But what do you think of it?
It's on Channel 4 right now. I saw it at the flix too. And tbh, while I think it's OK and the CGI effects are pretty and it was quite good in 3D at the cinema; I find it long winded...
What about you?
But what do you think of it?
It's on Channel 4 right now. I saw it at the flix too. And tbh, while I think it's OK and the CGI effects are pretty and it was quite good in 3D at the cinema; I find it long winded...
What about you?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
It was ok. Very generic story and over hyped. Saw it once in the cinema, have no desire to see it again.
Load of shite. Smurfs do braveheart.
That wasnt zazz, that was me (gypsie) I am about to log out as zazz and in as me.
It was ok. Very generic story and over hyped. Saw it once in the cinema, have no desire to see it again.
So, like the third choice Rawks, and about 5 out of 10?
It is kinda long winded and imo, quite over-rated. Have no idea why it was SOOOOOOOOO huge!
Load of shite. Smurfs do braveheart.
Hahahah! That kind of makes me want to watch it
Load of shite. Smurfs do braveheart.
I spotted that a few minutes ago, and only just got it. VERY funny!
I love Avatar!!!
Am not allowed to watch it tonight cos I don't have tv remote rights
I love Avatar!!!
Am not allowed to watch it tonight cos I don't have tv remote rights
Awwwww................
I love Avatar!!!
Am not allowed to watch it tonight cos I don't have tv remote rights
good.
i too love it. it's a rainy sunday afternoon film.
Load of shite. Smurfs do braveheart.
I never fancied it on any level.
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.
I love Avatar!!!
Am not allowed to watch it tonight cos I don't have tv remote rights
Awwwww................
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
I love Avatar!!!
Am not allowed to watch it tonight cos I don't have tv remote rights
Awwwww................
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?
oh...oh...oh... its ok.
The girl has gone to her room..
I now have Avatar on...
bugger.. just in time for the sad bit
LOL, which ones? How far back? Max Bygraves or Les dennis? And didnt Bob Monkhouse do it too?
It was Les Dennis
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
Thanks Dame
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.
All I'm saying is its no Mary Poppins
I agree,,,brilliant...an out and out fabulous, enjoyable experience umpteen times
I was expecting it to be terrible and was pleasantly surprised. A good action pic with beautiful visuals
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"...
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"...
now that was crap
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
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!
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
I thought this was a terrible film
Not interested in the slightest.
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.
Not interested in the slightest.
Nor me.
Mr Sezit and myself got motion sickness. We watched at our local Imax cinema..never again............
And I thought Dances with wolves was a pile of shoite. That womans accent was hillarious.She sounded constipated whilst trying to speak Norwegian.
Mr Sezit and myself got motion sickness. We watched at our local Imax cinema..never again............
And I thought Dances with wolves was a pile of shoite. That womans accent was hillarious.She sounded constipated whilst trying to speak Norwegian.
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.
Access to this requires a premium membership.
Upgrade to VIP premium membership for just $25/year to unlock these benefits:
Ad-Free | Search Site | Start Dialogs |
Upload Photos | Upload Videos | Upload Audio |
Upload Documents | Use Signature | Block Members |
View Member Directory | Mark All Topics As Read | Edit Posts Anytime |
Post To Walls |