Fun Stuff > ENJOY
the other avatar
Chesire Cat:
Im in awe at the haters in here. Like James Cameron did something personally to you. The movie was a great fun story with beautiful effects. Saying things like "The first is that Cameron never utilizes his technology well, I would have preferred the film to just be flat and I honestly don't think I'd miss anything at all. I don't really appreciate having to pay like...4 more bucks for a movie ticket when the movie doesn't truly take advantage of this "amazing" technology. "
Are dumb on many levels. Starting with, you dont have to see the movie in 3D, its optional. And 3D technology, the literal limits of a flat image being projected into 3D is that there can only be two depths, one for each eye. Your brain gets confused and slams it into a single image. James Cameron didnt do that to you nature did by only giving us two eyes. You want true 3D, you will have to wait until they can project a 3rd dimension, an image that actually has volume.
Everyone who gave a reason why they hated it so far appear to be complete wankers. This movie does an exemplary job at everything it sets out to to. If thats not something you dont like. Dont blame the movie or James Cameron, after all, if you dont like dogs, its makes a particularly bad argument when you say things like "I hate that dog for being a dog and not being a cat, because I like cats".
scarred:
You're defending "unobtainium?"
Really?
I like my blockbuster cheese as much as the next guy, but we're talking about the same director who did Aliens and T2: Judgment Day. I expect a higher caliber of story from him.
That being said, I'm still glad I saw it, because the graphics are pretty much the greatest thing (especially what they did with water... holy shit). But... come on, Cameron. You're better than unobtainium. That "script" just absolutely reeked of lazy.
scarred:
Also:
--- Quote from: Retrospectre on 21 Dec 2009, 00:32 ---Not saying it's not stupid but;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium#Science_fiction
--- End quote ---
The only film example they have is The Core. That should set off alarm bells...
Chesire Cat:
You know what, I especially enjoyed the use of 'unobtainium'. It made it perfectly clear what it was without any for of explanation really needed. Unobtanium is worth 20m a kilo, plot of the antagonist outlined, moving on. And its casual breaking the 4th wall by including the reason it matters in its name. Well unobtainium sounds like unobtainable which implies it is extremely rare or doesnt exist, it exists because they are mining it case closed.
If you want to know what bothered me the most, aside from an overly antagonizing antagonist was the fact that a movie with such an archetypal video game plot could have a crappy video game pairing. Oh and also, I wouldve liked Paul Reiser play Giovanni Ribisi's character since he played that role in Aliens and because I like Giovanni Ribisi and I like hating Paul Reiser. But that is just personal preference.
Border Reiver:
I definitely damned the movie with faint praise. Still, it wasn't dreck, the characters were just flat - their critical characteristics were set practically immediately on introduction, and played their set roles out. Not a problem. The movie is able to succeed despite that flaw - visually it is a masterwork, the acting is competant, the story (while predictable) is internally consistent and the final fight scene is good.
Overall, 3 out of 5
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version