NYTimes calls Avatar, “A New Eden, Both Cosmic and Cinematic”
Avatar pulls that trickiest of hat tricks, earning perfect metascores of 100 from top critics in the nation’s 3 largest cities coast to coast: LA, Chicago, and now Manohla Dargis in New York:
…one of the pleasures of the movies is that they transport us, as Neytiri does with Jake, into imaginary realms, into Eden and over the rainbow to Oz.
If the story of a paradise found and potentially lost feels resonant, it’s because “Avatar” is as much about our Earth as the universe that Mr. Cameron has invented. But the movie’s truer meaning is in the audacity of its filmmaking.
Few films return us to the lost world of our first cinematic experiences, to that magical moment when movies really were bigger than life (instead of iPhone size), if only because we were children. Movies rarely carry us away, few even try. They entertain and instruct and sometimes enlighten. Some attempt to overwhelm us, but their efforts are usually a matter of volume. What’s often missing is awe, something Mr. Cameron has, after an absence from Hollywood, returned to the screen with a vengeance. He hasn’t changed cinema, but with blue people and pink blooms he has confirmed its wonder.
With 32 critics weighing in, Avatar can now confidently claim its place among the best-reviewed movies of the year. It might be worth remembering that most of us felt The Dark Knight’s stellar metascore of 82 would be enough to vault it into the Best Picture circle. Avatar stands at 84.
Manola Dargis talks about the impact of 3D after the cut.
It’s a world that looks as if it had been created by someone who’s watched a lot of Jacques Cousteau television or, like Mr. Cameron, done a lot of diving. It’s also familiar because, like John Smith in “The New World,” Terrence Malick’s retelling of the Pocahontas story, Jake has discovered Eden.
An Eden in three dimensions, that is. In keeping with his maximalist tendencies, Mr. Cameron has shot “Avatar” in 3-D (because many theaters are not equipped to show 3-D, the movie will also be shown in the usual 2), an experiment that serves his material beautifully. This isn’t the 3-D of the 1950s or even contemporary films, those flicks that try to give you a virtual poke in the eye with flying spears. Rather Mr. Cameron uses 3-D to amplify the immersive experience of spectacle cinema. Instead of bringing you into the movie with the customary tricks, with a widescreen or even Imax image filled with sweeping landscapes and big action, he uses 3-D seemingly to close the space between the audience and the screen. He brings the movie to you.
A quick look at one measure of critics’ esteem, with the matascore rankings of the mainstream narrative films in English most often touted as BP contenders:
94 – The Hurt Locker
91 – No Country for Old Men (for comparison)
88 – Up
86 – Slumdog Millionaire (for comparison)
85 – An Education
84 – Avatar
83 – Fantastic Mr. Fox
83 – Star Trek
83 – Crazy Heart
83 – Up in the Air
82 – TDK (for comparison)
81 – District 9
80 – Coraline
DHE says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 5:47pm
While I’m looking forward to see what the hoo ha is about as much as the next man… some of the slobbering in the Avatar reviews is getting a little uncomfortable. Manohla Dargis saying “it’s changed movies and our world forever”? (Really? Would a movie like, say, District 9 be better off with a computer-generated Soweto?) I haven’t seen any *intelligent* quantifications of such hyperbole yet.
Color film changed movies somewhat, but not really. Are all movies going to be 3D now? I hope they get rid of those silly-ass glasses, then.
RRA says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 6:13pm
You know to have Ebert, NYT, and LAT to kiss your ass this big…..AVATAR must be something, whatever that something is.
nycguy123 says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 6:16pm
Change movies forever? Sorry, not with Cameron the only guy making ‘em. Hollywood is a business and the profit margins are very, very risky on this. It might work once – but this is no model for future product.
What Cameron came up with was impressive, but the story and characters were laughable. I’ll watch the “The Dark Knight” over this any day.
Sasha Stone says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 6:22pm
“You know to have Ebert, NYT, and LAT to kiss your ass this big…..AVATAR must be something, whatever that something is.”
Yup. It really can’t be hyped enough. Your minds will be blown.
unlikelyhood says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 6:34pm
This teaches me not to have faith in metascores.
I think the main problem is schadenfreude, which is supposedly what kept Spielberg from the podium until 1993. When you hype and produce on this level, many people root for you to fail – maybe they think *they* could have done so much more with $300 million. I wonder, do you think it hurts to have outsourced so much to New Zealand?
People forget that these “epics” tend to sweep a lot of non-acting categories, and that after members have voted for you that many times, they often say, well why not Best Picture too?
Hunter says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 6:46pm
@ Sasha
Some people don’t want their minds to be blown. Some people refuse to watch 3D. Some people think any expensive movie is automatically garbage. Some people think anything set in space in silly. Some people think movies should be about Albanian shepherds discussing the futility of life. Some people like arthouse movies, some people like slice-of-life movies, some people like High School Musical and some people like Kurosawa. The thing is, though, is that Avatar is not for some people.
It’s for everyone else.
Dan says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 6:57pm
Lots of people liked Abba and Boney M.
Andrew says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:20pm
I knew when Cameron was interviewed about this film 4 months ago that this would win Best Picture. There were actually prognosticators who were joking about Avatar’s prospects at that point – that it didn’t have a chance in hell to make it to top 10. The film just had that ring to it. Hurt Locker is not a film that will be memorable. Up In The Air (though I admit I haven’t seen it) will be memorable in a Jerry Maguire sort of way – good but not Best Picture material. Avatar will certainly win Best Picture – now reading these reviews I am certain of this. I am seeing it tomorrow in NYC on IMAX 3D (got the tickets a week ago). I will let you guys know what I think – but I’m pretty sure I’m not going to change my mind about this. Avatar is it. Bigelow will win Best Director because it’s too tempting to break that glass ceiling, but Avatar is Best Picture no doubt.
Jane says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:30pm
The difference between this and TDK is that with Avatar, most of the reviews are giving it high ratings because of the visuals and IN SPITE of the story/acting/script. Reviews for TDK were praising its story/acting/script first and foremost, which IMO, is a much stronger indicator.
Sasha Stone says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:38pm
Jane, I disagree. There is a certain awe that these reviews are expressing that comes around very rarely.
DHE says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:44pm
I am still trying to get an answer on why people think this is going to change the history of cinema, which is what people seem to be saying. I have yet to hear any real EXPLANATION of this besides “OMG! Your mind will be blown!” How does this translate into movies about real people on Planet Earth?
Mentally, I will be comparing this to “Princess Mononoke” and seeing if it holds up artistically and thematically. Since all reports indicate it’s a typical Cameron formula movie beneath the eye-popping visuals, I admit I’m skeptical. (I’m kind of surprised I haven’t seen anyone else mentioning Mononoke yet.)
Jane says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:45pm
I’ve yet to read a review that didn’t spend 10 paragraphs gushing about how beautiful the visuals were or how cool the action scenes are, and like 1/2 a paragraph discussing the actual characters/script.
Maybe the visuals are good enough to brush aside script problems but for an aspect that important (at least to me), I’d like to see people actually give it some weight and not just be all OMG PRETTY.
Dylan says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:51pm
DHE, your Mononoke reference….could you explain it a little further? I fail to see a connection.
DHE says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:51pm
I’m perfectly willing to praise it as an OMG PRETTY movie, since that too has its place. I’d just like some quantification of all the grandiose claims that are being made in advance over something that took years and armies and untold millions of dollars to create. I just don’t see how you’re going to replicate this on this scale on a regular basis. Give Cameron all the credit in the world for having labored on a masterpiece that blows us all away… but don’t overshoot the mark and make grandiose predictions about the future of cinema. It’s like saying that all Easter eggs will be Faberge from now on… or even just have one or two jewels on them. That didn’t happen.
DHE says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:54pm
Princess Mononoke is a very visually stunning movie about the outside world trying to rape the natural world, with a feral child-woman and a man from the outside developing an understanding, and an all-out war between the mystical spirits of the natural world and the encroaching forces of civilization and industry. (Wow, I can’t believe anyone needs an explanation of the thematic parallels here…)
Nick K. says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 8:03pm
Mononoke is a masterpiece. If Avatar is anywhere near the majesty of that film, then Cameron will have made a tour-de-force.
Tero Heikkinen says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 8:10pm
There’s no way on earth that Avatar would win Best Picture. Quite a disappointment, if you ask me.
Still a very good film, but not even close to the game changer as they said it would be.
Dances with Wolves is better.
DHE says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 8:12pm
Actually, I have another question about the future of cinema: is the expense and complexity of making blockbuster movies one day going to produce a movie that absolutely everyone loves, but that is *so* expensive and complex to produce that it cannot possibly turn a profit (even with every man, woman and child on the globe seeing it 10 times each)?
No, “Avatar” is not that hypothetical film, it will make its money back, but if we keep going down this road, eventually we’re going to hit a potentiality wall. I return to the “Faberge egg” analogy in that Faberge eggs could only be profitably produced for the aristocracy of Tsarist-era Europe (no one else could afford them)… and when the Tsars went, so did the eggs.
In that sense, I wonder if something like “Avatar” is a *trailing*, not a leading, indicator of where Hollywood is going.
Sasha Stone says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 8:14pm
Dances with Wolves better? No. Both are good in their own ways. I can’t even watch Dances with Wolves, though. Jane, not every film must delve deeply into character — some films are designed for a different kind of experience. Funnily enough, The Hurt Locker also deal with archetypes much the way Avatar does it’s just that Avatar has the sci-fi stigma. There is room for both kinds of film in the world of cinema. We’re lucky we have so many great options.
Tero Heikkinen says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 8:17pm
Sorry, Sasha.
I must go away for 2-3 weeks. I don’t think I can stand the Avatar hype no more. It’s a good film, but why not give The White Ribbon the same? We know that that IS the best film of the year, whereas Avatar has a trouble entering Top 30 (on my list, still a solid 4/5).
It’s irritating that one of my favourite websites’s every other post is about Cameron and his film.
I’ll be back.
Allie says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 8:19pm
I thought it was pretty much what I expected. GREAT visuals, ridiculous story. This is coming from someone who loves Titanic. And yes, Titanic has its share of script and cheesiness problems but I could get over it because of Kate and Leo’s charisma.
In Avatar, the actors just don’t have that. Sam Worthington is just dull and you’d think with a $300 million budget, they’d spend an extra 500 bucks on a decent dialect coach. Saldana is a little better but her character is basically a 2-dimensional Pocahontas ripoff.
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 8:31pm
Tero Heikkinen
Here’s the thing. After months of anticipation, we all finally get to see Avatar tomorrow. Tomorrow. It will only have one opening weekend, and this is it. The reviews all came out today.
I was only able to see The White Ribbon once, weeks ago, and we have published 6 or 8 articles about it.
I finally got my screener for The White Ribbon today, so I can watch it again and be able to talk and write about it with more confidence. I’ll be doing that very soon, ok?
But The White Ribbon is not opening on thousands of screens worldwide tomorrow. I’m sure other readers like to see discussions about movies that they actually have a chance to see.
You won’t have to wait long to see more posts about The White Ribbon. I promise you.
Tero Heikkinen says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 8:36pm
Ok. Great reply, Ryan.
I’ll hang on.
SaltireFlower says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 9:40pm
Just got back from watching it. It’s good, but the slobbering over it is off-putting. No it isn’t Star Wars, no it’s not like Jesus fucking your eyeballs, and no it isn’t a religious experience. That’s hyperbolic and not only is it a disservice to the film it ruins the credibility of some of the critics. What isn’t hyperbolic is to say that it’s one of the best films of the year. This has been a brilliant year for sci-fi and Avatar is the best of the sci-fi films.
It obviously has its flaws. It runs a little too long, the dialogue is incredibly cheesy, a lot of the supporting actors are over the top, and the plot of the white dude hanging out with noble, earth loving, but simple people is awfully familiar. It’s Dances with Wolves in space.
The world of Pandora is incredible though. James Cameron deserves a lot of credit for it and it’s more than just the effects. He’s created a whole eco-system, a whole culture and it feels real, not just like some CGI bullshit meant to dazzle the audience. Though some people are blinded by the science that doesn’t feel like Cameron’s intent, and I respect him for it. I really got swept away by it, which is what good sci-fi should do.
I don’t know where Avatar goes on my top 20 list yet, or if it should win Best Picture because there are still some films I haven’t seen. It does deserve a Best Picture nomination but I can see the backlash coming because of all the ridiculous hype. I just hope that the skeptics like me don’t get turned off by the overzealous fans and actually go see it and enjoy it for what it is.
Oshu Huddleston says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:55pm
To be fair, I don’t care to see Avatar, but I’m still here. I DO like to read the objective things people have to say about this (and other) movie(s), though, despite having to sift through hype and hate.
That being said, thanks to everyone who gave real, objective opinions about Avatar. I’m still not ever going to watch it, though.
fred says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 11:28pm
Avatar is 400 millions USD in production and promotion costs.
The studio will take about 50 % of the ticket sales (the other 50 % covering the distribution costs).
This means that this movie HAS TO make 800 millions of gross worldwide, in order to break even.
And that’s a lot of money !
As an exemple :
2012 made 156 millions USD stateside and 555 millions USD overseas. That’s only 711 millions USD in total.
So everybody in Hollywood MUST push like HELL !
Pedal my little squirrel !
By the way, which cateory Avatar is ? is it an animated film or a feature movie ? Or should it be in a category of it’s own ?
fred says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 11:47pm
Lets look at the figures.
If Avatar makes 70/75 millions USD on the first THREE days week ends in the US, it means it will make about 200/250 millions, may be 300 millions, stateside for a complete run.
So it will need to make 500/600 millions overseas in order to break even.
Not impossible, but not so easy.
Only the Harry Potter and the Pirates franchises could do it (and of course Titanic : 1200 millions USD overseas !!). But all these movies had somethings which made them able to attract the European audience, when i am not sure a sci-fi movie can have the same attraction.
j says:
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 11:52pm
For MC, non-mainstream ones up there but not in the convo:
35 Shots, Still Walking, Goodbye Solo betw Locker & Up
Tulpan tied with Up
Gomorrah, Beaches of Agnes, Ponyo betw Up & Education
Forbidden Lies & Passing Strange tied with An Education
Avatar & Dark Knight are tied now, but the latter has twice as many perfect scores.
arjay says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 1:14am
Saw Avatar earlier today (in NZ). SPOILERISH
Pretty great film. There’s a definite Gaia theme in the movie, which totally works. When James Lovelock invented the word Gaia, it was meant to be a metaphor for the interconnectedness of living things in the biosphere. Well, storytelling is metaphor, so Cameron has taken that idea and brought it to life. On Pandora everything really is interconnected.
Occassional silly dialogue. Pretty decent story. Everyone will rave about the “visual effects” which is actually kind of a vague term. What really makes Avatar is not simply the technology but the design. A lot of thought has gone into the look of Pandora and it’s fantastic.
Rob Y says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 1:35am
Just came back from seeing it. I was disappointed by the last 30 minutes. The special effects were spectacular! The acting was great. And the story was very intriguing . . . until the last half hour. It’s in this last half hour that my opinion changed. Why did Cameron need to go anti-military? It really bothered me.
Reichdome says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 1:53am
I mention a few facts…first and i caution all of you esp the writers on this site…just cause Avatar gets a globe nomination does NOT guarantee it or give it greater hope of getting a best picture nomination. AS a barometer of its chances look at the Dark Knight…snubbed snubbed and snubbed DISGRACEFULLY in ALL major categories in best pic, director screenplay for globes….my question therefore to all of you is this IF a film as real, confronting and innovative- circa imax camera in a major blockbuster film not to mention the nature of the story does not make it to the major noms…how on earth is it even comprohensibly possible for anyone here to realisticaly expect Avatar to have a chance of getting a best picture nomination let alone director or screenplay? Point and fact: The Dark Knight got snubbed for its astonishingly innovative director and picture categories yet had more than the credibility Avatar could hope to gain in the voting block the academy more often than not determines which film wins best pic- the acting category. Clearly last year double standards and hypocrisy were exposed in Hollywood in snubbing TDK except funnily enough this year we have a sci-fi film who’s hype is driven by the merits of technical vidsuals to compensate for acting…the way it goes is this if indeed this film does get nomination in all major categories…bar acting….then it will reflect and further expose public anger at the awards shows for snubbing what has uinquestionably gone down as a landmark contemporary cinematic achievment both through acting and technical camera work, and story execution. Can a film win without actors defining the story and the concept and the execution of a film? the ONLY reason why rotk did it was as great as that was it was universally agreed that it was long overdue recognition for the greatest trilogy of our generation – at the very least.
Also let’s not forget weta’s hand in this is invaluable in maiking Cameron’s vision come true…and the hype about motion capture achievements in avatar amongst many technical things in that filmc clearly, bearing in midn the weta factor originate from technology implemented in its origins from the ring’s series has anyone given credit tyo thge rings for making avatar technically possible? noooo- what did rings deliver technically and in character performance and scripting through even one of those 3 films? its contribution to cinema is unquestionably far and away greater than what Avatar could relaistically deliver…
Sasha talks about trasnporting us to another world..heaps praise on avatar aS THOUGH it hasn’t been done before the fact that cameron used weta to help his vision gain the hieghts of achievement in Rings is a credit to Weta and hence the technology they pioneered in “Rings” furthermore, the fact that motion capture weas used to generate digital characters made relaistic with lighting, flesh skin and expressions, is merely and expansion on weta’s extraorinary tehcnological achievement in bringing gollum smeagol to life.
AS such the Academy surely realistically knows the need to keep a sense of hstorical perspective and they will see through Avatr’s supposed “groundbreaking” acheivements to see it clearly derives from and is a credit to weta’s ecord breaking achievement with the slew of technological awards that the Ring’s trilogy wonm they know wehere the respective places of history are and they know too that Avayat is based purely on fiction with no semblance to any sense of historical or contemporary reality…..where Avatar MAY stumble cme oscar time is that fact that the Rings trilogy as recent as 2003 oscars was bestowed its achievement as a ocne in a decade groundbreaking cinemastic wonder.
Avatar will be seen as an expansion of the technical wizardry that brought middle earth so convincingly to life anbd the monsters, etc…as for it chances of winning effects and tech categories realistically at best, well, it depends more on the strength of its rivals rather than the supposed milestone of it cinematic technical achievment.
Seen through the prism of oscar’s rule of thumb they arenot yet ready to embrace sci fi otherwise surely they would have nominated district 9 in critics circles, globes and bfca which clearly had a much mroe original story with little to no cleches and dared to reinvent the finest of all infamous cleches the alien invading erarth theme turned on its head when we talk about boldness and innovative please let calm down about Avatar and focus on films that have very storng characters that are unforgettable- District 9 even without seeing avatar is much more real as it has real people in real seriously grim bleak and tense situations…
So to conclude, as per oscars rule regardless what happens during awards season expect hurt locker and up in the air to be more seriously considered when the snubbed andy serkis as gollum they knew they have to wait at least a decade before giving recognition to relaism in acting through digital recreations….as a one off film, Avatar is at risk of being a star wars more than anything in oscars eyes. please let all bge realistic here.
Damo says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 2:22am
I saw it last night here in Australia. It’s amazing and a lock for best pic.
Reichdome says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 3:57am
..and even IF it is a lock for best pic and still it a VERY big IF ok twice the chance means a sci fi effects driven film goes from being an improbable IF to a very big one. Guys and girls have we not learnt oscars triple bottom line, accutely shallow but sadly real folklore, wrong it may be it the reality and i and other film lovers the world over cannot sway what oscar does…and nor will the globes for that matter either it will merely be coincidental that after a whopping huge 3 months….that a film that wins at the globes matches oscars pic…with so much time passed between then rest assured oscar have done this with the secondary purpose of increasing their independence as to the decision they make as final as to who wins trhe big awards….
oscars folklore is as follows:
Comic book characters in a movie adapted from a graphic novel (let us omit that fact and call it ‘comic’- even if the dark knight obviously was not) have no chance in hell (maybe with 10 nomination categories for best pic it may have a bit more of a chance hypothetically if it wer eout this year rather than last JUST a bit
2. visual effects driven sci fi fantasy films- are not and never have been favoured by the academy….otherwise, 2001 would have swept all before it instead, trhat film was snubbed.
Finally, just cos I say i THINK Avatar is not a definitive cinematic breakthrough does not mean before seeing it i believe it has not contributed a few significant things to cinema…after all ideally each oscar nominated film should contribute something to cinema as an art form but not every contribution by every major effects driven film is the catalyst for setting precedent for future films…at this point this is where my debate with Avatar lies…but i dont deny it would be great to see a sci fi effects driven film nominated in all major categories…
But if that is to be the case there is most cetainly a case for “District 9″ incidentally a film set in a extrmeley realistic environment with real -life currently happening issuies of refugees adnd relocation programs and the like- transpse the refugee with aliens and you have a work of pure genius…
Remains to be seen whether i think Avatar can measure out up to such level of genius…
Just cos it’s an event film and directed by titanic does not mean it is genuinely revolutionary in changing the face of cinema few films have and the best you get is one film a decade defining this we had this already with return of the king- it extremely rare near unheard of in film history for a film more than once a decade in film entire history to reach and even exceed such high influential standards in cinema.
IT remains to be seen whether Avatar will be influential or a once off. GBut don’t bank on Avatar as a lock for best pic- YET
Matthias says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 4:13am
Saw it yesterday, loved it. I resisted it because the trailers didn’t seem like anything particularly special to me. But it does indeed transport you to this other world that is constructed with so much care that it produces a feeling that is rarely seen in films, especially sci-fi, these days: wonder. SF should do that, and most of the time, outer space feels mundane. It doesn’t here.
This is thanks in no small degree to the 3D which is pleasantly unobtrusive, so much so that you forget you’re wearing the glasses and the three-dimensional becomes just another part of the immersion in this world.
Cameron is not the world’s best screenwriter and this has already plagued Titanic somewhat – he has a penchant for the trite and recycled in his dialogue and his seemingly boundless imagination stops just short of dreaming up truly original *narratives* (Avatar is some sort of Dances With Wolves with aliens, yes), but so long as that story works, why not? Neither Aliens not Terminator, not Titanic for that matter, were unpredictable and novel. Yet all of those, and Avatar too, are immense entertainment… which is one of the things the movies had better deliver once in a while. And what many blockbuster directors don’t understand, Cameron does: Even if the proceedings are meant for a general audience that may not be the most sophisticated, you can still have both themes and emotion in it… which I didn’t really see in either Terminator Salvation or Transformers 2 this year.
Mike C. says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 4:40am
I still have to see it to judge it, but I don’t get the hate about the story. It’s an old, archetypal story. The Hero’s Journal, life among the “savages,” etc. Didn’t Star Wars get ripped back in the day for being “silly”? That had well-worn plot tropes, too, relying heavily on the monomyth/hero’s journey archetype, as well as cinematic influences such as The Searchers and The Hidden Fortress. Wasn’t Indiana Jones derivative, too? Spielberg has pretty much said that Jones is just a new spin on James Bond. Yet the character and the movies remain memorable, too. Hell, even Coppola said The Godfather was in many ways a retelling of King Lear. Based on what I’ve read/seen/heard, Cameron did the same here, relying on his influences but making them his own in the end.
As for the phony either/or competition between this and The Dark Knight, it’s a non-starter. First, and I say this as a huge TDK fan, the Nolans’ script was riddled with holes (Gordon faking his death, Dent outing himself as “the batman,” the Joker seemingly aware of how every. single. thing. would happen), but the movie works as a pure cinematic experience. It is the product of a filmmaker with a very ambitious and exciting vision. As for comparative Oscar chances, if there were 10 spots last year, TDK would have gotten in. Avatar will be nominated for Best Picture and it is a heavy threat to take the big prize, especially if audiences love it.
Carson Dyle says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 4:42am
It’s OK. I liked it better when it was called Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Which I only saw for the first time recently. And I thought it was far more visually impressive.
And you know what it had? Well-written characters. Genuine humour and charm.
It was also much, much better when it was called Dances With Wolves. Cameron’s dialogue is just woeful, and apart from Saldana and Ribisi, the performances are empty vessels. Especially Worthington, but Lang as well – I can’t believe the raving about Lang. He was so much better in Public Enemies than this. And it’s not his fault: Quartich is possibly one of the blandest villains I’ve seen of late. No quirks, no foibles… it’s basically a Chris Cooper role on autopilot. And after seeing so many great villains from Cameron, it’s a disappointment. Look no further than Biehn in The Abyss, or David Warner in Titanic for a really fun villain. This guy’s just not doing anything of interest.
And I think Michelle Rodriguez delivers the most punchable character in film history since Rufio from Hook. Awful.
The Mo-cap is amazing, and the CG is as well, but why is it suddenly acceptable to rave over a film that has a weak story when the visuals are impressive? I didn’t see it, but tripe like 2012 got pulled apart for having “Great special effects, but an awful story with awful writing.” So did Transformers. Granted, Avatar is a rung above, but, honestly people. What’s the point of gizmos and techniques when you don’t give a hoot about the characters? Or when you know exactly what’s going to happen, when it’s going to happen, a long time before it’s happened?
Give me The Dark Knight any day of the week, thanks.
Mike C. says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 4:42am
Sorry, that should read: It is the product *of a filmmaker* with a very ambitious and exciting vision.
Sasha Stone says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 5:35am
“What’s the point of gizmos and techniques when you don’t give a hoot about the characters?” Because YOU don’t give a hoot about the characters doesn’t mean others feel that way. You all know how much I loved Dark Knight but I think Avatar is better. Cameron’s films are always going to be what they are, character-wise. That is why Titanic is both the best movie and the worst movie. Avatar follows along those same lines – it wasn’t written by a hipster with fanboys in mind, like almost every other movie today. Cameron is of a different generation. I cared about all of the characters — the Na’vi especially.
Sasha Stone says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 5:39am
“Why did Cameron need to go anti-military? ”
I don’t see how he was going anti-military. One horrid military leader doesn’t mean the movie is anti-military. Anti-raping the natural world for resources perhaps…
Plum says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 8:48am
Didn’t love it all that much. Mindblowing special effects, amazingly detailed, visually-beautiful universe – but terrible dialogue, superficial characters, and awfully predictible storyline.
The Dark Knight had a good plot, competent screenplay, and charismatic actors doing their best. You can’t really compare both things.
And Kevin (the bird from Up) was way cooler than the Thanator.
Brad12c says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 9:11am
Wow. When Awards Daily shills for a movie, they go all out, don’t they?
I guess you are not allowed to dislike Avatar on this website.
arjay says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 9:27am
Avatar isn’t anti-military. The Na’vi fight back with their own primitive military. They are warriers after all. It’s using the military for colonisation and destroying the environment that the movie objects to.
unlikelyhood says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 12:11pm
Reichdome: Talk less, read history more.
You say they hate sci-fi/fantasy. I say it’s not the genre, but that they haven’t had enough proper bait in those genres.
One reason they snub them is because no one else is giving those films any awards. What fantasy films other than LOTR were ever snubbed? Labyrinth? Highlander? NeverEnding Story? Gotta be kidding me.
What sci-fi films should have been nominated more than they were? Star Wars got its Oscars. Sigourney Weaver got her sci-fi nom. If we go back and name the now-critical favorites like Blade Runner, Terminator, and Brazil, take a look at how many year-end awards they had pre-Oscar: just about zero. You can hardly expect the Academy to diverge WILDLY from all the precursors.
2001 was hardly snubbed, they invented a special Oscar for it, and they nominated it for Director, Script, and Art Director. Gary Oldman has never been nominated for anything – *he’s* been snubbed.
The Dark Knight was my favorite film of 2008. Yes, they missed the ball on that. Doesn’t mean it’s a categorical error. I wrote a long article for an academic journal regarding District 9 – did a lot of research on Blomkamp and South African politics. Love the film. But come on. For one thing, Academy voters know no one involved except Jackson. And another, NO PRECURSORS. Are you seeing a theme to my message here?
Your biggest mistake is to underestimate the “epic” film. Time and time again, Oscar has ignored the issue of good acting and hitched its star to the epic. Braveheart wasn’t even supposed to be nominated; it won. Ridley Scott said that the word Oscar never came up during the entire making of Gladiator; it won. Didja think Ben-Hur swept the Oscars or Dances With Wolves beat Goodfellas or Titanic beat LA Confidential because of great acting or great writing? No. No one thinks that. Every Oscar watcher on this site besides you shakes their head and says it again and again: epic, epic, epic. I’ll grant that 2154 is not a typical year for a film to be set that Oscar would categorize as epic. But if Avatar becomes this year’s epic, everything you wrote will be wrong.
Carson Dyle says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 2:37pm
“Avatar follows along those same lines – it wasn’t written by a hipster with fanboys in mind, like almost every other movie today.”
So if you don’t like Avatar, you’re a hipster, or a fanboy? Well, maybe. But I mean, I enjoyed Titanic. It succeeded as a cinematic experience because it had A: Dramatic tension, B: Naturally gifted actors, and C: Characters with weaknesses, quirks, and foibles. Avatar has none of these, or at least, not in any quantity. Saldana fulfills B. But she’s it. And it’s not about knowing what’s going to happen, obviously everyone knows what’s going to happen in Titanic. It’s about when it’s going to happen, and who it’s going to happen to. Avatar plods along such a worn-down formula that nothing is a surprise, at all.
Don’t worry, I’ve seen all of Cameron’s other films, save his IMAX docos, but I don’t think they’re applicable here – while the guy does have some truly risible dialogue and a lot of really God-awful characters, he pulls through in a lot of other areas, script-wise. Take the scene where Ed Harris brings Mary Elizabeth Shoulda-Got-A-Stage-Name back to life in The Abyss. Excellent writing. And those are really well written characters, cast extremely well. Another example would be Sarah Conner ordering a critically wounded Kyle Reese around at the end of The Terminator. Those are genuine pieces of great writing. Avatar just plain has none of those moments. At all. It does have brilliant visuals and technology to boast.
But I can’t believe I’m being called out for wanting a good story well told. That’s a laugh. Normally Sasha, I agree with your critical opinion, but the 85-odd Avatar articles are starting to wear.
Sasha Stone says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 3:33pm
“Wow. When Awards Daily shills for a movie, they go all out, don’t they?
I guess you are not allowed to dislike Avatar on this website.”
I think you haven’t been around long enough or else you wouldn’t make such a statement. If I were shilling for it I would be getting paid, no? I just loved the movie. I see people being overly and pointlessly critical of it – if that’s the road you want to take, fine, but in my opinion, you simply rob yourself of a great experience at the movies. But by all means, go for it. I’m certainly not shilling for Avatar and you are allowed to hate on the movie but don’t expect me not to defend it, which is really what my own passionate coverage has been about. I see so many people ready to tear this one down – you know, it’s just getting old. The endless overly critical chatter has only way out: the world be robbed of films entirely thus to quiet those who continually feel that what they’re getting isn’t good enough, even if it’s as good as Avatar is.
Sasha Stone says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 3:37pm
Plum, I disagree. The Dark Knight was a predictable film too but told really well and with great action scenes and set pieces, just like Avatar — the difference is that Jim Cameron invented his own world as opposed to dwelling in an already accepted and known one.
The Natural says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 3:52pm
I never realized being anti-military was a bad thing. Soldier, maybe, but the idea of military is something no one should have to endorse.
Carson Dyle says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 4:21pm
The Dark Knight was predictable? I dunno, I just didn’t see Joker’s survival, Dent’s death, and only a phyrric victory for Batman and Gordon coming.
Wheras in Avatar, the ending was pretty much earmarked from the get-go, and then hilariouly prepped with the first attempt at Permanent Blueness For Pathetic Human. “Her spirit was weak. But, like, we can totally still do it. You’ll be fine when we eventually reach that scene.”
Even better was the whole “Only 5 people have ridden this beastie in history. They are legends. You are a clumsy idiot. There was a sign, so I’ve got faith, but you will never ride this thing. Ever. Not ever at all.”
And can someone explain to me why, at the beginning, Ribisi does the Unobtanium Exposition Scene to Weaver? Who would have been there for ages, and would know all this stuff?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not the kind of guy who goes into a movie intending to pick apart every scene, every aspect of the production. There are plenty of movies where I can switch my brain off and let it wash over me. And Avatar did that at times. A lot of the early scenes in the Pandoran wilderness were really impressive, and quite immersive. And, I mean, my second favourite film of the year was Star Trek. I’m not adverse to simple, balls-to-the-wall fun. And I mean, hell, that didn’t have a great story, but it did have great characters. And great performances. So it compensated.
What I’m trying to say is, I can switch my brain off, but when a scene comes around that is just thudderingly stupid, I can’t look around it. It drags me right out of the experience. I don’t have an agenda. While I was unimpressed with some of the early glimpses, I started to become quite intruiged and began to look forward to the film. And, as I stress, it’s not a bad film. It’s just a poorly-written one. And while some films can overcome a weak script, this one doesn’t, really.
Plum says:
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 4:38pm
Carson Dyle, you spared me an awful lot of typing. I subscribe what you said in your last two posts.
I too felt the storyline of The Dark Knight was far more engaging, complex, and entertaining than Avatar’s – but to each their own, and it’s pointless to keep comparing these two very different films. Avatar was a disappointment to me because I felt all its beauty and great visual effects didn’t have the impact they might had if they add a good plot to back it. I mean, the narrative was so flat and predictible, the dialogue was at times painful (could Trudy say ‘bitch’ any more times?) and overall it sort of dragged a bit at the end. It just didn’t have much emotional resonance with me after a while.
Was it a good film? Yes, it was, a terrific cinematic experience that it will rightfully get a Best Picture Nomination and sweep all technical award there is. Was it THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY FILM of all time? Probably not.
(Plus, the ‘happy ending’ sort of bothered me. If the precious mineral was so important, would that final battle really keep the greedy humans from coming back to get it afterwards, probably in bigger numbers and with bigger weapons?)
Reichdome says:
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 1:20am
Hey whatever the special award was that 2001 won unless it literally was: “best picture” thenit was not best picture. Now I do not profess to be a historian, but I do know the rules of Oscar inn their trends. Those other films you mentiion being snubbed were no wherenearthe hype and magnitude supposedly of “Avatar” and hence concerning the benchmark better known mainstream films, like “2001″ whenever there has been a big sci-fi/fantasy film hyped and by critics circles it has been snubbed
We all knoow how the academy think and certainly too reinforce that i not trying to prove whether im “right or wrong” IF “Avatar” is as “game changing or revoltionary as critics eetc make it out to be then indeed i tooo willl back Avatar- However i am just being a realist in seeing the scenario through oscar’s eyes. ATM I do believe films about real events in reeal settings and draw upon reflections of a part of society (ala, Million Dollar Baby, Slumdog Millionaire, Crash, No country for old men and even “The Departed”- which in the post “Rings” era- STILL THE ONLY FANTASY FILM TO WIN THE BIG PRIZE THROUGH ALL OSCAR HISTORY, is a trend of 5 out of last 5 years for socially driven themed films winning- Having said that it certainly gives me great hope that IF I convinced Avatar is asgreat as everryone says -when i finally see it tomoz! that the field opens much broader horizons for future contenders..
Then i HOPE AND PRAY THAT oscar as it once was in its origins- reflects both critics and mainstream desires…If indeed Avatar’s globe nom translates into oscar nom then that is great for cinema.
The only question I have is as it was only 5 years ago the Rings movie win opened the floodgates to fantasy winning is it too much for the Academy toembrace a new benchmark
And to thoose of you who are unfairlly critical of Sasha, you should allapplaud her for highlightingand expressing passion for what i hoppe is inovative geny fillmmmakinng keep it up sasha