Cameron's Avatar

Saw it with my son Tuesday night, pretty cool movie. Amazing special effects; the world of the Navi was amazing.The blending of the real with CG was pretty seamless. Long but didn't drag at all. Of course there's a story with a lesson about human nature, but not too preachy. Saw it in 3D; not overe the top shove it in your face 3D crap, just enough to make it work.

I really need to see this movie..may go today!

Great movie..seen it last weekend and it was awesome...although I did not have the privilege to see it in 3d it was still amazing...I recommend everyone to see it...

I would abosolutely see it in 3D! I did and it was amazing, stuff flying at audience, hot embers drifting down over crowd, bugs flying in crowd. Wait that was the last Invicta Sale at JC Penny's!

Best movie I have ever seen, the 3D takes it up several notches....I would recommend it!!

Avatar does look like a terrific movie. From what you guys
are saying it mixes a good story with great special effects !
Sometimes there is one and not the other, but this one
sounds good. Plus the 3D seems like it would be fun !
Thanks for the review Chris..glad you guys enjoyed it !

A critic here said that he has never gone to see a movie twice, he is going back to see this one again. He mentioned that the special effects are stunning.

I watch thousands of movies. Just always been my thing. Here was my review of Avatar.

I will say that I had a good time watching it and it was visually fantastic.

That being said -

I saw it in 3D last weekend.
1) The 3D was cool at times, but overall just OK.

2) The graphics are pretty good and sure it is impressive, but
personally I still think 300 is the most groundbreaking movie graphics
in the past 5 years.

3) Almost the entire the story is LITERALLY a rip off of other movies and something that
we have all seen before. I almost expected the lead character to yell
out "FREEDOM" when he was talking to the troups about to fight. Even the big flying battle scene borrowed stuff from Independence Day and many others. Many
other similarities to many other movies. Not an original story in my
opinion.

4) It is way too long. they could have shortened it easily. I always
think some of these 3 hour movies are the bloated egos of the directors
not allowing them to cut scenes when they should have.

5) Think about this - If 3500 people made $100,000 a year that would
equal $350 million dollars. HOW IN THE WORLD DID THEY SPEND 350
million?? Makes no sense to me at all.

6) I give it 3 out of 5 stars. Not a bad movie but I could have waited for the DVD.....

TVDinner wrote:

5) Think about this - If 3500 people made $100,000 a year that would
equal $350 million dollars. HOW IN THE WORLD DID THEY SPEND 350
million?? Makes no sense to me at all.

Not much about the entertainment industry makes sense anymore.
But that being said, I can see it (currently being unemployed from it). Count the names in the credits. (Haven't seen the movie, and most likely won't, but I'll bet there are several hundred names). They all get paid (well), then rental for all of the equipment they use (computers for graphics, etc; props; cameras; studio and office space; trucks, cars, planes, etc.); actors, producers, writers, and everything they need and want; food; overtime; and on, and on, and on. Quite frankly, a production like this is similar to setting up and running a small country, living fairly luxuiously.
Also, many of the folks on a production like this are union, (higher wages than the "private sector.")
It's hard to understand, even being in the business. I benefit from the fact I've been in the business for 15 years, from in front of the camera to helping set up and help to run the productions of a few TV productions. My wife is a production accountant that has worked on many high-profile television shows, so the numbers can be astounding at times, even at that level.
My bet, they spent more than $350 million... rumour is that was the real amount for the last "Batman."

porschefan wrote:

TVDinner wrote:

5) Think about this - If 3500 people made $100,000 a year that would
equal $350 million dollars. HOW IN THE WORLD DID THEY SPEND 350
million?? Makes no sense to me at all.

Not much about the entertainment industry makes sense anymore.
But that being said, I can see it (currently being unemployed from it). Count the names in the credits. (Haven't seen the movie, and most likely won't, but I'll bet there are several hundred names). They all get paid (well), then rental for all of the equipment they use (computers for graphics, etc; props; cameras; studio and office space; trucks, cars, planes, etc.); actors, producers, writers, and everything they need and want; food; overtime; and on, and on, and on. Quite frankly, a production like this is similar to setting up and running a small country, living fairly luxuiously.
Also, many of the folks on a production like this are union, (higher wages than the "private sector.")
It's hard to understand, even being in the business. I benefit from the fact I've been in the business for 15 years, from in front of the camera to helping set up and help to run the productions of a few TV productions. My wife is a production accountant that has worked on many high-profile television shows, so the numbers can be astounding at times, even at that level.
My bet, they spent more than $350 million... rumour is that was the real amount for the last "Batman."

Ron? Ron Jeremy is that you? Man you show up in the oddest places bro.

Ha, funny (had to netsearch him, porn ain't exactly on my radar screen). What a skank. Him, not you, noob.

porschefan wrote:

Ha, funny (had to netsearch him, porn ain't exactly on my radar screen). What a skank. Him, not you, noob.

Actually bro, RJ is kind of a cult figure. He made his cheddar in porn but always showed up it seemed in various movies. Cameo appearances, acting roles, etc. He actually seems like a pretty cool guy. I'd be watching movie, and all of a sudden I'd look and say holy #$@ that Gardner is Ron Jeremy. No offense made to you btw, you seem like a great guy and we are happy to have you hear. I'd love to hear more about your movie career, but if you want to keep it private I can certainly understand that as well.

My career on camera went largely unnoticed. But I worked with some really good people, and made a bit of money.

Saw it with my two sons today.

The visual effects were absolutely breathtaking. Spectacular!

The story was OK, not nearly as pioneering as Star Wars was in 1977.

Character development was very narrow: the two main characters were "fully-formed," but most others were pretty one-dimensional, predictable, and even trite, including the arch villain (Stephen Lang), the female scientist (Sigourney Weaver), and the female chopper pilot (Michelle Rodriguez).

While the first two hours were quite interesting, the final 40 minutes were a bit cartoonish and even sophomoric, with an ending that was as telegraphed as a George Foreman right!

BUT...this movie is a "must see" just on the merits of its visual achievements.

Fantastic fun. A must see for the reason Tom mentioned.

Saw it tonight, good entertainment. FernGully meets Dances with Wolves in the future.

What's more amazing than the $350 Million (admitted ) to produce, is the $1 Billion it's already made.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/03/boxoffice.avatar.ew/index.html

You guys are really getting me interested in this movie ! I like
Sci-fi movies, but have not seen this yet !..That might have to
change !

I don't think I'll see this one. I'm sure the graphics are stunning, but I won't be able to sit through the plot, it'll be too distracting. I know the movie, I've seen it in many variations already.

I'd love to sneak into the theater for a few minutes to see some effects, but not for $15.

FreeDive wrote:

I don't think I'll see this one. I'm sure the graphics are stunning, but I won't be able to sit through the plot, it'll be too distracting. I know the movie, I've seen it in many variations already.

I'd love to sneak into the theater for a few minutes to see some effects, but not for $15.

The problem will be not seeing it in 3D, which is pretty phenomenal. You need special 3D glasses to view it. The DVD version will not give you nearly the same experience. The theaters I went to also had it in IMAX/3D, but that screen was WAY sold out ahead of time.

IMAX 3D is the way to see it. Very cool experience.

Great CG and production design - will buy the BluRay for that.
Liked the fact it wasn't all fantasy but a mix with real people.
Too much day-glow iridescence - Guess Abyss didn't get it out of Cameron's system.
Story was essentially Tarzan - foreigner has better command and expertise over the indigenous and saves them.

Cameron don't put out movies very often but when he does they are BLOCKBUSTERS!

Damn him for beating The Dark Knight's Record!