James Cameron's Avatar

I knew from the get go this was gonna be a visual rollercoaster worth the 15 bucks but some of yall negative nancies given this mostly decent reviews is maken my nipplez a lil perky thinkin bout peeping this shit tomorrow

I'm going to wait till next week to see it at IMAX 3D

it's all sold out everywhere

but every 3D movie I've been to so far makes my face hurt after about 30 min and I gotta take the glasses off to relax my eyes

I'm sure I will enjoy this though

IMAX 3D is the only way I will want to this movie at any point in space or time, I had no problem with high strain during Beowolf IMAX 3D a few years ago or whatever so I aints scurred

I guess that makes me a pagina

this one strained my eyes fishtank. every 20 mins or so I gave my eyes a rest for maybe a minute. no headache though.

This was my first time watching a film in the new 3D (not the blue and red glasses). My only complaint about that is about the focus changes in the shots. In a normal film you can focus your eye on whatever even if something goes in or out of focus but with the 3D it's like your eye is being forced to go to certain places. I'd be enthralled staring at something in the background and have it go out of focus and be forced to focus on whatever came into focus. Just took some getting used to for me. It's especially prevalent in the shot at the beginning of the film where the main character is leaving his pod and the camera seems to switch between focus on him and the background, both of which are extremely detailed.

  On 12/20/2009 at 4:55 AM, takeshi said:

This was my first time watching a film in the new 3D (not the blue and red glasses). My only complaint about that is about the focus changes in the shots. In a normal film you can focus your eye on whatever even if something goes in or out of focus but with the 3D it's like your eye is being forced to go to certain places. I'd be enthralled staring at something in the background and have it go out of focus and be forced to focus on whatever came into focus. Just took some getting used to for me. It's especially prevalent in the shot at the beginning of the film where the main character is leaving his pod and the camera seems to switch between focus on him and the background, both of which are extremely detailed.

y you're eyes definitely take a little time to get used to the effect. I too had the same focusing issues. I noticed they seemed to be happening more during the live actions stuff VS the cgi

Holllllllyyyyyyyyy shhhiiiiiittttttttttttt

my eyesballs were just sexed.

  On 12/20/2009 at 1:39 AM, Alcofribas said:

i watched this with david lynch on my RaZR phone and i was like "lol 3D" and he was like, "no, more like 3====D"

lol

  On 12/19/2009 at 10:42 PM, karmakramer said:

Avatar isn't a bad movie. The story is predictable but the acting is well done and I loved all the characters. It was funny, it was sad, it was beautiful and scary. It was an experience unlike any other movie made.

I've got it on good authority that the story was ripped right out of The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride, with Dances With Wolves and Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest thrown in.

I'm off to watch it again right now

  On 12/20/2009 at 7:31 AM, Kcinsu said:

Holllllllyyyyyyyyy shhhiiiiiittttttttttttt

 

my eyesballs were just sexed.

elaborate on the ocular coitus

i just fagged some sperm out of my dick

drunk as fuck

cant stop thinking about this movie.

fucking sex my butt

fuck i love

\

everytihng

did mirezzi see this yet? i won't watch it until i see his critique!

this thread just begs for a photoshop of mirezzi wearing 3d glasses and enjoying avatar

just got back from watching it and thought it was pretty damn good. The visuals were great but after a while it felt like overkill. The plot was flimsy at best and the acting was horrible. worth it on 3d though.

6/10

Based on the fact that Cameron's last film is still the highest-grossing film of all time, by a huge $700Million margin, and the generally favourable reviews this is getting from the hard-to-please sci-fi-internet audience, is it safe to say that this is going to make a mind-boggling amount of money?

  On 12/19/2009 at 9:53 PM, Rambo said:

i'm excited because i saw it last night and visuals were extremely poor. I'll review this tomorrow but i probably won't watch it til it's out on dvd. 9/10

lol

  On 12/20/2009 at 11:37 AM, zazen said:

Based on the fact that Cameron's last film is still the highest-grossing film of all time, by a huge $700Million margin, and the generally favourable reviews this is getting from the hard-to-please sci-fi-internet audience, is it safe to say that this is going to make a mind-boggling amount of money?

Yay for corporates , I'm so happy that Cameron is making so much money.

  On 12/20/2009 at 1:39 AM, Alcofribas said:

i watched this with david lynch on my RaZR phone and i was like "lol 3D" and he was like, "no, more like 3====D"

Alcofribas C in the hizzouse!

You make me feel guilty for being the only user who saw Avatar on a regular theater screen. The rarity of IMAX 3D tickets discouraged me to do so.

"King Kong" of 2009.

If you watched this and loved it, you should go work for 20th Century Fox. You're already an unpaid promoter for them. I can't believe the amount of positive reviews it's had, and it took real brass balls to come out and call this shit out for what it is. Thank you, Armond White. Thank you, Devin Faraci. You guys aren't totally fucking dumb.

We're not out of the woods yet though. This movie could still make money. And if it makes $750million dollars then it will be a success. The chances are low - female awareness isn't that high. The girls that were in line with me were obedient and got dragged by their boyfriends. After the movie they baked them cookies. The chance that this makes money requires that people of all demos go see this movie. Not just dudes and guys and bros. But I think in the next couple weekends, the attendance will drop off and we can all forget about this.

Nothing changed here. The game remains the same. Sure, the CGI was at its most sophisticated. That's what $300,000,000 gets you. But what films can afford to consistently match that level? It's too costly. This is an aberration.

And an abortion.

An abortion on many levels. I kept hearing about this 3D immersion in a new strange world. First of all, 3D is at its finest when you are invested into the story. How can I be invested in a story when I can telegraph everything that will happen from the first 30 minutes and on? Perhaps I've read too much about the movie, or the writing sucks. I can't decide.

What I can decide is this is the new "King Kong" of 2009. I remember the raves that movie got - holy shit. People wouldn't shut the fuck up. So I went to the midnight show, and then three hours later I wanted those hours back. The worst part was, I wasn't even impressed with it on a technical level. I thought the effects were horrendous. There's just something about CGI integration into live action environments that totally fucking bores me. I think this film managed to bypass this problem because we are EITHER at Pandora or with the scientists. That explains why people "forget" that the na'vi are CGI. You accept them in a context, not because they look realistic. Nothing looked realistic. It looked like a cartoon. The story was set up perfectly for a cartoon, and that just reinforced how simplistic and dumb the movie actually was.

I have no interest in revisiting the movie. Especially not in 2D.

I'm ready to throw down you stupid faggots.

i never saw king kong, but i agree with the gist of what you're saying. i think the movie worked as a spectacle, as some kind of amusement park ride, but it totally fails as a movie.

actually, that thread about the phantom menace is a nice example of why avatar has failed on so many levels. there just isn't a story or characters to invest in. and i hate how it's being marketed like there's anything here beyond the technology. it's all about the technology. if some hack director (and cameron is becoming one) had made this same film, in 2d, it would be a disaster. you're paying to watch a tech demo that hopefully will be applied to a good story in a later film.

This wasn't the throwdown I had in mind. I'm glad you agree though.

don't worry, most people here loved it so i'm sure you'll get your throwdown. i think it's definitely worth seeing in 3d, but i will never watch it again.