I LOVED avatar i saw it in 3D it was AWESOME. You should see it in 3D.

Yeah, only problem with that is 3D gives me a headache if there's a lot of action . . . and boy is there a lot of action in Avatar!

@outlier: Yeah, if you knew the story of Dances With Wolves you'd see it's a whole lot more like Avatar than Pocahontas is. Pocahontas might be considered close if you're looking at the movie from the girl Na'vi's point of view, but since the movie is from Jake Sully's point of view, it's definitely Dances With Wolves.

In Dances With Wolves basically this American guy falls in with these Indians and they adopt him as their own after he gains their trust through a buffalo hunt (I believe it was). They also have special connection to the animals, and the American guy becomes "linked" to this wolf (getting the name Dances with Wolves). And there's the main right-hand man of the chief who doesn't like him and there's a woman involved. And in the end the American guy fights with the Indians against the Americans who are trying to take their land.

So yeah, basically Avatar's plot right there ^^

P.S."Brooklyn!"

Zathura was merely descent, but not very good. As has been stated by W4J, Jumanji is vastly superior even if the CGI is a bit dated. It was, and still is, a childhood favorite of mine. *also loves James Horner's score*
--------------

Yeah, Avatar is great for the special effects and that's about it. I was very pleasantly surprised that the film looked so great on a small screen and in 2D instead of 3D.

Finally saw The King's Speech, and just in time for the Oscars tomorrow night! If Colin Firth doesn't win Best Actor, there is seriously something wrong with this world, as he reallyreallyreally deserves it. I think he will though, as like Kate Winslet at the 2009 Oscars, he's the favorite to win.

And while Helena Bonham Carter was, as always, excellent, I didn't feel like she was enough of a character to be nominated for Best Supporting Actress. I mean, when she was on the screen she was very good, but I didn't feel we saw her enough. When I think back on the film my main impression is Colin Firth, and not so much her.

And Geoffery Rush for Best Supporting Actor gets my vote (Although I'd be happy with Mark Ruffalo too). He was just BRILLIANT.

So yeah. The whole movie was very well done. I'd highly, highly, reccomend it.

edit: OOPS XD I just realized this isn't the Present Movies thread!! My bad

I also just saw The King's Speech and was also very very much impressed. Colin Firth took me right in, giving an absolutely topnotch performance. His plight was one I could relate with, being somewhat disabled- although I don't stutter. Geoffery Rush also gets my BSA vote. Especially in Westminster Abbey.

Colin Firth would be a worthy win this year for Best Actor, no doubt about that- James Franco is a worthy opponent though and my favorite to win. But it's Firth's, I don't see it going any other way.

Helena Bonham Carter was good, but not deserving of the nod. I agree. Excellent movie though. Rush was brilliant too, but Bale might take it away easily. Ruffalo was merely ok- didn't impress me, nor did the movie actually.

Rising_Star, That does sound more like Avatar than Pocahantas did.... But the Na'vi lived in grandmother willow

My brother and sister watched Avatar - said it was pretty good/decent/okay (something like that). I just can't muster up the interest. I saw a glimpse or two, and while i'm sure it looks very pretty, i don't think i'm willing to put up with the whole über-green message for the pretty scenery.

I remember seeing numerous trailers for Avatar, back before its theatrical run. It was as if you couldn't go near a cinema without seeing one.

I went to it having heard it was Dances With Wolves in space, so I was able to relax and look at the nice space shots of the gas giant and its moons, as well as all the bioluminesence of the Pandora night.

Very pretty, and quite creative, but I'm not sure it would stand up to repeat viewings.

I just saw Requiem for a Dream about 17 hours ago, and have since not entered out of my constant state of slight depression. Wow, that was quite a movie, and the director really knew how to punch you in the face with conviction.

Has anyone else seen it? The soundtrack was phenomenal.

my whole family is watching LOTR again.....oh yes it's good to be back in Middle Earth!

(From the previous past movies thread)

Also, Forever Fan, I found two versions of War and Peace on IMDB. I haven't seen either version, but you could take a look at these pages

Ah yes, thank you. Since I asked in the previous thread if anyone knew of any good adaptions of War and Peace, my brother and I watched the 1968 Russian one. We thought it was quite excellent. Well, more than that, we thought it was great. The casting was well done, and the feel and plot line of the film followed that of the book very closely. And of course watching it in Russian with English subtitles made it all the more realistic and interesting.

I'd like to see the Russian (or at the time it was made, Soviet ) version of War & Peace. The book is so massive and there's so many characters to keep up with that I'm sure most directors/producers find the concept of doing a movie on the book more than a bit daunting. The Hepburn/Fonda version was fairly decent, although I think Fonda was miscast as Pierre.

You're welcome ForeverFan:) Glad you enjoyed the 1968 adaptation! I have actually never seen an adaptation of War and Peace, but am very curious about it now Also, Liberty, I love watching LOTR again too. Anytime it's on tv, I almost always have to sit down and watch it. Those are great films!

I'd like to see the Russian (or at the time it was made, Soviet ) version of War & Peace. The book is so massive and there's so many characters to keep up with that I'm sure most directors/producers find the concept of doing a movie on the book more than a bit daunting. The Hepburn/Fonda version was fairly decent, although I think Fonda was miscast as Pierre.

Hah, yes. It was Soviet then. I completely agree about the size of the overall project being daunting, it would take real perseverance and loyal backers to make a project of that size work, but I think that is what they did. They did, however, trim back some of the sub (or sub-sub) story lines and cut out some of the side characters, such as Boris, Vera, and Berg, but I think that was probably wise. I think they did it so as to be able to "stream line" (if that is the correct word) the story a little bit, or, have the main focus be on the truly important plots and characters. Of course, if you like some of the sub plots just as well as the main plot, you might be a little disappointed that they weren't kept in, but I think on the whole it's easy to understand, and it certainly wasn't as if the directors and script writers were carelessly cutting out parts, just to do it. You would probably enjoy it, it's well worth the eight hours. (On a side note, through watching that version, my brother is now reading the book. )

I haven't seen the Hepburn version, but at some point I'd like to, even just to say I did it. I'd also like to see the 1972 (I think) BBC mini-series that was made as well.

Glad you enjoyed the 1968 adaptation! I have actually never seen an adaptation of War and Peace, but am very curious about it now

Hurray! Do let us know if you watch it!