I did. 1080p on a HP LP2475w. Can't really get much better than that. (Well I can't money-wise anyway).
It looks very plastic. Looks very 8 years ago. Very SW Ep 1. Clean, plastic, rendered for graphic card box picture. The scene where the guy rolls out of the ship onto the planet - it's like game cut scene. It even has motion blur applied. If it wasn't for good antialiasing and someone said it was from Crysis 2 it would fit perfectly. The aliens are just too plastic. Face mimics are way off, motion movement is overdone - many characters almost move like jar jar binks, body flow is odd and flexes like a dancing baby from 3d max demos. Looks like another director has finally lost that all necessary ability to judge what's well rendered and what's not.
Whilst I'm not being stupid, I agree that the Mech looks very cartoony and low res, I'm starting to wonder if the look of this film is intentional. I mean, its a $190 million movie with some of the world's top effects houses working on it under James Cameron and maybe its supposed to look like you're in a cartoony videogame? Or maybe its something to do with the 3D technology?
The only thing I can't work out is why some of the trailer does look photoreal (i.e. the floating mountains and the spaceship) yet the rest doesn't.
Maybe you are right and Cameron's lost it or their resources were stretched too thin, there wasn't enough time and stuff got rushed, etc.
But I dunno, I love that trailer and it's just so different to what I'm used to seeing that even if the CGI is unintentionally cartoony, I'll lap it all up anyway.
This movie bares more comparisons with Disney Pixar (i.e. Finding Nemo) works in some respects then it does with a film like Transformers (visually). However, I like that aspect of it and I like the fake looking blue Navi creatures and all the gaudy colours.
I'm in two minds about it, I recognise that a lot of people will not like the look of this movie so that's not good obviously but I personally do like it.