Avatar, what I know about this movie is that there are a bunch of blue “people” that are fighting against each other or against one thing. In other words, I have never seen this movie and the most I have ever even read about this movie are the two reviews that you just had us read. Out of these two papers I have come to understand that Avatar has very good quality pictures and the 3D is very good as well. I also learned that the main character, Jake, is the hero of the movie.
In Avatar Jake becomes the top dog, or the guy that the movie is revolved around. I am not sure exactly what the story line is except that Jake runs away and lives with some other type of people and then he falls in love with the guys daughter… I think… I have also learned that that there are TWO villains in this movie. One being a bureaucrat, Parker, who wants to rule everyone and everything and the second one is Colonel Quartich, the only thing that I really got about him is that he seems bigger than life, which I am assuming means the big mean guy.
This movie did cost a lot to produce but the writer-director also made a lot of money off of it in the end. This movie is to be known as one of the best movies in 2009, but I would sure hope so with it costing $300 million to produce. What I am still not sure about is what is the movie about? One one of the reviews the author had said that Avatars “are stationed on the Na’vi planet to extract some rare and fantastically valuable mineral.” But then after that, he even questions what are the minerals.
These two reviews have a lot of similarities and differences. My first main point is that the first review by Tom Maurstad got straight to the point of his point and did not drag the review on.
The other review by James Berardinelli just had a lot of unnecessary information. With Berardinelli’s review I became very uninterested because he just kept going more and more in depth. Maurstad’s review was a lot better because he would state his opinion about things back it up and then move onto the next thing.
What I did like about Berardinelli’s review was that he would give more history about the movie and so it helped understand the movie for people, like me, that have not seen the movie. In Maurstad’s paper he was a lot more straight to the point and would move onto the next thing without fully helping people understand his statements. I am not saying both of these authors did it in their whole paper but in some parts of it they both did.
A major similarity they both had was the compare and contrast to other movies. For example they both mentioned the movie Titanic. This movie fit in with Avatar because they both have the same writer-director. But that is not the only thing. They both have a lot of the same romance story line, so it sounds (I have not seen either of these movies).
Another similarity is that they both talk about DNA. But what is funny is that they are both using DNA in a different way. Maurstad is talking about actual DNA, mixing human and alien DNA. But Berardinelli is talking about the cinematic DNA for the movie being 3D. I remember when the movie first came out hearing how DNA had a role in this movie, but I never realized that it was that big or important of a role in the movie.
These two reviews over the same movie have a lot of similarities and differences even though it is the same exact movie. Hundreds of people can watch the same thing but from those hundreds of people, they can get hundreds of different opinions and preferences on just that one movie.