Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on January 08, 2010 at 11:48:44

In Reply to: RE: #1: the FX in "Avatar" really aren't "natural" looking at all, the movement posted by tinear on January 08, 2010 at 07:58:51

but IMHO, you are FOS (ummm, Freaking Overly Subjective) on this particular topic.

>>> "...the FX in "Avatar" really aren't "natural" looking at all, the movement of the figures is deeply flawed. The animals in the film are ridiculous, on a par with many children's films like 'Star Wars.'" >>>

Baloney! FYI, the effects don't appear "natural" because they're "other worldly" (d'oh!); it is after all, an SF flick set in an alien environment. Your behavior about this film is more childish than any dismissals you deposit here in respect to James Cameron or Avatar.

>>> ""2012" was a fun ride and the FX were believable, Woody was entertaining as hell, and Cusack was fine." <<<

I haven't seen this one yet, so I will reserve judgment, but from prior experience Roland Emmerich hasn't turned out a decent SF/action flick since the classic Stargate. Sadly, Roland Emmerich has become the disaster movie & star cameo king having acquired his tarnished crown from producer Irwin Allen.

Cameron, OTOH, has a 100% success rate for entertaining films (except in your case, but you are an exception rather than the rule) with strong female characters (is this an area where you have a personal problem?).

AuPh