Avatar - the movie

[RDK]

I still wonder whether a better script and director (Ridley Scott? Peter Jackson?) could have improved it.

It would have been an actual movie instead of a overblown video game penned by a 13 year old.

Again, an ignorant comment if you haven't seen/read it.

[Brad]

I still wonder whether a better script and director (Ridley Scott? Peter Jackson?) could have improved it.

It would have been an actual movie instead of a overblown video game penned by a 13 year old.

That's a little strong.

[Use3D]

I still wonder whether a better script and director (Ridley Scott? Peter Jackson?) could have improved it.

It would have been an actual movie instead of a overblown video game penned by a 13 year old.

Again, an ignorant comment if you haven't seen/read it.

Yes RDK, I saw the film, and it was just as bland and mediocre as I thought it would be. Is my opinion validated now or does it only count if I fawn over it like a horny schoolgirl?

[sal]

For what it's worth, I agree with most of the previous reviews - the plot is unremarkable, but not enough to ruin what is truly an amazing visual experience. I still wonder whether a better script and director (Ridley Scott? Peter Jackson?) could have improved it.

Well, James Cameron pretty much developed the technology himself, so while Scott or Jackson may make better movies in the future using this technology, it will all be due to Cameron's innovation. Most of Cameron's movies have been like that....say what you will about the stories, but from a technological standpoint, they set the standard.

[Brad]

I still wonder whether a better script and director (Ridley Scott? Peter Jackson?) could have improved it.

It would have been an actual movie instead of a overblown video game penned by a 13 year old.

Again, an ignorant comment if you haven't seen/read it.

Yes RDK, I saw the film, and it was just as bland and mediocre as I thought it would be. Is my opinion validated now or does it only count if I fawn over it like a horny schoolgirl?

Horny schoolgirl

[jazzbo]

I'll certainly give Cameron mad props. He trusted his idea and instinct and he made a film that reached across age and genre preferences and pulled in millions of watchers and offered them something new and pioneering technically. Of course the story had to be one easy to digest, that resonated with past stories, that touched primal buttons, that was necessary to be grasped and followed by so many. He couldn't afford to craft a plot that would only appeal to the uber-hip. He had spent so much dough!

This is going to be big on disc as well. I overheard two different people in the theaters say "I think this movie is the one that is going to make me buy a Blu-Ray player," and one said he will finally upgrade his tv! And on another board I've seen some writing to the effect that this film may be the spearhead for a new home playback 3D technology. . . .

[Chuck Nessa]

All these descriptions might send me back to Beowulf.

[Free For All]

I saw it tonight on the 3D Imax and really enjoyed it. Absolutely stunning visuals, really a wonderful film.

I also thought the preview for Alice in Wonderland looked great too. Johnny Depp always seems to bring a slight pseudo-creepiness to roles like this (as well as Willie Wonka).

Also I'm looking forward to the Hubble movie coming to Imax (no, not The Way We Were).

Anyway, I thought all the horny schoolgirls were at the New Moon/Twilight movie.

[RDK]

I still wonder whether a better script and director (Ridley Scott? Peter Jackson?) could have improved it.

It would have been an actual movie instead of a overblown video game penned by a 13 year old.

Again, an ignorant comment if you haven't seen/read it.

Yes RDK, I saw the film, and it was just as bland and mediocre as I thought it would be. Is my opinion validated now or does it only count if I fawn over it like a horny schoolgirl?

Yes, having seen it does lend your opinion more validity. I don't agree with it, but that's another issue. What'd Cameron do, stand you up for the prom?

[BruceH]

For what it's worth, I agree with most of the previous reviews - the plot is unremarkable, but not enough to ruin what is truly an amazing visual experience. I still wonder whether a better script and director (Ridley Scott? Peter Jackson?) could have improved it.

Well, James Cameron pretty much developed the technology himself, so while Scott or Jackson may make better movies in the future using this technology, it will all be due to Cameron's innovation. Most of Cameron's movies have been like that....say what you will about the stories, but from a technological standpoint, they set the standard.

I sort of question whether Jackson could have improved the story all THAT much... Look what he did with King Kong: Took a straightforward, exciting story and turned it into a ponderous snoozefest.

[jazzbo]

Soon we get to see Ridley Scott reinventing. . . Robin Hood.

[connoisseur series500]

I saw the film this evening. It's a wonderful movie--one of the best I've seen in a long time. The plot is not original, but it was good nevertheless. The main character's disabled body is symbolic of the relative poverty of our world compared to the athletic body and wonderful world of Pandora. The army commander is a parody of army seargents. He believes in brute force and nothing else. Still, he comes across as very funny, and his lines had me rolling. The CEO of the company "interested in only quarterly profits" and who orders the strike on Pandora, is a shallow character. It is also pure parody. It rings home to the current populist distate for big business and Wall Street. I suppose purists will compain that these characters are shallow, but heck, it's a movie and not a novel.

In today's world, where women are increasingly becoming the breadwinners of the family, while the men stay at home, we see this reflected in this movie. The guys are pretty much jugheads and quick triggermen, while the women are scientists, or chopper pilots, or future leaders of their tribe. The main character is a bit of an exception, but even he has an empty head, etc. This kind of simple characterization drives me nuts, but maybe Cameron views it as representative of today's America. One thing is for sure, our world of work and daily drudge pales in comparison to the simple and visceral world of Pandora. I suppose the difference represents one of the major themes. Pandora's people come across as futuristic Native American Indians, whose lives were threatened by others with better technology but who lacked touch with nature. Even the gathering of the tribes is a thin reference to Tecumseh and his attempt to unite Native Americans against the white man.

Still, it is one hell of a movie. I'd like to see it again.

[Brad]

Interestingly, the CEO (although I think he's actually more of the general manager of that planet, not really the CEO who is probably somewhere back on Earth) was the stockbroker in Boiler Room, trying to show his father he can make it. Somewhat shallow there as well, although his motivation was probably somewhat more honorable.

[Jim Alfredson]

Finally saw this tonight. The visuals are absolutely stunning. Within just a few minutes, after seeing the 2001-esque spaceship orbiting Pandora, I said aloud, "Oh hell yes, this is going to be cool." And it was.

I won't go into the plot since it's already been tread over a million times (literally). Still a really cool movie and it makes me excited to see where this technology will go. I'm hopeful for more really cool sci-fi movies!

Oh, and Sigourney Weaver kicks ass.