First Review of Avatar Special Edition

brumgrunt writes "Den Of Geek has the first review of James Cameron's extended cut of Avatar. Its thoughts? 'As opposed to, say, the extended cuts of Aliens, Terminator 2 or The Abyss, the new scenes add little of particular note to everything we've already seen.'"

Comments

I doubt it...

[ZeRu]

I doubt it features humans coming back to Pandora with 100x more firepower :o

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.

Re:Really?

[TheViciousOverWind]

Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

I'm interested in hearing what movies you actually think are any good?

There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it.
It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

Re:Really?

[boneclinkz]

There's really a trend in going all "That movie sucks!" against every popular movie, and I'm getting tired of it. It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.

I would compare it to Star Wars, really. It was an ambitious movie with a cliche plot, passable acting, and very impressive special effects. I enjoyed it in the theaters and now own it on blu-ray. It's not The Usual Suspects, by a long shot, but it is a satisfying movie in its own way.

Re:Really?

[kestasjk]

There was a great movie released in France by an independent movie a couple years ago about a heroin addict's fight to save his sister from cancer..

It didn't have a happy ending or great production values, but .. you haven't seen it and I have so I can act as savvy and cultured as I like and look down my nose, and isn't that what seeing movies is all about?

Re:Really?

[Junta]

It may have been an entertaining sort of flick, but I wouldn't give it suspenseful. Nor would I give it particularly any credit for being particularly thought provoking.

To be suspenseful, it would have required that the story was not 99.9% predictable. In a single viewing of a 90 second trailer, the entire plot is already known, all plot twists are pretty well trivially guessed because we've seen this same basic film countless times already. You simply can't build suspense in that sort of flick.

To be thought provoking, it would have to be subtle or somehow distinct from the general sentiment beaten into the minds of the general populace over and over and over again by simply looking at TV or internet for about 15 seconds.

It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show. Sure, it can be fairly called good by some standard, it's shiny and nice to look at and has 'oohs' and 'aahs', but it doesn't have any particular depth that warrants points in the suspense/thoughtfulness aspect of evaluating a movie.

Re:Really?

[pete_norm]

It's the first movie that has ever had visuals like that. Why would you walk out? It's like walking out on the first "talkie" because the story was boring.

Usually the goal of a movie is to entertain you, not to be a technology showcase. If he was not entertained, it's pretty normal he walked out. A movie that is all technology and no story doesn't seem really appealing to me.

Re:Really?

[IndustrialComplex]

Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?

You may be missing your ADD meds. No offense, but people like you must have a hell of a lot of money to blow if you would budget 3.5 hours of your time to go see a movie (travel+film) only to walk out and then have to figure something else to do with your remaining ~3 hours.

I just can't imagine someone having such a low tolerance that they would walk out of a movie like Avatar. It's not Citizen Kane, but it's not Manos: The Hands of Fate either.

Besides, what the hell did you expect? You are obviously someone who has very particular taste, how could you not know what you were walking into?

At $13/ticket (don't know what 3d costs around you) I could probably find something in even some of the most boring movies. Hell, mocking the movie with my friends is easily worth that amount.

Re:Really?

[Pennidren]

Plot summary: "smurfs with penises on their heads use gay beastiality to mind-control animals into helping them defeat the evil white man"

Terrible summary. They were cat-smurfs.

Re:Really?

[Mongoose Disciple]

I did however enjoy the movie and i guess that's the point. I don't love the movie like everyone else seemed to, but I don't hate it either.

Yeah I'm kind of surprised at how many people here are ragging on it so hard.

The movie isn't the second coming of Citizen Kane, but if you've seen the trailer or commercials for it, you pretty much know what you're getting into if you go see it. If you like that kind of movie, it's at least watchable in the theatre. I put people who went to see Avatar and now have to talk about how it was a giant stinking pile in about the same category as my friend who keeps dating strippers and then complains that his girlfriends are always crazy, materialistic, and cheat on him.

Maybe the problem is that kids these days are spoiled and didn't live through the relative drought of good sci-fi movies that we did. (And don't even get me started on fantasy.) Back in the day we had to walk through snow and razor blades uphill both ways to see even terrible sci-fi movies because that might be all you got in a given year. Also, somebody should get off my lawn.

Re:Really?

[mrchaotica]

Apparently everyone, except the scientists with Avatars, is blood thirsty and 100% willing to commit genocide. That portion was way too over the top for my liking.

Really? I found that aspect to be completely and easily believable -- the most so of any aspect of the movie. Not only has it happened many times in real life (both historically and currently), but the circumstances in the movie show the environment most conducive to it: the humans depicted weren't a cross-section of society; they were mostly ex-military (i.e., trained to perform distasteful or morally-iffy tasks without question) and working for a company devoted to exploiting the planet's resources. Once the natives started getting in the way of that, it's easy to see how they became pests to be exterminated in (most of) the humans' eyes.

That's the important thing, by the way: the humans weren't really genocidal in the sense that they wanted to destroy the natives on purpose out of malice; they just lacked empathy and saw the natives as beasts rather than people. Except for the military villain guy: the natives (and the protagonist) pissed him off enough that they went from "obstacle" to "enemy" for him.

The casual genocide depicted in Avatar is no different than has happened throughout history, from the Roman legions to the East India Company to Halliburton.

Re:Really?

[vadim_t]

1. Point

2. Yes, it's a good base. But it's still small and all surrounded by foreign potentially hostile land. Earth is 4.37 light years away, and supplies take 6.75 years to arrive, in very limited amounts. So if the humans send a message "Help! We need more bullets!", they can expect to get a shipment in 11 years the earliest. Even if a supply ship is already heading their way and happens to have the right stuff on it, it almost certainly isn't arriving next week.

So that means waiting for supplies is out. They have to manufacture on-site. But for that they have to go out, and the Na'vi can take their time, and just snipe people with bows when they find an opportunity. They'll probably clear the base before Earth gets the message that help is needed.

In my view, all that scary stuff they have there is mostly a deterrent. In a long term struggle it'd break down much faster than it could be replaced, and then they'd be screwed. Which is why they needed a way to land a crippling blow on the Na'vi.

3. I think this is pretty obvious from that they have the whole avatar program and scientists in place. If just rolling over the Na'vi was an acceptable option none of that would really be needed.

4. Given the distance they really can't have a meaningful conversation. But it was my understanding that what was sent to Pandora wasn't an annihilation force. Also, given the horrible expense of shipping stuff there, the shareholders most definitely won't want a war. It's their own money they're spending there, they're not a defense contractor that happily lives on tax money.

Special Edition?

[crow_t_robot]

Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.

Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre

[gman003]

Well, the main thing is that it was a "spectacle film". That's an almost unheard-of genre, especially nowadays. The whole point of that genre is an archetypal storyline and a huge focus on scenery and special effects.

Probably the only other well-known example would be "The Ten Commandments", which was one of the last. Huge production costs, big-name people, and what the 1950s considered top-of-the-line special effects. You can see elements of the genre elsewhere ("2001" is a well-known partial example), but there are very, very few pure examples dated after WW2.

People don't watch a spectacle film for the interesting, innovative story. They watch it because of the scenery and special effects and the sheer spectacle of it all. The early ones were basically "look how much I spent making this movie", back when "making this movie" was enough to get viewers.

If you came into it expecting a good sci-fi movie, of course it won't meet those standards. That's like judging a Bond movie by sci-fi standards: it doesn't compare well because it isn't supposed to be compared at all.

On a more personal note, I watched it months after release, on a rented DVD, headphones, and laptop. It was still an interesting movie, better than much of the stuff Hollywood puts out. Not an "instant classic" or anything, but it wasn't horrible, in my opinion.

Re:I wasn't impressed with it at the theatre

[wisnoskij]

I never really understood peoples problem with it. It seemed to me to at least have a better plot then many many other movies, not that that is saying all that much.
So maybe it did not have a above average script, but did anyone really think that it would have one? Personally I thought Titanic was pretty stupid, and its main gimmick was also having the top graphics technology of the time, far surpassing all other films.

Personally I really enjoyed Avatar and thought it should of been longer, but then I was more interested in learning more about Pandora the world then the story.

Re:Big science plot hole

[space_jake]

Same reason Bond villians never just put a bullet in Bond's head.

Re:Big science plot hole

[Drakantus]

First off, I thought Avatar was a great entertaining movie. It wasn't incredibly realistic and the story was a rehash of the same story we have heard so many times, yet still entertaining. That said, while the movie has a few realism problems I find your argument a bit silly.

You missed a few important details and possibilities.

- The humans came to Pandora not with the goal of wiping out the Na'vi, but with just digging some rocks out of the ground. Some military was sent along to encourage the locals to cooperate, but the original mission was not anything like "destroy worldtree".

- As you have shown, it's a very long round-trip. After deciding to attack the Na'vi, it's not like the humans can run back to earth and grab the big guns, they had to use what was available.

- Your basic premise "well if we have fast spaceships we must have amazing laser guns too" isn't really a valid argument. look at the past 50 years, computers and technology have made amazing leaps and bounds, but we still put on pants one leg at a time. Great advancements in spaceflight doesn't automatically mean we would also have equal advancements in weapons.

- The natives used bows and arrows, which couldn't even pierce the armor on the human aircraft without additional velocity. Projectile weapons are plenty enough to kill them and energy weapons could have been considered crazy overkill.

- The humans on Pandora were from a corporation with some hired ex-military mercenaries. Even if earth has developed stronger energy weapons, it's very possible such "WMDs" are limited to the government military, I don't see GM and Ford running around with nuclear bombs so I don't see why a corporation of the future would have free access to the latest and greatest weapons we have developed.

- Long trip, limited energy. Maybe energy weapons just aren't feasible given that the majority of energy collected needs to be used to power the vehicles, mining equipment, life support, and ships.