CGI blew my mind, but meh, decent for me. As I was watching it, it felt like . Movie of the year for me was Inglorious Basterds.

The creators of South Park called it "Dancing With Smurfs." Quite appropriately fitting, too.

Saw it last night. I had no idea the movie was so long. I came out of the movie theatre, looked at my phone, and saw it was 1 in the morning. "Dang.."

The movie was pretty nice though. Better than I expected it to be.
Though does anyone else feel the aliens had weird facial expressions at unnecessary moments sometimes?

And what in the movie made it take 15 years to make?

I went to the theater looked at the screen and all I saw was " Avatar 3D SOLD OUT".

lol this snowstorm only brought in $73,000,000 for Avatar's opening weekend.

so now their only 650 million in the red? i still havent made it to see this movie , too many xmas parties to goto. when i do go ill make sure its on a day i have 3 hours to waste.

redgroupclan wrote:And what in the movie made it take 15 years to make?

An idea for the marketing scheme itself...

He wrote the script years ago, but didn't think the CGI was good enough for it. Fifteen years later, it was, with a wonderful marketing ploy to boot.

I'm probably going to see it on Thursday when I'm visiting family for Christmas. It looks good, but I haven't checked ratings....

I saw it last night, CGI was amazing. The story wasn't anything new (which we have already covered), but I thought they told it well. The projector broke when It was about 10 minutes later that it worked again.
My friends and I are going to go see it in 3-D next. Even in 2-D some sounds had me looking to my side to see what was there. Anyway, overall it was a good movie.

I thought it was a terrific movie. I'd say movie of the year, maybe more. I didn't think anything could beat d-9, but I guess I was wrong.

I thought it was a great movie as well, plus the whole thing was in 3D! Wow!

Yep. I don't go off of reviews. I go to see what I think. Could care less on those half-wits on those review sites have to say. Hopefully I can see this soon. I am quite interested. I usually keep my expectations at a balance so I don't disappoint myself. It usually actually works. And most movies I see are awesome...so I'm gonna have to check this out when we're not doing family crap that takes up all our time.

I just got back from seeing it with some family. That movie was so blindingly colorful and visually dazzling that I don't think my retinas will ever be the same.

There's no argument about the production values of this movie, which are immediately noticeable, seeing as they put over 200 million dollars into the making of this movie. There are a few flaws that the movie had that put it off for me a bit at first. The narrative and the basis for the film are pretty tacky and unoriginal, and some are saying that it is basically a copy of the story behind the movie Dances with Wolves. The indigenous culture of blue people in the beginning of the movie were portrayed painfully similar to that of old stereotypes of native american culture....mainly the use of arrows, their hair, and their vocal noises. Also, the sciencey bits of the film were very silly, and i'm not sure they had a physics consultant of any kind, though they definitely had a biologist. A couple things about it is the biology's resemblance to earth creatures. They could have been more imaginative than just making them look a bit different, make them blue, and than glitter them all with bioflorescence, which by the way was all over the place. The floating mountains were explained by saying they were in some "prime flux vector field," the only physical explanation that i can fathom being that since the planet is actually a moon going around an enormous gas giant, it may be messing up the gravity in some strange ways that makes large objects float indefinitely and electronics are fritzed for unknown reasons.

Looking over all of that, this movie was incredible, and blew away my expectations. It really blurs the line between describing a movie as being overproduced or wonderfully produced. I'm not one who typically enjoys a movie simply for its imagery, rather than its narrative, but just the sheer wonder of what they were able to create completely makes up for the narrative's lacking, and I have honestly seen no movie that has ever done that so effectively, except perhaps yellow submarine, which I won't compare really since its on a completely different plane of movies. The character development was quite astounding, most of the characters seemed like total idiots in the beginning, but they evolved fairly quickly into likable or hateable characters. There were sciency bits that were also incredibly interesting, but I won't give them away, as that may give the whole movie away. But wow. If you were planning on not going to see the movie, go see it. You may be glad you did.

Going to see it today....... We'll see....

EDIT
Saw it in 3D and I loved it, but mostly for the effects. The story was a little bland. Think of it as a Dances with Wolves/Star Wars/Terminator kind of movie, with maybe a little Pocahontas thrown in there. The battle scenes were really good, I liked how
*SPOILER ALERT* Overall, it was a good movie and is spectacular in 3D, but the story could have been better.

Girlfriend wanted to see it, so we did today. Impressive visuals, stunningly little originality in any part of it, and yet another example of how EVERY movie nowadays has at least a romance subplot. I guess it was pretty good. I never really wanna watch it again, though.

Saw it last night. Definitely worth it for the 3D, no better way to watch it. Yes, the storyline wasn't 100% original, but it's never been done in this form before, and could not have been made 15 years ago.

I <3 Avatar.

We went to see it yesterday, my bro hated it because of all the Mother Earth, save the planet, communing with nature stuff, but other than that liked it. However, because of the aforementioned, he hated the movie as a whole...

I on the other hand rather liked the movie, although I was also annoyed with the aforementioned... just not to a point where it ruined the whole movie. Didn't get to see it in 3-D unfortunately, but it was still visually stunning.

Lord Bardar wrote:Yes, the storyline wasn't 100% original

I'm not even referring to the storyline when I say nothing about it is original. Well, not just the storyline. It's like, if I took everything I know that other people came up with, and put it all together in a movie, then I'd have something like this. But, again, it's not a bad movie, I just can't regard it as anything special.

Just saw it a few hours ago. The effects are head-asploding awesome, but that's the only good I have to say about it. My main bugs are the Na'vi and the plot.

The Na'vi just weren't alien enough for my taste. They were stereotypical native american hippie smurf cat people in space. While that definately sounds alien, they didn't look the part

As for the plot, it was basically "Humans are evil" and "Ooh, nature!", but they just beat you with the anvil for three hours straight without pausing to actually tell a story that makes any sense.

plasmoidmonkey wrote:Just saw it a few hours ago. The effects are head-asploding awesome, but that's the only good I have to say about it. My main bugs are the Na'vi and the plot.

The Na'vi just weren't alien enough for my taste. They were stereotypical native american hippie smurf cat people in space. While that definately sounds alien, they didn't look the part

As for the plot, it was basically "Humans are evil" and "Ooh, nature!", but they just beat you with the anvil for three hours straight without pausing to actually tell a story that makes any sense.

They had a monstrous budget, and the movie sucked. District 9 had a tiny budget and it was great. What does that tell you?