OldBoy

Movie:
"Avatar" (2009) (Starring Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi)

Release Date:
12/18/2009

Rating:
PG-13 (for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking)

Running Time:
162 min. (2h. 42m.)

Rotten Tomatoes:
Fresh:206 Rotten:44 (82% as of 2/2/2010)
RT Link...

Info:
IMDb Link...

Trailer:
<object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/hDmf4sR_unTOVw1sy4917w"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/hDmf4sR_unTOVw1sy4917w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>

Poster Art:

Dr. DVD

W.'s daughter didn't like it.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avat...viewid=1860208









Okay, I know it's not that one, but she's kind of hot looking. Shame a hot woman didn't care for it.

Draven

EW gives it a "B"

Review

Blu Man

You should probably change the poster to the new and final poster, it's 10x better then the one you posted.

outcastja

Ebert's **** review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/912119998

I really wasn't hyped about this movie but after the first line of this review, I'm officially excited.

Dr. DVD

FWIW, Owen Glieberman is one of those "stand out from the crowd" type of reviewers. Of course if a grade of B constitutes negative, then people must have really high expectations for a movie about blue aliens.

Labor

Wow, a totally glowing review

Dr. DVD

^ Problem is, Ebert's reviews don't carry water like they once did. He's made some questionable choices in his older years. But then again, saying he hasn't had a reaction like this since the 1977 Star Wars is pretty strong.

Draven

Never said it was a negative. Just that not everyone thinks it's the second coming of cinema.

I've been reading him for years and more often than not I agree with him, O Brother Where Art Thou? review notwithstanding (he gave it an F, which is INSANE).

Supermallet

From Ebert's review:

BJacks

(Posted this in the other thread, but figured I'd port it over here as well.)

Just got back and love love LOVED it. It had me from beginning to end; it's going to make a billion dollars. The effects are amazing; this is the first 3-D movie that didn't feel hokey. It's so subtly done that it just draws you in and creates a completely immersive experience. Instead of something cheap like a sword jutting out into the audience, so much of the 3-D is about painting things in the background instead of the foreground. You really feel like you're on Pandora surrounded by jungle and creatures and the blue-skinned aliens.

On that note, the trailers completely undersold the Na'vi. Where they were laughable in the promotional material, in the film -- when you're in the Avatar universe -- they come off as proud and fearsome and emotionally connected. The story might not be the most original around but it's so perfectly told that it just sucks you in. And the climactic battle is a sight to behold. It's not quite Battle of Helm's Deep but it's a showstopper to be sure.

I walked out thinking "wow wow wow." Call me a fanboy, but this was a great film.

BBEANLPHIE

dammmm

PopcornTreeCt

Hmm... interesting so far. My gut instinct tells me to hate this movie... but I'm curious if the reviews are that good I'll check it out.

BJacks

If your gut instinct is based on trailers or photos, don't go with it. None of them do this film justice.

big whoppa

Need a good story to make me care about a movie. So far I'm not getting much but pretty interesting pictures. I'll take a pass.

BJacks

Your loss (and if you count yourself a fan of movies, it's a big loss as this is THE cinematic experience of the year). This is certainly more than a whiz-bang, looks-good picture. The story is why I can't wait to see it again. It's not the most original concept at its core, but the way it's executed is perfect.

Dr. DVD

Cameron has said the story is pretty paint by the numbers and that the movie is meant to be an adventure first and foremost. It's basically an Edgar Rice Burroughs type story done with cutting edge technology.

Supermallet

As with any movie, it's about how the story is told. And based off the reviews, this movie seems to tell it pretty well.

NoirFan

Chicago Tribune:162 minutes?? Jesus.

BJacks

That Chicago Tribune quote is ridiculous. The huge climactic battle is in the third act and it's incredible.

And let me say this is the quickest 3 hours you'll ever spend. Me and everyone at work felt the same about that.

kahuna415

When one brings up James Cameron and movies and I'm already sold. The reviews clinche it for me. I was a bit worried about the reviews when Titanic came out, but in the end he's always delivers. Opening night and if there's a midnight film, I'm there.

dhmac

Just remember that Ebert has a thing for visually stunning films, even ones in which the story is weak.
(For example: his positive review of The Phantom Menace which was due entirely to the visually impressive worlds and he seemed not bothered in the least by the many weaknesses in the plot, characters, acting, etc., etc, etc., etc., (sigh), etc., etc. of that movie.)

Blu Man

He hates all MB films, all of which are lead by visuals. I didn't think The Phantom Menace was that bad, some movies appeal to some people, other movies to other people. Just because he is a critic does not mean he always likes movie that are generalized as "good" and dislikes movies that are generalized as "bad". And he's not the only reviewer who has given this film a glowing review, he's just one of the major ones.

Dr. DVD

I just saw The Blind Side and have to say that movie is a great illustration of the above statement. Schmaltzy and very much in "been there, done that," territory, but the performances and cast made it something above average.


Star Wars was very much a paint by the numbers adventure, Lucas just told it in a unique way.

Supermallet

But Ebert was also praising the characters and story in Avatar, so this isn't a Phantom Menace situation.