Critics Consensus: Avatar Is Certified Fresh

Summary

This week at the movies, we've got a strange alien world (James Cameron's Avatar, starring Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana), and a couple on the run (Did You Hear about the Morgans?, starring Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker). What do the critics have to say? Avatar is one of the most hotly anticipated films in years, for a number of reasons: it marks James Cameron's return to fiction filmmaking after a long layoff; its motion capture techniques were the subject of intense pre-release press; and it's the most expensive movie ever made. And now, the verdict is in: critics say Avatar is indeed a visionary picture. Back to Article

Comments

Green Man

Corey Garton

Cutler, I think it's very important to know that no one is taking you seriously right now. Bad troll is bad. Now rebuke me in your post because you like spewing the same false claims that this movie never had over and over to get a reaction out of people :)

Take the bet.

Dec 18 - 08:31 AM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

On it's face, it is difinitive irony to spend $500mil on technology to make a movie with the premise "Technology Bad/Nature Good," and I generally commend you on the observation.

-however-

while I concede to the general irony of the statement, it's predicated on an assumption of hypocrisy by Cameron that he's preaching one thing and doing another, i.e., "YOU save the planet from the soulless machine--brought to you by James Cameron's Soulless machine."
I don't think that's the case, here. Cameron's personal embrace of technology is actually *not* bad per se; he is not polluting more--and indeed, since his world exists almost entirely in a computer, quite a bit less-- than a conventional movie production; think of all the gasoline he didn't use and explosions he did NOT ignite, though they appear onscreen.
So while Cameron has blown the bank in service of high tech, he's NOT doing it at the (disproportionate) expense of some aspect of nature.
Technology Good AND Nature Good.

**I freely state that I haven't seen this thing, yet. I might full well change my opinion about any of this, upon viewing.

Dec 18 - 08:44 AM

Cutler to the rescue

Ted kruts

All i have to say is that a movie that is supposed to change how movies are made does not get an 82%. Princess and the Frog got 82% so basically they are equals

Dec 18 - 08:49 AM

ProducerPaul

Paul Barrett

@Fury.Uk - I'm sorry your 3D experience wasn't up to snuff. It may have been your venue. The 3D in our theater (IMAX) was nothing short of astounding. The colors were muted in a few spots, but I think that's the nature of 3D in general, but plenty of it was still quite vibrant. But I consider the 3D just an added bonus, the film would have still been pretty amazing in 2D. Just the mocap work and how far the tech was advanced is worth the price

@Green Man - yes, go in with an open mind and I think you will enjoy the film. As I said, the haters are going to hate it even if they don't. Which is to say, certain people (and you know who you are) are going to continue to say they hate it even if they secretly like it, because they aren't actually capable of admitting they're wrong.

Dec 18 - 08:50 AM

Cutler to the rescue

Ted kruts

the mocap work? You mean the nothing ordinary mocap work? Vibrant colors? you mean the overly bright and unrealistic colors? Why waste 14 bucks to see a crappy movie in 3DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Dec 18 - 09:00 AM

ProducerPaul

Paul Barrett

Cutler, until you've seen the movie, your opinion mean nothing to me. And even after that, it won't mean much, because you've already determined you're going to hate the movie.

The mocap work is beyond anything done to date. This is a fact, and I know people in the industry who would attest to that. The faces are extraordinarily life-like, and in the shots where there were humans next to the Na'vi, it was virtually impossible to tell what was real and what wasn't.

Yes, some of the colors are exceptionally vibrant, but they work within the context of the rest of the film and the environment. And it's not throughout the film, it was just highlighted a lot in the trailers. It's obvious Cameron was greatly influenced by his time spent underwater and some of the things he saw there. I also think you may be confusing technology with production design. You may not like the way things look and that's fine, but to say the technology is bad is just...well...wrong. Sorry.

Dec 18 - 10:28 AM

Jon C.

Jon Cox

amazing!
James Cameron cant go wrong with 'Avatar'
shame though I thought it would stay at 100%, hmmm
my family and I will be checking it out with the rest of the X-Mas releases

Dec 18 - 09:02 AM

Contraflow X.

Contraflow X

Excellent post sir. I too hope it will live up to my expectations.

And Cutler...TAKE THE BET!

Dec 18 - 09:06 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

lol. My man rle, if you are NOT blown away by this film I suggest you check your pulse. You just might be a vampire. ;-)

Dec 18 - 09:07 AM

rle4lunch

Chad W

@Matanuki. Just as long as I get to be a kewl vampire and not a shiny one with scales...

I hope, I hope, I hope, that the film is good. Not because of the shelling out of $14 at the IMAX, but because I want it to 'actually entertain me'. And while I know that statement might differentiate between the movies that I choose to see (I enjoyed GIJoe because it NEVER took itself seriously, just like the cartoon; read my review of it), this movie (and the director) have sorta painted themselves into a corner by all the BOLD statements that have been attached to the commercials for it.

And yes, I know that's all part of the marketing of it, considering this is the traditional 'slow' time of the year for movies, and it needs all the hype it can get in order to make sure it makes its money back. But, I really do think that this is Cameron's biggest gamble to date (3D is always iffy, even if it's a new type). Not a lot of people like to sit for 3 hours wearing glasses knowing that they'll probably get a headache after taking them off. I also think this is a HUGE gamble when it comes to the story. Cameron dumped a lot of money into a stand-alone movie/story that no one is familiar yet (and I know that there is a potential franchise out of this).

So, if the movie 'takes' to audiences, we'll see more films come of Pandora, most likely making more money than the first one. Ahh, the screwed up irony of Hollywood.

Dec 18 - 10:30 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

lol. Sure thing, bro. No sparkles for you.

But look here, grown men don't play when it comes to their bladders, right? And let me put it like this, I had to piss for an hour n 1/2 watching Avatar last night. Now way was I trying to miss a moment of it!

Allow me reiterate what I earlier said in a harsher tone (lol), anyone who dares to say Transformers 2 was anywhere near this film's level of achievement needs to be slapped in the face with an iron glove.

Dec 18 - 01:11 PM

dj Mark

Mark Marquis

LOL @ Matanuki...that's why I intend to go into the movie fully dehydrated!

Dec 18 - 02:40 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't Tase Me Bro

Has anyone here claimed that this film is God's gift to cinema? Cutler is looking increasingly desperate in his bid to...damn, what IS your point?

No. Cameron has not reinvented the wheel here...but he has improved upon it. And concerning its very FRESH rating, Dystopiandweller said it best:

"Fight Club is at 80%, but it's one of the best movies of the '90s. Requiem For A Dream is also at 80%, and it's a classic now and also finding itself on plenty of decade lists. 2001: A Space Odyssey and Apocalypse Now both had mixed reviews when they first came out. Mulholland Dr is 81% and look at its status now."

I know the haters wanted it to get to New Moon-levels of rottenness, but it just didn't. Get over it.

And, I'll join in:

Cutler...DrManhatten's challenge looks like it still stands: therefore, TAKE THE BET!

Dec 18 - 09:20 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

True, the story is simple and easy enough to follow but "not as bad as TF2" implies that it is bad in some regard, which I have to strongly disagree with. Hell, that it's being compared to TF2 on this board at all is outrageous enough! lol. Some are calling Avatar derivative, probably the soundest complaint. But to fault a film for being derivative is like faulting a pizza for having crust.

@at Cutler, man if you see this film and honestly come out saying you prefer Transformers 2 or, for that matter, Transformers 1, then, bro, I just don't know. I - just - dont - know...

Dec 18 - 09:23 AM

Cutler to the rescue

Ted kruts

Okay lets see the Cameron crazies said it was gods gift to man, Cameron himself has said it, Fox said it. So pretty much you guys are all wrong. Why should i take a bet that is completely one sided? of course it is going to make its money back, 99% of all blockbusters do, will it be the top grossing film of the year? I will take that bet.

Dec 18 - 09:40 AM

Cutler to the rescue

Ted kruts

I mean look at Harry Potter, when you combine worldwide BO, it made its money back in one day.

Dec 18 - 09:41 AM

Thats No MooN

joshua zimmer

I live in Philadelphia and you can't find a ticket no where and trust me i have been looking

Dec 18 - 10:05 AM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't Tase Me Bro

How is the bet one-sided? If the film has no appeal to women, families, etc like you claim...then shouldn't the bet be well worth taking? Using your logic, the bet should be a cinch!

Sure the bet sounds frivolous...but I see that bet as your one chance to start coming close to the vicinity of being right about all the posts, rants, clever name-calling vocabulary (ie, 'tool').

Oh hey...on that "god's gift to cinema" quote...um...after a comprehensive google search...nowhere can it be found of Fox or Cameron saying this. Unless you can cite your purported source Cutler...stop making up stuff to support your very weakened positions. Until you come up with the citation...you're wrong!

So...take the bet and cite your sources or STFU!

Dec 18 - 10:13 AM

The NewHampshire Database

Kirk McCarty

dj Mark...seriously? That's the most pathetic ****ing argument ever. I would've expected better from you atleast.

Dec 18 - 10:21 AM

Cutler to the rescue

Ted kruts

Okay even with a niche audience, it can still make 300 million WORLDWIDE. Will it make 300 million in the US, that is a little more debatable.

Dec 18 - 10:26 AM

Kevin P.

Kevin Pedraza

it made 550 million already lol

Jan 24 - 05:32 PM

ProducerPaul

Paul Barrett

Cutler, until you've seen the movie, your opinion mean nothing to me. And even after that, it won't mean much, because you've already determined you're going to hate the movie.

The mocap work is beyond anything done to date. This is a fact, and I know people in the industry who would attest to that. The faces are extraordinarily life-like, and in the shots where there were humans next to the Na'vi, it was virtually impossible to tell what was real and what wasn't.

Yes, some of the colors are exceptionally vibrant, but they work within the context of the rest of the film and the environment. And it's not throughout the film, it was just highlighted a lot in the trailers. It's obvious Cameron was greatly influenced by his time spent underwater and some of the things he saw there. I also think you may be confusing technology with production design. You may not like the way things look and that's fine, but to say the technology is bad is just...well...wrong. Sorry.

Dec 18 - 10:28 AM

rle4lunch

Chad W

@Matanuki. Just as long as I get to be a kewl vampire and not a shiny one with scales...

I hope, I hope, I hope, that the film is good. Not because of the shelling out of $14 at the IMAX, but because I want it to 'actually entertain me'. And while I know that statement might differentiate between the movies that I choose to see (I enjoyed GIJoe because it NEVER took itself seriously, just like the cartoon; read my review of it), this movie (and the director) have sorta painted themselves into a corner by all the BOLD statements that have been attached to the commercials for it.

And yes, I know that's all part of the marketing of it, considering this is the traditional 'slow' time of the year for movies, and it needs all the hype it can get in order to make sure it makes its money back. But, I really do think that this is Cameron's biggest gamble to date (3D is always iffy, even if it's a new type). Not a lot of people like to sit for 3 hours wearing glasses knowing that they'll probably get a headache after taking them off. I also think this is a HUGE gamble when it comes to the story. Cameron dumped a lot of money into a stand-alone movie/story that no one is familiar yet (and I know that there is a potential franchise out of this).

So, if the movie 'takes' to audiences, we'll see more films come of Pandora, most likely making more money than the first one. Ahh, the screwed up irony of Hollywood.

Dec 18 - 10:30 AM

Matanuki

Matanuki .

lol. Sure thing, bro. No sparkles for you.

But look here, grown men don't play when it comes to their bladders, right? And let me put it like this, I had to piss for an hour n 1/2 watching Avatar last night. Now way was I trying to miss a moment of it!

Allow me reiterate what I earlier said in a harsher tone (lol), anyone who dares to say Transformers 2 was anywhere near this film's level of achievement needs to be slapped in the face with an iron glove.

Dec 18 - 01:11 PM

dj Mark

Mark Marquis

LOL @ Matanuki...that's why I intend to go into the movie fully dehydrated!

Dec 18 - 02:40 PM

boats-and- hoes

DrManhatten J

Look everyone...I'm seriously honored that so many have repeatedly called on Cutler/CAPTAIN to take my little, no-consequence bet. But he won't be doing it because he's a big meanie.

First he tried to alter the challenge with a loaded set of specifics to turn it in his favor. Next he tried to ignore it. Now he's willing to make a new bet on Avatar being the number 1 grossing film of the year...with less than 2 weeks left of the year! What a poopiehead!

Dec 18 - 10:37 AM

Cutler to the rescue

Ted kruts

Ashron i could tell what is real and what is not, the blue cats are so unrealistically done that it is blatantly clear that it is CGI.

Oh so because i wont take your onesided bet i am a poopiehead? Oh god you are a joke Dr.Asparagus. I mean why dont you take my bet that Princess and the Frog was last weeks Box Office king? I mean that is not a loaded bet is it? God you are so diuretic.

Dec 18 - 10:47 AM

What's Hot On RT

New on DVD & Blu-Ray
New on DVD & Blu-Ray

Transcendence, Sabotage, Shōgun...

24 Frames
24 Frames

Pictures of classic movie pairs

Annabelle Trailer
Annabelle Trailer

Horror spin-off of The Conjuring

Laggies Trailer
Laggies Trailer

Keira Knightley is a responsible rebel

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile