Jump to content

Avatar - the movie


Aggie87

Recommended Posts

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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).

Link to comment
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".

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...