By the way I saw an NBC piece on it tonight that included Jeffrey Lyons gushing about the movie.

He actually called it "perfect."

Needless to say, I had a hard time containing my laughter.

AndyDursin wrote:By the way I saw an NBC piece on it tonight that included Jeffrey Lyons gushing about the movie.

He actually called it "perfect."

Needless to say, I had a hard time containing my laughter.

If Lyons had gone a step further suggesting that it's a "conservative talking points/right wing leaning" based movie, then hysterical laughter and possibly something being thrown at the TV would have been unavoidable.

Seriously. How stupid and blind can someone be to really see this movie as anything other than the very gorgeous, glossy, and unsubtle left wing propoganda that it is? C'mon. I was looking for Micheal Moore's name somewhere in the end credits.

Let's get real already. This thing makes Ferngully look downright subtle and sublime in contrast for simillar themes and material.

Yes, it has its fun points and it's not all bad by any means but the messages and leanings of this film are unmistakeable and unavoidable.

It certainly is not anywhere close to being a "perfect" movie except again ,the amazing special effects which is all people seem to care about instead of substance but that's nothing new either.


I really thought Cameron was a smarter film maker than this. By being so blatant with the "current day" politics he's already doomed this film to being dated in a hurry, regardless of how awesome it looks.

The only worst offender on that count that I can think of off the top of my head would be Contact having Bill Clinton in it which horribly dates that and ruins any suspension of disbelief for forever and that's before we get into any other issues with that film. That was so stupid. All they had to do is have a fictional president in the thing.



Sorry if I'm breaking your rule Andy but I'm really frustrated with this. I don't care what leaning it is: I'm tired of everything having to be political. Enough!

I go to the movies to be entertained, be stimulated would be nice, and to have fun and escape reality. I think that's why most people go but I could be crazy. Same goes for all sorts of other forms of entertainment.

Eric, I totally agree. I also have no problem with a discussion of political content within the context of the film being discussed or where it's valid -- I just didn't want to have a political discussion for the sake of having one by itself, if that makes any sense. Clearly the political content of AVATAR is more than relevant in a discussion on the movie -- how can it not be, when it's so in your face?

BTW Jeffrey Lyons has always been a lightweight. I think Siskel or Ebert would've eaten him for breakfast back in the day! lol.

AndyDursin wrote: I think Siskel or Ebert would've eaten him for breakfast back in the day! lol.

I really do miss them.

Eric W. wrote:

AndyDursin wrote: I think Siskel or Ebert would've eaten him for breakfast back in the day! lol.

I really do miss them.

As do I. I used to tape their shows and have spent the better part of the last year transferring them to DVD, from a period of about 1986-96...it's really fun to go back and watch them review everything, including loads and loads of movies people have just completely forgotten about.

AndyDursin wrote:BTW Jeffrey Lyons has always been a lightweight. I think Siskel or Ebert would've eaten him for breakfast back in the day! lol.

Did you know he's a Red Sox fan, Andy? I can remember how when he was the critic at WPIX how he and Jerry Girard the sports guy would get on each other.

As for the film, I won't be seeing it because my patience is exhausted when it comes to *any* kind of political soapbox from a rich, filmmaker who has the nerve to assail the system that he profits so handsomely from. I swear, if there's one kind of targeted tax I could devise it would be to stiff millionaire actors and directors with a tax that would require them to turn over most of their earnings to the pet causes they promote and then let's see if they're willing to live by the axioms they try to foist on others or whether or not they run to the nearest tax shelter they can find.

Eric W. wrote:

AndyDursin wrote: I think Siskel or Ebert would've eaten him for breakfast back in the day! lol.

I really do miss them.

I never liked Lyons and most critics I have a hard time watching because Siskel and Ebert were the industry's gold standard back in the day. Ebert is kind of non-relevant without Siskel to "keep him honest" (and vice-versa), but I agree that S&E are SORELY missed.

I can't believe Lyons said AVATAR was perfect.

Lyons got the axe from WNBC last year, and his last show -- the godawful Reel Talk with Allison Bales and him -- was canceled last summer too. So I can't find his AVATAR review -- that NBC news piece must have found him on the street or something, lol.

Speaking of movie review shows, I have a lot of old Sneak Previews recorded as well, back when Neal Gabler hosted with Lyons, and then with Michael Medved (who I've always enjoyed as a critic and author) and Lyons. Both shows were fascinating to watch, especially since Lyons and Medved would basically talk AT each other as opposed to engaging in a debate as Siskel and Ebert used to. Lyons' opinions just came out of nowhere -- I don't think a "major critic" was so off the mark so often as he was at times.

Siskel & Ebert just had an amazing chemistry and passion for film -- you wouldn't ever agree with either all the time (I think Ebert got it right more often than Siskel), but they BALANCED one another perfectly. Rarely were both of them off at the same time (that said I laughed at their review of CHRISTMAS VACATION, which they gave "two thumbs down" saying it was poorly directed and never took off comedically. I'd say 20 years later they were wrong there! . But their reviews and banter were always intelligent and entertaining, regardless of the film they were talking about.

I never liked Richard Roeper, and I hated what I saw of Ben Lyons and Mankiewicz, but I tell you what -- I don't mind the new At The Movies with Michael Phillips and AO Scott. Scott comes off a little too "intellectual" but Phillips is on target a lot of the time -- their reviews are shorter than Siskel & Ebert but it's the first time since the two of them that I'd actually tune in to see their reviews.

Pretty much nails it...a number of sites have picked this up.

^^ Absolutely hysterical. I saw you edited the thread title and that immediately made sense to me but that's an absolute gem. I'm so glad I wasn't drinking something when seeing that.

Eric W. wrote:^^ Absolutely hysterical. I saw you edited the thread title and that immediately made sense to me but that's an absolute gem. I'm so glad I wasn't drinking something when seeing that.

I loved it too! And not only that...but it's also dead on the money accurate!

Lol!!! Where did you find that? Perfect!

A few different sites ran it over the last couple of days. It IS hilarious -- but it's also accurate!!

Finally sat through it. I wanted to like it, and I did think the love story was appealing and touching. But overall I have to agree with Andy's assessment of the film, which I found very tedious, predictable and derivative.

The 3-D effect was particularly annoying and actually takes you OUT of the experience rather than enhancing it. The problem (as with all 3-D movies) is that human eyes are only a couple of inches apart, whereas the 3-D cameras are at least a foot (or more) apart so it totally fails to duplicate realistic depth-perception. As a result the 3-D effect is very distracting and forces you to constantly refocus your eyes, and it actually left me with a headache.

I dread the spate of 3-D movies that are sure to follow...

Paul MacLean wrote:Finally sat through it. I wanted to like it, and I did think the love story was appealing and touching. But overall I have to agree with Andy's assessment of the film, which I found very tedious, predictable and derivative.

The 3-D effect was particularly annoying and actually takes you OUT of the experience rather than enhancing it. The problem (as with all 3-D movies) is that human eyes are only a couple of inches apart, whereas the 3-D cameras are at least a foot (or more) apart so it totally fails to duplicate realistic depth-perception. As a result the 3-D effect is very distracting and forces you to constantly refocus your eyes, and it actually left me with a headache.

I dread the spate of 3-D movies that are sure to follow...

I almost made a "3D" thread for this but since you mentioned it this is as good a spot as any.




Google "CES 2010" and skim a few of the news stories. You'll get the idea pretty fast what's going on. It was all about 3D. You couldn't get away from it if you tried.



You all probably have noticed how the electronics industry suddenly has this huge 3D hype thing going on. That's all CES 2010 had going.

The industry is so desperate to generate some new sales and such that they're really trying to push 3D TVs, 3D Blu-Rays, 3D everything...and yes, you'll have to wear the glasses and yes, excepting the PS3 you'd have to buy new equipment which is totally stupid.

Without getting too technical, what's annoying here and what makes me very cynical sometimes about this industry is that there's a lot of tech out there RIGHT NOW that has the necessary hardware and such to be "3D ready" but of course we all know that it's time to peddle HDMI 1.4 equipment and it would be too fair and easy to actually upgrade hardware with the right firmware where applicable.

I think it's nuts and I'm not sold on it and I'm not impressed at all.



I'll give a few samplers:

http://ces.cnet.com/best-of-ces/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... japan.html

http://blog.ultimateavmag.com/ces2010/3dhdmi_14_myth/

^^ This explains very simply what my biggest complaint here is about all of this and why my cynicism towards this industry continues on quite strongly.

If a person has the right hardware and it's already HDMI 1.3, that should be sufficient for a firmware upgrade where applicable. NO need for HDMI 1.4 whatsoever but the industry is going to push it anyways.

I think this is unbelievably stupid, greedy, and unfair.

I hope it bites them in the rear, quite frankly.





Software:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu-ra ... -ray-18034

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/disn ... h-quarter/



Anyways, this stuff starts trickling out in time for holidays 2010. The fundamentals on this haven't changed since we all saw Captain EO back in 1985. I couldn't care less about it.

Wake me up when I don't need glasses or any other accessories and then I'll start getting excited and take this seriously.

Most analysts that are honest about it say we're 5-10 years away from that sort of thing. The prototypes of TVs that don't need glasses or accessories are just that: Prototypes and they're terrible in their present form.




Here's the problem: A lot of people (except your really rich early adopters that buy everything anyways which aren't a lot of people and never are) already have a lot of nice gear at various price points and they're simply not going to replace perfectly awesome gear just for 3D. No way!



Then of course you have the masses that are just now starting to give HD and even BD a first look NOW.



You still have a ton of people out there who refuse to even pop the extra bucks for HD programming in their house outside of an antenna and so on.

You have a number of people that still don't even own HDTV sets.



My point? The industry are the ones that have the big "demand" for this, not the consumer.

The industry is SO desperate coming off of a global meltdown last year that I think they all but invented this smoke and mirrors out of thin air.

I think they're out of touch with reality. It's as simple as that.


That's my take on all of it.