comment #1

Rich S. says ...

Maybe it's the small screen, but it looks an awful lot like a videogame cutscene. A very good videogame cutscene, to be sure. But still just a glorified cartoon.

It looks nifty, but not like the quantum leap that had been hinted at. I'll reserve final judgment until I see the finished product.

comment #2

maxfm says ...

I have to say most of it looks pretty cool, but the CGI is still obviously CGI. I'm not sure how the live action/CGI sequences will mesh.

But is it me, or does the story looks like a mix of Dances With Wolves and Aliens? Soldier becomes part of a tribe of people and then has to fight his fellow comrades...?

Finally, I still think the marketing needs a wake up call. On the Apple trailers page, Avatar is listed as coming from "...THE DIRECTOR OF THE 'TITANIC.'"

THE Titanic???

comment #3

markj says ...

Has a real sense of wonder about it... expert use of music, really cool. Can't wait.

comment #4

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Of course I'll go see it, and the preview tomorrow should impress me more than this... but honestly the Ferngully/Delgo comparisons are sort of apt. The blue dudes look like cartoon characters, simple as. It looks like an exciting video game.

It certainly doesn't look photoreal. That was some serious hot air being spouted by the King of the World.

comment #5

Cde. says ...

I think the film looks good, but I can't see Joe Popcorn going for it.

Could you elaborate on your statement about the quality when compared to the Comic-Con reel, Jeff? What was different about that/why was it impressive in a way that this trailer was not?

comment #6

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

The first half of the trailer was more impressive to me. The build-up and the military base and all that. Looked very cool.

That CGI beastie in the second half was straight out of Attack of the Clones.

comment #7

Thesilenttype says ...

http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx

French version, works fine

comment #8

Cde. says ...

Apple's trailer works fine right now.

comment #9

Thesilenttype says ...

Sorry, my bad

comment #10

Joel says ...

If you click on the HD link on the Apple site, it works just fine. It looks way better than on the French site, but still not as impressive as I had hoped.

comment #11

almostcool says ...

You pretty much have to watch it in HD, otherwise it's so compressed that it looks like a video game.

I have to admit that on first glance, I see glimmers of what could be amazing, but it's hard to get immersed in 2 minutes. Even in HD, the CGI looks very much like CGI in places, but I'll probably give Cameron the benefit of the doubt based on his past work. I imagine it will work a great deal better on the big screen.

comment #12

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

It's been 2 minutes and I'm still waiting for the trailer to finish loading so I can watch the whole clip without any annoying pauses.

HURRY UP, APPLE

comment #13

MrTribeca says ...

Pretty underwhelming but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt until I see it on the big-screen.
That said, the Worthington-Na'vi clip (illustrated above) looked particularly weak.

comment #14

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Is the shot of Worthington coming off the plane thing in his wheelchair CGI? His face looks pasted on.

comment #15

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

I'M SORRY BUT I HATE HOW THESE BLUE SKINNED CREATURES LOOK! I keep thinking of Nightcrawler and Mystique from X-Men...

comment #16

crazynine says ...

Yup, Ferngully plays Halo.

I'm still hopeful for a good movie, but any/all expectations of being amazed by the visuals just went out the window. It's a cartoon.

Well, okay, the 3D might make this a lot cooler than it looks on an LCD.

Still-- who woulda thunk Neill Blomkamp (who?) would deliver something more visually impressive than James Cameron?

comment #17

Gogocrank says ...

My thoughts exactly! Compared to the seamless CGI of "District 9," I dunno. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, of course - it's just a trailer. But I kept thinking of that mock "Thundercats" trailer that showed up a while ago.

comment #18

Mark says ...

"I can't see Joe Popcorn going for it."

10,000 BC did $270M. This could be awful and still double that with ease.

Cameron is obviously going for beauty here with all the color, but I'd almost prefer a little more grit.

Also, wheelchairs in the distant future to me are like screeching cats to Jeffrey. They don't belong. It'd be like Kubrick giving everyone Austin Power-level bad teeth in his 2001.

comment #19

Howlingman says ...

"Also, wheelchairs in the distant future to me are like screeching cats to Jeffrey. They don't belong. It'd be like Kubrick giving everyone Austin Power-level bad teeth in his 2001"

Maybe Worthington's insurance wouldn't pay for the operation.

comment #20

Jeffrey Wells says ...

The difference between what you're seeing here on your computer monitors and what Avatar looks like in 3-D is that the CG/animated parts aren't really "animation" but a much higher and more visually precise synthesis. There's truly something "extra" about it. The 3-D means a hell of a lot...it really does. You need to see it at one of the special 3D showings on Friday to get what I'm saying.

That said, I hear what some of you are saying. Here's how I put it in my report from ComicCon:

"I was transported, blown away, melted down, reduced to adolescence, etc. I mean, I saw some truly great stuff.

"But I need to share one thing. As drop-dead awesome and mind-blowing as Avatar is in terms of super-sophisticated CG animation -- a realm that looks as real as anything sitting outside your window or on the next block or next continent -- the bulk of it does appear to be happening in an all-animated world.

"Which means that after the first-act, live-human footage (i.e., laying out the plot basics, preparation for the Na'vi transformation, etc.) the film seems to basically be a top-of-the-line animated action-thriller.

"Which means that once the visual climate and atmosphere of animation begins to settle in, we'll be watching something that's cool but one step removed from a 'real' world. Which means that for people like me, Avatar, beginning with the portion of the film in which the animation pretty much takes over, may not finally feel like a really solid and true-blue high-throttle experience because -- yes, I realize this dates me -- it lacks a certain biological completeness and therefore a certain trustworthiness.

"To put it another way the visual dazzle element will be wondrous, but the trust element (a reference to Werner Herzog's statement about things have gotten to a point at which audiences don't trust their eyes any more) will be on constant hold.

"I'm saying this knowing, of course, that Avatar appears to do a truly amazing job of bridging the gulf between CG and reality, but for me hard-drive compositions will always be hard-drive compositions -- they aren't what God created on His/ Her own. And never the twain shall meet."

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/07/avatar_day.php

comment #21

LYT says ...

What Jeff said. Also, in the comic-con selections, and I imagine moreso in the final movie, there's a progression of baby steps: you start in an all human realm, and gradually transition more and more into the alien world, giving you time to mentally adjust.

comment #22

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

If it looks amazing on 3-D and then gets released on DVD/Blu Ray, how the hell is the movie going to look?

The first few seconds of the trailer got my interest, and then it all goes downhill after Sam Worthington is transformed into that Nightcrawler-ish creature. the fantasy planet looks terrible, the action sequences with fighting and machine guns... look fake.

it looks like an ANIMATED movie, period.

I'm not so excited anymore.

comment #23

actionman says ...

yawn

comment #24

DavidF says ...

Sometimes the "obviously CGI' thing starts to annoy me.
In the 40's and 50's did people say, "I just saw the trailer for The Ten Commandments and it looks alright but you can still tell its all miniature and matte paintings." ??

State-of--the-art special effects are no more or less than "the most realistic fake shit we can produce as of today."

comment #25

bulltron says ...

This doesn't have the "like you've never seen before" quality to it that I was expecting. Maybe 3D is the missing piece. I think the last time I was really blown away by special effects was Jurassic Park. This has a more Lord of the Rings quality- meaning instead of a couple of excellent FX elements in the real world, an entire artificial world that's not entirely convincing.

comment #26

Howlingman says ...

Agreed, DavidF -- why don't those big blue alien people look the way big blue alien people are supposed to?

comment #27

Dan V. says ...

First impression is pretty subdued. I'd be too preemptive to make a judgment call on the whole film based on this alone, but this trailer has to serve as a showcase that's going to be most movie-goers first impression.

While most of us have been aware of this film for some time, the general population --still-- isn't and I'm not sure that an non-narrated encapsulation of the basic plot (which you'd only know if you've been following the film) is the way to go. As is, Avatar looks like Battle For Terra II.

The Cameron and Film-Aware are still looking forward to Avatar-- I just don't think most other general movie-goers are. Feels like Cameron and 20th Century Fox are going to have to play some late-game catch-up on this one.

As an aside, does Avatar's use of the cheap and overused Papyrus-like font come off as cheap compared to the epic scale this film is touting?

comment #28

kamichojin says ...

Reserving full judgement until after the 3D preview tomorrow, but this trailer really killed my anticipation of anything groundbreaking. It really does feel like a game cut scene.

comment #29

rayciscon says ...

Just going by descriptions of the script/plot, I think this is going to do boffo box office the first weekend, and then drop like a rock.

What made Titanic so huge? Repeat viewers. I don't think this is going to get any repeat viewers unless there is a HUGE romantic plot to get the women back in the theaters.

Your typical Cameron fan considered Titanic to be an exception to his usual fare, i.e. Aliens, Terminator, True Lies. The fan boys are going to be seriously turned off by the Military/Corporations are bad, pretty CGI alien creatures good thing we've been hit on the head with for the last 20 years.

Aliens had a somewhat similar plot, i.e. evil corporation, but the soldiers were the good guys, and the aliens were ultimately more evil than the corporation.

If all of the poor-performing anti-Bush/Iraq movies proved anything, it's that American movie goers don't want to see their military shown in a bad light. Lets face it--the military in this movie, as in Aliens, will be connected to the U.S. military in the minds of the viewers.

So the fan boys will see it on the opening weekend, enjoy the special effects, but the Ferngully/Dances With Wolves plot will stop them from returning again.

comment #30

bryce_david says ...

Looks like the artwork of 100 covers of sci-fi books strung together. It's nice but nothing revolutionary. More like paint by number. In fact, some of the imagery was downright corny.

comment #31

DavidF says ...

Oh, and I think it looks super cool. Doesn't mean it will be. After all, this is a trailer.

If DeafBrown doesn't want to see it because it looks ANIMATED (which, like, it IS), that's fine. You don't have to watch Snow White or Toy Story or anything else either if that's your thing.

If people wanna pick on Cameron for suggested it would be a totally real-looking film that was done via animation...well, whatever. Maybe he oversold it.

From where I sit it's not about the tools but how you use them. If there is one director who has shown he knows how to use FX to serve story it is James Fucking Cameron. There is no reason to expect anything other than one of the most visually impressive movies ever put on film; just like almost everything else he has made.

As great as Lucas and Spielberg are, even they have stumbled a bit here and there.

Cameron gave us the water tentacle in Abyss and the T-1000 so pardon me if I'm willing to wait until I see the 3-D IMAX version before passing final judgement based upon the 6" image I just watched on my work monitor.

Now that we're done criticizing the trailer can we go back to over anaylizing the poster? Is this really what HE is best at?

comment #32

anonymous2 says ...

I'm not watching anything until tomorrow.

DeafBrownTrashPunk the Blu-Ray will probably have a 3-D option by the time it comes out christmas of next year.

comment #33

Brendan says ...

I am going to wait until tomorrow night to see my first true footage of Avatar. This one is too grand for the laptop. Now I just have to stay true to my word and not give in.

comment #34

DavidF says ...

OH -and a serious question for Wells or anyone who saw the Comicon preview:
The trailer here is 2.35:1 but that's obviously not IMAX aspect ratio. Anyone know whether it's true IMAX or not?

comment #35

thehumanear says ...

It's probably just because I watched it on my laptop, but the teaser was a little underwhelming. Very well-put together and all, but it just wasn't as grandiose as I wished it could've been.

comment #36

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

"why don't those big blue alien people look the way big blue alien people are supposed to?"

The thing is, Cameron himself has been hyping this one up as "photorealistic" and a game-changer, so it's his own fault if people judge it more harshly than other big budget blockbusters. I mean, of course nobody knows what aliens "should" look like, but when they look so obviously like cartoon characters it kind of kills the buzz a bit. District 9's aliens are obviously a different aesthetic altogether, but they look real in the world next to the humans. Whereas these things look like handsome Gungans.

"What made Titanic so huge? Repeat viewers. I don't think this is going to get any repeat viewers unless there is a HUGE romantic plot to get the women back in the theaters."

Yes, and even if there is a large romance plot, women won't come back time and again because they prefer their romances to be set on Earth. Women can suspend their disbelief for stuff like Ghost and The Time Traveller's Wife, but I doubt they're going to go gooey over two tall blue dudes in amongst an epic future war.

comment #37

MrTribeca says ...

From the humanear: "teaser was a little underwhelming...it just wasn't as grandiose as I wished it could've been."

I agree but it is a teaser after all. When a full trailer comes out in a couple of months' time and you still feel that way, that's when to get worried...

comment #38

actionman says ...

Oh, Pinko Puko, if you're reading HE today, I watched Speed Racer on Blu Ray last night. The movie's a failure overall, but the action sequences had an LSD-trip/Skittles-binge element to them that I rather enjoyed. The colors were pretty.

comment #39

TulseLuper says ...

The trailer doesn't do much for me but the film could still be amazing. It's just that when you announce that your new movie is the greatest thing in the world ever, expectations are going to be unrealistically high. I just hope Cameron hasn't spent all his time on the visuals when he could've been working on a good story.

comment #40

markj says ...

@actionman: If only Cameron was on the same filmmaking level as Michael Bay.

comment #41

VictorLazlo says ...

I'm glad someone mentioned the font. What the hell were they thinking? Not a huge deal but really really annoying. And now with the underwhelming look of the movie... it really DOES look like Battle for Terra II.

If I were to see this trailer without all the hype, I would immediately dismiss it as something to catch on STARZ when nothing else is on.

CGI can still wow. Case in point, Davy Jones from Pirates. Fun as hell design, great execution. Other than that, it almost seems like CGI has stopped progressing. Jurassic Park is still in the top 3 or 4 best looking films to use the technology.

Why, oh why why why couldn't they have hired Rick Baker to do the aliens. I can't see myself connecting emotionally to those rubbery blue things. GAH! So dissapointed. I was really looking forward to this.

comment #42

Chase Kahn says ...

James Cameron is like the Peter Molyneux of film.

comment #43

crazynine says ...

Ditto the *utter exhaustion* with the holier-than-thou CGI bashing.

First off, no one can criticize "fantastic" CGI-- the stuff you see in 300, Sin City, etc. In that medium, it's a substitute for animation, and can be either artistic or silly, but should never be confused with realism.

But with "realistic" CGI. . .

Look, there's good realistic CGI and there's bad realistic CGI.

Good CGI: doesn't try to do too much, goes for subtlety, exploits darkness and shadows, and understands its limitations.

Bad CGI: simply troweled on, hyper-edited, all motion blur, fails to recognize that biological organisms (i.e. living fucking things) are TERRIBLY CHALLENGING to recreate.

Examples of Good CGI: the works of David Fincher, Castaway, Jurassic Park, Battlestar Galactica, Terminator 2, The Abyss, Gladiator, Titanic (with the exception of the "little deck-walking people" shot), The Dark Knight, Gollum

Examples of Bad CGI: the Spiderman movies, I Am Legend, Transformers, most everything Roland Emmerich has done since Independence Day, anything and everything that involves riding a giant animal

From the looks of it, Avatar doesn't have bad CGI-- it just confuses the "realistic" CGI and the "fantastic" CGI. Trouble is, you *can't* do that without sucking people out of a movie. You have to choose-- be completely realistic (within the fictional rules you establish, of course), ala District 9, or go all-out fanciful, like Zach Snyder's movies. The moment you mix that up, you're just making Roger Rabbit 2: This Time It's Personal.

Cameron's movies have always strived for that realism, but with Avatar, it seems like he lost focus on it-- perhaps to emphasis the 3D aspects of it?

I hope it's a good movie, I'm still looking forward to it. . . just now a little less than I did before, alas.

comment #44

MrTribeca says ...

Thinking about it more, those walking war-machines are waaay too close to those in The Matrix Revolutions. If TMR was last year or the year before, it would a forgiveable coincidence. But TMR was six years ago! Why didn't Cameron and his design team see it and go "Shit! We were thinking of that! Dammit, back to the drawing board..."

comment #45

markj says ...

You're all forgetting about the target audience for this film - little boys. Huge box office is guaranteed.

comment #46

chris7crows says ...

the Blu-Ray will probably have a 3-D option by the time it comes out christmas of next year.

Unless you're talking about anaglyphic (red/green) 3D, I find that doubtful. There are no televisions on the market that support polarized 3D, and I don't believe any are planned for the next 12 months due to the technical issues involved.

I don't think this is going to get any repeat viewers unless there is a HUGE romantic plot to get the women back in the theaters."

Well, the plot really is a huge, epic romance along the lines of "Dances With Wolves." Now, whether beautiful alien love will be as compelling to teenage girls as a doomed DiCaprio, we'll just have to wait and see.

Overall, thought the trailer was really slick. Not particularly concerned about how noticeable the CGI is or isn't -- once it's thrown up on an IMAX screen, I doubt I'll have any problems immersing myself in the film. More concerned about the story, so it's nice to see multiple beats from the early treatments present in the trailer. "Avatar" for me is really more of a potentially exciting exercise in world building rather than a technological achievement (though I'm sure Cameron believes the technological underpinning is key to presenting the story how he sees it).

Still optimistic, and one of the few mainstream movies I'm looking forward to seeing this year.

comment #47

GKLondon says ...

I'm with DeafBrownTrashPunk, I think these Na'vi look ugly. The eyes are too far apart, and give them a docile look. As they will be the heroes of the film, this may be an issue. I'm pulling for this one, I've been psyched about it for literally a few years now. The issue of Photo-realism does not bother me, and the CG looks better than the initial negative hyperbole suggests, but hmmmmm, not sure.

Tomorrow's preview will seal it or break it.

Holding back is a risky gamble Fox, and if anyone has to go down with this ship, I have to admit, I'm glad it's you and not a studio that at least appears to have the phrase "good films" in their mandate.

comment #48

Mark says ...

As for the all CGI scenes later on, it looks leaps and bounds above Beowulf. Overall, however, it does trigger an Attack of the Clones-vibe that I think is bringing out some of the negativity above.

But I don't the overuse of CGI killed the Star Wars prequels. (As someone else aluded, the overuse of hand drawing didn't kill The Lion King.) Rather uninteresting storytelling and badly-cast Anakins killed them. If we're not emotionally connected to the characters, then the subsequent action they endur loses meaning. So I will trust Cameron's track record in regards to connecting on an emotional level, allowing the audience to then later be connected to the action sequences.

comment #49

Telemachos says ...

I was underwhelmed when I watched the streaming French trailer, and much more impressed when I saw the 1080p Quicktime version.

There's no doubt that a 100% artificial world still looks.... artificial. Not bad artificial, but not our reality.

That said, I think the action parts of the trailer hint that Cameron has brought the goods in that department (did anyone really think he'd drop the ball there?) Of course, the key is the N'avi; whether we buy them as characters and the romance between Jake and Naytiri. I'm not completely convinced there (yet), although, again, the 1080p version has a lot more subtle detail in the face/skin/textures and that helps it a lot.

I'm also amused by the thought that people are now saying that because it looks like "Pixar crossed with Halo" that it will be a box-office failure. Every 10-15 old boy on the planet, and pretty much every 18-35 year-old in the geek generation is gonna wanna see this.

I'm interested to see how the 15 minutes look in 3-D. Can't wait.

comment #50

natsyelzom says ...

Watching the trailer confirms that the only way to see this film will be in 3D. A lot of the CGI that looks cartoony on a 2D monitor will be pushed to the background when watching in 3D. It's intentional. Take the shot where Jake Sully inhabits the clone for the first time and he's looking at his feet moving. Yeah, the face doesn't look that great in the trailer but in 3D all you're going to be focused on are his toes wiggling right infront of your face. Watch the trailer and think of how the shots are composed to work in 3D. It makes it play a lot better.

comment #51

actionman says ...

yes, markj. you're totally right. If ONLY...

comment #52

Travis Crabtree says ...

crazynine brings up some very valid points....

It does look VERY CGI to me, but then that's because I've never been to another planet and seen aliens riding winged monsters....

How do I know? Maybe that's exactly what it would look like.

I dunno. I'm skeptical. (what else is new?) The blue people have mullets. Or at least they're sporting the same Neck-do that Dog the Bounty Hunter's son wears. They also sort of look like they just wandered off the cover of a Journey album.

And it looks like it has the same-old Cameron collection of scrappy, disheveled, rock 'n roller good guys vs. the evil, psychotic military guys.

Peace and love win out in the end, man.

comment #53

Terry McCarty says ...

Trailer reminds me of THE ABYSS meets RETURN OF THE JEDI meets Peter Jackson's RINGS trilogy. Willing to forgive Cameron for TITANIC.

comment #54

Travis Crabtree says ...

actionman..... how would YOU know what an LSD trip looks like? (re: your Speed Racer comment)

Inquiring minds, and what-not.

actually I can see that.... it did look trippy in the trailers

Speed Racer, that is.

I'm thinking it would make really great background video at a rave.

comment #55

HanekeFanBoyNumberOne says ...

CGI is CGI and the only way around it is to be enveloped by a good story so hopefully Cameron has a game changer in that department. The trailer's pretty underwhelming and the alien designs are almost laughable. IMO the 3-D has a lot of compensating to do.

By the by, why is it CGI has continued to degenerate (save for a few exceptions e.g. Jurassic Park)? Every new summer blockbuster looks worse than the last. It seems that we started at the peak and are just working our way down. Is it time/budget constraints, over-confidence or what? Anyone else think this?

comment #56

actionman says ...

travis -- i did a lot of that shit in college. a lot of it. watching speed racer brought back some memories. the wachowskis really did something unique, new, and different with speed racer. visually, it was pretty groovy. none of it felt real or tangible, but in its own ultra-stylized way, the movie was a triumph of composition and execution.

i keep thinking worthington's name in avatar is jake scully because of body double. am i the only one?

the more times i watch the avatar trailer, the less impressed i become. it all looks like one big computer generated cartoon with zero sense of reality or anything that will keep it grounded.

this is what we've been waiting more than 10 years for?!

comment #57

longrunner says ...

Too bad there aren't more IMAX 3D venues... The closest one to me is 43 miles away in a different country.

comment #58

lipranzer says ...

Honestly, I don't know at this point. I agree with those who say the first half of the trailer was better than the second half. I appreciate once again Cameron's not trying to give the whole game away in the trailer, as he did with TRUE LIES and TITANIC. But there was a difference there - with both of those movies, Cameron had a known quantity going in, in that the former was an Ah-nold movie and the latter was based on an actual historic event. I really don't know much about the movie, and it does kind of look like a 3-D animated version of APOCALYPTO in the second half, which doesn't really do it for me. Still, being a fan of Cameron, I'll give it a shot.

comment #59

nemo says ...

"I think these Na'vi look ugly. The eyes are too far apart, and give them a docile look."

That nose, those widely spaced eyes -- They're obviously modeled after Robert Pattinson in Twilight.

comment #60

RSBrown says ...

Is it wrong I wanna' fuck the blue chick?

comment #61

Steven Kar says ...

RSBrown,

Yes. Yes, it is.

comment #62

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Still-- who woulda thunk Neill Blomkamp (who?) would deliver something more visually impressive than James Cameron?"

Whoa. Let's not count our chickens before they hatch now, eh?

Sort of unfair to gauge an entire film based on a 2 minute trailer, esp. when it's meant to be enjoyed in 3-D. Not to mention the fact that this teaser doesn't really give us an idea on how the actual STORY will play out (something that D9 had some serious problems with, IMHO).

A bit pointless to judge the overall visual aesthetic of a film on a "oooh, isn't it just the prettiest?" level, anyway. I thought we had already learned that lesson from The Phantom Menace.

comment #63

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"the more times i watch the avatar trailer, the less impressed i become."

Did you try watching it in HD? I'm thinking not...

" it all looks like one big computer generated cartoon with zero sense of reality or anything that will keep it grounded."

Hmm, that sounds familiar...Transformers, Armageddon, Bad Boys 2

"this is what we've been waiting more than 10 years for?!"

The only comments I've seen you make have been derogatory, before we even saw a poster for it!

I think you just don't like the competition for your main man, Michael B.

comment #64

BurmaShave says ...

Citizen, do you work for James Cameron? It's not a good trailer, don't get so bent out of shape.

comment #65

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I don't think he has anything to do with cutting the trailers.

As I mentioned before, there have been tons of great trailers for bad movies (and vice versa). The raw footage here looks fantastic. I wouldn't say it's edited together perfectly, but I don't really care -- that's for you armchair editors/marketing fetishists out there.

Which -- judging by the criticism -- is apparently is everyone on this thread.

comment #66

free games says ...

yawnn

comment #67

kampreto says ...

nice effect from this movie

my free video and cinema news

comment #68

freeads says ...

THANKS! You guys do a great blog, and have some great contents. Keep up the good work. (shopping online center)

comment #69

Lemonade diet says ...

I'm not watching anything until tomorrow.

DeafBrownTrashPunk the Blu-Ray will probably have a 3-D option by the time it comes out christmas of next year.

comment #70

edhardys says ...

ed hardy clothing,Providing authentic Ed Hardy Clothing with competitive price and fast ... The famous brand inspired by Don Ed Hardy ''s Vintage Tatto arts ...
cheap ed hardy
ed hardy clothes
Don Ed Hardy is an American tattoo artist born in Iowa in 1945, and raised in Southern California.
A pupil of Sailor Jerry, Hardy is recognized for incorporating Japanese tattoo aesthetic and technique into his work
ed hardy
tiffany jewellery
ed hardy shoes
ed hardy tee

comment #71

ilisa22 says ...

acyclovir 400 mg for oral herpes

comment #72

arentin says ...

Great post nice info, thank you for post it

Cerita Campur Aduk Arentin

comment #73

james54 says ...

I saw the IMAX version, it's wayy superior to the regular one.

comment #74

james54 says ...

And make sure they give you the 3d glasses when you watch it, else you're missing out.

wrist weights