I thought it was pretty cool---it reminded me of how we took all the land from All of the Native American Indian Tribes, At that time they all lived off the land and only took what was needed and respected the land and earth. White man came and had guns and cannon and etc. but they mostly had to fight back with spears,bows knife and axe, until much later began to get guns from the whites.-----plus the whites were after minerals such as silver and especially GOLD.....similar to the movie plot theme. But as you say in the movie the difference in technology was vastly one sided here--missles grenades, bombs fighting bow and arrow. Dan H.
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 10:55:53 PM Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Avatar so the 3d effects were cool but the story was so so? someone described as two technologies separated by 5,000 years of development, had a war the with expected results. “Mere longevity is a goodthing for those who watch Life from the side lines. For those who play the game, an hour may be a year, a single day's work an achievement foreternity.” Dave O'Connell In a message dated 1/22/2010 8:39:09 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I saw the movie in 3-D and absolutely adored the film. The effects were so mesmerizing that I could see some people missing essential elements of the movie, but I don't know if I would pay the price to see it again in the theater. Renting the film at home later would probably be the best option. > >If you're going to pay to see the film you need to see it in 3-D Even the out >of focus things in the film were in three dimensional form. >Purely a phenomenal movie. >Quadius > > >On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Tod E. Santee <[email protected]> wrote: > >I haven't seen it yet but my wife and I plan to as soon as our house in back >in order after some post-Christmas kitchen improvements. >> >>A couple friends who've seen it in 3-D and IMAX 3-D have commented that IF >>you first see it in 3-D you should go back and watch without the glasses. >>They've said that the graphics are so good at "immersing you" (my term, not >>theirs) in the virtual world that some significant story components are >>easily missed. In other words, the visual depth of the movie tends to >>distract a lot from the contextual and content from the literary depth of the >>story itself. (And these are Techno-Geek friends, if that says anything!) >> >>Best! (Don't give anything away here, Ok?) >>--Tod >> >> >>---- Greg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> If you mean "real" as in a disabled actor, he is not really disabled. Just >>> fantastic special effects. He is fairly new here, but has a ton of movies >>> just coming out. He was almost the last James Bond. >>> >>> I saw this in IMAX 3D and it was way cool. I'm sure it will win Oscars in >>> special effects, but unfortunately these kind of movies tend not to win as >>> Best Movie. I hope this movie is still good when it comes out on DVD. Not >>> sure how good it will look at home in 3D. Or how good it will be without 3D. >>> It's hard to know how much that and IMAX influenced my opinion of the movie. >>> >>> >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> _____ >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh my god this movie was amazing! I saw it in 3-D also this past weekend >>> and it literally was one of the best movies I have ever seen and I love >>> movies so that's saying a lot. The story was wonderful, having a "real" >>> disabled person in the movie was awesome as well and just the amazing >>> special-effects with the 3-D experience was very cool! I highly recommend >>> everyone going out and seeing it! And yes Billy, I had the same reaction as >>> you for the first 10 minutes of the movie and probably throughout the movie! >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
