Worst movies of the yearFollow

Which is fine and I thought it was an entertaining enough film. But nothing in that film was deserving of any awards except for technical elements and production. The writing, acting, directing, etc were all garden variety and riding on the coattails of a bajillion processor cycles.

That's all it was supposed to be.

Oh I remember a movie that stunk BAD - Sunshine Cleaning.

Wolverine.

I loved the X-Men trilogy, but *wow*, that was ridiculous. Smash and I were actually laughing so hard we had to pause it a couple times during scenes that were not supposed to be funny.

Nexa

Because everything about it was terrible.

It's not just that the plot was terrible; there were simply no redeeming qualities. The jokes were the worst of any of the high budget superhero movies. The action was terrible; I've seen lone wolf projects with superior action scenes. The art design, while being extremely expensive, makes every transformer looks like a collection of scrap metal, completely unable to discern what they are supposed to be.

Transformers also receives a lot of attention because it is the worst movie(s) made in recent times that has been so very, very popular. It's the "Do the Right Thing" of the masses.

There was much more to Avatar than CGI.

First the characters were written exceptionally well. Even if the roles they were designed for make you roll your eyes, the dialogue written for the role, the animation during conversation, and the voice acting all brought it to life very well. Miles Quaritch may have been a one dimensional army sergeant who loves using guns too much, but he was a great execution of that cliche.

Second, there was a very high and consistent level of detail. I'm not referring to polygon count; I'm talking about art design. Most of the creatures on the moon, save the Na'vi, have a secondary set of forelimbs. They aren't just random alien designed; they were made to look as if they could have all evolved from the same parent species. Same for the flying monsters. The larger predator was designed so that it looked biologically similar to the others it preyed upon. And even though I know the luminous plants exist for the sole purpose of making particular scenes seem wondrous and magical, they were introduced consistently and subtly enough throughout the film that when the scene hit it didn't feel as if they were put in specifically for that purpose, it felt as if they happened to be there.

Avatar is a completely constructed setting. Many constructed settings have the issue of feeling elements were designed specifically for the viewer to watch; that had this been a real place without an audience, these objects or events wouldn't have existed. Avatar greatly avoids this; and although the plot of the movie and culture of the Na'vi feel completely contrived, the world does not. Except for those darn floating mountains.

I think it's important to acknowledge that while Avatar wasn't a very good movie, it did have some very well executed elements. Something other directors and writers could learn from.

Edited, Jan 25th 2010 5:06pm by Allegory

Were we watching the same movie? The characters weren't so much "written" as pulled from a catalog of stock personalities.

We're measuring along different dimensions here. The characters were designed very poorly. They were pulled from a catalog of stock personalities as you said, but they were written very well. They were excellent executions of those stock personalities.

I guess the phrase "It's not what you got, it's what you do with it that counts," applies here. If you're an actor who has been cast as a terribly bland and one dimensional character, that doesn't mean you can't play that character very well.

Edited, Jan 25th 2010 6:01pm by Allegory

I mostly agree with Allegory. The world building was very good except the na'vi - because they are humanised so much - four limbs, human teeth, cry - to make the audience relate to them, it disconnects them from their surroundings somewhat, which is somewhat ironic. The plot is mediocre rather than bad. The characters are generally caricatures, but they are well executed and the dialogue was, on occasion, quite amusing. Personally, if I were going to rate it:

Visual: 10/10
Audio: 7/10
Plot: 5/10
Characterisation: 6/10

Personally, I think that being the pinnacle of achievement in a single category is easily enough to make up for its flaws, which I feel are generally exaggerated anyway. I might not describe it as a great film, though I am unlikely to use that phrase in anything approaching a serious review anyway, but I would suggest that anyone sighted watch it.

Sorry. Not seeing it. There was nothing about any of the characters that didn't seem replaceable and at no time did I feel like "Oh no! I hope [marine/native-cat chick/biologist/completely forgettable bearded guy from Bones/etc] is okay!". Because none of them came to life for me except as plot devices to show more nifty CGI.

I'm sure you feel otherwise and it's cool -- it's "art" so there's nothing to empirically "prove" but I can't agree with you on that point.

You should have seen it in 3D, it's really the only way.

Yeah, a lot of people I've spoken with said that so I am going on Saturday night to see it again in 3D. There is an IMAX around here so I'm going to go there to see what it's like.