Roger Ebert: "Avatar is an extraordinary film with a flat-out Green and anti-war message"

[Better Believe It]

- Avatar should have won best picture as opposed to "Hurt Locker" in my opinion. Ebert also liked the "Hurt Locker" but obviously not as much as Avatar. Read both of his reviews. -



Avatar
BY ROGER EBERT
December 11, 2009

Watching "Avatar," I felt sort of the same as when I saw "Star Wars" in 1977. That was another movie I walked into with uncertain expectations. James Cameron's film has been the subject of relentlessly dubious advance buzz, just as his "Titanic" was. Once again, he has silenced the doubters by simply delivering an extraordinary film. There is still at least one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million, or was it $300 million, wisely.

"Avatar" is not simply a sensational entertainment, although it is that. It's a technical breakthrough. It has a flat-out Green and anti-war message. It is predestined to launch a cult. It contains such visual detailing that it would reward repeating viewings. It invents a new language, Na'vi, as "Lord of the Rings" did, although mercifully I doubt this one can be spoken by humans, even teenage humans. It creates new movie stars. It is an Event, one of those films you feel you must see to keep up with the conversation.

The story, set in the year 2154, involves a mission by U. S. Armed Forces to an earth-sized moon in orbit around a massive star. This new world, Pandora, is a rich source of a mineral Earth desperately needs. Pandora represents not even a remote threat to Earth, but we nevertheless send in ex-military mercenaries to attack and conquer them. Gung-ho warriors employ machine guns and pilot armored hover ships on bombing runs. You are free to find this an allegory about contemporary politics. Cameron obviously does.

The Na'vi survive on this planet by knowing it well, living in harmony with nature, and being wise about the creatures they share with. In this and countless other ways they resemble Native Americans. Like them, they tame another species to carry them around--not horses, but graceful flying dragon-like creatures. The scene involving Jake capturing and taming one of these great beasts is one of the film's great sequences.

At 163 minutes, the film doesn't feel too long. It contains so much. The human stories. The Na'vi stories, for the Na'vi are also developed as individuals. The complexity of the planet, which harbors a global secret. The ultimate warfare, with Jake joining the resistance against his former comrades. Small graceful details like a floating creature that looks like a cross between a blowing dandelion seed and a drifting jellyfish, and embodies goodness. Or astonishing floating cloud-islands.

I've complained that many recent films abandon story telling in their third acts and go for wall-to-wall action. Cameron essentially does that here, but has invested well in establishing his characters so that it matters what they do in battle and how they do it. There are issues at stake greater than simply which side wins.

Please read the full review at:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091211/REVIEWS/912119998/1023

----------------------------------------------------------

Critics Reviews Average Grade: A-

Boston Globe
Ty Burr "It’s easy to get lost in the visually spectacular world ..." more... A-

Chicago Tribune
Michael Phillips "The first 90 minutes of Avatar are pretty terrific -- a full-immersion technological wonder with wonders to spare. The other 72 minutes, less and less terrific." more... B

E! Online
Luke Y. Thompson "...an immersive epic unlike any other." more... A

Entertainment Weekly
Owen Gleiberman "...likely to leave audiences simultaneously amazed and unmoved." more... B

Filmcritic.com
Bill Gibron "This is a sumptuous film, overflowing with detail and delicate touches which counteract the massive firepower and mechanical/animal menace on display." more... A

Hollywood Reporter
Kirk Honeycutt "A titanic entertainment -- movie magic is back!" more... A

Los Angeles Times
Kenneth Turan "You've never experienced anything like it, and neither has anyone else." more... A-

New York Post
Lou Lumenick "...it’s rarely less than absorbing and never boring over its nearly three-hour length." more... A-

New York Times
Manohla Dargis "...glorious and goofy and blissfully deranged." more... A

Reelviews
James Berardinelli "...the most technically amazing motion picture to have arrived on screens in many years..." more... A

Rolling Stone
Peter Travers "Cameron's talent may just be as big as his dreams." more... A-

San Francisco Chronicle
Amy Biancolli "...a monumental feast for the eyes." more... B

USA Today
Claudia Puig "For all the grandeur and technical virtuosity of the mythical 3-D universe Cameron labored for years to perfect, his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected." more... B

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809804784/critic

[quinnox]

1. And I still don't want to see it

Are you on a campaign or something for Avatar. This is strange, all these threads about some silly movie.

[Better Believe It]

9. Why don't you want to see it? It received mainly great reviews and it exceeded my expectations.

Judge the movie for yourself, don't just depend upon me, other DU'ers or movie critics for guidance.

But, tens of millions of people wouldn't go see it if it were a piece of crap as some have claimed here.

It's not Ishtar!

:)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. ROFL...millions of people saw "Twilight" and "Titanic". you think those are great movies?

[EOTE]

68. I thought Titanic was pretty darned good.

Like "Avatar", it set the standard for what is possible in film for years to come. There's not a chance I'd see "Twilight", but "Avatar" is a groundbreaking film, and I enjoyed it immensely, in spite of many problems I had with the plot.

[OnyxCollie]

104. I watched Twilight the other day on cable.

I found it more entertaining than No Country for Old Men that I had rented the day before.

I've got a B.A. in mass media and a minor in ethnomusicology. I've worked at three radio stations for five years. The first thing I learned is: "Never put yourself above a good pop song."

[Better Believe It]

108. Titanic was a very good movie. I and my spouse enjoyed it a lot.

[Bicoastal]

14. Well it DID have a major international release that other, smaller movies would kill for...

...and that had absolutely nothing to do with its quality.

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. There are plenty of movies that get a huge release and are

shuttled down to the 75 seat screens within two weeks because nobody is going to see them after the first week.

In any multiplex you have a few large auditoriums and many smaller ones - Avatar stayed in the big ones for weeks because people were still flocking to see it.

The size of the release is immaterial. It's butts in the seats that counts. Crap does not put butts in the seats.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

67. Once again, I'll point to Twilight. Crap that put "butts in the seats".

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. For three weeks. Once it burned through the teenage girl demographic

it disappeared.

Avatar has been playing to good houses for three months.

After three months, Twilight was in the $1.50 theaters.

[hyphenate]

119. Ah, but the inverse is also true

Many very good movies don't get a lot of butts in seats because they don't appeal to the "stupid" parts of America where Sarah Palin (and others like her) are the best thing since Spic and Span!

Let's face it: say the word "sub-titles" when you mention a movie, or "documentary" or the word, "foreign," and people will head for the hills. Can't say too many people have likely heard of "The Barbarian Invasions" or "The Sea Inside" or "Sita Sings the Blues": they aren't on the lips of too many people, but they're all Oscar winners or nominees, and they're all good films.

It's time to get rid of the attitude that only good films make gads of money, and that poor films are all losing money. Sometime the best film is the one that is almost shuttled directly to DVD instead of airing in front of the world. If that had happened, Slumgdog Millionaire would never have come to the world at large and become a film vastly enjoyed by many.

[quinnox]

18. I probably will one day but

I have too many movies to see in my netflix queue right now. And generally I don't like movies that have a lot of animation or that look cartoony, I'm not a fan of too much CGI and effects.

[Dorian Gray]

52. Popularity is not necessarily a testament to how great a work of art something is.

I am one of the people who didn't like Avatar. I thought the cinematography was pretty impressive, but the script, acting, and story were stupid, cliche-ridden, and (worst of all!) boring. Action movies aren't for everyone. The message was fine, but the delivery insults some people's intelligence.

It's just the way it is.


Not everyone is going to agree with reviews of movies. I love Roger Ebert, too, and often agree with his movie reviews. This one? Not.

[verges]

39. Strange?

It's the day after the "Oscars". Why would it be strange to be talking about movies? Avatar IS the top grossing film of all time. It didn't win best picture. That, to some folks seems strange.

Personally, I'm not surprised that "Hurt Locer" won Best Picture. I'm also not surprised that there's a lot of discussion about Avatar not winning. It would have been stranger if there hadn't.

[quinnox]

42. right but

the OP was the second thread they started about Avatar not winning. Thats what I meant. Its almost like a campaign or something.

[Kalyke]

58. I don't either.

I've seen the plot in Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves with blue people.

As for special effects? Gahhhhh... you get those in a lot of movies.

And 3-D has been around for a few decades. Big Whoop.

[bigwillq]

72. I have no desire to see it either.

Sci-fi,CGI films are not my thing. But I have no issues with others seeing it or enjoying it. Of those that I personally know, it's been pretty much a mixed bag. Some have loved it, some thought the visuals were amazing but the story fell flat and others didn't like it at all.

[kenny blankenship]

78. I think it's worth seeing for the animation of plants and animal life of the Pandora world

I went to see it with family in 3D-Imax knowing that if I paid attention to the story I'd be burning to walk out of the theater in a few minutes. If somebody didn't drag me to Avatar I wouldn't see it myself - but I didn't go just as a family obligation. I knew that I would hate Avatar and yet if I didn't see it I would probably be missing something really good -even historic.

The way to watch Avatar IMO, is to ignore as far as possible the "story" and "characters" -and for God's sake don't listen to the "dialogue". Look beyond them to see the truly remarkable work done by the film's animators. Don't see, don't hear the Stupid in the foreground. Tune it out. Look at the world past the shoulders of the "characters". Just wait for chance to see more of it - you won't have to wait long and the wait is well worth it. And yes, I'm aware of the irony latent in praising the beauty of an artifact of capitalism which strives to teach us to cherish the natural world, by creating a totally artificial and imaginary one through the use of hundreds of millions of dollars of high technology, and burning astronomically high volumes of fossil fuels in the process of its creation and distribution.

[troubledamerican]

112. Zero interest in Avatar for me.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. And your point is...?

[Lex]

3. Try not to take these things personally. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Except for that whole part cheering the war against the bad guys.

Bad guys = Al Qaeda. Good guys = Americans. Big tree = WTC.

[Nostradammit]

46. Wait a minute...

Are you actually suggesting that the Na'vi in Avatar are supposed to represent the United States?

Seriously??! The technically advanced Al Qaeda destroyed the revered "home tree" of the WTC???

Wow. I suppose in your mind the Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings represented Nazi Germany, huh?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Yup.

"Wow. I suppose in your mind the Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings represented Nazi Germany, huh?"

No. The Hobbits are the good guys. They represent the Brits.

[rhett o rick]

54. You cant be serious.

The imperialistic army was trying to exterminate an indigenous race to gain access to their resources. Very similar to Columbus and the Spanish on Haiti against the Arawak Indians. Or the United States extermination of the Native Americans for land.

"Rationalization is the key to happiness". You seem very happy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. I've very happy being rational, yes.

The movie was mostly about shit blowing up. That's what people paid to see. The idea that it's not pro-war and sends a liberal message is just a gimmick to get people to see it, because the people who claim that are too embarassed they liked watching shit get blown up.

It's like the people who thought the Matrix was all philosophical. Or that 300 was historical.

[rhett o rick]

88. Good grief, Charlie Brown. nt

[alphafemale]

118. Um...no

That was a representation of Military enforced imperialism from the halls of Montazuma to the dusty streets of Kabul.

[TayTay]

5. Who cares?

I haven't seen any of the films that were nominated last night and I don't believe I could care less which film, or actor, wins an award that has nothing to do with my life.

Why do you care about these non-events anyway?

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. If you care so little, why bother to post? nt

[TayTay]

17. To ask you the question I did

Who cares about a movie nomination or win?

Why are posting multiple threads about this non-issue?

[spanone]

20. non-issue to you. an issue to some. who cares who cares?

[TayTay]

23. Still can't anwer the question.

figures.

[eyepaddle]

35. Well, to answer your question as to "who cares"

I'd say a non-exhaustive list would include: 1) The people who start the threads, 2) (most of) the people who post in those threads, and 3) apparently a few million people who tune in and watch the proceedings and read the day-after coverage.

I'd guess there are other people who care, but that should be a good list, just to get you started.

[TayTay]

37. And the choice of who wins really matters to them?

And why is that?

[eyepaddle]

44. Yes, it would seem that the choice matters to them.

The "why" part is a separate question; and one I can't answer on their behalf.

My gut hunch is this: if you are really interested in finding out you should probably start out a little less truculently than you did. Or, if you wish to persuade that they place too much importance on this, well, you should start out a little less truculently than you did.

If however, you don't really care who they are, or why they feel that way, and just want to irritate, I'd say keep up the good work.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. I have a deep, abiding lack of interest in sports. I cannot comprehend

how people can get all worked up over sports unless 1) they are playing themselves, or 2) they have money on the game. The most extraordinary 2/3 court shot means absolutely nothing in the real world. Nothing anyone does in the future builds upon that shot. Nothing anyone did in the past led to that shot. Every moment in sports is singular.

The arts, OTOH, both build on previous concepts and productions, and lead to later developments. Eighty years after it came out, King Kong is recognized for its groundbreaking achievement in filmmaking. Eighty years from now, it will still be so recognized. And Avatar will also be recognized for its groundbreaking achievements. The acting, while not stellar, was solid and the direction was well above the average - but it will be written about in studies of the history of film for its outstanding new approaches in film technology. Just like King Kong in 1933.

THAT is why it is important. That is why it is an issue.

The Hurt Locker is a good film. In 40 years, nobody will remember it except afficianados. It broke no new ground as a film. It will be a footnote. Avatar will be an important film for generations. I'm not heartbroken it didn't win because I know it will be the one that will last.

EDIT: And I don't go into sports threads to say "Who cares?"

[Better Believe It]

19. Many of us enjoy good movies, listen to music and even watch TV!

Sorry, but we are human, live on Earth and enjoy being entertained. That's a big part of most humans life!

I've also gone to amusement parks, musicals and museums.

You need to get out more and enjoy life!

[TayTay]

21. And watch movies on cable, when they come out

on the service that is already paid for by monthly fees.

None of the nominated movies are yet on cable. Perhaps money is not an issue for you, but it is for a lot of us.

A lot of life is available in many forms. You should learn to sample some of it in it's freest forms.

[flamingdem]

6. Avatar is fabulous and it touched me emotionally, even though it was virtual nt

[slampoet]

7. Ebert ALWAYS picks the film that doesn't win. It has been that way for over 20 years.

[DirkGently]

15. Not this time

He picked "Hurt Locker," which won:

Of these three, I'm predicting “The Hurt Locker.” If one of the other seven wins, let's say I'll be very surprised.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100219/OSCARS/100219964

In fact, it looks like he nailed his predictions pretty well. 'Locker, Bridges, Bullock, Waltz.

[slampoet]

31. You are confusing his Predictions with his Picks.

The movie Picks are done before the nominations are announced and reflect the opinion of Ebert (and Gene Siskel when he was alive)


the Predictions are done once the nominations are announced and reflect the politics of the Oscar w/o the personal opinions of the critics.

[DirkGently]

74. Are you saying Ebert "picked" Avatar

for Best Picture? Interesting if true, but I don't see that it is. He mentions Avatar gets his "special jury prize," on the website, and then goes out of his way to say he's not calling it the best picture of the year. I'm not sure he even does that anymore.

[CBGLuthier]

16. Not this year.He picked The Hurt Locker

Despite what the OP is attempting to swing Ebert said The Hurt Locker would and SHOULD win.

[DirkGently]

26. JINX

:)

[dmallind]

8. Wasn't that called Dances with Wolves once?

[slampoet]

32. I think you mean "Little Big Man"....

[dmallind]

49. Never seen that one - you may be right!

[slampoet]

53. Rent it. You won't disappointed.

[rhett o rick]

55. I saw it when it came out. Yes I am old. But have it on my Netflix list to watch again. nt

[Oregone]

33. Two VERY different movies. Dances with wolves had good acting

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. Dances with Wolves starred Kevin Costner.

Costner can't act his way out of a turn at charades.

[OnyxCollie]

107. And after Dances with Wolves steals three hours of lifetime

(nearly four hours for the Director's Cut), it leaves with a fucking depressing ending.

Great.

[Bicoastal]

11. Look, get over it already. LOTS of movies I liked never won "Best Picture."

Although sometimes they did--like "Shakespeare in Love." Yes, I LOVED that movie. So sue me. :hide:

My point is that unlike, say, an olympic event, all art is subjective. The Oscars are all in good fun, for the most part.

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. I, also, loved "Shakespeare in Love".

The acting was sufficient, the direction was competent, and the script was OUTSTANDING. I loved the was the author drew in references from the streets which found their way into some of Shakespeare's most memorable lines. It was delightfully written and a writer's delight.

[Oregone]

12. Except the acting and script sucked

Yeah, it was pretty. But the motifs have been implemented hundreds of times already in other films, and the acting is dreadful.

But even with blue aliens running around, it was just as authentic as the Hurt Locker

[Better Believe It]

24. I thought the acting and script were two of the strongest points about the film.

It was believable sci-fi with believable characters.

[Oregone]

28. The human actors were miserable and cliche

The little blue dudes stole the screen

[eyepaddle]

40. I loved the Col. Quartich (sp?) character,

just a completely over-the-top hard-ass. I also liked Giovanni Ribisi as the shallow, corporate whore of a suit. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that "they stole the screen" but when the were on camera they delivered.

[Oregone]

"just a completely over-the-top hard-ass" - Precisely

Terribly cliche and dumbed down. The complexity of the human characters was about nil. Where was the internal strife? Where was the beaten back compassion, being overtaken by human aggression? The man had but a one track mind to embody the concept of 'evil' or 'bad', but life isn't as simple as that (Darth Vader had a wider range of human emotions & experience than that guy).

Robert Duvall as Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore did it first and did it better, in a much more layered way (as well as satirical)

[eyepaddle]

51. I saw it a bit differently,

The Colonel was a complete hard-ass, but I don't think he was evil--although the result of his work WAS evil. What he was, was completely unswervingly loyal to the mission that brought him to Pandora. He didn't shoot stuff just because he like to watch them writhe and hear them scream, he had a job to do, and if that meant shooting people and wiping out a culture, well, so be it.

But aside from that (very) subjective point I thought the performance was great. The character was committed to his job to the point of genocide and the actor did a good job of conveying that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. The 10' tall little blue dudes were ALSO human actors. Human actors

playing aliens.

Really, did you SEE the movie?

[Oregone]

79. Yes....by "human actors" I meant the actors playing humans

Almost all the human characters sucked. Very heavy handed and very cliche.

[Nothing Without Hope]

115. I agree. This film was powerful in part because it was full of archetypal characters

The Miles (Latin for "soldier," which is fitting) Quaritch character was over-the-top because he had to be. He was played by Stephen Lang, an excellent actor who knew exactly what he was doing.

Cameron's story and the acting made me care about the characters, so when the big fight came, I cared about that too. It all worked.

[CBGLuthier]

22. Ebert said this about Avatar winning

All hail "Avatar," yes, but the year's best picture? Give me a f--king break.

http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/7917020095


Spin baby spin.

[progressoid]

56. Ha ha ha ha! Give me a f--king break.

Love it! :rofl:

[NobleCynic]

25. Meh. UP should have won best picture.

Most adult and thoughtful children's film I've ever seen. And that includes Hayao Miyazaki films.

[upi402]

34. Avatar hits bullseye of target audience who need to see the message

Young folks have seen so much corporate BS that an anti-war, pro-environment film is the only balance to all the corporate crap in the air.

No, it's not a Merchant Ivory costume drama. It's not meant to appeal to many here. DUers can pan it with a sniff, and they'd be justified. But life on earth needs spoiled American gamers to 'get it'. And 'it' isn't unobtaniable.

[Bicoastal]

45. Best Pictures are not, should not be chosen for social importance ALONE.

I thought every last adult in America should have seen Fahrenheit 9/11. It was THAT important.

But I scoffed at Michael Moore trying to submit it for Best Picture, as it was far from the best film made in 2004.

[upi402]

110. alright

sniff

[LeftyMom]

105. "young folks" are already enviornmentalist and anti-war.

There's no need to pander to us, thanks.

But maybe somebody should make a cheesy movie starring gay aliens and sell it to the old folks, so they can learn to quit being such 'phobes. (If that sounds a teensy bit condescending, maybe you need to reevaluate your approach to generational politics.)

[upi402]

109. None that I know are

So many assume the TV News is accurate and complete -even liberal. This area has loads of college kids that are Republican. My stepson's friends are working poor but Republican. They couldn't care less about the planet. They think the media is liberal too. The only liberal young people around here are mine. Period. Take it or leave it. But people are easy to fool.

You are not necessarily the typical young person if you're posting here and not playing WoW, Halo, or hanging out. The kids on my kid's sports teams are little Republicans, due to their parents. Their parents are low information voters who may have CNN on in the background if not Fox. But you are mixing it up on a political board. Good on you, it's a bit unique.

Will many young people turn out for the Dems or Obama again? Do they think he's a Democrat?
So you assume I know nothing after all my years of activism. No worries, I was young and arrogant too. And hit the heel of my hand to my forehead more than once from it. Avatar counters a lot of well funded BS. I still debate climate deniers. But I'm getting tired of trying to hold back the tide.

You parents did a wonderful job with you it seems, and I hope you're grateful. And a bit of respect to those that worked to make your life better all their lives, asking nothing for themselves.

[LeftyMom]

111. I think you misunderstand who the typical young person is.

I know I'm not it (for one thing I'm rounding the corner headed for 30, and I've got a half-grown kid) but as a non-traditional student I do know a hell of a lot of young people. And you're not describing any young people that I know.

For that matter, one of the defining characteristics of younger generations is that they are intensely media savvy and fairly jaded in their interactions with established media. They're suspicious of preachiness and attempts to sell them things, which they don't tend to separate much.

[upi402]

120. You presented yourself as a young person and are not

Your deception discounts your assertion for me, leftymom. Thanks for full disclosure now, though. You feel young people are immune to propaganda and I know you're wrong.

[blueraven95]

27. he also said:

All hail "Avatar," yes, but the year's best picture? Give me a f--king break.

http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/7917020095

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Ah snap.

[Lagomorph]

113. I tried to watch it....

...but the cartoon before the movie went on for almost three hours.

[Nothing Without Hope]

30. I agree. It is stunning entertainment that stays with me, and the beauty is inspiring.

There is no question in my mind that for many reasons it is the best picture of the year. I disagree with those who say the acting and script were poor. In this medium, as opposed to a book, the story has to be condensed and simplified, yet powerful and emotionally interactive. It has to be carefully paced, ideally with a powerful epiphany and just the right amount of detail and narrative and it has to have characters that one can become involved with so as to vicariously share their experiences. Well-chosen and timed music enhances the emotional connection. It has to take you out of yourself. And it needs to make you think, so that after it is over it doesn't just evaporate from your mind like sugar candy. Avatar delivers as no movie has ever done before.

[cali]

36. Avatar celebrates violence and has the naive natives saved by

bwana. it's got laughable dialogue and zero character development. it's banal trite crap.

[Oregone]

38. Perhaps it would of been more effective if the blue dudes stood in front of the dozers

And got smashed to little blue juice.

It probably would of won the Oscar if the human's Avatar went around defusing the army's missles while riding on his little bird dinosaur thing. The movie just lacked badass stone cold explosives defusing to win anything

[Bicoastal]

50. Because there were NO badass explosions in Avatar.

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. Maybe, if you had watched the movie, you'd realize that what saved

the 'natives' was Gaia - the movie postulated a planet that was, truly, a personification of the Gaia concept, and when you come right down to it Sully didn't 'save' anything, unless you count his linking with the ancient tree to let it experience exactly what the invading humans were as 'saving' the planet - by those lights, Merry and Pippen saved middle-earth by getting Greybeard to see how Sarumon had given himself over to the Dark Lord, thus making THEM the heroes of the Ring Trilogy, not Frodo.

Maybe you should try watching movies as if they were a different medium from episodic television - there IS depth, if you learn how to recognize it.

[cali]

64. bwahaha. it was bwana saves the natives.

it was a bunch of special effects. it glorified violence. it had not one line of worthwhile dialogue. And no, dear, I don't watch movies like TV shows. I love movies, but I love movies that are complex and thoughtful- not that I don't enjoy a romp, but Avatar didn't even qualify as a good romp. It was a crashing bore.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. You make a good point in how bad the science in this science fiction was.

And thanks, also, for pointing out the deus ex machina ending. Just more shit in a shitty film.

And despite the deus ex machina ending, it's still three hours of the white male saving the day.

[Odin2005]

76. "Eywa" saved the natives, Jake just helped.

It wasn't Jake that caused all the wildlife to start attacking the troops.

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. Yah, don't bother.

They'd rather have their ideology than understand that this was REAL science fiction. They want the guy who turned him back on imperialism to be the epitome of imperialism.

Logic will not work on them.

[ShamelessHussy]

89. lol

so predictable

[anonymous171]

123. Nothing wrong with violence as long as it is aimed at the right people.

[Donnachaidh]

41. Cameron's "King of the World" comments came back and bit him square in the ass

I've seen Avatar -- I really love the movie. But Cameron left a LOT of bad blood with his attitude after Titanic. There's no other valid explanation except the Karmic snapping turtle got in it's licks.

:shrug:

[dionysus]

47. just because you're pimping this movie, i wont watch it now. happy?

[Better Believe It]

57. I like ice cream. Will you now stop eating ice cream? Please do!

Watch your tone there "dionysus".

You're demonstrating uncivil manners with your smart ass "pimp" remark.

Keep it up and I'll have to put you on ignore.

[Alexander]

60. Oh noes!!! Ignore! Some anonymous nobody on the Internet might use the Ignore function!

Run for your lives!

[Better Believe It]

83. Ask and you shall receive. You're on ignore!

Bye, bye.

[Alexander]

96. Ignore is for people who can't handle dissenting opinions.

It's the DU equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALA I can't hear you!"

[dionysus]

61. OH NOES!!1!!1!

[Better Believe It]

81. Congrats! You made my "Disrupter" ignore list! Do your parents know what you're doing?

They might take away your computer privileges if they knew.

[dionysus]

99. you've cut me to the quick.

[Alexander]

59. We should have no opinions of our own and just agree with whatever the critics say.

:eyes:

[Ex Lurker]

63. I haven't seen either film

but Cameron is such an asshole it's hard to feel any disappointed about his ex wife getting the nod over him.

[Cheap_Trick]

65. They should have called it "Jane Austen's 'Avatar'"

then the film snobs would be masturbating themselves into a frenzy to say how great it was.

[frogmarch]

69. Now I must see it!

If the movie is as interesting as Ebert's review of it, I'll like it a lot.

[Better Believe It]

98. You won't be disappointed. It's a truly great movie!

[fishwax]

71. Actually, in his Oscar article today, he said The Hurt Locker was the best film

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100307/OSCARS/100309965

"Bigelow did it , I believe, because she quite simply made the best film: The tension generated by the film was extraordinary. Yes, situations involving defusing bombs are common enough, but somehow Bigelow made the bomb scenes human, not technical. Perhaps that was the woman in her?"

[proteus_lives]

77. And yet it still sucks.

Live with it.

[LostInAnomie]

80. I've never talked to anyone that could say with a straight face...

... that it had a good plot, interesting characters, or the acting was great. Being pretty to look at isn't enough to get best picture.

[ShamelessHussy]

90. it did win big in that category though

it was truly breathtaking cinematography and i appreciated the story line too being how it has parallels with real life (other then the natives tend to get crushed in the end)

hats off to all those involved with this remarkable film. :toast:

hurt locker was forgettable, imho.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. The cinematography sucked.

There were some interesting shots early in the movie looking down long hallways. But in certainly wasn't anything new. The rest was just cgi magic waterfalls and shit. The art design was some fluorescent pastel second rate mash-up of my little pony/care bear/pink floyd aesthetics.

[Touchdown]

106. Not Pink Floyd! Yes! Get it right!

:P

[Zomby Woof]

82. So?

I don't need critics. I can think for myself. :shrug:

[Bjorn Against]

91. My friends made some Avatar puppets to march in protest of the wars on 3/20

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Sweet hickory Jesus, what a laugh.

reminds me of this guy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7370031

[Bjorn Against]

94. Laugh all you want, but I bet they will get noticed

And most people who see them will be smart enough to know that the Navi do not represent the Americans as you suggested upthread.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

95. Yeah, they'll get noticed.

Like how clowns get noticed.

[pokerfan]

97. Yeah, well...

Ebert also thought Die Hard II was the best of the trilogy.

[jdp349]

100. FOR FUCKS SAKES CAN'T DU JUST ENJOY WATCHING A FUCKING MOVIE?!

Holy shit people, it's the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.

If a Major is behind it then all they want to do is get as many people in the seats as possible and then clean up on DVD sales, the other distribution windows and the ancillaries.

If it's a Mini-Major acquisition than it's either an audience favorite from Sundance or Cannes that was purchased as oscar bait, or to court the director. Or it's a production than it's passion project of a couple A-listers and will be pretty good.

If it's IFC, Magnolia or something else you've hit true indie country. Proceed with caution.

It's like some people's political obsessions are blinders that let them only seem EVERYTHING as a result of potential political motivations.

[RoyGBiv]

101. WTF!?

Give it a rest already.

Does anyone actually think they're going to "prove" as an objective truth that one movie was better than another?

[earth mom]

102. My impression is that the Hurt Locker appears to glorify war while Avatar does not

but admittedly I haven't seen either yet because I'm waiting for the DVD.

But based on the clips I've seen of Avatar and the Hurt Locker, I'm sure I'll be pissed that Avatar didn't win too

Btw, I haven't been that wild about the films that have won in the past decade. But I did like the almost all the films that won in the 80s and 90s.

It all makes me feel like the entire Academy Awards has turned into a joke that isn't about the best film, but rather about some kind of politics playing happening inside the Academy.

I'm glad Sandra Bullock won though. B-)

[JackDragna]

114. "The Hurt Locker" does nothing of the sort.

If anything, it provides a human face to the deep trauma those involved in warfare suffer.

[earth mom]

121. I'm not gung ho on war movies-which is why I will be looking very closely for any sort of propaganda

in the film when I see it.

But again, based on clips I've seen, I think there is a bit of propaganda in that the soldiers are addicted to the high of detonating the bombs.

Which for guys who sit at home and play war games on their X Box, may be just the ticket.

But that said, I will decide when I see the film and not let you or anyone tell me what to think ahead of time.

[JackDragna]

122. Well, very nice.

Did you just miss out on your dose of jerk today, or is this a special occasion? I gave my two cents as someone who's seen a good deal of movies of all stripes. I'm telling you, it's a far cry from "The Longest Day." War is portrayed as bleak, fairly hopeless and mentally traumatic. I find it endlessly amusing how you're not going to let anyone "tell you what to think" about the movie, even though you apparently already have an "impression" from somewhere about its contents.

[earth mom]

126. You are the one who felt the need to reply to my original post and correct me like I'm your

student or something.

So you are the only one who's seen lots of movies? How do you know that I haven't? :wtf:

And then you want to school me some more by calling me a jerk. Look in the mirror dude.

[lame54]

125. The Hurt Locker is not pro-war...

Nor is it especially anti-war
it is a story of three people
three people that are in a place that you don't want to be in

[BoneDaddy]

103. Good movie

Great Cliche: Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

So funny how fucking important some people think they are.

[hyphenate]

116. I like films with acting

not just CGI. If Avatar is the film trend of the future, that's okay: there are many of us who like the pure, unabashed joy of good acting and a story that soars. I feel the same way about most movies. My favorite movie last year was Slumdog Millionaire--I went into it not really knowing what to expect, and walked out of it with the wonderment it gave me.

I love science fiction, and I have most of my life. From film to TV, I find that a good story and excellent characters will buy my loyalty long before the SFX. I might be in a minority, though, because I think the more impressive the SFX are, there is usually far less story and plot, and while some people are wooed by the flashy things thrown in, it's the story that counts.

Compare The Day the Earth Stood Still to the modern remake....no fair comparison, as the original still wins.
Compare the original War of the Worlds to the remake....I dare anyone to say the remake was better!
Hmmmm....Invasion of the Body Snatchers? I'll give in on this one, as they were both good, but for different reasons.

I suppose that I will be "put into my place" by my very firm belief that 85% of the remakes are pieces of crap because they compensate for the lack of talent with glorious sfx.

Gene Roddenberry was pretty much the first producer who understood the need for good stories, characters and still making comments on society. He just used a futuristic setting to make his point.

In 10 years, I'm sure films like Avatar will be commonplace, and that their plots will be far more complex, which will delight me, if I'm still here! It's when something is new that it pleases a lot of people because of that "new car" smell. But if there is more to it than that difference, it will perhaps show that it isn't just a flash in the pan.

PS: I enjoyed the "re-boot" of JJ Abrams's work on this past year's Star Trek film, but while the sfx carried me away to an extent, I walked out not caring a whole lot about it. It was good while you were watching it, but I found more and more faults the more I thought about it, and while some of my disagreements were about characters and backgrounds, most of my irritation was about the plot and inconsistencies in it. So I'm not trying to diss Avatar, I'm just not really into a film with so much obvious CGI.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

117. Obama rigged the Oscars just to piss you off.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

124. Does it really mean that much to you?

The Oscars have gotten it wrong before, plenty of times. Let it go.

[marshall]

127. What about that "white man's burden" theme?

As Kipling said:

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.



A strange sentiment for a post-modern film, but I guess it still resonates with the die-hards.

[rcrush]

128. If I saw James Cameron standing up on stage at the end of the night with an arm full of Oscars

I would have puked.


Go to hell James Cameron!