Avatar

[BB Shockwave]

So - anyone seen it yet? Opinions?

I was lucky (HUngary only has 1 IMAX 3D cinema) and got a ticket for the premiere. It was even better then I expected. Cameron really created a whole new world like no-one has before. And the story, cliched if you will, was still very moving. 2.5 hours passed and you didn't feel the time gone by.

Easily my favourite movie this year, even topping 9. Already watched it 3 times. Though to be frank, I did not see much difference between IMAX and regular 3D - picture was a bit clearer in IMAX, that's all.

[IronHide]

Visually Stunning, but the storyline was too generic.

[Yaya]

the storyline was too generic.

But good enough.

Saw it in IMAX 3-D.

This is not a movie.

It's a life-altering, mind-blowing experience that somehow, someway exceeded my expectations despite my looking forward to this movie more than any other this year.

This movie will surpass Titanic to become the biggest money-making flick of all time. It's that good.

[saysadie]

I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote at TFA:

It wasn't groundbreaking, but it was really purty.

I'm a sucker for made up animal life in movies, as long as it's done well and this movie was full of improbable animal life that I found very agreeable. The story was predictable, which was a bit of a letdown but wasn't anything I wasn't expecting. Also, your average Disney flick is about the same and at this point it would be getting rave reviews. And it's definitely a sight in 3D.

All in all, not horrible. I found it actually quite beautiful, though it requires the ability to suspend belief and just appreciate near the end. I don't know how those ****ing humans intend to live on the planet for longer than a few years without proper oxygen though.

[BB Shockwave]

Yeah, at some points it was like a life sciences documentary, and I half-expected a 3 meters tall blue David Attenborough avatar to stride in and start talking about the Thanator's hunting instincts.

Frankly what I found an interesting idea was how all creatures evolved on Pandora to make it possible for them to interact with the enviroment and each other in a symbiotic way. The whole 'Eywa' thing was also a nice and feasible explanation what on Earth some people theorize as the 'Gaia Theory'. But of course being a biologist I view the movie through different eyes - one of my big beefs was that obviously all large vertebrates on Pandora were hexapods, yet the Navi weren't... it'd take a very big mutation to create such an effect, and as we know evolution doesn't work that way.

[Guest]

But of course being a biologist I view the movie through different eyes - one of my big beefs was that obviously all large vertebrates on Pandora were hexapods, yet the Navi weren't... it'd take a very big mutation to create such an effect, and as we know evolution doesn't work that way.

Unless, I dunno, the Na'vi are hexapods, but their third pair of limbs are vestigial and do not have any external appearance.

Real world examples of this (as in, a quadruped vertebrate with less than 4 limbs) include: legless lizards, whales & dolphins, etc.

[Yaya]

Wow, it's only release day 17 and it's already eclipsed a billion dollars worldwide making it, already, the fourth highest grossing film of all time.

In a matter of days, it will become the number one selling moving of 2009.

Adios, Transformers.

If you guys had a choice between a regular IMAX and the dome IMAX screen, which would you see? I'm thinking about seeing it on the dome IMAX also, but don't want to go in there and be disappointed by things being out of focus, for example.

[Guest]

In a matter of days, it will become the number one selling moving of 2009.

Pfft! That is so last year!

[Mr_Tigg]

Visually stunning, but the plot was horribly predictable and generic.

Considering how much the FX cost they could've at least chucked a couple of million at someone who could plot originally!

Really found the whole thing quite anti-climatic - visually, yes it was amazing *but* nothing I haven't seen in a Final Fantasy game, and the plot was essentially Disney's Pocahontas plus guns and explosions.

Considering I'm a total sucker for well-thought out, 'complete' sci-fi experiences I found the whole experience strangely shallow.

A day later I watched "No Country For Old Men" - now that was a film worthy of it's praise!

[Yaya]

This is not a movie I went to see for story.

But the interesting thing to me is that, for the first time, the incredible special effects actually enhanced the emotional nature of the story. Despite it being generic, I felt emotionally invested because I felt like I was part of the world due to the amazing effects.

The special effects force you to care, which was new to me, because usually they don't ordinarily enhance the story, per se. I can't see myself caring much in a 2-D presentation.

[Jack Cade]

Has Hollywood collectively decided that special effects are really the only area in which they can genuinely innovate, or be relevant? Maybe the aim is, as Yaya's reaction suggests, to bypass the need for originality by spending billions on getting people to buy back into the lacklustre through razzle-dazzle.

For me, it's always the same with this type of thing: you go along, you sort of enjoy the action and the spectacle, and then, retrospectively, you're appalled - well, 'appalled' isn't a strong enough word - at how much time, money and effort went into bolstering a cocktail of dead ideas.

It's something like the way pieces of art are now rated only by how much they fetch at auction. All the gasps of reverence seem to be made in respect of how long it took Cameron and his crew to make the damn thing, how many pixels are involved, how many pieces of hardware the actors were wearing, and how much hype the film has managed to build - rather than the result.

Then there's the fact that visually, I genuinely found it hard to be interested, let alone amazed. We've seen all these sci-fi tropes before, haven't we? We've seen the weird flowers and the chimera-like creatures? We've also seen tigers and rhinos, dragons and human tribesmen - and in terms of behaviour, none of Cameron's creations go beyond that which we know. None of them are sufficiently alien. The weird ponytail-bonding thing is just a bland visualisation of the hoary old 'natives have a special understanding and connection with their animals' trope. 3D, for me, doesn't make anything less tired and over-familiar.

It's a pacey movie. I'll give it that. The scenes which mixed humans and natives worked well, and it was fun to see the switching back and forth between the actors and their CG counterparts. But other than that, it all just seems flash in the pan to me.

[Guest]

Sounds like Randall Curtis is in dire need of a trip to the video store.

[Yaya]

Has Hollywood collectively decided that special effects are really the only area in which they can genuinely innovate, or be relevant? Maybe the aim is, as Yaya's reaction suggests, to bypass the need for originality.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assessment of this film as being "unoriginal'. Originality depends on what the aim is. Cameron was not trying to make the next Gone With the Wind or Ben Hurhere. This is purely a technical achievement. It is that next push of the special effects envelopment that, like Star Wars and Terminator 2 before it, is intended to strike a new visual chord. Avatar sought to become the next rung in the special effects evolutionary ladder, and in this way, I feel it has succeeded.

There are better movies with better stories this year, for sure, like Up and District 9, which had impressive special effects in their own right. But none of these movies brought me into their world like this one does, which was the aim of Avatar.

As a money-making juggernaut, whether you like the movie or not, there is no debating Avatar has opened the door for better sci-fi storytelling in a cinema setting. The question was always going to be "would it be worth the investment to make such a movie?" The answer, fortunately for sci-fi/fantasy fans, is "yes".

[Guest]

So, basically, you're saying it is just an expensive look-what-we-can-do?

[Yaya]

So, basically, you're saying it is just an expensive look-what-we-can-do?

Basically. But its a "look what we can do" that bodes well for the future of cinema, the beginning march towards virtual reality movies.

I remember seeing T2 for the first time. The T-1000 blew my mind. The story was straightforward and some of the acting was weak, but it was something new, and I loved it.

What can I say, I love Avatar for the exciting new tech. In 2-D, Pandora is just another pretty world, something as you have said you can catch in the latest kickass video game.

[saysadie]

I just hope it isn't used as a platform for a dozen other "Our story's been done to death, but look at how pretty/awesome looking we made this one!" Types of films. Though I guess technically that's what's been going on for most of the past decade anyway, with an exception or two here or there.

[Yaya]

I just hope it isn't used as a platform for a dozen other "Our story's been done to death, but look at how pretty/awesome looking we made this one!" Types of films. Though I guess technically that's what's been going on for most of the past decade anyway, with an exception or two here or there.

The problem is, every story has been told. Everything is a take on something else. I think now it's about presentation.

[saysadie]

every dramatic story has been told... I've yet to see today's afternoon trip to the grocery store published and preserved in film. I could make it cool, watch:

Witness the angst and agony of choosing an inexpensive yet still tasty brand of potato! Watch as I select peeled carrots, then take the less expensive, larger in quantity and just as good whole carrots instead of their flashier, handier counterpart! OMG I BOUGHT FROZEN BLUEBERRIES! And we can't forget the amazing 20% off of my purchases that I saved due to customer appreciation day.

It has the potential to be a thrill a minute, I'm telling you.

[Yaya]

every dramatic story has been told... I've yet to see today's afternoon trip to the grocery store published and preserved in film. I could make it cool, watch:

Witness the angst and agony of choosing an inexpensive yet still tasty brand of potato! Watch as I select peeled carrots, then take the less expensive, larger in quantity and just as good whole carrots instead of their flashier, handier counterpart! OMG I BOUGHT FROZEN BLUEBERRIES! And we can't forget the amazing 20% off of my purchases that I saved due to customer appreciation day.

It has the potential to be a thrill a minute, I'm telling you.

20% off! Daaaamn. I'd see that.

Incidentally, here's another reason to like Avatar. It pisses Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck off: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/10 ... _vs_Avatar

[Mr_Tigg]

Has Hollywood collectively decided that special effects are really the only area in which they can genuinely innovate, or be relevant? Maybe the aim is, as Yaya's reaction suggests, to bypass the need for originality.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assessment of this film as being "unoriginal'. Originality depends on what the aim is. Cameron was not trying to make the next Gone With the Wind or Ben Hurhere. This is purely a technical achievement. It is that next push of the special effects envelopment that, like Star Wars and Terminator 2 before it, is intended to strike a new visual chord. Avatar sought to become the next rung in the special effects evolutionary ladder, and in this way, I feel it has succeeded.

There are better movies with better stories this year, for sure, like Up and District 9, which had impressive special effects in their own right. But none of these movies brought me into their world like this one does, which was the aim of Avatar.

As a money-making juggernaut, whether you like the movie or not, there is no debating Avatar has opened the door for better sci-fi storytelling in a cinema setting. The question was always going to be "would it be worth the investment to make such a movie?" The answer, fortunately for sci-fi/fantasy fans, is "yes".

I disagree with the notion that Avatar is 'purely a technical achievement' - surely the fact that it's a movie means it has to be judged on numerous qualities rather than merely on SFX.

All the SFX in the world cannot compensate for bad story telling and average dialogue - look at the Star Wars Prequel trilogy. I don't think Avatar was quite as bad as that, but it was certainly nothing special.

The characters were essentially walking stereotypes (ironically two dimension considering the 3D effects!), and Sam Worthington's character was about as bland as you could get! At least in Terminator 2 you were forced to make an emotional investment in the leads, something a little more compelling then the like of the cartoony tyrannical Commander from Avatar.

If a movie was is to be truly successful, then it has to fire on all cylinders, not just focus on a couple, otherwise it is an incomplete experience.

Having spent my younger days investing hours in the final fantasy series, I really don't think that the world in Avatar is espcially unique or original - the creatures in the forest could've appeared in any number of computer games and wouldn't have received the praise you're heaping on them. Glowing forests? Seen it all before.

Likewise - the mecha suits offered nothing unique in their appearance. Various animes do a much, much better job, notably Ghost In The Shell.

On a whole, it was worth seeing the film as a one off experience, but further analysis really does reveal some serious shortcomings IMO.

[Jack Cade]

Nah, Yaya. Nah, nah, nah. This won't do!

This is purely a technical achievement.

Then why are we being asked to sit and watch it for two and a half hours? Purely technical achievements only need to be heard of to be conceived. Avatar is supposed to be a narrative achievement, and in this respect, what it innovates in terms of immersion is more than dragged down by a lack of plausibility or originality (I'll come back to 'originality' and what it means in a moment).

And in what respect is it even a technical achievement? We know that when you pay hundreds of people to create special effects, or the equipment with which others might create special effects, year upon year, the product improves by increments. This is just another increment. It's no giant leap forward. We had immersive 3D films last year (Coraline's 3D was very well done) and we had almost-realistic CGI last year. A leap forward would be if we couldn't see the joins anymore (we can) or if the 3D literally filled the cinema, left to right, rather just being a forward-looking experience. This, to my mind, is just another nudge.

Now, originality. In the sense that 'every dramatic story has been told', that's not the problem with Avatar and other films. Originality is when we go and see a movie and it feels - for want of a better word - real. Because you can't count the tropes, you don't tick off the archetypes straight away, you don't know the whole plot within the first fifteen minutes through sheer deja vu. Anything can happen in a sufficiently original film because it's a more accurate simulation of real life, rather than a simulation of another film you've already seen.

In this respect, it's ironic that Avatar, for all its pretensions of 'vision', seems to be a vision of a Hollywood special effects department overworking Ferngully, or some other old film. It's not a convincingly alien world because it isn't original enough - either in plot, character or visualisation technique - to feel like something we haven't encountered before.

[Yaya]

Nah, Yaya. Nah, nah, nah. This won't do!

This is purely a technical achievement.

Then why are we being asked to sit and watch it for two and a half hours?

Maybe because movies are a visual medium?

I don't find this story to be as bland as others are making it out to be either. It's cliche, for sure, but by no means is it The Phantom Menace.

Purely technical achievements only need to be heard of to be conceived.

Conceived, yes, but experienced? No. I mean, unless you see with your ears Jack, hearing of this movie does not equal experiencing it.

Avatar is supposed to be a narrative achievement, and in this respect, what it innovates in terms of immersion is more than dragged down by a lack of plausibility or originality (I'll come back to 'originality' and what it means in a moment).

We're talkin sci-fi here. Why is plausibility a necessity here, but not with Star Trek or District 9?

And in what respect is it even a technical achievement? We know that when you pay hundreds of people to create special effects, or the equipment with which others might create special effects, year upon year, the product improves by increments. This is just another increment. It's no giant leap forward. We had immersive 3D films last year (Coraline's 3D was very well done) and we had almost-realistic CGI last year. A leap forward would be if we couldn't see the joins anymore (we can) or if the 3D literally filled the cinema, left to right, rather just being a forward-looking experience. This, to my mind, is just another nudge.

I can't argue the point that there have been other 3-D ventures as impressive in the visual sense. Beowulf, Coraline, even Toy Story 3D this year were awesome experiences. But this movie is unique because is melds special effects with live action, almost seamlessly. That is why this is an accomplishment and the technical achievement it is.

Now, originality. In the sense that 'every dramatic story has been told', that's not the problem with Avatar and other films. Originality is when we go and see a movie and it feels - for want of a better word - real. Because you can't count the tropes, you don't tick off the archetypes straight away, you don't know the whole plot within the first fifteen minutes through sheer deja vu. Anything can happen in a sufficiently original film because it's a more accurate simulation of real life, rather than a simulation of another film you've already seen.

In this respect, it's ironic that Avatar, for all its pretensions of 'vision', seems to be a vision of a Hollywood special effects department overworking Ferngully, or some other old film. It's not a convincingly alien world because it isn't original enough - either in plot, character or visualisation technique - to feel like something we haven't encountered before.

Did you see this film in IMAX? I did, and maybe that's why my feelings are counter to what you say above. To me, it was "convincingly alien" and did feel like something I haven't countered before. Maybe I haven't played enough video games of late, but Pandora was real to me. I have talked with people who saw it in a regular theatre, and they were not impressed after already having seen it in IMAX.

There is a huge difference in the experience when presented in IMAX format vs. regular theatre.

[Mr_Tigg]

Did you see this film in IMAX? I did, and maybe that's why my feelings are counter to what you say above. To me, it was "convincingly alien" and did feel like something I haven't countered before. Maybe I haven't played enough video games of late, but Pandora was real to me. I have talked with people who saw it in a regular theatre, and they were not impressed after already having seen it in IMAX.

There is a huge difference in the experience when presented in IMAX format vs. regular theatre.

I'm sure seeing it in IMAX probably does make a big difference - kind of like how seeing a film in a cinema is a lot better experience to watching it on DVD!

Great example - One of my work colleagues saw TF2 at the IMAX and thought it was brilliant!

Still the world of Pandora was being realised in video games up to 10 years a go! I don't play computer games at all anymore and haven't for a good 6 years or so, but regardless the forests of Avatar seem incredibly familiar terriory for me.

IMO Princess Monoke did a much better job of the man vrs. nature theme - plus the visuals had a bit more of an authentic vibe to it then the generic beasties of pandora!

Sorry don't mean to bash it, it certainly isn't the worst film I've seen, but the hype machine has built up a legend that doesn't match up to the reality.

[Jack Cade]

Maybe because movies are a visual medium?

That's my point you're stealing. I'm saying that because it's a movie, it can't be seen as purely technical - it has to be seen in terms of its success as a narrative experience.

I don't find this story to be as bland as others are making it out to be either. It's cliche, for sure, but by no means is it The Phantom Menace.

For me, it fits into the category of 'easy to watch, instantly forgettable'. I don't go and see movies like this and feel I've wasted my time, but I don't feel one qualifies as a 'good' movie unless the experience stays with me. I guess it's like a McDonalds - you're happy eating it, but leaves you feeling unsatisfied and still in need of proper nutrition.

So yeah, it's much better than TPM, in that I wasn't wincing in the cinema!

Did you see this film in IMAX? I did, and maybe that's why my feelings are counter to what you say above.

Yeah, okay, you got me. I couldn't be bothered paying the extra to IMAX it, so I'm not judging the full 3D experience. Maybe I'm not being fair - but I just find it difficult to conceive of how depth of vision will counter the tiredness of the visual themes. Like Mr Tigg says, I feel like I've seen all the imagery before.

But this movie is unique because is melds special effects with live action, almost seamlessly.

While you might be right that that's a first, somehow it just doesn't seem impressive for me - more an obvious step that something was going to take sooner or later. I guess I find it very hard to be impressed by things that, while taking a lot of effort and ingenuity, only really achieve the same thing as a really well made film from 50+ years ago does - absorbing you in the story.

Have you seen Jarmusch's recent The Limits of Control? No 3D, very few special effects - yet watching it and thinking over it afterwards, I felt very similarly to how you describe yourself feeling about Avatar now. It felt like an extremely powerful visual and aural feast that pulled you head first into the world of the film.

[Best First]

I have yet to see Avatar, i may however not make it due to being engrossed in Jack vs Yaya.

To be abbreviated form here on as Ja vs Ya, and only shown in Dutch cinemas.

[Yaya]

For me, it fits into the category of 'easy to watch, instantly forgettable'.

Yeah, okay, you got me. I couldn't be bothered paying the extra to IMAX it, so I'm not judging the full 3D experience. Maybe I'm not being fair - but I just find it difficult to conceive of how depth of vision will counter the tiredness of the visual themes.

While you might be right that that's a first, somehow it just doesn't seem impressive for me

I really think this is a function of having not seen it in an IMAX theatre. The difference is astonishing. When you mentioned that having movie screens surrounding you would be a better experience, that's exactly the effect the IMAX presentation tries to achieve. It is this effect that immerses you into the world. Otherwise, I would agree, the experience would be akin to a more serious FernGully.

Not only that, you have to be sitting in the right place in the IMAX theatre. It's very specific, actually. The screen should just reach the temporal limits of the visual field of both eyes.

My brother saw it both ways, and was surprised at how lackluster it was in a regular theatre.

Having said that, it won't improve the storyline any, so I think you still might be disappointed. But there is reason to be excited by this, either way. As I said, what's actually exciting is that they are planning to apply this tech to other movies. Imagine! Star Wars: A New Hope with this kind of presentation. You will actually feel like you are flying an X-wing into the Death Star, dodging laser blasts from turrets and TIE-fighters. In The Return of the King, you will actually feel like you are riding with the Rohirrim into the forces of Sauron.

Have you seen Jarmusch's recent The Limits of Control? No 3D, very few special effects - yet watching it and thinking over it afterwards, I felt very similarly to how you describe yourself feeling about Avatar now. It felt like an extremely powerful visual and aural feast that pulled you head first into the world of the film.

Haven't seen it, but on your recommendation, I shall try to catch it.

[Jack Cade]

Imagine! Star Wars: A New Hope with this kind of presentation. You will actually feel like you are flying an X-wing into the Death Star, dodging laser blasts from turrets and TIE-fighters. In The Return of the King, you will actually feel like you are riding with the Rohirrim into the forces of Sauron.

Ah, now this describes, to my mind, both the potential and the limit of the technology. True enough, those things are achievable, but beyond making a movie slightly more like a fairground ride, where else does it lead? Does it have a function outside of enhancing the thrill of an action scene? In which case, isn't it bound to be self-defeating, since people will quickly adjust and no longer feel there's anything fresh about the experience? Won't we need more new technology in one or two years to keep people genuinely excited? I think it's Brave New World where everyone goes to 'the feelies' but finds it just as normal an experience as going to the flicks is nowadays.

I guess what I'm getting at is that it's hard to see it permanently altering the direction of cinema unless it gets its teeth into a more fundamental aspect of the medium than the odd chase scene, or charge scene.

Haven't seen it, but on your recommendation, I shall try to catch it.

I'll warn you now though - it got panned by some critics as prententious art house stuff with no real plot. Personally, I found the sustained mystery of it, the rehearsed-sounding monologues and the gathering snowball of imagery all completely absorbing. I think this review is closest to how I judged it. Interestingly, the reviewer says it's possibly 'the future of cinema', probably for the same reason that it occurred to me as a counterpoint to Avatar.

[Yaya]

Imagine! Star Wars: A New Hope with this kind of presentation. You will actually feel like you are flying an X-wing into the Death Star, dodging laser blasts from turrets and TIE-fighters. In The Return of the King, you will actually feel like you are riding with the Rohirrim into the forces of Sauron.

Ah, now this describes, to my mind, both the potential and the limit of the technology. True enough, those things are achievable, but beyond making a movie slightly more like a fairground ride, where else does it lead? Does it have a function outside of enhancing the thrill of an action scene? In which case, isn't it bound to be self-defeating, since people will quickly adjust and no longer feel there's anything fresh about the experience? Won't we need more new technology in one or two years to keep people genuinely excited? I think it's Brave New World where everyone goes to 'the feelies' but finds it just as normal an experience as going to the flicks is nowadays.

Very true. Special effects have become more like a drug, where a "user" develops such a dependency on it that it takes a newer, stronger drug to achieve the desired effect. Which is actually quite sad. I might say entertainment in general has gone this route.

I remember as a kid getting a silly looking Batman doll with cheap clothes and thinking the world of it. I see the amazing toys kids have at their disposal, and they are bored with them (but I'm not!). I was thrilled with the Atari 2600 as a kid, and now kids are bored with their PS3 or XBOX360 and crave the next best thing.

With special effects, it's the same thing. It takes more and more to impress. Ultimately, as you mentioned before, it will be true virtual reality (for example, creating wind with large fans to simulate flight) that will create the biggest change in the cinema experience. We're heading there, with Avatar as the beginning.

Haven't seen it, but on your recommendation, I shall try to catch it.

I'll warn you now though - it got panned by some critics as prententious art house stuff with no real plot.

Which usually translates into an incredible movie, in my experience.

[Best First]

We're heading there, with Avatar as the beginning.

How is it the beginning? Its just another step on the way. Might be a bigger step than, say, Toy Story, but it's all part of the same journey.

Its statements like this that tend to undermine your points old chap.

[BB Shockwave]

But of course being a biologist I view the movie through different eyes - one of my big beefs was that obviously all large vertebrates on Pandora were hexapods, yet the Navi weren't... it'd take a very big mutation to create such an effect, and as we know evolution doesn't work that way.

Unless, I dunno, the Na'vi are hexapods, but their third pair of limbs are vestigial and do not have any external appearance.

Real world examples of this (as in, a quadruped vertebrate with less than 4 limbs) include: legless lizards, whales & dolphins, etc.

Yeah, I know - even some snakes (constrictors) have the small remnants of their original legs. Turns out btw, that the first four limbs of the Navi must have merged at some point in their evolution - the monkey-like Prolemuris are described in the "Field Guide to Pandora" book (greatly recommended, btw) as having their front limbs merged up to the elbows, scientists theorize the Navi too are on the same evolutionary line as these animals.


To add to the discussion -I have seen the movie 3 times, once in IMAX (was lucky to get tickets for the only IMAX 3D theatre in Hungary), once in normal 3D and once at home. And IMHO... there is no huge difference between IMAX and normal 3D. Even on normal, you feel as if you are in the world. IMAX was, actually, worse for me, because I wear glasses and the IMAX 3D glasses worn over them hurt my nose very much.

I liked the movie for the plot and the very well designed world, myself. Sure it's something we have seen before, but in that regard, every fantasy is a rip-off of LOTR from D&D to Dungeon Siege. The story was predictable, but written so well that it was really moving and I felt the same emotions as the characters at the time - the music really helped there.

I can compare Avatar in this regard to my all-time favourite Batman movie - Mask of the Phantasm. From the start you already know how the movie will end - I mean, it's not like as if Bruce is gonna be happily married to Andrea, and it also takes little time to find out who the Phantasm really is. It's the emotion the movie conveys with its animation, and the very well written dialogues that grab your attention and don't let go until the very end.