There’s a thread for people who haven’t seen it here. Please try to keep this thread about the actual movie and your impressions or questions about it.
Went to see it last night. I thought it was fantastic. The visuals are stunning. CGI is the best by far I’ve ever seen.
The story is basic and quite clichéd but it does hit the right cords IMO. I was invested in the characters and enjoyed the romp greatly.
The 3D was good but sometimes it’s annoying if there’s something very close to the camera. There are moments with bugs flying in front of the characters or ash floating in the air where the 3D really kicks in. It really looked like there was stuff floating around the theatre which surprised and thrilled me.
The world he created is brimming with life, beauty and realism. It really looks and feels like a real place with a long history.
It’s the visuals that make this movie though. It’s beautiful, striking and exciting. The CGI characters are perfectly executed. They look and feel like real living things that you can care about. You quickly forget you are looking at CGI.
All in all if you are a person who likes spectacle and a good romp then you’ll love it to I reckon.
Cameron has done it again. He may be a bit of a arrogant arsehole IRL but the man can make a sci-fi actioner like few others. I’ll be seeing this again in the cinema and look forward to seeing others opinions as they see the movie.
Said it someplace else, this movie is just full of details. Neytiri’s picture on the fridge in the outpost. A handwritten label ’ foodstuffs only’ on same. Giovanni Ribisi who can’t handle computerscreens. Rotating gravity sections on the interstellar ship. The fact that they have to jury-rig a shuttle as bomber because that’s all they brought, the fact that the heli’s have covers on the air intakes when not in use… it’s all kinds of things that aren’t in-your-face, but that just make sense.
Actually, the current digital 3D method (like realD and Disney 3D) uses a single projector and a screen that alternates the polarization every other frame (each frame is projected twice, with opposing polarizations).
I wrote my review on my blog. Basically I thought it was a totally immersive and convincing world, and I was completely taken in with the adventure and the characters in a way I never have been before.
Can anyone compare and contrast the IMAX 3D experience versus the regular 3D? Has anyone seen both? Seen the IMAX? I’ve found that the IMAX can be a bit hit or miss on other movies because of the size of the screen and field of view with the glasses.
Seen both. The IMAX screen our theater had was just bigger, and I believe a bit wider than the regular 3D. Fills the field-of-view quite nicely, better than the regular one did. It wasn’t the dome-shaped screen I’d expected, just a flat one. Crispness, colors and framerate seemed about the same.
The underlying technology seems to be about the same, though the polarized glasses seemed to be slightly different;
I tested the glasses with the screen of my cellphone, which propably emits polarized light, I suppose. When seen through the IMAX glasses, the screen could be seen through one glass, while the light didn’t seem to go through the other. If I rotated the screen of the cellphone 90 degrees, the situation was the other way around. When I tried the same with the regular 3D glasses, the only noticable difference was that the light of the cellphone screen seemed a bit more reddish or blueish, depending on the angle.
I haven’t seen it, but the St. Petersburg Times pretty much agreed with everyone here, and gave it a “B.” The reviewer loved the environment, but bemoaned the lack of a compelling story to carry the viewer along.
The plot is thin, no doubt, but there are plenty of Oscar movies out there for people to see that have plot galore. The plot for Avatar is enough to move it along, and tells you what you need to know about what’s going on, which is about par for action/adventure movies, most love stories and quite a bit of Science Fiction. If the plot were deep and dense and thick with layers and multiple meanings, people would complain about that too (remember the whining over The Matrix?) so for this movie, it’s just enough.
Really, I couldn’t come up with anything better to say than what he said: “The glory of the movies is the sense of transport and wonder we feel when watching something amazing, and “Avatar” offers that in spades.”
Pandora is such a beautiful and interesting and fascinating world that I would go see the movie over and over again just to immerse myself into it. There are so many fine details that I don’t think you could see everything with 10 viewings. When people say “You’ve never seen anything like it” they REALLY mean, you’ve never seen anything like it, and they’re talking about Pandora, not the military stuff in the trailers. It’s awe-inspiring, and no trailer or clips on a small screen can do it justice. The movie will suffer terribly when it goes to the small screen.
If anyone has even a tiny smidgen of interest in seeing this, they should see it in the theater, 3D, 2D, whatever, just see it big. It really is worth your money. You’d pay more for an immersive amusement park ride that only lasted a few minutes.
I’m glad I saw it in 3D, and I’ll see it again in 2D. The 3D is pretty wonderful though, my stupid glasses aside. It’s very subtle and is mainly used for depth, rather than as a gimmick. For the first time, I actually feel very very sorry for people who can’t see 3D. With most movies, they’re not missing much, if anything. With this movie, they’re missing out on a lot. But, it’s still worth seeing. I took my glasses off at one point because they were bothering me, and was still blown away by the visuals. The 3D is so subtle that the images still worked without the glasses. I know I’m going to enjoy the 2D version as well.
I didn’t like the look of the Na’vi in the trailer, but I got used to them very quickly when in the theater. I completely forgot they were CGI, so yes, the technology worked.
The trailer doesn’t even show a tiny fraction of the world of Pandora. But even so, if you can look at what’s already there in the trailer for Avatar and what’s in the trailer for Grand Theft Auto and compare them, then there’s just no discussion to be had.
I am experiencing a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. I enjoyed the hell out of Grand Theft Auto when it first came out - but I don’t recall much in the way of “hype” for it. It was an unapologetic B movie. “There’s gonna be lots of car crashes!” was as buzzy as it got.
I seem to recall another picture that year that we were compelled to see at least ten times in the theatre (before VCR’s made it easy to watch a movie into the ground.) That movie (with 20X the budget and 500X the influence) seems more credibly analogous to Avatar.
Now the earth is really shifting under my feet. The only movie called Grand Theft Auto I am aware of is the 1977 Ron Howard / Roger Corman thing. It came out about a month after Star Wars, and consequently didn’t come up much when the subject was “Which must-see life-changing jaw-dropping spectacle Event movie are we going to see this summer?”
I was thinking the same thing too. That the Na’vi once had a civilization similiar to ours in the distant past and the whole tree network is some form of ancient bionanotechnology and Enya is actually some kind of guardian AI.
Speaking of the starship I liked out the part where the cryogenic chambers didn’t have gravity or that the chambers didn’t have glass tops. There’s not much point in having artificial gravity in part of the ship where the passengers spend the bulk of their time on ice. Oh and according to Wikipedia the star system is Alpha Centauri which explains how they only had a 6 year trip without FTL.
