"And what if you see it in 3-D? It's even more annoying, since all you're watching is 3-D applied to a movie that was not made for 3-D. Here's how you can tell. You know how, in any movie, sometimes an object in the foreground will be out of focus and an object in the distance will be in focus? To establish distance between the two objects? Well, in a 3-D movie, you don't have to do that—you can establish depth (one object in the distance and one object close up) without having to make either of them blurry. That's why you have 3-D movies."

Please, please, please go to the 3-d center and at least take a basic class. You're talking nonsense right now.

um, in reality, like what you see with real eyes and stuff.... things that are very close to you will be out of focus when you are focussed on something in the distance... and vice versa. werd

"...the story of Avatar itself is so unworthy of the three hours the movie takes that you can't seriously talk about the movie as, like, great storytelling."

I, like, disagree. The story itself may be a familiar retread, but the plot and the actual telling of the story are two distinct animals. Cameron is a great storyteller and can spin an engaging story out of a script that might seem trite or stupid in less competent hands.

Cameron's resume was enough to make me want to see it; I don't feel like I fell for anything. If you went to see, say, "Transformers 2" or "Marley & Me" on the other hand, that's "falling for it".

Um, in reality most scenes in most movies are shot with a large depth of field (a term you may want to familiarize yourselves with before you start lecturing people on filmmaking techniques) this means that while the lens is focused at one distance, other objects at other distances from the lens do not appear blurry.

While your eye can only focus at one distance, you are able to choose which distance that is, and so you never find yourself looking at something blurry. When using the 3d effect and a shallow focus, objects that your eyes are intentionally trying to focus on appear out of focus, and the effect is disorienting.

I saw avatar in 3d at cinetopia last week. I found watching it in 3D pretty satisfying, although I did note that the 3D wasn't as nice as the 3D for some of the movies that they showed trailers of (alice in wonderland looked great). When I left, I was considering watching it again without the 3D, to see which I proffered. It wasn't that I didn't appreciate the 3D, but I found the glasses captured light from the theater that created a glare in the bottom corners of my peripheral vision. To remedy this, I watched with my hands cupped around the lenses, which was annoying and distracting.

Sure, the story had some flaws, but I really enjoyed it, and if my bladder would have allowed it, I would have happily sat for another hour if it lasted that long.

I really enjoyed the movie, and although it may have failed to deliver on some of it's "ground breaking" promises, I thought a lot of the technology that they employed worked well, and I think the movie did offer a lot that I had never seen before. As for the facial capture technology, I felt that some of the time, the expressions were a little flat, but still, this was the best expression and emotion I'd seen in a computer generated character to date, and it did a great job of letting my mind enjoy the roles and take them more seriously than previous attempts at computer generated leads. I think sigourni weaver's avatar's expressions translated the worst, followed by the male lead's. I think most of the Navi characters looked really good.

Besides the facial capture issues, I thought that all the work to create pandora worked exceptionally well. The planet was beautiful. The creatures were awesome. The human's vehicles were great.

I think the expectations that were set for this movie would be nearly impossible for anyone to meet. Judging it against those expectations would lead to disappointment, but judging it just for what it is, I didn't regret the ticket charge (or the drive to the couv), one bit.

It might not have the best story of any movie I've seen this year, but it was still one of my favorite movie going experiences.

This entire post can be translated into this:

"Look I can be against what everyone else loves, aren't I cool and edgy!"

IseWise, I'd have to disagree - I think in the material bits the post is dead on. "James Cameron's latest vision - a movie with insane effects and no apparent plot" was what I got out of the trailer, and it's what I got out of the movie. It's okay to be super-impressed with the technical feat, but as a film it's weak sauce.

Were we sold a bill of goods? Probably not as much as the reviewer suggests. Does everyone else love the movie? No.

The 3D add texture and depth to the film without being in our face in an annoying kinda way like how 3D was previous used.

Cool Avatar Fansite: http://Naviblue.com

Big blue furry cat people in what looks like a 3-hour PS3 cutscene, sign me up. It's yet another revolution in filmmaking by the guy that dropped it in the ocean at the end.

Bad arguement but yes..Avatar was a horrible movie. the technology needed better treatment rather than a 3 hour "Battle for Endor"...really..the story was "Dances with Last Samurai's" and has been told over and over and over and over again. Cameron lost his balls which sank with the titanic..seriously where is the guy that did aliens and the Terminator films?

Think about it..you see it in 3D..would you say.."Now I have to rent this or own it in 2D because the movie is really great?"


NO you wouldnt. I'm not denying the signifigance and the masterful craftsmanship, and in this world I guess there are worse stories than freaking "Pochahontas visits Ferngully" but really...this could have been so much more. It's like going to a play and saying the songs sucked, the acting sucked, the dialogue was badly written, but HEY HOW BOUT THEM SETS!

The CGI rendering of faces was less distracting than is the norm, so Cameron's expenditure of trillions was not wasted there. And as for 3D, whatever. Has it ever been explained why anyone should give a shit if a particular form or feat of 3D rendering is better than another? So long as it is not actively detracting from the film, it's good enough, right? I mean, well-executed 3D looks cool, in the way that HD TV looks cool as compared with olde-tyme TV, but no matter the vividness of the presentation, the 2009 Seattle Seahawks suck ass and the 1979 Pittsburgh Steelers were really, really good.

As a piece of visual storytelling -- ya know, cinema -- Avatar was muddled, hackneyed crap. It was not the worst of class, but it was also not above any average. In 5 or 20 years in the future, NO ONE will be talking about Avatar as a fount of insights-into-the-human-condition that stirred souls. Period. If there are people claiming otherwise, it will mark them as retards who need to read a book, as in the people who speak as though the Star Wars movies made libraries obsolete.

If you're jazzed up over the technical side of filmmaking, Avatar is precedent-setting. For the other 5.99 billion of us, it's a three-hour whirr of vivid color that rather flatly tells a story we've already seen many, many times.

Last and not least, I leave you with the coup de grace that dooms Avatar: "unobtainium."