| heruamon said: ^^^ Sorry Tarheel, but I'll have to agree with Reasonable about the points that he made. First off...you have to see the movies multiple times to be able to truly formulate an informed opinion on the film, so I don't think he was back tracking. The first time you see a movie like Avatar, you’re totally in awe of the lights, camera, action, or you’re focused on the script. The movie had A LOT of plot devices, and that detracts from the originality, creativity and brilliance of storytelling…it doesn’t mean the movie is bad, or deficient, it just means it could have been better. At two hours and forty minutes, shouldn’t have been that critically to do a stronger job of storytelling. Overall, the movie is truly a must see, imho, and probably a multiple must see for movie buffs, but it’s no greatest film ever…and I think that’s Reasonable’s point…it could have been, had the story telling been better. The cinematography is that great dude…it’s the best ever, imho. Had the story been better, I think this could have won best picture and best director. |
Unless you're going to back up your argument, you're not really bringing anything to the discussion. You can't just say something as fact and expect everyone to believe you. You need evidence from the movie. Also, I didn't say it was the greatest film ever. I acknowledged the story telling wasn't as good as the visual experience, but I felt it was still very good. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. By contrast, Reasonable's posts are written in a much better manner. He makes claims, but he cites scenes, characters, and decisions from the movie to justify them (even if he's not taking everything into consideration ;) ). Film analysis doesn't work by getting a consensus of general opinions (i.e. a lot of people think it's good, so it must be good). You need to critically analyze the work, and make your argument.
Again, your complaint about the length doesn't have any real merit because your complaint about story telling isn't backed up by any evidence. However, I will say that most of that extra time was spent developing the world, not the story (a lot of it goes to scenes like the one where Jake plays with those spiral plants, pats the light-up mushrooms, or feels the tentacle/branches of those ancestor trees; they're small, but they add up quickly).
