Took the kids to it yesterday.

Eh!

Story was about as predictable as they come.

Little to no character development.

SFX were good.

Still think Lord of The Rings was better visually.

I believe they are claiming it not to be the years best, but the all time best Sci Fi movie.

Those speaking with their wallet are speaking quite loud.

To me, Star Wars Ep IV and V have never been even remotely close to equaled.

I saw Avatar a few weeks ago on the 3D IMAX. The special effects blew me away. There are some scenes where there are so many things going on in the fore, middle, and background at the same time that it is difficult to take it all in at once. The one thing that bothered me about the 3D was some of the filmed scenes where the background is blurry. The human eye doesn't work like that, and I found it a bit distracting.

I went in thinking there was going to be some big political message, but all I got was a rehashed "evil corporation" antagonist that has been used a million times before. The story was un-original and predictable. The acting was OK, but not exceptional. Yet I loved the movie. It's the first movie in many years that I have wanted to see again. And of course I'd have to go see it in 3D IMAX again. Friday as I was leaving work a large group of people I work with were gathering to go see it again, most of them for the 3rd time.

Unoriginal, predictable, and absolutely grounded in reality.

That's why the evil corporation plot never really gets old...

I went in skeptical. Came out liking it a lot. The visual technology to create Cameron's world is unbelievable - literally hundreds of SFX workers and many, many SFX companies at work.

Same plot line as Disney's Pocahantas, Dances w/Wolves, Last Samurai, etc.; white man goes to the rescue of indigenous folks. But it was very well done.

Here's one of Cameron's groundbreaking tech features: motion capture.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1wK1Ixr-UmM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1wK1Ixr-UmM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ti_LqksDgZQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ti_LqksDgZQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Wife and I had a discussion whether an actor using this technology could attract an acting nomination. She says it's animation, thus does not qualify. I say "not exactly"; If an actor's performance warrants consideration, they'll find a way.

Sherwood

If you spend a quarter billion on making a movie, would you not go with the lowest denominator plot you can put together? This has to play in front of a huge audience of all ages around the world.

This movie is a blast. I was amazed by the planet they put together, the plant life and the animals. They had a lot of professional help by biologists and scientists to make it look real. It is a very enjoyable movie if you want to be entertained.

I was skeptical when this came out but a guy at work - who is a level headed engineering type - was just in a rave over it, so I had to go see what it was all about. I sure understand now! ;)

George

Just a couple things to say....

Critics aside, this movie has appealed to such a wide array of people around the world that it has to be considered a success based on that alone.
One point of movies is to be entertained which this movie does well.
Another point is to make the studio back it's investment, which this movie surely has done in quick order.
Does it rehash some old plots and stereotype?
.....for sure.
But still entertains and shows great imagination at the end of the day.

Secondly....
I've seen it in 2D, 3D and IMAX 3D.
2D is a waste of time....very disappointing.
There is virtually no difference between the 3D and IMAX 3D in my opinion.

I believe it's a must see, even if you have your doubts.
Wouldn't you really want to know yourself, instead of going by what someone else might think?

same 'ol Hollywood
 

left-wing propaganda tarted-up with special effects. I think I'll pass.

Did you see the film?

George

It appears Cameron's Avatar has brought up valuable discussion as to the significance of the seemingly retreaded plot line. Is the film yet another example of "white savior complex" as exemplfied by films such as Tarzan, Billy Jack, Gran Torino or Dangerous Minds, or can we read more into this movie's characters, their role and their motivations.

For that reason, I think it's valuable to see the film, then read about the many theories as to its symbolism.

Here's one Google search result to begin:
films with white man as savior - Google Search

Sherwood

Personally, I won't go that deep into the movie where I'll look for analytical diatribe as to what the movie meant or was supposed to mean. I call it 2.5 hrs+ of entertainment...good entertainment and nothing more.

Of course, there will be some analysis/breakdown, etc. based exclusively on the fact it will probably be the highest grossing movie in history. It's already made $1.8 billion worldwide.

Visual entertainment, in a lot of ways, works like advertising which operates at the subconscious level. The images and stories one perceives through countless hours of reading or watching TV and film and other visual stimuli, play a role in creating one's point of view. There are other influences as well; your parents, friends and teachers to name just some. Perhaps some folks who reject the film altogether perceive an implied message right away and will thus avoid the conflict. Others may just see it as entertainment but nevertheless can be affected by the story-telling.

IMHO, it's always good to see other points of view, no matter how much one disagrees with them. As for judging a film such as this - unseen, YMMV.

Sherwood

More worthy, IMO, of analysis is "District 9."

In addition to what I've said before, the movie had one aspect that was personally relevant. I walk with difficulty and cannot run or even jog. So seeing the paraplegic marine running again through his avatar was personally effecting for me.

Unbelievable....

District 9 was in many ways almost the same plot.

White man helps brown man to escape tyranny of other white men.

I haven't seen it yet, but fortunately it's on DVD for sale at my local taco truck.

My opinion, District 9 was more nuanced. Avatar is an in-your-face clone of every made for blockbuster status sci fi shoot-em up that Hollywood has produced since Star Wars, but plot was never the point with Avatar, pushing the CGI envelope was. In that respect it has worked just as planned.

Just my opinion.

dunno if that was supposed to be green but 3D was pretty amazing.

Sure it was more nuanced, but it was still the same plot.

I thought they were both fantastic movies.