Register
Create Content
TV / Film > Avatar: aka Sigourney Weaver Looks Alot More Handsome In IMAX

Total Number of Ratings: 3
Avatar: aka Sigourney Weaver Looks Alot More Handsome In IMAX

First Published: Friday, December 18, 2009 7:01 PM

Last Saved: Friday, December 18, 2009 8:53 PM

Bookmark and Share

...and on the 12th year, the almighty deity known as James Cameron rose from the dead, emerged from his tomb of underwater submersible vehicles, and hath doth decided to impart his cinematic genius once again to us mere mortals. Since the almighty is a kind and charitable deity, he took pity on the reprehensible and primitive way we look at movies and decided. And alas, just like when Prometheus stole fire from Mount Olympus and gave it to man, the almighty James Cameron decided to revolutionize the way we look at movies and impart upon us how the gods watch movies. So, tucked away in his secret laboratory (you got to pronounce that the British way: la-bore-a-tory), the almighty worked day and night to use his cinematic genius to work on a project that is akin to the splitting of the atom...the technology to be featured in his latest movie, Avatar! Oh, praise be to you, James Cameron, for sharing your almighty vision with us, for it has not only changed the way we will forever watch cinema, but has truly revolutionized all our lives! Amen!

I like to goof on James Cameron. I mean I have absolutely nothing against him, but I find it funny how he pretty much became a larger than life persona in the past 20 years or so. He's praised as a god in Hollywood, with investors pretty much crapping money in an effort to give him funds. Unlike most Hollywood personas, he has the credibility and talent to back these claims up. If you look at his filmography, it almost reads as a list of some of the greatest films of all time. Terminator 1&2, Aliens, and Titanic? These are all films that have not only had a massive impact in Hollywood, but also really resonated with audiences worldwide. The man is a goldmine, plain and simple. What I personally like about him, though, is that he really knows how to put a compelling story together. Not only does he know how to push the audience's emotional buttons, but can really move a story along on all its beats, even though it can be a bit cliched (I'm looking at you, Titanic!). So now we have Avatar, which is not only Cameron's long awaited follow up to the monstrous hit Titanic, but was also made with new CG technology which was developed and trademarked by Cameron himself (!!!). I can kind of understand why he was a bit apprehensive about making this, since how the hell does anyone follow up Titanic, the highest grossing movie in ALL OF CINEMATIC HISTORY?! Cameron needed a hell of a follow-up act, so he spent nearly four years crafting this flick with this supposedly groundbreaking technology. This weekend, though, it's high noon. Audiences will now be flocking to see how Cameron's next epic movie fares, and if it's as groundbreaking and revolutionary as the advertisements hype it up to be. Fortunatly, I bought tickets for the first midnight IMAX screening back in August (horribly geeky, I know), and now having James Cameron rape my face with his epic movie, I can now tell all of you in a professional and mature manner what I thought of Avatar...

...and Holy monkey balls, was it good! I had a really good time watching Avatar, as I feel the gorgeous on-screen visuals and epic battle scenes combined real well for a very enjoyable time at the movies. I would describe the plot to you, but it is likely that you saw the trailers and assumed that it was another "Man comes to new area, man leaves his own kind to infiltrate natives, man identifies with natives, man helps natives rebel against his former kin" type of movie, in which case you're absolutely correct. We've seen this movie formula many times before, as its a great way to throw in an allegory to how the white man/humans are fucking everything up. So yeah, the overall plot is a bit cliched, but what really makes a sci-fi movie great is the details about the world that everything is taking place in. Luckily, Cameron writes this movie in a world that is diverse and a great setting for numerous adventures. This is where the new Cameron technology comes in. Never before has a setting or landscape been so beautifully displayed than that of the planet Pandora. The widscreen shots of Pandora's environment were simply breathtaking, from the deluge of rock islands floating in mid air to the massive unique trees that were as big as skyscrapers. The wildlife and living plants are also quite noteworthy, as this technology can deftly portray Cameron's vivid ideas. Reading all of this may not particularly sway you to a favorable opinion about this movie, since we've all been pretty desensitized in recent years by an overload of special effects in movies (Star Wars Ep. III being the worst offender in this case), so CG doesn't necessarily dazzle us audiences anymore. Let me reassure you though: This movie brings us closer to bridging the gap between the physical and computer animated realms. The CG animals and plants have less of that cartoony or 3D look to them that is usually associated with CG structures, and have a more physical texture to them. It's pretty jaw dropping to see this alien environment get portrayed in a manner like this, as this movie is pretty much a benchmark in the evolution of digital filmmaking. Additionally, all of these CG structures are utterly beautiful. This is especially true in all the night scenes, when everything glows with a neon light that is brighter than the Las Vegas strip. A real standout example were some of the trees, which glowed like electric cherry blossoms, and were a real delight to see. This scenery was a real treat to look at, but was even more impressive to see the many action scenes take place in them. One of the final fights of the movie, which involved a dogfight between futuristic helicopters and dragons on the floating rock islands, is a standout example of this. This is a real credit to the abilities of James Cameron, as you can have all the technology that money can buy and still make a really boring movie. Cameron, however, shows us how much imagination he has by writing this elaborate universe and the adventures that go on in it. In that sense, it was probably good that the story was as simple as it was, since it gave more time for the actors and the Na'vi characters to explore this diverse world.

Which brings me to my next point: the Na'vi characters. These CG creatures are what would ultimately make this movie a rousing success or a complete laughing stock, as the real spectacle is to see how this new Cameron technology would mix with human acting. I've never been a fan of CG structures modeled after humans, as they look like a strange hybrid of cartoon character and human, which in the end looks pretty unsettling and creepy. The characters always look dead behind the eyes, and the facial movements always look unnatural. I am happy to say, however, that this new technology shows a huge improvement in portraying human characters (or, for Avatar's case, human-like creatures). When the trailer for this movie first came out, everyone scoffed at the Na'vi creatures, saying how they were more or less blue Jar-Jar Binks rip-offs and how they couldn't see what the big deal was about them. When you see them on the big screen, however, it is much easier to differentiate these characters from CG characters from the ones of the past. The Na'vi people, like the CG plants and animals, have a visible tangibility that has always been an elusive factor in making CG actors, and have much more genuine emotions. Even though the faces were humanoid instead of human, they still displayed very human emotions and had all the facial ticks and reactions that one would see on a real life actor. It was almost as if the actors were wearing extensive make-up and were not computer animated at all, which I think is a very important step in the evolution of movie making. Most fans of movies, including myself, highly prefer old school special effects techniques to their CG counterparts, such as make-up, stop motion, and even puppets. For me, CG graphics cannot replicate that tangible feeling that these techniques give off...but if this technology really does eventually bridge the gap between the physical and computer generated and gives EVERYTHING that tangible feeling that we prefer, then that really opens up the possibilities of movie makers everywhere.


Wow...I can't believe I went through this entire review of this movie so far only mentioning special effects, and not talking about the acting at all! The universe is truly folding onto itself! Even though the acting sort of takes a minor backseat to the effects in this type of movie, competant acting is still required to move the movie along and make you feel for the story. Luckily, we get a great cast who take this movie seriously and really pour their hearts into their performances. The cast is led by Sam Worthington as Jake Sully, who deftly portrays the leading hero of the story. He's charismatic and a strong performer, which is everything a movie hero should be. Another notable performance is that of Stephen Lang as Col. Quaritch, the main villain. It's odd that a human actor would be the most over-the-top factor in a movie that features the most bizarre landscapes and creatures that you'll probably ever see, but that is certainly the case with Lang in Avatar. Imagine R. Lee Emery times 10 and crossed with an evil version of the Halo space marine, and you get Col. Quaritch. It was fun to see him storming about the movie with his tough Marine bravado, as he was a really memorable bad guy. The cast is rounded out by some great supporting players, including the always dependable Sigourney Weaver and the always cute Michelle Rodriguez. it was good to see that in a movie that was as special effects heavy as Avatar, the actors still gave quite memorable and fun performances.

There are alot of people who are skeptical of how good Avatar will be. They see the trailers, see some blue CG creatures, notice that the overall plot is a bit formulaic, and are ready to completely dismiss this movie as another CG crapfest. What these people fail to realize, however, is that even though it's fun to mock his larger-than-life director persona, James Cameron is a master moviemaker. We're talking about the man who made some of the greatest movies of all time, including the then-groundbreaking Terminator 2! So if anything, have some faith that the man will show you a tight and fun movie, even if we did see the plot formula used dozens of times before. This was not only a gripping and emotional movie, but was also amongst the most beautiful I've ever seen. So if you can, make it a priority to see it in IMAX for maximum effect. I have no doubts that it will look great in regular 3D, but I'm not entirely sure how everything will translate to 2D. I'm sure the effects still look great, but it is possible that you won't be wowed as much by them if you see it in IMAX or 3D. As for the claims that this movie will "change the way you see movies forever", which is quite a sizable promise from Cameron, all I can say is that the effects in this movie ARE very revolutionary, and might possibly change the way we look at CG dominated movies. I've always hated these types of movies, as they have a immensely fake feeling to them that in the end disgusts me. However, if this Cameron technology is truly the future way that effects are produced and that this movie is a stepping stone to computer graphics completely resembling anything physical, then I suppose the almighty James Cameron is right: Avatar just might change the way I look at future movies.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chris Powers is glad to live the remainder of his life knowing that he's seen Michelle Rodriguez's very cute face on the IMAX screen. Has he mentioned his infatuation with her on his Twitter?

Submit

Respond

Just saw it this afternoon. Agree with a lot of what you've said. Here's my summary - This movie (and others like it) is a reason to go to the theatre. You cannot get this experience at home. So go. It's worth it.

Monday, December 28, 2009 7:37 PM

Respond

I've just left the cinema after watching this.

I was totally underwhelmed, and my bum is sore. It's waaaaay too long for its own good. Way too long. By a factor of about 100%. There was not three hours worth of movie there. Two hours would have been pushing it.

I was so, so glad it was over by the time it ended.

Fom about half an hour/three quarters of an hour in I couldn't help thinking "Jeez, Speaker for the Dead told basically this story, but with more depth, better drawn characters and could easily fit into an hour and a half if someone chose to adapt it to screen."

I love James Cameron's work but this is easily his weakest film, imo. God, it's left me actually cranky. I could have spent those three hours doing anything else and been more satisfied.

Flag

It wasnt 3 hours, it 2 hours and 2 minutes. Being a James Cameron fan and complaining about length seems kind of weird, as this is the average length of his movies. But that's besides the point.

What good is inventing a new movie-making technology if youre not going to show it off a bit? Yeah, the core story has been told in shorter formats, but a big thing about this movie is to explore the amazing world of Pandora, which was done very well.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 2:40 PM

Flag

I meant to write 2 hours and 22 minutes, but my point remains the same

Monday, December 28, 2009 12:14 PM
Saturday, December 19, 2009 9:38 PM

Respond

Great review of the film, I can definitely tell you loved this movie.

But I just can't pinpoint why I hate this so much.....without seeing it of course. There just seems to be a bit of smug involved when it came to the advertising of it. So it has put me off from watching this quickly. Maybe in a few weeks (or even on DVD) I will give it a try.

Flag

I think the movie is made to be enjoyed in 3D, so I would not wait to see it on DVD.

Saturday, December 19, 2009 11:14 AM

Flag

Seriously, go see it in 3D. I felt just like you did, but the Totally Rad Show guys convinced me that even if the story was derivative, the effects would make up for it.

And they do. A New Hope had a wonky story and bad acting too but that doesn't mean the world it's set in didn't make me love it. This movie is much the same.

If you like sci-fi, you'll probably come away at least satisfied with your experience if you go see it in 3D.

Monday, December 21, 2009 1:52 PM

Flag

This movie really does rely on all the old stereotypes...the hard nosed and villianous white man and the more noble savages who are, of course, very in tune with mother nature. And of course, we're trying to fuck over the natives. We've seen this movie a bunch of times before. However, our emotional buttons are still pressed and the whole thing doesnt sound as contrived as it does on paper.

And yeah, to really appriciate this film from the technical standpoint, it should be seen in 3D or IMAX...alot of the luster will be lost otherwise

Monday, December 21, 2009 10:01 PM
Saturday, December 19, 2009 2:07 AM
comicBOOKchris Forest Hills, NY
Last Login: 07/30/10 16:31 PM Offline
Found a bug or encountered an issue? Have a suggestion? Email us at bugs@murmur.com