 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.83.146.225
I saw the first Avater in Imax 3d long ago. I remember it as a remarkable experience, simply for the visuals. I've never been sure I would even enjoy it without those amazing visuals.
So of course, I probably would have skipped this one unless it was Imax 3d. And after some 12 years, I had absolutely the same reaction. With this screen and the 3d, all the decade long work and hundreds of millions of dollars has resulted in a completely realized artificial world, down to the smallest lifeforms that fill every corner of the screen. In this case, most of the action takes place under water and it is pretty incredible.
As to the plot, well it is pretty simple good versus evil with a lot of action and fighting, and as much as it's nothing new, it's an old formula that works, at least it did for me. The end result was immersive and engaging. I kind of dreaded a 3 hour+ movie, but I was with it all the way...as I told the others I was with, I've seen much shorter movies where I was checking my watch, this one I did not. I think this would be fairly uninteresting on a small screen. But amazing in 3d Imax IMO.
Follow Ups:
Nt
NT
I was thinking of On the Waterfront.
NT
NT
Nt
NT
Nt
No. The word waterfront is not the word water. Now water you complaining about?
But the movie On the Waterfront does contain the word water.
now I need to start the process all over again.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Nt
I saw it last nite in IMAX 3D format and your "review" pretty much covers my reaction to it so I there's not much for me to add in that dept other than the 3D effects were immersive and very much added to the experience. What I find interesting about this movie is the myriad of informal reviews, discussions and pronouncements by those who haven't seen it and probably never will . . .
But you are right, people shouldn't review movies they haven't seen. I made the mistake of buying the DVD of Avatar at my wife's request, and have suffered through it numerous times. Do you think someone who hated the first film, as well as virtually everything in that genre, might like the second one?
But based on comments even here, I suspect many of the detractors have seen neither. I detect an air of elitism in many of the comments.
But yeah, if you didn't like the first one you won't like this one either. Although there are some new twists, much of it rehashes situations and scenes from the previous film . . . Much the way "Top Gun: Maverick" did with "Top Gun". Seems overall that "Way of Water" prepares us for the sequels to come, sequels that probably begin offloading original cast for a newer, younger cast. The virtual 3D world Cameron creates for us is spectacular, immersive and totally escapist. I can't imagine anywhere near the big screen experience on a home theater screen. But the story is environmentally and politically preachy and the thing is over long @~ 3:20. In spite of this I liked it and might see it again.
If it is because one does not like the creatures with tails then chances of liking the second is remote.It can also be due to the war all that action, the whole concept of not being allowed to occupy another land et al then no hope of liking the second. I love them.
Bill
(the first one)
I tend to think was accurate. It's hard to be excited about a new Smurf movie
nt
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
That really hosed my enthusiasm for seeing the new one. Cliche' Cameron rides again.
How did I miss that review back in the day?
Reviewer absolutely NAILS it!
Thx for that link.
I can rewatch his reviews but not the movies.
Star Wars the Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since my son. LOL
Did anyone see the South Park take-off on this? Story starts off with worries about head lice afflicting the kids which then zeros in on the kids' scalps where the lice maintain an Avatar culture. The hair strands are forest trees and the denizens face many perils not least of which is a terrible flood that results from washing the kids' hair. The brave couple promise to keep their beh-be safe throughout storm and stress. It's just hilarious.
LowIQ
Only Cameron could be bankrolled to do this. Continuity and fan appeal are considered lost by the industry. Actors age like the rest of us. So why?It wasn't all the pandemic.
The delay either caused the sequel's story to be based on Sully's kids, or Sully's kids required a time delay. Cameron talked about this as a franchise as far back as 2006. He wanted scripts in place to film sequels all the way out to number 5 or 6, based on the kids, before starting to film number two. And number 3 and part of 4 are already shot. Number three to be released in 2024.
Another reason -- and as good as the CGI was in the first film -- Cameron needed filming technology to catch up to his vision of an underwater world.
And, as obvious as it is, Cameron doesn't give a rat's butt about the business end of these things. Vision is vision. Get out of the way.
Edits: 01/04/23
45 years after Part 1.
Oh Vey!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
k
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Nt
Avatar; 2009
Avatar water, 2nd of 2 made; 2022
Alien series; '79, '86, '92, '97, '12, '17
Ridley Scott only made the first Alien 1979 before he made Prometheus in 2012 The other Alien movies were done by others. Didn't James Cameron do Aliens?
ACTION MOVIE!!!!!
It worked well (as such) with that one before slipping into the black goop of Hollywood.
Ever ponder the close proximity of the La Brea Tar Pits and Hollywood?
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I just watch movies, I don't study who directed, etc.
Actually, I've maybe seen half of the Alien movies.
But someone made the point James Cameron waited x number of years before making sequel to Avatar. I'm pointing out that Ridley Scott waited much longer to make his prequel/sequel, 33 years!
Edits: 01/04/23
Ridley Scott only made the first Alien 1979 before he made Prometheus in 2015. The other Alien movies were done by others. Didn't Cameron do Aliens?
Aliens was done by Cameron - and IMO a considerably better movie. Alien was just a slasher film in space - the slasher happened to be an Alien.
We're far off the original subject, but to me it's somewhat opposite of what you noted.
Alien was suspenseful, kept you on the edge of your seat. It had class, built to moments better...
Aliens was almost as good overall, yet entirely different, was another fighting, in your face movie.
RT it seems gives both a 98 (surprising to me), I'd go more like 92 and 85 respectively.
Nt
36 years between Top Gun and Top Gun Maverick. If they plan on any more, they will need to speed up that time line quite a bit.
Nt
I saw the first one (finally some may think) a couple months ago. It was better than I expected.
I'll see the new one some day also.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
