Last night, we went to see Jim Cameron's Avatar. This is his much-hyped first big film since 'Titanic'. Visually, it's stunning - and worth seeing in 3D (well, if the plot isn't going to have depth...)
I could suspend disbelief for 90% of the film, but I really couldn't get over the floaty mountains. Visually stunning, but nevertheless...
I did find the internal logic of the film rather predictable, when we see what happens to Signourney Weaver for instance, the ultimate fate of Sully was obvious. Nonetheless, this doesn't detract from the spectacular nature of the film. The set-up (arriving on Pandora, Sully finding his Avatar-legs) was a bit slow, and Monica drifted off a little there.
Whilst 3D technology is much better than it was, I'm still not sold on it. For 'event' films, yes, okay - but I would not want to see every film with this technology - it makes my eyes hurt a bit. I think this is because there is a disconnect between where by eyes have to focus, and where they have to align. For 2D cinema, they focus and align on the screen - but for 3D, there is a mismatch in the demands placed in the eyes. It is good that the main action is placed 'at the depth of the screen', so each eye sees the same image - that is a subtlety which is much appreciated.
For 'Avatar', the 3D is worth it - and not 'overdone' - though there was at least one pointy thing waved in my face.
It's definitely a film to see in the cinema - on the small screen it will disappoint. It's a film which won't bear a repeat viewing for some time - I wouldn't wait for the DVD.
For the film in 3D at the cinema I'd give 9/10 (despite eye-strain) - the same film in 2D 7/10. For repeat viewing, 4/10.