I went into the theater with pretty low expectations. I felt like I was going into a film that relied on visual effects to carry an inane or juvenile storyline.
I was fucking blown away
AVATAR is a goddamned awesome movie, I loved it. There were a few very minor groan-inducers (naming the mineral "unobtanium", some of the human lines), but holy crap. Several times I became aware of my surroundings and came to the realization that I was literally gripping the edge of my seat. I can't remember the last time that I was that emotionally wrapped up in a movie. The Na'vi acting was nothing short of SPECTACULAR. It was a perfect storm of absolutely believable and astonishing visual quality (I forgot moments into the first view of the Na'Vi that they were CG), incredible voice acting, and astonishingly perfect portrayals of alien movement, emotion, and spark.
Mind = blown.
-signed, the ultimate cynic
^^ Suck it, Grimnoc
Chip Dapper wrote:
Yes. Suck it Grimnoc.
Oh you can suck it too, we're just going in reverse alphabetical order.
Buddy J wrote:
Is there all All Time Word-wide Adjusted?
This is for you lynx. Love it. Loveee itttt!!!
expect it's sales to continue to soar.
The adjusted for inflation list is a completely moot point. ... it is an inaccurate benchmark. That film came out in the late 2000's. "Stereos" had only existed for a couple years, and it was one of the earliest feature length films to be presented in mostly CGI. So the technology, while not exclusive to Avatar, was still in its infancy, and still very impressive to viewers. It was a good film, but it had a pull much bigger than its story.
It's performance cannot be denied.
someone explaining why it's unfair to compair movies to Avatar in the year 2110 wrote:
Allow me to explain: Avatar will NEVER be toppled from that throne, but it is an inaccurate benchmark. That film came out in the early 2000's. "threedies" had only existed for a decade, and it was one of the earliest feature length films to be presented in realistic 3D. So the technology, while not exclusive to Avatar, was still in its infancy, and still very impressive to viewers. It was a good film, but it had a pull much bigger than its story.
On top of that, in those early days of cinema, there were no home 3D options. There wouldn't be home 3D for almost 35 years. The ONLY place you could see a 3D film was in a theater, and as a result, films would generally stay in a theater for weeks on end, and in some cases, months. This was the case as recently as Avatar III. Avatar was re-released, even, over the course of 6 or 7 times along different years. It sat in cinema almost uncontested. Back at that time, there wasn't much real competition for the film - it was nothing like the competition of today. People would see it over and over again, it's legacy is unmatched in cinema, and it is something that will not be repeated, because everything has changed far too much. Today, films see critical reception, incredible amounts of competition, typical theatrical runs of 1.5 days, and expectations of a home holo release in roughly 2 weeks. They aren't given the chance to go the long haul by distributors, and consumers wouldn't allow it anyways, as interest in a film typically dissolves after a week.
Sherlock Holmes is a lame film that pisses all over the classic Sherlock IP.
It takes a hell of a lot more than telling me to suck it to get uninvited from ICHQ