I went to see Avatar last night in 3-D IMAX because, well, when in Rome, right? It is a spectacle, a true epic in the tradition of Griffith and DeMille. The story is forgettable, the dialogue and acting border on camp it is so leaden (I laughed a lot at the corny lines), but who cares when you are witness to such a gluttony of wonderment? The movie feels fully-realized, as if James Cameron got exactly what he was looking for, and it is some accomplishment, in many ways remarkable. But I have to admit, after an hour, I got bored, and found the assault on the senses, tedious. There is so much to absorb, I became numb. Avatar is something to see, but I’m glad I don’t have to see it again.
The 3-D didn’t make me motion-sick, but it still took me a while to get used to the glasses. When it was over, I felt woozy, even ten minutes later when I got on the uptown IRT. Reading will settle me down, I thought, so I pulled out a splashy GQ story on former Colts wide reciever, Marvin Harrison. At first, the words hurt to look at, but I adjusted quickly enough. The story comes out guns-ablazing. It is so full of adreneline that it picked-up where Avatar left off.
The writer, Jason Fagone, has done some crack reporting but he’s so infatuated with his angle that he muscles-up the prose and steamrolls the reader. It is like an Oliver Stone production, pounding away with self-importance:
Robert Nixon’s jeans are scuffed. His hands are folded in his lap. His glasses give him a sort of professorial, beatnik vibe—a pudgier version of Cornel West. He calls me “sir.” In fact, Nixon is deferential to the point of meekness until the moment I ask him about Pop’s murder. Does he think it was meant to send a message to any other potential witnesses? “Are you kidding?” Nixon says, startled. “Do you think it was a message?” Nixon shoots a look to his attorney, Wadud Ahmad, a powerfully built black man who is sitting in on our interview, and the two of them explode into howls of laughter, as if I just asked the dumbest question in the history of white people.
…Say this for Marvin Harrison: He tried to be his own person. He succeeded on a level that most of us can only dream of reaching. But he either never realized or flat-out denied the destabilizing effect of his presence in a poor and desperate part of the city. Much as he insisted that he was a normal working person like any other, he was never going to be seen that way. He was always going to be a target for the hopes, resentments, and ambitions of other people, a reality that rippled and swirled around him in unpredictable ways. And the proof is still there, scattered across the city, for anyone who cares enough to look.
The writer is aiming beyond The Best American Sports Writing–he’s writing for the Ages. Which is too bad because Fagone is talented, his reporting is crisp and he knows how to tell a story. But he undermines the narrative with his ambition and lack of restraint. It is as if he couldn’t help himself.
Hey, more is more, right?
I enjoyed Avatar, and the 3D.... but it's a shame that something so visually exciting failed on some many other points.
With instant communications, can you immagine how people on Earth would have reacted to a company wiping out a civilization for a bit of plunder? Did the 'boss' have to be a 'kill 'em all' type when he didn't immediately get what he wanted?
I like a good fight, but did we really need to see guys on flying birds with bows and arrows fighting a heavily armed, intergalactic war ship?
In many ways it was a bad 'comboys against the indians' movie.
When you spend a $100 million on visuals, can you at least spend more then $50.00 on plot and dialog?
I enjoyed it, but it could have been so, so much more.
I wonder though, if you CAN do both. It seems the effects took up so much of the creative effort. I think Cameron is an old fashioned storyteller, it may be cheesy, but it works, which may be why his movies are so successful internationally. Hey, STAR WARS, was an old story re-told too. This wasn't as funny as that movie though.
One thing, if I ever hear that airy flute music again, you know, the kind you hear over scenes of Natives, I'm going to run for the exit.
All my friend tell me I have to watch it "blazed", otherwise I won't appreciate it as much.
I have to tear myself away from reading constant CoCo/Leno updates (I'm obsessed) to check out the Harrison piece, I've heard good things though.
My GF's parents got me a subscription to Vanity Fair for Christmas, the first issue I got was the Tiger Woods cover. Is it high class fluff? You bet it is...but I'm a sucker for it, what can I say?
[2] Anyone ever tell you you're a movie snob? :-) I know Avatar isn't a great movie. But neither is Star Wars. Still, it's great - nah, fantastic - at what it's supposed to be... a complete re-emphasis of the experience. I certainly don't want to watch most movies in that way. But the difference between Cameron and someone like Mike Bay is the difference between Bernie Williams and Kevin Maas. Cameron is a true revelation. For the price of admission I went on a real trip and unlike my youth, it didn't need acid or shrooms.
That said, I saw two movies in 2009 in the theater: Up and Avatar. Everything else came to my home via Netflix. I don't know why, but I'm kinda disgusted by the movie experience these days. The seats, the food, the whole gluttonous scene. Give me a nice comfortable couch, a flatscreen, surround sound, and my wife and I'm in heaven especially with homemade popcorn and some good dark chocolate. Plus, in one year off from "The Movies" (@ $30/week) we've paid for the flatscreen and sound system.
[2] By the way, supposedly kids today love The Phantom Menace in a way that they don't love A New Hope. It's blasphemous to me. But I understand why.
[1] And a plucky groups of rebels could take down a planet-sized space station? Because of one design flaw? The level of incompetence to allow that to happen is inverse to the competence required to build the thing in the first place. Meanwhile, the one guy with the knowledge to keep the "Force" alive hides out for years a few miles from where his greatest enemy still had family?
Why am I snob because I didn't love the movie?
I subscribe to the Ebert school of criticism. Paul Blart doesn't need to be The Godfather, it just needs to be the best possible Paul Blart...if the movie does that, its done its job.
[7] Just that an hour into a revelatory form of film making you're ready to bolt. I mean, analyze any of the Cameron films in the same light and they're all pretty bad. Do you *love* any of his work?
Sorry if you took offense. I can't criticize when I see true innovation. Well, I guess I could. But of all the films released in the last twenty or thirty years I don't see one that's been as much of an almost participatory experience. In terms of the uniqueness of overall look and feel, I think only the Pixar films come close. Is there one Pixar film you've loved?
Don't get me wrong though. I love truly great movies and your affinity for "A Serious Man" has me anxiously awaiting it's DVD arrival. I just didn't see the need to pay the premium to watch an good story on the big screen. I guess that's the difference for me. How does paying twice as much (and putting up with the gross environs) change the experience for a film of that type? I mean, do I need to see any of the Cohen Brothers movies on the big screen? By contrast, Avatar (and Star Wars and Pixar) demand that experience for me. And Cameron delivered on his arrogant promise.
No offense taken.
I never said Cameron didn't deliver. I wrote, "The movie feels fully-realized, as if James Cameron got exactly what he was looking for, and it is some accomplishment, in many ways remarkable." I'm just saying that I was bored. Had nothing to do with the moviemakers, just my ability to absorb the onslaught of sensory overload, especially with no compelling story behind it.
I'm a traditionalist in that I think every movie should be seen on the big screen. Have I liked any of the Cameron movies? No, not really, outside of the original TERMINATOR.
I'd love to see UP. Hear it is great. I enjoyed RATATOUILLE and CARS. I think those are the only two Pixar movies I've seen.
[10] oh dude you need to get some WALL*E in your life, thats right up your alley. Its the best Charlie Chaplin movie of the past 60 years.
Yeah, I've heard that too. Will do.
the glasses didn't bother me at all during the movie, but i got that same uneasy feeling after walking out and taking the glasses off. it felt like i was coming out of a mushroom trip. especially once i got out to the hallway in the theatre with the artificial lighting and patterned carpet. i don't think people are supposed to wear those glasses for 3 hours.
my problem with going to a movie theatre for these 3+ hour movies is that i drink a lot of water generally and have a lot of trouble not peeing for that long. and it's one thing to sit and hold it in, another to stand up at the end and realize it's a lot worse than you thought.
[10] Yeah, I guess I can't understand how you could have been bored. It was unlike anything I had ever seen.
Let me ask you this: In a time where we can all have a 52" inch screen effectively 6 -10 feet from our faces, how is the experience of watching the movie any different? It's not like the we're squashing a wide screen onto a small one any more. The director's vision is preserved. What about the traditional experience do you enjoy? Is it the room full of strangers?
I think things changed for me when my wife and I (girlfriend at the time) found a theater where we were living that sold tickets in advance to a premium section ($3 more) with dedicated seats (like a ballgame) but on big cushy leather seats where the arm rest went up between them. So we could watch the film and snuggle comfortably at the same time. After we moved and couldn't find a similar theater, we started pricing the home theater options and found that forgoing the movies (our weekly date night) we could have a sweet system paid off in one year (including the Netflix account). And it's worked better than we could have imagined.
Cars I actually didn't like as much (even as it was fine). I absolutely loved Up and Wall-E. Cried during both. The first ten minutes of Up had me sobbing but then most of my happiness in life comes from having a beautiful and adventurous wife.
Can I ask you guys how you hear about great movies? Our method involves monitoring Rotten Tomatoes for scores above 80%. But we often miss good foreign films that way.
[13] Exact same experience all around...and we ran to the pee pots.
Hey, You are probably right about the at home experience being so much better now with HD TV and surround sound. I like seeing it with an audience, ideally, on a huge screen, but I also hate crowds and like the coziness at home. But to see a movie on a small screen, let alone an I Pod screen, is just awful for me.
[15] I'm assuming you've seen this then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0
Holy cow, Raging, that is GREAT. I couldn't agree more. It's like looking at reproductions of paintings in a book or on line. You see the image but have no sense of scale, of true color, of the EMOTION.
This is the oldest cultural debate there is, practically. Alex, stop being defensive about being called a snob. It is as lame an attack as it is a source of anxiety! Like today someone screams 'Liberal!' and people head for the exits.
Paul, if Avatar had run 8 hours of the same might you have possibly been bored? (Please say yes!) The 'like nothing I've seen' can carry different people different lengths of time in a cinema. At some point certain viewers want more than spectacle to retain interest. They have said, 'You can DO that! Way cool! Now engage me in other ways.'
I enjoyed the film a lot, I am amused when everyone makes the Dances With Wolves comparison, as if THAT film started the 'going native' film/book cliché. I thought the last half hour was the same as Hulk and ... wait for it ... Up and a LOT of others. The requirements of 'blockbuster' are that everything and everyone goes boom in the last act. It was slick here, and ... big ... but some of us, paul, aren't going to be fully engaged by that alone.
Besides, Alex didn't like Up in the Air ... he CAN'T be a snob!
But having made my joke I stand by my starting point: there is nothing wrong with making judgements based on high standards. One can say Paul Blart just has to be good Paul Blart, but dammit, if you call that a great movie AND call Godfather a great movie you are killing language AND judgement.
Is Glee The Wire? Not even on the same planet.
Hey I saw Avatar in 3D Imax last night too! 6 o'clock show was sold out, sheesh!
I was skeptical of the movie going in; the CGI characters weren't as convincing as the hype would have you have it. Well the 3D was mind-blowing but still not enough to mitigate the Navi's looks. I'd say that was the weakest part of the movie: The Na'vi are poorly designed visually and poorly conceptualized. They looked rubbery at times, though close-ups were more successful, some more than others.
The flora and fauna and all the tech stuff seemed very well-conceived but the Na'vi were goofy, boring and unimaginative. It's hard to believe they couldn't bring to bear the obvious effort that went into the rest of the movie onto the society at its core.
I found also that the lack of subtlety in the depiction of the "bad guys" was kind of insulting to the audience. The vast majority of viewers can have a little shading in these type of characters. Making them cartoonish really wasn't necessary. And I'm not against broad strokes at all in a movie like this at all, I just think it was overly and transparently manipulative to a degree that was unnecessary and ultimately damaging.
[15] Oh, yeah, I don't understand the iPhone, or even on-line, viewing either. But I'm quite literally disgusted by movie theaters today - the seats, the food, and the crowds. That it costs more makes avoiding them even easier. That a year of it bought us a sweet home theater was exactly the point. Now that we've seen what 3D can be, we might be enticed back, but it will probably be a once or twice a year event.
[18] I was joking. I'll happily take the snob label when it comes to sushi. More importantly, I like many snobs. But at some point the fun does get sucked out.
Your argument about boring is a non sequitur. I guess that's why we rely on Rotten Tomatoes. If 8 out of 10 critics like a movie, we're pretty sure we won't be disappointed. But if you're a critic that usually falls in the minority 10-20%, I think that's an extreme form of criticism. That critic's views become so idiosyncratic that they're unreliable. I'm not saying Alex is that critic. The rule we use also saves us from many mediocre films.
Up's version of the blockbuster ending was hilarious. I won't say more for fear of ruining it.
[19] Yeah, that level of dissection doesn't interest me. I get what you're saying, but that's not why I watch movies.
For example, i just came across this movie list made by snobs. Mulholland Drive as the #1 film of the decade? I mean, I loved the girl-on-girl, but the movie itself was okay. Then scanning the rest of the list, of the movies I've seen, it's the same pattern. It's basically a list of pretty good films where a decent box office is a disqualifying condition. That's not good criticism. That's being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. There are some films on there I loved (Children of Men, Y Tu Mama), but many more that get more love here than they deserve (Royal Tennenbaums, The Departed, AI, Lost in Translation).
Paul,
Just briefly. It isn't so easily slated as 'box office = disqualify" it is much more aiming for box office limits artistic potential. We all know how the film industry plays out today. To make a big budget film work so many rules and formulas have to be accepted (including the sequel possibility). So to say that a list such as that one (which is really quirky, I agree) is a deliberate 'being contrarian' feels off. I'd say that we're just exploring the old (as I said above) art vs entertainment thing ... and I absolutely accept that entertainment CAN be art. But I also am of the view that sometimes (often) artistic vision and scope take a work right out of popularity.
What do we want from 3 hours out on a Friday, or a Netflix rental? Varies a lot. But I wouldn't ever say someone who values an obscure or commercially unsuccessful film is doing it just to be a snob, or contrarian.
[20] Yeah, that level of dissection doesn’t interest me. I get what you’re saying, but that’s not why I watch movies.
I don't know what you're talking about. Why do I watch movies again?
[22] I think that distinction is too easy. I mean, Ironman, the two Batmans, and the first two Spidermans were all as good as anything on that list. The Pixar films even more so. All wildly successful and all very entertaining AND artisitic, at least from my armchair. That none of them made that list tells me more about the bloated sensibilities of those critics (Ratatouille says hello) than about the quality of movies. I mean, Mulholland Drive? Or even The Departed? Okay films, but certainly nothing special. Take The Departed. Besides the director, what was artistic about it? It wasn't even an original script. The performances were uneven. And it was very predictable. Was I entertained? Sure. It was worth the viewing.
"But I wouldn’t ever say someone who values an obscure or commercially unsuccessful film is doing it just to be a snob, or contrarian."
Sorry, but that list was voted on by a bunch of snobs. Obscurity I can deal with. But picking Gus Van Sant or Spielberg just because?
[23] Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I know why I watch movies. I watch them to be entertained. It's a low hurdle, but then I use a filter so I don't waste my time on them. It's my one solace on a Friday night with the wife. Tonight's movie? The Hurt Locker. And she beckons...
Sorry, one last point as I finish my late dinner after work and before showtime. Check out the IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes decade lists. I actually think it proves my point. All of those movies were excellent. But the contrarian opinions are filtered out as noise with the wisdom of the crowd. I seen probably 35 of those 45 movies and I don't disagree with one.
I mean, how could the snobs forget the LOTR movies. Those were artistic and wildly entertaining. I also absolutely loved Pan’s Labyrinth. Cried too!
Crap, my link wasn't formatted properly.
Crap! I wish I was in on this conversation earlier, but I went up to Fishkill to catch a matinee showing of The Book of Eli (more on that later)...
I'm gonna back Alex on this one by saying what he said about Avatar was pretty much what I predicted was gonna happen if he went to see it. UNoriginal story (Dances With Wolves 2153), middling acting, all the thought went into the visualizations. Overall, a good popcorn movie as it has proven to be one of (if not already) the all-time highest grossing movies of all time. Cameron movies make money, good or not-so-good, so that and being able to visualize a concept he's had for fourteen years with prevailing technology is exactly what he wanted and accomplished. Other than that, it's not Star Wars, it's not Terminator, it's not anything but a popcorn movie for teens and young adults (not to mention conservationists). It is what it is.
Alex, definitely see Wall-E. You'll chuckle, and you'll be touched.
And definitely go see The Book of Eli. Impressive work by Denzel and Co. Mila Kunis seems a little New Jersey-ish for the role, but she grows on you and Denzel carries her well. Gary Oldman is a good actor, man, and Jennifer Beals in another Denzel movie turns in a nicely restrained perf. Oh, and any Tom Waits fans here? Nuff said, go see it. I'll have a review up in the coming days.
[27] I should qualify that... if you're really not into religion, particularly Christian themes, don't see it because it'll only piss you off. If you can look past that into the story and performances, you'll enjoy it.
[27] Perfect example where based on the star, concept, and trailer I would want to seen the movie. Then I hop over to Rotten Tomatoes and see that less than half of critics are recommending it. So we pass. It's a brutally efficient approach. I hesitate to use the word "never", but I can't ever remembering being disappointed in a movie we saw based on it.
One unexpected recent surprise: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. A bit ridiculous, but fun all the same. I could see how kids would love it.
[24] I am very easy to please with movies, especially if I go in the theater. I just like watching movies in general. I did see a couple bad movies lately - X-Men Origins: Wolverine was atrocious. There was another one but I forget what it was.
Anyway I don't go into movies looking to analyze them at all. But in a movie discussion, if something in a film doesn't agree with me I'll describe it as best as I can. That's after the fact though; while it's unfolding it's just something that bugs me. In the case of Avatar it was acute because after being blown away visually for an hour, I settled in and the more traditional cinematic aspects came to the fore. And thinking about it afterward I was struck by the contrast between the execution of various things and how the same crew that could work such miracles on one hand could more or less drop the ball on the other. I still enjoyed the movie but when thinking about how amazing it was in some regards it's hard not to consider what could have been had that been their MO throughout the production.
Random movie thoughts: I saw Drag Me To Hell last night and that was pretty great, Public Enemies like all Michael Mann films lacked a certain something and Wall-E in regular rotation in my apartment is a great movie, my favorite Pixar movie and my favorite animated feature only behind The Iron Giant.
Hmmm ... let's see here. List by list.
Y: Definitely in my Top 25 of the Aughts
M: Possibly in my Top 25
N: Definitely NOT in my Top 25 (though it doesn't mean I don't think the movies were necessarily not above average, just not Top 25 material)
NS: I haven't seen
The Film Society of Lincoln Center (only top 25):
Y: 4
M: 2
N: 4
NS: 15
IMDB Top 25 (user voting):
Y: 5
M: 3
N: 13
NS: 4
Rotten Tomatoes (Top 20 critics):
Y: 4
M: 5
N: 7
NS: 4
Overall, the Rotten Tomatoes list is probably the strongest, helped in no small part by the inclusion of multiple documentaries, an area of considerable strength the past decade that is usually overlooked when compiling "Best of" lists. The Film Society of Lincoln Center is easily the most obscure, filled with foreign films that I'm sure will give me that foreign film feeling, sorta like drinking european beers in green bottles always delivers a slightly skunked "green" beer experience. I imagine that after I'm done watching all the "not seen" films, far more marks will be added to the No column than the Yes.
The IMDB list is, well, the opposite of obscure; filled with movies I at best liked but didn't love, but given the source of the ratings, about what I expected.