Dear Dr. K,

Good review, personally, I thought the film was fantastic. I enjoyed it more than I every thought I could of.



It looked the part, it was throughrully entertaining and was a pleasure to see.



Pandora is one of the most beautiful things to grace the silver screen this decade.



But I agree with you, Unabtanium is the dumbest name ever.

Unobtanium has been around for decades as a scientific 'buzz word' for unknown materials. It was also used in the movie 'The Core' but no one seemed to care then.



Personally, I thought Avatar was incredible but I got the feeling Cameron made it for his kids and filled it full of the things he loved growing up.



In a year where JJ Abrams was spoken about as the new Spielberg *shudders* it seems churlish to complain about a movie as stunning and cinematic as Avatar. IMO.

It is incredibly technically and visually impressive, which makes for a very enjoyable cinematic experience. However...



I did get the sense that once they created the world and nailed the visuals they patted each other on the back and gave the job of writing the screen play to a 13 year old boy. I would have enjoyed the film just as much if it was a 90 minute purely visual tech demo.

In fact, I found myself wishing they would kill almost all the dialogue and just tell the story using the visuals, as Pixar may have done.



Also, the best way to find out what it would look like in 2D is to close one eye rather than take off the glasses.

Like you said, most it was just as impressive, and didn't hurt my eyes every time I focused on the wrong bit of the screen.

Is it only good in comparison to everything else at the moment? Was it good enough to just look good in the past? And did Transformers just not look good enough? And Pirates of the Caribbean? Where has our mantra of 'story, story, story' gone?!



Would make a good game...

Although I very much agree with your overall thoughts of the film, I disagree with you in regards to your point about 3D. I personally felt at times the 3D effect really added to some scenes. Where you say you took off your glasses at times to check the difference between 3D and 2D and felt there was little, I did the same and felt the opposite (at times). For me many of the scenes that had long halls (without giving away spoilers but near the beginning would be a great example), I was genuinely felt 3D added a distinctive edge.



On a side note however, I also felt alongside others that the soundtrack was rather predictable, like the storyline.

It was amazing seeing it on the big screen, it could have done with a trim here and there, but I really did enjoy it, there was a definite wow to it all, and very cinematic.



However there were quite a few scenes where it did remind me of Aliens but in reverse, the obvious being aliens are the goodies, and the humans are the baddies, but there was one classic example, and that was



*******************************SPOILER********************************

*the end sequence where the sergeant was in the robo suit fighting*** *against the alien, that was a direct lift from the final sequence*** *from Aliens.*********************************************************

*******************************SPOILER********************************

I Agree with Wolfticket.



Regardless of how stunning this 3D tech-demo and glorious long hours of CGI put into the movie, it is a really boring.



It really made me look into the original (Pocahontas) and appreciate Disney for using a 3 minutes song to tell what James Cameron needed an hour for.



'Look at those birds, be one with nature, let's love each other, the animals are precious creatures, you are new but for some reason I know that you will teach us a lot about ourselves'



And so on...



James Cameron has always been a terrible dialogue writer, but before he didn't have the power to include every single scene he wanted.



If they release a 90 minute version 'the common sense cut' it would be worth re-watching it.



Let's not forget to give a round of applause to the CGI guys and other crew members, putting in all those hours to then listen to us bitching about it it's not very rewarding.



Still boring though

I'm a fan of Cameron -- didn't like Titanic but hey, nobody's perfect -- and knowing James Cameron's perfectionist nature, specifically from a design standpoint, I had every confidence that Avatar was going to look the part, so I wasn't worried about that. What I WAS worried about was the story. However, when I began hearing of the somewhat derogatory comparisons to Dances With Wolves, I, on the other hand was thinking; great, if they can pull THAT off, then Avatar is going to be something special since, I love Dances (love Westerns, too) but it's more an epic drama as apposed to an actual Western. So I was thinking; if Cameron can hit the same emotional notes with Avatar as Costner did with Wolves, then I'll be impressed.

And while I did like Avatar very much, unfortunately, I was very slightly let down by the drama, or, lack there of. A lot of the complaints were that it moved too slowly -- I felt the complete opposite -- I wanted the thing to slow down for a little more character development. To me, it did seem tailored for a theatrical release so I'm hoping for an extended cut on BluRay. Avatar IS basically the same story template as Dances With Wolves. And those kinds of films, at least in my opinion, work because they take their time and while I do understand the need for shorter films, Avatar would have worked better with a longer run-time.

And before "Avatar" and "Star Trek" there was Bill Shatner speaking Esperanto, in the horror film called "Incubus".



See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F77k6SQX7iQ&feature=related



As an Esperanto speaker I found it terrifying! His Esperanto pronunciation that is, not the film.



Your readers may be interested in https://www.lernu.net :)

When I saw Avatar I realised what the use of 3D is... unfortunately it was not during the film itself but in the Alice in Wonderland trailer that preceded it. The biggest collective audience gasp of the night was when the face of the Cheshire Cat appeared and seemed to float in the middle of the auditorium. It seems that Burton has made a fantastic moving pop-up book and due to the nature of the source material (something we know as a children's book) this looks like it could be the perfect match of subject and medium. Of course this also makes it the exception that proves the rule i.e. 3D is, at best, a gimmick of limited use.



...another clue to the worth of 3D is that two of the trailers (How to Train Your Dragon and Battle for Terra) have the distinct whiff of rushed movies that might not otherwise exist - in fact IMDB has BFT down as being made in 2007. ...dare we suggest that studios are scrabbling for content in an effort to justify the expense?

Dear Dr.





I was wondering ,before the 12a film there were 5 adverts for spirits , one for beer, 2 for 18 rated video games. During the film ms weavers character chain smokes, the main character wheel chair man , security clearance is 'orange' using the same font as the well known telecoms firm and a well known beer some people adulterate with lime makes an appearance. apart from this it was quite good . even the packed cinema of young adults managed to keep quiet and even clapped when it finished.This was the 2d version, as i believe 3d is the new taste coke of the 80's and probably TAB too. A bit different but where are they now!!! and the executives who thought they were a good idea.

I posted the previous thread on Avatar 3D and how blown away I was by it's spectacle. As my first 3D film it's clearly a good pick, though I might feel disappointed by future 3D films.

My Odeon is showing it in both 3D and 2D so I might see Avatar again in 2D just to see how much difference it makes?



Thinking on it I suspect I won't feel let down by 2D; the Pandora world, creatures and natives are beautifully realized; it deserves to clean up in the technical and design awards. Zoe Saldana's performance in creating a believable native character also deserves some attention; it's as good a performance as Serkis's Gollum.



I heard Cameron talk about his desire to make Avatar a long time ago (around the time of The Abyss I think) and what was holding him back at the time.



I don't belive that the 3D was what he waited so long for (he used 3D simply because it was around, to add depth to scenes); the [e]motion capture was.



By the time the [e]motion capture existed the CGI had also improved to the point it could create Pandora.

Cameron would have done this in 2D if a good 3D system hadn't existed, and it would still have been as spectacular as most reviewers agree it is. The 3d may just be the icing on the cake. (And he had to think of how it looks on DVD/TV too.)



As for the resemblances with Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Last Samurai. Emerald Forest and so on.

It's a time honoured plot device to introduce a different society or culture through the eyes of someone like ourselves (e.g. Man Called Horse, Little Big Man, even Pumping Iron).



Delmer Daves 1950 western Broken Arrow was a ground-breaking western in that it portrayed some Apaches sympathetically and James Stewart's character even marries an Apache woman (though one played by a white actress).



Cameron is using tried and tested plot devices to introduce an 'alien' world to an audience (it also helps that everything and everyone in it is gorgeous); then to add drama there has to be conflict, so the mining company becomes the villains; much as the company ' Weyland Industries' were the real villains in Alien movies.



There are criticisms. The mining company characters are all just 'types'; the point that Sully is a Tabula Rasa ("Just let your mind go blank") and open to new influences is made heavy-handedly; the natives are a mainly a collection of stereotypes; only Saldana's native woman is given the chance to display complexity and has to display much of an emotional range.



But then again how complex are characters in movies such as this? Most films with heroes and villains clearly distinguish the two.



Although there are clear references to N. American First Peoples, I kept thinking 'Amazonia' and of the forest clearing going on there.



The fight with the colonel in the robo-suit does have resemblances with the Aliens ending, but Cameron also designed the Power Loader for Aliens and clearly felt he could take the idea further. (Just don't think about the co-incidence that both characters landed so close to the science cabin.)



I also agree with RunningFox83, I'd have preferred a longer running time. Cameron has said in an interview that there's around 10 min's of footage that wasn't included (including a trial Sully has to undertake to become a member of the clan) that probably will be on the DVD edition.



If Cameron does a sequel (and doesn't hand it to someone else to direct) I'd like to see it; he clearly has Pandora worked out in his mind.

I agree strongly with the good Doctor that the 3D was just a bolt-on and not integral at all. Compare this to the advent of colour and one of the early films to use that technology, "The Wizard of Oz". There the new innovation is vital, in particular when demonstrating the contrast between black and white Kansas and Technicolor Oz. Avatar did not need the 3D at all and could easily have been told in the same way without it. Simply observe the number of people who see it in 2D and are still overwhelmed. Can you imagine watching the Wizard of Oz only in black and white?

1 word that undoes all the promise of 3D cinema: "Ghosting"



It's like trying to watch a bee fly up and down on the end of your nose, all blurry, vaguely nauseating and completely headache inducing. Avatar reduced the picture ghosting to a bare minimum (the best I've ever seen in fact) but still not enough for my liking (i.e. zero). At times the screen looked like a giant version of those holographic (or 'lenticular') posters/football stickers. Shiny, soulless and disconcertingly hollow.



However, occasionally the 3D visuals are, when not blurry or featuring image ghosting/motion artefacts, absolutely breathtaking.



Avatar even manages a good 45 minutes where it feels like a 3-dimensional fiction film as opposed to the usual fairground ride or video game vibe you get from most 3D releases. This is Cameron's greatest achievement and something that has eluded the other 99% of 3D filmmakers until now.



And on the subject of Cameron, this is the man who made Aliens and Terminator 2. When people keep referring to his 'great works' I struggle to find any. Fun? Absolutely. Exciting? Definitely. Technically innovative? Oh my, yes.



But great?



Cameron makes lightweight visual spectaculars with 2D characters (usually macho men with guns or macho women with guns or both) who like to "BLOW THINGS UP REAL GOOD!" and fetishise weaponry, gadgetry and violence.



This is usually coupled with a simplistic, almost childish moral. In Aliens, it's don't be evil and exploit others for profit...in Terminator 2 it's don't be evil and endanger humanity for profit...in Titanic it's don't be evil and risk people's lives for profit and fame...in Avatar it's...(you get the idea).



There's nothing wrong with that. That's a lot more than George Lucas can do. But Cameron is hardly Stanley Kubrick and I wish people would stop labelling him as a cinematic genius who’s recently lost his way. He’s a popcorn movie maker. A Spielberg without the narrative smarts (or cloying sentimentality).



What Cameron does have in abundance is vision. 20 years ago he set the standard for CGI technology with The Abyss and Terminator 2 (possibly the best sci-fi action-er ever made). He did it again with Titanic. Now he’s back setting new standards for 3D.



The 3D technology hasn’t yet been perfected. But greater filmmakers than Cameron will look at Avatar for years to come as a cinematic benchmark, and wet themselves in excitement over the technological possibilities for the future.



Cameron is an innovator and a true blockbuster filmmaker, the messiah to Michael Bay’s Antichrist.



I, for one, am glad that he’s come back to save the multiplex from the clutches of those that seek to feed us garbage like Transformers 2 and overcharge us for the privilege.





Sorry for the rant.

Good film-makers: Spielberg, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Cameron, 'add your favourites here' etc are rare.



They each push their own boundaries and ideas.



Is Cameron a Kubrick? is not the point.

That Kubrick (if alive) might have been interested in the techniques that Cameron developed might be.



Kubrick introduced Steady-Cam in The Shining and low-light camera-work in Barry Linden (Have you seen it? It is extraordinary, if not exciting.)

2001 was technological innovation par-excellence.



I think that Cameron is pushing what cinema is capable of is as valid as what Kubrick delivered.



Given Cameron's interest in developing cinema technology, and large scale storytelling, it's unsurprising that his films cost a large fortune.



Equally it's unsurprising, given the cost of his vision, that he concentrates on pleasing mass audiences. (What is surprising is that he manages to keep on doing it.)



But other directors (and box office success) and societal influences also influence all other directors.

As with writers there will never be one that is pre-eminent or results in all other story telling becoming redundant.



I'm a fan of Cameron; but like others I didn't particularly his film Titanic.



But then again, he did dive down to the wreck (not something many would be prepared to risk) and film it in IMAX.

He also wanted to turn his obsession in it into a film; so we got a soppy love story and Celine Dion.



But, hey, I forgive him. (He had an itch to scratch and financiers to please.)



He also pushed the CGI to get the effects he wanted.

I forgive obsessives - if they produce results.



One thing I like about cinema is there are so many different ideas, visions, concepts - and originals.

Hated, hated, hated, HATED this movie. 2.5 hours too long, boring, mind-numbingly dull and intellectually vacuous. Visually breathtaking? Yes. Poignant, profoundly philosophical and emotionally stirring narrative? Hell no. And what’s with the gratuitously cynical underlying theme of bashing modernity? Didn’t anyone else *facepalm* when they realised that Mr. Cameron is using the best spoils and greatest achievements of modernity in order to produce his hyperbolic nightmare of a movie?! No doubt he will score gazillions of dollars for this one too, but something tells me he’s not going to give it all up to go and learn yoga and to play the bloody sitar and live in Alaska....no, he’ll probably buy an iPhone or two, like the rest of us. James, grow a testicle you hypocrite! The worst part of the experience was listening to the sheepish audience in the cinema clapping like drugged pinnipeds at the end-- stay stupid humans, you’re future looks very bright indeed! Don’t think I’ve been this angry with a movie since Transformers 2. I need new friends...

Re: Message 14 (stopsayingapsolutely):



I saw Avatar in Northampton Cineworld's biggest screen on Thursday morning and I didn't notice any ghosting. Both eye images were perfectly sharp and distinct. I've noticed some bleed-through between left and right at other films on occasion (Monsters Vs Aliens), but not this time. Maybe it's a projection issue. How often have you had to leave the film and ask the staff to correct the focus, sound, ratio or gauging? (Then again, I saw The Stepfather remake the other day and the horrible focussing is on the print, because it varies from shot to shot.)



Anyway, I did like Avatar a lot, certainly more than I thought I was going to. Yes, it get a bit Fotherington-Thomas in places with all the "hello birds, hello trees" stuff, and the human military are ridiculous caricatures of slaughter-happy evil, but I generally enjoyed it and it didn't drag (unlike certain other 150+ minute films we've had this year such as Transformers 2). The effects are great, but so they should be, and the music score is okay (though James Horners has done a lot better). It's certainly in my top five of the year.

Loved this movie!Dr K delivered a very good review,though i will have to disagree at some points.

The main criticism on the movie is obviously the story,but Cameron knew this all along.In many interviews he said that for him,sci-fi works better when you have a familiar story placed in a fictional environment.Now you don't have to necessarily agree with that,sometimes it works,sometimes it doesn't,but it is a valid point.In another interview he said that they were trying to push the envelope in other things,and in a potential sequel,the story will have to be great,that time will be no excuses.

I personally thought the story was simple but nicely told and it served well the movie.

Would an original story serve the movie better?Probably yes if told correctly,but then again,there's always something better when you hypothesize.

The movie is not without flaws,but it is without doubt the best spectacle out there,and the scale is only comparable to lord of the rings.



Non_Serviam,if you expected to see Nietzsche on screen,obviously you would be disappointed.Avatar never claimed to be a philosophic statement in cinema.

I also hated transformers like you but there are fundamental differences between those movies.I would agree with you that the clapping can get really annoying,so just go to a late viewing when the kids are sleeping.

Avatar delivered an amazing experience and it worths every penny spent,unlike other abominations like twillight.

While this film is being chillingly and depressingly touted as "the future of cinema", i feel i should point out that if Steven Seagal released a film with such mundane, clunky dialogue and phoned-in acting it would be instantly savaged by the critics, but as it was made by James Cameron, cost $300 million and has a horribly preachy "nature versus industry" message and a scathing indictment of the United States past invasions of certain territories, it seems to have a get out of jail free card regarding some the reviews it is getting. I have already received much slack for giving the film a negative review, with many people pointing out to me that it "looks fantastic" and "so much effort went into it" and the like, as if i was supposed to forgive it because of the way it looks and forget about the many many bad things about it. How come these people don't jump up so quickly to defend the likes of Transformers and the like, which despite being terrible films do also have technical smarts.



And what about Steven Seagal's own "nature versus industry" disasterpiece On Deadly Ground?...OK, it may be terrible but at least it was much more watchable and less sleep-inducing than Cameron's preposterously overblown snoozefest and yet was savaged by the critics upon release. Rightly so but why is Avatar getting such praise when it is so terrible?

Re. the eco stuff. (Someone's described it as Pocahontas runs into Platoon. LOL.)



Didn't you guess that much beforehand from the trailer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRdxXPV9GNQ



It's a 'siding with the underdog', 'against impossible odds', 'save the world' 'zero to hero' & 'win the heart of the princess' type of movie. (All traditional movie plot-lines.)

A fairy tale in-other-words, as Star Wars was; and Star Wars had all that guff about 'The Force' too.



Come to think of it Avatar 2 might resemble The Empire Strikes Back.



There are differences of opinion, when has it been otherwise about any movie?



BTW. I think the music used in Avatar's trailer is much better than the actual score.

It's seems to me that there are people out there who have so brought into the hype and are so invested in it's success they have brainwashed themselves into believing that what they have witnessed is a ground breaking masterpiece.

What I witnessed was a ponderous, boring, predictable seen it all before movie with visuals which were good but no better than those in the LOTR series or King Kong a few years back. The visuals

around this movie were built up to be photo realistic, but not for one moment did I believe it actually looked like James Cameron and crew had flown off in a spaceship to a far away planet and made the

movie on location.

George Lucas created CGI planets, landscapes and Aliens in his Star Wars prequels but was vilified ( I agreed)at the time for using too much CGI, but here we have a movie which has done the exact same but yet is being rewarded for it. It now seems to me that in the small amount of time that has passed between these films people only seem to get reward from movies through visual effects and cannot look beyond them. I say to them people who only want to watch two and half yours of CGI effects stay at home and play on your playstations

to get the same effect and let the the real movie fans go and watch proper films.

For me this film had a mountain to climb. The trailers looked like a video game (and not in a good way), I hated Titanic, and I generally dislike anything over-hyped. But what the heck I thought, and for the first time ever I payed a small fortune to for some IMAX 3D tickets and saw Avatar this morning.



To keep this brief - it looked absolutely amazing, truly stunning. Best CG ever and the artists involved need to win oscars for this. Secondly the 3D was actually, to my surprise, really immersive! I too removed the glasses from time to time, and despite the enormity of the IMAX screen the effect was nowhere near as impressive. As for the film itself, I would describe it as hugely entertaining and hugely unoriginal.



So colour me surprised, I actually liked it a lot, and the 3D really worked. Well done Cameron.

#21. I enjoyed Avatar, you didn't. Ce la vie. Many people like the Harry Potter films; they don't do much for me, but each to their own.



Like you I loathed the Star War prequels (Darth Vader, the early days) for a huge number of reasons, a lack of any suspense in the story arc being one. The kids dressed in rubber masks as aliens during the race sequence in the 1st one came in at around reason 300. The CGI was probably the best thing about them.

Mind you, some people really liked the SW prequels; but they're not a patch on the original first three SW movies, in my opinion.



Given you've seen this and other big-budget special effects heavy fantasy and si-fi movies (including I imagine Cameron's previous films) it's a bit contradictory to advise people that liked Avatar to stay at home so 'real movie fans [can] go and watch proper films.'



Movies come in a smorgasbord of styles, genres & budgets etc; I've enjoyed low-budget indies, foreign art-house movies and many older films going back to the silent era - and big budget effects movies too; if you don't like these why watch them at all?

Two words to describe the Pandora Smerfs: "Futurama Martians" (from episode "Where the Buggalo Roam" 2002)

fair point perhaps I was a little harsh with my comments but I couldn't miss the movie billed as the 'movie of the millenium'.



I wasn't saying all CGI movies are awful. What I'm saying is movies are getting more and more CGI heavy and it now seems it is the first thing and only thing that most people will judge a movie on.



CGI, although it takes an enormous amount of artistic creation to create them there isn't any 'wow how did they do that moments' because its all done on a computer where anything is possible, where as in the years before people had to get real creative to create the special effects.



Again you take the orignal Star Wars, everything in space was done with miniature models on wires, now those special effects still look great to day and I would even say look

better and more real than any space based CGI. I also still hold today that the Jurassic Park movies show how CGI should be used along with robotics, puppets and in a real environment to keep some sense of realism to it.

JJ Abrams is a director who understands that in a film combining live actors and CGI, CGI only gets you so far before the realism and believability of a movie is lost, in his Star Trek movie he used both CGI for the shots he couldn't do using traditional methods but none the less used traditional methods as much as he could.

Again my biggest critism of the latest Indiana Jones film was that it didn't feel right to be using CGI effects in a film that was supposed to be based on 50's, 60's Saturday morning adventure serials.

Whether the new Ghostbusters movie is good or bad you can guarantee everything will be CGI and look perfect but it will make the movie feel different from the originals where the ghost effects added some charm to the movies.

CGI has it's place in movies but directors seem to have gotten lazy and started using CGI were it isn't necessary and everywhere possible.

Non_Serviam, I feel your pain. This movie could have been so much better (and/or worse, for that matter... but hey!) It is still better then most sci-fi stuff out there at the moment, though.

# 25. Off topic, but... I agree about the magic being stripped away from movies, to an extent.



I really did have "How the hell are they doing this?" moments with both Terminator 2 & Jurassic Park, when first released.



The work of both Douglas Turnbull & Stan Winston is also now well known, thanks to [too] many 'how it was made' extras and articles.



When Star Wars was made features were shown on TV about how its special effects were produced.

By that point I also knew about Ray Harryhausen and Willis O'Brien and their stop-motion; so perhaps a little more magic had been stripped away? Or, perhaps, people are genuinely interested, and suspend belief anyway?



To try & cut it short:

a) I feel sorry for the stunt guys that do really brave stunts, but the audience now just thinks it's CGI.

b) Agreed, there are far too few too many remakes. At the moment I can't think of one better than the original.

In one way that's why an attempt at something original should be welcomed. (Star Trek goes back to the 60s.)

c) The last Indiana Jones movie was horrendous. It didn't even recapture the essence of the 1st three. I hope the franchise ends there.

d) It's about story, and how its told. Avatar is corn, as Star Wars and Star Trek (the TV series & films) and many other TV and films were also.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some stories tap into a deep emotional mythology; and Cameron does do them really well.

e) New 'Ghostbusters'? Didn't really like the 1st one. Damn these remakes.



"CGI has it's place in movies, but directors seem to have gotten lazy and started using CGI were it isn't necessary and everywhere possible."



Oh yeah, when Michael Bay gets his hand on this kit you and I (and Mark Kermode) can go and hide out in the mountains.



In the meantime - close your eyes and think of a scene from Avatar, something will come.

Mostly everything in Avatar, e.g. backgrounds (no real jungle or scenery was filmed and used on green-screen) is CGI; but models, full scale robotics (e.g. the robo-suit in some scenes) and a vast array of other special effects were also used. And, you must admit, Avatar does deliver an emotional kick.



I did have that gobsmaked feeling watching Avatar that I had on watching Jurassic Park - and I also was willing to enter the story...

Perhaps our ability to amazed, or be entertained, is reaching diminishing point; unless you also are prepared reach out to it, suspend disbelief and engage with it?

As with O'Brien's 'Kong' or James Whale's 'Frankenstein' of the 1930s (I love them both) or Lucas's Star Wars (1st 3).



BTW. My film of 2009 would still be 'Gran Torino' though.

BattleSmurf Galactica

Avatar was the first film I've seen in 3D and as its supposed to be the 3D posterchild I was rather disappointed. Other than the irritation of having to wear the 3D glasses over my normal glasses and the occasional pointy or popout effect I generally didn't notice the 3Dness, that may well be because the effect of depth was so well done that it wasn't jarring but its debatable if its worth the extra cost of seeing the film in 3D.

Other than the lacklustre 3D the CGI was amazing being blended together with the live footage flawlessly, it shows the true potential of the technology for building fantastical worlds and making the impossible possible though hopefully film makers will try to keep 'real things real' and not just use CGI for everything, things like action scenes look much more impressive when its real stuntmen and special effects rather than a CGI creation.

Just to respond to your comment about Avatar having emotional kick, I'd beg to differ by saying that the film was boring as hell. The film was so boring that some guy in the row behind me fell asleep and you could him snoring, there was a couple of times I felt like joining him.

'Just to respond to your comment about Avatar having emotional kick...'



Perhaps films are like a romantic attraction? We both walk into a room of potential partners and we each are attracted differently.



Avatar worked for me. Your favourite greatest movie moments may leave me cold, and vice versa. That's why having a wide smorgasbord of films to browse is best; we are all different.

Avatar may well be the best looking film yet but I have doubts about its longevity. It seems that it is not enough just to be visually stunning. In order for a film to endure the tests of time it has to also combine fine acting and a gripping plot. Just look at Cameron's previous work to see examples of this. T2 not only looked the part but crucially had a riveting story and decent performances, thus it is still seen as a fine film years after it was made. Conversely Titanic or the third Terminator film did look breathtaking at times but are ridiculed for there plots and acting thus they are in no way regarded classic motion pictures.



This trend is seen for almost all big budget films (comparison of the old and new Batman franchises is an obvious example) and I feel Avatar will not be remembered as a great film dispite the groundbreaking and long awaited techniques uses to make it.

Mark,

until you mentioned that there are some wow-factors in the movie, I thought that you may be suffering from Aspergers' syndrome or similar. How can anyone fail to be moved by this movie emotionally? The combination of storyline (though admittedly simple and predictable) with the realism that draws you into the movie and the perfect camera, lighting and combination of colours and detail is just mind-blowing, 3D or not. And I'm not a teenager, but 44 years old and the last time, I remember being that impressed by a movie in a similar way was when I watched the (then) ground-braking first Star Wars movie in 1978, I think. Avatar is a movie, that many young people will watch again and again. And this, I think, is the most important thing about it: If someone doesn't get it's message the first time round, they almost certainly will the second or third time. This kind of thing is much more likely to make a large number of people think about the environment than any Al Gore movie and all the Planet Earth movies together! Also, the movie is ground-braking in that is a hybrid of many different genres, namely Sci-Fi, war-movie, eco-movie, romantic feelgood-movie, animation, artistic movie, educational movie and anti-racist movie, to mention only a few. I'm not into one particular kind of movie and the only thing that is not, is intellectual. But it is the first movie I've seen in 30 years, that had me think about it days after I had seen it. And I have watched a lot of them in my lifetime! Really Mark, it is not COMPULSORY to mention any negative points in a review, if there are only some really minor ones, if any! And it's okay to be emotionally involved as well when credit is due!

Saw Avatar last night, out of curiosity, as it not really my bag. I have to say that after an enjoyable first hour or so, the remainder was a bit of a drag, and i was left thinking was it really worth all that bother and effort? After all, there were no thrilling sequences, nor any humour or likeable characters, just a superficial plot and some nice imagery.



At least Lord of the Rings had alot going for it, despite getting increasingly bloated.

You have to see it on imax to get the best experience and the immense visual spectacle of it. The bit at the end with the major fighting main character blue guy in the robot suit thing reminded me of District 9 a bit. Though the guy we like was in it in district 9, also in saying that, District 9 is also about evil humans and saving the alien people..aha.



On a side note, where is the review history from the radio 5 website? Has everything from before 2008 being deleted? Forever?



I only started listening and podcasting from the review of the year 2007 show.

You have to see it on imax to get the best experience and the immense visual spectacle of it. The bit at the end with the major fighting main character blue guy in the robot suit thing reminded me of District 9 a bit. Though the guy we like was in it in district 9, also in saying that, District 9 is also about evil humans and saving the alien people..aha.



On a side note, where is the review history from the radio 5 website? Has everything from before 2008 being deleted? Forever?



I only started listening and podcasting from the review of the year 2007 show.

I went to see it with a girl a few days ago (That's right. A real life, talking, breathing human of the female variety). And there is a moment towards the start of the film in which Giovanni Ribisi turns to Sigorney Weaver while holding some Unobtainium and says something to the effect of, "This is Unobtainium. This is what we're digging for. This is worth lots and lots of money back home. It's all buried under their big tree city." It was during this unnecessarily clunky piece of exposition that I stopped expecting anything from the script, the plot or the narrative development and decided to just sit back and watch it as if it were a spectacularly detailed drugs hallucination. And on that front I wasn't disappointed. However I can't see myself coming back to this film again and again to study the subtle emotional nuances of the characters.

yea,the creature design was pretty uninspired. That's what put me off this film after watching the trailers.

It's a testament to just how good the film is that after about ten minutes I didn't care anymore about the blue cat people design. I just enjoyed it without nit picking over the awful dreadlocks, the blue plastic patina, the rainbow dragons etc.

Dr. Mark Kermode: Many thanks for an as always very well delivered overview and discussion of James Cameron's Avatar.



As a film critic agreement will come and go for you but your delivery will always be worth keen attention and scrutiny!



I DISAGREE with your #4 Main Criticisms:



#1: BAGGY STORY



- It's been well aired popular response that the movie's running of 2.5hrs flies by as does all of (James Cameron) JC's films which have multiple-repeat viewing value.



- The details within the frames and camera-angles due to the virtual camera are kaleidoscopic: Arrows on the wheels, vertically looking down to walking underneath a tree-bow with hanging plants, the sinking of feet into the ground; it is endless exquisite details.



- I agree (with some people) it was almost too quick in the middle of the movie to a) reasons to keep the audience balanced eg PG etc b) unsure of the effects of 3D exposure on people! c) Maintain a tightness to the epic scale of the story arc: 30mins will be added to the dvd and usually JC's extras are of equal high quality. This leads to some artistic licence to cover this: eg 3 months to learn the Na'vi way is not elaborated enough or characters built up as individuals to care about more.



#2 "3D IS AT BEST GIMMICKY"



- Watching the movie at the IMAX on a colossal screen with good seats and good friends for a big night out, we all found the 3D was dreamlike or conscious-altering. It felt like we were not WATCHING JakeSully on Pandora but were WITH him! The audience were similarly moved.



- 3D has the possibility of making every-single audience member feel as if they are the one being interacted with specifically with any event in the movie. This is different from the usual watching at a safe distance reactions you normally get. See "Daily Telegraph 3D".



- E-Capture you acknowledge with a small dip of your hat! It is incredible how emotional the aliens features are and tending towards perfect exchange or as JC prefers in his "Performance-Capture" 100& 10% capture because they add in the ears & tails!



- This is not to say 2D is not almost as good! In 2D I found it actually easier to follow the story and hear the music, personally.

#3 POOR CREATURE DESIGN:



- Speaking with knowledge in biology, the levels of scientifically hypothetical realism were astounding for the flora and fauna and the scent of real science could be detected on Pandora: 6-legged evolution and biomechanics, several layers to the food web, spirical respiration, plant transduction, Gaia theory, tropical fish coloration of the flying-mounts and aerodynamics of the back wings and tail, symbiosis neural connections, biolumenescence for plants evolving with long nights, a denser, toxic atmosphere, Na'vi language, Aurora in the sky, Polyphemus storm spot... the list goes on and on including the topography superconductin mountains and giant trees that these organisms inhabit.



- Na'vi: Blue, longer trunks for arboreal niche, tribal war-paint and symbolic decorations such as feathers and skulls were all attentively in evidence and unique as well as the larger scale of these aliens in comparison to humans. Of course there were many many striking allusions to indigenous tribes as part of the themes in the movie as well as enough "human-qualities" for empathy and recognition for the story to work as them being "The People". Besides, Netiri was (most importantly should be said, a great performance by her and solid female warrior character developed like you say: An Equality-Director) incredibly gorgeous for an alien! Zoe Saldana has been quoted as saying how pleased she is with the finished result.



#4 HACKNEYED STORY:



- Classic Story which resonates with many Cultures: Inner transformation of the HERO from a remote avatar into a true Avatar (real Sanskrit sense but in reverse) and the people of true virtue win the war and save the planet! Additionally awesome action from JC and an alien love story with a (pure hear):



See SheffTim Post #15 for further on Story



- MAJOR THEMES exposed in this story relevant today: (1) Historic Clash of Civilizations: (technologically superior vs inferior but morally equal or superior cultures) eg Age of Conquests (2) Modern Clash of Civilizations: eg US attack on ME (3) The loss of ethics and morals in Big Business and the damage of technology without the balance of morality or undertanding (4) Race: - Blue is an intentional emphasis on racial, cultural difference as a KEY story element and lack of understanding of the OTHER and lack of morals in dealings with the OTHER over abuse of technology making might right. (5) Collapse of Civilizations / Destruction of the Biosphere: eg JC explicitly has said in interviews this is a central theme. By seeing how beautiful Pandora is we need to appreciate our planet's Rainforests and Coral Reefs which are vanishing. For example tt was repellen scen when the 'Dozers destroyed the small soul tree and the destruction of Hometree. This is happening in Peru, Africa and India to indigenous tribes and ecosystems.



See Andreas Post #33 for more on themes.



FINAL COMMENTS: Agree some of the dialogue was a bit clunky and simple but again is this with production targets in sight? A sequel should have greater license to develop the story.



3D: Agree, despite above, I am skeptical many films will have the same impact in 3D that Avatar achieves very naturally because of the setting of Pandora. A "Nonsense" story eg Alice in Wonderland can create crazy images with 3D but I do not care for it's meaningless storyline. But time will tell.



Let The Right One In (Lat Den Ratte Komma In) was my second favorite film in 2009 after Avatar which pipped it right at the end! Amazed Hollywood achieved this, not since The Matrix. Shocked!

Missing from #4 HACKNEYED STORY:



- Atavistic desire for our collective past as hunter-gatherers: For most of homo-sapiens ancestral past, our very inner lives were formed this way over millenia. And some of the sheer joys of the movie tickle this place in our minds so wonderfully well!! But combined with the higher versions of ourselves that the Na'vi represents, it is a sublime story that a lot of people who complain of "the lack of original story" seem to me to be bowing to critics to easily. The sheer abandon and wonder of JakeSully's rites of passage, of learning to master the dangerous environment but to understand and honour his connection to it, and culminating in swooping first flight with his hard-earned bond created with the flying creature are moments for what the cinema was made for!

Slightly worrying post from Information1st !!



Much like your post, cramming a million and one things into 2.5 hours does not necessarily make a good film. More is not always more, quite the contrary in fact.



As for Major Themes exposed, get a grip!! Sure alot of these types of films share common elements, but nothing was exposed anew in Avatar, nor were they examined in any depth or with any intelligence. A couple of lines of dialogue don't cut it really.



Quite astonishing how some people are taking this film so seriously. A real technical achievement yes, but as bloated ventures go, Lord of The Rings was more charming, and evoked a far greater sense of awe and magic than Avatar. District 9 was a much better and more intelligent sci-fi film as far as recent releases are concerned.



A friends wife said to me Avatar was one of the best films she'd ever seen. Only one response....get out a bit more....

@ Sandeep bhatia #42:



Thanks for taking the time to read the blog. Mark Kermode gives a few hooks in his review as to what he likes and dislikes, try again, but emulate the good doctor?



But no thanks for your ad hominem and non-sequitur comments which comes across like this: "Yeah, take that, and that, yeah!!" Said the mouse trying to hump the elephant, it's devoid of result if not intention!



You do provide at least the vestiges of something to expound on: Lord of the Rings is considered a great work of literature. This is due to the amazing detail and coherency of a created world that JRR Tolkien succeeded in making very believable. James Cameron's attention to detail I would say, compares very favourably, which is an indirect way of say Avatar could easily become a masterpiece, in this respect. For more information https://justfuckinggoogleit.com/ .



Andreas posts a great post on the themes: #33

Information1st.



Take my comments as you wish.

But if you will post such a sententious essay, its not unreasonable to expect a response (your section on MAJOR THEMES should go down in blog history). As i say, quite staggering how seriously some people are taking this film. Enjoy the sequels.

@ Sandeep bhatia:



Just try to put more effort into being informative or provide observations of a kind, please, instead of making ad hominem comments which are ridiculous or funny on the internet (hence my metaphor!)



Only the themes could be described as sententious but if you want references I'd recommend some stunning books on these subjects? In fact too much extrapolation and literal interpretation leads to inaccuracy. EG: "The Right" in the US is in a big spin on Theme (2) while others are anxious about (3) and still others misinterprete (4) & (1) [they cross-over but are separate] if you care to check this, just google and see for yourself? Also notice, that the exact opposite is the case: Some will misinterpret "the other way" and make vacuous claims that the film supposedly supports their dubious motivations and/or beliefs!



Either way, remarkably not "some" but "a lot" of people are taking the film seriously as well as enjoying it at the cinema! That's a big achievement for a movie in my book. Popcorn entertainment indeed, eh? No wonder you are confused "why some people take this film so seriously".



It was a challenge to summarise where I thought Dr Kermode might be missing the mark, hence the laundry list of observations, quotes and facts. But it sets up the following claims at least.





In Summary where I think Mark has missed the "mark"!



1. 3D is revolutionary in this film.



2. Avatar WORLD CREATION is a work of art, paralleling Middle Earth in literature, for example.



3. Surprisingly a major Hollywood blockbuster which deals with 5 MAJOR THEMES (my count) that are contemporary, "hot buttons" and most important, hugely significant globally in a very positive way!



4. CLASSIC STORY that can be retold (repeat viewing).



Apart from the "James Cameron factor" and excellent marketing & timing, I'd say this could explain some of the movies' phenomenal success (exluding inflation and pricier tickets as co-factors): #2 highest Grossing and still counting and various praise by critics and happy cinema-goers.



Sequels? Give Jim Cameron a well-deserved rest (he'll probably be off exploring anyway)!

Sir, i am not confused, and forgive me if being pithy has proved irksome.

Some or a lot, lets not get too caught up. As far as i can see, there those who like the film for its aesthetic virtues and as light entertainment, and those who seem to think it has much to say on grander themes. I perfectly understand the former, not the latter.



As for selling a lot of tickets, so what? (Titanic). Mcdonalds are highly successful, but no one would give them a Michelin star.

Hello Sandeep, thanks again for reading & responding, very appreciated.



I agree the movie does not say that much on some of the various themes within but I still think it contains them and as Andreas adroitly puts it: Post #33



"Avatar is a movie, that many young people will watch again and again. And this, I think, is the most important thing about it: If someone doesn't get it's message the first time round, they almost certainly will the second or third time..." For example.



The key criticism I think, is that if you take away the special effects what movie does that leave Avatar as? I think it changes something... how could it not with such revolutionary technology? But I think this is the distinction: It's artificial to say this, not because the movie falls apart without the 3D, based only on story or dialogue, for example, but because the movies' themes and subsequent exposure and appeal of these themes is substantially enhanced because of the technology! And they are very worthwhile themes that is quite splendid to find in a blockbuster.



Take your McDonalds example of success: Commercially successful... but nutritional track record? I remember at a lecture, a professor of mathematics pointing out that he had calculated that there was more nutrition in the sachets and sauces than the meal - a long time ago! Normally we have a blockbuster film that is commercially very successful such as Transformers 2 but everybody knows there is something filthy after consuming it like so much fast-food. I'd say Avatar is as tasty as popcorn or fast-food apparently appears to be to so many people (I don't eat the stuff) but is also very nutritional too!



So in terms of measuring success or abstract qualifiers of what makes a good movie, this is where I see "some" of Avatar's success coming down to (the financial success was more with an eye to Mark Kermode's review and his expectations for the film, it's not a formula for making universally successful movies at all).



I cannot think of a huge hit that has achieved this? If I look at all the Top 10 Movies Grossing with/without inflation-adjusted I cannot see a similar movie? They all seem to be movies that have swept audiences away, but away to somewhere, very far away...

A depressing triumph of form over content.



Undoubtedly this is visually and technically brilliant but it is possibly the dumbest and laziest narrative treatment I have ever seen. It is a real Frankenstein's monster of a plot line with dozens of hooks from other films stitched together. A selection of ones I spotted were Apocalypse Now (gunships, coffee drinking nutter-colonel, Valkyrie reference), Local Hero ('you can't destroy our beach for capitalism', the capitalist even looks like Peter Riegert) and the obvious Western themes that even Dances With Wolves ripped off from the genre (man comes in war and falls in love with squaw).



And don't get me on the American sensibility. Quite funny that Signoury's avatar was the only one that was wearing a t-shirt to maintain her decency. Must have have had it in the contract. Please.



Can't see the point in going to all that trouble and cost if there is no originality whatsoever. The art of the possible in all its mind-numbing stupidity.

The main criticism of Avatar is "without the 3D visuals it falls down" point of view.



The other major criticisms that crop up after this are in no particular order: "Simple, Rip-off, Hackneyed, Unimaginative, Only for fun, Waste of money", those opinions are fairplay if explained which often they are not.



But have a think about:



1. They sound very familiar when repeated, first heard from critics!

2. Ferngully, Dances with wolves, Ursula le guin & a GROWING laundry list keeps on being mentioned, which is no bad thing as they all share some meaningful connections to each other - larger than the stories they live in.

3. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a simple story but that doesn't cater to everyone's tastes. Maybe because that type of person has already moved onto the next story.

4. James Cameron is quoted as saying he's happy if people really enjoy Avatar first. But, he'll be even more satisfied if some also take a few positives away from the movie concerning the themes in it such as preserving coral reefs and helping indigenous cultures or realising the terrible mistakes of imperialism both past and present at the sacrifice of technology and progress. The choice is yours, in those immortal words.

5. The World Creation in Avatar is very strong if you do take time and effort to research this or have observed it in the film. Any sequel's success will be strongly proportional to how comprehensively this has been realised.

6. The story behind the story of Avatar is the new technology will revolutionize cinema and renew interest in this medium of story-telling, largely in a positive sense of expanding the diversity of potential experiences at the cinema.

7. Lastly, maybe James Cameron is more original than his originals were?

@VIN.



Well put, as i also said in an earlier post, was it really worth all the bother and effort? Guess the ticket sales would argue yes, but i'm with you, just one giant shoulder shrug and sigh on the way out.

Reactions to Avatar from the News, Blogosphere and Internet*:



BAD



- Avatar fans suicidal because planet Pandora is not real

- Vatican says 'Avatar' is 'bland' and promotes worship of nature

- Avatar hit by accusations of racism

- Ads to Protest Smoking in ‘Avatar’

- Veteran: Avatar Makes Marines ‘Look Like Lunatics’

- Right wingers launch new attack on 'Avatar'

- Foreign Policy: Russian Communists Ban Avatar

- Avatar recycles indigenous 'stereotypes'



GOOD



- Is Avatar a fable of Chinese land grabbing?

- Bolivia president praises Avatar

- Obama a big fan of 'Avatar'

- Games, fantasy and, yes, 'Avatar' give us hope

- Taking Avatar Seriously: Environmentalisms, Spiritual and Practical

- Mawkish, maybe. But Avatar is a profound, insightful, important film

- Cameron's blockbuster offers a chilling metaphor for European butchery of the Americas. No wonder the US right hates it

- Avatar is Real: Indigenous Peoples are Being Displaced by Wars and Corporations

- Avatar, Voodoo and White Spiritual Redemption

- Avatar offers loads of fun with a green message



What's interesting, is the wide array of reactions across very different groups with many different interests. What's even more interesting is the interpretations, misinterpretations and reinterpretations either negatively or positively. What is most interesting of all, are the contradictions on the very same subject within the same group! Politically, environmentally, religiously, racially, historically, academically and popularly... some are saying the story shows these things in a good way or a bad way.



My conclusion, is that Avatar is more than the sum of it's visual artistry and hence this prime criticism of Avatar, is deeply flawed (see the evidence above).



Logically, if this movie is such a good film, is it already or will it become a masterpiece? Fortunately, Mr Laremy Legal: Movie masterpieces and the road to greatness Film.com, addresses this question very competently and his answer is a no (less than 0.5% of films are considered a masterpiece). It's a very fair look, looking at various lists by critics and pundits over time. Unfortunately it's predictive value is very questionable: EG He does not account for 2 out of 4 major parameters he considers essential: Time and Context and 1 remaining parameter Innovation is a yes while story is a no).



My opinion is that Avatar has a very good chance of becoming a masterpiece but depending on how technology continues to change and whether story-tellers can use this technology as effectively as Mr James Cameron has successfully achieved. On this basis I would be more than happy if Avatar both reaches #1 Grossing Film ever and wins some Oscars.



I could not think of a more worthy film - Ever**.



*Google these headlines for full coverage.

**Shawshank Redemption?!

I know this blog is dead but I need somewhere to vent.please do not respond(just seen avatar) yes visually stunning and wow fancy graphics. but i have never felt so dirty and bad at paying so much to watch that utter tripe of a film. why do we spend money on this. wish i gave my 20 quid to Haiti. why does this get made when we are meant to be an intelligent species. its a big ironic turd of a film. it actually makes it hard for me to believe anything original or creative can be produced.



out, Cameron and his like are sucking the life out of the masses.

Uncutcretin.



How could you have missed out on the new light Avatar brought to issues such as post-colonnial imperialism, environmental awareness, indigenous cultures etc etc. I mean, really, you should go and see it again.



Ok, so i'm kidding of course, it is a pretty empty vehicle and even by the standards of hollywood blockbusters falls well short of the admittedly bloated Rings trilogy.



Why this stuff gets made? There's a market for rollercoaster cinema, which i understand, it just happens to be a very big market once in a while, for better or worse. Best to just ignore it, which i will from now on.



Amusing and worrying that some are taking Avatar seriously, rather than the superficial pap it is.

James Cameron: Yes, 'Avatar' is Political - [From: The Wrap]:



"[...]as an artist, I felt a need to say something about what I saw around me."



"I've heard people say this film is un-American, while part of being an American is having the freedom to have dissenting ideas," Cameron said, prompting loud applause from a capacity crowd at the ArcLight Hollywood.



"This movie reflects that we are living through war," Cameron added. "There are boots on the ground, troops who I personally believe were sent there under false pretenses, so I hope this will be part of opening our eyes."



Befitting the film's ecologically friendly message, Cameron stressed that the wondrous scenery brought to life in "Avatar" was not consigned to the silver screen.



"People don't have to go to another planet," Cameron said. "There are a lot of wonderful things in nature that are all around us."



@ Sandeep: Nothing "worrying" when it is the intention of the artist to translate this message by means of the creation of their own art for their intended audience?



One of the people in the world to outspokenly take this message seriously...



[From: news agency ABI]



Bolivia's first indigenous president is praising "Avatar" for what he calls its message of saving the environment from exploitation.



A self-proclaimed socialist, Evo Morales says he identifies with the film's "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defense of nature."



@ Sandeep: From a man who shapes the major political decisions that will affect millions.

Just because Cameron had certain intentions doesn't mean he was successful in fulfilling them, unless judged by the most superficial standards. Intentions are no guarantee of success when it comes to art. Indeed, i think majority opinion is that he has made a big romping hollywood adventure film, which people have enjoyed for its immersive visuals. Those who conflate this success with anything greater seem increasingly to be in the minority.



Hey, enough people eat Mcdonalds very day, i'm sure i'd find a few of them who thought it an outstanding piece of cuisine. Quoting them doesn't make it true or representative of broader opinion, and to do so would just be data mining.

We just went to see this movie, and I knew we were in trouble when I started looking at my watch after only 20 minutes. How do you spell C-R-A-P using six letters? A clue, it starts with an A and ends with a R.



I'm really surprised that Mark actually liked this piece of worthless digital celluloid! It was dull, an expensive comic strip, lacking in a worthy script and torpid.



I feel sorry for the actors; how can they live it down?



I guess Mark was drinking heavily before he saw it. He better be careful as transplants are expensive. Either that or it illustrates how you can fool most of the people some of the time.



Needless to say, we left after an hour and got free passes to another movie some other time. Mark, shame on you.

James Cameron (and friends) on 'Avatar's' box office domination



https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/01/top-directors-.html



Interesting surprised, musings on how Avatar has exceeded his expectations and possibly why, by the director.

I am slightly wary of the psychological techniques employed by the film.

I very much enjoyed the effects in the film and agreed to accompany a friend who wanted to see it. The second time around I could barely catch the 3D effects at all. I just couldn't relax into it. What concerned me was that, as I was trying to let my eyes relax, I became aware of just how often the movie's script tried to convince me to 'see' differently. It was using psychology on its audience to help them with the experience.

We are given the same basic tutorial of what to do as the avatar drivers - 'Let your mind go blank', 'Just relax'. We have an INORDINATE amount of emphasis put on the idea of seeing things in a certain way ('I see you' is repeated again and again. We are told of the/to make a 'bond' with what the animals see, to plug ourselves in).

This seemed to me, as I've said, to be simply a coaxer for some, like me, to just go with the information and experiences the film wanted to give. But the suggestive techniques used could be used differently, could they not? I'm largely in agreement with the political ideology expressed throughout the film - it is difficult not to be. But what if a different film maker with a different agenda were to utilise these techniques? As we sit at our most relaxed and receptive, what ends could that state be used towards? Would these techniques always be used benignly?

I think of the infamous 'Frame Flash' advertisements that were used earlier in cinema history. They worked and were eventually banned. Should we have some sort of acknowledgement of psychological techniques employed in movies and how would we do that without permitting censorship?

Is 'Avatar' a message movie? Absolutely, says James Cameron



The Oscar-nominated director says he fought for his environmental theme. The special effects are just gravy.



https://theenvelope.latimes.com/la-en-cameron10-2010feb10,0,1912811.story



"Best of both worlds



And what of those critics who say that "Avatar" is a success despite its message? Can audiences enjoy the movie's fantastical elements and have its cautionary content fly over their heads?"



Tribal people appeal to James Cameron



"In the ad Survival asks Mr Cameron to help the Dongria Kondh tribe of Orissa, India, whose story is uncannily similar to that of the Na’vi in Avatar."



https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/5529

Wow. The most comprehensive interview to date with James Cameron on Avatar, the environment, Kathryn Bigelow and his "fantasy" hopes for Oscars Night!:



https://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10866

...why should something get so much credit simply for being visually stunning? there are many things which are visually impressive out there - personally I think a wildlife doc like Blue Planet is more impressive than a bloated studio FX turkey like this or titanic. How many Oscars does David Attenborough have again? Why not make a 3D rendered film out of the BBC's digital archives and form some sort of story out of it? ...because 3D's a gimmick to try and get people back into the cinema and away from their pirate dvd's, wrestling back control for the studios so they can sell us the same old icebergs.



This is like a deliberate misuse of digital technology - rather than enriching the beauty of the Earth and human life, they create a whole new world which is neither scientifically realistic enough to be as beautiful as Earth or strange enough to be a surreal dream/fantasy. "Enter The World" (a slightly more boring version of the real world that we live in except with some psuedo-science plot devices). Cameron said it himself - he wanted to make an "environmental" film, indirectly about Earth then, and the studio threw the effects budget on top to add some 'treacle' that the marketers could sell, in the process starting a digital arms race with other producers of expensive FX based movies. They're turning digi-FX into the new action stunt sequence - rather than a string of boring explosions and fights we get a series of pointless jumping in and out of the screen.



I wouldn't personally criticise Cameron too much though because, as Kermode said, he proved to be a serious sci-fi-head with the Abyss and there was nothing wrong with the basic idea of an Avatar as it taps into a rich vein of sci-fi about expanding the human conciousness beyond the limitations of our one body.



I just think to myself, if a studio gave that kind of budget, technology and resources to someone who had a genuinly strange and interesting imagination, such as Werner Herzog (who has been successful with science fiction in the past - Wide blue yonder), and who could actually get a decent dialogue script together that didn't make 10 year old kids cringe, how amazing would that be? but then you can't tell Werner Herzog to insert a five minute section of banal plot exposition dialogue into his film because some 20thC Fox fat cat wanted to make sure that the people couldn't take the story in the 'wrong' way.



Not the worst movie in the world, just a bad misuse of resources from an artistic standpoint. They might claim massive profits, but I can't see too many people buying this on blu-ray in 15 years time, so its not sustainable (like unobtainium mining) - it will be in the bargain bin and some clever person will have superseded it with more intelligent digital sci-fi that works on 2 levels for kids and adults, similar to one of the better Pixars.

Hi Mark, thank you for the length review of Avatar. I agree on many of the points but not on others. One in particular is the 3D aspect. I am thinking that differing opions on this are a) Partly affected by the quality of the projector and method of 3D splitting used and more importantly b) Some people just aren't able to process the effect in their brains as well as others.



The reason I am saying this is because I went to see Avatar at an Apollo cinema that just upgraded to RealD XLS with the Sony 4K Projector. This doesn't flash L/R 144 times a second, but projects both L/R constantly, reducing eyestrain and increasing luminance. The picture quality was incredible. Now the 3D effect itself was just a jaw dropping experience for me. The entire film felt full 3D, all shots. In fact I'd go so far as to say it could have been reined in a bit for the popping out screen parts. I'm not soo keen when the 3D shoots out the screen, it works best when the screen acts as a window peering into this new reality with depth extending through it. Everything felt soo incredible physical it was like.. well, like staring at things in the real world, except this wasn't real and it was that that completely blew me away. I never realised 3D could be THAT good. Whether it was the sensation of heigh and perspective of the swooping shots in the final battle, or even just closeups of their faces, they all had real depth which, when I closed one eye to compare to the 2D version, was a significant difference. It was like flat vrs real. Sure the flat 2D was still very pretty and sharp, but it lost the magical sensation of something tangible and real in front of me.



So in future please take this into account. 3D DOES work, and work extremely well, but not for 100% of the population. For some their brains won't process it as well, for some it won't register at all and for others it will give them nauseu and headaches.



But as far as I'm concerned 3D is here to stay now, its won me over. I just hope and prey they stick to using the effect mostly for into the screen, not popping out of the screen (for example in gimmicky horrow movies) as that doesn't work as well.