** Hey guys, if you read my original post, you'll see that I told the story of how I was "put in my place" by a former colleague and mother of two who loved the picture. So I backed off. Even without the historic references and/or "derivative of other films" slap, I confess Avatar's" writing, esp. some of its romantic and overly noble lines, did make me wince. Not enough to throw me out of the picture's "other world atmosphere," but enough for me to notice the seams in an otherwise spectacular visual experience.
** I never want to s*** on a picture that kids of all ages like. And only a fool pays $15 AND gives away more than 3 hours of his time rooting against a picture. In the end, what I feel about Avatar doesn't matter; it's just my opinion. I would not see it again and I realize I'm in the minority about it -- and this is OK so long as I don't insult people who have seen it more than once. They're not stupid. They like it, that's fine. It'll be their nostalgia 10 years from now. I just didn't get that jolt, for example, that I got after I saw "Pulp Fiction" or "The Matrix," two kinetic pictures that told stories in new ways back in the 1990s. I love James Cameron's pictures. I've NEVER HATED anything he's done since 1984. But some of his pictures are better than others. As an emotional experience, "Titanic" left many people drenched in tears, it was a viscerally heart-wrenching picture to a lot of kids who are in their early 30s today. Janet Maslin of the NY Times compared "Titanic" to "GWTW" in tonality, the suggestion being that if "Titanic" had been released in 1937 instead of 1997, fewer people would be pi**ing on it today. I vividly remember Cameron's battle about "Titanic's" merits with LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan, taking out full-page response ads in the trade papers. Turan all but implored Academy voters to vote against the picture. Cameron took home 11 Oscars -- and even though LOTR matched it in 2003, "Titanic" was a world-wide phenomenon -- like "Avatar" is today, but I would argue, a lesser emotional experience, but a greater theatrical experience. To some people who dislike Cameron, that may not be saying much. "Avatar" to me is an "event picture," like seeing an IMAX picture the first time or one of Cecil B. DeMille's spectaculars on a big screen. ** All films may be riffs of other films, all films may not be original, but the better ones, in my view, tell the "same story" in new ways, e.g., as in "The (500) Days of Summer." Despite "Avatar's" visual craftsmanship, great writing always matters to me. My brother says the strength of a picture really shows when you see it in 2-D, not 3-D, and I believe him. 3-D is a spectacular bonus when everything's working right. When the Blu-ray version of "Avatar" is released next year, one wonders if those who believe it's a modern masterpiece will feel the same watching it on a flat-panel screen. "Lawrence of Arabia" is obviously a different experience on TV, but Robert Bolt's fabulous script still bursts through. The film's score, cinematography and Peter O'Toole's electrifying performance are bonuses. The writing still holds up. -d. ======================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:03:24 -0800 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: AVATAR To: [email protected] It's none of those things -- well, not always -- but when someone's only comment is "it's just like [one of a half dozen films]" then I think they aren't thinking but just parroting someone else's comment, to be on the "cool" bandwagon. There's definitely stuff to knock in Avatar, but way too many seem to not be able to come up with any of it. No one's saying you aren't thinking nor that you dismissed the film. I disagree that comparable plots is a negative but you had other negative points as well. You clearly did think about it. I don't completely agree with you but everyone's entitled to their opinion. I just see a lot of people who are simply on a "knock Cameron" kick. Craig. At 11:22 AM 2/16/2010, James Richard wrote: So it's now just "uncool" or "jealousy" or "the old dude just doesn't get it" to make a perfectly valid observation or criticism of a film? Guess I have lived too long. --JR Jeff Potokar wrote: Well put, Craig. Its SO easy to knock one's project or film down. I dont get it. And from so many people who know little to nothing about what it actually takes to make and put a film of this caliber together. Jealousy perhaps, or the fact that Cameron has another colossal hit in his pocket, i suppose. Jeff On Feb 16, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Craig Miller wrote: I can't say how tired I am of the "oh, Avatar is just like movie X" complaint. Sorry. If it's just like Pocahontas, Dances With Wolves, Ferngully, The Last Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Last of the Mohicans (and it's like all of them) that should tell you that it's a common story trope used by countless writers. To complain of it is to say "The West Side Story is a piece of crap. It's just like Romeo and Juliet." The last movie I saw that didn't harken to the plot of something else was Being John Malkovich. Is Avatar perfect? No. Is it's script great? Nope. But to say there are plot similarities to something else is fatuous. If that's all someone can complain about, then they're just looking for something to knock. (And Cameron has a lot of people who like to knock him, though I think he's got a truly amazing track record.) Craig. At 11:15 PM 2/15/2010, David Kusumoto wrote: ** It's been a while I've written anything of length to MoPo; write it off to being too swamped to get into the fights and what-nots during the past 5-6 months. ** Meanwhile, you're right, Doug -- "Avatar's" story line has been done 1,000 times before, and that's my only objection to it. "Avatar's" script resembled "Dances With Wolves Meets the Blue Man Group" -- with the standard theme of "money-grubbing corporations" raping the natural resources of a planet populated by blue aliens -- whose every utterance is noble and forcefully profound, e.g., like lines given to every Native American character in Disney's "Pocahontas." ** Anyway, I was put in my place by a former colleague and mother of two kids who agreed with me -- but who told me -- (and she was right) -- "you know, you and your historical film references makes you old and out of date -- it makes everything you see today sound irrelevant with a "been there and done that" feeling. Well, that's not true for everything. Zillions of people are paying $15 to see 'Avatar' without your historical references; they don't care about "Dances with Wolves" or "Pocahontas." Even if they did, those pictures were made 15-20 years ago, before today's movie goers were born; they were made in ways that seem obsolete or less engaging to kids today. This doesn't mean old films are less important. It just means they're not important to young people YET. Someday they'll like them. Like we did. Geezuz, we weren't all born in 1920. Young people buy WAY more tickets than old people. Remember how you used to go to every opening night? You don't anymore because you hate long lines. You're not supporting the industry and you're well past the 'sell-by' date for mass entertainment. So stay at home and watch PBS, TCM or HBO. 'Avatar" may not be the best picture of the year, but it is historic and my kids loved it." ** I thought about this tirade for a moment and I said, "you know, you're right. Most people coming out of 'Avatar' are having fun -- and I admit it's astounding that a guy like James Cameron can knock out hit after monster hit, while having total control of material that, unlike Spielberg, always seems to strike industry watchers and the bean counters to have an "iffy" quality -- BEFORE they're released. Cameron's films never SEEM to feel like they will be guaranteed box office gold until AFTER word-of-mouth spreads." ** The box-office receipts of Cameron's last three films including "True Lies" -- have blown past everything Spielberg has done since 1993, including "Jurassic Park," a film at the time I thought was a technological game changer. I just wonder whether "Avatar," even as a "game changer" -- has a story/script worthy enough to be a Best Picture. "Titanic" beat back those same obstacles in 1997 with an old-fashioned, 1940s type love story that had teenage girls returning in droves. ** I liked the low-budget picture, "The Hurt Locker" -- and was shocked that I also enjoyed the true story of Baltimore Ravens tackle Michael Oher in Sandra Bullock's "The Blind Side" -- but "Avatar" didn't hit me in the gut. Honestly, the best performances I saw in 2009 came from Meryl Streep as Julia Child in "Julie and Julia" and Christoph Waltz as the smooth Nazi in "Inglourious Basterds." ** If I had to root for a single picture, it might be "The Hurt Locker," but only because I think it's the first picture about the war without a political message; none of the actors "debate" why they're in Iraq. There's no sledgehammer message. It's a strange film whereby the emotional centerpiece is the adrenaline of survival; some soldiers have it and some don't; this adrenaline is all that matters to the main character played by Best Actor nominee Jeremy Renner. I also thought "The Hurt Locker" was a giant leap for action director Kathryn Bigelow, who's never done anything like this. If anything, its neutral political stance underscores how many soldiers are ignorant of the politics of anything they're involved in. They just do their job. ** But my gut feeling is the 9 films going against "Avatar" -- all have the "Gandhi" hex hung around their necks. That is, if any picture OTHER than "Avatar" wins -- it will be a dubious distinction akin to "Forrest Gump" beating "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Pulp Fiction" in 1994; "Shakespeare in Love" beating "Saving Private Ryan" in 1998; "Chariots of Fire" beating "Reds" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981; "Ordinary People" beating "Raging Bull" in 1980; "Platoon" beating " Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters" in 1986; "The English Patient" beating "Fargo" in 1996; "Dances with Wolves" beating "Goodfellas" in 1990 and "Gandhi" beating "E.T" in 1982 and on and on. I remember being angry when Oliver Stone's "Platoon" beat Woody Allen's "Hannah" in '86, the latter film much decorated in the all-important acting and screenplay categories. And last week, I put on "Shawshank" on the DVD player and my wife and I were in tears all over again. Still a great picture. ** I know the Oscars are such bullshit (and not the original point of Doug and Kirby's posts below) -- and I know these trophies are laden with the "politics of their day" -- which have proven time and again that the Academy's choices do not a classic make. But if "Avatar" loses, I sense many will feel like they've witnessed the "crime of the century," further exposing the gulf between the Academy and popular sentiment (arguably as they should be) -- but over a picture that is not only a box-office smash, but has also received good-to-great reviews. I won't mind if "Avatar" wins because I do know people who think despite its high-school-ish script (esp. the romance) -- that the picture is a critical and commercial juggernaut that should NOT be denied the biggest prize on March 7, which has forced many production companies to re-tool their future releases to integrate the 3D format in a "non-intrusive" way, which is "Avatar's" biggest strength. ** Despite 10 Best Picture nominees, I'm kind of indifferent this year, not one film screams "stupendous." But I was emotionally responsive to 5 of the nearly 35 films I saw that were released in 2009, one of which is not even among the 10 nominees: "The Hurt Locker," "The Blind Side," "Up," "Inglourious Basterds" (despite its excesses) -- and "The (500) Days of Summer," the latter which I thought was going to be a stupid, sophomoric young-love beach film -- but turned out to be a new way of telling a story about a broken urban romance that doesn't get near a beach or a keg-party. Wonderful surprise. ** A digression -- I did not object to "Annie Hall" beating "Star Wars" in 1977. "Annie Hall" was a film I saw in contemporaneous release and I did feel at the time that it broke new ground for Woody Allen and for the "urban comedy genre" in a different way that "Star Wars" broke bigger ground for family entertainment the same year. But I also vividly remember going to work the next day. My work mates asked me, with great incredulity, "Star Wars lost to Annie WHAT? Your movie choices SUCK." I loved both films but I've never forgotten how that experience exposed me as a high-button, stuck-up, holier-than-thou snob. -d. > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:31:56 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: AVATAR > To: [email protected] > > Much better script than Titanic, although a story line we've seen 1,000 > times the last 90 years. > > I've haven't seen anything better this year. I had high hopes for Hurt > Locker, but it just doesn't pack the punch to compete. > > Regards > > DBT > Profile > > -----Original Message----- > From: MoPo List [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kirby McDaniel > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 11:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [MOPO] AVATAR > > Here's my reaction. > > I finally saw it. > > Spectacularly realized. Doesn't lag much. Screenwriting is a little > stilted at times while trying to explain things to audience 8 to 80, but > that's quibbling. Gorgeous in 3D on the full IMAX screen. 3D is some of the best I've ever > seen in that it seems to be "of a piece" with the film after a while. Very beautiful to > look at. Reminded me at various times of aspects of other films - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, > ALIENS, of course, THE STAR WARS stuff, naturally, although without the Flash > Gordon cornball factor, especially RETURN OF THE JEDI with it's scenes of the ewoks. > And BAMBI of all things -- I was looking at some of the color in the Disney > animation the other day, and some of the same coloration and tone in AVATAR. > So huge in its palette that one just simply has to hand it to James Cameron - he > must be some kind of superman. The film is laden with messages, but it's > all stuff I can pretty much get behind. What surprised me was how touching > it was at times. > > Oh yeah, really cute people. And they're blue. It's not easy being blue. > > Kirby McDaniel > MovieArt Original Film Posters > P.O. Box 4419 > Austin TX 78765-4419 > 512 479 6680 www.movieart.net > mobile 512 589 5112 Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
