Avatar reviews - Attention : spoilers
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
lonepigeon
Master Member
Re: Avatar reviews
I don't see Avatar getting too many negative reviews, just a few "It's great, but..."
It is a great movie despite it's story retread and cliche characters.
I was a little disappointed that I was never once surprised during the entire movie. Every character was so cliche that you knew them as soon as you saw them. The story didn't borrow elements from several others - it's the exact same story as several others point-for-point, no twists, mix-ups, nothing.
Honestly, the simple story might help because you're so overwhelmed visually.
I don't see Avatar getting too many negative reviews, just a few "It's great, but..."
It is a great movie despite it's story retread and cliche characters.
I was a little disappointed that I was never once surprised during the entire movie. Every character was so cliche that you knew them as soon as you saw them. The story didn't borrow elements from several others - it's the exact same story as several others point-for-point, no twists, mix-ups, nothing.
Honestly, the simple story might help because you're so overwhelmed visually.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
lonepigeon
Master Member
Re: Avatar reviews
I was hoping Unobtainium would help explain the ridiculous floating mountains, but it doesn't.
The Colonel held his breath the whole time.
The waterfalls on the floating mountains bugged me. How does the water get up there and wouldn't it all drain off quickly?
I was hoping Unobtainium would help explain the ridiculous floating mountains, but it doesn't.
The Colonel held his breath the whole time.
The waterfalls on the floating mountains bugged me. How does the water get up there and wouldn't it all drain off quickly?
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
The Stig
Sr Member
Re: Avatar reviews
I think the comparison with Star Wars is a fair one, by all means Star Wars is another cookie cutter style movie.
What Star Wars had going for it was revolutionary visual and special effects; to it's credit Avatar tried damn hard to live up to the hype, I just don't feel that it is the game changing cinematic achievement that James Cameron claimed it to be.
I think the comparison with Star Wars is a fair one, by all means Star Wars is another cookie cutter style movie.
What Star Wars had going for it was revolutionary visual and special effects; to it's credit Avatar tried damn hard to live up to the hype, I just don't feel that it is the game changing cinematic achievement that James Cameron claimed it to be.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Re: Avatar reviews
Publicity-wise, the man is his own worst enemy. Sometimes the best way to sell your movie is to STFU.
Then again, who wants James Cameron without bragging? That's like asking for George Lucas without whining.
Publicity-wise, the man is his own worst enemy. Sometimes the best way to sell your movie is to STFU.
Then again, who wants James Cameron without bragging? That's like asking for George Lucas without whining.
tubachris85x
Master Member
Re: Avatar reviews
You know, I don't know why alot of people were giving cameron crap for this film.
I just saw it, yea a simple story, but aren't the simplist things in life, the things that make people most happy?
Anyways, great visuals, I was concerned about having the whole CG not being as "fluent" or really representative of lifelike motion/emotion, but they pulled it off flawlessly.
I'm very pleased with this film
You know, I don't know why alot of people were giving cameron crap for this film.
I just saw it, yea a simple story, but aren't the simplist things in life, the things that make people most happy?
Anyways, great visuals, I was concerned about having the whole CG not being as "fluent" or really representative of lifelike motion/emotion, but they pulled it off flawlessly.
I'm very pleased with this film
wuher da brewer
Sr Member
Re: Avatar reviews
I can already hear my ignorant friend, who seems to hate every movie but stupid super heroes movies and Aliens. He'll say it's just another Enemy Mine where a human and an alien must work together to understand each other.
The Dances with Wolves comparison is certainly valid. I was thinking that thirty minutes in. Perhaps my perspective is different as a minority. Perhaps my perspective is different because I don't have the blinders up when it comes to the true nature of the country I live in, as I'm capable of recognizing the good and the bad. I identified a lot with the movie. Those things helped me thoroughly enjoy it.
I can already hear my ignorant friend, who seems to hate every movie but stupid super heroes movies and Aliens. He'll say it's just another Enemy Mine where a human and an alien must work together to understand each other.
The Dances with Wolves comparison is certainly valid. I was thinking that thirty minutes in. Perhaps my perspective is different as a minority. Perhaps my perspective is different because I don't have the blinders up when it comes to the true nature of the country I live in, as I'm capable of recognizing the good and the bad. I identified a lot with the movie. Those things helped me thoroughly enjoy it.
Last edited:
Re: Avatar reviews
Agree! The action was never confusing and was always fluid and beautiful to watch. The jaw-dropping stuff at the end with the Dragon battleship was outright hilariously OTT, but still worked perfectly in the context of such a huge, OTT movie. Cameron's moving camera was also, always, really pretty.
Carson, your points on story are fine with me - I wasn't *upset* that it's Dances with Wolves, as such. But as Chris Trevas pointed out, there's really no attempt to introduce any surprise or twist at all. Throwing us some sort of bone there would have been nice.
Lonepigeon and Qui, floating islands always have unphysical waterfalls. It's a natural law, or something.
IIRC, unobtainium is a room-temperature superconductor. Pandora is a relatively low-gravity moon, very close to its primary - a really big gas giant which probably has fierce magnetic fields. I assume the vortex jamming phenomenon is part of the same phenomenon that keeps the mountains aloft. My guess is that the mountains have a high dose of unobtainium (which also results in trees of unusual size, apparently) and that interactions with Pandora's magnetic field and the gas giant's field are supposed to cause the floating rocks. Or something.
The circular formations around the Eywa tree are just about as impossible to explain as the mountains, for that matter.
Again, just some kind of brief exposition would have helped with these things.
Still. The film just tries so hard to be entertaining that it's kind of hard not to want to give it a pat on the head.
Agree! The action was never confusing and was always fluid and beautiful to watch. The jaw-dropping stuff at the end with the Dragon battleship was outright hilariously OTT, but still worked perfectly in the context of such a huge, OTT movie. Cameron's moving camera was also, always, really pretty.
Carson, your points on story are fine with me - I wasn't *upset* that it's Dances with Wolves, as such. But as Chris Trevas pointed out, there's really no attempt to introduce any surprise or twist at all. Throwing us some sort of bone there would have been nice.
Lonepigeon and Qui, floating islands always have unphysical waterfalls. It's a natural law, or something.
IIRC, unobtainium is a room-temperature superconductor. Pandora is a relatively low-gravity moon, very close to its primary - a really big gas giant which probably has fierce magnetic fields. I assume the vortex jamming phenomenon is part of the same phenomenon that keeps the mountains aloft. My guess is that the mountains have a high dose of unobtainium (which also results in trees of unusual size, apparently) and that interactions with Pandora's magnetic field and the gas giant's field are supposed to cause the floating rocks. Or something.
The circular formations around the Eywa tree are just about as impossible to explain as the mountains, for that matter.
Again, just some kind of brief exposition would have helped with these things.
Still. The film just tries so hard to be entertaining that it's kind of hard not to want to give it a pat on the head.
Last edited:
RICHIES ARMOR
Sr Member
Re: Avatar reviews
I saw it twice yesterday is 2d and 3D. It was a fun comparison seeing the differences in the 2 versions of the film. I was blown away! You wouldnt have been able to get the smile off my face! I was drawn into the film and was almost startled when it ended!
My wife attended the 3D version with me and highly enjoyed it! She being native American immediatly noticed the connection to the portrayal of the Native Americans in most American films and felt is was a nice homage.
I find the complaints I read here mostly laughable! I never would have even known there was music in the film...didnt mean a thing to me. I was in awe of the effects and I was too busy rooting for the characters!!
I loved the action, the visualization, the story...nothing else in the world crossed my mind for that 2.5 hour period!
Mabe Im a more simplistic movie goer but I think I know what a bad movie is...ATOC comes to mind. I never ounce wanted to see it again after seeing it initially...havent even watched any of the SW franchise after those last 3 let downs!
Amazing job JC!!
Richie
I saw it twice yesterday is 2d and 3D. It was a fun comparison seeing the differences in the 2 versions of the film. I was blown away! You wouldnt have been able to get the smile off my face! I was drawn into the film and was almost startled when it ended!
My wife attended the 3D version with me and highly enjoyed it! She being native American immediatly noticed the connection to the portrayal of the Native Americans in most American films and felt is was a nice homage.
I find the complaints I read here mostly laughable! I never would have even known there was music in the film...didnt mean a thing to me. I was in awe of the effects and I was too busy rooting for the characters!!
I loved the action, the visualization, the story...nothing else in the world crossed my mind for that 2.5 hour period!
Mabe Im a more simplistic movie goer but I think I know what a bad movie is...ATOC comes to mind. I never ounce wanted to see it again after seeing it initially...havent even watched any of the SW franchise after those last 3 let downs!
Amazing job JC!!
Richie
barbatus
Well-Known Member
cayman shen
Master Member
pennausamike
Sr Member
Re: Avatar reviews
Avatar lived up to my expectations.
I went to see an "EVENT" movie;
I saw an "EVENT!!" movie.
My family and I all felt the 3-D increased the connection with the audience.
It also made the audience a participant in the aerial flights and battles.
3-D made the interactive viewscreens just a little more awesome.
And finally, the 3-D environment of Pandora was immersive and spectacular.
Cameron knows action.
Transformers 2 was too jumbled (except the amazing forest fight),
2012 was just characters outrunning destruction (more than once=yawn)
but in Avatar, whether a jungle hunt or a techno-battle, I knew who was who, what was what, and where they were.
The "Dances With Wolves" storyline was what it was.
Some people want to see that story; some don't.
I felt the references to European settlers displacing the native American population were spot-on;
I felt the handful of references to the Iraq war were strained and artificial.
My only complaint is that rather than just a small group of Corporate-Baddies,
all of humanity, the race that destroyed their now-brown-no-green-Mother-Earth;
were portrayed as the bad guys.
The conceit that makes the story possible
(that the blue natives were physically and spiritually connected to their planet and environment)
isn't a real thing.
I had to suspend my real-life and religious beliefs to buy into Avatar's story.
And given that this (felt like a lot less than) two-and-a-half hour movie was so engaging,
I was willing to do that.
The reward was a thoroughly enjoyable movie-going experience.
Mike
Avatar lived up to my expectations.
I went to see an "EVENT" movie;
I saw an "EVENT!!" movie.
My family and I all felt the 3-D increased the connection with the audience.
It also made the audience a participant in the aerial flights and battles.
3-D made the interactive viewscreens just a little more awesome.
And finally, the 3-D environment of Pandora was immersive and spectacular.
Cameron knows action.
Transformers 2 was too jumbled (except the amazing forest fight),
2012 was just characters outrunning destruction (more than once=yawn)
but in Avatar, whether a jungle hunt or a techno-battle, I knew who was who, what was what, and where they were.
The "Dances With Wolves" storyline was what it was.
Some people want to see that story; some don't.
I felt the references to European settlers displacing the native American population were spot-on;
I felt the handful of references to the Iraq war were strained and artificial.
My only complaint is that rather than just a small group of Corporate-Baddies,
all of humanity, the race that destroyed their now-brown-no-green-Mother-Earth;
were portrayed as the bad guys.
The conceit that makes the story possible
(that the blue natives were physically and spiritually connected to their planet and environment)
isn't a real thing.
I had to suspend my real-life and religious beliefs to buy into Avatar's story.
And given that this (felt like a lot less than) two-and-a-half hour movie was so engaging,
I was willing to do that.
The reward was a thoroughly enjoyable movie-going experience.
Mike
jackdoud
Sr Member
Re: Avatar reviews
Did anyone else have a problem with the 3D in their theatre? I saw it in IMAX 3D in the King of Prussia PA theatre last night. In the "still" shots (like the video recordings), low image-density shots and wide panorama shots all worked beautifully but a lot of the fast paced, high-density and multi-depth shots had horrible ghosting on the 3D. Anything that wasn't the focus of the shot was doubled, this was most apparent on any text, computer displays and mid-ground people in the shot. It kept pulling me out of movie (even more so than the hair and bugs that kept bouncing around the projector lenses). I tried someone elses glass and was still getting the same effect, my left eye the image was fine and my right eye some things were doubled.
My theories are either my eye is messed up (a distinct posibility), the theatre's cameras are off-focus or the film wasn't made correctly. Anyone else notice this issue? I want to see it in non-IMAX 3D now to see if it was just the screen.
Did anyone else have a problem with the 3D in their theatre? I saw it in IMAX 3D in the King of Prussia PA theatre last night. In the "still" shots (like the video recordings), low image-density shots and wide panorama shots all worked beautifully but a lot of the fast paced, high-density and multi-depth shots had horrible ghosting on the 3D. Anything that wasn't the focus of the shot was doubled, this was most apparent on any text, computer displays and mid-ground people in the shot. It kept pulling me out of movie (even more so than the hair and bugs that kept bouncing around the projector lenses). I tried someone elses glass and was still getting the same effect, my left eye the image was fine and my right eye some things were doubled.
My theories are either my eye is messed up (a distinct posibility), the theatre's cameras are off-focus or the film wasn't made correctly. Anyone else notice this issue? I want to see it in non-IMAX 3D now to see if it was just the screen.
pennausamike
Sr Member
Re: Avatar reviews
I had a similar problem years ago with even 2-D in watching the Star Wars Ep. II on an IMAX screen.
I just think when the screens are larger than our field of vision,
something goes awry.
I had a couple of instances of blurry-ness, even on the regular screen.
I think the glasses are the current weak point of 3-D tech.
But overall, the 3-D worked and added to the experience.
Mike
I had a similar problem years ago with even 2-D in watching the Star Wars Ep. II on an IMAX screen.
I just think when the screens are larger than our field of vision,
something goes awry.
I had a couple of instances of blurry-ness, even on the regular screen.
I think the glasses are the current weak point of 3-D tech.
But overall, the 3-D worked and added to the experience.
Mike
Kerr Avon
Master Member
Re: Avatar reviews
Did she notice after being slapped upside the head or after having the allegory shoved down her throat?
It's not exactly what I'd call subtle, at least from what I've seen in the previews.
Did she notice after being slapped upside the head or after having the allegory shoved down her throat?
It's not exactly what I'd call subtle, at least from what I've seen in the previews.
The Stig
Sr Member
Re: Avatar reviews
I did. I watched the first 30 minutes of the movie without my prescription glasses and could feel my eyes straining. I could not focus on what I was supposed to be looking at. Luckily the IMAX glasses fit over my prescription pair and I was able to enjoy the 3D...
Which brings me to a question, admittedly my 3D movie experience has been limited to the screening room of where I work, I have seen various 3D pics there including the 30 minute preview of Avatar. I remember the 3D at work looking so much more spectacular than what I saw at the Metreon yesterday. The glasses we use at work are not the throw away pair that you get in theaters, they are a thick plastic and the "glass" is actually clear and not tinted as you see with the IMAX glasses. Does anybody know if there is a difference in the projecting technology or if its just a question of the build quality in the glasses?
I did. I watched the first 30 minutes of the movie without my prescription glasses and could feel my eyes straining. I could not focus on what I was supposed to be looking at. Luckily the IMAX glasses fit over my prescription pair and I was able to enjoy the 3D...
Which brings me to a question, admittedly my 3D movie experience has been limited to the screening room of where I work, I have seen various 3D pics there including the 30 minute preview of Avatar. I remember the 3D at work looking so much more spectacular than what I saw at the Metreon yesterday. The glasses we use at work are not the throw away pair that you get in theaters, they are a thick plastic and the "glass" is actually clear and not tinted as you see with the IMAX glasses. Does anybody know if there is a difference in the projecting technology or if its just a question of the build quality in the glasses?
Similar threads
