Avatar Dec. 18th IMAX 3D Second Trailer

The reviews by the top critics are coming in -- so far a whopping 100% with a fairly good representation.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/?critic=creamcrop

However, it's obviously not a four-star masterpiece as the story, as some here have suspected, is a parable of the Amazon forest natives, and wars with dubious purposes.

The special effects are lauded as state-of-the-art and a leap forward but, after all, spending a great deal of money on the latest technology is only partly the director's talent. All the advances in CGI and motion capture particularly are the talents of the engineers, programmers, technicians and animators.

"Avatar" is nominated for Best Picture Drama for the Golden Globes.

Manohla Dargis seems to like it, overall:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/movies/18avatar.html

I'm reassured that it's not a travesty.

The top critics has dropped to 95% but the consensus seems to be to get over the fact that the plot points and message has been done before and enjoy the artistic and ingenious handling of action, coupled with the most extraordinarily real CGI animation, including a revolutionary motion-capture technique which Cameron spent several years developing with his crew of engineers, technicians and animators.

Then again, just set one's adult-ishness aside as this is a sci-fi fantasy voyage that after the ride, you will feel elated without the aid of any drug. Cameron just has that mysterious mind's eye that can get the adrenalin pumping and the dopamine flowing -- all the right chemical stimuli. There are few perfect masterpieces in cinema, and flawed masterpieces are really based on a subjected opinion that starts rolling around in one's mind when the attitude should be to accept the film for what it intends to be. I believe that's why it's getting such good reviews and the naysayers reviewers come off as nit-picking party poopers.

I just bought tickets to see it Saturday afternoon, in 3D, at a cinema and drafthouse right down the street.

Looking forward to it!

Saw it last night at the new shopping center across from Disneyland's IMAX theater. I still haven't come down from the exhilaration. Cameron really know how to push those basic instinct buttons and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Which is why I haven't really written my response -- I need to return to the real world!

Geez, you guys are fast!

I just got back from the IMAX 3D showing in Hooksett NH.

As suspected, the story is very simplistic revolving around the bad corporate military types trying to plunder from the innocent natives. I doubt I'm spoiling much by saying that there's a love story and some of the bad military types learn the error of their ways and side with the natives. Yawn.

On the bright side, the visual elements are truly spectacular especially in 3D. The characters are well acted and even though the story has the emotional depth of a teenager, it also has the emotional passion of a teenager, so it's enjoyable even though shallow. Or maybe I'm just getting old and cynical.

I think the real triumph here is in the visualization of the alien world itself. The biology of the planet (animals and plants) is very well conceived, cohesive and realistic, at least as much so as can be done without filling the screen with life that is so alien to the audience that we can't relate to it. The guys who designed the fauna of the planet did a really nice job. There is consistency in the structure of the animals enough to infer their evolution. And there is even a fleeting attempt to explain the "connectedness" of the flora. I noticed that they borrowed a lot of the floral forms from ocean reef examples including giant fan worms, jellyfish and anemones. And given that the things in our oceans that "look" like plants, but are actually animals, I think they were implying that the alien flora might not be plants at all, but more like land based versions of our oceanic animals. An interesting idea for an alien world where the gravity is less than ours.

I was a little bit annoyed with the 3D effect at first because it was distracting, but you get used to it within the first half hour of the show so it's not a big deal. And then once they get into the jungle it really does feel immersive. I would say the overall sense of immersion was pretty impressive. Almost so much that they didn't really need a story. I think I would have been just as happy if all they did was wander around in the jungle poking at plants and running from the critters.

Now I'm curious to see the film in non-3D, just to see how different it is.

The floating mountains were never explained, which I find annoying. But there were enough weird critters, glowing plants and technicolor dragons flying around to cancel that out.

Over all, this film is an IMDB-8 in my opinion. The visual effects and conceptualization of the environment were a solid 10, but the intrigue level of the story was a flat 6. Oh, and the female Na'vi was pretty hot, and mostly naked the whole time, so that might be worth an extra point on the scale.

I had read that the script is thin.

In all fairness though I don't know many of Cameron's films that dont have a thin script

Action movies generally all have thin scripts -- the writer only needs motivation for the progress and goal of the action. Actually, Cameron's action movies, sci-fi or not ("True Lies" in particular) have more plot points than most, more intriguing interaction of characters, always handling more than just two or three which is the usual case. The three Bourne films have rather simplistic stories in actuality -- they appear complex because of all the action interplay and the actors are given meat in their roles and less cardboard. The array of characters in an action flick, especially if it is a sci-fi framework, are always going to have parallels than are unavoidable. They ran out of personalities many years ago and not just in movies. So to dwell on that rather than what the director intended to do is ignoring the purpose of the genre. There's more message than most in the film and it's not constantly slapping you in the face. You shouldn't notice it anyway, as Oz has now been trumped big-time and the only comparison is the world in The Lord of the Rings, an Earthbound world (maybe not, as exactly what are "The Grey Havens?") This film makes me realize how pedestrian the imagination looks in many of the past sci-fi and fantasy films (or combinations as this certainly is) have been. Many haven't been that much better than the old Flash Gordon serials. Cameron wiped the slate clean and started from scratch (his gourmet meal for the eyes isn't out of a frozen food container), creating an artistically visceral world that isn't just a backdrop -- it is the action and the story. That's approaching the film strictly from a cinematic mindset. Take the story and write it as a novel and it would look like an old 40's serialized Amazing Stories, with some good science elements of something one would find in the old Astounding Science Fiction or Galaxy. I found it quite satisfying as a sci-fi adventure and the message was actually clever for a general mass audience. If you spend that much on a movie, you can't get into seriously complicated messages or the whole thing will look like wet laundry hung out to dry. Cameron is still, as a director and an inventor (he came up with some of the new technology out of his own head) a movie genius. Of course, many still bear in mind that film has been called the lowest form of the arts. I think Cameron has redeemed the art on several levels. The story is a framework for the sense of wonderment in the visuals.

There are other films in the past that have come close, but are difficult to compare as their stories are only vaguely related -- "Blade Runner's" world immediately comes to mind. There is a relationship in the story with a corporate mind behind the Replicants and it's as much in the genre of film noir as sci-fi.

Then, to those I've read online that were actually hoping "Avatar" would be a flop (the actual box office estimates are close to $ 100M for the weekend):

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/We-Were-Wrong-Avatar-Looks-Like-a-Winner-1966

Cameron on Leno's show said he was making the film with the idea he may only expect a modest profit. Yet, add the international box office, the DVD, the pay-per-view on cable and online, cable premium showings, I see him making about $ 100,000M before he takes any cut (he said he would pocket no money from the film until all the collaborators have been paid and any percentages paid to them under their contracts).

Thrills Chills & Spills, with a fried pickle to munch on! (saw it at a cinema drafthouse)

Both of us thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and the 3D was great.

Weak storyline?

Well pardon me, I guess I'm unsophisticated enough to just have a good time, and the plot that wasn't bad at all.

2 thumbs up.


Sully looked better in blue.

oh, another thing....

the whole tribe was doing kundalini yoga during the sigourney weaver dying thing.

bah! she died? gah!

I said dying, not died.

they were doing kundalini in a tribal fashion to heal her.

Well, that's an innocent enough spoiler -- it is one scene I can remember in hundreds of "jungle" movies. Cameron is not a snob -- he does know what audiences respond to over the last one-hundred years plus of film history. The natives healing the sick explorer is one of them. I did have to chuckle a bit at that one.

I went to a 130 am IMAX showing with my kids, it was my first time with the new 3D as well as with IMAX Lite of what ever they call these small IMAX screens. I was blown away, I will see this in IMAX again. 3D, IMAX Lite and this movie all exceeded my expectations.

A movie that costs $400 mill to make and market worth every penny.....never would have believed it had I not seen it.

What is really curious is the clip that was shown Friday night on Conan when Sam Worthington was a guest was 100% better resolution than I had seen in any of the online trailers, or the previous TV spots. It's the scene where Sam Worthington's avatar tames his Banshee (the flying creatures).

The weekend estimates are in:

Domestic: $73,000,000 31.4%
+ Foreign: $159,180,000 68.6%
= Worldwide: $232,180,000

That's likely conservative so it could reach closer to a quarter of a billion by tomorrow afternoon. Bearing in mind that the IMAX theaters are limited in locations and the number of seats in the older theaters is only about average compared to the largest conventional multi-plex theaters, where Avatar is scheduled to open in a few days, probably in more than one theater in the larger multi-plexes because of the long run time. I think Cameron is already celebrating.