Avatar

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » January 14th, 2010, 4:22

Avatar.

162 minutes of arse.

Post by **Grimmie** » January 14th, 2010, 13:02

I quite liked it.

Post by **deject** » January 14th, 2010, 13:08

Grimmie wrote:I quite liked it.

Yeah I don't think it's as bad as most of you seem to. However it does have quite a few problems with it.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » January 14th, 2010, 14:30

People are just to cool to enjoy it.

MORDETH LESTOK · Post by **MORDETH LESTOK** » January 14th, 2010, 14:59

spoodie wrote:People are just to cool to enjoy it.

It would have been easier to enjoy it for what it was but, the movie and story was MEGA-HYPED, telling you its the greatest movie ever and has all the movie awards already in the bag what...6 months before it came out?

Its just a natural reaction to when something is jammed down your throat. You resist at first...um, where was i going with this?

Post by **Dog Pants** » January 14th, 2010, 15:10

*Insert Statler and Waltdorf clip*

Post by **Grimmie** » January 14th, 2010, 17:52

MORDETH LESTOK wrote:It would have been easier to enjoy it for what it was but, the movie and story was MEGA-HYPED, telling you its the greatest movie ever and has all the movie awards already in the bag what...6 months before it came out?

Spore has taught me never to listen to hype. Ever. Ever.

Post by **Roman Totale** » January 14th, 2010, 18:20

Grimmie wrote: Spore has taught me never to listen to hype. Ever. Ever.

God damn Spore!

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » January 14th, 2010, 19:39

I think the problem with avatar is that it's pretty, and then backs that up with a wholly unremarkable, done a million times before story.

As such, it just seems totally unmemorable, apart from that it was pretty.

Oh, and I watched the movie totally unhyped, I was almost in negative hype, usually results in me being pleasantly surprised.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » January 14th, 2010, 19:49

It seems to me that criticising the story in Avatar is like criticising Schindler's List for not being very funny. That's not the point, it's a ride, in the cinema. It's like critically examining the decals on the side of the car while you're zooming round on a rollercoaster. Unless you watch it in 2D, or worse; a ripped off version at home.

Or maybe I just enjoyed the 3D too much. It was my first proper 3D film (not including the old red and blue ones).

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » January 14th, 2010, 19:58

spoodie wrote:It seems to me that criticising the story in Avatar is like criticising Schindler's List for not being very funny. That's not the point, it's a ride, in the cinema. It's like critically examining the decals on the side of the car while you're zooming round on a rollercoaster. Unless you watch it in 2D, or worse; a ripped off version at home.

Or maybe I just enjoyed the 3D too much. It was my first proper 3D film (not including the old red and blue ones).

So what you're saying is that avatar is a only good movie if you watch it in 3D, at a cinema?

That seems incredibly specific, and pretty heavily points away from it being a good movie.

Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus is a great movie, providing you watch it in a 58x62' saltwater tank, surrounded by sharks, while eating fizzy cola bottles and drinking pink lemonade. If you don't watch it in exactly that situation, it's crap.

Post by **Joose** » January 14th, 2010, 20:06

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus...If you don't watch it in exactly that situation, it's crap.

Balls, its a masterpiece of cinematic genius!

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » January 14th, 2010, 20:33

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:So what you're saying is that avatar is a only good movie if you watch it in 3D, at a cinema?

That seems incredibly specific, and pretty heavily points away from it being a good movie.

Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus is a great movie, providing you watch it in a 58x62' saltwater tank, surrounded by sharks, while eating fizzy cola bottles and drinking pink lemonade. If you don't watch it in exactly that situation, it's crap.

That's it, spot on. I don't think I've ever claimed it's a good film, it's a cheesy sci-fi adventure flick with very nice graphics. But I really enjoyed it because it's a showpiece for how 3D can be used in conjunction with amazing visuals.

If my local cinema put on that version of Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus I'd pay to see it.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » January 15th, 2010, 4:50

spoodie wrote:That's it, spot on. I don't think I've ever claimed it's a good film, it's a cheesy sci-fi adventure flick with very nice graphics. But I really enjoyed it because it's a showpiece for how 3D can be used in conjunction with amazing visuals.

I dunno, I just expected more from something that cost 1.4 million dollars per minute.

Y'know, it was (for me, with a decent but not great copy) a movie that makes you go "huh, that was it?"

Rather than "Jesus fuck that was awesome"

Post by **Joose** » January 15th, 2010, 7:32

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Y'know, it was (for me, with a decent but not great copy) a movie that makes you go "huh, that was it?"

Rather than "Jesus fuck that was awesome"

I kinda agree with that, but I dont think that makes it a *bad* film. It just makes it a non-jesusfuckawesome film. Although it wasn't the best thing EVAR, like the hype was making out, it wasnt total fail (the cgi was good, the action was reasonably enjoyable, and one or two of the actors actually could act) which raises it above average on the cheesy action film scale.

Im not about to hunt down the director and dry hump his leg in glee, but I also dont think I wasted money seeing it at the cinema either. And just for the record, my 3d hating eye/brain combo meant that I actually wish I hadn't bothered with that part of it.

I think sometimes people forget that films can be something other than AWESOME or SHITE. Especially after the hype machine has been at them.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » January 15th, 2010, 7:52

I agree entirely, but the problem I had with avatar is that the story just didn't hold me.

I watch movies more for the story than the spectacle generally. while I'm sure the shiny 3D cinema magic helps carry the story, I'm not sure it could do enough to make me enjoy the movie.

mrbobbins · Post by **mrbobbins** » January 15th, 2010, 9:27

I don't know if it helped carry the story but was very impressive and made for a fantastic experience.

The story was balls

MORDETH LESTOK · Post by **MORDETH LESTOK** » January 15th, 2010, 15:03

Joose wrote:I think sometimes people forget that films can be something other than AWESOME or SHITE.

My issue is there is a bazillion movies being released yearly whether in Cinema or DVD and:

80% = SHITE (and/or chick flick)
19.99999999999999% = G00D
0.00000000000001% = AWESOME

I just want that fraction of a percentage that is "supposed" to be awesome...be AWESOME! Especially, when its someone like Cameron who has all the f'n money, backing and resources to make one. Really, its just a disappointment.

It was more like a S3D demo since he seems to be the spokesperson for them. Prolly owns the company and all the patents and wants to be known as the guy who brought 3D to the world...

I'm just speaking out of my

Time for some

Post by **Roman Totale** » January 15th, 2010, 17:51

If I went for a meal at a restaurant owned by a top chef, Gordon Ramsey for the sake of argument, and the meal was "ok", would I be satisfied?

No.

You are right in the fact that films can fall between shit or awesome, but when the product is prepared by someone who is supposed to be a master of their trade, constantly praised, and is paid a staggering amount, then I'm afraid for me that "ok" just doesn't cut it.

The only reason I went to see this film was because of people raving about it. If it had been any other film I would just have shrugged it off, unfortunately you simply cannot avoid the hype that has surrounded this film. Some may argue that that is unfair on the director and isn't objective, but considering the mind boggling amounts of money spent (and earnt) on this film, then I think it is an entirely valid criterion for criticism.

In many ways it reminds me of the Observer Effect - before you've even seen the film you're already being told what to expect (i.e. it is awesome). I feel the same way about Citizen Kane - it is without doubt a very good film, but when I first watched it it quite simply did not meet the levels of expectation (I also had the same experience with a Charles Dickins classic).

Post by **Grimmie** » January 15th, 2010, 18:39

Gordon Ramsay has earned that hype and fame though, and he's probably got a pretty banging restaurant to boot.
Nobody but the love/hate-everything critics saw Avatar beforehand, and it's a brand new film. I'm not sure you can compare the two.