Rate the last film you saw

[Chris the great]

avatar

 

well, finaly got round to seeing it. now i saw the 3D screening, but in all honesty, i wish id saved the £1.60 and seen it in 2D. to put it simply, 3D didnt add much at all. there were a few moments were it actualy worked such as

the drop of water at the start, inside that dudes mech at the end with the rear view mirror.

but all in all, it seemed the vast majority of 3D was making bits at the side of the screen move closer, such as cupboards opening or branches being kinda close. it certainly didnt add anything to the film for me, and if anything it hindered my suspension of disbelife.

 

the story was serrvicable, very corney and predictable, but it did the job. the instant they nintroduced a new element you knew exactly what was going to happen with it.

 

the actual action and effects were pretty good, liked the imagination that had gone into the wildlife, and how you could see the evolutionary links between species. obviosuly it was carefully thought out.

 

the message was very heavy handed, and it seems ironic that a film that champions nature and environment over technology was one of the most tecnologicaly advanced films ever made.

 

if james cameron spent 20 years waiting to make this film, why didnt he spend any of that on dialouge?

 

6/10. a fun film over hyped and over priced.

[Retro_Link]

the message was very heavy handed, and it seems ironic that a film that champions nature and environment over technology was one of the most tecnologicaly advanced films ever made.

Yeah, why not just paint two organic carrots blue.

[Chris the great]

Yeah, why not just paint two organic carrots blue.

 

obviously i realise that for the vision to work it needed the tech, im just saying, dont make a film that preaches about how we need to use less techknology then spend bilions of pounds on the tec to make it. its like me making a range of clothes promoting fair trade, then having them made in a sweat shop.

[ReZourceman]

I don't think that was one of the messages of the film at all.

[Retro_Link]

I think you're reading to much into it tbh. Just enjoy it, or don't, whatever!

[Chris the great]

I don't think that was one of the messages of the film at all.

 

seemed like that to me and my mate, but we may well have missed the point, and it certain ly wasnt my main issue with the film.

 

cringe worthy dialouge and the gimmaky 3D were the main criticisms i have.

[Retro_Link]

It wasn't about the importance of saving the environment/not destroying it, but about them not wanting their home to be destroyed, and with it all the 'lifeforce', knowledge, and memories of generations passed. The foundations of their civilisation.

 

So more to do with humanities lack of understanding/appreciation.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Retro_Link

[Fierce_LiNk]

I thought the film was more about Spirituality. About being in-tune with nature and feeling that connection.

 

Also, I thought the most beautiful parts of the movie were the parts in the forest, especially at night. It probably still looked impressive in 2D, but the 3Dness made it seem otherworldly, imo.

[ReZourceman]

seemed like that to me and my mate, but we may well have missed the point, and it certain ly wasnt my main issue with the film.

 

cringe worthy dialouge and the gimmaky 3D were the main criticisms i have.

 

Bar the arrow at the end (which was definitely awful lol) I don't think there was any 3D gimmicks either.

[Retro_Link]

Also, I thought the most beautiful parts of the movie were the parts in the forest, especially at night. It probably still looked impressive in 2D, but the 3Dness made it seem otherworldly, imo.

Definately, I tried looking for movie stills on the internet after getting back from seeing it. I'd love some artwork of the forest at night with all the luminescent planting, but couldn't find anything.

[Chris the great]

It wasn't about the importance of saving the environment/not destroying it, but about them not wanting their home to be destroyed, and with it all the 'lifeforce', knowledge, and memories of generations passed.

 

meh, it still felt like an environmentalist anti corperative film to me.

 

but like i say, that WASNT my main issue.

 

the film was a big step forward in the field of placing cupboard doors in your periferal vison, but as for groundbreaking special effects? naaaaaah.

 

 

Bar the arrow at the end (which was definitely awful lol) I don't think there was any 3D gimmicks either.

 

see my problem was that for the most part, the 3D added nothing, it was focused around the edge of the screen. seeing cupboard doors, the backs of peoiples heads and the odd branch move out wasnt worth the money it cost to make for me.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Chris the great

[Retro_Link]

I haven't seen the film in 2D so I can't compare, but I thought the sheer clarity and the way they handled depth of field was spectacular... I assumed that was brought about by the 3D technology?

[Coolness Bears]

I thought it was the new 3Dness but we are not in that age yet.

[Chris the great]

I haven't seen the film in 2D so I can't compare, but I thought the sheer clarity and the way they handled depth of field was spectacular... I assumed that was brought about by the 3D technology?

 

it did add a sense of depth, at some points. the odd scene did seem enhanced by the 3D, but that just seemed to make it jar with outher scenes. id be interested to compair how the film looked in 2D, but as an advert for 3D, i wasnt sold.

[dwarf]

Bruno

Quite funny

7/10

 

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Really funny and high budget stuff. Boggles the mind almost, really random, which I guess it takes after the book. Martin Freeman is awesome.

8.5/10

[Wesley]

The Hurt Locker

 

Overrated/10

[Oxigen_Waste]

I think you're reading to much into it tbh. Just enjoy it, or don't, whatever!

 

Even if he is wrong (which he is), that statement is ridiculous.

 

 

As for what the film was about, it wasn't about anything, it was about making money. Much like any remake.

[Molly]

The Hurt Locker

 

Overrated/10

Howcome? I've not seen it, but I've heard good things.

[Retro_Link]

As for what the film was about, it wasn't about anything, it was about making money. Much like any remake.

Funny, I don't remember the original Avatar.

[Ashley]

[Retro_Link]

Still not a remake.

[Wesley]

Howcome? I've not seen it, but I've heard good things.

 

It was still very good, and I would suggest anyone to watch.

 

I've just heard so many good things about it and was expecting something a little more...

 

It was a great film, the characters were all amazingly wrote and acted and it had some really amazing and tense scenes.

 

I was just hoping it would affect me in a larger way than it did.

[Beast]

see my problem was that for the most part, the 3D added nothing, it was focused around the edge of the screen. seeing cupboard doors, the backs of peoiples heads and the odd branch move out wasnt worth the money it cost to make for me.

 

It added everything for me. Most of the movie worked in 3D for me, it was 95% 3D and it's the fact they didn't use gimmicks bar one that I loved about it. There were many scenes that were fantastic in 3D, such as the night scenes and the last half an hour was glorious.

[Wesley]

*sigh*

 

I kind of want to see it just so I can actually join in in the conversations...

 

But I don't want to pay the high ticket price to see what looks like the most uninspired and overrated trash of the last decade.

[Nolan]

Still not a remake.

 

It's more like a re-imagining.