for me, it was James Cameron proving once again he IS the man, and the 12 year wait between Terminator 2 and Avatar (I loved Titanic but couldnt wait for him to get back into "sci fi") was WELL worth it.
I have read some forums where people are complaining about the plot being "light" but that thought never crossed my mind while watching the movie. Of course the CGI blew me away, but I was actually caught up in the plot too. Sure the part of Col. Quaritch was a bit "over the top" but thats what makes James Cameron movies so fun, but also make you think "i could see this world of Pandora existing in 2187"
definitely a 10 in my book.
What did you think Shawn?
Still have to see it, but I heard it is great. I've seen previews and think the graphics should be Oscar worthy. James Cameron can do anything he puts his hand to. Might wait for On Demand as I want to save my movie money pass for Legion and Season of the Witch. But will see it eventually.
I finally saw it this week in 3D and I have to say I was quite blown away. I'd seen pieces of the Avatar world on display at the San Diego Comic Con, but at that point I was still annoyed that James Cameron's film was causing confusion in my already geeky conversations. "Wait, which Avatar?" [grumble grumble] "The airbending one." Then I saw the trailer and, while intrigued, I kept my expectations low because of the heavy amount of cg involved. I didn't think they could handle that much cg and still maintain believability, especially not when the main characters were fantastical humanoid aliens. At one point during the movie, though, I remember actually being thrown off by the bodies of the live actors in the scene, and for the briefest moment perceived them as artificially constructed entities, less real than their cg counterparts. That is to say, this movie has some awesome graphics. The story may be a little predictable, sure, but the flaws are mostly overshadowed by the visual splendor of the film. I recommend everyone go to see this in theaters (in 3D if possible) while you still can because seeing this on DVD just won't do it justice. Know that it won't be the best tale ever told on the silver screen, but it is certainly a feast for the eyes.
I loved it, as my review said. :) I saw it a second time two days ago and enjoyed it even more. I am happy to see on IMDB.com that Avatar is getting an 8.8/10. Pretty cool. I gave it an 8 in my review, so most people are enjoying it!
poor script - 90% of the story was telegraphed; the CGI was an improvement, but did not provide the same 'wow' that 2001 or Star Wars did when first played.
poor script - 90% of the story was telegraphed; the CGI was an improvement, but did not provide the same 'wow' that 2001 or Star Wars did when first played.
I love, loved it. Breath taking scenes-the plot was a little dull and the dialog even more dull. The enemy was so stock in trade-but nothing, nothing, nothing can beat this movie seen in IMAX 3-D. Maybe the coming sequel will be better. But the ride to the floating mountains will never be forgotten.
I want to know where the waterfalls come from? There's all these floating mountains -- magically suspended from the sky -- impossibly held together by a fragile mesh of clinging vines -- and each has a beautiful cascading waterfall falling from one sky bound rock to the next. I just want to know... where does this complex irrigation system of beautiful cascading waterfalls originate? Is the water cycle so efficient that these floating rocks (presumable smaller as one goes up due to the fact that they do not rest within the shadow of an enormous mountain) catch precipated water which somehow pools into vase cascading waterfalls? That seems unlikely. Or do the vines cunningly disguise an enormous waterworks that continuously pumps water back up to the top of the gigantic fountain of floating islands? It seems that the setting is full of majetic and stunning impossibilities just waiting for a well crafted retcon to explain it. The possibilities are endless.
While the special effects are amazing, I have a hard time understanding why, with costs reportedly in the $500 million area, they couldn't hire an actual writer to come in and write a real story for the thing.
I really can't understand what all the fuss is about; even though I went in with low expectations, I was still significantly disappointed. It's not enough to say that the story was weak--it should also be said that the foundations upon which the story rested (the themes) were tired, trite, and a lot of other unflattering words beginning with the letter 't'.
To add injury to insult, the aesthetics weren't all that impressive to me. It was all Maxfield Parrish meets kitschy '70s fantasy art. The giant, blue Sigouney Weaver was particularly unsettling.
the special effects are amazing but the story was very classical like in almost all films involving diffrent cultures the human becomes the alien, the spaniard becomes the native indian always the same...
for me, it was James Cameron proving once again he IS the man, and the 12 year wait between Terminator 2 and Avatar (I loved Titanic but couldnt wait for him to get back into "sci fi") was WELL worth it.
I have read some forums where people are complaining about the plot being "light" but that thought never crossed my mind while watching the movie. Of course the CGI blew me away, but I was actually caught up in the plot too. Sure the part of Col. Quaritch was a bit "over the top" but thats what makes James Cameron movies so fun, but also make you think "i could see this world of Pandora existing in 2187"
definitely a 10 in my book.
What did you think Shawn?
Still have to see it, but I heard it is great. I've seen previews and think the graphics should be Oscar worthy. James Cameron can do anything he puts his hand to. Might wait for On Demand as I want to save my movie money pass for Legion and Season of the Witch. But will see it eventually.
I finally saw it this week in 3D and I have to say I was quite blown away. I'd seen pieces of the Avatar world on display at the San Diego Comic Con, but at that point I was still annoyed that James Cameron's film was causing confusion in my already geeky conversations. "Wait, which Avatar?" [grumble grumble] "The airbending one." Then I saw the trailer and, while intrigued, I kept my expectations low because of the heavy amount of cg involved. I didn't think they could handle that much cg and still maintain believability, especially not when the main characters were fantastical humanoid aliens. At one point during the movie, though, I remember actually being thrown off by the bodies of the live actors in the scene, and for the briefest moment perceived them as artificially constructed entities, less real than their cg counterparts. That is to say, this movie has some awesome graphics. The story may be a little predictable, sure, but the flaws are mostly overshadowed by the visual splendor of the film. I recommend everyone go to see this in theaters (in 3D if possible) while you still can because seeing this on DVD just won't do it justice. Know that it won't be the best tale ever told on the silver screen, but it is certainly a feast for the eyes.
I loved it, as my review said. :) I saw it a second time two days ago and enjoyed it even more. I am happy to see on IMDB.com that Avatar is getting an 8.8/10. Pretty cool. I gave it an 8 in my review, so most people are enjoying it!
poor script - 90% of the story was telegraphed; the CGI was an improvement, but did not provide the same 'wow' that 2001 or Star Wars did when first played.
full review here http://www.rimworlds.com/thecrotchetyoldfan/?p=5674 and a recommended reading list here http://www.rimworlds.com/thecrotchetyoldfan/?p=5687
poor script - 90% of the story was telegraphed; the CGI was an improvement, but did not provide the same 'wow' that 2001 or Star Wars did when first played.
full review here http://www.rimworlds.com/thecrotchetyoldfan/?p=5674 and a recommended reading list here http://www.rimworlds.com/thecrotchetyoldfan/?p=5687
I enjoyed the spectacle of Avatar, but found the story lacking. It prompted me to write an article on style vs. substance which can be found here: http://floor-to-ceiling-books.blogspot.com/2010/01/style-vs-substance.html
I love, loved it. Breath taking scenes-the plot was a little dull and the dialog even more dull. The enemy was so stock in trade-but nothing, nothing, nothing can beat this movie seen in IMAX 3-D. Maybe the coming sequel will be better. But the ride to the floating mountains will never be forgotten.
Hello all, i am new to this forum. I can wait another 12 years for a film like Avatar. James keep it up.
Again came to this post. Because yesterday i again watched the movie. Now i thinks producers should remake the old films in 3D environment.
I want to know where the waterfalls come from? There's all these floating mountains -- magically suspended from the sky -- impossibly held together by a fragile mesh of clinging vines -- and each has a beautiful cascading waterfall falling from one sky bound rock to the next. I just want to know... where does this complex irrigation system of beautiful cascading waterfalls originate? Is the water cycle so efficient that these floating rocks (presumable smaller as one goes up due to the fact that they do not rest within the shadow of an enormous mountain) catch precipated water which somehow pools into vase cascading waterfalls? That seems unlikely. Or do the vines cunningly disguise an enormous waterworks that continuously pumps water back up to the top of the gigantic fountain of floating islands? It seems that the setting is full of majetic and stunning impossibilities just waiting for a well crafted retcon to explain it. The possibilities are endless.
While the special effects are amazing, I have a hard time understanding why, with costs reportedly in the $500 million area, they couldn't hire an actual writer to come in and write a real story for the thing.
I really can't understand what all the fuss is about; even though I went in with low expectations, I was still significantly disappointed. It's not enough to say that the story was weak--it should also be said that the foundations upon which the story rested (the themes) were tired, trite, and a lot of other unflattering words beginning with the letter 't'.
To add injury to insult, the aesthetics weren't all that impressive to me. It was all Maxfield Parrish meets kitschy '70s fantasy art. The giant, blue Sigouney Weaver was particularly unsettling.
It was very good I thought. No real surprises in the plot, but the characterization was good, special effects dead-on, and the acting was great.
It's kinda how I think of Eragon (book, not movie, never movie) come to think of it.
the special effects are amazing but the story was very classical like in almost all films involving diffrent cultures the human becomes the alien, the spaniard becomes the native indian always the same...