Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Aggie87

Avatar - the movie

64 posts in this topic

I took my 8 year old son to see Avatar tonight, wasn't quite sold out but very full. We were able to see the 3D version, and it was INCREDIBLE, visually. Well worth the extra buck or two for the 3D experience. It's not gimmicky, but just gives everything some subtle depth throughout the whole flick.

The storyline is pretty similar to Dances With Wolves, but it's not distractingly bad, as I'd worried, too. Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, and Giovanni Ribisi all do fine with their roles, as does the guy who plays the head of the military force.

If anyone's on the fence about this one, it's worth it for the visuals alone - the planet (Pandora) is incredibly detailed, and it's like you've been dumped into a Roger Dean album cover.

Edited by Aggie87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Park called it "Dancing with Smurfs" :g

I'll be seeing it this afternoon on 3D IMAX. Can't wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! Dancing With Smurfs. Wow.

I want to see it. I'm assuming the plot will be non-existent and piled high with gratuitous amounts of cheese, but it looks amazing. I like the ads that say 'movies will never be the same'. What the don't say is if that's a good or bad thing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that my kids have school off for the Christmas vacation, I'll be seeing this with them Tuesday or Wednesday, in IMAX 3-D. Should be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like Aggie87 said, Avatar is incredible. Its advances the possibilities of what movies can be. The visuals are simply stunning. See it in 3D...IMAX if possible.

Edited by sal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn.

So far the consensus seems to be that those who've actually seen the movie like/love it while those who don't like it haven't seen it yet. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I've already seen it. It was 1992, and it was called Ferngully, the Last Rain Forest. So it took 10 years for Cameron to rip off a few other movies and throw 250 million dollars worth of CGI at it? I'll pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is the deal with Use3D and Jim's posts?

Every word is on a single line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen the movie, although I plan to later this week. From my outside looking in perspective, Hollywood has just taken its biggest step yet in the relegation of substance to style. Gigantic special effects and a story which, in the absence of these effects, would send a five year old running from the room. Nonetheless, this may be the rare case where the the effects are so overwhelming and so well done that the absence of anything approaching a story is an acceptable price to pay.

Edited by Dave James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shawn and I went to see the movie today, in 3D.

It is one of those rare cases where the effects are so overwhelming, and they make the movie.

I don't agree that there's no story . . . there's a story. It's not the most original story, but it's there, doing what it needs to.

Michelle Rodriguez DOES pilot a virtual "Scorpion" (quasi-copter). She seemed quite sober though. Looked nice in her tank top. :)

I really enjoyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lon's recommendation is good enough for me, especially the part about the tank top. :rolleyes:

I'm seeing it this afternoon, though in my small town, no 3-D, alas. :(

gregmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn. The 3D was well done. Instead of a lot of things bursting out towards you, the 3D added a lot of depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn. The 3D was well done. Instead of a lot of things bursting out towards you, the 3D added a lot of depth.

Thanks Lon.

Going to see it in 3-D on Wed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of those flicks where the effects are so consistently incredible that you forget you are watching effects. Stunningly realized and the best 3-D I've ever experienced. It's definitely groundbreaking and is going to be hard to top. This isn't "cartoonish" CGI and the short clips on TV don't do it justice. This one is worth taking the drive to the movie theater to see.

The actual plot to the film is nothing we haven't seen before, but it's so convincingly pulled off it's easy to forgive that. There are certain times when people need to take off their "critics hats" and just enjoy a movie whose sole purpose is to entertain and NOT talk down to it's audience. This is the one of the few big budget blockbusters in recent memory that doesn't seem like it's written for people with 2 digit IQs. It's also nice to see Cameron and Sigourney Weaver re-united. All around, better than I expected in every way....plus as Lon mentioned it's got Michelle Rodriguez in it...and she definitely wins the "running in tank top" award for the year.

greengrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

michelle-rodriguez-avatar.jpg

Couldn't find a tank top picture!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

michelle-rodriguez-avatar.jpg

Couldn't find a tank top picture!

She *was* hot. And I even enjoyed the rest of the flick! Going to visit my dad for Christmas today in WV. They've got a 3-D-equipped theatre there, so I might go see it again.

gregmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the 3-D effect realized?

Is it still a technique based on red/green colors?

I'm color-blind (red-green/blue-gray), that's why I'm asking.

Thought I would check out the film in 3-D, but don't feel like seeing a non-3D "flat" version (which is also being shown close to my parents' place where I'll be for the Christmas holidays).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the 3-D effect realized?

Is it still a technique based on red/green colors?

I'm color-blind (red-green/blue-gray), that's why I'm asking.

Thought I would check out the film in 3-D, but don't feel like seeing a non-3D "flat" version (which is also being shown close to my parents' place where I'll be for the Christmas holidays).

No, they haven't used red/green colors for years. Both lenses are the same "non color".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the 3-D effect realized?

Is it still a technique based on red/green colors?

I'm color-blind (red-green/blue-gray), that's why I'm asking.

Thought I would check out the film in 3-D, but don't feel like seeing a non-3D "flat" version (which is also being shown close to my parents' place where I'll be for the Christmas holidays).

No, they haven't used red/green colors for years. Both lenses are the same "non color".

Thanks, Shawn.

I'll go and check it out then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it yesterday, in 3-D. Been thinking about what I thought. First take is that I accepted from the first the alien or avatar lead characters as characters, not special-effects creations, especially the female lead; for me, that counted a great deal. Second take is that my attention never really wandered, although the whole Gaia (sp?) basis of the alien civilization seemed familiar bordering on the cheesy -- Cameron as male feminist? Third take is that Sigourney Weaver is a treat; her performance/presence helps a lot. Fourth take is that the avatar entertains the hope that somehow he can mediate between the humans and the aliens for far too long. But, basically, it passed the Harry Cohn test.

The 3-D, as others have said, is not obtrusive, but as someone who wears regular glasses, I think I might have liked it as well or better without the 3-D; I adjusted for the most part to the 3-D glasses but became conscious of them at times, felt at once that I should be closer up or farther back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't associate Gaia ('the Gaia hypothesis') with feminism at all. It's eco-conservatism in the extreme perhaps, and the "mother" aspect seems totally removed from human female motherness to me.

I read a fascinating book recently that examined gnosticism and eco-conservatism, very well thought out and compiled book, "In Her Image," Cameron's vision of this planet fits right into the ideas in this book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also important to note that Cameron has always featured both strong female characters in his films....and that he's explored the whole environment debate previously, remember the "aliens" in The Abyss that decided they needed to wipe out mankind to protect themselves from being destroyed because we (humans) were trashing the planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't associate Gaia ('the Gaia hypothesis') with feminism at all. It's eco-conservatism in the extreme perhaps, and the "mother" aspect seems totally removed from human female motherness to me.

I read a fascinating book recently that examined gnosticism and eco-conservatism, very well thought out and compiled book, "In Her Image," Cameron's vision of this planet fits right into the ideas in this book.

The Gaia (or Gaia-ish) idea "that the fertile earth itself is female, nurturing mankind," does seem to have links with so-called "ecofeminism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism

If it doesn't, that's cool too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.