Yeah, the movie was pretty amazing in 3D.
But, well, in my opinion, the transition from live-action to CG was still far from seamless. Even with all the mo-cap and everything, the animation was still... oh, I dunno... "obviously CG", I guess you could say. The way everyone up-talked this movie in its production got me assuming that its tech would be more than the average bear.
And don't get me wrong, it certainly IS much more technically-ambitious than any other movie I've ever seen before, what with its huge, sprawling, meticulously-detailed landscapes and captivating native creatures.
That being said, the gap between the actual filmed sequences and the computer-generated stuff is still glaring and apparent. Right from the first space scene, with people floating and climbing around a zero-gravity space station of some sort, the peoples' movements were awkward and nonbelievable (is that a word?) in comparison to the live-action scenes shown moments before. It's the case with every movie that blends reality with computers, and, well, I guess the movie's hype had me expecting a "breakthrough" of sorts.
...Anyone know what I'm saying?
Either way, the movie was still awesome. I just wouldn't recommend seeing it in anything but 3D. Otherwise, it's just CG with a not-too-great story.
(...Speaking of which...
Come on, James Cameron! "Mr. Titanic" should be able to do MUCH better in terms of storytelling. )
