___AVATAR Review Thread___

It's getting very mixed reviews. Many people seem to share the same opinion:

Amazing graphics, average or poor story, a bit headache inducing.

Is this the future of cinema? If so, bring an aspirin to the cinema! :D
 
...huh? 3D shouldn't be likened to lighting; if you don't notice it, then it's failed. The whole point of 3D is to immerse the viewer....simply put, a visit to the cinema is much less passive than it used to be.

Having said that, I'm not overly keen on 3D. Sure, it looks great but I don't know about anyone else, but watching nearly 3hrs worth of incredible detail, all in glorious 3D really is hard work on the eyes. I'm also a bit unsure about what 3D films is going to do to home cinema. Sky are due to launch a 3D service sometime next year, which will yet again require householRAB to invest in a new 3D compatible TV.....without this, films like Avatar will probably die a sorry death on DVD/Blu-ray.....and with 3D technology, watching 3D films at home will (like in the cinema) become much less passive, quite labour intensive and, to be honest, rather unsociable.

That's a future I'm not overly keen on.
 
Has anyone seen this in 3d at a normal cinema AND an IMAX pls? Any diference?
 
The fighting (supposed) terror with (pre-emptive) terror is also very relevant for these times... That part of the script I liked.
 
These are things called 'opinions' remember, something people are entitled to... not things which are laughable.

But still, you seem to be determined to go along on this campaign to tell people they're wrong, so good luck to you... :rolleyes:
 
I agree. Great visuals, but the story was nothing special. The plot was a rip off of Dances With The Wolves/any film where there is a battle between evil imperialists and "noble savages" - with the hero converting to the latter's side after spending time with them and seeing the error of his ways.

Although I do have to say that Worthington's accent was more than 20% Australian. I'm American, and his accent was not believable at all. It constantly slipped. Cameron should have just let him use his Aussie accent, because he does not do a convincing American accent.
 
I can't believe it's already the 4th highest grossing film in history, and passed $1billion in just 17 days :eek:
 
I was being too kind I guess! I seem to remember he did a better job in Terminator Salvation (a film too poor to stand re-watching), perhaps because it was filmed after Avatar I presume and he'd actually had some training.
 
If you are thinking about the 3D, then you are not immersed in the action.

When used well, 3D can make a scene more vivid, and usually Avatar does use it like that, but not always. Anything that has it reach out into the cinema, reminRAB you that you are in a cinema.

I don't see why. You no longer have to decode the 3D scene from a 2D representation, so it ought to be more passive.

For me there's a basic flaw in that you can't decide what to focus on. The focus is set when the film is made. Some things are blurry and there's nothing your eye can do to make it clear. This is also true for 2D films, but because 3D is more real your eye expects to focus like it was real. I find it off-putting (and another distraction), but I presume you get used to it. I daresay someone like Cameron has seen so much 3D footage he isn't aware of how the focus issue is for newcomers.
 
I think people who regard film narratives as ripoRAB because they take elements from other stories, is rediculous.

You honestly expect in 2009/2010 someone to come along and make an entirely original plot? Get real, everything's already been done. The skill is now in taking a plot and making it your own again.

Avatar would've struggled without a narrative we already feel comfortable with. It helps submerge you into the world it's set in. For me the story is pretty magical, and had me absorbed from the start.
 
Back
Top