Avatar

Post by **Animavore** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:40 am

Cast your eyes upon the awesome.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5 ... eviewsNews

Post by **Clinton Huxley** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:07 am

Animavore wrote:Cast your eyes upon the awesome.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5 ... eviewsNews

Hmmmm.

Film was made by Twentieth Century Fox (owned by Murdoch), the article contains rave reviews from The Sun (also owned by Rupert Murdoch) and the Hollywood Reporter (which I believe Murdoch is attempting to buy at the moment)....

Good review from Empire but then the reviewers there are almost all SFX fan boys.

On the plus side, the Guardian reviewer liked it, so maybe it's not bad....

Post by **Animavore** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:15 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:
Animavore wrote:Cast your eyes upon the awesome.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5 ... eviewsNews
Hmmmm.

Film was made by Twentieth Century Fox (owned by Murdoch), the article contains rave reviews from The Sun (also owned by Rupert Murdoch) and the Hollywood Reporter (which I believe Murdoch is attempting to buy at the moment)....

Good review from Empire but then the reviewers there are almost all SFX fan boys.

On the plus side, the Guardian reviewer liked it, so maybe it's not bad....

Yi cynical auld bastard

Here's a shit load more reviews http://ie.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:16 am

Late to the party, as usual. (I gotta learn to post quicker.)

Anybody posted this yet? http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/

Post by **Clinton Huxley** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:18 am

Animavore wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:
Animavore wrote:Cast your eyes upon the awesome.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5 ... eviewsNews
Hmmmm.

Film was made by Twentieth Century Fox (owned by Murdoch), the article contains rave reviews from The Sun (also owned by Rupert Murdoch) and the Hollywood Reporter (which I believe Murdoch is attempting to buy at the moment)....

Good review from Empire but then the reviewers there are almost all SFX fan boys.

On the plus side, the Guardian reviewer liked it, so maybe it's not bad....
Yi cynical auld bastard
Here's a shit load more reviews http://ie.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

Aliens and The Abyss are two of my fave films, so I want Avatar to be good. I'm just a bit dubious about 3D....

The comment in one review that it was like "Ferngully with guns" was funny though...

Post by **Animavore** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:21 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:
Animavore wrote:Cast your eyes upon the awesome.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5 ... eviewsNews
Hmmmm.

Film was made by Twentieth Century Fox (owned by Murdoch), the article contains rave reviews from The Sun (also owned by Rupert Murdoch) and the Hollywood Reporter (which I believe Murdoch is attempting to buy at the moment)....

Good review from Empire but then the reviewers there are almost all SFX fan boys.

On the plus side, the Guardian reviewer liked it, so maybe it's not bad....
Yi cynical auld bastard
Here's a shit load more reviews http://ie.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/
Aliens and The Abyss are two of my fave films, so I want Avatar to be good. I'm just a bit dubious about 3D....

The comment in one review that it was like "Ferngully with guns" was funny though...

According to this guy ...

The third dimension functions as an enhancement, not a raison d'etre, so the film will look perfectly fine without it. (When it opens domestically on Dec. 15, approximately 2100 screens will feature 3D, with another 1200 in 2D.)

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117941 ... id=31&cs=1

...so it implies the film doesn't rely on the 3-D as a gimmick.

Post by **Clinton Huxley** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:24 am

Well, the trailer looks fine in 2D (not sure about the floating mountains but that's another matter) but Avatar is definitely leading the charge for 3D in general, which is basically just a way for Twentieth Century Fox et al to screw cinema-goers for even more money.

Post by **Chinaski** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:46 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec ... ilm-review

Eh. Don't know what to think.

Post by **aznxscorpion517** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:08 pm

I'll be going to an advanced screening this coming Thursday. If I remember, I'll post my thoughts here that same night.

I am a VFX artist so the effects are important to me (it's mostly the reason why I want to see it) but that never does anything for me as how the film actually is. I like the more serious dramas and those are the ones on my favorites list. I see films in two ways: entertainment and actual greatness in certain areas. The effects are obviously looking great so far and it appears for the most part to be quite entertaining but for a film as a whole, I'm very skeptical because it doesn't look like anything new as far as the trailers go. I guess I'll have to see on Thursday.

Post by **drl2** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:12 pm

The early reviews are coming in, and they're mostly very positive:

Roger Ebert:

"Avatar" is not simply a sensational entertainment, although it is that. It's a technical breakthrough. It has a flat-out Green and anti-war message. It is predestined to launch a cult. It contains such visual detailing that it would reward repeating viewings. It invents a new language, Na'vi, as "Lord of the Rings" did, although mercifully I doubt this one can be spoken by humans, even teenage humans. It creates new movie stars. It is an Event, one of those films you feel you must see to keep up with the conversation.

At 163 minutes, the film doesn't feel too long. It contains so much. The human stories. The Na'vi stories, for the Na'vi are also developed as individuals. The complexity of the planet, which harbors a global secret. The ultimate warfare, with Jake joining the resistance against his former comrades. Small graceful details like a floating creature that looks like a cross between a blowing dandelion seed and a drifting jellyfish, and embodies goodness. Or astonishing floating cloud-islands.

I've complained that many recent films abandon story telling in their third acts and go for wall-to-wall action. Cameron essentially does that here, but has invested well in establishing his characters so that it matters what they do in battle and how they do it. There are issues at stake greater than simply which side wins.

Ain't It Cool News:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43345
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43352

... and it's sitting at 90% on RottenTomatoes

Sounds promising.

I've pre-bought tickets for the 20th in a digital-equipped theater.

Post by **maiforpeace** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:31 pm

Elessarina wrote:is anyone else getting excited about this movie?

I'm looking forward to it because it's going to be my first time watching a movie in 3D.

I'm not science minded enough to get turned off by pseudo science in movies, so I guess I'm easily entertained.

*edit*

I just saw the sneak preview for this - this is the future of movies...now I'm excited!

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:15 pm

Avatar: 3D - Digital Projection 162 min. PG-13
Stadium Seating No VIP after 6PM / No Pass / No Coupon *Additional Charges May Apply*
11 AM 11:30 AM 2:35 PM 3:10 PM 6:10 PM 7 PM 9:50 PM 10:35 PM

Avatar: Digital Projection 162 min. PG-13
Stadium Seating No VIP after 6PM / No Pass / No Coupon
9 AM 9:45 AM 12:10 PM 12:45 PM 1:30 PM 3:50 PM 4:20 PM 5:15 PM 7:30 PM 8 PM 9 PM 11 PM 11:35 PM

So, 3D or no-3D?

Post by **Animavore** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:19 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
Avatar: 3D - Digital Projection 162 min. PG-13
Stadium Seating No VIP after 6PM / No Pass / No Coupon *Additional Charges May Apply*
11 AM 11:30 AM 2:35 PM 3:10 PM 6:10 PM 7 PM 9:50 PM 10:35 PM

Avatar: Digital Projection 162 min. PG-13
Stadium Seating No VIP after 6PM / No Pass / No Coupon
9 AM 9:45 AM 12:10 PM 12:45 PM 1:30 PM 3:50 PM 4:20 PM 5:15 PM 7:30 PM 8 PM 9 PM 11 PM 11:35 PM

So, 3D or no-3D?

Why would you watch not 3-D if 3-D is available?
Only real advantage I can think of is that it would be less packed in the non-3-D showing (I hate packed cinemas so I won't be seeing this film for a couple of weeks).

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:22 pm

Animavore wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Avatar: 3D - Digital Projection 162 min. PG-13
Stadium Seating No VIP after 6PM / No Pass / No Coupon *Additional Charges May Apply*
11 AM 11:30 AM 2:35 PM 3:10 PM 6:10 PM 7 PM 9:50 PM 10:35 PM

Avatar: Digital Projection 162 min. PG-13
Stadium Seating No VIP after 6PM / No Pass / No Coupon
9 AM 9:45 AM 12:10 PM 12:45 PM 1:30 PM 3:50 PM 4:20 PM 5:15 PM 7:30 PM 8 PM 9 PM 11 PM 11:35 PM

So, 3D or no-3D?
Why would you watch not 3-D if 3-D is available?
Only real advantage I can think of is that it would be less packed in the non-3-D showing (I hate packed cinemas so I won't be seeing this film for a couple of weeks).

Yeah, I know. I was just having fun. I'll probably go to the 2:35 show tomorrow. It will be a zoo, but I'm bored and antsy.

Post by **Mysturji** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:37 pm

It featured prominently in the sub-plot of a recent episode of "Bones".
I think I'll go see the film, even if this thread contains no Swiss Rolls.

rationalia.com

Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Re: Avatar

Who is online