Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by sparkles:
Originally Posted by Dirtyprettygirlthing:

I love Avatar!!!  

 

Am not allowed to watch it tonight cos I don't have tv remote rights 

Awwwww................    

 

Originally Posted by Rawky-Roo:
Originally Posted by Dirtyprettygirlthing:

I love Avatar!!!  

 

Am not allowed to watch it tonight cos I don't have tv remote rights 

 

good.

 

THE GIRL IS MAKING ME WATCH RERUNS OF FAMILY FORTUNES!!!!

 

HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Dirtyprettygirlthing
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:

 

 

Horses for courses...I though it was absobloodylutley brilliant, so disappointed that they have delayed the second one until 2016  with three coming out a year later supposedly. 

Blimey, why have they delayed it for THAT long?!  Mind you, the first one took 10 years to complete, so I heard.

FM
Originally Posted by Dirtyprettygirlthing:
Originally Posted by sparkles:
Originally Posted by Dirtyprettygirlthing:

I love Avatar!!!  

 

Am not allowed to watch it tonight cos I don't have tv remote rights 

Awwwww................    

 

Originally Posted by Rawky-Roo:
Originally Posted by Dirtyprettygirlthing:

I love Avatar!!!  

 

Am not allowed to watch it tonight cos I don't have tv remote rights 

 

good.

 

THE GIRL IS MAKING ME WATCH RERUNS OF FAMILY FORTUNES!!!!

 

HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

LOL, which ones?  How far back?  Max Bygraves or Les dennis?  And didnt Bob Monkhouse do it too?

FM
Originally Posted by sparkles:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:

 

 

Horses for courses...I though it was absobloodylutley brilliant, so disappointed that they have delayed the second one until 2016  with three coming out a year later supposedly. 

Blimey, why have they delayed it for THAT long?!  Mind you, the first one took 10 years to complete, so I heard.

 

 

It's here Sparkles...but according to some sites it should be the same cast 

 

http://goodfilmguide.co.uk/ava...elease-date-delayed/

Dame_Ann_Average

The thing you have to remember about Avatar is that it was designed as a 3D IMAX movie. You really need to see it in that format if you can, and I maintain that viewed under those conditions, it remains spectacular.

I took my parents to see it at an IMAX as my Dad's birthday "treat". At the end, the girl sitting next to my Mum turned to her and just said "Wow!" I think that summed it up perfectly.

 

However, when viewed instead in 2D on a "standard" cinema screen, that effect will be severely reduced. reduce it still further to a TV screen, and - meh. The effects are still good, but the problem with any effects movie is that special effects age very quickly. What you're then left with is the story, and Avatar's is merely OK.

Avatar has made nearly $2.8billion, and it would never have made anything like that much if it hadn't been an "event" movie.

Eugene's Lair
Originally Posted by Eugene's Lair:

The thing you have to remember about Avatar is that it was designed as a 3D IMAX movie. You really need to see it in that format if you can, and I maintain that viewed under those conditions, it remains spectacular.

I took my parents to see it at an IMAX as my Dad's birthday "treat". At the end, the girl sitting next to my Mum turned to her and just said "Wow!" I think that summed it up perfectly.

 

However, when viewed instead in 2D on a "standard" cinema screen, that effect will be severely reduced. reduce it still further to a TV screen, and - meh. The effects are still good, but the problem with any effects movie is that special effects age very quickly. What you're then left with is the story, and Avatar's is merely OK.

Avatar has made nearly $2.8billion, and it would never have made anything like that much if it hadn't been an "event" movie.

I have to agree here, i watched in normal 3D cinema and i loved it!

Jen-Star
Originally Posted by Jenstar:
Originally Posted by Eugene's Lair:
Originally Posted by zazz:

Load of shite. Smurfs do braveheart.

Actually, the film it tends to be likened to the most - at least in plot terms - is "Dances With Wolves"...

Pocahontas

Minus the special effects ... the movie story line has been heavily criticsed for being like POCAHONTAS

I saw it in iMax 3D ... it was spectacular but story was standard fare

Saint

I get what people are saying that it was better in the cinema in 3D than it was on telly or dvd.  I think it was less than average and quite boring on telly, and the special effects at the cinema were good, but it was still a bit of a boring and very long story.  I would say 6.5 out of 10 in the cinema - great effects but boring naff long story, and 4.5 on the telly, so an average 5.5 out of 10.  

FM

it had it all for me...     they were blue & pretty...   THEY HAD TAILS & MOVING EARS...   AND...  the tails were USB tails!!

 

And dragons!!!   (am a huge fan of Anne McCaffreys Dragons of Pern)

 

and... then they could plug into the dragons!!!

 

and all the plants light up...  

 

 

I love it.   But then that's one of my fave genre of book/film...   Fantasy..  the type that makes you want to be in that world.

 

 

Dirtyprettygirlthing

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×