We also just saw Avatar. It's basically Fern Gully 2. The plot is extremely predictable and stays in "safe" territory the entire time. It's also half an hour longer than it needed to be. With that said, it was also a good movie. The story may be predictable, but it's a good story. It's also very visually pretty and has some nice action. All in all, it was an entertaining, if predictable, movie experience.
It's not Fern Gully 2. Pete, that was an actual movie. Yeah, it exists. It's terrible.
The plot of Avatar is an exact parallel of Fern Gully (but with way, way more killing) with one exception: the guy knew he was being sent in to the natives with a purpose instead of accidentally falling in with them. Everything else significant in the plot is the same. Much more so than with Pocahontas.
Sorry to you guys who think it's mean to compare the two. Your feelings on the matter don't change the fact that it's true. I happen to love Fern Gully, and I liked Avatar as well. It had the distinct feeling of a trilogy; there were definitive points of subdivision. Each one brought me back out of the movie a bit. I think the length also contributed to that. Anyway, it had stunning visuals and the CG was well-done. There was an interview with Sigourney Weaver on the Daily Show where she talked about the capture technology, and I've been waiting to see how well it worked since then. It was excellent.
The plot of Avatar is an exact parallel of Fern Gully (but with way, way more killing) with one exception:
Fern Gully needed more killing
And less musical numbers. But in all seriousness, I think we are just hard on Avatar just because it's been in waiting for so long just so we can catch up on the CGI, that we were annoyed that the story didn't really get any revisions or glances over. And I don't think if you make a movie that similar to another movie, it's bad. It's just that when people are comparing your mature, corruption based story off of stuff geared for kids, then you have a problem.
Oh, it's not meant to be a criticism, just an easy way to summarize the plot. I very much enjoyed the movie, and basic plots are constantly reused with different details to great success. They also did a lot more cultural development in Avatar than in FG. It was a lot sadder than I had expected it to be; (spoilers ahead)I'm not a die-hard pacifist or anything, but watching so much senseless killing made me cry. It really served no purpose for either side...which, of course, was probably the point. I did appreciate that they didn't bring Grace back though. I think that would have lessened the gravity of the event. The only thing that really *bothered* me about the plot was the static villain. The "chief of security" that somehow ends up taking over everything and has total control who is hell bent on just killing and destroying everything was a bit much. I mean, who didn't pick up on that character flaw? Would a huge company like this really have some young pushover who lets the security guy make all the decisions running its Pandora operation? It was obviously a plot device, but it seemed really simplistic in relation to the complexity of the rest of the movie. Anyway, it took me a few hours to realize that that was bothering me, so it obviously wasn't that big of a deal.
Overall, there were several points where I felt the same sense of epicness that I had watching the first LotR movie. This movie was good enough that I would buy it when it comes out on DVD, and I don't buy very many movies.
I enjoyed Avatar and not for the large amount of bluobies (thank you mc chris). It was definitely a defeat all evil against nature kind of movie. I loved the all the little animals and floating mountains super cool, but what they were missing was the super evil spirit Hexxus as the villain instead of just man... unless that man was Tim Curry then it would be okay.
I liked the villain in Avatar simply because he was such a total badass. Sure, he took things too far and was an all-around asshole, but you just have to respect his tenacity.
but in between those moments were scenes that were immature, flashy, and stupid...
it forgot to add feeling and depth to most of the characters and situations.
carbon copy
Some specifics to back this up, please?
It's one thing to adapt a novel to the silver screen (whether it's any good or not depends on a lot of factors, the most important I feel is creative interpretation), but it's another thing to directly adapt the entire novel to screen and make it a static, carbon copy of the source material. I feel this way for a number of reasons which I'll list down. The way I see it, I believe that film adaptations should be faithful to the story and spirit of the source material, but I believe that the directors of said adaptations should also rely heavily on creative interpretation.
I have to agree with Nukejsr on his opinion of whom he thought had good and bad performances as well as inappropriate music at certain times, because I share similar opinions as him. I also felt the film glorified violence and sex, the former and latter of which were not as prevalent in the book as it was in the film. My opinion is that that was Snyder's doing. My reason for thinking that, is that I've noticed in the last two films he made (Dawn of the Dead remake and 300), violence and sex were heavily focused upon and were unnecessary. In Watchmen, I felt that violence and sex was a prominent factor in it. One example is during the raid on the prison where Rorschach was being held. Rorschach shoved the midget convict into the toilet and when the Watchmen left, blood spewed out through the crack of the door. I felt it was kinda gross and really unnecessary. As for my glorification of sex accusation, I felt that they really overdid it especially when Silk Spectre and Nite Owl consumated their love for the first time. The music used was really immature and the imagery used in that scene was ridiculous (a specific example is when Nite Owl hit the flamethrower button as the climax occurred).
Granted though, this is one of the most faithful adaptations of a graphic novel I have ever seen, but that is what left such a bad taste in my mouth, it destroys what it seeks to preserve. In a few words: It is embalmed. I realize that I've been nitpicking this movie to death and I know I'm acting like a know-it-all, but that's the only way I know how to elaborate on my review.
Throw some white text over that middle part, just in case.
But still, you're only gave me one reason. The use of violence and sex could be used to back up your immaturity argument, but I also feel that it fits the grotesque nature of the acts committed in the actual novel. Not to mention that the rape scene was extremely tasteful for a scene of that nature. Although, that second sex scene between Laurie and Dan is indeed absolutely disgusting.
I'd really like to hear how you think the film lacked depth in terms of characters. There are a few scenes where I think the actors hit it out of the park in that regard. The scene where Doc Manhattan kills Rorschach, for example. Also, I think it's quite clear that this film is not at all a carbon copy. We are all well aware of the fundamental changes Snyder made to Ozzy's plot in order to make the film more "topical", and there are also a lot of interesting choices that were made that added depth to the story such as the anger and violence that Rorschach displayed towards the man who killed the little girl and the scene where Hollis is killed(which was in the director's cut).
Needless to say, major spoilers for both the movie and the book, but here's that scene I mentioned from the director's cut. Perfect example of Snyder using "creative interpretation", as Geofino phrases it.
F5.Wow, that was dumb. The appropriate "savin' things" function key is F7...So, saved.
Huh. I thought you were telling me to F5, as in "I already made a similar joke, and if you'd F5'd, you would've seen it." Good thing I decided to wait for clarification. Also, in what program is saving things F7?
I recently watched Cinderella Man. Going into it, I didn't know what to expect other than it would have some quality considering Ron Howard directed it. I really liked it and I thought it was a very touching story. I'm somewhat of a sucker for rag-to-riches storylines, but up until then I had never seen one that had as much depth as this one did. I especially praise Renee Zellweger (Mae Braddock, Russell Crowe's wife) and Paul Giamatti's (Joe Gould, Russell Crowe's manager) performances as they were the characters that continually kept me interested. I'm not saying Crowe's performance was bad (which it most certainly wasn't), it's just that Zellweger and Giamatti both outshines him in many different ways. If you liked A Beautiful Mind, I guarantee you'll like this one as well.
Saw "Enchanted" on DVD. It was pretty much what I thought it would be. The animation in the opening sequence almost made all the stuff I couldn't stand worth it.
I saw "Evan Almighty" In the end it wasn't a horrible movie (I enjoyed the fact that it was all about washington D.C. politics and they used zoning laws to try and stop the ark from being built) but for a movie that was supposed to be a comedy it wasn't THAT funny but it was heart warming (even to my atheist heart) ;-p Today I get "The Spirit" from Netflix's, that should be fun (apparently I'm watching movies that bombed this month ;-p)
Comments
The plot of Avatar is an exact parallel of Fern Gully (but with way, way more killing) with one exception: the guy knew he was being sent in to the natives with a purpose instead of accidentally falling in with them. Everything else significant in the plot is the same. Much more so than with Pocahontas.
Sorry to you guys who think it's mean to compare the two. Your feelings on the matter don't change the fact that it's true. I happen to love Fern Gully, and I liked Avatar as well. It had the distinct feeling of a trilogy; there were definitive points of subdivision. Each one brought me back out of the movie a bit. I think the length also contributed to that. Anyway, it had stunning visuals and the CG was well-done. There was an interview with Sigourney Weaver on the Daily Show where she talked about the capture technology, and I've been waiting to see how well it worked since then. It was excellent.
Overall, there were several points where I felt the same sense of epicness that I had watching the first LotR movie. This movie was good enough that I would buy it when it comes out on DVD, and I don't buy very many movies.
I have to agree with Nukejsr on his opinion of whom he thought had good and bad performances as well as inappropriate music at certain times, because I share similar opinions as him. I also felt the film glorified violence and sex, the former and latter of which were not as prevalent in the book as it was in the film. My opinion is that that was Snyder's doing. My reason for thinking that, is that I've noticed in the last two films he made (Dawn of the Dead remake and 300), violence and sex were heavily focused upon and were unnecessary. In Watchmen, I felt that violence and sex was a prominent factor in it. One example is during the raid on the prison where Rorschach was being held. Rorschach shoved the midget convict into the toilet and when the Watchmen left, blood spewed out through the crack of the door. I felt it was kinda gross and really unnecessary. As for my glorification of sex accusation, I felt that they really overdid it especially when Silk Spectre and Nite Owl consumated their love for the first time. The music used was really immature and the imagery used in that scene was ridiculous (a specific example is when Nite Owl hit the flamethrower button as the climax occurred).
Granted though, this is one of the most faithful adaptations of a graphic novel I have ever seen, but that is what left such a bad taste in my mouth, it destroys what it seeks to preserve. In a few words: It is embalmed. I realize that I've been nitpicking this movie to death and I know I'm acting like a know-it-all, but that's the only way I know how to elaborate on my review.
But still, you're only gave me one reason. The use of violence and sex could be used to back up your immaturity argument, but I also feel that it fits the grotesque nature of the acts committed in the actual novel. Not to mention that the rape scene was extremely tasteful for a scene of that nature. Although, that second sex scene between Laurie and Dan is indeed absolutely disgusting.
I'd really like to hear how you think the film lacked depth in terms of characters. There are a few scenes where I think the actors hit it out of the park in that regard. The scene where Doc Manhattan kills Rorschach, for example. Also, I think it's quite clear that this film is not at all a carbon copy. We are all well aware of the fundamental changes Snyder made to Ozzy's plot in order to make the film more "topical", and there are also a lot of interesting choices that were made that added depth to the story such as the anger and violence that Rorschach displayed towards the man who killed the little girl and the scene where Hollis is killed(which was in the director's cut).
Also, Passepartout is the man!