Avatar

There are several differences, I think. First, I didn't mention it with Avatar until people started talking about it breaking all sorts of records. Calling it the "biggest film ever" (which was a trending topic on Twitter, by the way) is misleading in a more fundamental way than Transformers 2 making $400 million instead of the 1995 equivalent of $200 million. Second, Avatar has made far more off of 3D/IMAX tickets than any film before it, making that particular caveat more important. And third, you'll note that I've prefaced all of this, each time, with a short comment about how it's still obviously a big success. Certainly nobody disputes that.

I think this is all relevant and certainly fair to the film.

Well, the ship with the bomb in it was called "The Valkyrie", so I think they were paying some homage...

__________________

To be honest, I am more impressed with the FX used in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981).

__________________
R.I.P.

Very nice movie, I want to see it 3D

If you missed this very slow fire truck in Movie Tab II, here goes. I certainly believe it deserves its Best Picture nom.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I said there are moments in the film. It's obvious they are CG, but when you compare it to the likes of Jar Jar Binks, Yoda, Gollum, Final Fantasy, Jabba The Hut (Phantom Menace), Scooby Doo, Watto, General Grievous, etc. It's leaps and bounds. While watching every moment of those films in which I named a character, I fully realized these were CG characters. In Avatar, the distinction is blurred sometimes.

Seeing an hour of Na'vi footage (whatever that means) is not the same as seeing it in the finished product.

My vision is fine thank you.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

These characters actually have blood vessels in their necks and arms which throb as their heart beats. They also have a full skeleton and musculature which bends and moves whenever they do. I do not want ALL movies to become like Avatar EVER, but if you have a story which you are unable to tell in any other way, I say, go for it. I had a damn fine time at the movies. Although, I will admit that I thought Avatar should have been a little lighter, but it was still fun.

I was in the mall last night and there was still a line out the door of people waiting to get into the Avatar show. Pretty impressive.

Not sure what your deal is GOM. I can only hope and pray that movies like this are this well done in the future. The special effects were better in Raiders of the Lost Ark? Really?

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

The guy hasn't seen the film, which in my opinion means his opinions on it are pretty lax.

It never ceases to amazes me, the all knowing individuals of this world.
Fact; a week ago I had not seen this film.
Fact; things change. I am preparing a review.

due to significant effort in cinematography it may get OSCAR !
though it will be tagged as overrated one for the name James Cameron

Moreover, major part of the story of Slumdog Millionaire (2008) was kinda boring and understandable too early ! comparing to that AVATAR isn't too bad imo

I actually saw this weeks ago but didn't drop by here to leave a comment. I'm not sure I have anything particularly to add to all the reviews and comments so far, Golgot pretty much summed up my feelings with his review.

I don't know if this is the most expensive film ever made but it's almost certainly the most expensive film in terms of how much it cost me to see it. The extra price for ŁD is a rip-off, imo. I try not to let that influence my opinion of the film, though. The Łd itself has its pros and cons. Some parts of it look absolutely stunning, while at other points I got a headache from my eyes not focussing on the right part of the screen quickly enough. I have to wonder how well this film will work on the small screen, or whether it's all spectacle and no substance. Oh, and they decided the best use of the ŁD technology is to make Michelle Rodriguez's cleavage ŁD. Sort of shows you what sort of level this film is on...

It looks thoroughly brilliant. It's just breathtaking in places. I did get swept up in the story, especially the first half. The Na'avi don't look like cgi. I won't say they look real, but they look effective. The special effects in this are top quality. It looks like James Cameron kicking Peter Jackson's arse in the effects department.

The alien sex didn't bother me. The lack of chemistry or interest in the romance did. I don't know if that was down to the cgi or the dialogue. I didn't like the too-obvious eco-friendly anti-war love-the-earth-and-respect-the-native-people message. It was neither subtle nor clever nor particularly new. More Ferngully than Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, sadly. Where were the interesting moral grey areas, the conflicted loyalties, the difficult choices of a grown up film?

The worst thing about this film is that it doesn't live up to itself. It's a bum-numbing disappointment. And I'm not even talking about all the hype, or the fact that it's really really not the new Star Wars or the new Aliens. The first bit, with the disabled soldier arriving on another world after the death of his twin where he can control an avatar body - it's a brilliant set up. The way Jake has to deal with increasingly conflicted loyalties is good. But by the end we've got sledge-hammer subtle goodie vs. baddie in hand-to-hand combat and . The ending was unforgivable, really . It's childish. I wanted a more grown-up film. Maybe that's my problem, maybe that's just not what this film is but it was still woefully unsubtle and... well, kind of lame. Still, it looked great and I enjoyed half of it so I'll give it a tentative 3/5

Here is film I always found interesting;
The Lord of the Rings (1978)
-from Wikipedia
Publicity for the film announced that Bakshi had created "the first movie painting" by utilizing "an entirely new technique in filmmaking."[1] Much of the film used live-action footage which was then rotoscoped to produce an animated look.[1] This saved production costs and gave the animated characters a more realistic look. Animation historian Jerry Beck wrote in The Animated Movie Guide that "up to that point, animated films had not depicted extensive battle scenes with hundreds of characters. By using the rotoscope, Bakshi could trace highly complex scenes from live-action footage and transform them into animation, thereby taking advantage of the complexity live-action film can capture without incurring the exorbitant costs of producing a live-action film."[2] - from Wiki
Check it out.

A few comments...

I assume you're not going to watch Alice in Wonderland in 3-D because you said you wouldn't watch another movie in that format although it sounds like you were impresed with that trailer (so was I).

You truly believe that there is no difference between a fully CGI character (any of Pixar's films) and a motion-capture character? You're either in denial or too-prejudiced to notice if that is the case.

I'm old, but I have seen various 3-D flicks down through the years. However, I haven't seen any recent ones, so I was very happy with my 3-D experience during Avatar, and my family and I sat in about the seventh row from the front of a big theatre and screen. As far as I know, I'm the only person on this site who has even mentioned how exhilarating the flying scenes are. I'm pretty sure that they would be fine in 2-D but I'm sure they'd lose some of their visceral effect.

Your review is probably "fair" for you, but I believe that you could have written 90% of it before you watched the movie.

I am one of those people, and I believe you also are, who wishes that film would go back to original values such as strong visual storytelling, great acting, witty dialogue, original plots and characters, etc. However, there have always been spectacles and many of them don't rate that highly in the acting, dialogue and originality areas, so I'm always thankful if they rate highly in spectacle. Avatar is spectacular, so I give it credit for that, and to me, it's spectacular enough to be well-worth watching in the theatre in 3-D, but that's just me. I respect your opinions, and I'd have even more reason to respect them if I thought they weren't already pre-conceived against animation in some way. But hey, what can I say, Lars Van Trier hates animation and always will. That's his loss.

P.S. I saw Bakshi's LotR at the theatre. It was OK, but a cheapass way of making spectacle. The battle scenes were probably the weakest part, especially when you see them repeated and recognize them from Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky. That was downright embarrassing.

Well, you are most certainly correct that my opinion of the film was only reinforced rather than changed by what I saw on the big screen.

Your review is pretty much what I expected you to say, going in with your frame of mind, I would find it hard for the film to change it.

I disagree with your comment about the 3-D hiding the animation flaws and how Alice will be better, but those are just opinions. If you think the gimmick in your face 3-D is the best use of it, go right ahead and think that, I won't try and change your mind.

I can't say anything for the story, which is where this film takes its biggest hit from everyone, but I can say there is a difference between story and story telling. James Cameron knows how to tell a story, he knows how to film action sequences and he knows how to entertain an audience. I'm sorry you found the film to be boring, but I found it to be immersive.

Funny you mention the editing, I hope it doesn't win the Oscar for it's editing.

To each their own.

So your choice was a film you know you love or a film you'd probably not like? And you chose to have a 'bad time'? I'll never understand the mindset.

Was that one film, The Terminator? Personally, I'd take that, Piranha 2, quite possibly, Titanic.

I couldn't agree more. I'd have probably + repped you just for this line alone...

... Were it not for this as well, so you're +repped for both.

apparently the point of the movie is supposed to be natural spiritual life against the evils of technology and money.
And it took 300 million dollars and expensive new technology to make this movie.
I swear Avatar's target demographic is mongoloid retards