|
Avatar in 3D (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| WittyHandle |
I'm so psyched for Inception. Christopher Nolan is a personal fav, and can do no wrong in my book. He just puts so much quality throughout his work that makes it interesting at first, but nearly always pays off after repeated viewings as well.
From what I hear, he wrote, produced, and directed this one, plus he's got enough cred to get a significant budget nowadays to play with. I'm really trying not to get too pumped up for this for fear of ruining it for myself, but it's hard not to.
I was looking forward to Alice in Wonderland when I first heard about it, but after seeing the stills and then the trailer, my hopes have faded a bit. I used to love Tim Burton, but I feel like he's gotten a little lax, especially in his visual design. Depp is still great though.
I've got this dream that after the inevitable success of the Hobbit movies, Guillermo del Torro redoes Wizard of Oz. |
|
|
| Schadenfreude |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ravemontreal
Funny, I never enjoyed a Tim Burton movie, except a NIghtmare Before Christmas and maybe mildley enjoyed Edward Scissorhands.
It always look good, but I never enjoy them. Don't know why.
And he should really get over his man crush for Johnny Depp, it:s ridiculous to cast teh same guy over and over again. |
that is why i said that it was lazy casting. The Mad Hatter and Willy Wonka are almost the same character. The novel is a classic though, so it should be hard to up that script.
I am so scared that the Rum Diary will be bad. Fear And Loathing is in my top 10 favourite movies of all time for sure. |
|
|
| Schadenfreude |
| also Beetlejuice was a decent movie for the lulz.:p |
|
|
| WittyHandle |
Seriously, how can anyone not love Beetlejuice?
As for Willy Wonka, I got a weird Michael Jackson vibe from the way Depp did it. |
|
|
| Schadenfreude |
It was not an oscar worthy movie, but for its time it was really ahead of the curve.
The dinner scene has always cracked me up so much...maybe i'm just a sucker for Harry Belafonte songs:p |
|
|
| Johnny Jon |
Thumbs way up for fear and loathing in Las Vegas: Benicio played real well in that one too along with Depp. "GET IN!" that grin on Depp's face saying that to Toby Mcguire, priceless. Avatar was good movie, very nice looking picture but again not overwhelmly impressed, enough action to keep your attention. Cute story, i agree with the version of it being a kid's movie for adults.
Not too excited about upcoming movies, im a big promotor of "its not because it was a good thing as a video game or as a cartoon/comic that it will be as a movie" i have mixed feelings about Prince of Persia, especially with Gyllenhaal staring it. Book of Eli looks half decent but will probably be a copy paste of something done before as i smell a hint of the game "Fallout 3". Inception looks real nice indeed. 2009 wasnt a big movie year imo. |
|
|
| 84th Ave. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Schadenfreude
maybe it is just me, but i don't go to see a movie for cheesy in your face non stop visuals.
do you like pro wrestling too?:p
I want to get involved in a plot. I want to be kept thinking. I used to like stupid movies once in awhile as a guilty pleasure, because there were less of them back in the day. For the last 5 years at least, it is almost nothing but stupidity coming out of Hollywood. All you have to do is look at how they are raping everything from the 80's/early 90's at the moment to show you that there are no new ideas.
Hollywood has become trance.
300 was brutal. The last 2 films i actually enjoyed on Imax were The Dark Knight and Disney's Earth. They were both visually stunning and had some substance to them. Had they had none, the visuals would not be enough.
Avatar is the Ed Hardy of movies. Just a load of crap thrown onto something that ends up being hideous, yet the people who don't like to think the most gravitate to it:p |
i used to love pro wrestling :p
all your reasons i agree with you, but your missing the point. This movie set the visual bar above anything else. Dark Knight was one of my favorites movies as well, but you cannot compare the two, 'visually'.
like i said before, i would go pay another 9 dollars just to see the visuals again, not to be amazed by the story or characters
Hollywood has become the present, which is filled with technology. Forget the original and brilliance of the 80s and 90s. |
|
|
| 84th Ave. |
| and Edward Scissorhands is classic! |
|
|
| klobo |
| quote: | Originally posted by sonic monkey
I just came back from the movies and I got to say that the film is
amazing. Totally worth the money but here's my quick non-spoiler review:
+Mind Blowing Visuals
+Predictable but EPIC movie
+Sigourney Weaver!!!
-No memorable dialogues
-No memorable action sequences
-Weak Character development
All in all, I really enjoyed this movie but it was missing some elements that made previous James Cameron movies a classic imo. Remember the unforgetable (stylish) moments or the iconic characters we had with Terminator, Aliens, etc... ? Maybe my expectations were a bit high for a James Cameron movie but it was still a great experience. |
yay,somebody that has the exact thoughts i had about the movie!! |
|
|
| WittyHandle |
| quote: | Originally posted by 84th Ave.
all your reasons i agree with you, but your missing the point. This movie set the visual bar above anything else. Dark Knight was one of my favorites movies as well, but you cannot compare the two, 'visually'.
like i said before, i would go pay another 9 dollars just to see the visuals again, not to be amazed by the story or characters
Hollywood has become the present, which is filled with technology. Forget the original and brilliance of the 80s and 90s. |
I don't think anyone's missing the point here. Some people are happy with accepting a movie for its visual appeal, and others need a good story. Both together are great, but this rarely happens.
I'd watch a film with a good story again (Dark Knight is a perfect example), but not one just for the visuals (such as Avatar). You might feel the opposite of this. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
As for saying that originality in Hollywood is forgotten, I disagree. It may be less common, but not gone altogether. |
|
|
| Vermz |
| Well I never went to the theater to see an Hollywood kind of movie only based on VFX. I think it's pretty lame, but Avatar is something new. I think they managed to do an awesome job and it's a nice step forward, that's why I like this movie. |
|
|
| 84th Ave. |
| quote: | Originally posted by WittyHandle
I don't think anyone's missing the point here. Some people are happy with accepting a movie for its visual appeal, and others need a good story. Both together are great, but this rarely happens.
I'd watch a film with a good story again (Dark Knight is a perfect example), but not one just for the visuals (such as Avatar). You might feel the opposite of this. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
As for saying that originality in Hollywood is forgotten, I disagree. It may be less common, but not gone altogether. |
i know where you are coming from, personally I am more into movies that have a rich story line with detail to characters, plot, etc.
my point is that I love to watch those movies in the comfort of my own home, i dont need an IMAX experience for those type of movies (like Blow, The Departed, etc)
going to the theater and getting what you get out of avatar is incomparable, again the visuals
I think alot of people were just expecting alot out of Cameron, I too, was expecting a more of a rich story, it was bland and predictable |
|
|
|
|
