IndexAvatarKelley 2Works Cited:AvatarAvatar, what I know about this movie is that there are a bunch of blue "people" fighting against each other or a thing. In other words, I've never seen this movie and the most I've ever read about this movie are the two reviews you just made us read. From these two articles I came to understand that Avatar has very good quality images and the 3D is also very good. I also learned that the main character, Jake, is the hero of the film. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In Avatar Jake becomes the boss, or the guy around whom the movie revolves. I'm not sure what the plot is exactly, except that Jake runs away and lives with a different kind of people and then falls in love with the guy's daughter... I think... I also learned that there are TWO bad guys in this movie . One is a bureaucrat, Parker, who wants to rule everything and everyone and the second is Colonel Quartich, the only thing I really understood about him is that he seems larger than life, which I assume means a big bad guy. The film cost a lot to produce, but in the end the writer-director also made a lot of money from it. This film will be known as one of the best films of 2009, but I certainly hope so since it cost $300 million to produce. What I'm still not sure about is what is the movie about? In one of the reviews the author said that the Avatars "are stationed on the planet Na'vi to mine rare and extraordinarily precious minerals." But then he also asks what minerals are. These two reviews have many similarities and differences. My first main point is that Tom Maurstad's first review got right to the point and didn't drag the review any further. Kelley 2James Berardinelli's other review simply contained a lot of unnecessary information. Berardinelli's review really disinterested me because it went deeper and deeper. Maurstad's review was much better because he gave his opinion on the facts confirming it and then moved on to the next one. What I liked about Berardinelli's review is that it would have told more of the story of the film and therefore helped understand the film for people, like me, who have not seen the film. In Maurstad's article he got much more straight to the point and moved on to the next point without fully helping people understand his statements. I'm not saying that both of these authors did this in the entire article, but in some parts they both did. One of the main similarities they both had was comparing and contrasting to other films. Both, for example, mentioned the film Titanic. This movie suits Avatar because they both have the same writer-director. But this is not the only thing. They both have the same love story, so it seems (I haven't seen either of these movies). Another similarity is that they both talk about DNA. But the funny thing is that they both use DNA differently. Maurstad is talking about real DNA, mixing human and alien DNA. But Berardinelli talks about the cinematic DNA of the 3D film. I remember when the movie first came out hearing how DNA played a role in this movie, but I never realized it was such a big or important role in the movie. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay These two reviews on the same movie have many similarities and differences even though it is exactly the same movie. Hundreds of people can watch the same thing, but from those hundreds of people they can get hundreds of different opinions and preferences on just that one movie..