James Cameron's Avatar, the event movie of the season, had its London premiere earlier this evening.
Audience members and critics were initially forbidden from commenting on Cameron's costly sci-fi extravaganza — depending on who you listen to, Avatar may have cost more than the Gross National Product of Austria, Argentina, and Algeria put together. (Fox, which at first had kept mum on actual figures, now says that Avatar cost $237 million to make and $150 million to promote.)
But you shouldn't believe everything you hear.
The critical response thus far? Generally positive, sometimes enthusiastic.
In a piece titled "Avatar: hit or miss? We can't really tell you," The Guardian's Mark Brown writes, "by saying Avatar was really much, much better than expected, that it looked amazing and that the story was gripping – if cheesy in many places – the Guardian is in technical breach of the [later rescinded] agreement. It is not a breach, however, to report that other journalists leaving the screening were also positive: the terrible film that some had been anticipating had not materialised. It was good." Cynics, however, "might sneer at the plot," which requires "a certain amount of suspension of disbelief."
US Republicans, for their part, may writhe in agony in their seats when they hear a "deranged general" reminiscent of former Commander in Chief George W Bush, saying, "Our survival relies on pre-emptive action. We will fight terror, with terror."
Following Brown's report — and surely aware that the buzz would be mostly positive — Fox said To Hell with It, and allowed other reviewers to chip in.
Here are three more comments:
"Avatar is an overwhelming, immersive spectacle," writes Wendy Ide in The Times. "The state-of-the-art 3D technology draws us in, but it is the vivid weirdness of Cameron’s luridly imagined tropical otherworld that keeps us fascinated."
"A dozen years later, James Cameron has proven his point: He is king of the world," gushes Kirk Honeycutt in The Hollywood Reporter. "… He brings science-fiction movies into the 21st century with the jaw-dropping wonder that is Avatar."
"The story of Avatar was okay — but probably the weakest part of the whole production," says Empire Movies. "If you step back and look at the basic premise of the movie, it was all pretty simple. The corporate bullies, with the help of the army, step in to take something valuable and they don’t care who they are inconveniencing by doing it. We’ve seen this a million times before on film and probably more times in real life."
Avatar stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel Moore, CCH Pounder, and Wes Studi.
Photos: © Twentieth Century Fox
well… read carefully before commenting..
the author compares it with GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT( GNP ) AND NOT GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT(GDP).. lol… srsly… google before u counter any statement
According to World Bank figures, the GDP of Argentina, Algeria, and Austria put together is $1.146 trillion. No, AVATAR didn't cost that much.
I was fully aware the comparison was way WAY far-fetched. And that was the whole point: AVATAR cost figures have been much, much exaggerated and, as I wrote in the post, "you shouldn’t believe everything you hear." (Or read.)
I do know the difference between billions and millions. I have neither, but would be happier with the former. (Though I'd settle for the latter as well.)
The writer of the article needs to keep a sense of proportion when saying "Avatar may have cost more than the Gross National Product of Austria, Argentina, and Algeria put together". Obviously confusing millions and billions, even if the goal is too emphasize the excessive cost of the film this is a bit far fetched.
You wrote "Avatar may have cost more than the Gross National Product of Austria, Argentina, and Algeria put together. (Fox, which at first had kept mum on actual figures, now says that Avatar cost $237 million to make and $150 million to promote.)"…
You made a mistake…. THe GDP of such countries is in billion not million……