James Cameron's Avatar

[Johann]

I think this film is going to be the equivalent of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of changing the form of motion pictures.

This trailer is one of the greatest Masterpieces of editing I've ever seen.
You be the judge.
This is the biggest movie event of the year, among many movie events...


www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1_JBMrrYw8

[tabuno]

This movie has been on my must see list for a year now.

[Johann]

The movie looks incredible.
Friends of mine have griped about how it looks like a video game, that the CGI is so obvious. I see their point, but I give it up for this type of vision.
The hanging landscapes that you see the chopper flying by remind me of Roger Dean's artworks. James Cameron has the skills and vision to bring off just about any project he sets his mind to.

Did you know his Expedition: Bismarck is out of print?
And that it's going for over 200 bucks on eBay?
It should be re-released when Avatar comes out, along with all of his other films, because Avatar will garner him more fans. Count on it. I know I'll be buying Avatar toys and merch.
It looks too cool Man...

BTW, Expedition Bismarck confirms that the mighty battleship was scuttled. Cameron proved (with his robot cameras) that the interior armour belts were intact when she sank.
Another reason why that film is highly sought after.
You can see it in parts on youtube.
It's better than Cameron's own Ghosts of the Abyss.
He's filmed the Bismarck and the Titanic!
That's about as great an achievement as I can think of...

[Johann]

That heartbeat on the soundtrack...

It reminded me that Stanley Kubrick said "Nothing is more powerful than a heartbeat".
James Cameron is attempting to do something singular and unique. This film is a new (neo) mythology.
I'm impressed with the exciting trailer.
With those images, how can the film not deliver astonishing goods?

http://www2.avatarmovie.com

[Johann]

So for the fanboy readers out there, I found a listing (with photos on flickr) for the action figures, vehicles and creatures that are being produced by Mattel for the Avatar movie. Apparently they are highly articulated.

Characters:

Jake Sully
Col. Miles Quaritch
Dr. Grace Augustine
Norm Spellman
Cpl. Lyle Wainfleet (soldier)
Pte. Sean Fyke (soldier)
Trudy Chacon (pilot)
Eytukan
Neytiri
T'suTey


Creatures:

Mountain Banshee (gotta love that name, no?)
Thanator
Direhorse

Vehicles:

Scorpion Gunship (hella yeah!)
ATV
AMP suit (love the design of those- w/ huge machine guns, etc.)

Can't wait for this cinematic event....December 18, 2009

[Johann]

I just watched a 4 minute interview with James Cameron on Avatar: The Game and it was very interesting.
He mentioned that he had the luxury of time to get behind a video game idea that can be released at the same time as the feature film, unlike his previous movies that had games made from them.
The game is not a first-person shooter game. It's in the third person and apparently allows the player all kinds of cool options for immersing yourself into the fantastic world of Avatar, with massive weapons options and the like.

I don't feel bad at all hyping this film.
It's the kind of movie event I love.
Years-in-the-making, original, visionary.

[cinemabon]

Not to sound like a cynic or anything, but have you been to an IMAX theater lately? This film is being produced almost exclusively for IMAX (which will dull its reception in regular theaters considerably). At our local IMAX, we saw the lengthy "Avatar" trailer presented before "Monsters vs Aliens" in 3D (which by the way was hilarious but not worth watching in any other format or visual presentation). The audience did not like the content of the film and some found it offensive... I mean there were boos. Also, some of the dialogue sounded very corny. James Cameron is a brilliant man but every director has his "Heaven's Gate." Ask Spielberg about "1941" or "Hook" both of which failed miserably at the box office.

[Johann]

I don't think being geared for IMAX will dull it's reception in regular theatres- some people will refuse to pay for an IMAX ticket. I think it will do very very well at the box office.
Most film buffs know about the project and will go see it if only out of curiousity.
Heaven's Gate tanked but is still well respected among film buffs.
1941 was a film that Stanley Kubrick liked, even though it was silly...

[cinemabon]

You can polish an apple all you want, but if the core is rotten, there's really nothing you can do about it. "Heaven's Gate" a good film? It is a disaster on so many levels, its unbearable to watch or even discuss. Chimino, who so brilliantly directed "The Deer Hunter" and drove me to hysterical weeping at its premier fell in way over his head on "Heaven's Gate." He made ridiculous demands on the crew; shot, killed and gutted animals for effect (which led to the strictest codes since that film), and disregarded the basic rules of storytelling. The film is a long, drawn-out bore, historically inaccurate, and brought down United Artists, one of the great studios in Hollywood (started by Charlie Chaplin). It ended his career and its easy to see why. He shot two hundred hours of footage, tried to sell a five-plus hour version to the studio (no one but the editor would sit through it) and ended up with a tedious 219 minute version. During the premiere in New York, Chimino noticed people walking out of the theater at intermission and strolling past the huge bar the studio prepared for the event. He questioned, "Why isn't anyone drinking any champagne?" The exec answered, "They hate the movie, Michael. They're leaving!" Of the 40 million 1979 dollars spent on the production, the film made 2 million in domestic release and another 3 million overseas. Six months later, United Artists declared bankrupcy. The studio, who bankrolled the entire project, was broke.

[oscar jubis]

Film buffs LOVE Heaven's Gate. United Artists was a sinking ship before they invested on Cimino's grand vision and they blamed the demise of the studio on this distended, revisionist, spectacular western released when the genre did not have enough of a following to justify the expense. If JAWS marked the beginning of the blockbuster era, then HEAVEN'S GATE signaled that the era of courageous Hollywood investment on artistically challenging, visionary films had come to an end.

[Johann]

Heaven's Gate has some very poetic moments in it.
I can definitely see why someone would say it's a bore but when I think about that movie I think about the settings, the pace, the other-worldly qualities it has. I haven't seen it in almost 8 years or so. Cimino's career took a major hit, but he came back to direct again. It didn't totally destroy him.

The saga of that film and United Artists is a fascinating thing.
You can't lay all of the blame at Cimino's feet- he really tried to pull off an epic that no one had ever seen before.

[cinemabon]

Oscar, you can't be serious. If you are going to defend "Heaven's Gate" as courageous filmmaking, you have to present a better argument than the one you made. We all respect your opinion. But I will not stand by and let a sound bite justify that fiasco.

[oscar jubis]

I also respect your opinion but we will not always have the same taste. You also do not say what is it about the film that makes it so bad. I do not think that box-office performance and the artistic merit of a movie are related. Sure, the studio cut of Heaven's Gate flopped but so what? Did anyone expect 1980 audiences embracing a ruminative, downbeat Western? Then, what happens when a studio cuts 1 hour and 10 minutes from the original version so that the story becomes hard to follow? What if the execs who bankrupted the studio that financed the film scapegoat Cimino for his well-documented irresponsibility and penchant for excess? I haven't seen the film in 3 or 4 years, but this is what I wrote the last time I watched it:

"I love Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate, one of the most beautiful westerns ever made. It was widely held by European critics as a masterpiece and it did well with audiences there. The release was preceded by reams of negative publicity payed by United Artists executives scapegoating and blaming Cimino for the demise of a studio that was already dead. This doesn't deny the fact that Cimino himself caused the budget to balloon way beyond what's reasonable. But watch the film and you can see where the money went: thousands of extras in exact period costumes, perfect replicas of midwestern towns circa 1890, attention to the most minute historical details, amazing art direction, etc. Heaven's Gate was released in NYC, Vincent Camby hated it and Kael didn't review it. Panicked UA execs ordered the film cut from 219 to 150 minutes, and released the abbreviated cut at a relatively low number of theatres without much in the way of marketing and publicity. Westerns were not popular anymore, to begin with, and the film's deliberate pace and somber outlook did not sit well with popcorn munchers. Of course, even in America, the film has its defenders but overall its bad reputation lingers. Now, that's a shame."

[Johann]

When was the last time you saw the movie?
It has things to defend in it.
I'll even say Cimino approaches Terence Malick's style with Heaven's Gate. It's not a complete fiasco.
That's the man's major opus. He risked everything for that picture. He didn't win like Coppola won with his risk on Apocalypse Now, but the movie has some worth.
Cimino made that movie with his clout from Deer Hunter and found out that there was no audience. (Like William Friedkin and his remake of The Wages of Fear- no audience yet the film has merit)
It's really really sad because of the cost and fall-out, but film buffs see it for what it is: a grand, grand failure that has some worth.
Cimino really believed he was making a classic, epic western.
He didn't set out to make a film that would crash and burn so hard that it gave the last rites to UA.

[Johann]

To get back to the IMAX issue, I've noticed that quite a few new films nowadays are released in both IMAX and 35mm (or digital projection). It seems directors are shooting in both formats, and that is great.
I don't think "as a rule" they are shooting in IMAX, it's just that they want maximum impact, no matter what the story is: Lord of the Rings was released in IMAX, as well as Spiderman, Transformers, The Dark Knight, Watchmen, etc.
As a moviegoer, I like having the option of seeing either or.
I like mulling over the idea of seeing a particular movie in IMAX or not. I like having the choice. If the film is visionary, then there's nothing like seeing it in IMAX. (THE DARK KNIGHT, for one.)
It's just a really powerful experience.
I saw Watchmen in both a regular theatre and an IMAX theatre and the regular 35mm screening was better.
Dark Knight kicked ass in both formats but the IMAX was just THAT much better.
Transformers 2 was absolutely amazing on an IMAX screen.
Totally blew me away- a truly awesome "popcorn movie" blast.
I noticed the Harry Potter series are in IMAX too.
Blockbusters are usually the domain of an IMAX release and that's cool. If you can blow up a movie to 5 stories, then why not?
Size matters!
I have a hunch that Avatar would be astounding in IMAX.
(with a bottle of Greg Norman's cab merlot of course...)

[cinemabon]

IMAX is an amazing way to watch a feature length film in the same way that 70mm is better than 35mm if the filmmaker fills the screen with an interesting shot.

But getting back to "Heaven's Gate," (sorry Johann, I could not let this rest). Oscar, do you like the film or Vilmos Zigmond's photography? Granted, everyone agrees the film has some beautifully photographed moments. But pretty pictures do not a story tell. What was a roller skating rink doing in the middle of the west when no such rinks were ever built like that. Towns he depicted were filled with so many extras they came off more like New York than the old west. Towns seldom had every person walking the street at the same time. It looks ridiculous. Are the Harvard scenes at the beginning necessary? They drag on and on when even the script simply says "...they knew each other at Harvard." It has nothing to do with the plot.

The performances are another matter. Kris Kristofferson is about as wooden as Charlie McCarthy. What purpose does the John Hurt character play except to be the focus of blatant violence? So much of the film is so inaccurate that it defies description! The war scenes at the end are staged well but difficult to watch when you know he actually harmed horses to get them! (i.e., using trip wires so a horse would plow head first into the ground... they had not been used for over twenty years and crews protested on the set when Cimino defied them and used them anyway!) Cimino had the entire town torn down and built again because the buildings were too far apart, when the camera crew offered to simply change angles that would have made the three million dollar correction unnecessary. By the way, the crew built them off details of a real western town. Cimino fails on so many levels its impossible to count them. Pacing... editing... contrast (too much smoke, colors are washed out)... shots that are over extended... shots that don't make sense (a skating violinist?)... How many details do you need?

Which version do you mean? The cut version was pulled from the market and destroyed. Only the 219 version is available either to theatrically display or on DVD. If you mean the five hour version, it was said that no one would sit through it. When I mean no one, I mean that everyone walked out! Would you sit for more than five hours to watch one movie?

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cinemabon
Oscar, do you like the film or Vilmos Zigmond's photography? Granted, everyone agrees the film has some beautifully photographed moments. But pretty pictures do not a story tell. What was a roller skating rink doing in the middle of the west when no such rinks were ever built like that. Towns he depicted were filled with so many extras they came off more like New York than the old west. Towns seldom had every person walking the street at the same time. It looks ridiculous. Are the Harvard scenes at the beginning necessary? They drag on and on when even the script simply says "...they knew each other at Harvard." It has nothing to do with the plot.

Well, plot is only one aspect of film of interest to me. There is also mood, characterization, milieu, formal aspects, etc. If one is to evaluate this film, and many others with a better reputation, in terms of how swiftly and unambiguously they take the viewer from plot point "A" to plot point "B" and so on, then Heaven's Gate is a failure. Of course, Zsigmond's photography is a constant source of delight to me. The film as a whole speaks to me rather eloquently about a long tradition in this country of violation of the rights and the freedom of the people for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.

So much of the film is so inaccurate that it defies description! The war scenes at the end are staged well but difficult to watch when you know he actually harmed horses to get them! (i.e., using trip wires so a horse would plow head first into the ground... they had not been used for over twenty years and crews protested on the set when Cimino defied them and used them anyway!) Cimino had the entire town torn down and built again because the buildings were too far apart, when the camera crew offered to simply change angles that would have made the three million dollar correction unnecessary.

I notice that most of the 45% of critics at Rotten Tomatoes who like the film are young critics who were not around in '79-'80 to be bombarded by the negative press on the production of the film. I know most of it is factual but I am not interested in punishing Cimino for being irresponsible, megalomaniac, arrogant or whatever. I do not care to judge him, only the film, which has its flaws. Overall, I found it a worthwhile experience worth repeating if the screen is large enough to accomodate Cimino's grand vision.

Which version do you mean? The cut version was pulled from the market and destroyed. Only the 219 version is available either to theatrically display or on DVD. If you mean the five hour version, it was said that no one would sit through it. When I mean no one, I mean that eve

I only know that the film was released in a 150-minute cut (praised to the heavens by Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times). The version I have watched is the 219 minute version. Most people who have seen both, Thomas excepted, prefer this longer version. I did not know there was a 5-hour cut.

[cinemabon]

Fair enough. No fight or argument intended. I simply wanted some valid justification. While still somewhat vague, I am satisfied you presented a case for watching the film on the merits of the film as an isolated study.

Yet, I beg to differ on only one point, Oscar. When do we ever live in a vacuum? If you were Jewish, could you watch "Triumph of the Will" and not cringe, while others in the film community sang its praises as art? If you were a Vietnam vet and you watched, "Hearts and Minds" would you not be moved more because you were there? When did we not relate to art as that which speaks to the core of our being? When one discovers that an auteur created atrocities to make a film, does the end product justify the means? How much latitude should we give an artist before we must draw a line and say they have gone too far? At what point do we ask, was that really necessary? How immoral must we become to suspend our own ethical values for the sake of accepting what another calls art? Lastly, and most hypothetical, if an artist drove spikes through a live dog, yet nailed him to a canvas and put it up in a gallery, should we object if that person calls it art? When do we draw the line?

[Johann]

I'll let Oscar answer your last post as it's directed at him, cinemabon, but if I could just say something about something related:
Roman Polanski looks like he may do some prison time.
I have defended him and so have many many others in the film community for the fact that we've been enriched by his art, his films. We know he's committed rape. (and drugged the girl with liquor of all things). He should have been punished for that but hasn't, for reasons that go beyond him merely "fleeing the USA".
I've thought about his situtaion and maybe he should pay the piper. Maybe he should do at least two years in prison- minimum security. But if I was a lawyer or judge I might suggest that as he is a major film director of some distinction, and been pardoned by his victim, shouldn't he be ordered to make an anti-rape film that has serious resonance? Something that atones for his crime, apologizes to the world and his victim in away that gives a semblance of closure to this sordid mess?
That would seem to be appropriate, given his vocation, his age and the case itself? What is to be gained by locking the man up?
This is a real opportunity for justice to be meted out PROPERLY.
Vengeance is not the word for this Polanski rape case.
Justice is.

And Lars von Trier has offended many with his latest film.
Anybody I talk with about Anti-Christ mentions the genital mutilation. They can't get off that topic and how "we don't need to see that kind of thing on the big screen". Maybe we don't, but guess what? That's not what the film is about. It's merely one item in a larger tableaux. When you confuse art with moral codes and morality, you are on a slippery slope.
You draw the line when you assess the art at hand.
You get to the heart of what the artists' intent was.
If it's some sick fuck nailing a live dog to a canvas and calling it art- then you sure as shit cry foul on it.
CONTEXT is an important word that many people ignore...

[oscar jubis]

I am sorry for taking so long to post. I am currently revising my Master's thesis and haven't checked the site daily, as I usually do. I am also working on some essays which might be published in Film International magazine. So, that would be a big advancement for me.

I am more concerned with the morality espoused within a film than the morals of its makers, to be honest. In this case, I am much more concerned with the racism that pervades Mr. Cimino's The Deer Hunter than I am concerned about the behavior of the director on the set of Heaven's Gate. I would agree that we must always consider the moral underpinnings of a film under review as one important aspect. However, I am not comfortable with passing judgement on the filmmakers, whether it is Cimino, Polanski, or Riefenstahl. Do you object to the morality of Heaven's Gate or to the behavior of Cimino on the set of the film? There are two entirely different entities.

[cinemabon]

Both... and good luck with your thesis. They're a bitch to write.

[Michuk]

Just bought my tickets for Avatar in IMAX. It's amazing how fast they were gone. BFI IMAX in London is already fully booked for the first couple days for all screenings. I don't remember anything clos to this ever happening.

[oscar jubis]

Thank you very much. You really understand precisely what I am currently going through. It is hellish, my brother but it is exciting too.
Anyway...I managed to make time yesterday to watch my Dolphins whoop the NY Jets at the Meadowlands. The 3-minute trailer for AVATAR was shown just prior to kickoff. I cannot wait to see this, and THE FUNNY BONES, next month!

[Chris Knipp]

Now we've established that Heaven's Gate isn't a "complete fiasco"....hmmm...did I see that or did I just fall asleep watching Days of Heaven and think I'd seen it? I definitely think Cimino's Deer Hunter is one of the most pernicious films made about Vietnam, pernicious precisely because it is so compelling, well acted, and well made, but false (and yes, racist) at its core. Excellent topic for your thesis, Oscar. Good luck with the revisions.

As for Avatar, I will have to see it. I loved Titanic. But I continue to fail to see the supposed renewed appeal of 3-D, which seems such a quaint, outmoded and unnecessary effect. I've seen a series of new 3-D movies in recent years, all of which would have been better without 3-D.

The Telegraph.uk Cartoon Blog (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/christianadams/100007229/james-camerons-avatar-review/) has a comment on Avatar's preview:
Yesterday was Avatar Day, and I went to see fifteen minutes of teaser footage at the IMAX. And I was disappointed. Apart from the glasses hurting my (admittedly not small) nose, the picture was incredibly fuzzy. There’s definitely a depth to the massive screen, but the moment something moves quickly, it just blurs over and is almost impossible to see what’s happening.

As for the film itself, it is actually rather unpleasant to look at. The heroes are avatars – disabled bodies given a new sporty look: ten foot tall blue cat people with botox. The alien landscape is sickly and garish. And the monsters look as if they have been designed from a child’s colouring-in book. So many gaudy colours offending the eye.

But let’s hope the whole is better than the parts. And I would suggest that Cameron lays off the hype. Sounds like a disaster. But we'll see. The glasses always hurt my nose too, and the darkening effect they have on the color is a serious weakness, besides which they simply evoke looking at slides in my grandmother's old steropticon viewer. How this can be seen as 21st-century technology eludes me. As for the screenplay of Avatar, one report (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Script-Review-James-Cameron-s-Avatar-7074.html) on an early version says
James Cameron’s Avatar is like Aliens meets Lord of the Rings if it were written by Al Gore, with the battle of Endor thrown in for good measure. It’s preachy, it’s repetitive, it’s derivative, and in spite of that when you see it up on a movie screen there’s a pretty good chance it’ll be the coolest thing you’ve ever seen.--which sounds interesting, but over my head. (I'm not quoting the end of that report, but you can go and look at it; it's not too positive.)

[Johann]

You can tell some of these critics really try to find the core of a film, even from watching a trailer.
"It's blah blah meets blah blah! With blah blah thrown in!"
You can bet the wreck of the Titanic that James Cameron didn't have Endor on his mind the whole time he was shooting.
or Hobbits. but MAYBE Aliens. And who can blame him? It's in his DNA.

You can over-analyze anything, and come off looking like a retard.
I will be making a point of not watching Avatar in 3-D.
I just don't like it. It's rare that you get a truly amazing film in 3-D, a "must-experience" experience. But I will sound out reviews of those who do see it in 3-D.
The last 3-D film that I enjoyed was Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man (in 2000?) and it was in IMAX.

I can see people nit-picking and being overly critical of Cameron's newest work, but I already know it's a great, great film.
The trailer gives you that much.
This is the kind of fantasy/action movie that you have to lose yourself in, presume that it's "real", give it up for, like Dune.
You know it's fiction, but shove that aside.
Just drown in the idea of it.

In the trailer there's that brief shot of a docking, and that ship that rockets into space made me think of Kubrick and 2001.
Only Cameron isn't showing humans at the mercy of a superior intelligence- he's showing humans messing with alien life forms and regions, and not in a good way, I gather.
I'm looking VERY forward to it.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm glad to know if AVATAR is going to be available in non-3-D form. I got the impression that it was conceived very much as a 3-D film, however. So then won't some of its real or imagined awesomeness be lost in non-3-D? Anyway other recent films such as U23D, JONAS BROTHERS: THE CONCERT EXPERIENCE (!)BEOWULF, and CORALINE have been only available in 3-D and for me it was a chore to watch them in that form, I'm glad you agree the format doesn't work for you. I've watched the AVATAR trailer and it does look good--maybe one of the best screen evocations of comic book style ever. I hpe it lives up to these expectations. I'm sure they'll get their money back, but I'm not sure why what is largely an animated film had to cost so much money. This is a spectacular instance of Hollywood's propensity for throwing money at a job ifor tech effects nstead of investing raw creativity into it.

If you look at a Wikipedia list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films) of 3-D movies, abut 95% of them are forgotten altogether and 98% of them are kitsch trash. However that is a crap list; this one (http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html) is more representative of recent effots, some of them by excellent filmmakers like Tim Burton (again with non-3-D versions available). The medium clearly lends it self to overblown "wow" sci-fi spectaculars or kid flicks; you wouldn't particularly think Bergman's SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE would be enhanced by being done in 3-D now, would you?

[cinemabon]

"Comin' at ya!" Best 3-D movie ever made. Totally pretentious and hilarious. If you loved a waste of celluloid like "Heaven's Gate," and you love pointless westerns, then this is your kind of movie!

[cinemabon]

Well... I was wrong, perhaps. After seeing the preview at a film I choose not to review, "Avatar" does seem like one of those technological films that also has an interesting storyline. Cameron has done it in the past. He is a consumate filmmaker. The 60 Minutes interview helped. I look forward to seeing it in 3D as he intended for us.

Everyone have a great Thanksgiving holiday break. I am simultaneously editing and revising books VI and VII in my series. Have fun and see you on the other side when we start to look at end of the year awards, reviews, top lists, etc. Oscar, Johann, Chris, Tab, and all the rest (please forgive me if I forgot you)... go get stuffed. I am watching NFL Thursday on my new TV. (See my new article "Evolution" in the lounge).

[Johann]

Why are you choosing not to review 2012?
I'm disappointed...

And I already had my Thanksgiving. (We have that Holiday in October up here). I had prime rib and it was dee-lishush...lol

[Chris Knipp]

To me, there is no greater impact than watching IKIRU, in square format, in a small auditorium, in black and white. Or the films of Bergman, or Antonioni, the same way. Or Bresson or Dreyer? Pick your own. CITIZEN KANE is not in any special "format."

When and how did you get seduced by the idea that these technologies are important or significant? Their significance is clear enough: they're a way to make more money. And will make people want to buy more expensive gadgets to watch them at home.

I do want to review 2012, however; I think it could be good to write about (DAY AFTER TOMORROW (http://www.cinescene.com/reviews/catharsis.htm) was anyway) but the time hasn't been right and the locations of where it's beeing shown. And other new films have priority to me:

COCO BEFORE CHANEL (not even new now, but I still want to catch it)
BAD LIEUTENANT
RED CLIFF
WILLILAM KUNTSLER: DISTURBING THE PEACE
THE ROAD
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

All showing in my area now.

We all love you Johann but what's funny is you're so crazy about these showy new movie technologies, and you still haven't figured out how to cut and paste on a computer.

[Johann]

What "showy new technologies" am I crazy about?
I asked cinemabon why he didn't want to review 2012.
Maybe he meant another movie?

[cinemabon]

Wasn't "Bad Lieutenant" an old Harvey Keitel movie from like seventeen years ago? I remember there was controversy about the rating at the time because the director's cut was supposed to be "X" rated. Is there a new cut? Keitel supposed worked out for weeks to prep for the nude scenes in this movie.

[Johann]

Yes, but Chris is referring to the remake made this year, by Werner Herzog, starring Nicolas Cage.

[Chris Knipp]

Bad lieutenants I have known.

How loyal I am to Johann (though we disagree on the merits of Roland Emmerich's new movie): a couple posts back I said my ist of current iflms to see was

COCO BEFORE CHANEL (not even new now, but I still want to catch it)
BAD LIEUTENANT
RED CLIFF (John Woo)
WILLILAM KUNTSLER: DISTURBING THE PEACE
THE ROAD (John Hilcoat)
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE (Spike Jonze)

But instead I have seen only 2012. I think I've missed WILLIAM KUNTSLER: DISTURBING THE PEACE. I still want to see the others. I am pretty much an admirer of the Abel Ferrara cult film BAD LIEUTENANT, but I was referring to the new Werner Herzog one, with Johann might be interested in, if he thinks he's the greatest living director. It is currently in limited release in US cinemas.

Fun with made-up languages.

Interesting new item I just saw about AVATAR. A LA TIMES story (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/11/usc-professor-creates-alien-language-for-avatar.html) tells how a USC linguistics professor named Paul R. Frommer. was hired to create a whole language for the Na'vi tribe aliens in Cameron's movie. Frommer spent four years designing the Na'vi language, which the actors have found very difficult but have attacked with remarkable dedication. They had to read a page of it as part of their auditions. The professor is so into it he hopes it will catch on and people will want to learn it. He goes around campus talking to himself in the invented language and inventing poetry in it. He just wishes he knew somebody else who knew how to speak it.

What other movies can you name that have made up languages in them -- really good, convincing ones, with a consistent structure and vocabulary?

I think John Boorman's THE EMERALD FOREST has one that the "Invisitle People" who adopt Tommy, AKA Tomme', speak is such a language, but I am not sure.

Frommer mentions Klingon in STAR TREK, which he says was also designed by a linguistics expert and "is very, very well put together."

There is Tolkien's Elfish, but that was not invented for a movie.

The most important invented language is Esperanto. There have been studies of invented languaes, such as Arika Okrent's In the Land of Invented Languages: Esperanto Rock Stars, Klingon Poets, Loglan Lovers and the Mad Dreamers Who Tried to Build a Perfect Language.

There is a branch of the Army that is trained exclusively to participate in war games, and some of their members are trained to speak fluently in Esperanto, to play the role of "border crossers" or "prisoners" who speak a foreign language that the soldiers participating in the exercise couldn't possibly know have to get an interpreter to communicate with. Esperanto was specifically designed to be easy to learn (at least for Europeans), but Na'vi wasn't really devisted with such kindly intentions -- only to appeal to Cameron, and to sound like an alien language but be made up of sounds humans can get their vocal cords and tongues around.

[oscar jubis]

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is goofy and eccentric. I really liked it. If you want to watch it, go NOW since it is almost out of theaters. I will watch COCO BEFORE CHANEL tonight (The last French film I watched was PARIS, the fourth ensemble film by Cedric Kaplisch). ANTICHRIST on Friday!

[cinemabon]

Navajo Native American's revived their "dead" language during World War II to speak in code to one another and pass along sensitive information. The language so baffled German and Japanese experts that its code remains unbroken to this very day. The 2002 film, "Windtalkers" with Nick Cage and Chris Slater covered this topic. Also, Charles Bronson appeared briefly as a Navajo "Indian" in the 1959 film, "Never so few."

Wiki source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker

[Chris Knipp]

Real language as code, yes. Different thing, but interesting. I've heard that in Vietnam American soldiers used their version of Vietnamese to baffle the enemy. It was so off the Vietnamese couldn't understand it.

I noticed that the trailer for AVATAR had nary a ord of N'vi in it.

[Chris Knipp]

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is goofy and eccentric. I really liked it. If you want to watch it, go NOW since it is almost out of theaters. I will watch COCO BEFORE CHANEL tonight (The last French film I watched was PARIS, the fourth ensemble film by Cedric Kaplisch). ANTICHRIST on Friday!PARIS was okay, but not very memorable. I'm still triyng to get to see COCO and WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE. I will heed your warning on the latter. I had failed to notice where it was showing in Berkeley. Did you see the big piece on ANTICHRIST in FILM COMMENT?

[Johann]

4 stars from Roger Ebert for AVATAR.

He said it reminded him of Star Wars and that James Cameron knows how to spend 300 million dollars wisely.
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on it.

[Michuk]

Originally posted by Johann
4 stars from Roger Ebert for AVATAR.

He said it reminded him of Star Wars and that James Cameron knows how to spend 300 million dollars wisely.
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on it.

I watched it yesterday in London, in BFI IMAX.

It's an ingenious film in spite of its flaws. James Cameron yet again proves he's the King of Hollywood that can create a masterpiece even based on a mediocre story. "Avatar" is visually the best thing ever made for the big screen, but it's also a highly emotional picture and a great fun to watch. And all despite the fact that it has been flattened and intellectually adjusted to the average cinema-goer. The Academy Awards are gonna be a no-brainer this year. It's certain as death and taxes.

Planning to write a review during the weekend...

[Chris Knipp]

michuk,

I don't quite buy the idea that a movie can be dumbed down ("flattened and adjusted" are euphemisms for that) and based on a mediocre story and still be "Visually the best thing every made for the big screen."

[Chris Knipp]

James Cameron: AVATAR (2009)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/901/VAvST1.jpg

Shock and awe: separating the beauty from the hype

Avatar is a fancy word -- an appropriate one, I guess, for a movie that is both awesome and silly. As the movie explains, it's a Hindu term for the incarnation of a god on earth. But actually, just as in the recent movie Surrogates (which Cameron was involved in) and The Matrix, somebody is lying in a room all wired up while he or she is running a virtual second self doing stuff out somewhere. That's what an "avatar" is. In Surrogates the virtual selves are mainly just misbehaving. In Avatar, we're on the planet Pandora, where a private corporation, RDA, whose boss is a pale nasty named for a British department store, Selfridge (Giovani Ribisi), is aiming to extract major quantities of a super-valuable mineral called (I said silly, remember) Unobtainium. There's a bunch of gung-ho racist military earthling types headed by a Robert Duval substitute called Col. Quartich (Stephen Lang), ready to speed up this enterprise by blowing away the "humanoid" locals, which they refer to as "blue monkeys," who're sort of sitting on the Unobtainium, in a lush forest. As in Duncan Jones' rather intriguing little movie Moon (released in June), earthlings in Avatar's world, set over a century in the future, have run out of terrestrial power sources and gone to outer space for new ones.

There's an opposing group of culturally sensitive scientists headed by the ever-tough and soulful Sigourney Weaver (known here as Grace), who know better. They realize that the tall, thin, and yes, blue indigenous people of the region are in fact the Omaticaya clan of the Na'vi. They, led by Grace, have been learning the Na'vi language and making friends with the Omaticaya -- winning the "hearts and minds," you know? They work with the Omaticaya in the form of "avatars" that are tall, blue, skinny people like them. This allows them to "pass," so to speak, and make up for the fact that the air on Pandora is too thin to breathe. Meanwhile Quaritch and his boys are talking "shock and awe" and "fighting terror with terror." Yeah, the references are as simple and schematic as that.

There's a whole lot going on in Cameron's's Avatar -- and at the same time not very much. It takes a while to explain the setup, but after that it's pretty simple what happens.

Grace is very disappointed when Jake Sully arrives on Pandora. He's a Marine corporal sent to replace his dead twin brother, because he's got the right DNA to operate his brother's avatar, but while his brother was a scientist, he's just a jarhead who's been rendered paraplegic in a recent war. Jake's background makes him appeal a lot to Col. Quaritch, but Grace starts to like him when he takes so well to working his avatar that he connects right away with Omaticaya princess Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and is quickly adopted by her tribe. It's sort of an Emerald Forest-cum-Dancing with Wolves situation -- Jake goes native. And he picks up a good speaking knowledge of Na'vi -- though the locals, due to Sigourney's teaching, tend to speak excellent English -- which might disappoint Professor Frommer of USC, whom Cameron engaged to invent a complete Na'vi language. Pronunciation of this name varies. Some, with a native touch, say "NA'-vee", with accent on the first syllable and a pronounced glottal stop. But most say "nah-VEE," as in Gilbert and Sullivan's immortal lines, "I polished up the handle so carefully, that now I am the ruler of the Queen's Navee." There are speeches in Na'vi (with rather ornate subtitles, as if it were a medieval language), but the whole cultural thing is focused more on what we might call the neuro-spritual element.

Cameron has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and engaged thousands in making this movie, and the fun of it is, for a while anyway, in the elaborate way the details of Pandora have been worked out. Quaritch describes it as worse than hell, and the six-legged dino-horses, hammerhead rhinos, shell-covered snarling tigers, four-armed lemurs, and so on, as well as the little floating jellyfish creatures, are pretty challenging for avatar-Jake his first night in-country. But since he bonds with Neytiri right away (her name even sounds a bit like Tommy/Tommee's Amazon forest girlfriend Kachiri in Emerald Forest), and learns to turn terrifying flying beasts into his docile steeds by connecting the end of his pigtail to their neural tendrils, Jake's avatar life becomes way more exciting than anything he's ever done before, and in a running video journal he keeps, he admits he's begun to forget what the rest of his life was even like before this.

New York Times film critic A.O. Scott exclaimed recently that Avatar is unusual as a blockbuster in that "it doesn't come from a comic book, it doesn't come from a novel, it doesn't come from a line of toys, it comes from James Cameron's imagination." Well, the material here is very much like lots of sci-fi novels (the kind I used to read as a teenager), comic books, lines of toys, and video games, so there's nothing so extraordinary about Cameron's imagination. What's extraordinary is the mise-en-scene, and the way "motion-capture" is used to give the avatar's expressions and movements, and then they're digitalized to incorporate them in these rather sexy tall skinny figures with their rather corny Amerindian outfits and hairdos; and the elaborate flora and fauna of Pandora.

Unfortunately it all ends in a noisy, protracted shoot-out that makes it like the dreadful, but intermittently atmospheric, Terminator: Salvation -- which, lo and behold, co-starred Sam Worthington. Watching this, as the noise and explosions became steadily drearier and more familiar, I realized that Cameron's Titanic, which I loved much more than this, mainly because it had real people and events in it, however romantically magnified, also went on far too long. There are things about Avatar that are very fun and Pandora is gorgeous at first, but the Na'vi, even at their sexiest, still look like plastic-y video game dolls, and those who declare this to be a cinematic spectacle that's wonderful beyond anything since 1915 and D.W. Griffith (David Denby in the same interview) are really falling prey to the hype.


http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7272/avatarbigo.jpg
JAKE SULLY (SAM WORTHINGTON) AND HIS AVATAR (THE IMAGES ARE GORGEOUS, AT FIRST)

[Michuk]

"those who declare this to be a cinematic spectacle that's wonderful beyond anything since 1915 and D.W. Griffith (David Denby in the same interview) are really falling prey to the hype."

Don't you think it's a bit judgemental? The fact that it did not impress you does not make everyone else amazed by the film hype-followers unable to make their own judgements.

I'm usually very critical about film, but Avatar just got me... I sat in the chair and just admired the whole new world Cameron created. And no, the Na'vis did not look plastic to me. To be frank I think they "acted" much better than the human characters :>

[Chris Knipp]

My reservations about this entertaining and beautiful if sometimes vacuous movie have nothing to do with others' falling prey to the enormous hype surrounding it.

The effects of the hype I observe independently. When The New Yorker's David Denby's suggests on Charlie Rose that this is the most impressive cinema spectacle since D.W.Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION, he clearly shows he's fully under the spell. (Watch the interview on http://www.charlierose.com/ and see what you think.) And you've got to acknowledge that the hype has been and continues to be enormous. The VARIETY review of AVATAR begins by calling the director "The King of the World." Where's the critical detachment? McCarthy barely touches on the movies' flaws.

The movie opened a day earlier in your part of the world and the Guardian reviewers, for one, were underwhelmed. Peter Bradshaw:
After the extremes of hype and backlash attending Cameron's solemn "unveiling" of a taster-trailer earlier this year, the film itself emerges as a watchable and entertaining if uncompromisingly ridiculous sci-fi spectacular, unable to decide if it wants to kick the ass of every alien in sight or get all eco-touchy-feely with them. It's a Dubya movie trying its darnedest to get with the new Obama programme.

[cinemabon]

I still think you should have posted as a review and not tagged your review at the end of this long discussion. However, that said... I'll try to respond:

You focused on the story, whereas the rest of America's critics focused on the visuals. This story is a work of art, and you Chris of all people should recognize that. No, instead you chose to intellectualize on the story. This is a spectacle. Stories are lost in spectacles. I don't believe the issue here is that the acting is poor. In fact, the acting is top rate. The real issue with SOME critics, and they are few, is that the story lacks depth. Cameron chose to focus on the creation rather than the telling. I cannot fault him for that. A. O. Scott did not review this film for the Times. He merely commented on it. Bully for him. Dargis wrote the review and I could not more agree with her assessment, as well as Ebert's.

You chose to mention visual in passing by stating theres this creature and that... blah blah. Only you failed to mention the wonder that people when they first step through to this world. This was especially true with the audience that saw in 3-D, which I believe makes a world of difference in the presentation. As other critics pointed out, Cameron does not "hit you over the head" in this film with 3-D, it adds to the splendor of the setting... the lush setting... the setting that is the focus of the film, filled with such detail that it is difficult if not impossible to decribe. This is so new and so complex that it defies description.

I don't understand... did you, as a visual graphic artist, somehow miss out on the visuals... or did you see the film in 2-D and chose to ignore them? Please explain.

[cinemabon]

Plus and by the way, you chose the Guardian to support your argument. FYI for those who bother to read us, the Guardian was one of the few and more obscure sources that did not like the film. They are very few, I can assure you.

[Chris Knipp]

The Guardian's not "obscure;" it's a major British newspaper, and the reviews came out a day earlier because the movie opened a day earlier in England. In other countries, they're not quite as sold on the hype. Here's TimeOut London (http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/87977/avatar.html) -- again not in any way an "obscure" source:
It's hard to fault 'Avatar' as an immersive visual experience. Pandora and its luridly coloured inhabitants are beautifully designed, though none of this ever feels remotely real. But this was supposed to be the movie that changed the face of filmmaking forever. Ultimately, Cameron's signature achievement may have been to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the oldest of all Hollywood maxims: all the money in the world is no subsitute for fresh ideas and a solid script. I think if you keep watching reviews they won't be all favorable, and may be less favorable in Europe than over here. The Metacritic score is 83, very good, but not spectacular. Other films have scored higher this year, UP IN THE AIR, THE MAID, CRAZY HEART, THE BEACHES OF AGNES, 35 SHOTS OF RUM, and FANTASTIC MR. FOX are currently scored as welll or better on Metacritic. GOODBYE SOLO scored 89. THE HURT LOCKER scored 94. That indicates nearly universal acclaim. An 83 means there are detractors, and not all are obscure, as you would have it.

J. Hoberman, Scott Tobias, and Stephanie Zacherack are prominent American film critics who did not drink the Kool-Aid on AVATAR. Oscar and I both pay a lot of attention to what J. Hoberman has to say, always.

AVATAR is one of the highest rated wide released films. Alas, if you're limited to viewing only those, you miss many of the highest rated releases, which are the limited ones. This is unfortunate. It feels unfair to me. But that's another subject.

Other movies that socred as high or hither on Metacritic this year:

1. Hurt Locker, The 94
2. 35 Shots of Rum 91
3. Still Walking 89
4. Goodbye Solo 89
5. Tulpan 88
6. Up 88
7. Gomorrah 87
8. [Beaches of Agnes, The 86]
9. Ponyo 86
10. [Education, An 85]
11. Forbidden Lie$ 85
12. Passing Strange 85
13. Seraphine 84
14. [Crazy Heart 84]
15. Summer Hours 84
16. Revanche 83
17. In the Loop 83
18. [Fantastic Mr. Fox 83]
19. Star Trek 83

I think the general feeling on the site has been that when a thread exists for a movie, we put our reviews in that thread. I've been chided for starting a new thread just for one of my reviews.

The Metacritic page for AVATAR reviews is here. (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/avatar)

" " " for the best reviewed movies of 2009 is here. (http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/)

[cinemabon]

Touchy, ain't we...

The link for rottentomatoes, which does not use a sliding scale as Metacritic does, is here:

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

The cream of the crop refers to the nation's leading papers, magazines, and news outlets. At 94, it is one of the highest rated films of the year and deserving of more than a passing interest. The consensus is: "It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking."

A quote I might add that pretty much sums up my review, which I wrote before they posted that comment.

[Chris Knipp]

Sometimes I'm touchy, but manly I'm just argumentative and garrulous.

It's true that rottentomatoes rates higher than Metacritic. Could it be you like it because of that, by any chance? Each of the two has its pluses and minuses, but people seem to consider Metacritic superiorr to rottentomatoes. rottentomatoes accesses a larger list of reviewers, but Metacritic's small, selective list includes more genuine tastemakers. For that reason I rely on it. It cites reviews I may want to read. I have no vested interest in saying this, because I am listed on rottentomatoes, but not Metacritic!

Definitely you are right (and I've already said) AVATAR is one of the highest rated films of the year and of more than passing interest I never said otherwise.
The consensus is: "It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking."I would agree to this. I just don't rate the movie as high as you do, not as high as stuff like GOODBYE, SOLO, INGOURIOSU BASTERDS, THE LIMITS OF CONTROL, A SERIOUS MAN, TWO LOVERS, and some others. But it of course would be remembered even if it was lousy, which it emphaticaly is not -- because it cost $250 million dollars to make! It is the most expensive and elaborate 3D movie, etc. etc.

Remember what J. Hoberman wrote?
Avatar is a technological wonder, 15 years percolating in King Cameron's imagination and inarguably the greatest 3-D cavalry western ever made. Too bad that western is Dances With Wolves. As I recall, DANCES WITH WOLVES won the Oscar for Best Pictuie. But I didn't like it. I like this better.

The fact that AVATAR "reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking" does not mean he used that gift to maximum advantage in this film.