Bullets 'n' Babes

You MUST see this film at the cinema and in 3D. AVATAR is the most visually stunning film in 3D that has ever been made. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Nice! Thanks. I'm hoping too soon.

Is anyone planning to see it in IMAX 3D? There are none near me.

I'm off to see this in an hour with my dad, it'll be my first 3D film

this looks like one of those up it's own arse overlong borefests.will catch it eventually.

Overlong? Its about 2 hours 45 mins and it flies by. Awesome film. Go see it while you've got the chance of seeing it in 3D...

Strangely enough this movie doesn't interest me one iota. I expect it's one of those films I'll quite enjoy when I eventually see it on BD/DVD but have no urge to seek out at the flicks. I admit I don't really like "fantasy" films much which doesn't help. I'd have been more jacked up if Cameron had done another Alien film or something.

I thought it was really good, but unfortunately we couldn't sit near the middle of the screen so some of the 3D came across as kind of double-vision, but for the most part it looked great. I'll go and watch it again sometime and get there nice and early for a good seat to see its perfection. The CGI is flawless, it all integrates seamlessly, such an achievement.

I agree with IM, it didn't drag for me, apart from the fact I desperately needed a wee for the last hour or more.

Waiting for the BD you won't get to see it in 3D and I get the impression it will be a lesser film without it.

Yeah it's pretty essential to see at the cinema.

Wow! The story has been told so many times before (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, The New World), but damn, James Cameron is a genius.
Avatar - 5/5
Haven't bothered with the 3D-version as it usually gives me headaches.

If I had to see Avator in 2D I doubt I'd bother. As a regular film it looks a bit pants. I'm not really a fan of films chocker-block with CGI. Nine is out next week too and that looks ace.

thelostdragon wrote:Wow! The story has been told so many times before (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, The New World), but damn, James Cameron is a genius.
Avatar - 5/5
Haven't bothered with the 3D-version as it usually gives me headaches.

When done properly, like Avatar is, it doesn't give me headaches. The old red & blue lensed 3D glasses give me a headache after less than 10 minutes, but I sat through the whole of Avatar without even a hint of a headache. I went in to the film thinking I probably would come out of it with a bad head, but was surprised that I felt comfortable the whole time. Go see it again, and try the 3D. I'm sure you won't regret it.

Yeah I had no problems with aching of the head or eyes either, just a few bits of double-vision which I put down to sitting off-centre.

bradavon wrote:If I had to see Avator in 2D I doubt I'd bother. As a regular film it looks a bit pants. I'm not really a fan of films chocker-block with CGI. Nine is out next week too and that looks ace.

This is rubbish!! 2D or 3D is irrelevant for what makes a film pants, it has the same story in both versions! Being in 3D does not make the film!

I saw the film in 3d (not imax though) and I don't htink the 3d made any difference personally. I'll be honest, I thought it was a nice touch the 3d stuff, but far from essential. Don't think I would have enjoyed it any more or any less if I had watched it in 2d. Seeing it in IMAX 3D might be a little better though, as it'll be more immersive.

Very visually stunning, decent story and fun film. 4/5.

Was good that most of hte CGI looked quite real rather than obviously CG.

degeneration wrote:

bradavon wrote:If I had to see Avator in 2D I doubt I'd bother. As a regular film it looks a bit pants. I'm not really a fan of films chocker-block with CGI. Nine is out next week too and that looks ace.

This is rubbish!! 2D or 3D is irrelevant for what makes a film pants, it has the same story in both versions! Being in 3D does not make the film!

Totally agree. To me it was always the story and/or the acting performances that make a film good. I never even cared if a film was shot on 35mm, 16mm, HD or simply DV. I'll watch any film if the story and actors in it are good.

So how about 3D now? It's not like the film sucks without the 3D effect. If you aren't interested in the storyline, you shouldn't watch it and waste your money on it only because it is available to see in 3D.

degeneration wrote:This is rubbish!! 2D or 3D is irrelevant for what makes a film pants, it has the same story in both versions! Being in 3D does not make the film!

No it's not. It's the 3D that interests me. The story looks pants in 2D or 3D . As I said, I'm not really a fan of films chocker-block with CGI.

I never said being in 3D makes the film, you said that.

If you aren't interested in the storyline, you shouldn't watch it and waste your money on it only because it is available to see in 3D.

I've never seen a film in 3D and want to see if it's really as good as the media says or as I suspect a gimmick.

bradavon wrote:

degeneration wrote:This is rubbish!! 2D or 3D is irrelevant for what makes a film pants, it has the same story in both versions! Being in 3D does not make the film!

No it's not. It's the 3D that interests me. The story looks pants in 2D or 3D . As I said, I'm not really a fan of films chocker-block with CGI.

I never said being in 3D makes the film, you said that.

Eh, no. I didn't say that. The quote I actually said is in your post. I said "Being in 3D does not make the film".

Take it you think Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai and The New World are all pants too then (cheers for the list tld!) since they are all basically the same story, just in different settings?

degeneration wrote:Eh, no. I didn't say that. The quote I actually said is in your post. I said "Being in 3D does tnh
not make the film".

That's what I meant, regardless you said it, not I.

degeneration wrote:Take it you think Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai and The New World are all pants too then (cheers for the list tld!) since they are all basically the same story, just in different settings?

They're not full of CGI. Your point is a stupid one, they only share the same basic plot, nothing more.

bradavon wrote: No it's not. It's the 3D that interests me. The story looks pants in 2D or 3D . As I said, I'm not really a fan of films chocker-block with CGI.

My point wasn't stupid. You said, as quoted above, that the story looks pants in 2d or 3d. So when I highlighted other films with similar stories, which you also said share the same basic plot, it should be a logical conclusion that you think those other films' stories are pants too.

At no point was I bringing CG into it, as we have agreed that CG does not make a film.

So by you bringing the CGI arguement into it by saying those other films are not full of CGI, and presumably implying that you do not think those films are pants as a consequence of this, you are stating that the lack of CGI in those films has improved the story? Or conversely that the CGI in Avatar has ruined the story.

Both of which are completely untrue as as has been agreed, CGI does not make a film.

The story in Avatar seems a bit like The Smurfs too imo

There was more than one female blue person in Avatar though... (and the purists will know that there was also more than one female in the Smurfs, but still not that many!)

degeneration wrote:My point wasn't stupid. You said, as quoted above, that the story looks pants in 2d or 3d. So when I highlighted other films with similar stories, which you also said share the same basic plot, it should be a logical conclusion that you think those other films' stories are pants too.[/quote[
Many films share a similar plot but are wildly different.

degeneration wrote:you are stating that the lack of CGI in those films has improved the story? Or conversely that the CGI in Avatar has ruined the story.

Quite possibly. I've rarely seen a film with 99% CGI to be anything but a disappointment. Star Wars Episode 3 is the only one I can think of where it doesn't ruin the film.

bradavon wrote:

degeneration wrote:you are stating that the lack of CGI in those films has improved the story? Or conversely that the CGI in Avatar has ruined the story.

Quite possibly. I've rarely seen a film with 99% CGI to be anything but a disappointment. Star Wars Episode 3 is the only one I can think of where it doesn't ruin the film.

And that's why you feel qualified to judge a film you haven't even seen?

Everyone makes a judgement on films they've not seen. If not, you'd have to spend pretty much your entire life watching movies.

bradavon wrote:Everyone makes a judgement on films they've not seen.

Hardly.you can certainly decide whether you fancy a film or not but judge it unseen?no way. i don't fancy this film at all, i've decided it looks pretentious twaddle but i can't judge it because i haven't seen it!!