Did enjoy the Christian bale one though.
Seeing The Terminator here makes me ask one of the film industry's most difficult to answer questions; Is James Cameron a good director?
On one hand, he has directed The Terminator, Aliens and Terminator 2 - three very, very good films. Plenty of directors would retire on the back of such a career.
Opposing that, he has also directed Titanic and Avatar. Genuinely two of the worst things that have ever been committed to film - and I include footage of wars and genocide in that.
They would annoy anyone who has any respect for cinema.I've never seen Titanic or Avatar. I think that they would annoy me, so I've avoided them.
Seeing The Terminator here makes me ask one of the film industry's most difficult to answer questions; Is James Cameron a good director?
On one hand, he has directed The Terminator, Aliens and Terminator 2 - three very, very good films. Plenty of directors would retire on the back of such a career.
Opposing that, he has also directed Titanic and Avatar. Genuinely two of the worst things that have ever been committed to film - and I include footage of wars and genocide in that.
I think Aliens and the first two Terminator movies are just good films. Yes, he relied on effects but those are sci-fi movies and good special effects are, to some extent, baked into the genre.Both Titanic and Avatar are great technical feats, but not great films. It seems Cameron got a bee in his bonnet about proving what can be done, and sunk himself too much in pulling off the technical achievement rather than making a compelling movie.
Take Avatar, fern gully rip off, predictable and ham fisted story telling, a 4/10 as a film.
But - the 3d? fudge me that was amazing. I saw it in IMAX when it came out, and it is to this day the most incredible 3d experience I have had, it was breath taking.
I think you could fairly say similar about Titanic RE the story vs Visual effects.
I wonder, if you frame it in that context, could you say similar of his other films? Id say he had a better balance, more mind on stronger stories, but they were each visually progressive as well.
agreed regarding Aviatar it wasnt the film it was the 3d in the film - it is the biggest boxoffice because of it... even my Nan went twice.Both Titanic and Avatar are great technical feats, but not great films. It seems Cameron got a bee in his bonnet about proving what can be done, and sunk himself too muchag in pulling off the technical achievement rather than making a compelling movie.
Take Avatar, fern gully rip off, predictable and ham fisted story telling, a 4/10 as a film.
But - the 3d? fudge me that was amazing. I saw it in IMAX when it came out, and it is to this day the most incredible 3d experience I have had, it was breath taking.
I think you could fairly say similar about Titanic RE the story vs Visual effects.
I wonder, if you frame it in that context, could you say similar of his other films? Id say he had a better balance, more mind on stronger stories, but they were each visually progressive as well.
agreed regarding Aviatar it wasnt the film it was the 3d in the film - it is the biggest boxoffice because of it... even my Nan went twice.
However he is in the proces of making 4 sequals to Avatar, at a time when the public has said fudge 3d I think they could be the biggest turkeys of all time.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...nderwater-scenes-motion-capture-a8068791.htmlare they really making 4 more avatars?