It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:16 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 475 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:01 am
royalton wrote:
Judging by the reviews I may have to rethink the whole Heaven's Smurfs prediction. I do shamelessly love many of Cameron's films, I just wasn't sure the FX wouldn't sink this entire production. People seem to be impressed, however, and the more I see of Worthington and Saldana's characters (and Sigourney's avatar especially), the more impressed I am as well.
Basically I think just see it, and don't worry about reading about it.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:46 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Uh, Titanic got near-universal critical acclaim as well and it's a total piece of shit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:58 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
domino harvey wrote:
Uh, Titanic got near-universal critical acclaim as well and it's a total piece of shit

It most certainly did not - at least not on my side of the Atlantic!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer
Maybe the Americans are more sentimental about it, because they never had the chance to see the actual ship \:D/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:01 am
domino harvey wrote:
Uh, Titanic got near-universal critical acclaim as well and it's a total piece of shit
I felt just as apprehensive until I saw it. But I was never as down on it as you seem; I tend to always hate things if I want to hate them that badly.


Last edited by Ben Cheshire on Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:15 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Yes, me thinking this looks stupid is all on me and has nothing to do with it looking like a bad video game adaptation of someone's DeviantArt page


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Since when are we reduced to deciding before seeing films whether we like them or not? I'll be seeing this simply so I can either love or hate it and have something to back up my broad claims. I think it looks stupid, but who knows?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:01 am
Correction: I guess I was all set to hate it; because I heard it was causing a massive change in the way films are shown. Being a massive blockbuster from the maker of Titanic made for 3D-DIGITAL cinemas; most Aussie cinemas have installed special screens and added digital projectors to several of their screens in time to accomodate Avatar, which made it represent to me a move away from film; which upsets me. But despite a few corny moments, and like three badly written lines of exposition near the beginning, it really is so engrossing, with so many great things to look at; Pandora is a great place to go to, for sur; and I was as surprised about that as Domino would be, if he liked it. (He is right? Sorry, I'm still pretty new around here.) Not that I'm assuming you will.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:04 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
This may very well be the greatest film of the year. I haven't said it is a bad film, merely that it looks to be one. I am still allowed to make predictive judgments on what appears to be a remarkably turgid computer generated commercial for the death of cinema. If I'm willing to eat crow by copping to cred-reducing opinions like espousing Eli Roth's effectiveness in Inglourious Basterds, surely I wouldn't be above admitting if Avatar was any good if and when I see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
More unanimous praise!

domino harvey, criterionforum.org wrote:
This may very well be the greatest film of the year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Believe it or not, we now have laws against this kind of thing in Europe - as the management of Wyndham's Theatre is finding out the hard way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:17 pm 

Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Dead
I wouldn't mind passing a law against the hysterical, FOX-fellating hyperbole of Nick Curtis in The London Evening Standard (a supposedly intelligent newspaper): "[After seeing Avatar,] You'll never want to watch 2-D again!" :roll: Seriously, Nick, why not tell us it'll cure cancer and that Cameron is the 2nd coming -- just take a look at his initials! -- while you're at it?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer
You can pre-order the blu-ray here O:)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:40 pm
What's the Criterion Forum consensus on 3D? I've never seen a film in 3D, and I'm wondering, does it raise one's appreciation of the film significantly? Or is it just a dumb, headache-inducing gimmick?

I ask because I'm unabashedly contemptuous of Cameron and this entire film, but will begrudgingly go see it, if only to have something to say when friends and family inevitably sing its praises, and I need to decide if I'll be seeing it in 2D or 3D.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:01 am
Its really something to be seen on the big screen, with the massive scale and their superior quality 3D; however the 3D had teething problems when I saw it in Sydney, and I still enjoyed it.

Avatar was made for 3D; see it in 3D.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
I can't knock it too much as I suspect the BFI IMAX screenings will end up subsidising quite a lot of things I'm involved with over the next few months...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
I've never been able to see 3D as anything more than a gimmick despite all this renewed talk of its immersive qualities. It still all comes down to the quality of the film's story, characters and handling to truly make a film 'immersive'.

Though I can get some wry amusment from the concept as my family can attest from my constant (and likely tiresome for them!) cries of "She's coming straight at me! Aaarggh!" during that recent Queen in 3D programme.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
Anyone who can make something as vile as Titanic and then throw 250 Mill at something called Avatar, in 3D deserves everything Domino can throw at him. her. it.

Long live predictivity I say!

As for 3D one of the last thngs I saw in this format was something back in the early 80s called Naughty Stewardesses (an imperfect translation from the Scandiwegian original to be sure.) The Marquee screamed " A Girl in every lap!" And I thought "This is just what Ive really never needed." I was right.

But that's just me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR
colinr0380 wrote:
I've never been able to see 3D as anything more than a gimmick despite all this renewed talk of its immersive qualities. It still all comes down to the quality of the film's story, characters and handling to truly make a film 'immersive'.
3D could theoretically become a welcome addition to cinematic technology if its willing to drop its gimmicky notions of "immersion", relegating it to an apparatus of corporate blockbusters, and settle on the one thing it can really add to the cinema: an enhanced depth of field within the shot, especially in use of the shot-in-depth and deep focus. Even Bazin wasn't against the possibilities of stereoscopy in film. If 3-d films would quit obnoxiously insisting on invading our field of vision, and instead respect and work behind the frame of the film, I see no reason why it couldn't eventually be respectably used in defining cinematic space.

For better or worse, the development of the art of cinema has always been guided by the development of the technology of cinema. The move from film to digital photography, and the predominant use of CGI in mainstream filmmaking, could be the catalyst needed to bear it out. Both trends seem to be here to stay. If we have to lose the beautiful texture of film, and if CGI is going to continue to insist on blatantly disregarding the illusion of cinematic reality, perhaps 3-D is the equalizer needed to make both technological shifts no longer a negative, sorely lacking against the century of cinematography before it. Digital photography is obviously a lot more predisposed to stereoscopy, and could provide the photographic freedom necessary to make it work, and stereoscopy could do a lot to bolster the ho-hum visual texture of digital photography. Also, the added depth of field could be the added push needed to expose the cracks in the video-game graphics of CGI, and inspire a greater need for the sense of realism, even if it is simply a push towards more "life-like" CGI, as most talk of Avatar bears out.

But as long as its another scheme in corporate Hollywood's desperate bag of tricks, as long as stereoscopic film has to be "3-D!!!" films in giant letters, as long as the format is resistant to a wide variety of films beyond the big-budget CGI spectacles (pun possibly intended), and as long as the technology isn't completely there, I don't see much promise in it.


Last edited by Cold Bishop on Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:40 pm
david hare wrote:
Anyone who can make something as vile as Titanic and then throw 250 Mill at something called Avatar, in 3D deserves everything Domino can throw at him. her. it.
Totally agree. I'm only seeing it because I know my brothers will be raving about it come Christmas, and in their minds none of my criticism will matter unless I've seen it. As for the 250 mil figure, that's no where close to accurate. Fox admitted on 60 Minutes that they've spent 400 million before marketing. And if we assume that Fox must be lowballing to save face, then it stands that the movie could have cost 500 million or more, excluding prints and advertising. I've never wanted a movie to bomb so badly in my life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
I agree Cold Bishop. I see 3D as the same as any other technique when it first comes out like Cinemascope, IMAX, multi-channel sound, colour, CGI etc. It may be able to deliver the short term "wow!" factor because of the novelty of the technique itself but eventually it all comes down to the quality of the content of the film, rather than its presentation, that decides its longevity. (I'm still sceptical about 3D until I actually see in action for myself, which is not particularly likely to happen, but do think that this recent resurgence seems a little more interesting for at least starting to slowly move away from the 'objects pointing or flying at the camera' approach, despite the almost single handed attempts of Robert Zemeckis to keep things at that level!)

That doesn't prevent a great 3D film from being made (I love Flesh For Frankenstein for example!) but there always needs to be more than just spectacle to make a memorable and beloved film - look at all those turgid 50s Cinemascope epics that look great but just lie there dramatically (e.g. Cleopatra!), and especially an area like CGI which is developing so fast and making previous pinnacles of its technology look obsolete much quicker than previously (some of the CGI in Titanic looks particularly crude and too obviously show off-y only twelve years on). That's why Pixar first succeeded with computer animation where other studios still fail (even if the Shrek series makes tons of money), and why Up will likely still be worth watching even without having seen it on an IMAX 3D screen - that would just work as an extra interesting feature that might expand the impact of the film rather than being the entire point for the film's existence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Highway 61 wrote:
I'm only seeing it because I know my brothers will be raving about it come Christmas, and in their minds none of my criticism will matter unless I've seen it. [. . .] I've never wanted a movie to bomb so badly in my life.

There's the rub.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:40 pm
zedz wrote:
Highway 61 wrote:
I'm only seeing it because I know my brothers will be raving about it come Christmas, and in their minds none of my criticism will matter unless I've seen it. [. . .] I've never wanted a movie to bomb so badly in my life.

There's the rub.
*Sign* I know. I was going to wait till the sell-out crowds died down, buy a ticket to something else, then sneak in, but I was told that's impossible since they have to give you the 3D glasses. So fuck it. Life is too short to waste time and money on mediocrity when I could go to the museum, read a book, or watch The Band Wagon for the umpteenth time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:38 pm 

Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:47 pm
I've never hated a Cameron film. I even liked Titanic and True Lies.

But I get the 'sinking' feeling this film is going to be a massive disappointment. Not box office wise (it'll make a nice sum) but from a "Do I think this is good or not?" standpoint


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Local
I simply cannot put to much stock into a film that hypes itself in its ads as "will change motion pictures forever". (or something like it).

I think this film should be called E.G.O.

I may be wrong about the film entirely but I cannot help but think it will be goofy, over-the-top, and will give giant smurfs around the world a bad name.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 475 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection