3 ms·

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate Avatar?

peter123 17y ago
8 for me. It's a very good sci-fi/fantasy movie, but I was probably more impressed with the CGI than immersed in the story. Star Trek was a better movie in terms of story and I actually felt fear, suspense and other emotions while watching it.
huangm 17y ago
9. Went in with high expectations, and they were exceeded, which is rare for me. Most of the criticisms of Avatar are for its somewhat trite storyline, but for me, it definitely worked. The movie runs long at ~2h40m - it takes its time to develop characters and show off its fantasy world, but never does it feel like a drag. I can't recommend it enough.
sachinag 17y ago
5. Saw it in 3D on a non-IMAX screen. I know enough to know that I'm supposed to be impressed by the CGI in the skin/eyes of the Na'vi and other creatures. And given that I'm supposed to know that, they (generally) succeeded. The 3D wasn't really any different than any other Real 3D movie, and I really didn't see any difference in the quality of the CGI landscapes versus LoTR or even Jurassic Park (which were just arial shots). The story, of course, is Dances with Wolves in Space. I wish I went to Up in the Air instead. As to the ZOMG: Glengarry Glen Ross could have been filmed in the 1930s, but it's one of the best films in my lifetime. To say that Avatar changes movies forever is insane.
- Psyonic 17y ago
  Really? GGG as best film of a lifetime? The acting is spectacular, but I don't really feel like there is much of a story. Just a showcase for good acting. Felt like broadway on film.
jcapote 17y ago
10.
msg 17y ago
9. I saw it on Imax at 7:00 on Friday. I definitely recommend seeing it on Imax first. Some of the characters are pretty cardboard, and the theme doesn't really get to the depth it should. Also, calling it a low-gravity world doesn't excuse some of the world-building sins committed But the graphics are truly amazing. It is seamless. Forget the wooden people in Beowulf or Zemeckis. The humans and tall aliens are somewhat segregated so you only get the sense of scale in a few scenes, but they work very well. The other thing is that you sort of have to learn how to watch it. The camera presents different parts of the picture as in focus and you have to constantly shift where you are looking to follow the focus.

8 for me. It's a very good sci-fi/fantasy movie, but I was probably more impressed with the CGI than immersed in the story. Star Trek was a better movie in terms of story and I actually felt fear, suspense and other emotions while watching it.

huangm 17y ago

9. Went in with high expectations, and they were exceeded, which is rare for me. Most of the criticisms of Avatar are for its somewhat trite storyline, but for me, it definitely worked. The movie runs long at ~2h40m - it takes its time to develop characters and show off its fantasy world, but never does it feel like a drag. I can't recommend it enough.

sachinag 17y ago

5. Saw it in 3D on a non-IMAX screen. I know enough to know that I'm supposed to be impressed by the CGI in the skin/eyes of the Na'vi and other creatures. And given that I'm supposed to know that, they (generally) succeeded. The 3D wasn't really any different than any other Real 3D movie, and I really didn't see any difference in the quality of the CGI landscapes versus LoTR or even Jurassic Park (which were just arial shots). The story, of course, is Dances with Wolves in Space. I wish I went to Up in the Air instead. As to the ZOMG: Glengarry Glen Ross could have been filmed in the 1930s, but it's one of the best films in my lifetime. To say that Avatar changes movies forever is insane.

Psyonic 17y ago
Really? GGG as best film of a lifetime? The acting is spectacular, but I don't really feel like there is much of a story. Just a showcase for good acting. Felt like broadway on film.

jcapote 17y ago

10.

msg 17y ago

9. I saw it on Imax at 7:00 on Friday. I definitely recommend seeing it on Imax first. Some of the characters are pretty cardboard, and the theme doesn't really get to the depth it should. Also, calling it a low-gravity world doesn't excuse some of the world-building sins committed But the graphics are truly amazing. It is seamless. Forget the wooden people in Beowulf or Zemeckis. The humans and tall aliens are somewhat segregated so you only get the sense of scale in a few scenes, but they work very well. The other thing is that you sort of have to learn how to watch it. The camera presents different parts of the picture as in focus and you have to constantly shift where you are looking to follow the focus.