I never saw AVATAR in 3D and I'm not sure that I want to see it in 3D. I wear glasses and 3D glasses give me headaches. The effect you describe might be caused by the 3D camera and the artwork to make it "deep" and dimensional.

Dave (imported) wrote: Sat May 01, 2010 3:29 pm I never saw AVATAR in 3D and I'm not sure that I want to see it in 3D. I wear glasses and 3D glasses give me headaches. The effect you describe might be caused by the 3D camera and the artwork to make it "deep" and dimensional.

Dave, I also ware glasses and have the same problem in the past with 3D movies, however this one was much better, did not get the headache and really enjoyed the experience.

River

BLINDSIDE

...it is simply a "Must See"

Blindside was fun, but it was also, in my opinion, racist. It played to a white upper middle class fantasy of achieving moral status (a trophy even beyond material status) by "rescuing" a po'r hongry negro lad. A dusky "protege" is what every family needs after it has everything it can buy. I squirmed with embarrassment as I watched, and, yes, enjoyed myself.

From a purely technological standpoint, I have to say Avatar was the best movie of 2009, and I'd doubt that anyone could argue that successfully. I saw it in IMAX 3-D, and quite honestly between the spectacular 3-D and the completely fantastic CGI that went into the making of the movie, it was beyond a doubt the best thing to come out this last year. That is, purely on a technologicial/effects level. On a story level, was it really that different from Dances with Wolves, with a pro-green message bludgeoned in?

On other levels I'd have to rate District 9 as the best movie of the year. Firstly on a financial/"how the fuck did they manage to make it" level, it easily qualifies. It was made largely outside traditional Hollywood channels, on essentially a shoestring budget. The slum/reserve/whatever that the aliens were restricted to wasn't built for the movie. When the movie started filming, the SA government was still moving actual humans out of that 'city' who had lived there for I don't know how long. Sure, it was heavy-handed with message, but the more you learn about what went on behind the scenes, the more in awe you become of the final result.

Star Trek.... a bubblegum flick. Ok, the fan in me admits that the 'bible' of the Trek universe had gotten far too unweildy, and needed to be thrown out the window to start from scratch again. The movie viewer in me however, has just three words: Lens fucking flare. If I never see a lens flare on a giant screen again, I will be only too happy. And moi, clearly you don't hang around with the same kind of Trekkies I do.

UP and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. Two different films from the current leaders in CGI-movies. Both were great, the storylines were entertaining, and it's continually amazing how far the field has come in such a short time. Bravo to both companies.

Sadly, I'm afraid most of my movie-viewing tends to fall within the realm of SF, so I can't comment too much upon movies which fall outside that genre. Sherlock Holmes was quite well done, RDJ is absolutely at his peak right now. I may one day watch The Blind Side, because so many people are saying such good things about it. About the only movie outside the "SF ghetto" that I'd really like to see right now though, is The Wrestler.

Personally, I'd like to say Watchmen was one of the best films... but sadly I can't. It was a strange beast. The movie stuck too close to the comic to really be accessible to the general public, yet diverged too much from the same source for the die-hard fans to accept it. I truely believe it was the best possible adaptation that could have been brought to the screen, and am willing to accept the changes that were made, but that seems to put me in a minority. (Even if you added another two hours, I don't think audiences would have been ready for a giant space octopus.) Strangely enough, the strongest memory I have of the movie is watching it on IMAX opening night. Despite the 'R' rating, and huge warnings, two families brought their kids. They had no problems exposing their children to the death, violence and gore that fills that movie, yet one family walked out at the rape scene, and the other walked out during the sex scene. Still bothers me that they considered it ok to show their kids people being graphically disintigrated or burned alive, yet god forbid their kid see anything to do with sex....

A few non-raves. Dave dumps on a few movies.

UP (the animated one) was sweet and fun. Good if you have kids and enough substance for an adult.

UP IN THE AIR with George Clooney was disappointing. It was fun watching until the plot twist then it got sad.

FOUR CHRISTMASES -- Scrooge times two. Who are these people who seem to hate their families? What are holidays for but to fuck over your families? That's called love, you idiots.

HE'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU -- now seriously folks, did you honestly think a romance could reinvigorate and repair Ben Affleck's sorry choice of movies?

HANCOCK -- an adult story marketed to 11 year olds. Didn't work, did it?

THE HAPPENING -- If I said what I think, they'd throw me off the board. Yes, it's that bad.

WATCHMEN -- even among graphic novels (really now? comic books) Watchmen was an acquired taste. This was translated to the screen in a most unsophisticated way.

TRANSFORMERS 1 and 2 -- eye candy with fast cuts and big effects. Ruined by the unreasoning and idiotic hatred of Shia LeBouef by certain critics with six brain cells and big mouths.

I really enjoyed Star Trek, they did set it up for a new series but who knows what they will do with it, they cleaned the slate so they can to where nobody has gone before.

District 9 I turned off after about 30 minutes, it was just that bad,

Hancock was a fun movie, did not make you think it just did what movies are meant to do, entertain.

Best move I saw, not counting for story line as it was very very simple, was Avatar. It did what movies are supposed to do, entertain you and it did in 3D. There is a reason it grossed more then any other move ever.

Last but not least Harry Potter 6. No surprise there, it did just what you thought it would do with the added changes we have all come to expect for those of us that have read the books it was fair at best. I do hope they try to follow the books for the last two for book 7, but I will not get my hopes up.

River

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Sat May 01, 2010 10:49 pm Blindside was fun, but it was also, in my opinion, racist. It played to a white upper middle class fantasy of achieving moral status (a trophy even beyond material status) by "rescuing" a po'r hongry negro lad. A dusky "protege" is what every family needs after it has everything it can buy. I squirmed with embarrassment as I watched, and, yes, enjoyed myself.

Hi Bobobover3!

What you are experiencing in my opinion is the tendency to inaction due to white guilt. Now, before you go off on me, please hear me out.

Reaching across socio-economic barriers knows no color. White, color-privileged, people in society today are just not looked upon with the same emotions that people of color experience on a daily basis. This is sad, we deny it, we pass laws to make it otherwise, but it is almost impossible to legislate sociological feelings. Charity begins at home. Your home, my home, or that church you attend. (God's home.)

That feeling that you expressed IS just human. IT is yours and it is justified. However, don't let the color of somebody's skin keep you from reaching out in friendship, and yes, in charity if that is what fits the occasion. They can say NO to you, but if they do not say no and accept then you helped another human in their time of need. If they DO say no you have tried.

PAY NO CONCERN TO HOW OTHERS MIGHT JUDGE YOUR ACTIONS. THEIR JUDGMENTS IS BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL YOU AND YOUR ACT OF CHARITY.

Remember, acts of charity make EVERYBODY involved feel good. The guilt-laden will offer criticism that belittles the person who feels the need to behave in a charitable manner. Don't you be such a person. It is NOT you!

Everybody is needy in some way. Emotionally, financially, or whatever. If they are needy, do whatever is within the law to help them and to satisfy their hunger and in doing so you WILL satisfy your own.

A-1, you make a good point, and of course the movie was based on a true story.