I saw Avatar for free yesterday. Went to the Imax theatre in Phoenix to see it there, but the little theater manager came out and said to us who were at the end of the IMAX line that they were about 20 glasses short for the IMAX theatre and would we like to be first in to see if for free at their regular theatre 25 mins later. We went for it figuring the experience would be similar and we'd have the pick of the seats. We got primo seats and I'd say the movie raised the bar a couple clicks for all future 3D movies. It was visually quite a spectacle. You would swear you had ashes falling on your lap during the jungle burning scene. All in all, it was awesome, particularly for free.

I enjoyed it at the time, and thought it better than Titanic. Technically it is impressive and the CGI crosses the uncanny valley.

However, I did find the 3D was occasionally gimmicky and distracting. Not as bad as some other films, but, eg, there's a moment when a long gun barrel pokes you in the eye. They need to realise that having ashes fall on your lap does not make it more immersive. Instead it takes you out of the film.

Given that there's a new world to assimilate, perhaps the story needed to be light, at least to start with. I wasn't bored. A lot of my criticism developed when thinking about the film afterwards - but then I hated it. The characters are weak, there are no surprises. It lacks the depth of, say, Terminator 2.

I gather that now they have the computer models, a sequel will be relatively cheap to make, and since this film looks like being commercially successful it's very likely to happen. That could be promising. Maybe they'll put in a decent story, open it out a little like the Matrix sequels. Maybe it will turn out that the Unobtainium (hateful, lazy name) cures a disease billions are suffering from so the Company was mining it for good reasons. Maybe they'll explain where the Na'vi came from (they clearly didn't evolve with the local wildlife - they have the wrong number of arms). Cameron is arguably at his best when doing sequels (eg Aliens 2, Terminator 2).

Just to through my two bits in, I saw it yesterday and was very impressed with the 3d and I didn't think that the plot was that bad and it definitely impressed me. I'm definitely glad I saw it in 3d. 5. Stars on my part being a x marine.

I suspect there won't be a sequel. Not unless the Na'vi can come up with a strategic weapon that can be used as a deterrent to a retaliatory strike. Maybe unobtanium has some as yet unknown properties that might help them.

It had to be a pretty simple story line, so that the propaganda would be easily assimilated. I like the dig at the end about how earth had destroyed it's own eco-system, and would be happy to destroy this one as well.

Entertaining, but obvious.

Yeah, the effects were cool, but the story line was oh so predictable. Also, I thought some of the acting was pretty mediocre (although Sam Worthington as the marine and Sigourney Weaver as the scientist were both good - Sigourney very good).

I'd give it 2 and a half stars out of four. My wife and two teenaged sons both thought it was better than that.

For anyone further interested, here's the review I put up on my own blog - http://tomfaranda.typepad.com/folly/2009/12/avatar-3d-my-take.html

I haven´t seen the Avatar yet, but for me the movie of the year is probably District 9. Very interesting movie.

Except for how the Na'Vi fire their bows (which you won't even notice if you aren't into archery), I liked it.

I went with the 3D version. I used to get almost migraine-level headaches from 3D but Avatar only gave me a mild one. I never felt that it was used just for the sake of 3D. It greatly enhanced the "depth" of the imagery, and I quickly stopped noticing it. To the point that I even started to duck a flying object once, but it was completely appropriate to the scene.

The CGI is very, very good. I never felt it was "cartoony", and the characters had enough texture to look more like makeup effects than CGI.

Yeah, the story was predictable, but didn't always go where I expected, which was refreshing.

4 stars out of 5, for me.

There were times when the 3D was very good and other times when it seemed out of proportion; the interior shots of the lab were bad IMO, it's like they kept the same proportion of distance as they did on the exterior shots, so it seemed out of whack. It was realistic when the ash from the fire was falling. I actually tried to dodge one of the missiles. (We were sitting in the middle of a row that was near the center height of the screen -- darn near optimum)

The CGI was great -- I've never seen better. The Na'vi never seemed "cartoony" or fake and the flora and fauna seemed real, even those great rides. That part of the graphics will take home an Oscar.

I kept my 3D eye-wear cause I'm definitely seeing it again.

Anyone else feeling a little depressed but don't know why, perhaps it started after going to the Cinema to watch Avatar.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ien-planet.html

The same thing happened after Star Wars, but there wasn't an internet for a large amount of people to gather virtually within to post about such things when the first trilogy came along. There were articles written about it though. Recently there was the advent of the Jedi church. Prior to that it happened with "The Lord of the Rings" before it was even put on film.

Google "Browncoats" sometime if you want to see how a relatively small show could inspire people to want to be a part of a fictional Universe.

Certain ideas strike a chord with people and they latch on to it.

The Na'vi are today's Jedi who themselves were Klingons and Elves the day before. It's just the mark of powerful fiction.

I just hope that some of these people decide to take a look around themselves and see the spectacular nature we have here on Plain ol' Earth.