are making baseless assumptions. I know you dont care but if you can spare some time id love to hear your points. A good movie is timeless. A lot of newer 'blockbuster' movies end up hyped while the score slowly falls within a few years. Therefore I don't see why you added 'in 1995'. I agree with h0rizon on this. But my main problem with blockbuster movies is that their main goal is to earn cash and make it big, a movie designed for that can't out of principle become 10/10 to me. Plus, I don't see why technical progression like 'beautiful 3D' should hold ANY SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER to your rating of a movie. I am going to see Avatar in three days though so I don't feel like I can discuss whether or not this was a good movie, but I doubt I'd rate it a 10/10. I wouldn't appreciate a movie just done for entertainment enough to consider it a masterpiece. Braveheart was definitely not 10/10 and not Kill Bill either... As for my own taste HMMMMM this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0255589/this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101985/and this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330229/are definite 10/10 in my eyes. As for very known movies, I might consider C'era una volta il West, The Godfather and Once Upon A Time in America masterpieces.
Are the movies youve listed "timeless"? I havent seen any of your personal favorites but i will watch at least one. Not sure if I will share your opinion on these but ill give it a try. 10/10 has to be a lot after all.
Reason i mentioned 1995 specifically for Braveheart was simply because the movie was hugely based on the realism of the battle scenes and the atmosphere. It has its "timeless" value as well in the plot but it would be hard to rate it 10/10 from nowadays perspective.
Best movie for me isnt something specific, its when you overwhelmed after seeing a movie, nothing else occupies your head for the following minutes. Braveheart and Kill Bill for instance had that effect on me while Godfather didnt.
|
On December 24 2009 03:49 sassme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 24 2009 03:11 Smorrie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 15:08 sassme wrote:
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. Avatar is BIG but not revolutionary. Everybody knows the old 3D glasses where one eye was red and the other one was green, because of the contrasting colors. Having this technique being used in movies is old as well. I know Disney has used these techniques over more than 20 years back for Michael Jackson's Captain EO & Hunny, I shrunk the audience. They even upped the experience by using special chairs, real water and warm/cold air.. In terms of a technical revolution, I think the last one we've seen in movies has been the Matrix's bullet time. So. Avatar made use of this old 3D technology and used it to enhance its beautiful graphics and special effects even more. Beautiful graphics that are up to par with cinematics that we often see in games, but then in 3D. They brought a whole new fantasy world alive, like George Lucas did in Starwars & Peter Jackson did in Lord of the Rings. Not revolutionary. The plot doesn't give you that much to think about either. I never said not being original is a bad thing. But obviously you "you don't know" what you're talking about. Mentioning Transformers, Lord of the Rings, Pixar animations, and "whatever else" on the same line and calling them similar says enough. Starwars, in its own time, was revolutionary in multiple ways. Having or not having read science fiction and/or fantasy novels has nothing to do with this. People always use each others work as inspiration. All ideas are born of earlier ideas; you need to start somewhere. Some people find certain ideas so inspiring and just copy them. Avatar definitely is a great movie. It's highly enjoyable and very entertaining. It's a new step up from special effects as we know them, and all we can do is hope that they raised standard for new upcoming movies visual wise. Basically my blog was partially aimed on people who jump the bandwagon and blindly will rate this movie 10/10. You're one of them. Also saying people who don't agree with you are retarded is just dumb. Saying something is 10/10 means that everyone in the world will absolutely love it. Then how come not everybody does? Because you're a shitty movie reviewer. Thanks for your contribution, you can go back to IMDB now Smorrie your post is laughable. First of all, you stooped down to personal attacks. Theres nothing worthy left in your review. Youre saying your blog was aimed at people who will blindly rate this 10/10, yet you call for discussion in opening post. Youre contradicting yourself. You cant just walk out the door saying "i made this to troll retards who autorated this movie 10/10", its too late. I almost never read reviews and i didnt read reviews in "official" TL avatar thread either besides pages 1 and 4, didnt feel like continuing. In fact, most people that post there have YOUR point of view, not 1/10 or 10/10. Youre not special, calm down. Whatever you brought up about 3D technology is irrelevant, this is the first movie to implement it thoroughly into an amazing realism. You brought up LoTR and star wars as the movies where the imaginary world comes alive, they nowhere close to Avatar in this department. If this isnt revolutionary i dont know what is, actually its hilarious you call me out on not knowing what im talking about, you bring up some shaking chairs and hot air, thats ridiculous. How is this even relevant? And you obviously dont care that knowledgeable people do say its a revolutionary concept for the movie making, you know better hahaha. You googled some salty critiques who will always 1 up you no matter what, just like we can clearly see here with Michael Jacksons 3D glasses ROFL. "This is nothing, was already done in 1962". This is revolutionary not because it invented something, it IMPLEMENTED something on a level that was never even touched before. LoTR falls on its knees while compared to this. 10/10 doesnt mean everyone in the world will love it, THERE WAS NO MOVIE THAT EVERYONE LOVES. Its absolutely retarded assumption. 10/10 is subjective but if this isnt 10/10 for its genre in your book than what is? Thank me for contribution and go back to imdb? Is this a joke, didnt you MAKE this thread to discuss in the first place? I never read anything on imdb either and i would never rate LOTR( previous blockbuster btw) higher then 7-8. Youre pathetic.
You already killed any type of discussion in regards to the flawed points you're trying to make by calling people retarded because they don't share the view you have, yet you tell me I'm the one that killed the discussion. Guess what, the joke's on you.
I'll just quickly point out some facts to show your own ignorance:
- You read page 1-4 of the general thread and say they share my view. The pages existed before the movie was released.
- I never claimed to be special, I tried to create some more discussion rather than having ppl like you say it's the best movie ever while there are many things that point out it is a great movie but far from the best ever.
- Avatar came closer to making an imaginary world come to life than any other movie ever did. People said the same for Starwars & LotR in their own times. Evolution != Revolution.
- I did not look up 'salty critics' or whatsoever. I have seen both MJ & Honey I shrunk movies. 20 years ago I was amazed by the 3D, in same ways you are now you've seen it being used for the first time. Evolution != Revolution.
- LotR is an 8 year old movie. 8 years from now, a lot of shit movies will share the same quality of graphics as Avatar does and a lot of them will be better. What's your point? Evolution != Revolution.
- 10/10 on matters such as these do not exist, which is why I never rate anything 10/10. Only fools hand out 10/10s.
- You made an account on TL to insult people? Go away, try IMDB if you like to convince people of your opinion in ways you do. I usually see people using the same sort of convincing methods you use.
- Apparently you got hurt a lot by my post. I did call you out a little because of your ridiculous behaviour. Your new reply just shows you really are pathetic.
- Basically you're full of shit, but in the end the joke's on me because you're just trolling and I totally fell for it. Good job 
|
That's very true Athos. When people call the movie revolutionary it doesn't feel right to me. Avatar brought special effects to a new level, using a mix of various technologies to make a visually stunning masterpiece. Nobody disagrees on that, but it just is not revolutionary or unbelievably shocking. The movie itself is successful, but not revolutionary. Like I said in my previous post I would rather call it evolution.
In 8 years from now, obviously graphics are going to be a lot better. We have more powerful computers, new ways to implement various technologies, creating even better special effects.
If think that if I'd watch the regular 2D version of Avatar, I would still think the CG is very awesome, but it will take away a good chunk of its 'specialness'. So it leads back to: Is Avatar just another big Hollywood movie with superb graphics & special effects? If that's the case, do you think people should rate it 10/10 just because it looks really good?
|
I'd point out that MGM Studios in Disney World like 10 years ago used the same tricks you mentioned for Honey I... and such for Terminator. Ever since then I've considered the evolution of 3D films in a stasis, and so the fact that now finally films are taking advantage of this decade+ old technology is more a shame than calls for a revolution, heh. (basically just agreeing with Smorrie here)
Edited for stupid dyslexia.
|
I think Avatar really will be one of those films that stick around for a while, because... get this... it does not suck in any aspect. That makes it an awesome movie to point to and say "this is what SF of the 00's was like."
A few friends and I found that the 3-d wasn't perfect, and looking at certain objects you could see that the two images don't overlay exactly. Other than that technical detail, the one thing that bugged me was that they never explain how these + Show Spoiler +mountains fucking float. I can pretend unobtanium is simply a very precious material that has many uses but is too complicated to explain in any real detail. I think a hint is that the tree is growing on it -- probably something to do with all these biological advances.
|
Avatar was not SF, and I think it's disgusting how many people are running in here calling it such. It's SF the same way Star Wars is SF, aka it's not. It's not based on any science it all. It's Science Fantasy, and a poorly done one at that. It's poorly done because the world is not even consistent in its rules. ALso, it's wholly unoriginal, ripping off ideas from several other SF works (along with the plot of several other movies).
All in all, the substance of the movie was an empty shell. This entire movie is like a faberge egg.
|
Avatar was good movie but it is overrated. I would give it an 8/10. The theme is so expected and unoriginal. White human male comes into the indigenious native society, works hard to become accepted into their culture, and the human's group attacks the natives, forcing the main character to pick the native side. And its painfully obvious who will win the final battle.
|
On January 08 2010 03:11 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Avatar was not SF, and I think it's disgusting how many people are running in here calling it such. It's SF the same way Star Wars is SF, aka it's not. It's not based on any science it all. It's Science Fantasy, and a poorly done one at that. It's poorly done because the world is not even consistent in its rules. ALso, it's wholly unoriginal, ripping off ideas from several other SF works (along with the plot of several other movies).
All in all, the substance of the movie was an empty shell. This entire movie is like a faberge egg.
?? I think you're confusing the SF/not-SF dividing line with the actual hard SF/SF one. Avatar is very much science fiction, in that it builds on scientific advances in the future, but does not attempt to cover everything in detail, or even explain how that correlates with current physics. To call any SF that does not explain its detailed scientific content to 100% "not SF" is just dumb. Even R.C. Wilson's Spin didn't explain all the details of the Hypotheticals, and it's still considered a prime example of hard SF.
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
I don't like to sit there and try and find loopholes in the storyline, or say how unrealistic some stuff is. I just go to movies to enjoy myself, and this movie was really enjoyable. The visuals were excellent, and the storyline was decent enough to have a good time.
|
I saw this movie 15 years ago.
|
On January 08 2010 03:11 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Avatar was not SF, and I think it's disgusting how many people are running in here calling it such. It's SF the same way Star Wars is SF, aka it's not. It's not based on any science it all. It's Science Fantasy, and a poorly done one at that. It's poorly done because the world is not even consistent in its rules. ALso, it's wholly unoriginal, ripping off ideas from several other SF works (along with the plot of several other movies).
All in all, the substance of the movie was an empty shell. This entire movie is like a faberge egg.
Dude... seriously... you rage too much over a movie LOL
You care too much.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On December 23 2009 13:43 azndsh wrote:
several more possible influences:
The Last Samurai
Princess Mononoke
Xenocide.
Battle of Endor
Meh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6209/sddsd.jpg)
