The cinema thread

[Faust]

Nice, Jorge.

I suppose I'll go see it in a couple of weeks. A film like that is only worth seeing in a theater.

[Fade to Black]

since i live close to the airport I might go there and check it out this weekend on the "4D" screen...

don't ask...i just read it in the paper, apparently in addition to the 3D glasses viewing experience there are weather and real life environment immersion effects.

[genevieveryoko]

one of the better films I've seen recently

[Faust]

/\ I don't think I've ever seen a film where my only thought was "sex." I guess it takes a pervert like Allen and a bombshell like Johannson to do that.

[Fade to Black]

faust, have you seen Vicky Cristina Barcelona?

[Faust]

Yeah, it fucking sucked. Allen should've quit making movies a while ago.

[genevieveryoko]

srsly what a pervert

[Enaml]

Avatar certainly fits the bill for an "epic," though that doesn't necessarily imply much about its quality. The CGI really didn't add much. If anything, it felt less lifelike.

[deius]

I can't describe how impressive the visuals of Avatar were. The 3D really is incredible, even by itself regardless of a hopelessly unoriginal and flat storyline. The differences are impressive.
Things like composition (rule of thirds), costuming (you appreciate material so much more, consider the drape of the t-shirt on the fat scientist, it's hyper-real) mise-en-scene, etc.
In other words, put a 300 million budget into the hands of a worthy director, and what could they achieve with what was only ever a gimmick? What would Bunuel do with it? What would Tarkovsky do with it?

Faust, you could probably apply that description to Y tu mama tambien (although there was political and social commentary, between the sex scenes)

[MASUGNEN]

Buñuel would hate it. Tarkovsky would hate it. They also did create the opposite to "hopelessly unoriginal and flat storyline[s]". Budget severly overrated.

[CommieRabbit]

Okay, I'm stuffed, I drank too much and I desperately need sleep so this will most likely not be very coherent/make sense, but here we go anyway:

Avatar is a very enjoyable film.

It's not a great/good movie.

I think it was my most memorable theatre experience to date. The movie has it's flaws, some of them being quite major. Characters are underdeveloped cookie-cutters, story was predictable and unoriginal (I'm not even going to cover the humorous and mostly truthful comparisons to other films, I'm sure you've heard them all by now), scenes and events that make little sense, embarrassingly cringe-worthy cheesy segments (the "chanting" scenes ) and just an overall shocking display of hollywood cliches.

Despite it's glaring amount of flaws I can't help but love it. Firstly, the amazing visuals make the movie. The movie does not hide this. This is not a cerebral piece of cinema, nor was it intended to be. It was destined to be a Hollywood epic blockbuster since it's initial conception. This is something you can bring your kids to.

The CGI is easily the best ever done. From a technical standpoint I've yet to see anything as life-like as Avatar. It's a landmark in CGI. The amount of technical mastery is immense and is in many ways groundbreaking; small things such as the waterfall scene and scene with the space hyenas are technically amazing since water and fire have always been a problem for those working with CGI, yet in the movie they are completely flawless and convincing. I'm still in awe by it. The world he made is astonishingly beautiful, and everything that fills the screen be it from the locales, fauna, flora are all of dazzling and gorgeous colors, but it's harmonious and most importantly, it feels real while being imaginative. Much like my cellphone, I turned my brain off and opened my eyes instead while watching the movie, I'd recommend the same. Honestly I was just rewatching Tetsuo: the Iron Man again and I realised I couldn't give two shits about the characters or story, but the visuals have me jizzing uncontrollably and that's why I love it. Same goes for many Jodorowsky films, which while I hate, I highly admire and respect the visual work.

It's a very, very Cameron movie. His sci-fi work are all built for mainstream appeal, yet there is a distinctly cult element to them (eg: Terminator, Aliens) which comes through from involvement in the fictional universes he creates such as the details of machinery, aliens, fauna or otherwise. The kinda stuff that makes you dream or imagine. I have a feeling Avatar has already entrenched itself in the domain of being a sci-fi staple.

If you can't stomach or finding anything of merit in anything less than a Tarkovsky-esque vision of science-fiction or if you don't think highly of hollywood epics for any reason then make no mistake, you will hate this film. I enjoyed it for the same reasons I enjoyed the original Star Wars, which also shares many of the same flaws I've posted above. A nobody everyman with a bleak future, the chosen one, hero's journey, gets the girl, explosions, a bunch of shit exploding spectacularly, a bad guy that's evil for the sake of being evil. Classic fucking escapist fantasies used since the time of caveman. This is why I think that Avatar, much like Star Wars and essentially the rest of Cameron's sci-fi succeeds.

I remember Klangspiel, whose taste in movies I find to be impeccable, showed an interest in Avatar some time back. I'm honestly generally curious to what he though of it.

I'm tired so I can't think of what else to say...

In other words, put a 300 million budget into the hands of a worthy director, and what could they achieve with what was only ever a gimmick? What would Bunuel do with it? What would Tarkovsky do with it?

They don't need that budget. While I can't speak for Bunuel, Tarkovsky's sci-fi work is more or less excellent (although I did post my dislike of Stalker to some extent way back) and I don't see why they would require such a monstrous budget. You could not of made Avatar without that budget, you just couldn't. I'm sorry, but the budget was 100% justified, and I might elaborate after some sleep or something. How did you see this as a gimmick? I'm extremely curious.

Ah fuck it, I still can't believe I've even got Tarkovsky, Jodorowsky and Avatar in the same post at all... that shit's criminal

[Fade to Black]

I caved. Got ticket for the 5:00 PM show today in regular 3D.

[deius]

Avatar is a very enjoyable film.

It's not a great/good movie.

Just to respond (picking and choosing)
- The effects are amazing, I meant to say that 3D was used as a gimmick and now definitely is not.
- The length of time spent exploring some mystical forest world was far too long for the final battle. In other words I don't expect experimental cinema but some more action sequences would be nice. Not a pastiche of mystical forest life - taming animals, blah, communing with the spirit tree, leaping through the trees, blah... I can deal with archetypical situations and characters, just not THAT kind. I don't really need to point this out since you admit it anyway. For me, in the absence of either tension or gratifying action sequences 2/3 of it was purely an exercise in visual effects. Worthington makes a good lead actor, he seems to add a certain depth to characters which are really quite unoriginal (this, and Terminator).

[Fade to Black]

I just got back from Avatar...i dunno about 'good, not great,' imo it is a remarkable and audacious piece of filmmaking, especially from a commercial, big studio angle. It's not better than 2001, but it's definitely better than Star Wars. After that experience, I can safely say Jim Cameron, P.T. Anderson and Michael Haneke are the last remaining auteurs still working.

[Faust]

My bro told me that he can get free tickets to movies on Tuesdays (his cable company promotion), so I guess I'll go see it in a week or two. Free sounds about right.