.jpg){kind=avatar}
So I finally decided to check out the film that everyone else is apparently seeing, with amazing box office gross in such a short time, but not without a nod to higher IMAX pricing as a factor. Hitting the $1 billion mark in record time, it stands poised to be yet another landmark for movie biz history and Mr. Record Breaker himself, James Cameron.
I make no secret about the fact that I'm not a fan of 3-D presentations. I see it as a gimmick and more distracting than beneficial. For an IMAX presentation, I find it entirely unnecessary. (How much more do you need to feel IN the movie when it encompasses every square inch of your field of vision?) But to see Avatar without the 3-D, you really needed to go out of your way. None of the downtown theaters were showing it regular style. (So we opted for IMAX, and we had to buy our Sunday tickets days in advance online for IMAX, because Saturday shows were already sold out.)
Getting to the IMAX theater a little later than we should've, my buddy Chris and I had a choice between fourth row on the far left hand side, or in the very back on the far right. It's a good thing we chose the latter, or it'd be Cloverfield all over again. (While not usually a victim of motion-sickness, the super-shaky handicam work of that forgettable, Blair-Witchian and overrated "What the hell's going on?" flick caused me to toss my cookies. Which was a first for me at the cinema.)
Even in the back row for Avatar in IMAX, my brain was struggling to process the sometimes blurry and often jarring 3-D effect which might've been lessened on a smaller screen but I won't be testing that theory out. In the two and a half hours of Cameron's Opus I didn't hurl... but I did have a queezy feeling, like I'd been playing an immersive 3-D video game for far too long, but right away in the first 15 minutes. Although occasionally I found the subtle effects of the occasional (let's call them) 'floaties' quite effective, overall I'd say the intended effects were distracting and sometimes ruined by the glasses.
In short, I'd have much preferred the IMAX without the 3-D glasses, but it seems with this kind of business to be had, the movie execs won't pay any mind to the minority which I no doubt fall into. As for the movie itself, I'd simply describe it as visually amazing and "Dances With Wolves with 14 foot tall sexy blue aliens."
Posts
3 comments:
Did you puke or did you not puke?
I believe 2010 will be the year of the 3D movie ... and Kyle's blog. Keep it up!
I enjoyed the experience and looking forward to trying it out again. Maybe not IMAX this time.
I didn't get the nausea thing, but for the first 20 minutes or so, there was an uncomfortable tugging sensation on my eyes like someone was working my eyeballs with micro toilet plungers.
I'm kinda with Kyle on the payoff. For all the initial discombobulation, the few true ooh-ahh moments are kind of underwhelming (and, really, after you've seen a few 3D movies, the effect isn't such a big deal anymore anyway)and too far between.
The whole plot was telegraphed basically 25 minutes into it. I guess they were going for the widest possible market but I don't think they hit the sweet spot of any one demographic. 3D aside, it is a technical marvel tho, gotta give it that.
Dances With Wolves? Haven't seen it. Some say Pocahontas. I say, poe tah toes.
I puked for Cloverfield (in the washroom), but not Avatar. I worried that might not be clear... maybe I better clear that up. (However, my brother reports that someone barfed right beside him in a packed screening of Avatar about 20 minutes before the end. If someone had done that in my row, it'd would likely set me off.)
Thanks for the encouragement Rick, and thanks Chris for joining me at da flick.
Post a Comment