Thread: Avatar

astounding, extraordinary visuals.

emotionally lacking.

narratively lazy. INORDINATELY long, and it drags (and takes a long time to take off). terrible rhythm; no flow. badly in need of an editor -- both script and film.

moralising but morally empty.

the story and characters are not at all engaging. but it looks GOD DAMN AMAZING

Originally Posted by sycld

a summary of the last 20 years of mainstream cinematography

this is a really useless and silly comment

Originally Posted by sycld

christ gwahir it is true. most films that are billed as "action" flicks are 2 and a half hour special effects extravaganzas with shallow characters, and plots that would be forgettable if they weren't so simple. They often too are nauseatingly moralizing.

yes, what you're saying is right, but it's also stinkingly obvious. it's also not new. terrible movies were always being made -- they're just more popular these days. and there's more of them -- but of course there are, because there are millions more movies these days than there were.

but it's also not fair to lump "the last 20 years of mainstream film" into that category, because as we'd all agree, some truly great movies have come out of mainstream film in the last 20 years.

Originally Posted by sycld

i would add that the best films are often less popular among audiences, but of course that would be "strikingly obvious."

firstly i said stinkingly obvious lrn 2 adverb

anyway this has not always been true; in the past, better movies got more recognition and audience love than they typically do nowadays

anyway what i did was summarise my criticisms of this movie in particular and all you did was say that i could apply that to lots of other movies -- not that useful a comment really

Originally Posted by sycld

a summary of the last 20 years of mainstream cinematography

I agree with you. Most films now days you can figure what's going to happen next and that doesn't engage you very much. They got visuals and that's all.