Beast Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 This. Absolutely this. The film is flawed in so many ways yet at the same just utterly compelling. Confession: I think I cried solidly for about an hour because of this film. As much as I adored this movie, I never really cried. I felt emotional because of it but I never cried. As ReZ said, probably a little tear (we are human) but not full-on crying for an hour.
chairdriver Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 I cried more at the fact that I had devoted so much of my life to it.
chairdriver Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Interesting but uninspiring. 6/10 I thought the CGI / Generally the way it looked was astounding. The scene at night in the forest with all the illuminated plants/animals especially. Of course, the story is kinda crap, but the visuals alone earn it more than 6.
Daft Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 The visuals really didn't do anything for me. Yeah, they looked pretty photorealistic (bar bits here and there) but so what? 6/10 - I don't care to see it again. Also, I'm not a fan of the 3D. I'm not sure what the issue is (framerate?) but tracking shots, and anything with any remote speed, blurs. There was no need for the film to be in 3D, it added nothing.
Iun Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 You're bad. I'm sceptical of another big James Cameron movie. I didn't like Titanic, seeing as I have testicles n'all.
chairdriver Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I'm sceptical of another big James Cameron movie. I didn't like Titanic, seeing as I have testicles n'all. Yeah, but realistically Titanic is shite, and Avatar is worth it.
Eenuh Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 The visuals really didn't do anything for me. Yeah, they looked pretty photorealistic (bar bits here and there) but so what? 6/10 - I don't care to see it again. Also, I'm not a fan of the 3D. I'm not sure what the issue is (framerate?) but tracking shots, and anything with any remote speed, blurs. There was no need for the film to be in 3D, it added nothing. I very much agree about the 3D. Any fast scenes would just be really unclear. I had trouble following what was going on. Also, I'm wondering how this film would look on a tv; I'm sure it would look a lot less beautiful.
jayseven Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 James Cameron is effectively the bottle of champagne personified that gets wheeled out every decade to christen the birth of a new age of cinematographic technology. *catches breath* I've still not seen it, but now I kinda don't want to see it at the cinema simply because it's reached epidemic levels and I'd only be going because everyone else already has. Can't trump the Sheeple card, mafraid.
Wesley Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 James Cameron is effectively the bottle of champagne personified that gets wheeled out every decade to christen the birth of a new age of cinematographic technology. *catches breath* I've still not seen it, but now I kinda don't want to see it at the cinema simply because it's reached epidemic levels and I'd only be going because everyone else already has. Can't trump the Sheeple card, mafraid. Yeah I've found myself wanting to go just so I can actually talk to other people about it... but I really don't see what's exciting about it if you strip away the effects. And for me a movie with fancy effects isn't good enough - even if it has an average story, etc.
dan-likes-trees Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) And cousin, Business is a-boomin 8 out of 10 A wise man once said of Serenity, 'yeah I was gutted it was cancelled, but get over it, we got a shit hot film'. He was most certainly right. Everything you could want and more. The deaths made me go megawtf!!! And River = ultimate badass. All the best of Firefly, except with a resolution to the story, and a big old (well probably not actually that big) budget so they didn't have to stick to desolate locations as they largely did for the show. I loved. One of the best Sci Fi's I've ever seen. Ever. 9.5 out of 10 Also, I'm not a fan of the 3D. I'm not sure what the issue is (framerate?) but tracking shots, and anything with any remote speed, blurs. There was no need for the film to be in 3D, it added nothing. I also had this also. Yet most people haven't complained - I think maybe the type of 3D used works better for some people than others? As you say, I found it all very blurry gittery and generally irritating. Edited January 8, 2010 by dan-likes-trees
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 I very much agree about the 3D. Any fast scenes would just be really unclear. I had trouble following what was going on. Also, I'm wondering how this film would look on a tv; I'm sure it would look a lot less beautiful. I thought the best bits of Avatar were the night scenes on Pandora, and the lesser good scenes visually were the fast ones, like you say. I agree with Chairdriver, the forest with the illuminated plants really were beautifully created scenes. I love how Cameron created such a world. What would have made the film more enjoyable for me is if Cameron had dropped all the scenes with the military men and their gunzzz, and just focused the whole thing on the Na'vi. I hear there's a sequel, so I'm very hopeful about that.
Iun Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Yeah, but realistically Titanic is shite, and Avatar is worth it. Well, we might go and see it on Sunday. If it's 3D, then no, if it's standard, then yes.
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Well, we might go and see it on Sunday. If it's 3D, then no, if it's standard, then yes. You don't want to see the non 3D version? I'm not sure I know anyone who watched the non 3D version, so I can't ask what they made of it. My initial thought would be that some of the more beautiful scenes may lose effect. I know Ine didn't really get all that excited about seeing it (3D) beforehand, but I think if it needs to be seen at all, it has to be seen in the intended format, and that's in 3D.
Molly Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Chairdriver I agree with you about Avatar and Daft Tron It's flawed, cheesy and extremely 80's, yet I couldn't help but love it. I guess I was enchancted with how geeky and imaginative it is. Jeff Bridges helped. It's also like no film I've seen before.
Daft Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 You're bad. Not in the same way Sigourney Weaver's acting was in Avatar, I hope.
chairdriver Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Not in the same way Sigourney Weaver's acting was in Avatar, I hope. You're also rude.
chairdriver Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 The truth hurts. Don't worry, I've got painkillers.
Wesley Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 People crying over Titanic? Really? How could you get upset at a film where you know the ending (and thus know the two characters will obviously be split apart), and the characters involved were so shallow and unbelievable that no attachment could be made to them.
jayseven Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Just stumbled on this image and stopped looking at it a little late. Film spoiled.
Paj! Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) The people with blurry 3-D were just unlucky. Soz. It was perfect the 3 times (!!!) I saw it in 3-D (Don't worry, I only intended to go once, but seperate groups ended up going etc, and I enjoyed repeat vieweings more than I thought). --- I want your Psycho, want your Vertigo schtick Want you in my Rear Window (1954) Baby, it's sick! I want your love. Love LOVE Love. Edited January 8, 2010 by Paj!
Iun Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 You don't want to see the non 3D version? I'm not sure I know anyone who watched the non 3D version, so I can't ask what they made of it. My initial thought would be that some of the more beautiful scenes may lose effect. I know Ine didn't really get all that excited about seeing it (3D) beforehand, but I think if it needs to be seen at all, it has to be seen in the intended format, and that's in 3D. It's not a case of not wanting to, I'm phyiscally unable to see 3D projections for more than about 5 minutes before my eyes "adjust". Then I can't see them anymore and I get a splitting headache. Yay.
Eenuh Posted January 8, 2010 Posted January 8, 2010 Just stumbled on this image and stopped looking at it a little late. Film spoiled. I said it was pretty much like that film. The similarities are so obvious and ridiculous. =P
Recommended Posts