Jump to content

Chen G.

Members
  • Content Count

    4402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chen G.

  • Rank
    Frequent Poster

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ramat Gan, Israel

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That’s very decent of you. Very decent indeed, James.
  2. I don't hear people talking about it, either. But they know what it is. If you say Avatar, they'll know its "that film with the blue aliens". It doesn't sound like much, but it does mean that people recognise this film. As for Alita, it wasn't a James Cameron directed film, and that reflects both in the film itself and its box office. Avatar 2 isn't going to be Alita.
  3. The Avatar sequels will make money by boatloads. Not OG Avatar money (its telling that Cameron held back on producing all four simultaneously), but loads nonetheless. People can say all they want about Avatar not permeating the popular culture like other franchise films, but at the end of the day - people do know what Avatar is - and that's a very good place to be at, as a filmmaker. And certainly, James Cameron is a better filmmaker than the Russo brothers, and that's got to count for something.
  4. Its a James Cameron film. If there's one thing James Cameron is good at, its making money. Lots and lots of money.
  5. Until Avatar gets a re-release before Avatar 2... Doubt James Cameron at your own risk!
  6. Its really not so much a religious allegory as much as it a simple glorification of the space age. If the aliens use the Monoliths to help push humanity along its evolutionary tract, and the last two Monoliths are in space, then manned space travel is the route to the next step in evolution. That's the theme of the film: its that simple; which - of course - isn't to say that its not potent. I mean, I love that Kubrick took the science fiction genre and played it as though it was one of the big-screen historical epics of the time. Its certainly beyond impressive. But don't make it into something it isn't.
  7. Without being told, you wouldn't really be able tell that omniscient aliens were in fact behind the Monoliths or the illusion of the room within which Dave finds himself.
  8. I don't love Apocalypto that much. Besides, it somehow seems petty to argue those sorts of things too much.
  9. It wasn't a test audience showing: it was the bloody premiere. Then it was judged to be mind-numbingly slow and was cut shorter. I probably would find the longer cut boring, too, but it should still be available.
  10. I never liked the pacing of that film, but to think it was twenty minutes longer is just mind-boggling. Although maybe something in those twenty minutes would have made the ending a bit less cryptic. As it is, you need the book to really understand what's going on and, in that regard, that film is not a standalone experience. But I do think the original cut of the film should have been made available. Just out of principle.
  11. I have no issue watching a three-hour film in one sitting. It depends on the movie.
  12. Yeah, but in a 1950s epic, its necessary, because each part is its own story, with its own beginning, middle and end. I'll watch Braveheart all the way through in one sitting, but I'll watch the shorter The Bridge on the River Kwai with a break because it was edited to be seen that way.
×
×
  • Create New...