Dude Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 I thought this deserved its own thread. I just caught the 10:20 PM show last night, reluctantly, when a friend dragged me to it who had just seen it the night before. We saw it on an IMAX in 3D, and I have to fess up to being a blown away by it. I was not looking forward to it, thought the trailer sucked (it frankly doesn't do the film justice). I see it sweeping all the technical category Oscars (easily) and getting a nod for Best Picture (easily, now that it's been expanded to 10 nominees). On top of everything - the flawlessly executed effects, CGI, etc., this film has a really big heart, a hugely compelling emotionally gripping story, which is what made Titanic great, too. See this on an IMAX screen if you can, you need as big of a screen as possible to see this in its full glory and take all those HD pixels in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azzurri Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 visually stunning but the story was weak and the dialogue typical James Cameron cheese. $500 million to make and Cameron couldn't buy a decent script? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Elixir Sue Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 visually stunning but the story was weak and the dialogue typical James Cameron cheese. $500 million to make and Cameron couldn't buy a decent script?Yeah, it was definitely heavy-handed as far as the story is concerned, but despite the complete lack of subtlety/being hit over the head with the message, I was thoroughly entertained for 2.5 hours. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainTrips Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 I think the simple familiar story allowed me to be pulled in by the characters and the world more easily. Plus Zoe Saldana showed off her acting skills big time. She probably wouldn't win but I could see a Best Actress nod. I can only imagine how hard it is to get into a role while wearing a ton of equipment and being in a green room. I think the sequels will bring a bit more depth to their stories. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
u2roolz Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 visually stunning but the story was weak and the dialogue typical James Cameron cheese. $500 million to make and Cameron couldn't buy a decent script? Actually, as I'm sure you may know James Cameron wrote the script himself. I haven't seen it yet. I'm waiting until it quiets down at my IMAX theater. So I won't be seeing it until next decade. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted December 28, 2009 Author Share Posted December 28, 2009 I'd say the script was better than anything Michael Bay has directed, and better than anything George Lucas has written. I also realize that's a pretty low bar. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 One word: unobtainium. Are you effing kidding me? That sounds like something my six yr old would come up with. Basically, if you've seen Dances with wolves (or a dozen other similar movies) you already know 75% of the plot. That being said, the visuals are stunning and it is definitely one of those movies you really should see on the big screen. The predictable script didn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted December 28, 2009 Author Share Posted December 28, 2009 One word: unobtainium. Are you effing kidding me? That sounds like something my six yr old would come up with. Your six year old must be a hell of an aerospace engineer, since they have been using the term since the 1950s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium Engineers have long (since at least the 1950s) used the term unobtainium when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects save that it doesn't exist. By the 1990s, the term was widely used, including in formal engineering papers such as Towards Unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]. The word unobtainium may well have been coined within the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in reentry. Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Runaway Jim Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 I had absolutely zero issues with Avatar. It looked ridiculously amazing and I liked the story. It's fantastic. Walking out of the theater, I felt the same way I did after the LOTR movies. I haven't seen every movie this year, but so far, it's my number one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Artifice Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I had absolutely zero issues with Avatar. It looked ridiculously amazing and I liked the story. It's fantastic. Walking out of the theater, I felt the same way I did after the LOTR movies. I haven't seen every movie this year, but so far, it's my number one. Ughh... Please don't do that. Both were very impressive visual expereiences. LotR had a library's worth of lore and one of the greatest works of fiction as its source material. The other was "Dances With Smurfs" (or Night Elves, for you WoW geeks). I could be even more jaded about it: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Runaway Jim Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Coming out of the LOTR movies, I felt like I'd just had a huge, beautiful, exciting experience. Avatar is the first movie I've seen since the LOTR movies that elicited the same response. I am not comparing the two. I believe the LOTR are far greater movies. That being said, the LOTR books are not good. I know they're popular, but their garbage in my eye. Also, comparing Avatar to Dances with Wolves is fine, because they clearly have a similar story, but let's not act like that's a bad thing. Dances with Wolves is a fucking awesome movie. It's no GoodFellas, but that's a whole other discussion... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 That being said, the LOTR books are not good. I know they're popular, but their garbage in my eye. So, you like the movies, but think the books are shit?I don't think I've ever encountered that particular view! I've heard plenty of people say they prefer one over the other (films v books), and have heard people who love the books who think the movies are shit (I'm one of them), but have never heard someone say that the movies are great but the books are garbage... Interesting... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
isadorah Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 me and the guys saw it this weekend. everyone enjoyed it. we also saw Sherlock Holmes. they thought avatar was better, i preferred Holmes. all in all a good movie, visually stunning, and 30 minutes in, i really did forget those creatures weren't real. my butt and legs did go numb for sitting in a cramped movie theater seat for so long. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SarahC Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 plan to see this in the next couple weeks. loved Serlock Holmes. saw Up In The Air tonight, and it was great. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Avatar was astonishing. That story never gets old. Also saw the trailer for Tim Burton's 3D Alice In Wonderland which looks like a whole mess of fun. Plus trailers for another 3 or 4 3D films due out this spring. wtf? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
brianjeremy Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 My wife and I saw this the other day and really enjoyed it. We don't have an I-Max theater, but we do have digital THX theater. We were surprised by the 3-D elements. We thought it would be gimmicky and such but that was not the case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HungryHippo Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 My wife and I saw this the other day and really enjoyed it. We don't have an I-Max theater, but we do have digital THX theater. We were surprised by the 3-D elements. We thought it would be gimmicky and such but that was not the case.I've read that seeing this in 3-D is the way to see it. never really heard that about any other movie before so there must be a little truth in it. I watched it at a standard theater and was really impressed. the dialogue may have been slightly lame and predictable, however it was still great fun. what wasn't great fun were the idiots in front of us who thought they'd be uber-hipsters and snap photos of themselves throughout the film... with the flash on. I have no pity for people any longer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Panther Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Enviormental propaganda Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share Posted January 5, 2010 Enviormental propaganda Probably, but I'd wager Cameron knows how to spell environmental. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Runaway Jim Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Enviormental propaganda Get over it. It's a movie, and a fucking good one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 propagandaThe English term is an 18th century coinage, from the Latin feminine gerund of propagare "to propagate". In its turn, the word propagare is related to the word propages, "a slip, a cutting of a vine" and refers to the gardener's practice to disseminate plants by planting shoots. The term is not pejorative in origin, nor does it necessarily indicate that the message lacks verity. Panther, you are incredibly astute! Especially tying in the whole environmental/propagation thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted January 6, 2010 Author Share Posted January 6, 2010 Worldwide take so far: $1,063,151,759 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Worldwide take so far: $1,063,151,759 they break even yet? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted January 6, 2010 Author Share Posted January 6, 2010 Since it cost the gross domestic product of Malaysia to make, probably not. But it should get there eventually. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 If Arrested Development were still on the air, Avatar could have done a hilarious cross-promotional episode with Tobias trying to get a role in the film as a blue man again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.