AVATAR...Just saw it yesterday. Did you?

Blu-ray coming April 22nd. :D :tresbon: ...Earth Day. :)

Celebrate Earth Day by promoting vulgar consumerism/overconsumption...how ridiculous.

Are they going to (yea right) at least donate a portion of the proceeds to some environmental organization?

Btw, I'm no "save the earth" nut (humans will be long gone before the earth or all of nature is of course...the earth would literally have to be blown apart in order to destroy it, nature will come back from anything else) and am of course hardly without sin myself, but I just think this is beyond hypocritical, funny really. It's like driving a Hummer with environmental stickers on it around.

Also, haven't seen it but I might sometime.
 
It's like driving a Hummer with environmental stickers on it around.

A little bit like this? :D

fail-owned-go-green-fail.jpg
 
Saw it...

...now I need a de-schlocking shower. We saw the DVD, nice cg. The earth music stuff has to stop. Please.
 
A little bit like this? :D

fail-owned-go-green-fail.jpg

Lol

Although...

If that person works for an alternative fuel/energy company and/or just gets a few people to switch over to it via displaying those ads on that ridiculous machine (which, for all we know, could be converted to actually run on alternative fuels), then the environmental degradation caused by driving such a machine will be outweighed by the positive benefits of his work and/or others becoming more aware of and possibly switching over to alternative energy.

IOW: Me driving my fuel efficient car into work and around town but not working for an alternative fuel/energy company (although I do belong to some environmental organizations) is doing far less to help "save the planet" than that person is. The apparent contradiction or paradox is lessened when a more enlarged view is considered.

However, he could just drive a Prius...but then, would that attract as much attention? Or does he need to haul around equipment in that thing? The whole story is not available to us.

But still my initial example holds: an average person driving around a hummer while slapping on some pro-environment stickers on it and claiming to care about the environment (and not even belong to an environmental organization much less work for an alternative fuel/energy company) is a joke.
 
Last edited:
Lol

Although...

If that person works for an alternative fuel/energy company and/or just gets a few people to switch over to it via displaying those ads on that ridiculous machine (which, for all we know, could be converted to actually run on alternative fuels), then the environmental degradation caused by driving such a machine will be outweighed by the positive benefits of his work and/or others becoming more aware of and possibly switching over to alternative energy.

IOW: Me driving my fuel efficient car into work and around town but not working for an alternative fuel/energy company (although I do belong to some environmental organizations) is doing far less to help "save the planet" than that person is. The apparent contradiction or paradox is lessened when a more enlarged view is considered.

However, he could just drive a Prius...but then, would that attract as much attention? Or does he need to haul around equipment in that thing? The whole story is not available to us.

But still my initial example holds: an average person driving around a hummer while slapping on some pro-environment stickers on it and claiming to care about the environment (and not even belong to an environmental organization much less work for an alternative fuel/energy company) is a joke.


Really?
 
as i said Magnificent 7 is a REMAKE. its suppose to be the same movie. not a hard concept. Avatar WAS poorly acted. it had many plot holes, i'm trying not to list them because i dont want to ruin anything for anyone.

As for the Dome sound affect, i dont understand where youre going with that, it has nothing to do with a prior movie.

using the T-rex roar for an animal in avatar is like using the lightsaber sound from star was as the sound for someones tail moving.

again i said i didnt like the film AAAAAAANNNNNDDDDD the fact that they ripped off a bunch of other movies. this wasnt a remake. this was a movie that took many ideas from other films and blatantly threw them together into a mess.

dont attack my opinion please. i'm trying to be clear. if you liked it thats fine, i'm not trying to sway anyones opinion. i'm simply not a fan of this movie.

the effects are overrated and dont make up for a dumb plot, with lackluster development.

please now move on and someone else have a go at a review.


Amen
 
On Avatar: Just couldn't make it through the entire film, first sitting. I'll give it another shot in a week or two or three or ...
 
Is this the last movie from James Cameron? ...Any good? :smoke:

I'd say so. It's sort of "The Empire Strikes Back," but better.

Just saw it, but not in 3-D, which meant it was very pretty, but not as mind-blowing as folks say. Classic little-guy-underdogs vs the evil empire stuff. Not profound, but the plot is done well enough that it works.

Everyone says the 3-D is wonderful, and I can see that it might be. Plenty of POV soaring flight shots, and lots of other good stuff. Have to watch for a revival at a 3-D house.
 
I watched it on Blu-Ray, in "old fashioned" 2D, and I was... disappointed? I suppose? For 300 million dollars, the plot was lousy. Extremely predictable. Sure, the effects were groundbreaking, but the textbook plot killed it for me. I also disliked the extremely overt environmental message that hung over the entire movie. I think James Cameron could have integrated it a lot more subtly into the movie, I felt at times my intelligence was being insulted at times by the in-your-face message. It was also extremely long, but it didn't really get that boring. I don't think I would see it again. It was a technological achievement but not an artistic one, IMO.
 
I think James Cameron could have integrated it a lot more subtly into the movie, I felt at times my intelligence was being insulted at times by the in-your-face message. IMO.

Well, keep in mind that as a blockbuster it's pitched at average 17-year-olds, not at very bright fellows also possessing the wisdom of years. But if you can kind of let the didactic content blow by, it's good as a diverting if brainless adventure tale, with plenty of eye-candy. I will use it in the future at intervals as turn-the-brain-off-and-be-entertained fare. And as I said, I do want to check-out the 3-D version.
 
BTW LoTR, one of the many 'samplings' of images from other movies is a bit that looks a lot like the 'death of Boromir,' though no one gets kissed....
 
Although the plot is clearly taken from "Dancing With Wolves" and "Pocahontas", I enjoyed this version of the same plot. Repeated plots are not always a bad thing in my opinion, so long as the directors present the same material in a new way I can see the enjoyment out of watching it.

Sure, it's a terrible reason to spend $10 at the theaters, and I am not the person who usually enjoys action films with thin plots; but considering what made this movie popular was the visuals, I consider a good film regardless.
 
Awful movie. Beautiful, impressive, one or two interesting ideas, but cannot overcome such an obvious, heavy-handed, cliche-ridden, poorly written, rip-off of other movies, some good and some not-so good. If the movie is trying to make a point, it does itself a huge disservice. I'm inclined to be sympathetic to the point of the plot, but it was so overdone and obvious that I didn't WANT to be sympathetic. Did I say I thought it was awful?
 
I'd say so. It's sort of "The Empire Strikes Back," but better.

You take that back right now!:grumpy:

:D

saw part of it when the family rented it, good looking movie, sure. All the parts I saw were pretty dumb, though. I couldn't help when watching the 10 or so minutes, that that film was not highest grossing of all time material...I think the 3-d aspect brought in a lot of extra cash. I had asked my dad how it was and he said "well, it's interesting so far, but a little goofy" - he was 1/3 a way in:scratch2:.

Just my opinion, of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom