The graphics are pretty darn tasty. During the 90′s, I lived in Toronto (for all those who don’t know, IMAX was created by Canadians), and had my first taste of IMAX, it was a simple movie about wolves, but the curve of the screen and film’s clarity drew you in. And to see what Cameron created from that little train that could, was enthralling.

To get the full benefits of this flick, you have to go for the double header: IMAX/3D, if this movie does not touch you, see a shrink and don’t call me in the morning.

I would also love to see a comparison of the formats – I saw it in Real3D, and was disappointed about the size of the screen. I am curious if it’s worth my time to find an IMAX theater showing it.

I clearly was influenced by the reviews, but I came out of the theater agreeing that it was the closest thing to the virgin Star Wars experience I could get, since I didn’t get to see Star Wars during its original theatrical run.

I’m planning to see it again. But someone told me that on IMAX screens, they chop off a bit of the sides because the width-to-height ratio is a bit more square than regular screens. Is this true? A primer on the differences between the 3 versions would be really helpful!

I agree, but this hardly tells us anything that we don’t know by a single trailer (Way to waste our time, Steven James (joking)).

However, we are not the norm anymore. Many people want to read about the movie prior to seeing it so they can 1) weigh their options or 2) save their money. I’m not friends with many of these people, but there are a lot of them out there.

Richard Corliss’s review begins “In the last shot of Avatar…” I stopped reading right there. Why in the world would an experienced critic (whose columns I typically enjoy) begin a review that way? What a colossally stupid lede.

(pouts)