[QUOTE="Baranga"]
If you had good arguments, yes. The critics comparing it to those movie bring such arguments. Which makes it impossible for others to claim otherwise.
As of now, the denial is hilarious. This isn't a certain movie where Costner's hair was added in post-production, nor the most anticipated prequel of all time that begins with talks of blocades and politics.
not_wanted
You call those good arguments? How can you trust someone claiming Avatar is "the next Star Wars or LOTR" or saying it "has delivered" just because they are movie critics? You may very well not like the movie. Or have you already seen the movie?I've read the script and I followed the production for years. I know that my avatar makes me seem biased, but there's no reason not to by hyped about the first major original IP in years. It's a simple story - basically a space western. Like A New Hope. It's simple, archetypal, yet masterfully told, and that's what matters most. Look at David Lynch's Dune: a visually incredible movie that sunk under the weight of its story. You can't have a better story than Avatar when you're creating this type of movie, a huge space adventure. There's a fine balance between story and the visual component, and Avatar struck it. I am disappointed that some elements were cut, like the dystopian, Blade Runner-ish Earth (although that may be on the DVD), or the purple vegetation. I am also a bit sad that the movie can't possibly explain the world Cameron created. Every little detail, from the floating mountains to the military hardware, has a reason and a detailed scientific explanation. This is an universe of Star Wars magnitude - smaller scale, but more detailed.
Cameron wanted to recreate the "mystical moments" his generation witnessed when 2001 and Star Wars were released. Even only from a technical standpoint, Avatar is comparable to such movies as The Jazz Singer, The Wizard Of Oz, Star Wars or Jurassic Park - it represents the moment when a certain technology finally reached maturity, and was able to draw both audiences and praise based on its strength alone.
How are there so many reviews if the movie hasn't been released yet? Hypothetically speaking, would reviewers keep getting invited to such pre-screening events if they gave poor scores?F1_2004
It was first screened to those that are part of various awards juries. There were advance screenings in Germany and US last week. The world premiere was in London on December 10th, and it's expanding in Europe this week.
Critics are invited to screenings even if they give bad reviews. If not, you bet your ass they'll start a personal war with the studio. They're usually not invited only when they post a few absolutely imbecile reviews to previous movies.
Ebert gave a lukewarm reception to the Avatar preview in August, but his review was very positive.
Log in to comment