Click here to view the embedded video.

The video really illustrates the absurdity of watching a pirated version of Avatar on a small TV, or for that matter pirated movies in general. Some things are just meant for the cinema.

James Cameron on the "set" of Avatar

What makes a film (or any work of art for that matter) memorable for years after it first appears? What are the films that we go back to again and again? The ones with the amazing special effects? The big stars? Or the ones with the great stories that still resonate?

James Cameron makes blockbuster hits. He didn’t necessarily set out at the beginning of his career to do so, but that’s what it has become. From Terminator to Avatar, most if not all of his films have engaged the most up to date effects and techniques and have made (and cost) substantial amounts of money. Despite lukewarm reviews (for the story at least), I expect Avatar will end up being the hit of 2009 (though even its substantial tickets sales will probably barely be enough to cover the costs).

So his movies are popular in the moment. And a few of them have continued to be popular years later. Terminator and Aliens are considered (rightly so) classics of their genre. The Abyss has a loyal following, and even True Lies is shown on television now and again (and personally I do like it).

But with the exception of the first two mentioned above, what will Cameron be remembered for? Mention Titanic, and mostly you will hear about what it cost to make and the ‘King of the World’ Oscar speech. And considering the praise for Avatar has been about its effects, will that be remembered much in the future? Better special effects always come along and the old ones are forgotten (remember the fuss over Tron or Who Framed Roger Rabbit?)

I have not seen Avatar and am not sure if I will. I know if I do see it, I must see it at Imax or there is no point. This is a good thing to me; I appreciate films that embrace the medium for which they were intended. Still, if I’m going to spend that kind of money, I want more. I want a story, and a good one, because that is what we remember.

Yes, when Robert Patrick liquified his body around prison bars it was cool, but we remember a mother trying to protect her son. We remember Ripley kicking alien ass because Ripley is one of the greatest science fiction characters ever created. We remember Ed Harris pounding on his wife’s chest willing her back to life. It is these moments that we go to film for, long after the special effects have worn off.

So in decades to come will Cameron be remembered? Well, of course he will. But for what? I doubt he will care, he’s rich and his name is in the history books; for creating some of the most expensive movies of all time; For creating some gems early in his career; And for utilizing the best technology had to offer. But technology improves and the story fades. And when we all sit around the campfire, there are no special effects, just the story. That is what we remember.

James Cameron's Avatar

You may have heard of James Cameron’s new film, a little movie called Avatar.  Cameron and others have hyped the film to no end, claiming that it will change cinema as we know it (and for $250 million, it had better!).  Avatar features all the hallmarks we’ve come to expect from James Cameron: great action set pieces, amazing effects, evil corporations and cool creatures. Despite its many shortcomings, Avatar is impressive as sheer spectacle and a genuinely exciting experience

In 2154, Earth is overpopulated and starved for resources.  Mankind is beginning to explore the galaxy, and discovers the resource-rich planet Pandora. SecFor, a military-industrial conglomerate has setup shop on Pandora, eager to exploit its natural resources.  There is just one problem: the Na’vi, 12-foot-tall, blue feline–humanoids and the natives of Pandora, don’t take kindly to outsiders. The Na’vi are a tribal society who seek to live in harmony with their planet, but as the humans continue to encroach on Pandora the age old conflict between nature and technology comes to a head.

Enter former Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair.  After the death of his identical twin, Jake is offered a chance to take his brother’s place in the experimental Avatar program.  SecFor has created human-Na’vi hybrids called avatars that can be remotely controlled by the person for whom they have been grown.  The company hopes to use the avatars to foster better relations with the Na’vi.  Shortly after arriving on Pandora, SecFor’s head of security, Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) offers to arrange surgery that will allow Jake to walk again, on the condition that Jake uses his avatar to gain the trust of the Na’vi and provide the Colonel with intelligence.  Over the course of the next three months Jake becomes a member of the local tribe, goes native, and finds himself torn between his duty to SecFor and his newfound loyalty to the Na’vi.

Sigourney Weaver and Sam Worthington in Avatar

Avatar’s plot has been done to death. It’s pretty much Dances with Wolves in space. It’s Fern Gully with big-ass mechs.  Avatar even shares many thematic similarities with Cameron’s Aliens: humanity expanding its frontiers and coming into conflict with hostile alien forces. At times, the film burdens itself with messages about war and climate change, and it feels like you’re being hit over the head with it. Cameron seems to have a hard time reconciling his eco-friendly, pro-environment message with the fact that he enjoys blowing things up. For every beautiful creature and breathtaking vista, Cameron has a sleek piece of military hardware just around the corner, ready to destroy it.

Speaking of beautiful creatures and breathtaking vistas, it cannot be understated how absolutely gorgeous the film is. Avatar looks like no other movie I’ve seen. Cameron’s attention to the smallest detail makes the film’s universe come alive. Add to that his expert application of the 3D effects and the results are stunning. There are a few of those moments where something flies at the screen apparently to remind you that the film is 3D, but those moments don’t ever feel like too much. The 3D really shines in the scenes where it adds depth and scale to a scene: ships look big, the jungles look dense, and the chasms look deep.

Equally impressive are the computer generated effects in the film. There probably isn’t a single shot in Avatar that wasn’t altered, augmented or otherwise changed using computer graphics.  The effects were integrated into the live action scenes flawlessly.  Not only are the Na’vi well characterized, but because their performances were motion captured by the actors who played them, the results are far more realistic than you’d expect of computer-generated characters. From the way they move, to the way the light reflects in their eyes, you’ll be convinced the Na’vi were actually filmed and not generated.

Stephen Lang as Colonel Quaritch in James Cameron's Avatar

Computer generated creatures aren’t the only stars of Avatar, there are some genuine flesh-and-blood actors in the film too.  Sam Worthington (Terminator Salvation, Clash of the Titans) gives a passable, if a little wooden performance as Jake Sully; his Aussie accent comes through on more than one occasion.  Jake narrates the film in a series of log entries, and it’s in these quiet moments where Worthington really shines.  Zoe Saldaña (Star Trek), who plays Jake’s Na’vi love-interest Neyteri, is a little stiff at times too.  I have a feeling that both Worthington and Saldaña may have suffered from Star Wars prequel syndrome; acting against green screens with little or no sets to interact with is challenging for even the best actors.

Sigourney Weaver and Joel Moore are both having fun with their supporting roles as part of SecFor’s science team. Stephen Lang’s villainous Colonel Quaritch is worth mention. It’s been a while since we’ve seen such a great hard-ass on screen. The atmosphere on Pandora will kill a human in under a minute, yet Quaritch foregoes an oxygen mask on multiple occassions in order to more quickly deal with a situation. Quaritch is not a villain per se, he’s just a hired gun for SecFor. His job is killing and he’s very good at what he does. When he finally does start taking things personally, he’s terrifying. Stephen Lang is one of the highlights of the film.

Is Avatar the industry redefining film we were promised?  Maybe. It seems unlikely to become a classic film and certainly won’t provide the same bang when viewed at home. It’s legacy will most likely be technological one: Avatar has pushed many theatres to add new, powerful 3D setups.  Time will tell if 3D is truly the game-changer Cameron claims them to be. The bottom line is that Avatar is worth seeing for the spectacle; this is a film that must be experienced on the big screen. It’s a shame to see the film suffer because the director put so much emphasis on the technology and effects.  If only Avatar‘s generic plot had lived up to groundbreaking visuals; at least Cameron got it half right.

Yahoo Movies has posted the full theatrical trailer for James Cameron‘s upcoming 3D sci-fi adventure Avatar.  Not convinced by that first teaser trailer?  The new trailer offers an expanded look at Cameron’s new film, finally shedding some details on the plot.  Fox also finally advertises the fact that Titanic is not Cameron’s only movie, that he’s actually directed a few other films including Terminator, Aliens and True Lies.

I still think Avatar looks like Dances with Wolves in space, but this trailer sells me on the film a little more.  Be sure to check out our reaction to the 15 minute Avatar preview that hit theatres in August.

Avatar arrives in theatres on December 18th.

Dork Shelf saw the 15 minute preview of James Cameron’s Avatar yesterday.  Having seen it do we think the film is worthy of the hype?  Well, yes and no.

If you were like us and were left generally unimpressed by the teaser trailer for the film, then rest assured that the film looks far superior on the big screen.  The spectacular visuals, aided by Cameron’s deft use and understanding of the new 3D technology, make Avatar unlike anything you’ve ever seen.  Scenes on the planet were so immersive, so full of depth, that we literally felt like we were sitting jungle.  The end result is something that closely mimics the way our eyes work when looking at something in the real world.  It’s not like looking at a screen, but more like looking through a giant window with a constantly changing perspective.

The effect can be as as simple as having blades of grass in the foreground or having trees move through the frame.  There were no obvious moments with objects flying toward the screen, not one use of 3D in the presentation felt gratuitous; it all felt very organic.  Cameron is using the 3D not as a gimmick, but as a legitimate tool to aid his filmmaking.

And what of the computer generated effects?  To say they are stunning would be an understatement.  Cameron has pushed the effects envelope far into the uncanny valley.  The movie has more in common with a Pixar film than a traditional effects driven sci-fi movie.  The CG shots heavily outweigh the live action sequences, and anything that is live action has been modified with effects in post production.  The native inhabitants of Pandora (the giant blue humanoids from the trailer) are so photo-realistic, I had a hard time believing they weren’t just really amazing make-up and prosthetic effects.  The Pandorans are animated using the motion captured performances of the actors.  This lends even more believability to them, you forget that you’re watching a computer generated creature.  Similarly, the environments of Pandora, though wholly otherworldly, are equally realistic and believable.  Now we know why Avatar has taken so long to produce. The long production schedule is surely due to the insane rendering time needed to create this whole world from scratch.

So that’s our reaction to how Cameron’s much vaunted 3D and CGI technology was used, but what about the narrative?

To be honest, the story doesn’t feel terribly original.  Think Dances with Wolves in space.  An advanced society interacting with a primitive one, mostly from the barrel of a gun.  It’s a man versus nature tale; technology versus ecology.  Also, some of the dialogue we saw was pretty clunky.  Maybe Cameron will surprise us, perhaps there’s more to the story.  Keep in mind that what we saw in the presentation was only from the first half of the film.  It was meant as a showcase for the visuals more than anything else; which it more than delivered on.

There is no denying that you will be totally impressed by Avatar‘s visuals.  As for the rest, we’ll have to wait until December 18th to find out if it really is just Dances with Wolves in space, or something else.  With a budget rumoured to be north of $250 million dollars, there is a lot riding on Avatar’s success.  Yes, Titanic was the highest grossing movie of all time, but it’s a very different movie from Avatar.  No mention of Cameron’s other films? You know, the films that are actually in the science fiction genre.  Why not promote the fact that this is from the same guy who made Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss? Just saying.

If you were one of the lucky people to score tickets for one of the Avatar preview events happening all over North America tomorrow, you’ll get to see much more than what is shown in this trailer, and in 3D no less.  Dork Shelf will be at Avatar Day and we’ll let you know what we thought.

There is no arguing that Avatar looks impressive, it’s crazy to think that almost everything in the film is a computer generated effect.  Expectations for this movie are huge, if anyone can surprise us, it’ll be James Cameron.  We’ll have to wait until December to find out if the wait was worth all the hype.

Dork Shelf has received some interesting information from a reliable source regarding the San Diego Comic Con and James Cameron‘s new film Avatar.

Apparently the huge 65,000 square foot H hall at the San Diego Convention Center is being converted into a massive 3D theatre for the event.  This means that not only will Cameron be showing off Avatar at Comic Con, but that it will also be presented in full 3D as the director intended it to be seen.  The hour long panel on July 23rd will feature James Cameron and two of the stars of Avatar, Zoe Saldana and Sigourney Weaver.

Later that day the same hall will play host to the Future of Filmmaking panel with Cameron and Peter Jackson.  We can probably expect some more footage of Avatar and possibly our first look at Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson’s Adventures of Tintin movie.  Spielberg, Cameron and Jackson have been the biggest proponents of this new 3D tech; Comic Con will be the first real public demonstration of what they’ve been up to with the technology.  Every person that has seen footage from Avatar says that it really must be seen to be believed — I guess we’ll find out in a few weeks.  Will it live up to the hype?

Film School Rejects is reporting that directors James Cameron, Gore Verbinski and Zack Snyder have all signed on to produce segments for a new animated Heavy Metal film being helmed by David Fincher. According to the article, three other big name directors are also in negotiations to create segments for the film, but have not been officially signed.  The film which is based on the fantasy magazine Heavy Metal, will be a true sequel to the 1981 animated cult classic of the same name.  Given the talent involved, this new Heavy Metal film has the potential to be absolutely epic.

I saw the original Heavy Metal movie when I was 10 or 11 years old and it at once terrified and amazed me. “They can do that in cartoons?!” I exclaimed to myself.  No one should ever see that much graphic sex and violence in a cartoon at that age, but I will say I was probably better off for it.  I can’t wait to see what these guys do with the film—anything to wash the taste of Heavy Metal 2000 out of my mouth.  Check out the trailer for the original Heavy Metal after the jump.

Heavy Metal – 1981

Click here to view the embedded video.

Terminator Salvation wants to be a great film, but it has big shoes to fill.  The first two Terminator films were excellent, while the third was mediocre at best. Terminator Salvation aims to right the wrongs of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, bringing the franchise back to the darker more serious tone of the first two. The film has a fairly solid concept: a post-apocalyptic war against robots. The movie even has some great actors who turn out solid performances and the special effects are good. How could you go wrong? Based on my description, you would think this movie has all the makings of a great summer blockbuster: unfortunately this is simply not the case.

Full review after the break; spoilers to follow.

I really wanted to like Terminator Salvation. I consider myself a fan of the Terminator series and I was skeptical about the involvement of McG, who directed the Charlie’s Angels movies which I dislike with a passion.

All my skepticism about McG went out the window when I saw the second theatrical trailer, it completely sold me on Terminator Salvation. The trailer made the movie look amazing, which is the point of a well made trailer—it also made me realize that I’m a sucker for a well placed Nine Inch Nails tunes in movie trailers (cf. 300).

If the trailer were the movie, I would have taken back everything bad I’ve ever said about McG. However, as I’ve learned recently the trailer is not the movie, and as a result I still have plenty of bad things to say about McG.

Joseph McGinty Nichol—I mean McG—is a competent enough director, but this movie needed a good director. There are so many little things wrong with Terminator Salvation, things that a good director would have corrected during the production.

For starters, the script for the film is simply awful. The film features many talented actors, including Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Anton Yelchin, Helena Bonham Carter, and even Michael “God Damn” Ironside, but they are given very little to work with. No matter how talented an actor is they need good material to shine, the screenplay for a film really is half the battle.

The actors try, they really do. Christian Bale is a decent actor, but he’s alternately yelling at anyone and anything in sight or growling Dark Knight-style in every other scene. Anton Yelchin was really good as a young version of Kyle Reese, he makes the role played by Michael Biehn in the original very much his own. Bryce Howard is good in the few scenes she’s in, but has no time to develop her character, she’s a non-presence in the movie. Michael Ironside brings the dour demeanour he’s famous for, but his role as the Resistance leader is shallow and underdeveloped. Helena Bonham Carter is utterly wasted, her character’s entire purpose is to relay exposition to the audience. Common’s laughable delivery of the three lines he has was unfortunate. I think the musician should stick to what he does best.

Often the actors’ experience and competence manages to shine though the terrible script, but this doesn’t happen enough. Speaking of actors and their performances in relation to the script, I must mention Sam Worthington and Moon Bloodgood, who are arguably the main characters of the film.

Sam Worthington is going to be a big star, his performance almost makes Terminator Salvation worth seeing. The fact that he can generate sympathy for his character, that Marcus Wright is a likable character at all is simply amazing. Worthington is good in the film, but he’s given literally some of the worst lines I have ever heard in a major Hollywood picture. Worthington’s character could have been far more nuanced and interesting, but not enough time is spent with him for you to ever really care.

His relationship with Moon Bloodgood’s character is painful to watch.  The dialogue between the two is stifled by one awful line after another. Where Worthington can get away with it, Bloodgood often cannot: she’s simply not as good an actor.

One of the major problems I had with the film is that one of the central plot points of the movie is exposed completely and absolutely by the trailer and all of the associated marketing for the movie. Marcus Wright (Worthington), is a cyborg who doesn’t know he’s a cyborg for most of the movie.

Almost the entire first hour of the movie involves the characters and the audience trying to figure out who Marcus really is and what his motives are. As a result half the movie feels like a waste of time as the story goes through the motions of revealing he’s a cyborg. The big reveal, that holy-shit-he’s-a-robot moment, is utterly ruined for most people because they already knew the guy was a cyborg.

Speaking of cyborgs though, the special effects were great. The movie is dedicated to the memory of the late, great effects genius Stan Winston, and they don’t let him down. There is a nice balance of practical and computer generated effects, and they are blended together very well. The terminators themselves looked amazing and believable, not shiny and fake like some prior iterations. The previous Terminator film relied too heavily on CGI, if there is one good thing I can say about McG, it’s that I’m glad he took the effects back to basics.

The much talked about computer generated cameo by everyone’s favourite Austrian muscle man worked surprisingly well. I’m sure it was a difficult effect to pull off, but using practical and computer effects techniques in conjunction really sold it for me.

Effects-wise I really liked the film, but the action overpowers the movie. Gunfire and explosions drown out the characters and the story. Maybe McG realized that the script was absolute shite, and decided that if he had enough to explosions in the film people wouldn’t notice. Also, it wouldn’t be a McG movie without a character riding a dirt bike and going off a jump at some point… just saying.

Terminator Salvation really is a mess of a movie. Most people are just going to go see for the action and effects, which are in no short supply. If that’s all you want, then I highly recommend the movie.

But there is so much wasted potential, the film just strikes me as one giant lost opportunity. The movie doesn’t have heart, something that made the original Terminator and Terminator 2 so great. Salvation is a pale imitation, when it could have been so much more.

Maybe it will be more, maybe there is a good movie to be salvaged from Terminator Salvation. McG claims to have cut out over 40 minutes of footage. I’m sure those scenes he cut were solely devoted to character development, since this version of Terminator Salvation misses them. With the cut footage in mind I might give Terminator Salvation another chance, I’ll wait for a Director’s Cut on Blu-Ray. For now I’ll just call the movie Terminator Salvagable, in hopes that the film can indeed be salvaged.