Enough with the bitchy Facebook statuses, let's get down and dirty.
First off, I liked Avatar, not as a movie, but as a video game. It felt like one of those rides at Universal Studios--particularly the Back to the Future ride where you're placed in front of a giant movie screen and images come flying out at you.
So basically, it's fun. Because rides are fun.
And in many ways, it's a true movie-going experience. This is not something that you can experience watching in your living room. James Cameron said he wanted to make a movie you had to see in movie theaters, and he succeeded.
Now onto the negatives.
If they spent 300 million, then at least one million could have gone to a screenwriter, who could have made the movie's script at least a little bit stronger.
I have a hard time respecting James Cameron when he's one of those directors who basically wants to make silent films. No concern with the story, the characters, or the acting. He just wants pretty pictures on a screen.
I think movies are more than visuals. I think a story is necessary.
Yes, with Avatar, I was transported, but five minutes after I left the theater, the story left me, and that's not what I consider a strong movie-going experience.
I think of Garden State--a little movie with a budget infinitesimally smaller than Avatar. I saw it five times. I still quote it. I have to watch it at least three times a year. It changed my life.
Visually it was very interesting, but overall, it was the acting and the story that changed me.
I just don't think a movie that's ultimately very forgettable and rests completely on the fact that it's visually stunning should be lauded with as much praise as its getting.
To be honest, SHOULDN'T a movie that cost 300 million look that good? And the bigger question: Shouldn't a movie that's able to make an impact on a smaller budget be considered a bigger feat?
Just a thought.
First off, I liked Avatar, not as a movie, but as a video game. It felt like one of those rides at Universal Studios--particularly the Back to the Future ride where you're placed in front of a giant movie screen and images come flying out at you.
So basically, it's fun. Because rides are fun.
And in many ways, it's a true movie-going experience. This is not something that you can experience watching in your living room. James Cameron said he wanted to make a movie you had to see in movie theaters, and he succeeded.
Now onto the negatives.
If they spent 300 million, then at least one million could have gone to a screenwriter, who could have made the movie's script at least a little bit stronger.
I have a hard time respecting James Cameron when he's one of those directors who basically wants to make silent films. No concern with the story, the characters, or the acting. He just wants pretty pictures on a screen.
I think movies are more than visuals. I think a story is necessary.
Yes, with Avatar, I was transported, but five minutes after I left the theater, the story left me, and that's not what I consider a strong movie-going experience.
I think of Garden State--a little movie with a budget infinitesimally smaller than Avatar. I saw it five times. I still quote it. I have to watch it at least three times a year. It changed my life.
Visually it was very interesting, but overall, it was the acting and the story that changed me.
I just don't think a movie that's ultimately very forgettable and rests completely on the fact that it's visually stunning should be lauded with as much praise as its getting.
To be honest, SHOULDN'T a movie that cost 300 million look that good? And the bigger question: Shouldn't a movie that's able to make an impact on a smaller budget be considered a bigger feat?
Just a thought.
Comments
Post a Comment