Avatar Dec. 18th IMAX 3D Second Trailer

Well, I had a chance to see Avatar again this afternoon, but I decided to see Sherlock Holmes instead and it was very good. I found it much more entertaining than Avatar. Granted it isn't a sci-fi, and it wasn't in 3D but the visuals effects were still very good the story interesting and fresh and very well acted by Downey Jr and others. I'm looking forward to the obvious sequel they set up.

I think the reason I'm so critical of Avatar LW is because I'm so disappointed in what it 'could' have been. Cameron should have made Avatar an "R" rated film with the same feel of Aliens II, and with a story about discovering some mysterious danger on Pandora.

The movie needed to rake in a massive pot of money to support the digital work, and R rating would have significantly cut into that. The digital cost $230 million, jsyk. Not just the gross would have been lower, but also all of the side deals.

I prefer that movies not be made with gross profit as their main goal. I suppose it's inevitible, but unfortunate.

Gee, that's too bad that you gave money to the theater, distributor, studio, special effects techs (including the expense of the new technology), actors, et al, and then whatever Cameron, who has stated many times and, unless you believe he is lying (I don't, he can afford to gamble) won't take any of the profits until everyone else is paid. Cameron also stated he was willing to accept a break-even as he made the movie he wanted to make and, unless you believe he is a liar, is what you saw on the screen. I think we've passed the barrier here of criticism into cynicism, although I believe by the reviews I will enjoy "Sherlock Holmes" as well.

"Sherlock" opened to very mixed reviews:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sherlock_holmes_2009/?critic=creamcrop

But then, with or without banging Madonna, Guy Ritchey has yet to make a decent movie. He's made some really bad movies that would make top worst of the decade.

As soon as I saw who the director was, I thought to myself -- man, we're in trouble.

Now we are right back were we ended up in the "why arnt there more women directors" thread..........the bills gotta get paid, people need to be convinced to finance the work before the work can begin. If the people with the money run their numbers and decide that an r movie only justifies $300 million (for example), but a PG can reasonably pay back $450 million, maybe Cameron needs to roll with the PG so that he can get the budget he needs to make the movie even close to what he wants.

One of the reasons this move is doing so well is that on the screen it is WOW!....would $300 million (production and marketing) buy WOW?

However, Holmes did $ 65 M over the Christmas weekend with "Avatar" beating it by nearly $ 10 M and is now over $ 600 M world-wide and looks like it's won't make me a liar and do $ 1 Billion by the end of January. It is that crucial second weekend that will tell the tale and big action flicks over Christmas weekend are expected to do a holiday box office they may not do otherwise. If Holmes drops by over 60%, it could be in trouble although it is a much less expensive film to produce. This is Guy Ritchie's home territory and his film philosophy is to make fun movies that make money. Maybe his formula in this film will finally redeem him. His filmography would not tell me that:

RocknRolla (2008)
Suspect (2007) (TV)
Revolver (2005/I)
Swept Away (2002)
... aka Travolti dal destino (Italy)
Star (2001/I)
... aka The Hire: Star (USA: series title)
Snatch. (2000)

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)
The Hard Case (1995)

There's different ways to buy "WOW!" on the screen and it doesn't just have to be CGI. It has to be the total collaboration -- in other words, did everyone do their job well. I don't know why people go to the public multiplex with the idea they are going to see a film that isn't made for a broad audience, not specifically for one person. There are some that make it past the art house theaters and into the wide release multiplexes but that doesn't happen to often. We get a ton of lame comedies, romance, even period adaptation, et al, that just are mediocre. Voila! Their record is they do loose money on average. An R rating would mean mainly more gore and more sex and would that make any sense in "Avatar?" No way.

I meant WOW! with this movie.....obviously.

It is interesting that the chipmunks did $50 mil, and that Nine totally bombed....You won't see a big budget musical again for a looooooong time.

Broadway musical adaptations, if they are really good like "Chicago," which was also released at Christmas, still don't do well on opening weekends. It's the law of attrition as they can do about the same each weekend and internationally even do better. "Nine" was on a small number of screens, then expanded to nearly 1,500 nationwide and has not been released yet internationally. Since it's about the Italian director Fellini, I'd say it could make a tidy profit world wide. Still, the reviews are not great. For this genre, the reviews can more likely keep an audience away as it's more likely they are consulted.

At the Movies on ABC's critics just reviewed "Sherlock Holmes." Verdict: it's not completely terrible, rent it from A. O. Scott. No fun, don't see it at all from Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribute. A high minded "The Young Victoria" got royally panned and, of course, I have no idea how the producers planned to make money with a very weak story based on a very strong story. What happened?

"Nine" got panned down to "a mess" in the review by A. O. Scott was really funny, "Penelope Cruz trying to bust a quart a day mascara habit." Michael Phillips said "rent it."

However, the review I was waiting for is the Terry Gilliam "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" hoping it would be another Gilliam triumph.

I don't begrudge them their money. If I could figure out a way to make millions I would do it too. But I think Avatar is riding a wave of hype and technology more than quality. I know I know, quality isn't necessary to do well at the box office. Hell, Transformers2 made big bucks and it was total crap.

I hope the success of Avatar gives Cameron the money (and freedom) he needs to try a more interesting script along with all his super technology (which should be just icing on the cake, not the cake itself).

I guess for me, the best Sci-Fi of the year was District-9.

When I read the reviews for Sherlock Holmes, I was not encouraged, they were very mixed. But I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. I don't know anything about Guy Richie, I just know what I saw on the screen.

Hype = Quality Marketing

Technical awe = Technical Quality

The ads, trailers and clips are particularly non-committal about whether one should rush out and see this movie at all cost. It's not "hyped" any more than any big action movie. "Sherlock Holmes" is being "hyped," yet the critical response is there is very little substance to it, barely resembling the source except for the name of the characters, and the trailers and ads are nothing but big CGI scenes and Robert Downey Jr. stripped to the waist to show off his new trim body (wonder who they are hyping there?)

A movie cannot survive on just studio hype -- it has to have word-of-mouth hype, so it has to be a really great movie. Obviously that's working big time with "Avatar."

It worked for "The Dark Knight" which was also highly "hyped," taking the lead later on of the praise pre-dating its release of Heath Ledger's performance (being careful not to dwell on the fact he had died).

"Transformers II" was also not critically well received, so that puts that comparison in the dumpster.

Perhaps Cameron can give you a sequel (like with Terminator) that will provide a story more toward your liking. I didn't think there was much new in Terminator II except the bad Terminator hand become the good terminator and the villain terminator was a big blob of mercury. That story of the machines taking over had cobwebs on it in sci-fi circles (going back to Vonnegut's "Player Piano" which explores the socio-political aspects of that kind of future). Sticking in a time travel, alter history story was a shoe-horned plotline from yet other old sci-fi. If someone hasn't read a lot of the classic sci-fi, they wouldn't recognize this and that's the audience Terminator and now Avatar aspires to reach. As a sci-fi fan, I'd say "District 9" is a better sci-fi story than "Avatar," sans most of the wonderful new technology, but "Children of Men" is not only the best sci-fi of the decade but is appearing on many best ten lists from critics and public polls.

Guy Ritchie is a hack director who I don't know how even has a job. He must get these things bankrolled by sleeping with people -- could be that's why his marriage to Madonna didn't work (they were both in someone else's bedroom most of the time).

For Guy Ritchie's sake (not that I personally care), Avatar was sold out at many theaters over the weekend and those who couldn't get tickets went to see Sherlock Holmes. This is not a good omen -- the film could go the way of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. With British tax credits, SH was made for under $ 90M which helps -- it has to do about $ 200M to begin showing any profit. If it drops off to under $ 30M next week or worse, it's in trouble.

The other best sci-fi movie of the decade, which is also on many top ten lists, is "Wall-E," from Disney Pixar, yet. But then, it's is "cartoonish."

My wife and I saw Avatar 3D 2 days ago. I enjoyed the movie. Just remeber that its a movie.... light entertainment, its not a deep story but who cares. It was pretty predictable where the storyline was going and what would happen next.

On a side note the 3D effect left me feeling just slightly dizzy or off balance for several hours.

Although it's story as far as the message was not weaker than any other movie in the past covering this same material but, usually, without the sci-fi fantasy trappings, it reinforced ideas that humans have treated indigenous people grossly in the past, not just specifically the US (Pissaro and the almost total wipe-out of the Incas which is story seems to parallel even more than the US and the American Indian). What has to be remembered is this is intended as much as a fantasy and sci-fi, but some don't get that. Watched the digitally enhanced
"The Wizard of Oz" recently and it's still grand, despite the adaptation of a weak child's story?

Oh, those are 3-D legs, like having sea legs after disembarking a ship.

I watched this movie again yesterday in IMAX 3D and still am able to better articulate what I didn't like about the 3D.

In the scenes where people are talking or interacting at a slow pace, the 3D looks great.

In scenes where there is action and fast paced camera movement I think the 3D looks horrible.

Like the scene where Jake first gets in his avatar, when he's lying there on the gurney and wiggling his toes, the 3D really makes it look like you're in there with him. The minute he jumps up and runs outside it all goes to ****, in my opinion.

I cannot say much, because I haven't seen the picture. However, I have seen the trailer numerous times, and I'm a bit disturbed by the picture of Holmes as an action hero, which couldn't be further from Conan Doyle's character.