Avatar

Imagine being a comedian and the audience was made up of 500 Bregt's

Hey hey!

For anyone who´s even slightly interested in Pandora and the science behind the planet and its life, this is a nice place to start. If you´re more than slightly interested, there´s this book which explains it all.

Well. Verdict: Good film.

Yes, the effects are really cool, and it definitely sometimes freakinglishy real (the main characters mainly). The 3D is not a gimmick, and that's a plus, but sometimes I'd wish there would have been more effect from it. I didn't always experience it as a 3D movie.

But then the story. I didn't think it would bug me so much. How can you make such spectacle and then rush everything in the second half. And as BhelPuri mentioned, my ears were almost perforated at the end. The final battle is crazy. I also wasn't as captivated as some opinions above.

Top moments: the rides on the big birds.

Fine movie, I enjoyed my evening, but I will never understand what it makes one of the best films though.

Okay Bregt, we can live with that. But the fact you don't understand the fuzz is because you don't idolize James Cameron, and must of us here do. The fact it's the biggest hyped movie of the past few years, and the fact he doesn't disappoint one bit means he did the impossible, still surprise everyone

JAMES CAMERON is a GOD

I don't go as such and i always like to remain as unbiased as possible, plus i don't like everything he produced (one example is Titanic and True Lies) but indeed AVATAR is a film SO incredibly good at so many levels and whilst linked with the whole "3d cinema revolution" (if something like that's going to happen eventually), it's bound to mark its place in the cinematic history.

Oh, you will. It's a perfect movie in all aspects, to me. I am looking forward to your opinion!

I saw Avatar a few days ago in 3D and it was a nice experience nothing mind blowing or revoultionary mind you. The score was good. I smiled whenever i heard Horner's classic signatures.

I completely agree with you. I was buffled by that comment as well. It seems to be that some people are very hard to please these days, and unfair.

Where is the revolution, for you, Thor?

It's a zeitgeist film -- it speaks to many of the big issues of our time, so it will have no problem finding an audience.

There has been an enormous breakthrough in performance capture since Lord of the Rings too. I haven't been watching closely, but I assume that's the real area in which this has stepped forward?

The 3D effects are an extension of falsifying perspective in 2D. If you couldn't give a 2D frame depth and perspective, this new technology could not help you. And it's not essential to this film anyway. Watching the film without glasses every now and then as it ran didn't kill it for me.

The thought did occur to me - 'it's revolutionary that a filmmaker with a decent budget at the moment would apply such solid technique in blocking action.' Cameron makes Jackson, Scott, Bay, Snyder and others look like amateurs when it comes to pure physical execution.

One thing is missing for me (apart from the presence of a solid dialogue script doctor), which is that the reality of experiences had through avatars is never questioned. That could have been the dramatic core of the film. It's not a James Cameron story at all, and would lace the escape from our culture with uncertainty. (It could do with a little uncertainty, and a bit more humour too, for that matter.)

The film was made for this technology, i'd imagine watching the film on standard home theater blu-ray or dvd or even standard 2d cinema, would make a huge difference, way more than shifting your 3d glasses to the side for a couple of seconds. The whole Pandora world and its overall depth was portrayed very good using 3D and it all added even more emphasis on the vastness and greatness of that world.

In the CGI, of course, and the seamlessness by which motion capture is integrated into the universe in a credible way.

Again, it's baffling to me that people keep criticizing the story so much (which is a bit conventional, yes, but hardly weak) and seeminly overlooking - willfully or unconsciously - the medium's capability to create these worlds in which we're totally immersed. To put it "on the edge", it's a bit like criticizing an Ingmar Bergman film for not having more explosions.

I agree with that.
I can appreciate people want the whole package however. A lot of people go for story. The visceral/vicarious side matters more if you engage more with the art of film.

Well, i'd kid you (but with a dosage of seriousness too) that whoever went to the army for some time (I did 26 months), you would find graphic characters like him to be actually pretty realistic; sadly.