Page 1 of 2

Avatar

Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:53 am
by PaladinCyborg
Avatar is awesome. See it in 3D.

Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:26 am
by Akalabeth
I saw it in 3D

I thought it was a three hour movie that bordered on boring.

To sum it up it was "okay"

Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:00 am
by FLETCH
To each his own but I have to agree with PC. I thought it was great. Cameron's attention to detail blew me away. The wildlife was very well done and the 3D just added to the impact of the movie so much more (height and depth perception) then just a 2D would.

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:13 pm
by hennef
Great movie!

Well rounded chars, brilliant effects, very good choreographics.... "normal" story ;)

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:28 pm
by Klauser
I thought it was a good movie, with parts bordering on outstanding. And yes I saw it in 3D.

* * * SPOILERS BELOW IN "INVISO-TEXT" * * *

For what it's worth here's my take:

SFX/CGI - A+. I'll get this out up front. I think Cameron whatever he was after from a CGI standpoint - he nailed it and then some. Phenominal doesn't even come close. I'm a sci-fi movie fan and I have never seen a movie that convices me more that I'm in an alien environment. Even beyond that, I totally bought into the alien characters being alien - but with each having their own charactistics. Brilliant, and I think the Oscar for Best Special Effects has just been locked.

Plot - C. Here's the part I had some problems with. I think the central concept - corporate greed over a rare-mineral-with-magic-powers, found concentrated where the alien tribe had their home "tree" was stereotypical and contrived. My wife made a comment after the movie that nailed it - the central theme was very similar to "Ferngully". Not that Ferngully was bad - it's just that it's a good children's tale. The plot resembled nothing more than Ferngully on some serious steriods.

Pacing - A. A long movie, but like the Lord of the Rings movies, paced well enough that only your bladder cares that you're running longer than normal.

Acting - B. Good solid acting, some of the roles were again, somewhat stereotypical, but solidly performed.

Despite it's flaws, I was entertained and immersed in the movie. I think it's the best science-fiction movie done this year - and probably the best done in recent years.

Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:47 pm
by lord vinny
"caution spoiler in invisio-text" :lol: come-on u know if u wirte something like that ppl are gonna have to read it!

im gonna check it out next weekend in a Imax 3-d theater..hoping for a good show :D

Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:32 pm
by Wintermute
This movie made me feel ashamed to be a part of the imperial corporate capitalistic military complex. As previously mentioned, Ferngully but now the military plays a part. It is funny that a movie with such an obvious anti-corporation message would advertise on the sides of aluminum cans for Coke Zero.

As a movie, I was mildly entertained and found myself wondering why we still don’t have mechs in the military. The CGI and colors were pretty much just eye candy. I think the film could have easily been cut to 2 hours.

Bottom line, I probably won’t be buying the DVD of this one (or blu-ray 3d).

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 9:37 pm
by PaladinCyborg
I've seen it again in 3D. Still awsome.

BTW, our military attempted to use mech suits in the 1960s - for moving cargo. There were too many accidents, so we went back to fork trucks and cranes. People forgot. They reappeared in the movie "Aliens". Because this was forgotten technology, people thought they were looking at something new.

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:26 am
by Akalabeth
PaladinCyborg wrote:I've seen it again in 3D. Still awsome.

BTW, our military attempted to use mech suits in the 1960s - for moving cargo. There were too many accidents, so we went back to fork trucks and cranes. People forgot. They reappeared in the movie "Aliens". Because this was forgotten technology, people thought they were looking at something new.
reference?

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:55 pm
by PaladinCyborg
I'm trying to run down a good refernce now - especially on the later 1960s models. Our first powered exoskeleton was built by General Electric in 1965. That one was called Hardiman, but it's not the one I was thinking of earlier.

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:55 am
by Shardin5

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:22 am
by Akalabeth
Ah so they tried and failed. That makes more sense.

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:18 am
by Hawkeye
Have just come back from the 2D version - you'd be a tough man to please if you didnt enjoy this movie. Weta Workshops did an impressive job on the graphical effects that's for sure. Plotline was somewhat predictable with no real twists, but overall not bad at all 8)

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:51 pm
by Shardin5
Hawkeye wrote:Have just come back from the 2D version - you'd be a tough man to please if you didnt enjoy this movie. Weta Workshops did an impressive job on the graphical effects that's for sure. Plotline was somewhat predictable with no real twists, but overall not bad at all 8)
Damn good movie. Sometimes the plot can be predictable, its the flow thats more important. I like to be entertained for my money sometimes, more than looking for all the twists in a movie.


Last twist in a movie I didn't see coming was the Star Trek movie. Kept thinking they are running out of time to fix history line. BEST damn twist EVER for Star Trek.

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:30 pm
by akshamu
FLETCH wrote:To each his own but I have to agree with PC. I thought it was great. Cameron's attention to detail blew me away. The wildlife was very well done and the 3D just added to the impact of the movie so much more (height and depth perception) then just a 2D would.

Did the 3D version require glasses? What kind?