Avatar 3d
A Must See but beware it's 2 hours 40 minutes.
The visuals and production design are ingenious. Fantastical photo realistic landscapes of Pandora, an otherworldly environment of extremes and stunning beauty. Action scenes where futuristic military jet copters arc around thousand-foot tall trees and floating mountains adorned with gushing waterfalls. Intertwined masses of thirty-foot thick trunk roots as passageways strung between the floating mountains. Think early to mid-1970's Yes album cover art, but a lot more lush. Night jungle forest scenes featuring plants, trees, insects, animals, and forest tribes people dramatically aglow with phosphorescence. All manner of brilliantly hued fluorescent tinged flying reptiles, some ferrying human companions to and fro. Astounding. Character development, script, acting, direction, and incidental music, all superb.
"Avatar" is an epic tour de force focusing on military and corporate might in conflict with indigenous tribes people and the interconnected web of life. Intense emotions washed over me at numerous points in the film. Tears flowed. The critics and the press are 150% right. If you're looking for a new cinematic paradigm, get yourself over to a RealD, Dolby 3-D, or IMAX large format 3-D theater for an experience you will never forget. The bar has indeed been raised. "Avatar" is a prime candidate for breaking many box office records. Don't miss this landmark film...in 3-D.
| Look Here -> |
what he said.
ive never seen a 3d movie before and what a one for the first!
one of the best visual experiences ive ever seen.
you have to see this in digital 3d, simple as that.
...In Somnis Veritas...
Solar Landrights for gay Whales.
This movie is visually entertaining.
But the story is so crap & predictable. Good guys, Bad guys, love story, someone dies, happy ending.
What was disappointing was that the torrent i downloaded had Russian subtitles.
I would like to see a good DVD version of it, but it isn't going to make me go to the cinema tomorrow and watch it again.
There is nothing new in special effects, not since Terminator 2 and the liquid steel model from cybernetics.
The imagination on the story tellers is OK but it always seems to be that aliens on other planets are human form, 2 legs 2 arms walk upright.
iam a bogan
you just described every single movie ever made.
stop watching movies?
...In Somnis Veritas...
saw it yesterday, visually stunning, IMHO they should have tweeked the 3D a ittle more, i would ave loved to have seen the floura flouting around the cinema, a bit more in your face, not too much, just where appropriate or where it could've added to the expierence
When I explained to the guy what avatar I wanted, that wasn't what I meant!
The 3D visual effects were dissapointing I thought.
The director should have had that large tree falling towards the audience at least.
None the less a very enjoyable movie.
Originally Posted by iwacelect
Did they say "unobtainium"? HAHAHA, oh man, try a little harder please! I know this is a real term but it's a science in-joke and Cameron tries to play it straight. It comes off incredibly cheesy.
Well, you know, what others have said, dazzling SFX, mediocre story blah blah blah. I didn't think there were any stand out performances, to be honest - they were all merely serviceable. A good job was done on the animation of Weaver's av though, they picked up a lot of Weaver's mannerisms which actually made her recognisable beneath the pixels.
I found the story just a tad preachy at the end. The direct references to the war on terror were unsubtle, laughably inaccurate and will date the movie terribly in years to come. I think this is an area where a few movies need to show some restraint - hell, even Where The Wild Things Are had a reference to global warming! Cameron ought to have left Avatar as an analogy of colonialism and left it at that as it's quite serviceable in that capacity.
The CG is spectacular in it's detail, both in character and production design - the detail of the forests is amazing! Cameron shows Robert Zemeckis what can be done with motion capture with the mere injection of obscene amounts of time and money.
For me, this is a bit Titanic; it's enjoyable enough but I probably couldn't be arsed seeing it again. I wonder if the 2D version is worth seeing at all. It could be a major disappointment to many when it hits JB's shelves.
7.5 out of 10.
Unobtanium is a joke word in the scriptment also, some things in the scriptment didnt get through to the final movie. i was also wondering why they would use such a silly word til reading that.
hes been talking of sequels but for me as much as i love this movie i might prefer him to just leave it and save himself the "not as good as the original" reviews that would ultimately come such as the Star Wars prequels, unfortunately when guys make big movies like this and Star Wars, reaching the same heights of acceptance becomes their "unobtanium"
and i think your wrong when it comes to it being on DVD, this is becoming as big as Titanic. and ive never even seen that one, through all the hype i swore to never watch it, cept Kate Winslets nekkid bit haha.
...In Somnis Veritas...
Did anyone else get a bit of a giggle when the colonel said, "Venezuela, that was some mean bush!"
No?
Oh, must be just me then.......
No wasn't just you slickstu......I had quite a chuckle also
Although the story was a little predictable with a usual happy ending I still found the film brilliant to watch, the 3D effect was extremely well done (and could have more of it as said before), with an intriguing concept of the Avatars.
I couldn't help but laugh in the final battle when the Colonel dude dies, his robot falls over to mimic his death....how Hollywood cheesy..!
The reviews here are split between the romantics and the people who...I don't know how to categorise them...they just seem to be looking at something purely on its technical merit.
It made me very emotional but I haven't yet put my finger on what it was...is it because the film portrayed something we have lost forever or something we can go back too if we want to? From my perspective, I fear it was because it is something we have lost.
Bit like LOTR I think...there is no return of the king in the real world, no leader who cant be bought, bit sad really.
Great film. 3D, 2D whatever...its worth the money.
osci (04-01-10)
Can we use the 3D glasses when it comes out on dvd.
I can't wait for avatar 2 in 2023 and avatar 3 in 2037.
I had to return my 3D glasses on the way out of the cinema...apparently $18.50 didn't include taking the specs home....!
Lucky I still have my Pizza Hut 3D glasses from the 80s...
^ At our cinema the ticket price includes the cost of the glasses so they're yours to keep. We even give you a discount off your ticket price if you bring your own next time.
Only if you've got one of those new fangled prototype 3D TV's. So, in short, no you can't.
I am interested to how these new glasses work. Because when I looked at the screen without the glasses the 3d parts were blurred just like previous 3d without coloured glasses.
My plasma shows 3d movies with the coloured glasses so if the new glasses work by the same principle it might work.
The coloured (anaglyphic) glasses, as you know, have two different coloured lenses, usually red and cyan. The presented image is also a two colour image comprised of the same colours so the coloured filters in your glasses determine which image each eye sees and because each eye sees a slightly different image the result is a stereoscopic picture. The limitation with anaglyphic 3D is that the only colours available are those which can be comprised from the lens colours. This results in very dull, grubby coloured pictures which is why old style 3D always looked shit.
There are currently 2 commercial 3D technologies (that I'm aware of) - Dolby 3D and RealD. By far the most popular is RealD which uses light polarisation to distinguish between the left and right eye images. The system consists of a digital projector running at 144fps and an alternating LCD screen (what RealD calls a "Z-Screen") which alternately polarises each image. The viewer then wears glasses with corresponding polarised lenses to ensure that each eye receives the appropriate image. The advantage of this is that the full colour palette is available. The drawback is the combined light transmission of the Z-Screen and glasses is 15% so there's a large drop in brightness but your eyes acclimatise to this without too much trouble. There is a noticeable difference between a 3D and 2D presentation of the same movie, however.
Dolby3D uses a system similar to anaglyphic except that both left and right images are comprised of red, green and blue albeit slightly offset in the visible spectrum. This means that the two images are actually slightly different colours but by all accounts the difference is unnoticeable (I haven't seen it myself). The drawback of this system is the very expensive headware (no doubt because of the very precisely filtering lenses) which must be retained, cleaned and reused by the cinema. The polarised glasses for RealD are super cheap - 50c vs ~$20 for Dolby.
The specs for 3DTV are under wraps but from the demonstrations I've seen on YouTube I'd say they're using polarised technology, i.e. an LCD TV with a Z Screen-type alternating polarising LCD laid over the top.
EDIT: This is probably a good page to start on:
Last edited by slickstu; 07-01-10 at 05:46 PM.
I feel bad as I did not think that much of the film. I only had a 2d version so unless the 3d version improves the story somehow I thought it was disappointing especially with all the press/hype it has received.
I seem to always dislike any film Michelle Rodriguez is in NFI why? Friends went on about how good it was, and I guess the hype is not going to die down any time soon, I guess it was ok, but I expected more.
If you feed ducks at a pond, chances are your bound to feed a goose or two without even knowing it.
Just a link to the movie.
Cheers
^ Agree 100%
3d tv not too far away
f
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks