Tenzo wrote >>
Lets put it this way
It's no worse than Titanic
if you put the bar that low you'll never be disappointed.





I didn't see it in 3D but would add to the other complaints that the plot was bollocks. If they're going to spend a bajillion and two dollars on a film why not drop another 20k and hire a writer? CGI nonsense was sweet and prolly worth 8$ but I wish they'd made it about 30mins shorter.
I thought it was ok overall, just because the effects were good. The acting, especially at the beginning of the movie, was so terrible that it was distracting. And it was coming from actors who I've seen do decent jobs in other films. I had the feeling that they started shooting the movie from an unfinished script and had no idea what their characters' motivations were yet.
Luckily there were a lot of explosions that kept me from noticing their bad acting later on.
I heard mediocre reviews from my friends beforehand and felt the same after. I wouldn't pay money to watch it again, but I didn't feel robbed either.
@Tenzo: Just say the word and we will make a field trip to see it in IMAX.
Saw it with Mae yesterday in IMAX 3D. The 3D did not make the experience that much better for me. There were a few scenes where the visual depth of field was enhanced by the 3D, but for most of the film you would be just as happy seeing in 2D with excellent resolution. The 3D actually seems to cause a little loss in the clarity of the image since the glasses and the filtering are not perfect (though it is very good).
The plot was full of cliches; it did not really teach us anything new; but Cameron is only trying to entertain us. I thought the film was enjoyable; so did Mae. It is a good date film. I would have enjoyed it more if I was not so mad at myself for making an expensive mess out of upgrading my computer.
It was pretty fun, nice visuals, and of course the story was Oliver Stone level heavy-handed with THE MESSAGE, but it was still a good time. I'm not sure what was supposed to be particularly innovative with this movie, other than I suppose confirming that in the future, video games and movies will look identical.
I don't expect too much out of this kind of movie, other than a couple hours of entertainment & that's what I got. I agree with the "Dances with Smurfs" analysis, but I liked Dances With Wolves, and who doesn't like Smurfs? Not sure if I'd see it again, but I'm not really the type to see a movie twice in the theaters.
I saw it on saturday, I was impressed with how it looked. And yes the 3D is a big step forward IMO. The story was blah... but I enjoyed it a lot.
Avatar as suicide fantasy?
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/22/the-suicide-fantasy/
i'm sorry, but for those of you that watched it in 2D.... WHY?
that makes absolutely no sense what so ever to me
it's like watching the super bowl on a 3 inch black and white hand held
you already know you are going to miss half of it
no it doesn't matter if you care about the super bowl, it's an analogy
and no... imo... you will miss half of the effects in 2D over 3D
if this movie were only 2D, i would have waited for it to come out on hbo/dvd/tv, or made a dollar movie night out of it with the kids
in 2D, this movie isn't worth your money... just like 95% of the crap hollywood pushes out the door
however, i'm going a second time with my son because he wasn't with us on the first trip, because imo it is in fact worth the imax ticket and i know he will enjoy it. only this time i'm bringing a seating pad, and possibly a flask :)
I saw this in Imax 3D today. It was simply AMAZING. James Cameron has raised the bar for Motion Picture Experience. What a fantastic way to start 2010 by showing that Film truly has evolved this far. :) Between this and Blu Ray, I'm in Movie Heaven.
I hated Titanic so much that I refuse to ever again see a James Cameron movie. So, I won't be seeing Avatar.
You must log in to post.