AVATAR Thread: POCAHONTAS in Space!

Message

Paul MacLean · #46 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:37 pm

I have to say I find it absolutely nutty that the film is rated PG-13, for "intense epic battle scenes and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking."

Smoking???

Eric W. · #47 Post by **Eric W.** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:39 pm

Paul MacLean wrote:I have to say I find it absolutely nutty that the film is rated PG-13, for "intense epic battle scenes and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking."

Smoking???

Next we'll see a rating for a movie given like that if someone in it is obese or if someone in the movie is eating "too much sugar or salt."

It all comes from the same place.

Monterey Jack · #48 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:29 pm

I remember Twister getting a PG-13 "For intense depictions of very bad weather".

Paul MacLean · #49 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:15 am

Now we know why Lord of the Rings was PG-13...

AndyDursin · #50 Post by **AndyDursin** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:09 am

This UK piece says the movie's 3D has left some audiences feeling sick.

Guess I'll have to eat early before seeing this, lol.

Paul MacLean · #51 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:05 am

In any case this is probably the only new film I really want to see. If nothing else it will certainly be a cool thrill ride, with action, romance and a score with actual themes (remember when that was true of MOST movies?).

AndyDursin · #52 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:10 am

Seeing this one tonight, and I am going to fork over the $$ for the 3-D on top of it (Merry Christmas James Cameron!).

I believe this is the first 3-D movie I've seen in theaters since I was 9 years old watching AMITYVILLE 3-D (outside of being at Disney World), so I'm sure the experience will be greater than that one!

Eric W. · #53 Post by **Eric W.** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:57 am

AndyDursin wrote:Seeing this one tonight, and I am going to fork over the $$ for the 3-D on top of it (Merry Christmas James Cameron!).

I believe this is the first 3-D movie I've seen in theaters since I was 9 years old watching AMITYVILLE 3-D (outside of being at Disney World), so I'm sure the experience will be greater than that one!

Looking forward to your review.

AndyDursin · #54 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:13 pm

Unbelievably cliched and trite story + lack of character development + heavy-handed political sermonizing = Cameron's weakest film, and more junk food for the TRANSFORMERS crowd.

Watchable but disappointing, I was never once emotionally engaged by this film. And I was shocked at how simplistic it was on every level. The creatures are fascinating and interesting, but the dialogue and story have been ripped out of dozens of other films. The story has major gaps which aren't explained, the characters are never developed, and one cliche after another is paraded out as if it's the first time you've ever seen it. Maybe if you're 13 years old it works (maybe that's the point), but I really was just detached from the whole experience and very disappointed.

And I guess it's ironic -- here I am praising Horner's music for the last few years and he writes a real disappointment with this score. The main theme is GLORY with a note changed. There are wailing female vocalists, "ethnic" music that sounds cobbled out of THE NEW WORLD and of course, ALIENS and KHAN orchestral stabs. I guess he must not have been inspired by the film because this is as lazy a score I've heard from him in years, regrettably.

The 3D was good but nothing extraordinary. A fellow movie-goer stopped to ask my friend and I what we thought of the 3D when the credits rolled, and he said "what did you guys think? Pretty underwhelming. I was expecting more" and I totally agreed.

As far as the politics go, Al Gore and other tree-huggers will be thrilled. Cameron goes to great lengths to establish that white American males are the galaxy's greatest problem (remember the military diversity he displayed in ALIENS? It ain't here). I know this shouldn't bother me, but it does -- does EVERY bad guy in this movie have to be a caucasian male? Seriously, it's unbelievable. There are dozens and dozens of "bad" soldiers and every single one of them is a white American male...no wonder why the film has drawn raves from European critics.

At this point I am guessing the real reason we haven't seen TRUE LIES on video isn't because Fox doesn't want to release it, but because Cameron is ashamed of it. After sitting through this laughable social-eco treatise (there is a tree of life for crying out loud) I am willing to wager that's the reason.

Monterey Jack · #55 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:58 pm

AndyDursin wrote:And I guess it's ironic -- here I am praising Horner's music for the last few years and he writes a real disappointment with this score. The main theme is GLORY with a note changed. There are wailing female vocalists, "ethnic" music that sounds cobbled out of THE NEW WORLD and of course, ALIENS and KHAN orchestral stabs. I guess he must not have been inspired by the film because this is as lazy a score I've heard from him in years, regrettably.

What's really disappointing about the score is that Horner supposedly had a FULL YEAR to write it, and he came up with this?

Miklos Rosza had a year to write Ben Hur, and look what he came up with. Horner gets a year, and it's just the latest re-heated stew of abitrary "ethnic" noodling and vocalizations, the Glory/Prokofiev theme, and the mother-cussing Danger Motif tracked over everything (my eyes literally closed when I first heard it less than thirty seconds into the movie). What a wasted opportunity.

AndyDursin · #56 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:05 am

So much of the movie was cliched that I guess to some degree it was appropriate that Horner wrote a totally cliched score. It is hugely disappointing but since the movie really offered no tangible human connection, I think he fell back on his old bag of tricks. The ALIENS stab, the GLORY motif (plain as day since it's the principal thematic tissue in the film!), the TROY vocalizations...just a big stew of musical cliches.

As I said, it's too bad, because he hasn't done this in a long while. There just wasn't a lot in the movie for him to hold onto -- the film is very busy and very long, but there's no center or heart to it. There are almost no 'reflective' moments between characters, which is what he excels at, so his score almost suffers for that reason alone.

AndyDursin · #57 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:41 am

One other thing about the 3-D in this movie -- as expensive as the 3-D was, as detailed, and as discussed as it's been, I will take Michelle Rodriguez in a tank-top over any CGI'd blue-skinned female creature any day.

Monterey Jack · #58 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:54 am

AndyDursin wrote:One other thing about the 3-D in this movie -- as expensive as the 3-D was, as detailed, and as discussed as it's been, I will take Michelle Rodriguez in a tank-top over any CGI'd blue-skinned female creature any day.

OH yeah...

Paul MacLean · #59 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:31 am

AndyDursin wrote:I will take Michelle Rodriguez in a tank-top over any CGI'd blue-skinned female creature any day.

Unfortunately she won't take you, me or any other guy (unless he looks like Kristanna Løken!)...

Paul MacLean · #60 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:31 am

Oops! Double post!