Giantrobo

Not just 3D, IMAX 3D if you can.

This is one of the few 3D films I've seen that I probably wouldn't even bother watching in 2d.

macontosh2000

Cursing isnt really an issue, whatever is in the movie he has probably heard worse at home.
My big problem is violence and sex. (i read somewhere that there was brief nudity?)

He has seen Iron Man (begining bothered him), Star Trek, Star Wars, Spider-man movies, Hulk, and the Transformers.

Yeah I am not a huge IMAX fan. I get sick watching things in IMAX plus it cost to much.

Numanoid

With all due respect...you, my friend, are crazy.

RichC2

There are some "national geographic" style boob shots -- you see flashes of blue titties due to their tribal garb. Similarly there is a very short "sex scene". Otherwsie, you see worse violence on 24 and more sex on just about everything.

Labor

How is it not?

Everything about the shot screams "this is real" from the detail, to the lighting to even the braids of hair.

Artman

Another thought... I recently watched The New World Again. I wish some of Avatar was more like that.... but, just different styles of film making. You can't expect a loose, poetic, documentary style film where almost every shot has fx.

Loved hearing Wes Studi's voice as the chief...lol, the tribe wouldn't have been complete without him.

Giantrobo

CCH Pounder was great as whatsherface's Mother.

Draven

Ok...so? It's not the first time a still image has been created that's "photorealistic." When it's in motion the illusion breaks down quite a bit.

And they did it with computers...some people can do it with paint.

Labor

lol

fumanstan

Avatar felt far from photo realistic to me. The Navi and Pandora felt very much CG, albeit very good CG.

slop101

Not in this case - as others have sarcastically touched on it, this was no ordinary movie production - Cameron had an unprecedented amount of finished CGI work that he didn't use for varying reasons. The way I heard it was that basically, he had to see the finished work in order to decide if it would work or not.

Numanoid

Nope. It looks clearly CGI. As others have said, it looks like a videogame. Indeed.

hardercore

Does Avatar technically have enough CGI to be considered an animated film for Oscars? What separates it from mo-cap animation like "A Christmas Carol" or "Polar Express".... I'd say less than half of the film is away from the "avatar" experience on Pandora, where both the actors and the environment are CGI.

toddly6666

If the Star Wars prequels, who framed roger rabbit, sin city are considered regular non-animated films, then Avatar is. The only exception that i can think of is Happy Feet - there were real people integrated into the film towards the end.

dsa_shea

I was excited about seeing this and we were in line to buy Imax tickets on Monday but they were sold out so we didn't get to go. However, after having time to think about it I'm probably going to have to skip this one. I can imagine that the effects are mind blowing but paying 13 bucks to see a "movie" that is almost entirely grounded in effects is something I'll likely regret afterwards.

Blu Man

No, it's worth your money. It really is. Don't make make the mistake of not seeing this in theaters.

Giantrobo

Yeah do yourself a favor and see it in IMAX 3D. IMHO it's the "only way" to see it.

chess

Saw this this in 3D last night and was blown away. The writing and characters are fairly typical action-movie level, but the production values are just astounding. DO NOT MISS THIS IN THEATERS...AND 3D IS ABSOLUTELY WORTH A FEW EXTRA $.

fumanstan

Definitely worth watching this in IMAX if possible.

Supermallet

WALL-E also shows people in video and clips from films with live action actors.

devilshalo

In 2002, Stuart Little 2 was eligible for nomination into the Best Animated Film catagory.

jpb07

Just saw it in 3D today. Awesome movie. Even though I haven't seen it in a few years, I could have sworn there were a few chords of music pulled from Titanic and put into the middle of this movie. Very very subtle but still a nice little "shoutout" to his prior work.

Now as for other things... I don't understand what the big deal is about CGI or non-CGI. The point of movies is to ENTERTAIN. If they need CG to tell/illustrate the story than be grateful that it exists. If you are using CGI as the main reason you don't want to go see the movie, you are going to regret it. 3D is the only way to go. Unlike a lot of other 3D movies, Cameron does a very solid job using 3D as another tool/enhancement for the movie. You really get a sense for what the character is feeling as they fall off a very high ledge. I also thought the 3D effects in the main control center brought the control screens to life. Now if you want bad...there was a preview for a 3D movie whose main selling point seemed to be a college girl with large breasts jumping up and down on a trampoline. Aside for the Piranhas, that movie may by more your style if want to avoid a lot of CGI. Alice in Wonderland also seems like an epic fail when it comes to 3D because it looked like a lot of the effect would be very distracting.

writer106

I saw it on Thursday. It was better than I expected. I give it four stars.

valkyrie

After having seen this in IMAX 3D and Real3D, I give the definite nod to Imax 3D. It was the second time seeing it, and it captivated and moved just as much as the first time. Plus, the chance to shift focus a little to the detail and background was great fun. I'm honestly pumped to see it a third time. Even the wives and girlfriends that came along with the guys the first time are up for viewings 2 and 3. Pretty strong statement, if you ask me. I give it 4.5 stars.

Dr. DVD

I caught it a second time today in Real3D. IMO, IMAX has the advantage and I intend to see it again in that format, but this one is still very entertaining and doesn't lose much. IMAX just makes you feel like you've actually been to another world, whereas this one makes you feel like you've watched a movie with very good FX.

P.S. The villains in this are about as cookie-cutter as you can get.