The thing about James Cameron is, he can get his mind around a project the size of "Avatar" and keep his cool. If it requires the development of untested technology, he takes the time to work on it. If he wants to create aliens human enough to be sexy and yet keep them out of the Uncanny Valley, he test-drives them. If it costs $250 million, as reported, or $350 million, as rumored, you reflect: That's a lot of money, but after seeing the movie I guess I saw most of it up there on the screen.
It became a favorite sport in some Hollywood circles, and even among critics not a million miles distant from myself, to publicly doubt Cameron's claims. He took ten years, starting with a story he began writing years before that? He was determined to film in 3-D, but no 3-D was good enough, so he had to perfect the next generation of that contentious process. The film needed 163 minutes to be told, causing anxiety among exhibitors eager to usher in a new audience every 120 minutes? If that's what it took, that's what it took.
After the epic success of his "Titanic," the highest-grossing movie ever made, no one was prepared to say no to him. That is a risky position to be in, and Hollywood is littered with the corpses of films that were made next after big hits by their makers. There's even a joke about that:"Now that you've set box office records, what are you going to do next?"
"I've got this script in my desk drawer that I've been working on since the 1980s, but until now no one has ever wanted to back it."
Doubt descended upon Cameron's fans after he previewed 18 minutes of "Avatar" in the autumn. Audiences were underwhelmed. Did the alien race of Na'vi look a little creepy? Or not creepy enough? The term Uncanny Valley is used by robot theorists and special effects technicians to describe artificial humanoids who look "too" human, so that their artificiality becomes unsettling. Better Robby the Robot as your housecleaner than a Stepford Wife.In the days before the first press screenings of "Avatar," a sort of frenzy gripped certain web fan sites. Then the great day arrived, 20th Century-Fox issued individual invitations and posted guards at the door, the chosen people filed in, the movie began, silence descended, interest grew, and doubts were dispelled. Cameron had done it.
Fox made much of a press embargo: No critics were to review the film until Fri. Dec. 18, its opening day. A flaw in this theory was that the movie opened a week sooner in England, and American fans, not witless, were instantly devouring the London reviews.
Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter broke the U.S, embargo and referred to Cameron's infamous speech when "Titanic" won as best picture: "A dozen years later, James Cameron has proven his point: He is king of the world." Todd McCarthy of Variety was also an embargo-breaker: "Cameron delivers again with a film of universal appeal that just about everyone who ever goes to the movies will need to see."
You could call those the kinds of reviews Hollywood likes to read, and it's unlikely Honeycutt or McCarthy will be denied entry to Fox screenings anytime soon. What was the point of an embargo, anyway? Was Fox afraid the reviews would be negative? By Friday afternoon editors at the Sun-Times and Tribune were growing restless as the good news leaked out, and both papers published reviews. Soon a movie that wasn't supposed to be reviewed was sporting high numbers in the Tomatometer (86% as I write).
More sincere praise came from a woman seated not far from me (no, not Chaz), who felt the call of nature, raced out to the facilities, hurried back in, sat down, and 10 minutes later realized she'd forgotten to put her 3-D glasses back on.
"Avatar" creates a new world from scratch, and, as Lucas did in "Star Wars," fills it with such countless minute details that it doesn't seem artificial. Well it does, but it's as real as a fantasy can seem, if you see what I mean. The creatures of this planetary forest are many-toothed and preposterous, but not the grotesque artifices of so many monster movies. Their battles seem sincere and earnest, and not the banging of pots and pans as in "Transformers 2."The special effects pioneer Ray Harryhausen, who made horses fly and sent skeletons into battle, is still alive at 89. If he sees "Avatar" he'll possibly feel the kind of pride Werner von Braun might have felt the day men walked on the Moon. Yet "Avatar" isn't primarily about Harryhausen's kind of special effects at all, in the traditional sense. Its use of CGI means that in the scenes on Pandora it's every bit as much an animated film as "The Polar Express," "Beowulf"--or "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," which also used motion capture, although its artists drew on paper, not computers.
Cameron has told a story with comprehensible emotional motivation, physical events that make sense at least within the realities of his imaginary world, and an alien race that exists not as foils for ray guns but an indigenous people living in harmony with their environment. His movie has a Green message and an anti-war message, both effective and organic parts of the plot.
Those towering blue Na'vi with their long tails look peculiar at first, but it's strange how quickly they grow on us. You don't whip up aliens like that with a sketch pad. It takes trial runs and countless hours of testing. And Cameron was equal to the test. He also overcame the bane of 3-D, which is dimness. His Dolby 3-D seems noticeably brighter. His use of 3-D is restrained; he doesn't poke his picture in our eyes, and his editing makes sense of things, unlike Michael Bay's mixmaster approach.James Cameron set out to do a lot of very difficult things and to do them all correctly. It took him and his many collaborators a long time and a lot of money, but how many filmmakers could have done it at all? The King of the World has been re-elected.
¶
My review of Avatar..
¶
¶
¶
Footnote to the third video for all the readers who helpfully pointed out it isn't about the same "Avatar" movie. Yes, I know. I added it in a fit of whimsy. Under your tree, don't you always have few "joke gifts?"
¶
Will hope to see Avatar when it comes out on this side of the Planet.
"He takes ten years, starting with a story he began writing ten years before that? He was determined to film in 3-D, but no 3-D was good enough, so he had to perfect the next generation of that contentious process. The film needed 163 minutes to be told, causing anxiety among exhibitors eager to usher in a new audience every 120 minutes? If that's what it took, that's what it took."
This seems to convince me that it is worth paying a ticket for.
Mr. Ebert,
As you have beautifully stated, what separates the likes of Michael Bay from the likes of Cameron is that Bay uses visual effects to sell his movies -- Cameron uses visual effects to tell his films.
I am already excited to see this film tomorrow evening. Your pieces on "Avatar" have increased my excitement that much more.
P.S., Saw you at the 18 min. "Avatar Day" preview at Navy Pier. I definitely enjoyed what I saw then. I can only imagine what I will see tomorrow.
Regards,
David
"His movie has a Green message, and an anti-war message, both effective and part of the plot."
God that sounds horrible. It may be the best thing since Citizen Kane but for somebody who can no longer sit through Star Wars let alone get through Titanic I'll take my chances and pass. I have a bad feeling I will be mourning the three hours lost in my life more than anything that happens in the film.
As good as Titanic is good enough for me!
Its about time..This is what iconic movie making is about,not just a flash in the pan gimmick to make somebody's movie studio buddy some quick cash with the same rehash cookie cutter Hollywood recipe. There is still greatness in Hollywood and Mr.Cameron deserves all the accolades he is and will be getting. Thank you sir. The Flexer
I always marvel at how long artists can devote their time to their projects. It must take a lot of endurance, faith in your collaborators, and faith in your own talents and abilities (egotism?). James Cameron's journey in making "Avatar" reminds me of an article I read of Spike Jones' expressed desire and long battle fought to make "Where the Wild Things Are". To have such a grand and detailed idea stuck in your head without a canvass to spill it out on must be frustrating. It may even cause you to dwell on the idea more, and perfect it and add even more detail to it.
And while I marvel at the limits of artistic expression and how they are constantly being crossed, I also wonder, well, what's next? For James Cameron, what does he do? He has just completed a movie that permeated his thoughts even while making "Titanic". How must he feel? Gratified? Sad? Intent on making an Avatar 2? I think he must feel a little bit of all of these.
I'm reminded of some words the director of a play I took part in told the cast before the final performance (kinda paraphrased, but who's checking?): "If this one good thing doesn't come to an end, as sad as the end may be, we wouldn't have the opportunity to relish the exprience, to be nostalgic about it. And we wouldn't have the chance to grow, to build upon what we've accomplished."
I read somewhere that there is a pleasure chemical in our brain (dopamine I think) which is released on many occasions as a "reward". One of the biggest "reward" getters is the accomplishment of a task. Whether it's getting up in the morning or finishing a paper or acing a test, dopamine lets us know we did good, kid. How much dopamine you think is running through James Cameron's body right now? I'd say he's stoned 24/7, and will be until he's well under way furnishing another idea for another project with just as much, if not more, ambition as "Avatar".
I think your last embedded video is for the wrong Avatar.
Ebert: No kidding!
You know, this is probably the fifth time I've seen you mention Robby the Robot. What is this robot to you?
James Cameron was just on the Tonight Show. He seems to have relaxed quite a bit since winning all those Oscars.
The movie? When boys were ten years old, they knew the movie they wanted to see. The hero was a Marine. The heroine was the exotic female from "Star Trek" or "John Carter of Mars." Brave men died heroically in battle and their families wept for them.
You don't really have to review "Avatar" because we already know what "Avatar" is. It's the movie we dreamed about when we were... well, kids in the 1970's, I suppose.
George Lucas was, and is, fascinated by a battle between an advanced technological society with ships and guns, and a primitive society with guts and heart. The fans get nervous when George indulges this fantasy and produces Ewoks. James Cameron wanted to do a film as important as "Star Wars," and maybe that wasn't the best part of the mythos to copy.
You have to see this movie, and you have to see it in 3-D. Would your life be less if you had never heard The Beatles? Same principle. This movie, and its sequels, will be a cornerstone of American culture.
I'm truly happy that Cameron pulled it off. This weekend, we're going to meet our New Best Friends. Sort of like the first Harry Potter movie. Master Chief and the armored troops from Halo are going to fight Native Americans. A wounded Marine is going to walk again.
I think we fell in love with Captain Jack Sparrow because he had layers. He was a Trickster who manipulated everyone around him to accomplish his personal goals. I hope the Na'vi have that kind of depth.
I suspect Roger showed us Ingrid Bergman in "Casablanca" for a reason. The love affair between Rick and Ilsa was full of suspense and mystery. It's ironic to ask whether there's enough depth in a 3-D movie.
Ebert: God, I enjoy your comments when they're not always about...God.
I have been skeptical of this film for months, but I think I'll have to see it now. At this point I guess I'll have to trust Cameron that he knows what he's doing. And what would I tell my kids if this becomes the next Star Wars? "No, I didn't see it in the theaters, it just didn't look good."
I can not wait to experience this movie!! When I saw the earlier previews I thought the blue people looked very cgi fake, but I refuse to be a cgi snob. And I love a good story and a well developed fantasy. I am very excited. Gonna go look at all of your clips now! Thanks for posting them - a special features playground.
I wonder if M. Night is pleased or not with the release of Cameron's film 6 months before his? On the plus side it will get plenty of traffic from people who loved Cameron's Avatar and think it's just an early sequel -- like the Matrix or Kill Bill movies. On the down side, 'The Last Airbender' may be unfairly judged vis-a-vis Cameron's accomplishments. I suppose the studio will have to 'clarify' the distinction in its marketing campaign -- since there are far too many people out there who don't come across the word 'avatar' very often to know the difference?
...I'm looking forward to both!
I see quite a few parallels between James Cameron and Steve Jobs. Both are uncompromising men, both have abrasive personalities, and both seem to have an incredible grasp of both the commercial and artistic realities of their respective domains, and have created some of the greatest successes of the modern era.
They also both seem to have loyal and vocal collections of both fans and anti-fans...
I have my tickets purchased for Sunday afternoon in true IMAX 3D. I had my doubts, but apparently I didn't need them. I'm looking forward to it.
I think it a pleasure in itself to know men of true passion and indefatigable drive exist and exercise their talents--what a treat we have in the fruitful mind of James Cameron.
Hello there Roger, you don't need to post this comment but the last Youtube video with M. Night Shyamalan is not about James Cameron's Avatar. It is a video interview about why Shyamalan took over the directing duties of "Avatar: The Last Airbender". "The Last Airbender" is a completely different film.
Ebert: No kidding!
You are a sly man, Roger, in all the best ways. I can't yet discern your purpose in including that last clip - about a lately-tarnished director whose new project has been shamefully overshadowed (even to the point of dropping "Avatar" from its title to avoid confusion; I'm both astonished and pleasantly surprised at the general lack of fan-rage over this).
I will say that "Avatar" - that is, the animated series "Avatar: The Last Airbender" - has often been cited as a counter-agent to the sort of Transformers-esque mindless montage-combat that you've (rightly) long decried. Nearly every episode contains a fight, and each fight, while quick and frenetic, is a graceful narrative that can be followed, move by move. The action on this show is how the fights in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" might look if Ang Lee had been free of the tragic constraints that filming with real actors imposes. I wonder how well Shyamalan will carry that style off once the reality of actors is reintroduced.
Ebert: Everybody's asking if i realized it wasn't about the same movie. I thought it was interesting in several ways.
The previews have consistantly underwhelmed me. But your review made me desperate to see it.
it premieres in my country (Slovenia) today, in two and a half hours :)
can't wait to finally see it
i hope that i will feel the same, as people did, when Star Wars opened 30 years ago :)
It seems that while things in reality grow more absurd and unrealistic, the realm of sci-fi movies has broken the speed of sound barrier in the special effects department. I thought I always wanted this; and it's surpassed my wildest expectations from most the lame crap of Vincent Price's day.
This bodes ill for those who'd like to see the likes of Scientology disappear. The industry of illusion, promises of liberals, and BS from smooth talkers is just getting underway.
RDS, journal 17 Dec 2009
In regards to Avatar, I never had a doubt because of Cameron's track record. The man has not made a stinker. His approach is similar to a recent comment made by a prominent video game developer.
"I would rather be known for constant delays than for making bad games."
Some directors have earned that type of trust. Tarantino, Scorcese, Eastwood, Cameron. There's alot to be said for having a good track record in an industry full of bad movies and director inconsistancy. I wonder if Michael Bay will watch Avatar and feel like he's in school. Like when I punch the air and then watch Bruce Lee do it.
I'll never get the hatred thrown at Michal bay.
I can't wait to see Cameron's Avatar. I have two young kids, and going out to the movies involves the added logistics and expense of babysitting so I don't get to go as often as I'd like to, but this one seems to be worth it.
Thanks for posting the clip of M. Night's Last Airbender interview. Those two young kids I mentioned before are Avatar junkies and they got me hooked, too. It's an awesome story, and I would love to see M. Night re-gain some of his former stature with this series.
And I'd also like to see THE ROAD if any of the theaters near me would decide to show it. Any word on a more wide-spread distribution?
I watched “Avatar” last night. It was great, but I have to say some of dialogues are quite corny and the story is not far from your average revisionist western("Dances with Wolves", "Little Big Man", "A Man Called Horse"...). I even wonder whether the same story comes out if I put "Battle for Terra" and "Outlander" into blender and push the button. Nevertheless, I still love this movie and that kind of faults comes to me as sort of goofy amusement. Above all, Cameron believes in story and setting. And he carefully fills his movie with lots and lots and lots of goodies while making us care about story and characters.
I was not born in original Star Wars era, but I am grateful that I have grown with wonderful works like "Jurassic Park" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. And Now I have watched "Avatar".
Special effect are simply astonishing. The movie does not pull us, but absorbs us into this marvelous world. I was distracted at first but became accustomed to 3D effect sooner than I thought. Things are maybe a bit showy but come to us like natural order. The more you think after watching it, the more you admire it. This is the return of the King, and he surely plays quite different than others.
P.S.
In case of my case, some couple sat next to me and, before the movie started, guy said to his girl he would like to see "Transformers 2" in 3D. I resisted temptation to say like this: "Sir, do you really want to see the movie giving you nothing but pointless noises and some horny toy humping lady's leg in 3D?"
Here's what I don't get. Why did anyone doubt Cameron? The guy made some of the best Sci-Fi films in recent memory! Titanic, Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2 and Piranha 2....not so much, but the rest are fantastic. Yes I love eye candy, but I also like a story that makes sense. Everyone clamers around Bay and his crap fest Transformers 2 but then we doubt someone who has spent 15+ years refining a film like Avatar. I know it's more fun to bash a film before anyone has seen it and to judge a three hour long movie by 15 minutes of segmented footage, but really? James Cameron? When was the last time someone said,"Man. that new Scorcese pic looks like shit!" Almost never? There are certain directors that you trust, and Cameron is one of them. Of course I have yet to watch Avatar so i am talking out of my ass, but I bet there are no robotic humping dogs...maybe in Avatar 2?
Dear ER,
How long will this kind of a movie continue to entertain us? Shall it continue really to 2154, if we consider that by 2040 we shall consume all the drinking water on earth (an inconvenient truth!)?
Warmest regards.
sanjoy
I'll be seeing Avatar tomorrow but I honestly don't know what to expect even with as you note the great early reviews I am still not sold. The fact is that based on the trailers the movie doesn't seem to reach the level of photo-realism that Cameron has promised not that it necessarily would need to, to be a good film. Maybe this film will have the most breathtaking CGI that I've ever seen but even so I can't help thinking that I would rather watch a movie with an actual set.
Something I'm puzzled about...I had watched the 60 Minutes interview with James Cameron about Avatar...
and he claims that he wrote this story many years ago...but...
I read this story when I was a teenager...a story called, "Call Me Joe" by Poul Anderson, copyright © 1957
(it's in a collection of stories- The Science Fiction Hall of Fame Vol. II A)
yes, the movie appears to be a quite embellished version, but the base-storyline is the same...
Avatar is to Call Me Joe as Where the Wild Things Are movie is to Where the Wild Things Are book...
I smell plagiarism....
Ebert: Most likely not plagiarism but buried memory. I actually have that 1957 issue of Astounding, now selling on Amazon for $62.50.
Oh, by the way, do you remember when was the last time you saw good chain-smoking scientist?
wasnt the movie too cheesy and predictable for you? and this movie wouldve been great if it werent about environmentalism --it seemed more focused on preserving nature (whatever that is) and less focused on being kind to a foreign species. I liked Cameron's themes better when they were subtle in Aliens and the Abyss; in Avatar however, its in your face preaching that offers no depth. i cant explain it but it just wasnt exciting, Phantom Menace was better than that movie in my opinion. i think its a popcorn movie for people to enjoy without thinking too much, ironically. because all it does is follow the trends, i dont need another movie telling me we are bad and are destroying the environment.
Nice choice of picture to start this entry off. The eye is often cited as the principle source of the Uncanny Valley effect.
And looking at this image, my first impression was "that eye has some feeling behind it." Looking at it more closely and for a longer period, I'm not so sure anymore. But I am certainly uncertain that I'm looking at the CGI equivalent of a glass eye.
There's something there, but it's elusive...an impression of vigilance, evaluation...preparedness?
I hadn't planned to see this movie, but I just might...
Ebert: That eye really caught me.
Here;s the full effect:
http://j.mp/4CwFeS
I believe it's king of the universe, this time, Roger?
Even in India,... even in Chennai, the most backward metro in terms of English cinema (the first Twilight released this month, Christmas Carol didn't even last a week), we had a Thursday screening.
I'm already booked for Monday. I didn't even wait for the reviews, because it looked so awesome (really awesome, awe-inspiring, not just very good) that I knew I would watch it even if everyone said it was horrible.
Thanks to a phone call from Michael Moore, Mr. Cameron has graciously allowed Avatar to be shown tonight, December 17, one day before wide release, at our local non-profit, community-based, volunteer-run art-house theater in Traverse City, Michigan. All of the ticket sales will be donated to local food banks and contribute to further restoration of our historic State Theatre.
This is a generous and greatly appreciated treat for a small town like ours where, among other things, the economy has taken a toll on so many people.
Roger, your respected and enthused reviews for this film have made the upcoming event even more exciting. I'll let you know how it goes.
Mr. Ebert,
Cameron is one of a kind. It is a great pleasure to hear that he has created another success. I am hoping my local cinema disables the projector dimmer for the 3-D showings.
I wish that the exceptional number of wonderful writers responding to your posts could also comment on your reviews. I'm sure the reason is you read them all and there are only so many hours in the day.
It is pleasing to see all of the accolades "The Hurt Locker" is receiving.
Happy Holidays to you and yours and all the readers of your journal.
I plan on seeing Avatar at my local cinema on Saturday, and I plan on seeing it later on IMAX. That is, as soon as I can find a viewing that is not sold out.
Thanks to a phone call from Michael Moore, Mr. Cameron has graciously allowed Avatar to be shown tonight, December 17, one day before wide release, at our local non-profit, community-based, volunteer-run art-house theater in Traverse City, Michigan. All of the ticket sales will be donated to local food banks and contribute to further restoration of our historic State Theatre.
This is a generous and greatly appreciated treat for a small town like ours where, among other things, the economy has taken a toll on so many people.
Roger, your respected and enthused review for this film has made the upcoming event even more exciting. I'll let you know how it goes.
Ebert: I just tweeted this.
Considering his history as a filmmaker James Cameron is very much like a soldier who thrives in having to do battle on a mine field. You may find this three-part profile on Cameron which appeared on the UK movie website Flickering Myth to be of interest. Enjoy.
http://flickeringmyth.blogspot.com/2009/11/resurfacing-james-cameron-profile-part.html
http://flickeringmyth.blogspot.com/2009/12/resurfacing-james-cameron-profile-part.html
http://flickeringmyth.blogspot.com/2009/12/resurfacing-james-cameron-profile-part_09.html
I'm sorry, but I have trouble believing that this turnaround is legitimate. I feel like a lot of critics are giving this a pass (when they were prepared to bury it) because they gleefully discovered its blunt commentary on Bush and the environment. All of a sudden, the long knives went away. I have to say, Roger, the real tell is your own praise. You went from poo-pooing the preview a couple of months ago (along with your years of railing against 3D) to singing this film's praises. If there were an opposite of "doth protest too much," this sudden love-in for Avatar would be it.
Ebert: You think I praised the film because of its politics? Give me a break.
Roger what I want to know more than anything is:
Does this movie make you feel like you are seeing something new? Does it make you feel like a kid? When I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars and even Close Encounters of the Third Kind I felt overwhelmed and felt like I discovered something amazing.
I haven't had a movie do this for me for so long. "The Fall" was mighty close to making me feel this way again. But no movie has been able to captivate me with it's magical spell. I guess that's all I want, is one more chance of being in awe and to feel like a kid again.
Roger: I am very eager to see Avatar, and have read a number of reviews. In this column, and in your review, you give tremendous praise to James Cameron, for his vision and execution.
In another review, you heap praise on Pedro Almodovar for his latest dalliance with Penelope Cruz.
It's difficult for me to imagine two more dissimilar directors, and I wonder how you might compare the two. Whose latest would you rather see? Whom would you rather interview? Or have a (if you still did) drink with? Why?
Ebert: Am I down to two choices?
I enjoyed Avatar but James Cameron should have hired a first rate writer to redo the dialogue like George Lucas should have done. It would have gotten rid of the "in spite of"s that litter most of its reviews.
I predicted that Armond White would have spent the review trashing the films 'facile liberalism' and comparing it negatively to Transformers 2 and I wasn't disappointed.
I am a little confused by the M. Night video you included with this blog entry. He is talking about his adaptation of the T.V. show, "Avatar: The Last Airbender" which, due to a copyright held by Cameron, will be titled, "The Last Airbender." So, i guess my question is: why exactly is that video here? Are you gearing us up for the eventual name confusion that will result once "Airbender" is released in the summer?
Ebert: Just thought it was interesting.
Great article. However, I'm confused with the inclusion of that last video - M. Night doesn't review Avatar, he discusses the making of his new movie Avatar: The Last Airbender based upon the cartoon series. Did you intentionally include that for any reason?
Ebert: Yes.
Got the chance to see it yesterday. I was so disappointed by moviegoers who are just ignorant emotion junkies!
I loved the movie, although as time goes by (or as I get older) it seems stories are always the same in movies... and in life.
In Guatemala we say "No se puede inventar el agua azucarada" (You can't invent sugar water). But this time the sugar, the water and the sweetening were of a supernaturally great quality. So it seems sugaring water has become a form of alchemy.
My question (and I PLEASE expect an answer from anyone) is: Why are people so ungrateful to movies that are as well made as this one?
Yes, I said ungrateful. because it seems audiences just take all the tech and storytelling for granted... I heard of people -not few- who said "New Moon" was a better film.
P.S.: AVATAR had a special premiere in Guatemala on Dec. 16.
Roger--
Super looking forward to seeing this. What's with the M. Night Shyamalan video?
Ebert: You didn't enjoy it?
There are few things to admire in Hollywood as much as Cameron's obssesion, I don't doubt him being impossible to work with but it seems he'll die before giving you a mediocre movie. The best DVD documentary I've ever seen, by a long shot, has to be the one for the Abyss, it's every bit the "going to war film mentality" of Hearts of Darkness, another great making of documentary.
I can't say I've been anxious for the release of Avatar, it seems like such a weird movie overall , still after your review and all the internet hype, I'll surely be standing in line to see it when it opens tomorrow.
You mention Ray Harryhausen and the pride he might feel as a pioneer; I hope he's interviewable and someone gets his take. I so wish Poul Anderson were still around to see this film, which owes so much to his "Call Me Joe." In 1974, at the science fiction convention DesertCon, Anderson and George Pal were both guests, and wonderful, genial guests they were. During one Q&A I asked Anderson which of his stories he'd like to see cinematized, and his already radiant grin broadened. He could not mention any single work of his, but it was obvious that the prospect of such delighted him; he ended his answer with "Is George Pal in the room . . ."
So--is James Cameron reading this? How about SHIELD or TAU ZERO or THE BYWORLDER or one of the crackup-funny tales of the Polesotechnic League, starring Nicholas van Rijn? Or how about Anderson's son-in-law Greg Bear's EON? Don't stop now, Jimmeh!!
I was honestly and genuinely worried that AVATAR would be awful, based on the visuals alone. So, I was pleasantly surprised by all this praise and critical acclaim from critics upon seeing AVATAR. Not only that, but I was pleased to hear that AVATAR has some great political and social messages underneath the story. I always appreciate films like that.
So now I'm so unbelievably excited... Friday evening can't come soon enough for me.
I am wondering about the content, as my 8 year old daughter wants to see it.
I am also wondering why I have friends who think Cameron is all of a sudden Anti-military. It's obvious to me that James Cameron has a thing for military hardware and soldiers based on his past films. Is it just me or is he not anti-military, but anti-imperialistic? Who wouldn't be against wiping out an innocent culture with military might to get what one wants?
It bums me out that some of my friends are so enamored with their political beliefs that they can't identify evil. And I am a conservative.
Think, people Think!
Ebert: There's nothing technically offensive for children, but it's very intense and rather long, and those might be equal considerations.
I saw Avatar and mostly agree with you Ebert. Visually its incredible and unlike Zemeckis's inexpressive and video game like characters, all the Na'vi are have great detail. Unfortunately, while I think the film is very good, that many critics are giving it a pass on some parts. The dialog was pure cringe worthy at times and the story is pretty conventional and predictable. I bet if this wasn't a Cameron movie everyone would bash the horrid dialog, but since they don't expect Shakespeare many are not complaining.
P.S. I have the greatest respect for Zemeckis who pioneered mo-cap and he’s still one of my favorite directors, but it’s astonishing how lifeless some of his characters look.
Mr. Ebert, how would you compare the motion capture use here with the motion capture technology that was use previously on Davy Jones in Pirates 3, and Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen. Better, the same, worse? I know in Watchmen they built a suit for him to get his body movements, and then later on they had him do the facial work, but here they were able to have the actors do both at once. And in Pirates 3 they simply just reanimated Davy Jones later. Which one brings their performance out more?
My memory of 3D comes from Jaws-3D, waaayyyyy back in the early 80's. I also remember being a kid and trying to watch a "3D" movie on TV. It was heavily promoted and you had to pick up your cheap flimsy glasses at the local comic book store or something, then you had to follow the instructions very very carefully to adjust your TV set colour balance in order to get the proper effect (whilst simultaneously listening to your father in the background..."christ al'mighty...you're f**king it all up". Needless to say, those experiences where...underwhelming.
But I recently went to "A Christmas Carol" in 3D. My first experience with the new technology. WOW. Neato! It's come a long way baby. So is Avatar supposed to be one step beyond that? If so, we're in for a treat.
What's been describe about the storyline is very interesting too. Environmentalism, fighting over finite (Earth) resources, displacement of indigenous people. All very topical today.
Yeah, but why can't there be good dialogue too? Why is it allowed to just be passable?
I'm sick of having to forgive action adventure movies for bad acting or bad dialogue or cookie cutter writing. I'm waiting for Paul Thomas Anderson to do one of these action things right.
It doesn't surprise me. James Cameron is probably the only action director who deserves the title of auteur. With so many movies that are just noise and fury, there's something infinitely reassuring about placing yourself in Cameron's hands, knowing that here is a guy who actually understands the mechanics of plot, of pacing; who knows how to direct action scenes so that you follow them. More importantly, he knows how to make it all matter, and mean something.
He's also the best in Hollywood for giving you your money's worth, and then going just a little farther. Take Terminator 2. Any other director would have considered the shattering of the frozen T1000 to be the end of the movie. Not Cameron.
It's really too bad that Armond White is regarded as, and generally is, a reactionary crank. Because the issues he raises in his review are exactly why I'm hesitant to see Avatar.
"Avatar’s going-native F/X fantasy infantilizes Cameron’s technology-infatuated audience; they’ve never read Joseph Conrad on colonialism or feel any compunction about balancing politics and fantasy. There’s even a Busby Berkeley-style tribal dance to divert them. Also, Avatar’s techno-exoticism involves blue cartoon creatures, not brown, black, red, yellow real-world people. It’s the easiest, dumbest escapism imaginable."
(me again) How are these blue aliens not Noble Savage tropes? How is the protagonist not the Great White Father there to rescue them? Not to mention the whole issue of disability in the movie. It just looks really, really, really cringeworthy.
Deeply annoying as Armond White may be, at least he is addressing these issues, unlike the rave reviews. Do you have something to say on the subject, Roger? (I would love to have my snap impressions proven wrong - I know movie advertising can be very misleading.)
Ebert: Re the issue of disability: The point, I suspect, is that an operation exists to restore the hero's ability to walk, but he can't afford it. In other words, Joe Lieberman VIII is now in the Senate.
So I don the goggles tomorrow!
As a subtitle addict, skimpy dialogue seems an advantage..
Ebert: That's why modern blockbusters are never wordy. More than half the revenue comes from non-English-speaking markets.
This film is no better than Waterworld.
I'm sure you're right about Avatar as an entertainment. I plan to see it on the big screen. I'm certain it'll be a good time.
At the moment however, I'm a bit more interested in some of the ecological ideas it expresses.
Specifically, the presentation of the Na'vi as beings who live "in harmony with nature" (albeit, the "nature" of another world). In your review, you compare them to Native Americans, a group typically deployed as a cultural point of contrast with our supposedly 'un-natural' way of life. (It's interesting how other native American cultures, such as the imperialistic Aztec, who also lived "close to Nature", though on a grand scale, never receive this hagiographical treatment.)
The core idea, sub textually expressed, is that the heart of our problem is 'alienation' from a big other we call "Nature".
According to a new generation of eco-critics such as Timothy Morton -- who simultaneously manage to acknowledge the damage done and modifications made to our planet's eco-system by industrial civilization while ruthlessly critiquing the 'eco-romanticism' informing much of ecological thought -- this is precisely the wrong way to tackle our ecological challenges.
Morton, author of _Ecology Without Nature_ (that is, ecological concern for the world, which includes us as we are with all our tools and technological abilities, but without the romantic construct of "Nature" confusing our objectives) traces the West's concept of alienation from nature to Rousseau.
Eco-romantic thought interprets nearly every technological artifact (sometimes, even quite basic things such as say, roads) to be an intrusion into a natural order from which we're hopelessly separate. Eco-critique answers this by insisting that our built environment IS natural, as natural to us as a hornet's nest is to hornets.
Our tools -- no matter how subtle or synthetic-seeming -- can come from no other place but the very nature in which we're irretrievably embedded.
The problem isn't the unnaturalness of (for example) cars but their pollutive and carbon cycle stressing outputs and the inputs required to manufacture them, among other issues.
Eco-romanticism (and I'll bring this back to "Avatar" now) posits that the solution to what is essentially a problem of capitalist excess is the cultivation of a Hegelian "beautiful soul".
(Morton calls this the "Beautiful Soul Syndrome". You can view a video essay on this topic here.
The Na'vi, as you've described them, owe their lovely characters to their fidelity to Pandora's environment. Collectively, they have a more 'beautiful soul' than their human adversaries. The humans or "sky people", living in an artifact, kept away from the threatening Nature of Pandora, are, to varying degrees, greedy and cruel. The paraplegic Marine -- like some sort of Pinocchio -- can only become a 'real boy', a fully natural person by leaving the shielded human world and venturing out into the natural.
This is exactly the kind eco-romantic ideology Morton and others dissect and trace to real-world problems such as, the insistence of some eco-activists that people learn to love the earth as the sine qua non for ecological action.
An emerging 21st century ecology, for example, Morton's "Dark Ecology", dispenses with this belief, focusing on our role within Nature as it is now, altered and completely a part of us whether we feel a romantic deep connection or not.
And I'm glad to see you with nice things to say about 3D!
The most interesting part of the coverage for this film so far, IMO, is the tech they used, to superimpose realtime CGI on top of actors in suits and greenscreen. In 10 years that sort of 'augmented reality' will probably trickle down to a lot of consumer devices, and IIRC XBox's 'Project Natal' incorporates some of that (putting players 'in the game')..
And while the whole "humans as Bushitlerburton, evil tech vs good organics" thing pretty much describes his entire oeuvre, I'm hoping it won't be too insufferably preachy. For example, arrogant space marines as USMC, aliens as VC in _Aliens_ wasn't preachy at all IMO.
Looking forward to catching the matinee after the big weekend rush.
I'm kind of curious as to the discrepancy between the negative and positive reviews of Avatar. Most of the negative seem to focus on the plot being generic, while the positive being that the visuals on display are so engrossing in themselves that it doesn't matter. It seems like the dividing line between the negative and positive reviews seem to be people that define film as a medium for telling a story as compared to those that define it as a medium of overall experience.
Having read the scriptment back in 1997 or so, and seeing that the film basically lines up - I can tell that the plot is rather derivative/generic, however, what got me excited back then was the idea that this is finally a movie that can take me to another place and make me feel like I did when watching Star Wars for the first time again. Too complex of a story and it may be a distraction from the pure emotional/visual connection I feel with that world - a typical tale is a good starting point. I don't know yet whether the script is so distractingly generic as to take me out of the experience as some have said (I'll find out ad midnight), but this is an issue I've only seen a few reviews address enough specifically to let me know what to expect.
Ebert: It's not the generic, it's what else it brings to the party. "Have You Heard About the Morgans?" is all genre, nothing but genre. Northrup Frye might argue that every story is genre (or archetype, he might say).
Saw in 3D IMAX (in Hong Kong). The only instance when things look fake is when we first see the avatars outdoors (basketball scene). After a few minutes, you truly are immersed into a new world, and that was indeed amazing. Was wondering, though, any chance the IMAX version is longer than the regular Digital 3D version. The cinema posted an 161 minutes duration for the Digital 3D version and 174 minutes duration for the IMAX version. And, yeah, hated the song at the end, but overall really enjoyed this. Cameron has again set the bar so high that Spielberg/Jackson better deliver with their Tin Tin trilogy. I saw Disney's A Christmas Carol a few weeks back (also in 3D IMAX), and it's like comparing grade school with university. Sorry, Mr Zemeckis...
Ebert: This movie is opening on the same day everywhere. Opening day grosses will be mind-boggling.
As far as I know, there's only one version. No doubt this will be sorted out.
Lovely article Roger, and I loved it, too. (My review is available on my website, linked above)
Out of interest, why is that video of M. Night Shyamalan talking about the unrelated adaptation of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" included at the end of your article?
Ebert: It has a wee footnote.
" By Alex on December 17, 2009 8:37 AM
I'm sorry, but I have trouble believing that this turnaround is legitimate. I feel like a lot of critics are giving this a pass (when they were prepared to bury it) because they gleefully discovered its blunt commentary on Bush and the environment. All of a sudden, the long knives went away. I have to say, Roger, the real tell is your own praise. You went from poo-pooing the preview a couple of months ago (along with your years of railing against 3D) to singing this film's praises. If there were an opposite of "doth protest too much," this sudden love-in for Avatar would be it.
Ebert: You think I praised the film because of its politics? Give me a break. "
Alex, you just got pwned by Roger Ebert. Ouch.
Roger if you get a chance watch the Last Airbender tv show seasons 1 through 3. It really is a great serial show. While watching the show, it reminded me of the Saturday matinees serial films they used to show back on the day. It's an outstanding series and won a few Annie awards. I am very excited for the trilogy and hopefully it can bring M. Night Shymalan out of his slump he's had lately.
Why did Cameron have to ruin an epic movie like this with tired leftest anti-war/green propaganda? The green message in that animated movie from a couple years back about a robot all but killed that film.
Jeez, it's not like anyone truly loves pollution or war. But these militant environmentalists are fascists (okay, displaced communists). They want to regulate every aspect of your life. The green movement is every bit like a fundamentalist religion.
I lived on the eastside of Milwaukee for a number of years. That part of town was as liberal as any place can get. Everywhere you'd look there was someone in a Prius. But eastside of Milwaukee is dirty with graffiti, pollution, and trash (strewn about everywhere). But when you move out to the suburbs where conservatism thrives, there are beautifully preserved parks and lush gardens.
Cameron is one of these wealthy Lear jet/limousine liberal hypocrites, like Gore, who doesn't practice what he preaches.
I can't wait until November 2010/2012 when liberty trumps tyranny.
Ebert: I think I'll start with: You haven't seen the movie, have you?
Continue with: The suburbs of the North have turned dramatically Democrat in the last 20 years.
And: There's little graffiti in Chicago because of Daley's graffiti-busters.
And: Not all opinions are propaganda.
And: The phrase "limousine liberal" has passed its sell-by date.
I had planned to see this movie in 2D because the 3D in the past had given me headaches and I didn't want to be distracted with the 3D glasses falling or shifting on top of my regular glasses. I doubt the technology for 3D has come that far along since My Bloody Valentine 3D.
Have you heard if the 2D version is lacking? I saw Up in 2D and it was still a remarkable movie and I did not feel like I missed anything.
Basically, right now the 2D verse 3D question is worrying me a bit because I haven't seen any reviews from anyone that has seen it in 2D.
I personally feel that if the story is good then missing some of the special effects will not affect my enjoyment of the movie. However, everyone keeps mentioning breakthrough technology.
I'm guessing the movie's plot is generally in the vein of Campbell's Hero's Journey, which might make it predictable, but I'm still going to see it. Cameron has made a heck of a lot of entertaining, enjoyable, thrilling movies, and I don't think there's a thing wrong about that.
And out of curiosity, Roger, are you a night owl? I noticed you publish a lot of your posts in the evening hours, which is usually when I read them.
Ebert: Yeah.
The movie opened here in Egypt on the 16th and I was one of the first here to see...wait no...experience it. I wrote a short spoiler free review at my blog. Here's the link to the review: http://cinephilefix.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/short-review-avatar-55/
Ebert: I just tweeted it. Was happy to see Seongyong Cho and S. M. Rana there before me.
I'm leery about this movie, specifically because of Titanic. That movie was great on a technical level - no question - but the story is central for me, and that story, its dialog, execution, etc. were terrible, in my opinion, making it nearly unwatchable. I gave it a second chance a good while later and it only got worse. I fear the same thing here. The technology is no doubt ground-breaking and inspiring, but once that's no longer new, how will Avatar hold up?
There's so much criticism about George Lucas and the prequel Star Wars movies. I half agree with it - but the difference is that he told a fantastic story underneath. I especially love Revenge of the Sith for the story it tells, for the story arc, despite its obvious weaknesses.
I'll see Avatar at some point, and will be prepared to be pleasantly surprised if the story is good, but I'll go in with lowered expectations. (Side note: I liked The Abyss, but that also had environmental and military messages - which were clunky at best. The rest of the human story was what interested me.)
One of the things that worried me is how the visuals of the film will translate in a non-IMAX theater. With all of the technology built around IMAX 3-D, is it even worth seeing it on a regular screen? Will the visuals still pop the same way? Will it look any better or any more special than the effects of something like the FX porn of Star Wars Revenge of the Sith, Transformers or Terminator Salvation?
(Like Jonathan Fisher my review is available on my website, linked above. Not of the movie, but of the top 10 movie/TV sexy aliens on National Lampoon.)
Hi Roger,
At this moment I hold in my hand 10 prepaid tickets to Friday night's 7:00pm showing of "Avatar: An Imax 3D Experience". It is being shown at the UA King of Prussia Imax in KoP PA. That wiil be the day after my 60th birthday (today).
I have never seen a 3D film that I actually felt immersed in so I am really hoping that this one lives up to my expectations.
I have been a SciFi fan since reading my Dad's collection of Tom Swift adventures and then my own Tom Swift Jr. stories back in the days before movies really embraced the genre. I followed those books with all of the greats. Heinlein, Bradbury, Asimov, ad infinitum. Those writers and other had the ability to transport you to a world that you could imagine actually exists.
There are times when you are looking forward to something and anticipating the experience so strongly. I remember each of mine. The Stones in 72, Bruce for the first time in 74, the second in 76, along with Star Wars and the Dead in 77. Those moments in my past really were few and far between but I relish the memories today as much as I did then. I am hoping that I come away from this one with the same type of lasting memory that I came away with back then.
John
I notice once again the assertions come that Mr. Ebert liked the movie due to the politics. As someone often on the other side of the issues can I state that I have never found that to be the case. I am a conservative - albeit more of a libertarian than a neo-con, and a brief search of Mr. Ebert's reviews would show this is simply never the case.. Two just from memory; a positive review of Dirty Harry (though he deems it fascist) and a negative review of Priest (though he is pro gay rights, and not a "believer") because he felt it dishonest to overlook the fact that rightly or wrongly the priest had vowed to be celibate. Incidentally I disagreed with that as I felt the point was the straight priest and gay priest were being treated differently for breaking the same vow..... but I have never known a review to be based on anything other than the artistic merits of the work, and the feelings it evokes. The rare times Mr. Ebert seems to feel his personal views might be influencing his judgment, he usually goes to the trouble to explicitly state so somewhere in the body of the review. Something I wish more critics, and journalists would do.
Roger,
There you go getting all emotional again.
"Banging of pots and pans" regarding Transformers 2. Great line, Roger.
I just happened to read over lunch that Kathryn Bigelow is James Cameron's wife. Hmmm, interesting. Could they both be nominated for the same Oscars? Best Picture, Best Director. That would be a first.
Ebert: Formerly married. Another first.
I detest stupid people. Just go watch the movie and make up your own decision. Avatar was absolutely amazing.
The last embedded video is about a different film: M. Knight Shyamalan's Avatar, the Last Airbender, whatever the hell that is.
I have no problem with a film being 163 minutes. Cameron has a way of making long films that don't feel long, and I appreciate that about him. It's amazing he wasn't pressured into doing a 2 volume deal, like Kill Bill or the final Harry Potter book.
Really looking forward to seeing Avatar this weekend.
Honestly.
I am really hard to please. I pick the movies I go to because I do not buy into any S*** that comes up on the screen.
I am the kind of guy who drools watching Blade Runner, Dune, Terminator, Alien, Gladiator and a few others.
Forget Star Wars!
Forget Blade Runner!
Forget LOTR and Harry Potters!
Heck! Forget Hercules and Alladin and Finding Nemo!
This movie of yours is the most elating experience I have ever had in a theater, period.
So, people of the earth, join me in thanking James Cameron for finally taking us out of the cold Atlantic waters and shoot us all the way to Pandora.
From the heart,
Thank you James Cameron.
Would anybody want to see this without the 3D gimmick? Probably not.
I plan on seeing this movie on a IMAX screen and in 3D. However, with a few reservations.
All of the clips of the movie I've seen have left me unimpressed. The CGI was really nothing out of the ordinary. The action scenes were your run of the mill big budget nonsense (what I saw made the movie look like a video game).
And of course the plot is for the birds. It's nothing original. It's essentially Dances with Wolves by way of Pocahontas with a dose of crackpot liberal politics thrown in the mix.
You have to put this all in perspective. The movie seems to be pretty mediocre with some nifty 3D effects to lure people in.
Again, I ask: would you bother to see a movie like this if it didn't have 3D?
Ebert: Re the issue of disability: The point, I suspect, is that an operation exists to restore the hero's ability to walk, but he can't afford it. In other words, Joe Lieberman VIII is now in the Senate.
I feel, as a former resident of Connecticut (well, depends on how well the job search goes out here), that I must apologize for Joe Lieberman. He lost the Democratic caucus, then ran as an independent in the general election and won--due to the Republican and independent vote. I hear Karl Rove (or was it Dick Cheney?) congratulated him upon his reelection. It's too bad that Christopher Dodd is up for reelection next year, and not Lieberman. I'm still registered to vote in Connecticut, and I'd like nothing better than to vote against Joe a second time. Haven't liked him since he went after violent video games.
As for Avatar, the film group that I'm a part of should be planning a viewing soon. Even if I can't go see it with them (e.g. I'm working, have other plans), I will definitely be seeing this movie in the theater, just like I saw Terminator 2 and Titanic in the theater.
Roger says he doesn't praise this movie because of it's leftwing politics. Alright. Would you have enjoyed the movie less if it didn't have a leftist message?
Ebert: No less. Just as much with a right wing message. And you?
Haven't seen it, right?
Why is it "left-wing," anyway, to be against (1) destroying the environment and (2) invading a peaceful world far from home?
Seeing this movie on Monday in digital 3-d.
Are they even releasing this movie in 2D?
Can't wait. I thought the 3D in Christmas Carol had been the best I've seen. Can't imagine how great this one must be.
I've been your biggest supporter as you raged against the supposed inevitability of the 3D invasion. It's dim, it's distracting, etc. But just as you have changed your tune (just for this film), I'm sheepish to have to join you.
I saw 'Avatar' this last weekend as the final film at BNAT in Austin, and I have to admit that the 3D isn't just tolerable. It's good. Cameron used the 3D as a tool to create all new _kinds_ of shots, such as an early glimpse inside Sully's spaceship as the astronauts wake up that's so intricately layered it's almost too much to take in.
The best compliment I can give is that this almost-three-hour film came at the end of 27 straight hours of movies with no sleep, and it was still riveting. It sure isn't perfect, but I'll take it in a minute over the junk passing for "blockbusters" these days.
Hah! I love that you have a 1957 issue of Astounding, Mr. Ebert.
As for the people who doubted: I doubted because in the previews I saw, the animation didn't look very good. Maybe it's something that looks better on the big screen, or maybe the footage wasn't finished yet (this was 6 months ago). I've also heard over and over that it looks better in 3D, too. But what I saw 6 months ago really did not look good.
I'm surprised, not by how many responses are about the Shyamalan video, but by how many of those responses you responded to.
In commenting on the comments to the comments about your initial comment, I think I've stumbled into a realm populated only by M.C. Escher, Phil Connors and Donald Kaufman.
As a subtitle addict, skimpy dialogue seems an advantage..
Ebert: That's why modern blockbusters are never wordy. More than half the revenue comes from non-English-speaking markets.
I watched "Avatar" twice...once in a screening for my film magazine's critics only..they always show us the original "US" version of movies.
The second time I watched it was with an audience in a nearby theater...the second was a horrible experience. They had English subtitles at the bottom AND Arabic subtitles not at the bottom but at the center of the screen...the center? WTF?
I feel like I'm lucky to have the opportunity to watch movies the way they are supposed to be seen. Here in Egypt the censorship take out all sex scenes (all we get is the start of a kiss and then a very sudden cut to a conversation or whatever the next scene is..they leave in profanity and violence (yeah as if nudity is more harmfull to society)...I remember "Scary Movie" was like a 35 minute movie in Egypt. Want to hear hilarious fact about the stupidity of the censorship in Egypt...you're gonna love this..wait for it... :) when "Pulp Fiction" is broadcast on TV...they have all the scenes in order...they actually thought they received a bad copy and rearranged the scenes in chronological order! HA! I already saw "(500) Days of Summer" but feel sorry for the rest of the Egyptians who will have to watch it with the days in order.
Most film fans in Egypt can still watch the original versions on dvd (once released or bootleg)or watch the original movie but pay like $15 extra..so $25(too much for the general public /regular "messed up and edited" movies costs $5 and is seen by most of the public)...still a movie like "Avatar" has to be seen in 3D on a huge screen and I would not advice Egyptians to wait for a dvd release.
Anyway, I'm puzzled...normally I review films based on what they'll see were they to see the original because most movies are bootleg here before they come out anyway...but I don't know what to do with "Avatar" ...a movie I really want Egyptians to see it, yet strongly advise against watching it in Egyptian theaters and on dvds or laptops or whatever..
Mr. Ebert, I ask for your help. What would you do. "Avatar" is a 5 star movie (our magazine uses 5 instead of 4)yet if they'll watch it in "Egypt" it may ruin the experience for them..yet if I advise against it...they'll miss "AVATAR" on the big screen.
Ebert: I don't know. I just don't know. It's like in the old South, when hey cut the blacks out of movies. Al Jolson and Cab Calloway challenged that by singing a duet with each other.
"Ebert: That's why modern blockbusters are never wordy. More than half the revenue comes from non-English-speaking markets."
And here I just thought directors wanted to emphasize the advantages of film as a visual medium.
My real question about Avatar is this. If Cameron were to have made the same movie using actors in makeup and costume, filmed on sets and in real life earth jungles, in only 2 dimensions, and just used CGI effects sparingly, would he have been incapable of telling this story effectively. What in the story is so enhanced by all the super high tech film-making? My gut feeling is that the end of effect is that it'll wow us with its newness on a first viewing, but ultimately it will only serve to detach us from the experience. Is it just me or when directors use CGI in action scenes it just lessens their impact? Makes them less visceral?
Whatever happened to "less is more"? The 163 minute running time is the result of Jim "King of the World" Cameron's out of control ego.
I have nothing against long movies, but more and more of these types of films have a bloated running time.
The movie cost a pretty penny. How about these Hollywood elitists putting their money where their mouth is and donate large sums of cash to the people of Darfur, or something, instead of pumping millions and millions of dollars into movies like this..
I'm having trouble finding an answer, and perhaps a commenter here can help - what type of 3-D goggles are required for Avatar?
My husband is partially color-blind, one of the light red/green variants and traditional 3-D has been a poor experience for him. This includes up to the recent Spy Kids 3-D, which he tried to watch in the theatre and only ended up with a headache.
I've been told Avatar is more colorblind friendly, is this true? I don't want to haul him to an unpleasant experience if unnecessary, but I'd like to see it in 3-D if at all possible. Arguing my own issue of getting the glasses over my own glasses!
Haha, I guess nobody knows how to read footnotes! =)
Can't wait to see it! I am now convinced!!
One thing Cameron has managed to do in his films is do away with ridiculous gimmicks that make no sense and do little to advance the plot of a film. Case in point would be with Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Arc. Indy Jones has to wade through a river of kerosene (with a torch for light) to access a crypt. When the bad guys come and light the flammable river on fire, Indy gets under a coffin, but lights a match so he can see under there. It's stupid, because only an idiot would light a match while chest deep in kerosene (or anywhere NEAR kerosene). But Spielberg decided to ignore that fact so he could have some pyrotechnics in the scene. I don't think I've ever seen Cameron do that. He treats his films and audiences with a certain respect, and I appreciate that. Like many other movie lovers, I hate to see holes in a plot, or obvious inconsistencies, that take me right out of the experience. Haven't seen AVATAR yet, but have a ticket to the 3D IMAX Experience for Sunday at the Mall of Georgia and am looking forward to a great time.
I remember early in this film's production, a rumor was flying around about how this movie was going to be 3D, but without the aid of special glasses! Now that would be revolutionary.
I liken this movie, in way, to Jurassic Park. People were more interested in the computer generated dinosaurs than the story itself.
This movie probably looses a lot of its appeal without the 3D gimmick.
I wonder if this 3D trend is just a fad and people will get bored with it after awhile or if it is here to stay.
Just imagine watching a movie like 'Precious' in 3D... hahaha
The last time I saw a movie in 3D was 1983. 3D has come a long way since then.
I may be making a major cultural error by skipping this, but the trailer looks about as enjoyable as 2012 or any number of other aneurysm-inducing flicks. If a film's running time is taken up by even a fraction of that kind of action, I'm not interested.
While I admit I haven't seen this movie, there are aspects of this movie that doesn't make sense.
For one, if by the end of the 22nd century we can travel to far away planets and colonize them, why would we blow away peace loving, sentient aliens?
Wouldn't we, at the very least, want to learn from them? And if their tribe is living on land that could mined for a valuable mineral, wouldn't we try to work out some kind of deal with them?
Secondly, why is the protagonist rolling around in a 20th century wheel chair? You'd think that technology would be so advanced that he'd be in a floating chair. Better yet, at this point in the future, he'd be able to walk. If technology is so advanced to the point that they can transport his soul into the body of an alien, they sure as hell have the means to make him walk again.
Of course, this all is a convenience to the screenplay.
What I don't understand from other reviews I've read is complaints that the story and ending are "predictable".
Really? You mean when you saw Star Wars and the Death Star was introduced as the ultimate weapon of the bad guys and Luke Skywalker is introduced as the protagonist that it was a complete surprise to you at the end when Luke blew it up?
People who only pay attention to the endings and story mechanics of movies and expect some Shyamalan-esque twist miss the entire point. It's the whole experience and the story-telling that matters.
P.S. - I don't think the fact that the ending to Titanic was spoiled affected it negatively in any way.
I desperately want to love this film, but the plot sounds distressingly like "Dances With Wolves", which I loathed. The visuals are great, but what about the story?
BTW, Roger, you didn't turn off your italics, and they're corrupting the comments.
James Cameron's films have always been at the forefront of technology, but technology has never been at the forefront of his films. Meaning I don't buy all the reviews saying "Avatar" is a stunning technical achievement, but little else. For all their state of the art special effects, Cameron's movies have never lacked heart; there has always been a very human story at their core.
And all the critics citing it for having an overly generic, broad story, it seems to me, are missing the point. Sometimes the best stories are the generic ones. If you want to nitpick I'm sure it won't be hard to find something, but isn't it better just to let yourself be swept up in the story? The characters in "Slumdog Millionare" weren't exactly full of nuance, but it worked because of the passion of the storytelling.
And of all the generic plotlines out there, I have to say, this one is my personal favorite. There has always been something incredibly appealing to me about someone going behind enemy lines, gradually falling in love with the people, and ending up fighting the very force he once was a part of, because he's found a cause he believes in. As corny as that sounds, I think there's something beautiful in the simplicity of it - and it's made some great movies: "Dances With Wolves," "The Last Samurai," and now, I'm hoping, "Avatar" (I can't freaking wait to see this).
Reply to: The film needed 163 minutes to be told, causing anxiety among exhibitors eager to usher in a new audience every 120 minutes? If that's what it took, that's what it took.
"Avatar" is a victory over "The Gatekeepers."
Studios hire low-level, poorly paid employees to act as "Gatekeepers." Secretaries, analysts, various names.
James Cameron made a film he wanted to make. He didn't have to get approval from a Gatekeeper.
A budget of $237 million? Plus another $150 million for advertising? Well, after "Titanic," there were a couple of studios willing to finance his pet project.
Reply to: Ebert: Re the issue of disability: The point, I suspect, is that an operation exists to restore the hero's ability to walk, but he can't afford it.
That's a messy issue, and I think it hurts the picture. "Avatar" should be Sully's last and only chance. How many Marines lose their legs, and there isn't a real operation to restore what they lost.
Sully is supposed to be "us." We're supposed to make a connection with him, so we can experience the journey through his eyes. To feel HIS emotions. How does a soldier feel when he's paralyzed from the waist down? And then, after realizing that it's permanent, he gets a second chance?
I'm big on second chances. I think President Obama needs to research the motive for giving the President authority to issue pardons. It's a check and balance against a court system with flaws.
Reply to: Ebert: God, I enjoy your comments when they're not always about...God.
Most of your entries, when they're about movies, are about movies I haven't seen yet. I've avoided the "Avatar" trailers, but I did read a draft of the script a few years back. Never thought it would get made without substantial changes. A lot of coincidences, like Sully's twin brother being an "Avatar" donor and dying at exactly the opportune moment.
Reply to: I feel like a lot of critics are giving this a pass (when they were prepared to bury it) because they gleefully discovered its blunt commentary on Bush and the environment.
Absolutely NOT. Yes, some critics were prepared to hate anything that followed "Titanic." As James Cameron said, "The crowds showed up for the spectacle, but they found a great love story and fell in love with it."
George Bush is last year's news. No one cares. Environmental issues? Look at the problems in the Third World. Now, add another billion people, and see if the problems get worse.
Until we embrace population control, there are no solutions for environment issues. Or even band-aids.
A lot of people won't go to see "Avatar" because it's science fiction. James Cameron made the movie because, as a kid, science fiction was his thing. This is the movie he wanted to see.
If the relationship between Sully and the hot alien chick works, the film will do great box office. Sully's avatar seems to be more "teenager who grew two feet taller during puberty" than Marine.
Reply to: Having read the scriptment back in 1997 or so, I can tell that the plot is rather derivative/generic...finally a movie that can take me to another place and make me feel like I did when watching Star Wars
Remember what I said about the Gatekeepers? When we talk about "a movie that can take me to another place", why are we still using "Star Wars" as our example? Because no studio has figured out how to make a better one. And that's just plain pathetic.
Oh I will see Avatar. Mostly, because I am a sheep. Just kidding, I see any moview that either intrigues me and you think it stinks OR that you think is worthy of four stars. That's how much street cred you have with me. ;)
But this movie has troubled me from the beginning of all the hype because I've had this voice in mind saying "Where have you seen this movie? You HAVE seen this movie. Now where was it? Ok, it didn't have blue people and 3D, but you've seen it. Definitely. You HAVE seen it..."
And then out of the blue (pun intended) two friends of mine (real friends, not invisible ones) said: "You have seen it Denise!
Its 'Ferngully' meets 'Dances with Wolves'"!
And relief washed over me.
And I do love 'Ferngully' so very much.
That's weird that everyone is trying to tell you that you put up the wrong vid. When I saw it I laughed out loud. You often post vids as a joke without explaining them. Oh yeah; I don't know about this movie. It seems like everyone is really overwhelmed at it's visuals and innovation. But is it really Best Picture quality? Really? I don't feel like wearing those annoying glasses for 2 hours (the hour is the credits).
It's great to hear that this movie is actually good. For a while, I, myself, was skeptical, simply because the story just looks so FAMILIAR, you know? I mean, we've all seen the "Going to the Alien planet, humans try to wipe them out for resources" movies, and so I was thinking, why should this one be any different? I guess the answer is: Because It's James Cameron. His films are always at least entertaining, and this perhaps being the first time I see a film in IMAX, it ought to blow me away! Thanks!
Savvy
My eyes can't process 3D due to being uncoordinated with each other (lazy eyes be damned). How much am I missing with the 2D version?
I was reading your tweets and saw the review by Dana Stevens at Slate. It may be my favorite film review not written by you. My favorite part:
"For most of the first hour, a good portion of the second, and even many of the 40 minutes left after that, Avatar is stupendously friggin' rad."
I really want to see this film now. Guess I never looked at it that way...
Yes, the eye is quite impressive. But what about those star freckles? Surely, this is not just an artistic flourish. Is Cameron trying to say here that the universe is in man and not the other way around? Is Cameron referencing one of his favorite movies -- 2001:A Space Oydessy? "My God, it's full of stars." If my God is full of stars and the universe is in man then, well, you know the rest . . .
"You think I praised the film because of it's politics? Give me a break."
Why, yes, Mr. Ebert, I do believe you praised the film because of its politics. You usually do.
"Under your tree, don't you always have few "joke gifts?""
Roger, I'd imagine you as film cricket by day and comedian by night. Just like Patton Oswalt....if he was a film cricket.
If a movie costs hundreds of millions of dollars to create, is it really a revelation for it to look good? I saw AVATAR a couple of days ago, and I'm already worn out trying to convey why I feel its a supremely mediorce film. Is this it? Is this what's going to be considered great film-making? Using the same tired stories, characters, and themes, dress them up with the latest technology, pour a huge amount of money in it (mainly for the latest technology), then just make it comprehensible (unlike TRANSFORMERS)? So he created a realistic world. Do you really expect a movie that has the biggest budget ever given to any film in history to look bad? Everyone keeps comparing this to STAR WARS, which, for me, proves its mediorcity; We already got STAR WARS. We got it more then thirty years ago. Its been done. Shouldn't we be moving forward instead of trying to recapture the past? Also, this ain't no STAR WARS. That movie didn't need three hours, the biggest budget ever, twelve years to make, 3-D, and cgi to transport us into another world. Heck, a lot of it took place on a desert! Its 2010 and we're still giving movies a free pass because they have colorful scenery? Yeah the animals are complex in design ...but, they're still animals. Just different animals mixed and matched with added neon colors one, until now, could only find on the cover of a heavy metal vinyl from the 70s. Are we really giving props to a character for how realistically human they are, even when they're played by a human? Or, even more perverse, because they're sexy? There is not one interaction in this movie that isn't taken from a catalog of generalizations and cliches. And the old excuse of "Well, that's what stories are" does not apply anymore. Again, this is 2010. Its time to move forward. This movie, 3-D, and motion capture in general are pulling us back. I have so much to say about how the positive reaction to this film upsets me, but, as you might of guessed, I am not very articulate. Up until now I've only read one review that taps in on my own reaction. It can be found here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43400
Roger, don't you think it would have been more interesting if it had had a green, pro-war message or an anti-environment, anti-war one? Thought-provoking to try to put either of those together, whereas it's pretty pedestrian to pick the message he did. I only suggest this because I don't go to science fiction movies to immerse myself in the politics of the everyday world. Money's tight; I'll probably pass on this one.
Ebert: The movie's politics are very secondary.
You want pro-war, anti-Green, "Revenge 2" is your baby. Drop our troops into Egypt and rip the top off the Great Pyramid! Rox!
"This film is no better than Waterworld." Funny thing is, "Waterworld" wasn't all that bad. It wasn't the blockbuster people were hyped for, but it wasn't "Heaven's Gate".
Dwayne Monroe's comment about neo-ecological thinking, about including mankind's own artifact-making as part of our ecology, is I suspect going to inform my viewing of the film since I haven't yet seen it. One thing that Ebert said - that by the end there are bigger stakes than which side wins - make me think such ideas will resonate all the more deeply when I see this.
I'm sure the film will be entertaining. Not really jumping on board with the 'changing film' BS.
But in all honesty. With the climate in the world and with greed out of control does a $465million (yes that is the actual cost of the film) motion picture seem a bit insensitive to you. It does to me.
I love films. I mean I love films but I don't appreciate the abhorrent costs of these Hollywood blockbusters. Do people realize that LA is closing schools and eliminating art's programs due to lack of funds! Perhaps some of that Avatar money would have been better spent on education. Imagine the cost savings if Mr. Cameron had decided to remove an hour from his opus. Perhaps 60 or so million dollars.
As much as I love film and the arts it's all to clear that the handlers of said industries take them selves too seriously and are too greedy for anything groundbreaking to come from it. I don't believe advances in entertainment warrent awe and praise any longer. Aren't we a bit past that now. I mean I've grown up why haven't others?
If they wanted to create a film that changed the motion picture business how bout' give 50% of the gross to public education programs in California and abroad. Create a motion picture that generates so much capitol that art and music programs can re-emerge in public education programs.
You could also set aside that money for grant programs for emerging filmmakers. If the film generates 1billion dollars gross then take 1% of that and create a grants program.
I really challenge Hollywood and the like to make any game changing films. They certainly don't know how to other than hype the fact that they do.
It's all rather lame really.
And can we actually have films and filmmakers that live the message that they preach. A green message with and anti-war message? Really. The film certainly doesn't live the message it preaches (the amount of resources needed to create a film are astronomical by the way. The public really has no idea how much resources it takes to create a film. Nothing green about it unless they figure out how to grow film and CMOS sensors on trees. And even then I'm sure they'd figure out how to be wasteful). BTW what is your carbon footprint Mr. Cameron. I would assume it's the size of some small countries.
--
Hi there!
I apologize in advance if this is a point which has already been brought up, but I cannot help but worry about Cameron's "groundbreaking" special-effects wizardry. What I am worried about is that the pinheads in charge of releasing "Transformers 2," and the upcoming, "Bad Boys 3," will immediately snap up this new technology, besmirching its potential by using it within whatever overdone, special-effects laden film they manage to haphazardly throw together. What they will NOT realize is that this film was enjoyed because of its STORY (Sorry about the caps, it's just that there is no italicize button), not the special effects.
It's very cool that James Cameron is making a film that you *really* need to see in a movie theater. I keep reading how movie theaters are going out of business because everyone's watching them on DVD, but it's very reassuring to know that someone's actively fighting that trend.
Ebert: I think I'll start with: You haven't seen the movie, have you?
Continue with: The suburbs of the North have turned dramatically Democrat in the last 20 years.
And: There's little graffiti in Chicago because of Daley's graffiti-busters.
And: Not all opinions are propaganda.
And: The phrase "limousine liberal" has passed its sell-by date.
1)No. So?
2)Yeah, well, why does all the blue cities and states have the most crime?
3)No graffiti of "Bush sucks"?
4)True to a point. But where do you draw the line.
5)Trust me, "limousine liberal" is more apt now than ever.
Ebert: Blue States have fewer murders; this is even more true in densely-populated areas. Red states have significantly more rapes. Blue states, led by Massachusetts, have a lower divorce rate than do red states. Blue states are much safer places to drive - the difference is stunning. Blue states have substantially less infant mortality - however, there are a few surprises, such as Utah. Blue state infant mortality rates are similar to those found in the rest of the developed world. Folks in blue states live longer than folks in red states. The states with the least poverty are blue, and the states with the most poverty are red.
Those statements are all cut-and-pasted from the web, here: http://j.mp/6Pk2n9
And check this out: http://j.mp/7dmY31
Out of curiosity, where did you pick up your notions about red and blue states? Happen to hear that somewhere?
Roger says he doesn't praise this movie because of it's leftwing politics. Alright. Would you have enjoyed the movie less if it didn't have a leftist message?
Ebert: No less. Just as much with a right wing message. And you?
Haven't seen it, right?
Why is it "left-wing," anyway, to be against (1) destroying the environment and (2) invading a peaceful world far from home?
1) Well, sure seems to me that you laud the film for being anti-war and pro-environment- two phrases associated with the loony left.
2)Furthermore, nobody is "for" destroying the environment. Afterall, who likes dirty water and pollution? The current environmental movement is a political movement aimed at tearing apart the USA.
Secondly, nobody in their right mind "loves" war. Since when has anyone in history "invaded a peaceful world far from home?"
Ebert: Here is the total of what my review says on the subject: "It has a flat-out Green and anti-war message."
Would you call that "lauding?"
If "anti-war and pro-environment" are "two phrases associated with the loony left," who do you approve of them? The first great environmentalists in America were Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater.
"Loony left" has passed its sell-by date. How old are you that "loony left and "limousine liberal" fall so easily from your thoughts?
Still haven't seen the movie?
I love how people say environmentalism isn't about politics. Really?? Look at all the hypocrites in Copenhagen right now. When Hugo Chavez gives a speech touting Marxism and receives thunderous applause from "environmentalists"- don't tell me it's not about politics.
Furthermore, people say if you aren't "pro-environment" then you must be against a clean environment. Sheez. Who likes smog? Who likes contaminated water?
I love nature but I'm not going to make it the center of my life. The earth has been around a long time. It's gone through ice ages and heat waves. I don't want government to regulate my life. I don't want anyone to tell me what kind of car I should drive. I don't want to pay higher taxes.
Ebert: You talk the talk, but do you drive a Prius?
It seems as though, nowadays, only the directors with $300 million are creating new worlds, while the lower-budget directors feel stuck with trying to portray the 'reality of everyday life' or whatever they're calling it now, and I fear that it's becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, if the only low-budget films a young director sees are those that attempt to deal with life as it's lived(an honorable pursuit, don't get me wrong), then some of those filmmakers might chuck great and original ideas to follow what they've learned are the boundaries of their budget, since nowadays 'independent film' evokes, to some, titles like 'Monster' and 'Clerks' rather than 'Eraserhead' 'Aguirre' or 'Un Chien Andalou'(please slap me if I sound like I'm showing off).
Speaking of new worlds, I just watched Herzog's "Heart of Glass" and will be watching it several more times before it's due back. I've noticed that, even though you've spoken of it and I believe you included it on one of your top ten lists, there is no review on your website. Was it such a limited release you didn't get to write one, or is it just lost? If it's the latter, could you have it posted? Or, perhaps, a Great Movie?
"Loony left" and "limousine" liberal are more apt now than ever before.. Those words go hand in hand like "progressive" and "hypocrite". Please Roger, don't tell me you've distanced yourself from reality.
Case in point- look at the farce in Copenhagen. Communist dictator Chavez gets a standing ovation at a climate summit!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans
So much about it not being about politics!
Plus you have flag-waving communists and socialists marching around outside in the FREEZING BLIZZARD.
"Hope" and "Change"? More like HOAX and CHAINS.
If blue cities and states are utopias, why the high rate of suicide?
Plus when "unbiased" Smart Politics is tied to Democrat Underground, I get real suspicious...
Ebert: Here we go again.
Blue states have much lower suicide rates than red states.
Lowest: Massachusets and New York.
Highest: "The five states with the most lopsided Bush vote (Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, with a margin of 25 percent or more) were all among the top eight for suicide."
Author: Michael Craig Miller, MD, editor-in-chief of the Harvard Mental Health Letter
As for Smart Politics, that page I linked wasn't opinion, it was a University of Minnesota survey. Would you expect to find it on one of your favorite sites? Please tell us where to look for statistics backing up your statement about suicide rates.
Going on the last Cameron film I watched, Titanic, he could learn a great deal about plot structuring. I hear Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart are appearing in a production of "Waiting for Godot" in London, soon. There would be few people better than Beckett to learn how to be "rad" with plot structure from. Maybe with all the money Cameron is making, he could take a flight to London and..well..learn?
Indian Idiot (H.W.)
"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."
I don't know Roger. I don't want to mince words, but... it does seem like you are lauding the film for having a "flat out Green and anti-war message", since the statement seems to be in the same context with the rest of the paragragh (which clearly praises the film).
Ebert: I'd say I was pleased by the message, but felt no need to laud it.
pleased: happy, glad, delighted, gratified, grateful, thankful, content, contented, satisfied; thrilled, elated, overjoyed; informal over the moon, tickled pink, on cloud nine.
laud:praise, extol, hail, applaud, acclaim, commend, sing the praises of, speak highly of, pay tribute to, lionize, eulogize, rhapsodize over/about..
I've already held a bit of worry for Avatar, after, like many others here apparently, having read the original 1997 script. To me, it feels like simply a sci-fi take on "FernGully:The Last RainForest." But I would that the movie is indeed a political movie first and entertainment 2nd. Here's why.
acroyear said: "Secondly, why is the protagonist rolling around in a 20th century wheel chair? You'd think that technology would be so advanced that he'd be in a floating chair. Better yet, at this point in the future, he'd be able to walk. If technology is so advanced to the point that they can transport his soul into the body of an alien, they sure as hell have the means to make him walk again.
We already have rudimentary IPC stem cell research, which is far less controversial because it involves reverse-engineering of skin cells into stem cells, rather than abortion. I myself also wondered about why we humans didn't seem to be pursueing fusion power in the film rather searching for "Unobtainables." But he then points out:
"Of course, this all is a convenience to the screenplay."
It's true. The way I see it, Cameron didn't bother to correct either of those two scientific errors simply to be able to give the message on why war is bad and we should respect nature. Had the two been fixed the plot likely would have become very different. I'm not saying that his message is wrong, I for one am a hard-core naturalist(and Boy Scout) but saying that this movie is an entertainment film like Star Wars and its politics not being as important undermines the entire reason for writing the story:to tell a politcal message, otherwise these glaring plot holes would not exist.
Watched it... Man, WHAT A MOVIE! Still can see nature all around me right now...ONE of the BEST EVER MADE!
Roger,
I guess we can agree to disagree.
I never thought in my wildest dreams I'd be arguing with someone I have admired for so long. I clearly don't agree with your political views and I think you are dead wrong on many issues, but hey, you must think I'm dead wrong too.
I don't usually contribute to blogs. But with the recession, inflation, and unemployment on my mind, it's hard not to be vitriolic.
While I haven't seen the movie, I plan on doing so.
I love reading your reviews (I don't always agree, but agree more often than not). I loved watching your reviews on tv (I miss the days when you and Gene would get into an argument- makes for great tv). Most importantly, I admire your vast knowledge of cinema. I wish I had the wealth of knowledge you do.
I guess what set me off is that you said the movie had a flat-out anti-war and Green message. Which, frankly, these terms tend to be associated with people on the left side of the aisle. And well, oh, nevermind.
I generally go to the movies to be entertained. Movies like this should be escapist entertainment. Honestly, I really don't like movies that preach to the audience (who does?).
I guess the best tactic is to go to the film and have a good time. I think with all the dazzling 3d effects, I'll forget about any "leftist" messages this film might have.
Ebert: I doubt if the message, such as it is, will bother you at all.
Roger, you may know the answer to this, but I've been wondering if the knee-jerk need to ascribe a political party to a movie's "message" has been a recent one. (Okay, the blacklisting might predate the current trend.)
I used to read that "Big Hollywood" blog for laughs... not because I disagreed with the politics, but I found the need to find politics in everything Hollywood hilarious. But then it got sad.
Seems like that's happening here. Somehow Hugo Chavez speaking somewhere backs up the idea that Smurfs Vs. Private Ryan is going to be pro-Obama propaganda among a subset that really enjoys being offended by the existence of contrary opinions. Or even opinions they agree with, but might align with a political party they don't. What a sad sad way to live life.
Ebert: I'm at a loss to understand why Chavez was brought up on this entry and not on limericks.
Ebert: "You think I praised the film because of it's politics? Give me a break."
Pete: Why, yes, Mr. Ebert, I do believe you praised the film because of its politics. You usually do.
What an incisive, laconic put-down! Okay, Mr. Ebert, you've been told before, but now we mean it: stick to movie criticism. Obviously, you've tromped over Pete's nice clean political borders in error more than once with those big, muddy liberal galoshes of yours. We can't be having critics doing this! Except maybe Armond White.
As for me, I'll be seeing "Avatars" with my Poli Sci 101 textbook and a Spiral notepad. Unless there's a Cliff's Notes version in 3D.
PS: haven't got a Prius yet, but rented one last summer, and boy, they're fun. You can't haul much hay in them, though.
I didn't really mean what I wrote in "The Lorax." I was an old man then.
Evan: Secondly, nobody in their right mind "loves" war. Since when has anyone in history "invaded a peaceful world far from home?"
---That's a tough one. But I'm taking a stab that there were a couple of continents called "North America" and "South America" where that may have happened. I've heard of a few others too, but only heard. I wasn't there at the time.
I've been chomping at the bit after reading this thread. Evan, why are you even wasting time here? It's apparent you're not going to see the movie. Because apparently you hate trees and hippies (okay, just kidding there). But seriously man, just let it go. You are looking dumber with every post. Okay, you have a problem with the environmental message... I get it. So, what... you are going to debate your political views with a film critic? Please...
So Avatar has a green message. Some people don't mind that. I want to see Avatar. I personally don't care that there are some thematic material that some people deem controversial. Hey, if you don't want to see a thought-provoking movie... there's always Transformers 2.
Oh yeah, Antichrist. Environmentalism isn't about politics... its about saving your ass! The earth has been around a long time but we haven't. The earth has been through ice ages and heat waves but we haven't. Think about that for a second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HXUhShhmY&feature=PlayList&p=18AC79AF741A0941&index=5
special effects...
I find it interesting that James Cameron and his former wife directed the two best movies of the year. "Avatar" left me speechless and in awe. So did "The Hurt Locker".
We've got The Princess and the Frog scheduled as our Christmas day movie. I'll have to book this one for New Year's Day.
I was looking forward to the piece on the dead people in the Direct TV ads. Did you decide to scrap that one?
It pains me to see Roger Ebert taking time to reply to these anti-environment animals. Either they're being willfully stupid (because the evidence is there for anyone to see), or they were born that way. Either way, trying to talk to them isn't going to help. The fact that you even allow these comments to be published makes you far kinder than I would ever be to these people.
The first image is from the Avatar video game. Vaguely funny.
Ebert: I hoped it would be. Think I should swap it out? It's sort of supposed to pair with the last video clip. Tiny in-joke.
I saw Avatar on IMAX 3D. Needless to say it is very good. I believe anyone with little bit of imagination will be WOWed by it.
This is a movie that must be watched in 3D. Even though it is in 3D, I don't recall objects flying into my face (if it did, it was obviously well done for me to not notice it). The perception of depth and height (like the floating mountains, big tree) are so good that it is brings Pandora to life. Pandora has got a stunning night life . I think the for a change Humans are the aliens in this movie. At the very least, no one was routing for them when I saw it.
I am sure there are so many tiny details in every frame, that one can easily watch it again. To begin with, did you observe how many fingers the Na'vi have ? I wonder if it is easy to use bow and arrow with them ?
Ugh. I just got back from a midnight screening of AVATAR in 3D, and I am at a total loss for words as to what exactly the fuss is all about. The 3D DOES dim the image, and adds NOTHING to it. Wearing the glasses is a complete pain, and the effect is just simply distracting. The story IS a total ripoff of a hundred other "going native" stories, and the characters could not possibly have been thinner. It's not a bad movie. I was entertained, and feel I got my money's worth, but I can't shake the feeling that had some time been spent on making the movie a little less derivative, I might have witnessed something truly EPIC. Instead, we get a world full of alien life that looks suspiciously just like life on earth (horses, tigers, birds of prey, rhinos, etc...), all mixed up with the same color palette used in The Abyss. The N'avi are Native Americans, the military are the cowboys... it's just all so tired. It makes me even more frustrated because DESPITE all that, I still liked the movie. If it hadn't all felt so familiar, I might have been truly blown away. AVATAR comes SO close to being great, that it's flaws stand out even more.
Ebert: I don't know. I just don't know. It's like in the old South, when hey cut the blacks out of movies. Al Jolson and Cab Calloway challenged that by singing a duet with each other
They actually did that? Wow! I gathered up with a couple of other film critics, editors and professors to replace the subtitles ot at least lower it. We tried all night but they just wouldn't let us in.
I ended up calling my grandfather, who was the previous prime minister in Egypt (I hate doing that), and they let us in.
AVATAR now is in original form and will be resubmitted to all theaters today.
Ebert: Arabic subtitles in the CENTER of the screen!
Wow, would THAT have the Loony Lurkers here polishing up their conspiracy theories.
I am eager to see this movie for a bunch of reasons. Chief among them is the memory of a day spent in a theater with my Dad, seeing another landmark film. I was seven, and I remember leaving the theater hand in hand with my Dad, asking, "Again Daddy... can we see it again?" That movie was Star Wars. Something tells me Cameron is aiming higher with this effort. I suspect kids will be begging for a second viewing from their parents, just like I did back then.
I am a little stunned at some of the comments I've read today, though. They suggest people who may have refused to see Das Boot for the following reasons...
1. It probably has German subtitles in it.
2. The Germans probably sink some Allied shipping during the movie.
3. The submarine probably gets sunk at some point during the film.
4. The lighting is probably bad.
5. I already know who wins in the end.
P.S. I won't even bother reading your review of Das Boot, Roger... I'm afraid to find out you're a Nazi sympathizer by reading between the lines!
Mr. Ebert, In reference to your comment about James Cameron spending $250 million and you saw most of that on screen. I seem to recall Mike Royko made a similar comment on "True Lies". As near as I can recall, Royko said, "Cameron spent $100 million and put every penny on the screen."
Its good to see that Mr. Cameron still cannot get out of making T and A movies. Terminator 1 & 2, Aliens, Abyss, True Lies, Titanic and now Avatar. One of these days he may stumble on some other letters :)
I am eager to see another Cameron masterpiece.
Miles Blanton
Ebert: Something must have gone wrong with "Xenogenesis."
Just seen it. A few plus points:
-It was a decent action movie
-The effects were really spectacular, with tons to take in and see
-It didn't drag much, despite the length
It was worth watching, but I disagree with the implied idea in Ebert's review (and other critics reviews) that we'll somehow still be talking about this in a few years. We won't be, no more than we are still talking about King Kong from a few years back. It's a case of overhyping.
The story was generic and too predictable as other people have pointed out, but far, far worse was the cheesy dialogue and cut and paste cardboard characters.
It's hard to be a new Star Wars when that film, in contrast, had amazingly memorable characters. I don't think this film will have anything like that resonance, or even as much as Jurassic Park. I just expect a bit more delivery for the hype and $300m budget.
Despite that, this film does rise above these faults in a way some other movies don't. A solid 7.5/10.
I'd like to add to the small chorus praising the "Avatar: The Last Airbender" television series. I'm skeptical of the Shyamalan adaptation for several reasons, namely his recent track record, the fact that he's never made a film of this nature, and the non-Asian actor debacle which upset a great number of fans (the series takes place in a fantasy world, but it is a fantasy world very noticeably influenced by Asian culture). But there is a talented filmmaker buried somewhere deep within him, and my hope is that adapting someone else's work will allow that talent to resurface, no longer weighted by the burnden of his own ideas.
I'm sure you don't have time to devote to a sixty-episode cartoon, which is unfortunate, because it's not the sort of show you can properly appreciate by happening upon an episode while channel-flipping. It's best taken as a complete story, from beginning to end.
Just know that if the Shyamalan version is a mess, it's not because of the source material.
If you're interested, here are a few articles for further reading:
http://www.pajiba.com/tv_reviews/avatar-the-last-airbender-review.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/arts/television/19avat.html
http://www.buddytv.com/articles/avatar-the-last-airbender/avatar-the-last-airbender-movi-30051.aspx
One might expect a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist to be above snarky asides that have nothing to do with the overall conversation, and come across as petulant, not clever.
As a CT resident, I don't always agree with Senator Lieberman's positions, but I have come to think that he actually is a man of principles. You may disagree with them but you could at least respect them (he was right about the surge, you know, however galling that may be to admit. I was not in favor of the initial decision to invade, but once we WERE there I was definitely in favor of winning it!). Unlike Senator Dodd, a great study in contrasts, for whom I had little respect at the outset and have even less for now (the expression "the politician as whore" comes to mind).
Ebert: It's easy to stay faithful to your principles if they can change.
I was lucky enough to see Avatar last night in 3D. The sound system wasn't quite up to the task - or maybe this movie is just sensibly mixed? Not entirely sure. It was a nice change after the deafening mess of Transformers 2 but it was lacking impact. I get to see it at the IMAX on Sunday so I'm expecting that will be much better.
But all in all, fantastic movie. I was a little disappointed by how heavily the plot relied on cliches - but on the plus side, Cameron seemed totally aware of that, so he kept things moving at a great pace because he knew the audience would figure it out on their own. Did not feel like two hours, forty minutes to me. The performances put in by all the performers, human or Na'vi alike, were great. The Colonel is a badass for the ages.
A lot has been said about how spectacular this movie is to look at... this is truly the most stunning movie I've ever seen on a screen, and the 3D effect was used extremely well.
The story might hold it back from being one of the greatest movies of all time, but this movie still deserves nothing less than 5 out of 5 stars.
Haha, I love how so many people are confused about the "Airbender" video.
Going to see Avatar this weekend. So excited to see it that I'm having dreams about it.
I'm also very excited for the other Avatar, "The Last Airbender". Are you familiar with that show/movie? Are you interested in seeing it? I hope, and expect, M. Night to make a good movie again finally.
I'll comment on the movie after I watch it this Sunday. However, I'll exploit Bay's mention in the post to link to this utterly amazing article on why Transformers: The Second was an art film of the highest order! It was written back in June but I just stumbled across it, and it's a MUST MUST read. :)
I saw Titanic years after the hoopla. Hoopla makes me run screaming away from things. Just does. Rubs me the wrong way.
I watched Sigourney Weaver in an interview this week talking about acting in Avatar with ears and a tail. Like a kid on a pony ride, what it reminded me of. Yes, she is skilled at her art, but this rang true. Cameron made it as real as he could for the actors. There is a joy of creation in that.
I worry when someone loves a project as much as Cameron did this one. Sometimes it is a recipe for disaster. When it works we can go along for the ride. LOTR triumphed because the technology had caught up to the story. Same with the Harry Potter stories. I like myth and archetype and won’t be offended by a somewhat simple tale. A lot of what I love about the Potter tales, fairy tale and traditional British orphan stories in the Dickens vein, depth and breadth.
I had a small technical question, but have since read the other hundred comments and saw it voiced but not answered. What happens when a red/green colorblind person watches a 3D movie? In a vet blog I read, Jason wrote about his entry into the Iraq war zone with most of the company wearing night vision glasses. He could not wear them because he could not distinguish the gradations of green because of his color blindness. Will this movie be watchable for him and others that are so afflicted ? Perhaps the day is coming when 3D won’t need help.
Of course severely color blind people navigate the world differently already, but I wonder. I'm thinking you don't have a facile answer or I would have seen it already.
I'm sorry to see some of the polarizing voices at work for this entry. Wade through them, but it isn't fun. I was hoping this would just be a movie ride.
Films are films. They are someone's Idea. That Idea may not jibe with my ideas. As a free thinking individual, I can choose to accept or reject Ideas that I like, dislike, or that convince me to change my mind about something.
I find though, that many people seem to object to a film's Ideas on the basis that 'it is full of lies and might convince people of those lies.' But never the speaker. They never say: 'I won't see that movie because I do not want to become convinced of lies.' The speaker presumes himself immune.
Well, we are all speakers. We are all mindful. If some of us become convinced of new things, that is not necessarily harmful. It contributes to the robustness of debate and thought.
It seems political affiliation has become the means to end all debates, even those of taste. Oh you're liberal/conservative, well there's no need to discuss this any further. All your opinions are hereby void and non-transferrable.
So what if the movie is pro-environment and anti-war? There's only an issue if you choose to see it as tree-hugging, liberal pro-environment or peacenick, flower-in-gun-barrel-sticking, anti-war.
As long as a movie doesn't go overboard in promoting it's agenda, I'll take what I see and make my own judgment. (I knew this brain would come in handy one day!)
It's a rare movie that really manages to be politically neutral. Check out Kieslowksi's Short Film About Killing for a great example. One of the few movies I've known to be advocated by both sides of the cause (capital punishment in this case).
I haven't seen this yet, and will probably wait for the dvd, 3-D is more something I put up with than enjoy. What I found most interesting about this is that in the trailers it mentions that this is "From the director of The Terminator...Aliens...and Terminator 2..." but never mentions Titanic. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first time someone involved with a film has been touted by referencing their previous work but NOT mentioning the Oscar winner?! And not some artsy unknown thing mind you, but the biggest grosser ever! I know it's because the genre is different, but still, I doubt an Orsen Welles movie ever featured tag line "From that guy in the wine commercials..."
I remember after Avatar day when few minutes clips from this movie were shown; you were quite Skeptical in your note and raised quite a few question marks... were they Justified? or you just got lost in the actual movie's huge Canvas and ignored them....
Because your comment was not only limited to Alien races like everyone else make fun off before seeing the movie.. it was something with 3D itself.. the way scenes are shot etc etc...
While reading this Journal entry I was actually looking for a confession where you can say I was wrong earlier and this movie is not something we thought after Avatar Day
I am almost convinced to go see Avatar. What you have said will sink in this weekend, and by next week I'll go see it with an open mind and heart. And I'll probably appreciate your urging. I absolutely loved Knowing but not as much as I loved Moon. I like The Golden Compass a great deal though mostly just for its oddities and plot. I do like Jurassic Park. I'm going to try to draw on these feelings as far as preparing myself to see Avatar.
Somewhat unrelated to that, the films I have discovered recently but not watched yet are: The Beast (1988), Day Break (the Iranian film), The Juniper Tree (Bjork), and Together (the swedish commune). No wait, I saw Together, and I liked it a lot.
Roger, the reason Chavez was brought up because the right these days is so involved in hatred, they will use a movie review site to bring politics into it. The right wingers are so engraged over a MOVIE, they will flood a review site to whine about it. Simply put, it is getting annoying and most people are getting tired of their incessant whining on any page they can find. I've even seen these hateful right wingers flooding their vitriol and hate onto video game sites.
To them, EVERYTHING is "leftist anti-western" propaganda, no matter how untrue it is.
Most of the folks i've talked to are unconvinced. I've spoken with folks from various places in the cultural spectrum and it's mostly the 'blue people' that have them turned off and uninterested. I'm not the first in line at most action/adventure movies, but i'm kind of pumped about getting on board something so audacious and massive as this one. I actually have yet to see a movie in 3D at the theatre but will start with this one Saturday morning... ironically afterwards i'm gonna skip on over to the dollar theatre for "Paranormal Activity", you know, just to feel like I balance out the budgets.
Oh my god i saw it last night; I've never cared so much about cgi characters in my life! just forget about the mentioned environmental message (if you want to call it that) you will end up caring about the Na'vi and their land, another race coming in and taking it, its part of the story and it works! there is no preaching here, its a clear right or wrong and the mastery from Cameron was in making us care about the Pandora so much; because you do get transported into this world.
I'm still tingling from last night. Its been a while since I've been able to completely let go of everything and just ride along.
I wonder what Lucas, Peter Jackson, (on a lesser note Michael Bay) have to say about this movie, the bar has been set so high for CGI. It makes the Star Wars remakes look dated.
Amazing!
All these people saying the plot "Avatar" is borrowed from "Dances With Wolves" or "Call Me Joe" or even "Ferngully" are out to lunch. Clearly it's an unauthorized remake of "Local Hero".
And is it my imagination or does every entry of yours that generates a lot of responses eventually degenerate into a handful of people endlessly re-accusing you of liberal bias?
Ebert: I believe they're even sent around to cooking and animal sites. I've seen denunciations of communist butterscotch pudding, rabble-rousing whales, and polar bears who are faking it out there their ice floes.
Politics again? Left wing, right wing... you know, if you only have one wing, you can't fly straight. In case you haven't noticed, this is a fantasy / science fiction film. It's a hero story, with good guys and bad guys. It's got the classic beats of many old stories that go back centuries in the great long line of storytelling tradition. Environmental and anti-war? Does it matter, really? I would agree with David Mamet when he says that not a single film in history has changed the world. Look at all the "message" movies that have come out of Hollywood and look at how everything has stayed the same. Military are easy bad guys and lovely jungles are easy "good guys". We go to be entertained, to be taken away for a few hours, not to be preached to, and if Cameron is preaching anything it's a reverence for film technique and a desire to bring the technology to a new level. He's not the greatest storyteller, but he remembers the grand circus escapism the child in us craves when the lights go down and the curtains open.
Can't wait to see it.
By the way, the still shot from the film of the eye that opens your post is magnificent. Rich luxurious blue. Translucent green eyes with stunning detail. A frame well composed. Wow.
Armand White trashed the movie; so I know it must be good.
I plan on seeing the film in 3D and on an IMAX screen in a few hours...
I keep hoping 3D will be a short-lived fad (for the third or fourth time). It does nothing for me, since I don't have binocular vision, and seems like a superfluous gimmick.
As noted, the story is strongly reminiscent of Poul Anderson's classic "Call Me Joe". It also reminds me of the "Outer Limits" episode "The Chameleon" (featuring a young Robert Duvall). James Cameron must have watched a lot of "Outer Limits" as a kid; maybe he'll get sued again (like he was by Harlan Ellison over the similarity of "Terminator" to Ellison's OL episodes "Soldier" and "Demon With a Glass Hand").
If Cameron wants to adapt science fiction stories, maybe he should do "The Stars My Destination".
I think it's curious to see such resistance to change or something new here. People are expressing skepticism and an unwillingness to see the movie without having seen it, either because of whatever message it may have (as if a pro-environmental or generally responsible message is such a horrible thing to endure) or because of some antiquated notion about sets, technology, and the proper way to make a film. I find it fascinating the many ways we resist evolution, in whatever form.
@Patrick Harney on December 17, 2009 8:34 PM
...what I am worried about is that the pinheads in charge of releasing "Transformers 2," and the upcoming, "Bad Boys 3," will immediately snap up this new technology, besmirching its potential by using it within whatever overdone, special-effects laden film they manage to haphazardly throw together..
Try reading "Moving Pictures" by Terry Pratchett.
Cool special effects do not equal good film. James Cameron's ego knows no bounds and I'm sick of seeing his movie and his smarmy face everywhere. I'll be happy when this is all over.
Ebert: Seen tt yet?
not exactly related, but a humorous error in your Avatar review:
"I saw the film in 3-D on a good screen at the AMC River East and was impressed. I might be awesome in True IMAX. Good luck in getting a ticket before February."
Truly, you WOULD be a sight to behold in IMAX. When's that film coming out?
Ebert: Not before March.
It's simply mind-boggling that, in a year where JJ Abrams was mentioned in the same sentence as Steven Spielberg, people are having a go at Avatar for having a cliched (read:classical adventure) narrative. Cameron understands how to shoot and edit for the cinema and in this decade of shaky-cam hacks that alone is reason for celebration.
First off, I'd just like to start by saying I saw this movie last night at the midnight showing in IMAX 3D. Phenomenal, I was a skeptic only because I'd been let down by a few movies this year so far, but all of my expectations were met and exceeded. Of the films nominated for Best Picture (GG's) this year, that this is the best of the bunch, still haven't seen Up in the Air though.
Secondly, there was a clear green message to this movie, but I'm not so sure it was anti-war as much as it was anti-capitalistic. It was hard to not relate the harvesting of the "un-obtainium" to the procurement of oil and other natural resources here on earth. The images of Blackwater also kept running through my head when it seemed that the military action was solely dictated by "shareholder's needs" and fear of a "bad quarterly statement". The movie made a strong case for the dangers of capitalism gone wild with no regard to morale or ethical repercussions. There's no left/right/commie/fascist skew to that, if anyone can't understand what dangers my lay down that route look no further than the extortion of aboriginal people throughout the world by "sovereign entities" in an effort to extract resources (land/oil/diamonds/etc).
Lastly, why should people shy away from movies that have messages? Should all movies be soulless nonsensical garbage about robots clanging around Egyptian pyramids? Just because the message might be difficult or you might be so incredibly hard-wired to ignore the adverse effects of extortion of both other cultures and the environment, don't project your hate towards people who aren't like you. Mr. Ebert's review of this movie was fantastic, he did not dwell upon some of the contentious themes of the movie, but he did mention them. He also didn't make a case for either side "left or right" but rather, he impressed upon the problems associated with war and environmental neglect. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who's PROWAR and ANTIENVIRONMENT, and really if someone like that actually exists out there, they need to take a good hard look at themselves. People shouldn't have to apologize to anyone for pointing out the obvious precarious nature of capitalism left unchecked; if you haven't learned that for yourself over the past year and a half then you haven't been paying attention.
Roger:
Just prior to last week's press screening in Dallas, while waiting I chatted up the theater manager. We observed the peculiarity, as you did, of studios being afraid of their own projects. How can you tell if a studio is deathly nervous about opening week? They wait until the week prior to release for an all-press screening and still bag and tag every cell phone, even though it's likely that viral video could only help turn up the buzz at that late stage in the game.
It seems absurd at first, but not when one considers the gargantuan investment made by the studio. If it was budgeted for $230 million (according to IMDB), is rumored to have cost even up to $400 million in the end, how much more money was piled into promotion and marketing? Total? Half a billion? There are so many moving parts from start to finish of a production that one just cannot predict what they're agreeing to when they greenlight a film, especially a production as massive as this.
Given that, I can begin to understand why the studios are nervous as hell. But how did they get there? Why greenlight such a huge risk? Maybe ego... someone wants to be the next Alan Ladd, Jr. Maybe dreams of avarice. And, as you said, who says no to the King of the World?
This movie is amazing in many ways - but I really wished Cameron hadn't made the second half of the movie so predictable. Once the big tree was bombed down (a really strong, immersive scene) the story went out.
I missed twists and wished for real open questions (a tree-network!? awesome). But all there was left was watching stuff explode, secondary characters die, and waiting for the end to come. That's not how you tackle Star Wars or LotR, but maybe Avatar was never meant to do so (which makes me sad).
That said, I'm still tempted to watch it once more!
Lookin' forward to this. Sounds like it's doing for people now what "Metropolis" must've done for people way back when.
I'm not writing this because of the prior Chavez mention, but I chuckled during AVATAR when Worthington was complimented early on by the military leader for his prior hot-shot work "in Venezuela" - an amusing covert political commentary all by itself and still keeping with the other political commentary in the movie that Roger has eloquently described.
A couple of other critics have evoked 9/11 imagery in describing another key moment of the film. I wouldn't totally go that far but the echo is there if people want to pursue it.
WETA's effects are obviously awe-inspiring but I found myself most impressed with the renditions of leaves, foilage, plant life and branches, so that when the camera was tracking in on the two leads during scenes in the Na'vi forest, the camera was seemingly pentetrating through all that plant life which seemed 100% authentic, and in 3D to boot, even though I knew it had all been created by a computer.
I was also pleased by the moments of humour in the movie. Cameron, for all his ostensible positives and negatives as a writer, typically has a winning way with comedy and I found myself laughing along with the crowd during a few moments.
The 3D aspect of the movie is as effective and understated as Roger describes, but there are a couple of nice tips of the hat to those especting some more overt uses of the technique, notably Giovanni Ribisi's method of recreation in the office during his opening scenes. That was quite witty.
Another friend of mine noted something that I agreed with. There are a number of moments in AVATAR where someone will be in front of a window, or someone is standing in a cockpit, and we get a good look at the viewpoint beyond them, over the shoulder and through that window. I'm thinking in particular of a moment during one of the initial military attacks where we see out the cockpit of the command ship, and, aside from the floating holographic readouts and displays in front of the pilot, we can also see the activity through the window of the Na'vi warriors and their clan, the overall landscape, other ships in flight and so on. It's an effect I somehow found completely engrossing.
I warmed to a lot of the emotional scenes in the film, or at least the ones that I was supposed to warm to. There's one obvious scene which is deliberately more upsetting, and I found myself affected by it. My favorite moment of the film at this point (POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILER) - Zoe Saldana as Neytiri, seeing her love finally get a handle on this whole riding-beasts-through-the-air thing, and urgently jumping on her own flying creature so she can fly alongside him. I found it very sweet and moving.
I hope that the film is a big success, and that Cameron is energised to do another feature again soon. I don't begrudge him his documentries or self-described 'time off', but I'm glad to have him back doing features. AVATAR has its pros and cons (two close friends of mine have seen it, one loved it, the other liked it but had somewhat more mixed feelings) but I still feel it's a film that people should check out and take a chance on if they haven't yet seen it or made plans to. It's something quite different from what you normally see, and has such an embarassment of movie riches (in the best possible way) that there's bound to be something in there that you'll greatly enjoy.
Just got back from seeing the movie. You'd have to be pretty callous, left or right, not to go along with the "message" in this movie. There's nothing fascist, communist, or bleeding heart about speaking out against the exploitation of aboriginal people for corporate greed.
As George Carlin was wont to say... just ask an Indian, if you can find one.
Dear Ebert
Undoubtedly Cameron has utilised the 3d functionality beautifully. Every minute detail comes alive on screen. His creations, his artistic works all comes out brilliantly. But so does his lacklustre writing. The story may be ordinary, but the screenplay is equally disappointing until the last 40 mins or so.
Cameron has done his magic. He has more or less stuck to his task and went about his job earnestly. Not a masterpiece , but still a very very worthy job.
However what are you and your clan of critics out there trying to do by promoting this movie as the most perfect thing ever to cinema. 4star ? Really? AVATAR is far from it, and every other kid knows that. Surprising then folks who lived through years of great cinema coming down and worshipping AVATAR and over hyping it. Come on, I bet even Cameron knows his work is far from perfection. I believe all this over-hyping shall eventually cause more harm to Cameron than good.
Even Ali Arikan review has broken it down to the T...yet you still believe it is a perfect 4 ? Gimme a break...
I
With all due respect, Mr. Ebert -- I'll pass on seeing it. When a film garners praise based solely on its CGI and 3D effects while the story, characters, plot points, dialogue (ie: things that make great movies great) are all deemed as sub-par, something isn't adding up. In fact, as opposed to "advancing the craft of filmmaking" as so many bloggers and "experts" seem to think, I view this as a complete dumbing down of the art of cinema.
Call me a traditionalist (or just stubborn) but nothing I've seen or heard of Avatar impresses me. So why spend twelve dollars at the AMC to see cool special effects when I could spend $9.25 at the Music Box and see something with legitimate artistic merit?
Here's a mini-review I put on facebook after previewing a 2D print on Wednesday night:
The story is nothing we haven't seen before (see Princess Mononoke for a more interesting presentation of similar themes) and the art direction and designs are a little weak. But the visuals are put together so well, that for the most part you believe the fantastic planet and its inhabitants are as real as the flesh-and-blood actors. It all looks and feels like live-action, even though it's mostly computer generated.I'm still not entirely convinced about 'those blue people,' but I have to say that Neytiri (the blue girl) is the best CGI charcter since Gollum.The first hour lacks drama, but it allows the characters to bond convincingly, and the audience to actually care about the last act, which is all action.So really, it's all about the eye-candy (and so probably should be seen in 3D, or even IMAX 3D if you can), but it's all done so much better than in Michael Bay's horrible, noisy, ADD promoting Transformers movies.
8/10
Saw it! Yep, it's spectacular - the created world, the Na'vi, the animals, the 3D, the movement, the realism of the created life - just amazing. This technology is amazing.
This made seeing the film worthwhile for me. It looks like this may usher in a new era of film. Will we look back at this film as we look back on the first films with sound?
Ebert: The movie's politics are very secondary.
Thanks, Roger. I'm tired of politics, but not of great movies. I may wait till it's at one of the second-run theaters around here, but I'll definitely check it out.
Saw the film at midnight-o-one, in IMAX 3D, and took my mother [I have it on good authority, yours, that she's a remarkable woman - you responded to my post about seeing "Antichrist" with my 78 year old mother by stating "You have a remarkable mother"].
Mum and I both enjoyed the film greatly, discussed it as much as the early hour would allow (I referenced "Call Me Joe", she brought up "Apocalypse Now", we talked about Tolkien, ...); if it weren't for the early hour we'd also have brought my 9 year old son along (poor me, I'll have to see it again with him). When he does see it, I'm sure he will enjoy it as much as we did (though many of his reference points will be different).
That's fairly universal appeal [all without any reference to politics, or handedness ;-), or red / blue / green colour bias, or...], and bids fair for the film's longevity.
Your review may have been unabashedly positive, but was there ever a "great movie" with so many reviews among other critics that weave the words "in spite of" so often in the midst of their praises? I notice that your review is almost exclusively preoccupied with the way it looks, almost nothing at all to make me think you were impressed by the story itself. And I was so bored by the boilerplate love story of Titanic. Sorry, I was. (In 1960's The Last Voyage, they sank a real ship and made the film about Robert Stack rescuing his trapped wife, Dorothy Malone -- that is still the standard for sinking ship movies, as far as I'm concerned.) I simply have to have good characters and dialogue, and the consensus appears to be that these are still Cameron's short suits. There's little I'm inflexible about, but I won't give up these basic story elements for effects, no matter how grand. (If I want effects, I'll start taking drugs again and just walk down the street.) Roger, you're my favorite critic because I know that if you don't like a movie, it's pretty certain I won't like it either. But it's a longstanding observation that you like more movies than I do. I'm going to pass on this one, unless some future girl friend makes me see it -- which is why I saw Titanic and ended up wishing I hadn't. (That's also why I saw T2, come to think of it.)
Ebert: The critical reception has been very favorable.
Here's the hard-to-please Manhola Dargis:
http://j.mp/5kDDrD
Saw "Avatar" last night. I can honestly say I've never had a movie-going experience quite like it (though I admit this is the first film I've ever seen in 3D). To sum it up, it was basically just a great old-fashioned, romantic adventure yarn, made current by the stunning special effects. It's the closest I've ever come to feeling like I was actually a part of the world a movie created, and I'd love to experience it again. There's so much detail, so many tiny, seemingly throwaway gestures, and they all add up to an utterly vivid, and more importantly, believable environment.
Cameron knows what he's doing; this isn't a soulless excuse to test out some new technology. The story has real urgency to it, and characters we care about. Sam Worthington, as some have brought up, may need to work on his American accent a bit, but to me that didn't really detract from his performance. You feel his exhilaration when he first enters his avatar body and finally gets to have full mobility of his legs, and he makes you believe his inevitable transformation from soldier just wanting to do his job to impassioned warrior fighting for something he believes in. Zoe Saldana is even better, in a much trickier role. Instead of being constrained by the fact that we never get to see her in human-form, she seems liberated; she isn't remotely self-conscious - she howls and screams and shrieks like a wild beast, and at the same time convinces us of her intelligence and warmth. It's a pretty amazing performance. Sigourney Weaver is also excellent in a smaller role.
It's not perfect. There have been quite a few shots taken at Cameron's dialogue; my problem wasn't with its quality, but its quantity. I would have loved to have heard a few actual conversations between Sully and Neytiri, or for that matter between any of the characters; there's so much going on that there didn't seem to be enough time for anyone to actually sit down for a moment and talk. And it was a little disappointing to find the epic final battle come down to a mano a mano fight between the hero and the main villain. (Also, on a more nitpicky level, I found James Horner's score to be pretty weak.)
All in all, though, a pretty awesome experience, and I can't wait to see it again.
Kudos to Ari and Wael for their articles and more to come.
That's a wonderful think-piece on "Avatar," Ari, gorgeously written.
Wael, I was wondering, when the censor board cuts out the sexy parts of "Avatar," will they use a special three-dimensional cutting tool? Or will the sex not count because they have tails? Kidding.
The first great environmentalists in America were Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater.
Depends on how you define "environmentalist." Teddy was a conservationist, but is often hijacked by preservationists; something else entirely. Teddy believed in the careful and judicious use of our resources and our lands, but not the borderline-sacred reverence some on the far side of the issue bestow on the natural world. The name says it all: he wanted to conserve what we had.
I didn't reply to say that, though. I replied because I'm among those who's a bit put off by the film's political agenda, and I have seen the film, and I very much wanted to like it, too.
The agenda itself is not so troublesome, it's the fact that the desire to ram some of its points home has hurt the story. Really, we're going to trot out the Big Bad Corporation trope yet again? And we're going to make them all mind-bogglingly evil? I felt talked down to. I felt lectured. Not just because I disagreed with the points the film was making, but because the simplistic way it presented these issues was the way you'd explain things to a child that wasn't old enough for any kind of nuance.
Plenty's been said about the narration, as well, but it needs to be repeated: it was terrible. It was cheesy, full of modern colloquialisms, and worst of all, completely unnecessary.
And, in a row: Unobtanium? How about Hard-to-find-ium? Too far?
I have enjoyed many films I have disagreed with, and I have enjoyed many Cameron's films. I applaud his constant drive to enhance the tools we use to tell our stories. I just wish he was still capable of writing something thoughtful and intelligent. Alas, I fear he's reached the level of success where no one's going to say "no" to him any more. Creatively, this has many advantages, but I think it also means that there's no one there to give it to him straight.
Roger,
I know you're a fan of classic science-fiction and have just read a previous poster's remark (and your reply) about the Poul Anderson story "Call Me Joe."
I've only seen the trailers for AVATAR but can't help but wonder if "buried memory" is also at work in the landscapes created for the film: they bear a nagging similarity to the landscapes of Roger Dean! Floating (suspended in the air) rocks and arcing rock bridges; dragons with butterfly-like colorings; lush vegetation and falls; and blue people...
What do you think?
What phrase would you prefer to "limousine liberal" - escargot egalitarians doesn't have the same ring to it.
What is the carbon foot
print of an avatar?
It must be big.
Yuppie scum flick makers
Child rape defenders
I hope this movie bankrupts
You, 20th century fucks
Ebert: The Supreme Court upholds your right to express this opinion.
"---That's a tough one. But I'm taking a stab that there were a couple of continents called "North America" and "South America" where that may have happened. I've heard of a few others too, but only heard. I wasn't there at the time."
Ah, liberal guilt. A bunch of white Europeans "invading" a "peaceful world". Yawn. What a lot of leftist claptrap. There isn't a damn continent that hasn't been invaded at one time or another.
Without war there would be no end to slavery. Without war there would be no stopping the Third Reich. Without war there would be no United States. Without war there would be no liberations of millions of oppressed MUSLIM Iraqis from a ruthless dictator.
I saw the movie and it was nowhere near being a masterpiece.
The lefty politics were heavy handed and obvious. It's the same nonsense that it is being taught in schools. It's clearly a stab at the USA and the "evil", white, fundamentalist Christian, European settlers that, *ahem* "invaded" a peaceful world. Yawn. Of course, add some eco-friendly message about worshiping trees and voila, we have a "noble" and "righteous" movie.
The space marines are portrayed as mindless, blood thirsty, arrogant, dolts. Pretty much how the left has tried to paint the US military in Iraq and abroad.
Mr Ebert,
I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed your review for Avatar as with most of your reviews. I have just got back from the 20:50 showing in 3D and I must say my anticipation was rewarded by one of the most technically outstanding movies ever made. The effects are unlike anything I have ever seen (Probably has something to do with the $250m budget). Mr Cameron has once again proven that after 12yrs he still has what it takes to make a great movie.
I really do believe Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, District 9 and Up are possibly the best movies this year.
I wonder if Avatar will find its way onto your top 10 of 2009?
I hated this movie.
What was the mantra in Spiderman? With great power comes great responsibility? The greatest power in Hollywood comes from the biggest box office. Cameron wins hands down. Where is that responsibility played out in Avatar?
Why was I subjected to two full hours of ball-less primitive worship accompanied by endless chiff flute? Why was I given only stereotypes shuffling around like robot chessmen? Why was I given characters with no discernable arc?
Why was I not surprised once in this entire opus?
Cameron plays it safe, and it's going to pay off big. Masses of mall-shoppers everywhere will take a 2 1/2 hour break and sit through this handsomely made inoffensive picture. He will make back his $300 million, and the additional $100 million spent on marketing, and then some.
That is not success. It is formula. We are owed more than that. If Avatar is to be the most successful movie ever, I want a laugh, or a shock, or at least something not rolled out of central casting. I want something I can talk about after.
Avatar is none of these things. It is safe and bland. It is a movie made for 14 year old girls and worried, hard-of-hearing grandparents looking for something to take them to, something that will require no explanation and go down like pre-chewed candy.
Remember in Endgame, where the father in the ash can kept popping up demanding his pap? This is what he was crying for.
Shame. Shame, Mr. Cameron.
of pumping millions and millions of dollars into movies like this..
By MDS on December 17, 2009 3:11 PM
I'm having trouble finding an answer, and perhaps a commenter here can help - what type of 3-D goggles are required for Avatar?
My husband is partially color-blind, one of the light red/green variants and traditional 3-D has been a poor experience for him. This includes up to the recent Spy Kids 3-D, which he tried to watch in the theatre and only ended up with a headache.
He should be fine. The glasses are, I believe, polarized; they're certainly not colored. They fit just fine over my glasses, unlike the cardboard-and-plastic type.
By Nawid Ahrary on December 17, 2009 6:08 PM
My eyes can't process 3D due to being uncoordinated with each other (lazy eyes be damned). How much am I missing with the 2D version?
I have a weak left eye, so I have limited depth perception, but I was able to see the depth of field in this one, as well as occasionally seeing something floating in front of the screen.
University of Minnesota giving an "unbiased" survey? I'm highly suspicious of this so-called survey coming from a leftist institution located in a blue state that is heavily Democratic. Did you ever think maybe, just maybe, that all these positive numbers might coming from 'red' counties? It's so easy to cook the books with things like this when you want to push an agenda. Look at Climategate!!! I don't believe this alleged survey one bit. I'm not that naive.
Ebert: I'm so tired of this dittohead flapdoodle.
Tell you what. I'll make you a fair offer.
Why don't you supply an unbiased survey from a rightist institution located in a red state that is heavily Republican?
Remember, we're talking abut the comparative suicide rates of the 50 states.
There should be plenty of studies showing the blues are offing themselves more frequently.
Waiting patiently.
Wow, didn't know this movie was so political! Yet, according to several people who haven't seen the film, it is incredibly political, and has an anti-war and (gasp) environmental message! This, from the director of The Abyss? No way! And, you know, they must be right because they don't have to see the movie to know what it's about. I find this to be such an incredible power, I'm going to believe everything that they say from now on, without bothering to check the validity of their statements!
Or maybe I'll just watch the movie and revel in the special effects. Plus, I do believe that conservatives can be anti-war and green, too, so why attribute this to only one side of the aisle? You make conservatives look....oh, what's the phrase....out of touch that way. And pro-war? Really? There are people who want wars? After WWI and II almost destroyed Europe and badly damaged Asia?
Saw the movie. The theater was three quarters full.
Frankly, the movie really isn't anything great.
Sure, the effects were occasionally stunning. While other times they were pretty obvious and synthetic.
I'm not sold on the 3D either. After awhile you get used to it and the appeal wears off. Someone here asked if this movie is worth seeing without the 3D effect. I probably wouldn't without the 3D selling point.
Also, people talk about how detailed the planet is. The planet isn't all that stunning. I mean, I am sure you could find people to render a cgi planet that is out of this world- something completly ALIEN.
The bottom line is the movie left me cold. I was not entertained. The dialogue was clunky. The characters were largely bland. I felt totally detached from the "romantic" element of the movie. The climatic battle scene didn't thrill me, and pretty much left me bored. The story has been used many times before. And the underlying message(s) of the film is tired and worn out.
Even the native aliens are fashioned after native Americans. I'm not saying that is problem, per se (I don't anyone here to twist my words and say I'm against native Americans). But come on, already. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ANOTHER PLANET. Can't we have aliens act and dress in a way that is truly alien to anything earth-like?
I completely disagree with Roger about this movie starting some cult-like phenomenon. I don't see any part of this movie being very iconic. It's all been done before.
And sorry, Roger. I know when someone is lauding something and when they are not.
Lol at the people confused about Avatar: The Last Airbender's video at the end of the blog. Roger's sense of humour clearly isn't for everyone.
I found the movie completely predictable. The story has been told many times before. I suppose the effects are the best money money can buy. But at this point in my life, I want more out of a movie.
Hell, I didn't really find the movie entertaining.
I don't know if this movie will break any records. The people at my showing seemed to be pretty indifferent towards it. I didn't see too many people smiling as they walked out of the theater.
After the movie was over, I had one hell of a headache.
-Nathan
P.S. Would someone PLEASE tell me one country or continent that hasn't been invaded at one point or another in this planet's history!
Nothing is going to get to see this film. These creatures are so Aesthetically replusive I would rather have a bullet to the brain then see them even for a quater of an hour. The CGI horrors are just another example of the poorly concieved creature design philopshy that has been happening since Star Wars. Take a human or existing animal and make a homogenized creature without considering any presentation with small human eyes, painfully exaggerated features, and you get something that looks like you just vomited. God forbid Ray Harryhausen sees this, he might just die of a stroke watching.
Evan, how do you split your time so evenly between Fox News and this blog? You are an amazing individual.
Ebert: Dear Anne, Kelly, Irene, Doris, Paula, Deborah, Teresa and Mary:
You all posted exactly the same message about how you won a free Nintendo by going to that web site where all they wanted was for you to enter your mobile phone number.
You all posted from the same e-mail address.
Why don't you get each other's mobile numbers and give each other your Nintendos, you dipsticks?
Note to Marie Haws: My spam filter will pass anything from you signed Anne, Kelly, Irene, Doris, Paula, Deborah, Teresa or Mary.
Hey Stu-pid,
I don't have cable. So I don't watch Fox.
"Evan, how do you split your time so evenly between Fox News and this blog? You are an amazing individual."
Ouch, that's gotta hurt. Fox this, Fox that. Yada, yada, yada. Fox must be doing something right because they are killing the competition in ratings.
Ebert: Something right or something wrong, one or the other.
My thoughts: I won't defend the originality of the story, but the way its told makes the movie fun and entertaining. The movie isn't perfect, there were moments I cringed at the story elements and I also think the natives are goofy looking, but plain and simple the movie is very imaginative. The 3D isn't gimmicky and cliched....it was immersive, so it felt like I was there. The time flew by: it felt like it was 90 minutes long instead of nearly 3 hours. That tells me it was well-paced and never boring. Finally, the action scenes are as good as there have ever been, they are damn impressive.
When will you divulge your favorite movies of 2009 Roger? Reading your review of Avatar it sounds like it has a place in your Top 5.
Nathan: P.S. Would someone PLEASE tell me one country or continent that hasn't been invaded at one point or another in this planet's history!
---I think Antarctica is okay so far, just some scientists in big furry coats. Also, I'm pretty sure nobody's gone after Pitcairn Island yet.
Well, tomorrow's the big day. I'm expecting a re-told and re-told story, if not as good as "A Christmas Carol," which I've been happy enough to see re-told every frigging year of my life. And if the corporate weasels are as good as Paul Reiser was in "Aliens" that'll make me happy, too. Not that I'm a lib'r'l.
I just got back from seeing Avatar in 3D. Visual feast for sure. The world of Pandora was gorgeous and I thought the 3D worked fine. But let's face it, it was a 3D movie with 2D characters and story.
Think of it this way, would a visually impaired person, someone that can't see at all, have enjoyed listening to this movie? My guess is probably not.
I saw the film today and loved it tough I must admit my favorite were the ones that mixed animation and live characters, as when the blue girl touches Jake's face. That was truly extraodinary. I don't think the audiences are going to be that big though, my reason for thinking that is that I noticed the many teenagers who attended my same screening were restless and weren't paying that much attention, actually they did everything possible to ruin my viewing. I'm still fuming but I do think Avatar is amazing.
Brilliant film, though the 3D and brightness relies much on the theater. As a film projectionist, I watched it on 35mm first, and I was still blown away.
Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism:
True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest,
What oft was Thought, but ne'er so well Exprest,
Something, whose Truth convinc'd at Sight we find,
That gives us back the Image of our Mind ....
While for some reason I cannot find it in the current version of the review, I recall reading in Mr. Ebert's review that while much of the story's elements might be familiar and known, Cameron reinvigorates/re-energizes them because of the newness and unfamiliarity of the setting/context of Pandora. Thus, "What oft was Thought," but "drest" in such a way that the "Wit" of the construction refreshes and reinforces a "Truth" we know already.
Have aspects of the story of Avatar been told before? Sure, in different ways, at different times, by different people(s). Yet they've not been told quite precisely in this way before, "drest" to "Advantage" in the clothing of science fiction's tropes and conventions, and state-of-the-art film technology.
If the breathtaking, inspiring, magnificent beauty and strangeness and wonder of Pandora encourage even a few viewers to see and perceive our world with changed eyes, this is a good thing. This is what Art can do, when functioning at the highest levels.
As Keats wrote in "Ode on a Grecian Urn":
Beauty is truth, truth beauty, -- that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
I'm glad you've enjoyed the film so much. I've a friend I'm trying my hardest to talk into going to the movie with me (there's no theatres showing it in 3-D near my house. I don't drive, he does), but he hates going to movies in theatres. Hopefully this will provide more ammunition for my side! :)
I'm reading through the comments and landing on the ones with lots of CAPS--and getting a sense of deja vu. Roger, once again you've drawn out Lazlo Toth--not the one who took a hammer to the "Pieta," but Don Novello's loony/angry letter-writer, cheering on Nixon and asking the Mr. Bubble people how to use their product when it says right there on the box, "Keep contents dry." Be warned: Franco sent Toth an autographed picture, and he's still dead.
Turn to the left!
Turn to the right!
Watch more movies!
Fight! Fight! Fight!
You're not only a great critic, but a great criticizer! Keep up the good work! (And thanks for saving me the aisle seat. Sometimes I have to go to the bathroom and it's a long trip from the middle of the row to the aisle, let me tell you!)
Paul Marasa, American
p.s. I'm looking forward to "Avatar." I liked the director's last picture, the one where Marky Mark runs away from wind. Who needs a big budget? The wind is invisible! It doesn't cost a dime! Now THAT'S smart movie-making! I just hope "Avatar" has his wife in it. She was great in that TV show with Hellboy.
I'm sad to see many people on here didn't enjoy the movie all that much. Not that I can contest someone simply not enjoying a film, but personally, I was blown away by it.
The criticisms that the story has been told before or that the message may be heavy handed are valid, but I was so wrapped up in every other aspect of the movie that these things didn't bother me that much. I suppose each person will be affected differently by these flaws. I was fine with them.
I thought the effects were amazing, as has been said a million times, and the performances were great, and in spite of the fact that I'd seen this story before in other places, I don't know that I've seen it told so well.
One question I would raise would be in regards to the necessity of Sam Worthington's character in the film. Not that I didn't enjoy him or find him compelling or anything, but from an audience identification perspective, do we really need a "white" character to sympathize with, to be our focal lens? Again, I was totally wrapped up in his story, but you have to admit that Hollywood would not have let this get made if a "native" character, even one equally compelling, had been the protagonist.
As a nation, we have an uncomfortable history of the subjugation of supposedly "primitive" cultures, one that will haunt us until we ourselves are blown off the map. While this film seeks to comment on that, it does it in a way that countless other films already have. As an illustration, I would ask why did Judd Nelson needed to present at the Hiroshima bombing in "Hiroshima: Out of the Ashes"? Why did Nick Nolte need to be in Rwanda? Why did the savior woman in "The Blind Side" have to be white? Why did Gary Coleman have to be adopted by a white family? Are there any movies about indigenous cultures which have nothing at all to do with colonial interference?
Again, I have no problem with any of these characters or anything as they stand in the films/TV they are present in, but I have to wonder what this says about the American audience. Why are we so incapable of empathizing with characters who are not from our European background? In almost every single movie that deals with the tragedy of the destruction of an indigenous culture, there is this one European-ish character who we, the American audience, for some reason, apparently need to look at and say, "Well, I'm the good white person, the redeemable one, not that mean, genocidal one. My conscience is clear," before we can relax and immerse ourselves in the film.
Again, loved nearly everything about Avatar, but those couple aspects of it seem to me to be symptoms of a larger problem, one which does not originate within this particular film.
Glancing at the Wikipedia page for the film, I spotted Cameron's explanation for the symbolic nature of his characters:
"the Na'vi represent something that is our higher selves, or our aspirational selves, what we would like to think we are," and "the humans in the film, even though there are some good ones salted in, represent what we know to be the parts of ourselves that are trashing our world and maybe condemning ourselves to a grim future."
I like his interpretation of it, but I don't think that absolves it completely from being part of this overall pattern.
Unfortunately, on that same page, I notice that Armond White says Avatar is the "corniest movie ever made about the white man’s need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt"
That might touch on what I was mentioning earlier, but upon reading his review, I cannot disagree more on a number of points. Unless I am misunderstanding, he seems to be suggesting that Transformers 2 made this political point more effectively, that using expensive film-making techniques to critique technological societies inherently leads to hypocrisy, that the film only applies as a social critique to the Iraq War, and that the characters in "Gamer" somehow took more responsibility for the their actions than the ones in this film.
But, you've already established where he stands as a reviewer, so I don't feel the need to spend that much effort refuting him. Also, the comments on his article are as misdirected and depressing as the article itself.
Anyway, I loved the film to death, despite its falling in with a, to me, depressing feature of modern society, and I'm eager to see further discussion of the film as it unfolds.
Evan: "If blue cities and states are utopias, why the high rate of suicide?"
Roger Ebert: "Blue states have much lower suicide rates than red states." [...cites actual data regarding the matter, including mention of sources such as author/physician Michael Craig Miller and a (separate) survey by the Univ. of Minnesota...] "Please tell us where to look for statistics backing up your statement about suicide rates."
Evan: "Roger, I guess we can agree to disagree." [No mention of any statistics or studies. No effort to respond to your question THIS TIME, after he scrupulously responded to many points previously!]
Me: Arrggghhhh! Roger, how can you not *call* him on this?
So. This little twerp asks to name one place where peaceable people were ever invaded. I answer.
He accuses me of "liberal guilt" for knowing a couple whole continents where that's happened, then goes on to claim war is good for you after all.
He didn't see the movie, either, the little dickens. That shows right through.
Evan? Have you been a good boy this year? Have you prayed to Santa, real loud? If you have, maybe your mom will buy you that cowboy hat and Roy Rogers lunchbox you've always wanted.
From the moment I saw the preview for "Avatar" I knew I couldn't watch it. I can't enjoy any art form (games do this a lot) where I am asked to root for fantasy creatures who don't exist, over humans, which I happen to be one of. I always end up rooting for the wrong side, and then in post-experience discussions with peers I end up looking like an insensitive jerk.
Plus, the concept doesn't sit with me. There is one moment in the preview where the main character gives a speech to his new alien pals; something to the effect of "We will show them this is OUR world!" If I had been an alien in that audience, I would have got up and yelled "What do you mean OUR? You're a cripple in a skin suit, and who elected you leader anyway?"
If memory serves I had similar thoughts of "Dances with Wolves" and "The Last Samurai" as well.
For some reason, (honestly I have no idea why) this movie was boring to me.
I just saw it. I really enjoyed it, but my eyes are still burning. In fact, every person in my showing left with red watery eyes. Could this be a problem with the theater? I saw it at a 2-year old AMC. Every conversation in the ladies' room on the way out was about how the 3D was distracting and how they would like to see it again in 2D. 3D didn't seem to add anything, and it made it hard to savor all the beautiful details; I just couldn't adjust my focus fast enough. (Incidently, I have 20/20 vision.) You couldn't pay me $12.50 to see it again in 3D, but you bet I'll get on 2D Blu-Ray.
I think its something that he commented at all. I really don't understand why so many of Mr.Ebert's blogs and reviews draw such political ire. If you know you dont agree with his political views why even read his blog? I absolutely love the man and completely enjoy reading his reviews and blog entries whatever topic he chooses. He is a very intelligent and talented writer who has earned his place in the world and is free to express his views in any way he chooses. He could have written the whole damn review about how much he just loved the environmental message of the film and be completely within his right as far as I'm concerned. I detest having to wade through ridiculously ill-informed political opinions while searching for interesting comments that have something to add to the continuation of the ideas. I frequently skim through them till I notice the familiar bold text indicating Mr.Ebert has posted a reply to a comment. It usually means the comment is interesting and worth reading but this time I was quite disappointed. I know how hard it must be to have such malcontents filling up your comment space with stupidity and not call them out on it..Sometimes it just can't be helped I guess :)
I saw the midnight movie with some friends. I'm a fan of James Cameron. I trust that he will always deliver a movie worth experiencing, not just watching. I'm already looking forward to his next project Battle Angel. He's stated that if Avatar does well, he's got stories for two more movies. "Why not three?" I ask no one in particular. There's nothing magical about trilogies anymore. But whatever.
The effects and film-making processes he developed for Avatar I expect will only be refined and enhanced for his future projects. This was just the tip of the iceberg. And if there's one guy in Hollywood that knows about icebergs... (cheap laugh)
To all of the comments from people refusing to see the movie for whatever reason: That's fine. I'm sure there are other people here that will see it for you. Maybe more than once. Wasn't that one of the driving forces behind Titanic? Repeat viewings? I think this movie will have that same power. I already saw it once for me, I can see it once for you, too. Fair? Or, if you prefer, you can submit a movie that you saw that you feel everyone should watch. I'll skip that one. There, that should balance it out.
To Roger: Looking forward to Ebertfest. I have to reconcile the fact that I've lived so close to Chicago for so long and didn't know about this.
Oh, and James Cameron could have made Transformers 2, but then it would have made thrice the box office, and it'd still be playing in theaters, not on Netflix.
Robert Altman could have made Transformers 2, but then it would have had 20 more interesting characters and come in 20 minutes shorter.
Woody Allen could have made Transformers 2, but... (this is fun)
Ebert: You and I could have made T2. We would have never finished it, but that woud be okay.
Why do you have a to jerk Roger, and ruin article on the hardships Cameron had to overcome and the reaction from the press, with a mention of Dragonball Evolution in the making?
Yes, it was a funny "Joke Gift" Roger and I think its serves a point, intended or not, about the good and ill of the Hollywood system. Because of it films like this and Star Wars can be created, on the other hand we have Rise of Cobra and Transformers because of it. The overinflated budgeted Hollywood blockbuster is a double edged sword.
Also I'm not saying that a good live action movie of a cartoon/anime/manga/whatever you kids call it these days, can't be made. I think Perfect Blue, The Preacher, Y: The Last Man, Monster, and even something like Berserk could be made. I saw the Dark Knight. But discussions about something even artsy like Evangelion being made into live action flick scare me. How would it relate to a mainstream crowd unless they hollow out the themes core it its being, I mean it seems kinda stupid to be making American movie deconstructing Japanese Super Robot Shows.
In short the price we all pay for Cameron's phenomenal Avatar, is Avatar: The Last Air Bender. For every person who can handle a $500 million dollar budget, we get three who can't.
The first thing that struck me, right from the space ship’s take-off , is the vast volumes. There is an immediate feeling of transportation. Even though the provision of 3D goggles was not there, everything feels so gargantuan. That extra dimension is so essential in the effect this film produces. It is you flying over the psychedelic landscapes. You are actually there, in this lovely paradise. Not much of a SF buff, the close to three hours flew, more so since my better half and son, (both fantasy lovers) were enjoying it even more. My second son saw it in Mumbai in 3D, and another fantasy fan that he is, found it "mind-blowing, like being enclosed in a cube". The movie constructs a world that is alluring, startling, beautiful.
Special effects deserve to be called an art form, since a person dreams something undreamt of and translates it onto a screen.
Really seems the cinema of the future, and the future seems to have come closer through this film.
The money is well spent, since I personally feel the message aspect is significant. It's a film with a universal appeal. (There was a distracting bunch of titterers in the rear last night but soon the full house sank into respectful concentration, which is unusual for an English film here. I myself lost track of time.)
It's the humans who come closer to the Uncanny Valley, and the aliens seem to dwarf the humans in terms of evolution of the heart (to invent an expression.) The humans are more or less what humans actually are, and the aliens maybe more like what they ought to be like, and will probably have to become, if they survive long enough.
The idea of the great tree whose roots inter-connect the forest is not very far fetched, coming close to a concept of oriental philosophy known as Indra's net, wherein humanity is seen as a vast mosaic consisting of myriad mirrors, each reflecting all others. Nobody is an island, in other words.
"..Among the many images in the Lotus Sutra, one that I find particularly compelling is that of an impartial rain that compassionately moistens the vast expanse of the earth, bringing forth new life from all the trees and grasses, large and small. This scene, depicted with a vividness, grandeur and beauty characteristic of the Lotus Sutra, symbolizes the enlightenment of all people touched by the Buddha's Law of great and impartial wisdom. At the same time, it is a magnificent paean to the rich diversity of human as well as all forms of sentient and insentient life, each equally manifesting the inherent enlightenment of its nature, each thriving and harmonizing in a grand concert of symbiosis...
Buddhism uses the term "dependent origination" (Jpn. engi) to describe symbiotic relations. Nothing--no one--exists in isolation. Each individual existence functions to bring into being the environment which in turn sustains all other existences. All things, mutually supportive and related, form a living cosmos, what modem philosophy might term a semantic whole. This is the conceptual framework through which Mahayana Buddhism views the natural universe...
Speaking through Faust, Goethe gives voice to a similar vision. 'All weaves one fabric; all things give/Power unto all to work and live." The poet, whose insights now strike us for their remarkable affinity to Buddhism, was criticized by his young friend Eckermann as "lacking confirmation of his presentiments." The intervening years have offered a steadily swelling chorus of affirmation for the prescience of Goethe's and Buddhism's deductive vision ...
Dr.Daisaku Ikeda
The simple story with simple dialogues and urgent message, so charmingly delivered, will surely touch millions of hearts around the world.
This film is a good thing to have happened in the world of cinema.
Ebert: This is very wise. I especially like this phrase:
It's the humans who come closer to the Uncanny Valley, and the aliens seem to dwarf the humans in terms of evolution of the heart."
I'd write an entry about "evolution of the heart," but I'm not ready for the drive-by postings.
I saw Avatar at 3.40am last night/this morning on 3D IMAX because that was the only time not sold out in the next three weeks. And goddammit was it worth it. It made a staggering impact on me, something I was not even slightly surprised by because beautifully realised sci-fi worlds with fun characters tend to do that to me (Serenity and 2001: A Space Odyssey (yes I know there aren't many fun characters in the second one) are unquestionably my two favourite films, in that order). In fact Avatar made such an impact on me that I've decided I won't be watching Sin Nombre today as I had planned to, simply because I cannot bear to watch a film right now that isn't Avatar. I want to see it again on IMAX - in fact I will see it again on IMAX because I cannot bear the thought of going through life having only had that experience once. Anyway, I couldn't get Avatar out of my head so I thought I'd write a review of it, why not? And here it is.
Wow. Just, wow. Avatar is the first film I’ve seen since 2001: A Space Odyssey which left me truly in awe. Speaking analytically, yes the dialogue is corny and the Na’vi chanting is pure klutz but somehow that just doesn’t matter. The visuals are jaw dropping, and when I say that I mean it literally. On regular occasions I found my mandible sagging and a tingle of sheer blownawayness shoot up my spine. God it’s a good looking film.
The most surprising thing about Avatar, though, is not the staggering visuals (well, we expected them didn’t we), it’s the fact that it has characters, and we like the characters. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is one of the most purely likeable characters I’ve seen in a long time and a lot of films – his enthusiasm for, well, everything, is infectious and you can’t help but smile when (for instance) he leaps onto the back of a gigantic deadly flying thing in order to tame it without a moment’s thought for his own safety, simply because he can.
Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña) is of course yet another of Cameron’s strong female roles (again, nothing new here) but once again we as the audience grow to like her, in part I think because we can identify with how she reacts to Jake. Her initial annoyance at his perceived immaturity (expressed in one of the film’s worse lines) turns gradually to affection as she falls in love with the same enthusiasm, the same refusal to ever slow down, give up or take the easy route, that makes Jake such a hit with the audience. Jim Cameron described Sam Worthington in a recent interview as a ‘force of nature’ and it seems Sam has put some of that whirlwind energy (in fact, all of it, and more besides) into Jake Sully. If I have spoken about Jake a lot it is because he truly is the centre, nay keystone, of the film. He is the audience’s gateway to Pandora. I have mentioned how Neytiri’s likeability centres on the audience’s identification with how she reacts to Jake. Well part of Jake’s likeability is a result no doubt of the audience’s ability to identify with how he reacts to Pandora.
On the other side of the fence as it were, Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) is one of the best baddies ever committed to screen (yes, I recognise the echoes of Ben Lyons skulking in the background as I make that statement but I am fully prepared to defend it). Lang feasts upon the scenery like a ravenous Great Leonopteryx. In fact it’s a damn good thing most of it was computerised otherwise he might have eaten the lot. In doing so, he sets a new benchmark for badassery – this is a man so badass that he can breathe the noxious Pandoran atmosphere without a mask and at one point it took him a good thirty seconds to notice that he had been set on fire. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is bloody entertaining.
The supporting characters (and by extension actors) are mostly excellent and, unusually for a big movie juggling multiple character threads while expending most of the running time in action sequences, the decisions they make, the things they say and do, all seem to make sense, to follow from the character rather than from the requirements of the plot (are you reading this, Michael? What about you, Roland?). if I had to single one actor out among many it would be...you know what I’m going to say already, don’t you? You don’t? If so, you may have forgotten that Sigourney Weaver plays a chainsmoking ethical botanist.
In contrast to the emotional, artistic side of the film (that is to say, the characters and the visuals), the cerebral side, the political message the film tries to convey (which has been so remarked upon I feel it unnecessary to define it), is slightly nauseating in its sickly sweet incontestability, not to mention the simple fallacy of its invocation of Rousseau’s mythical ‘noble savage’ (i.e. the Na’vi) and Lovelock’s fanciful Gaia Theory (in this case, Gaia = Eywa, the Na’vi deity). Thankfully, despite the cloying misanthropic appearance of these themes, another, more sophisticated reading of the film may provide hope for those of a humanist bent. One review I read remarked upon how after a while the Na’vi begin to look normal and the humans become the aliens. It is certainly true that when Quaritch’s gunships face off against the Na’vi warriors with their bows and arrows there are undeniable echoes of Independence Day (I’m not suggesting a causal link, Eywa forbid, merely a conceptual connection).
The reversal, however, is deeper than that. A friend (one of the ones I saw the movie with) said afterwards that he was supporting the humans throughout, mostly because he liked Quaritch so much, but partly because he felt a loyalty to his species (or so he claimed). Leaving aside the arguments against Darwinism-as-ethic, this got me thinking on the essence of humanity. Now I am not suggesting for one minute that Jim Cameron had Hegel or Marx in mind when he wrote the Avatar screenplay but the concept of alienation, particularly Marx’s formulation, provides a fascinating reading of the contrast between the humans and the Na’vi.
Marx believed that the bourgeois were alienated from their humanity though their exploitation of the proletariat. The proletariat, by contrast, when they reached true consciousness, would become purely and solely human. The exploitation of the Na’vi and of Pandora in general by the ‘Sky People’ would seem to suggest, at least from a Marxian perspective, much, if not total, alienation. Colonel Quaritch and Giovanni Ribisi’s odious mine boss, Parker Selfridge both exhibit total inhumanity toward the Na’vi in their aggressive pursuit of profits, the essence of bourgeois alienation. The Na’vi, on the other hand are practically and (this is important) theoretically peaceful. They are humane in their treatment of all Pandoran life forms, killing some in order to eat them but always maintaining a sense of loss, never allowing their relationship with the natural world to become exploitative. They are, in a sense, the incarnation of essential humanity.
The above train of thought introduced me to a whole new dimension in the Avatar experience as I realised that far from being brash and simplistic in its themes it could actually be interpreted in quite a subtle and intelligent way. As I have already said, I doubt Jim Cameron wrote the screenplay with Die Deutsche Ideologie in mind but as Harold Pinter remarked when asked which interpretation of one of his plays was the correct one, the answer is ‘all of them’.
But of course the above four paragraphs do not matter. Not a jot. They, and Avatar’s political themes, are nothing but an intellectual exercise when the true brilliance of it is in the viscera, the emotion, the tugging of the heart strings and the flowing of the adrenal glands, the love, the war, the beauty, the awe. It is, quite simply, epic.
Roger I think you are the best at what you do and value and respect your opinion. But CGI alone in 3D does not a movie make. The CGI is fabulous and truly takes us to a new dimension in movie making. Having said this the rest of the movie was awful. Mr. Cameron takes us to a far away place called Pandora. In 3D we see a world unlike anything found on Earth. So far so good. Then the movie completely disintegrates when a Marine Corporal crippled in war becomes one of the aliens {Avatar} or should I say natives. It is unfathomable that Mr. Cameron can conceive a world we've never seen but his storyline is totally lame and predictable. Somewhere we've seen all this before. The Aliens are in fact thinly disguised as native American Indians. The big bad capitalistic Americans {think General Custer} invade their land for greed, make no attempt at negotiations, and destroy all their beauty. The American military fights with weapons in the year 2154 but nothing is NEW. The Aliens have just bows and arrows. If Dances With Wolves comes to mind you now know the story. And the Marine Corporal {where was Kevin Costner} whose manta is to do and die switches sides for moral justice. And somehow this pawn is so brilliant that he's portrayed as the second coming of General Rommel {WW II}. No matter how great the special effects, and they are truly great, there's no excuse for such a paper thin plot in which the ending is known 5 minutes into the movie. $299.999 million spent on CGI 3D animation and about a buck fifty for the script. Anyone giving this movie a perfect score of 10 for dialogue that could have been written by a five-year old must have had a lobotomy or checked their brains in at the door.
I'll admit to cringing a little when I read "It has a flat-out Green and anti-war message" in Roger's review not because I'm necessarily opposed to either of those ideologies but because I knew it would immediately turn some off the movie. Sadly, in these times people view those concepts as tied to a political agenda and look, this thread has already gotten to the point of discussing which states (red or blue) have higher suicide rates.
Discussion is fantastic, and if that's where this thread goes so be it, but don't lose sight of the movie! Love it, hate it or somewhere in between, be able to articulate why you feel that way. Chances are you won't have that ability if you don't watch the movie first.
And don't focus on just that one sentence in the review, there are a bunch of others surrounding it worth reading too.
Ebert: Can you be Green and anti-war and still be a patriot?
Just askin'.
The plot is simple, but the way it moves is so natural that it does not matter. It reminds me of Lord of the Rings in the way you can boil it down to a very basic conflict of good versus evil, and that didn't really bother me. The movie's main character is Pandora, the planet the movie takes place on. To say Avatar is bad because its plot is basic is to say that Star Wars is bad because its plot is basic. You'd have to ignore some stunning works of imagination, trip over some scenes that embue your soul with child-like wonder, and ignore the fact that this is a movie that you're going to want to take your little brother to, just to see the wide-eyed, dazzled look in his eye - that spark that makes you know that he will not turn away from the screen for anytrhing. The last thing Avatar needed was a more complicated plot.
For those who were asking, Avatar uses polarized glasses that do not change the color of the movie. The glasses are clear and don't really dim the screen very much. It works well.
Avatar was incredible.
Addtionally, the fools claiming the movie is left or right need to get a grip. Since when is it a leftist ideal to be in support of caring about nature? When has it been leftist to not attack harmless people?
I'm somewhat left, I guess, if you want to see politics through a two-frame lens. But this movie didn't seem left to be at all - it just seemed whole, filled with emotion and reasoning and impact.
Roger, you are my favorite person to follow on Twitter these days! Thank you for your fantastic "tweets" and equally fantastic links within. I am pumped to see Avatar, and I also kind of want to see 25th Hour all over again, thanks to your Great Movie article!
I look forward to your Top x Movies of 2009 list!
The reviewer of a different website (forget which one) brought up the idea that AVATAR is part of Cameron's ALIENS world. If so, than it gives me the hope that those lovable acid-spewing Xenomorph scamps will one day rain down across the face Pandora and disembowel the shiny blue Na'Vi in a glorious orgy of techno-color-day-glow gore (IN 3-D!!!). And the universe will rejoice, as it was spared the simplistic whiny ramblings of a race founded apparently on the ethos of Community College first period Native America Studies; the martians from FUTURAMA and the "magical-minority" stereotype ala' SPANGLISH or THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE.
Any stragglers can be taken care of by the Predators. Or Riddick! He can skin a few of the Thunder-Smurfs to make a snazzy new coat. Actually Godzilla would be better: stomping on cats, blasting away the magical trees with his radioactive breath.
Come to think of it, a three-hour 3-D movie about the Aliens, Predators, Riddick, Godzilla and Ash from THE EVIL DEAD (with his chainsaw for a hand) gleefully slaughtering the Na'vi to exuberant song and dance would be the greatest thing ever.
I saw it. Cliches galore and a thrilling viewing experience.
Wael, I was wondering, when the censor board cuts out the sexy parts of "Avatar," will they use a special three-dimensional cutting tool? Or will the sex not count because they have tails? Kidding.
Hehehe don't joke..I actually got them to resubmit the sex scene using a similar argument.
"Without war there would be no end to slavery. Without war there would be no stopping the Third Reich. Without war there would be no United States. Without war there would be no liberations of millions of oppressed MUSLIM Iraqis from a ruthless dictator."
You can't see the irony in any of the things you just said? You realize most of those things you say that we needed war to end...WAR WAS THE FREAKING CAUSE OF!
Hi, kettle, this is pot, you're black.
htttp://twitter.com/ebertchicago
Avatar is communalistic, New Age pagan, PC, Marxist, racist, ugly, dirty, has alien sex and bestiality! http://j.mp/5WTcrg
Oh, this is good. Back later.
I admit that I have not seen "Avatar"; my appetite for special effects-driven movies is waning severely as I approach 60 years old. What would this movie be without its expensive visuals? Would it work as a radio play?
Seems to me that the supreme challenge for James Cameron might be to create a two-character drama, set in an apartment, with a fifty-thousand-dollar budget. Spielberg, Scorsese, Eastwood could pull it off, but I don't think that Mr. Cameron could.
I viewed the DVD of "La Dolce Vita" last night and I cannot imagine that "Avatar" could pack any more emotional impact than this movie. I think that I'll view another Fellini, rather than "Avatar", some night in the near future.
To me, a movie depicting Roger Ebert's life story, what I know of it, might be far more thrilling and moving than anything Mr. Cameron's computers could generate. Or a movie of my own ordinary life story, for that matter.
Mr. Cameron, prove your skill to us moviegoers, and make a movie using NO special effects whatsoever. I dare ya.
Reply to: from an audience identification perspective, do we really need a "white" character to sympathize with, to be our focal lens? Again, I was totally wrapped up in his story, but you have to admit that Hollywood would not have let this get made if a "native" character, even one equally compelling, had been the protagonist.
I disagree.
This film was going to be made James Cameron's way, whether "Hollywood" agreed or not.
Look at James Cameron. He's Canadian.
born on August 16, 1954... He moved with his family from Kapuskasing, Ontario to Chippawa (now part of Niagara Falls, Ont.), where he grew up,
TIME Magazine: In April 2008, in a windowless Los Angeles warehouse where Howard Hughes built his airplanes some 70 years earlier, James Cameron, in a hockey jersey and jeans, was doing something élite directors do not do — holding a camera. "...In 2005, Fox funded a $10 million, 5-min. prototype for the movie, but when Cameron delivered a 153-page draft of the script months later, the studio balked.... In September 2006, Fox formally passed on Avatar. Only after Disney seemed poised to take it on — and after Cameron made concessions in both his script and his compensation — did Fox green-light the film.
I'd call that a substantial victory over the GateKeepers... at the cost of millions of dollars in salary and back-end.
Cameron: I grew up in a village in Canada. You learn all about common sense.
Jake Sully is a hockey player. Oh, sure, he's played by an Australian actor and is a Marine... but when you see his Avatar for the first time, he's definitely a hockey player going out on the ice after being in a penalty box.
Site: There are 50 minority players in the National Hockey League (Asian, Black, Hispanic, Inuit, Native/Aboriginal, South Asian/Indian), a 20% increase from the 2007-08 season. Of the 33 minority players who secured a permanent roster spot for the 2008-09 season.... 16 are black (a 23 % increase from the 2007-08 season), 7 are Native/Aboriginal, 4 are Asian, 4 are Hispanic, 1 is Inuit, and 1 is South Asian/Indian.(end)
What struck me was the similarity to "Aliens." In "Aliens" a team of Space Marines help Ellen Ripley investigate the trouble on a planet far outside normal shipping lanes.
A few months back, I said I was disappointed that Cameron hadn't taken his new awareness from "Titanic" to the next level. "Avatar" is definitely a film he conceived before any of the lessons from "Titanic" were applied.
Reply to: Why did Gary Coleman have to be adopted by a white family? Are there any movies about indigenous cultures which have nothing at all to do with colonial interference?
This is the strangest complaint about "Avatar" I've ever heard. All of the heroes are blue-skinned Native American Indians. A Canadian hockey player establishes a mental link with a native American and learns about their culture from the inside, as an Insider.
it's like "Dances With Wolves" if the Civil War soldier had been able to transfer his consciousness to an Indian body.
Yes, maybe James Cameron is revealing something from his childhood, by making his viewpoint character a white, male hockey player rather than a minority. But... this was James Cameron's reward for earning so much money for the studios with "Titanic." The money didn't wind up in Cameron's pocket because he had to give away points to get "Titanic" finished his way. And he was right.
Last night, James Cameron was asked if he ever lost his temper with Arnold Schwarzenegger on the set. On "Terminator," Arnold left in a car to study his lines. When he came back, Cameron politely said "You shouldn't have done that."
But it had a happy ending. Describing how Arnold responded, Cameron said, "I healed fine with no permanent injury."
Now, that's a hockey player mentality. I am so amazed that Cameron still has his front teeth.
Ebert: Nobody seems to have mentioned it, but the movie stars a woman of color.
Roger, any reason you think there is a divide between the top critics (I think just mostly published) and the overall critics (that includes many internet, probably newer critics) on rotten? 94% good reviews from top critics, 80% from the rest. For a large budget movie, this is usually the opposite.
Ebert: Obviously, the more you know, the more you're one of the top critics.
;)
All that money up there on the screen . . .
A shame some of it wasn't spent on a better writer, isn't it, Mr. Ebert? When will certain directors learn that you can use technology to really enhance a movie but leaden dialogue and predictable plotting is what keeps a movie from entering the pantheon of truly great movies?
I do find it amusing that the year is 2154 and people are still uttering dialogue intended to remind us of the war on terror. I know all my friends won't stop quoting lines from the 1860s. How annoying!
I absolutely loved the movie! Avatar is the kind of achievement you don't see coming every day of the week. The sort of technological breakthrough that makes future film students want to break into the business to tell their own stories, make their own inventions. New methods.
Even if the film doesn't break new ground story wise; it most certainly opens some new doors, people never knew existed.
Images that stick out in my mind clear as day are some startlingly beautiful ones; like the fully-realized wonder that is Pandora. Created mostly entirely through CGI and special effects, the planet's forest itself is a cinematic breakthrough that makes one's jaw drop. A totally original and unique method of special effects that serve the story entirely. In my short life I've come to know certain inevitable truths. Death, taxes, bad relationships and the Oscar come next year for Best Visual Effects for Cameron's sci-fi magnum opus. I have never been more certain of an Academy Award win.
Avatar has a lot to say about politics, the modern world and the environment but it’s not driven into our heads with a metal stake (like many films of its type). The sentiment takes a back seat for the stunning escapism. This is surely how my grandparents must have felt when they first saw Dorothy and Toto enter that colorful world of Oz, when my parents first saw that enormous Star Destroyer hover over the screen with all blasters blazing after those slow-crawl titles. How my nephew felt when he first saw those enormous Mammoth-like creatures pummel into the armies of Rohan while Frodo and Sam tried desperately to climb Mount Dune. Yeah, Bloody awesome!
There will always be those sci-fi/fantasy/nerdish haters who don't indulge into the kind of Flash Gordon, Amazing Adventures Vol 3 and American Graffiti kind of escapist flair. Those people are normally middle aged Lawyers, stockbrokers and 50 something women who play Parcheesi on weekends whilst smoking with their girlfriends. That's O.k. We can't all grow up to be James Cameron. Playing with action figures, reading comics and engaging into great literature like Swift and Dickens. But all silly kidding aside, Avatar is a movie that everyone can enjoy. It is part action, part romance, part environmentally conscious fable. Princess Mononoke meets Starship Troopers if you will but a little better. I often wonder if there is a certain kind of personality trait that warrants you like such movies. (Though I've never really believed that). A good story is a good story; period. No matter what kind of paint or canvas you use. James Cameron has done the impossible with grace and commitment; and as a movie fan I applaud him for that.
Despite everything the language of cinema has not changed. There is something innate and elemental regarding the three-act system, and all that entails. Movies are practically built around them. And especially American films. I await the day when the very pace and nature of storytelling is completely reinvigorated. Perhaps this is impossible. If James Cameron has shown us anything it’s that nothing is impossible. For the time being, he must surely feel like "King of the World"!
I thought it was simply stunning... here is my review http://julesmoviereviews.blogspot.com/
Jules
Two things that hit me while watching the movie:
1) A familiar theme with the white settlers vs. the native americans, except the marine (Scully) helped the Navi' take steps to unite all the tribes to fight, while the pseudo government-corporate entity only had a toehold on Pandora. Native Americans could have done the same, but they had to Jake Scully. Eventually, if the native Americans had united and driven the early settlers/explorers out, would we have returned with an even bigger, badder force to still wipe them out?
2) The green message is, as usual, half full. Respect nature, okay, but lets see nature for what it is--brutal, cold and no room for the weak. Take this youtube video of a bear taking a baby moose from its mother as she looks on, helplessly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYjh5Z6b0X8
It makes me squirm when I watch that video as it does to watch hyenas take a baby rhino from its mother. I didn't squirm watching while watching any of Cameron's wild creatures.
I recently had a conversation with a customer at the gas station i am under employ about health care and global warming, it went like this:
Me, "Wait, so you don't believe in global warming."
Customer, "It's a giant hoax."
"So the ENTIRE scientific community is scamming the world?"
"Absolutely. Did you see those memos out of England. You know, I thinks its just to distract us from the debt Obama has gotten us into with his stimulus."
"Well, actually Bush did the initial bank bailout with no strings attached, and I'm sure his 2.23 trillion dollar war had nothing to do with our debt either?"
"Right, and Obamacare is going to cure cancer. Obama just wants to raise our taxes, and ensure his socialist agenda."
"No no, come on. Firstly, your taxes will only be raised if you make over 250k a year. But, to get back to what you just said, does that mean your for spending enormous amounts of money on war, but not a fraction of that to help dying people."
"Absolutely."
"Well at least your honest about how selfish you are."
He chuckles.
"Your scary man. Your a walking talking point."
Then the conversation turned to Palin and continued the decline. I need to stop trying to get to know my clientele. But, its this type of conversation that has me surprised at how much positive response has been lauded over Avatar.
As far as I could discern, not only does Avatar have an antiwar "green" message, but it also has an uncompromisingly negative message towards 'jarhead' mentality; i.e. the army mantra of "just following orders." While I found this refreshing [Can anyone say Generation Kill?] I'm a bit shocked there hasn't been an outcry of "James Cameron hates America." Hopefully this means that people are starting to become aware of their surroundings. It's probably more likely, I suppose, that that portion of our "blessed" nation don't mind keeping their minds turned off while sitting through a film as undeniably cool as Avatar is. Oh well.
Ebert: They've been outcrying on this blog. The implacable march of ignorance is eroding America.
It's not really a left-right thing. It's more like the right is simply more hospitable to flywheels, and the left, in general, tends to be more intelligent.
Well, you know it's true. Not many liberals vote against someone because they are articulate and educated.
As spectacular as Avatar is, I was a bit distracted by the constant thought: Dances with Wolves + Princess Mononoke + James Cameron = Avatar. I wish he had spent as much effort on creating an original story as he did everything else, but all-in-all this is a minor flaw in an awesome achievement.
Just now came back from "Avatar."
To embarrass myself further, check Roger's Your Movie Sucks column to see how mean I was about it from having watched the trailers.
This is an effing wonderful film. Dialogue kinda stumpy? Check. A bit of latter-day editorializing here and there? Check. Various inconsistencies duly noted by others? Check. Why should all the critters have six legs? Check.
I started in tuned in extra tight because of all the criticism. If that wasn't enough, Catt's 20 years in big-time movie technology was there to poke me in the ribs in case I missed something. Very shortly not a whit of that mattered.
You can see echoes of every similar movie in it, story line, blocking, scenery, from "Aliens" to "The Emerald Forest" (how come nobody's noticed that one? One of my faves anyway).
I repeat, very shortly not a whit of that mattered.
Was it the 3D? Maybe some, but not nearly so much as the usual: fine actors playing their roles to the hilt, in computerized guise or out of it. I took off my glasses now and then -- depending on the camera angles here and there, it didn't make a great deal of difference. It did at other points.
3D might be the next thing, still depending. "Avatar" didn't have the bugs the others do, as Roger and the rest of us have justly complained about. Some of the 3D trailers were flickery, that's annoying. They need better glasses, maybe wrap-arounds.
Yup. Go see. We also just called our kids to go see.
Aye, Wael, I read your posting about pulling strings to get it straightened out for Egyptian theaters only after I'd posted mine. Good for you and the rest of the country!
As usual, your blog was as interesting as ever, and I'm just pondering the movie I just saw. This kind of euphoria I'm feeling only accompanies a film when it becomes huge. Most recently "The Dark Knight" springs to mind, because of the huge hype that surrounded it, but also "Titanic", a movie that shall always be "Avatar"'s sister. I loved "Avatar" to be unashamedly honest, Roger, and I totally agree with you, although I'm not so sure about the 3D. At times it was superb, such as when Naitre (I think I spelt it right) was looking through some shrubbery at Jake Sully for the first time. My peripherals contained the ferns, and I felt so involved - it was wonderful! However, during some intense action scenes, characters moved too fast for my eyes to catch up, and I felt nauseated. Perhaps I simply need to be booked into an opticians...
Ebert: I could do without 3-D, period.
If it's possible, this flick made me even more anti-war than I was
"The implacable march of ignorance is eroding America."
Really? I thought some of the comments on this posting were idiotic but that statement is the most idiotic yet.
My understanding is that Cameron waited years for the right technology to realize his vision. Walking out of Avatar, my feeling is that he waited all that time to trade relic technology for relic story. Only the CGI has evolved since then.
What if he had produced this movie when he had written it? The special effects may have been average, but perhaps there would still be blood pumping through its narrative. After all, special effects are just a vehicle for telling a story right? He claimed he wanted a simple story so the audience would not be distracted from the real star, Pandora. Maybe I'm cynical, but being distracted by an interesting story is not a flaw. In fact, my main contention was just how hard it was to be immersed in the world; it looked real, but it operated under such artificial movie conventions that I did not trust it. Technical triumph, narrative sleepwalk.
I know people suggest Avatar touches a number of hot button issues. My feeling is its easy to apply examples on such a broad and universal tale (and conducive for tacking them on in a production meeting). Instead of exploring the Iraq war on any serious thematic level, James Cameron is shooting from the hip by having characters self-consciously stumble over lines about shock and awe. When so much has already been said, being half hearted is distracting.
A pleasant surprise was Zoe Saldana. She was strong, vulnerable, sexy, and completely convicing, transcending the trappings of the computer and Cameron's pen. Surprise Oscar nomination?
Saw it earlier today, and I gotta say I was extremely wary and very skeptical, pretty cynical you could say, right before I went in. After twenty minutes, I was sucked in, couldn't look away from the screen. It's just such a breathtaking movie, and I think your point about all the money being up there on screen is spot-on - this is money extremely well spent, and as a visual achievement Avatar has no equal this day and age. After awhile I kind of forgot the film was in 3-D, I will say, and just became immersed in the story. I couldn't believe it. Cameron had actually done it.
I will say one thing, though, about people comparing it to Star Wars - I think that comparison is inaccurate. Visually, yes, but Avatar really has none of the quirky or memorable characters that Star Wars had. Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, R2-D2, Darth Vader...these are still household names, and somehow I don't think Jake Sully and Neytiri will go that far or last that long, as we've seen their characters and the whole "evil marines kill stuff" story time and again. I think Avatar as a movie will last, and its world is so complete and real that it sucks you in despite yourself, but as far as story goes, it was very simplistic. The natives of the planet know all and are pretty much saints, while those who try to kill them are the devils. I'm all for the green message the movie delivers, but it's easy these days to demonize any opposing view to the point of parody, and I think that's the way Avatar goes. Given the two clear cut choices the movie offers us, how could we NOT pick the Na'vi? It would have been much more interesting to see more of the tribes that inhabited Pandora, more of the world, and more interaction between humans and the Na'vi, instead of the typical "space marines blow up a bunch of stuff in the last act" scenario. A grand and breathtaking adventure film it is, though. Stunning.
I'm wondering if the high suicide rates in states like Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho can be attributed to the fact that these states are all large, sparely populated areas. I've lived in both the rural and urban areas, and it can get a little lonely sometimes out there in the wild. And I wasn't even that far from a town of 30,000 people. I can only imagine what it's like to be in some little town in Alaska where a bag of potato chips will cost you eight dollars and the nearest significant city is only accessible by boat or plane.
It's not difficult to look at a map and see that blue and red states are divided across urban/rural lines. I wonder why this is. My suspicion is (and this is not to say that Republican's can't be intelligent people, because a good number of them are) that urban areas may not have better education systems, but they do offer more access to knowledge through large library systems, cultural experiences, and easier access to the arts. I feel that I'm treading a fine line in saying that, because I don't want to presume that being educated is a direct link to one party over the other. Do you have any thoughts on the urban/blue-rural/right divide?
Oh, and as a completely off subject side-note, I want to inform you that there is a factual error in your Great Movies review for "The Searchers". In it you state that "Cheyenne Autumn" was Ford's last feature film, when the seldom seen "7 Women" was. And, some of us that appreciate "The Searchers" don't patiently wait for those comedy bits to get over with. We enjoy them. I understand, however, that Ford's broad, buffoonish sense of humor may not appeal to everyone.
Quite heartened and a bit surprised by both the L.A. and N.Y. film critic's recognition of The Hurt Locker. Got me to revisit one of my fave sites, boxofficemojo.com.
As of November 19, THL has grossed $16,107,592(a paltry 21.3% internationally). Avatar, which opened yesterday, Mojo estimates has grossed $27 million already. Says something positive to me about film critics in general.
Also sets up, almost for sure, Mr. Cameron and the x-Mrs Cameron battling it out for Best Director's Oscar honors. That is a first that's bound to be fun.
And finally, Roger,am I premature in asking for equal and deserved recognition for Kathryn Bigelow? If James Cameron has been "recrowned King of the World," how bout something for the gutsy and accomplished Ms.Bigelow. Say, Queen of the World's Female Film Auteurs, or something- I'm hoping for World's best film director, come next year. Sorry James. Doubtful I know. But wouldn't that be something?
Saw it yesterday afternoon on IMAX 3D and I must say it was tremendous experience. Yes, the story isn't anything original but it I thought it complimented the visuals very well and I just had a blast watching it. I got sucked into the world Cameron created. It was a lot of fun and isn't that what it is all about?
I saw "Avatar" this afternoon. I thought it was pretty good. Given the choice between 3-D and 2-D, I'll pick 2-D anyday. I've never watched a 3-D movie where the 3-D process didn't distract me.
I get sick and tired about people talking about how much movies cost. If a movie is good, then how much it cost does not matter to me. I liked it that James Cameron took his time to prepare for this movie. It reminds me of Francis Coppola and "Apocalypse Now." He spent almost five years to make that movie, and in the end came out a winner. One the other hand, I also liked it that Coppola used real helicopters for his battle scenes.
In my opinion, they both did their jobs. Also, I'm glad you are going to be showing "Apocalypse Now" next year at Ebertfest. It's about time. After that, could you do Michael Mann's "Thief?"
Why is everyone so cynical and downright negative about the politics present in this film? Is the Right so sensitive after the election of Obama, that anything with a leftist message is deemed somehow inherently wrong, at best.
You do know that as individuals we all have different values and belief systems, as a result our own experiences in this world?
No one is here attacking you guys, this is coming from a die-hard Neo Con who voted for Bush and McCain. Sometimes a film can be good, express different opinions then your own, and enrich you by giving you pause for thought.
Roger has given plenty of conservative films good reviews (The Incredibles for example) calling them classics as well. So can we please stop with the Staw Man arguments?
@ Zeiram wrote:
"There will always be those sci-fi/fantasy/nerdish haters who don't indulge into the kind of Flash Gordon, Amazing Adventures Vol 3 and American Graffiti kind of escapist flair. Those people are normally middle aged Lawyers, stockbrokers and 50 something women who play Parcheesi on weekends whilst smoking with their girlfriends. That's O.k. We can't all grow up to be James Cameron."
Oh Jesus Christ, just sleep the guy already! :)
(And yes, I'm reacting to the above.)
FYI:
I'm Canadian, female, an Artist, 45 years old. My slippers are pink and my boots are black. I read everything from the classics to graphic novels; my favorite is "The Killing Joke" and then "Hush."
I watched Star Trek growing up along with the Twilight Zone. I was there when Darth Vader introduced himself to the pop-culture and Jodie Foster made "Contact". I loved Buffy The Vampire Slayer and later seeing a woman play Starbuck on Battlestar Galactica. I collect toys and action figures like Batman, "V" for Vendetta and a Ringwraith from LOTR. And imo the best video game this year was "Arkham Asylum."
What I don't and never have embraced is the "post-adolescent male fantasy" hiding in plain sight in the guise of science fiction. But then, I don't watch self-serving one-dimensional chick-movies, either.
I haven't seen Avatar and so I can't take issue with it directly - just what's being recounted and shared by others in addition to the overwhelming amount of hype currently circumnavigating the globe. And from the outside looking in, it sounds like yet another "boys with alien toys fantasy" with some eco-green stuff tossed in.
For apparently what makes it so exciting isn't the story; as no one's really talking about that or the characters, save to note if they're attractive - and fair enough, but what if you're not a guy? Instead, people talking about the icing and the experience of eating it and from a predominantly male point of view.
Begging the question, why aren't women raving about Avatar too? Where are those voices? I mean, it features Signorney Weaver! But all I've been hearing is essentially is cost "this much" and "looks really good."
N