I saw Avatar today and really liked it, I didnt realise it was in 3d either. The movie is around 2 hours and 45 minutes and was worth the $9.75 I paid to see it
Was at the midnight showing of Avatar Thursday night at midnight. All I can say is - DON'T MISS THIS MOVIE!!!!!
For the first time that I can remember, they haven't shown the total story in the trailers. The trailers did exactly what Cameron intended, they teased you to wanting to see and know more about the inhabitants of Pandora.
I didn't find the length of the film a fault, although I think I could have seen it with less of the love story, and more of the action. 2 hours and 45 minutes fly by like 2 minutes and 45 seconds. The first 90 minutes of the movie will sit you back in your seat, and the rest of it is a roller coaster ride that you won't soon forget!!
It's been a long time between films for James Cameron, but the six years he has put into this movie look like it on the screen. The CGI is flawless, and the characters look amazingly real. I definitely will see this one or two more times on the wonderously hugh screens at The Warren Theaters here in Wichita. And the Digital Picture and THX sound was even more evident in this film. If you can, avoid seeing this movie any other way. The Digital 3-D is amazing, and the THX sound will rock your world!!
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
Saw it this afternoon is IMAX 3D, and it was AMAZING. The effects were flawless, and the story was heartfelt and engaging, and those action sequences truly kicked ass, and and and.... I could gush for hours, but since I'm so tired I'll keep it super short. I'll just say that if you love great entertainment, than you NEED to see this movie, 3D or otherwise, see it in theaters.
Well, caught the matinee in 3D today and the theater was packed (caught the same matinee for Princess and the Frog last week and there was only one other family in the theater). The movie was big and contained many hyped up aspects I want to hit on so my review will be big.
Lets start with a brief intro to the movie. This movie has been in full production for 4 years and in James Cameron's head for 15. The time in between the initial script and production was spent developing the 3D camera technology and waiting for the computer animation to catch up with his imagination. Who is James Cameron you may ask? The director who brought us Terminator 1 & 2 (T2:3D the Universal Studios 3D attraction), Aliens, The Abyss, True Lies, and the highest grossing movie ever, Titanic (how does this movie compares to those I'll touch on in the review). Now factor in the director's track record for making good movies with the time he spent making this movie and it's 3D technology and the films infamy for being the most expensive ever produced and you can start to fathom where all the hype is coming from.
Note: I will be referencing Dances With Wolves throughout the review and making comparisons as the similarities are to big to miss.
The story, so how was it? Well if you've seen Dancing with Wolves, you've seen this movie, as it was basically the same thing thrown in space and drowned in environmentalism. No longer are we fully concerned with the Native American's (Na'vi) well being, but the home that they inhabit, Pandora. More then one time its been eluded [in the movie] that humans are destructive and that we destroyed/polluted Earth's environment and now we're trying to destroy Pandora (the film even ends with a green Avatar logo). This movie is over stuffed with so many creatures and characters and wonderful new environments that you have a hard time identifying who the main character really is. We're told its the Marine Jake Sully, but I felt no connection with him as I did Lieutenant Dunbar from Dances With Wolves, who the entire story revolved around and perspective it was seen through. If I had to guess, I would say it was the planet Pandora, who was the true main character. This is only further backed by the fact that we're shown the planet is literally a living organism that all life on it is connected to and that the Na'vi can jack in (Matrix style) to the plant and its inhabitants with their pony tails (that's not a joke and won't seem like one when you see the movie). The main story point changed from Dancing With Wolves in Avatar is that instead of having the Native Americans (Na'vi) just leaving their land at the end and letting the dangerous white men (humans) take it, we get a big 20 minute fight scene. Its here that most of the films clichés take place as you will swear you've seen this scene before. Theres not too much thats original in Avatar's story but even as familiar as everything was, and it was very familiar, you will probably be entertained all the way through as the characters are developed just enough to hold some weight. There is no easy way to classify this film as there was simply too much going on.
The characters, how were they? They were all pretty equally developed, with just a few less then others. This was good as there was not to many people that didn't have a place but it was bad because it didn't really give us a central character to latch on to (as I mention above, I feel Pandora itself was the central character). This was the same problem I had with The Abyss, lack of central character, that really in both movies doesn't show up until the end to suit the plot (planet Pandora and undersea Aliens both come into play at the end of the movies). So how was Marine Jake Sully, the man we're told is the main character? Well, as said before, I didn't connect with him like I did Lieutenant Dunbar from Dances with Wolves as I don't feel enough time was spent on him but on all the characters around him (there are quite a few). It just wasn't told with the same intimacy. There was a couple of moments with him that were well done (such as his first experience with an Avatar and coincidentally, the first time he was able to walk since being paralyzed), but other then that, we're not really let into his thoughts. Events just unfold around him and he changes to suit the story. The Na'vi were handled a little better and let us see a little of their culture and their line of thinking. We get to know them just as well as the Native American tribe in Dances With Wolves. We have a couple of stock villains from previous James Cameron movies. You have the greedy corporate lawyer/executive Parker Selfridge (Carter Burke, Aliens) who works for the evil "company" and the crazy Colonel Quaritch (Lt. Coffey, The Abyss) who wants everything done his way and will kill to have it that way. Actually, if you've seen a James Cameron film, a lot of characters will seem familiar to you.
The revolutionary visual effects, how were they? Very, very good. When I saw the first Avatar trailer, I was extremely put off by the goofy looking aliens and lack luster CG. After seeing the movie, I've got to say, it looks way better in the movie. I don't know why but during the movie you never question the CG. The Na'vi are an amazing effect, best since Gollum and are very well animated. They were completely believable with the great acting and the motion capture is a million times better then anything Zemeckis has made (this is what WETA has done with Gollum and King Kong, let the animators touch upon all the mo-cap, and never just leave it bare). The Na'vi were so well done that it pains me to see that there were a whole bunch of other tribes that aren't even seen or made known until the very end. The whole planet and all its inhabitants are very detailed and creative. So detailed that its no wonder it took them 2 years to design the planet and its creatures long before any filming even started. The whole planet is just so engrossing that you wish they'd make a nature documentary exploring it (maybe a DVD supplement). None of these WETA creations are as down to earth and believable as the one featured in King Kong but neither is the planet, which is different. You will see lots of weird designs that were not made out of practicality or with the thought of how they work in mind but purely out of desire to make a crazy design. They're very colorful and glow-in-the-darkish. The human's base is very futuristic but not out of the realm of believability. Lots of holo-screens and ships are very close to what you saw in Aliens (hyper sleep and all). The design of the mechs look exactly like the ones from Matrix trilogy. One thing Cameron did absolutely right, that all sci-fi directors have done to keep up believability, is to never show Earth. Overall, I was surprised by how good the visual effects were.
The music, any good? James Horner first worked with Cameron on Aliens and then won an oscar for his work on Titanic. Unfortunately, this is no oscar worthy score. Gone is a wonderful theme that you can hum on the way out, not even motifs for the characters were made. We get a bunch of generic James Horner material, half of which seems to be recycled from previous films. Some of the Na'vi music sounds directly ripped from his Mighty Joe Young score, and I could swear during a number of dramatic moments I heard The Land Before Time score. The score works in the film, but thats it. Lets just say this film wasn't given a musical identity and its a shame for such a big movie. James Horner has definitely done better and he was one aspect I was really looking forward to.
The 3D effect, how was it? The 3D was great and not gimicy at all. This was my first live action, non-computer animated, 3D movie. At first the 3D is a little overwhelming and distracting with the planet, creatures and Jake Sully's backstory all being introduced at once while I was still being fascinated with the 3D. Once the story gets going, you at times forget its 3D and just get engrossed in the movie (and the entire planet Pandora for that matter). Once you get down into the forrest, the depth really comes into play. One action scene where Jake Sully is being chased by a monster had too much shaky cam and quick cuts to work well in 3D, as it was all a blurry mess that my eyes just couldn't adjust to, but it was the only scene like that. I won't say your missing out if you don't see it in 3D but it added a little to the experience. Would I say it was worth all those years Cameron put in to developing the camera and the hype surrounding it, no. It was still enjoyable, no headaches, and the kids in the theater couldn't stop ooh'ing and aww'ing (I was surprised by the sheer number of kids at this movie that you wouldn't imagine them being interested in).
How does this movie rank among Cameron's others? Well, I'd put it up with True Lies and The Abyss, two movies it shares the most in common with. It just lacks the simplicity and strong central characters that Terminator 1 & 2, Aliens, and Titanic had. In fact, the love story doesn't work as well as Titanic because of the sheer amount of characters and events taking place. Does this mean its a bad movie, no. James Cameron's movies are generally good to great and I'd put this with the good. If he simplified the plot, centralized some characters, and shortened the runtime, this would've been one of his greats.
Final thoughts, does this live up to the hype? Yes and no. The 3D and visual effects live up to the hype and if you've seen the trailer, most likely past you're expectations. The movie is to cliché ridden, characters to stereotyped, and the story too familiar to say its nothing you've ever seen before. The runtime also felt very long. Dances With Wolves was longer but felt shorter as we were so engrossed with the character. That didn't happen here and as result the film felt longer then it was (by the time we got to the finale, quite a few phones were lighting up, checking time). Most people in my theater enjoyed it a lot and clapped at the end. I enjoyed it for what it is but am not sure I'd run out to by it on Blu-ray when it comes out. What I mean is this is a spectacle that should been seen in theaters (and if possible, 3D) and thats where you'll get the most from it. It doesn't have the story you'll be aching to see over and over but as an experience, its something you'll be glad you saw in theaters.
Personally, I enjoyed The Princess and the Frog more (better characters, more interesting plot, and shorter runtime) and want it to succeed more but if I had to choose which to seen in theaters, Avatar hands down. The runtime, visual effects and 3D effects will give you your moneys worth. So I'm recommending to all those skeptics who've been on the fence since seeing the trailer to see it in theaters (if possible, 3D).
Final rating: 7.5/10
Last edited by jpanimation on Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IDK im sure its a good movie and I probably will see it in theaters in January as I am saving my money to see Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Squeakqel and plan to see Princess and the Frog before the end of the year...
On the Wanda Sykes Show had a spoof trailer on the movie...I just cracked up....im not sure if its on youtube yet but....im sure it will be and when it is someone should post it
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
I just saw the movie, I think it was amazing, and I didn't even watched it in 3D. The CGI was really well employed, and the acting is good, you do feel for the characters, they're not just these eery looking images on the screen (like in all Robert Zemeckiz mo cap movies), these are fleshed out characters, well some of them, others are played by the standard, like Stephen Lang's Col. Quatrich, who seriously was only missing the cigar. Our two main leads Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana fair better, and I'd say they did the best acting job in the movie.
As for the story, yeah, nothing new, it's "Dance with Wolves" meets "The Last Samurai", with some "Pocahontas" and "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest" throwed in the mix, but it's not bad, it's not great, but it isn't bad.
Really, don't miss "Avatar", any kind of low expectation you had because of the trailer or if you were exasperated by all the hype, ignore it, believe me, I was very skeptic too, and I truly enjoyed the film, even without the 3D.
I just got back from seeing the film, and I liked it too! I want to say love, but I need to let it sink in a bit longer because I have a lot of thoughts...
It is almost completely a recycled story from when the America's were being founded by the western europeans. This is not a bad thing in my opinion however. It's going to sound ridiculous, but one of the biggest things I hate is Columbus Day. As random as that sounds, I think this movie helps prove my point to a newer generation. The way that Columbus came over and basically did what the humans did in the film, and then get a national holiday for it... especially after it's widely believed he did not "discover" the America's... It's just disgusting that we celebrate such a man. Why not have Hitler Day? ugh! ok that's the end of my rant, but the film does put some perspective into the whole thing.
The animation was brilliant IMO. There were some tiny times when i felt like i was noticing small things that didn't seem natural, but then I realized I was over-analyzing and that it was preventing me from enjoying the film because I wasn't paying close enough attention to what was going on. In other words, I don't think things looked unnatural unless you were looking for them to be unnatural. After a bit, everything looks very believable.
The 3D is some ways seems completely useless for this film. I mean, yes it did give extra depth and so on and so on but is it really necessary? I don't know, it just seems like the difference between DVD and Blu for me. Sure the 3D is better in ways, but it doesn't necessarily make you love the film more. I'm sure I'll enjoy it just the same when I see it not in 3D.
Overall, it's what I expected it to be. Another epic and good film from James Cameron. Is it his best? No, not in my opinion, but it is still a great film and I recommend it.
disneyboy20022 wrote:
IDK im sure its a good movie and I probably will see it in theaters in January as I am saving my money to see Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Squeakqel and plan to see Princess and the Frog before the end of the year...
Wow, I could have said this exact same statement, except that I'll probably wait for DVD to see Avatar. I liked Dances with Wolves, but it's not a story I need to see done a bunch of different ways. I'm way more psyched about seeing Sherlock and the Chipmunks, and hope/plan to see Princess and the Frog before December is over.
I really liked it! I laughed, I cried- it was excellent. I agree about the 3D to an extent- things weren't popping out like gimmicky 3D or anything, which I was kind of glad about (only at one point did I think that, but it was very minor). The story was great, and Pandora is beautiful. I'm torn about whether or not I'll buy the DVD- I mean, I'm definitely glad I saw it, and I really did like it, but I'm not sure about the DVD. It was very epic, though. I went to an 11:30am IMAX 3D showing, and the theater was practically full (maybe only the front seats were empty).
Am I the only one on the planet who hated the first Alvin and the Chipmunks? There are four movies I plan to see in the next month, and The Squeakquel isn't one of them. *gag*
No, you're not the only one. I hated the first film and I have zero plans to see the sequel...oh, I'm sorry...Squeakquel. You have some really promising films like Nine, Up in the Air and Sherlock Holmes coming out in the upcoming weeks and yet those rodents are likely going to out-gross all of them. Ugh.
I liked it a lot! It was very much a retelling of the romanticized version of Pocahontas and the battle between settlers and Native Americans.
What helped it be more than just an adaptation of a historical event...the lush style. There is stuff going on everywhere. You feel like Jake in a new world. I saw it in 3D. From friends who saw it both in 2D and 3D, they said its best to see it both ways. in 3D you get the depth effects of the scenery. Where as in 2D you can focus more on the details. Apparently, I missed a lot of creatures and plants in 3D. Its just because so much is going by you, you can't catch it all. I don't think I'll see it in theaters again, but its a DVD buy for sure.
Though I must say, if you aren't going to take this movie seriously, don't go. I had three teenage girls sitting in front of me, giggling and talking the whole time. Making fun of the Na'vi. When they cried and mourned, it was hysterical to them. Yes, it was melodramatic way to cry, but it was how their species cried in emotional pain. Laughing through it was juvenile. I finally yelled at them to STFU or get out. Finally they left and I applauded. I can't stand morons like that.
thats sad....about them laughing and speculating during the movie...I mean maybe a laugh like huh that sounds weird might be justified but if they were going on and on about it that is not just disrespectful to the movie but rather the other people watching it in the theater.....
I still think they appear like mutant smurfs but that's just me...but I when I see it im not going to start singing the Smurf theme song or chant the word smurf to the others in attendance.....thats just not good manners to the other people watching the movie
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
I don't see the Smurf comparison. Its kinda like, if they were green, would they be Grinches? Other than the fact they are blue, the comparison ends there.
They remind me more of the Draenei from WoW
And Nightcrawler...
Na'vi...
Though their eyes are more feline. And their nose reminds me of Beast's nose.
I went into this thread wanting to write a review about Avatar but I'm too geeked out. That was the best movie-going experience I've had since The Dark Knight, and trust me when I say that personally, that's a hell of a comparission.
"See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve." - The Joker
There was this kid in my AP US History class today who wouldn't shut up about how amazing "Avatar" was. Huh. I really don't plan on seeing it, even with all the rave reviews.... I'm not dismissing it or anything, I just really don't feel like it. And it does look good.
And really, those things look like nothing I've ever seen before, from what I saw on the ads. Although those Draenei you posted seem like fascinating creatures, Siren. I don't play WoW, but I know of it.... Never heard of those things, though....
I think it deserves all the praise it gets. Though I don't find the barebones story very original. It is still a good story though and I enjoyed every bit of the movie.
And the Dreanei in WoW are pretty neat. They do all have a blue hue to them. They are more alien like than any other species on the game. A lot of mysticism with them, much like the Na'vi.
Though according to Cameron, he had the Avatar story in his head for years. He wanted to make the movie right after Titanic, but the technology hadn't caught up to his imagination at that time, so he's shelved it all this time. Which is amazing, because I don't know how he was able to keep quiet so long about such a lush and rich world he created. But in the end, I think the time was well spent, it gave him more time to develop things within the world.
You have some really promising films like Nine, Up in the Air and Sherlock Holmes coming out in the upcoming weeks and yet those rodents are likely going to out-gross all of them. Ugh.
