Yes its the biggest movie of December 2009. Yes everyone seems to think it is something amazing. Sadly, I don't.

Let met start off by saying I don't think Avatar is a bad film. I just don't think it is the stunning masterpiece of cinematography and digital effects that so many people I know, and so many reviews I have read, seem to think.

Also let me state that I am gonna write this review twice. The first part will attempt to be spoiler free thoughts on the movie. The second (after the numerous warnings) will be spoiler filled.

First off, I saw the movie on a 3D Imax screen. Yes the glasses where horrible looking (and still damp from their cleaning), and why is it that they have two differently tinted lenses, when digital 3d screens have what looks like sunglasses? It was packed (on a Monday night) so I didn't a really good seat, but it was ok for the most part (a small wall barrier blocked the lower right hand part of the screen, which meant reading some text was a bit hard). Also it was loud. AMC seems to think that IMAX means that the bass must be so loud that the seats rumble and its hard to heard the people speaking.

The visual are spectacular. The little things they did to make you feel as if you are there were amazing. But, I dislike the tricks they used to get the 3D throughout the film. Many times too much of the screen was out of focus. And you could really tell the differences between the filmed 3D stuff and the computer generated 3D stuff in that area, with the computer 3D always having a much wider (if not entire screen) range of focus.

The acting, well, its what you except from a Digital effects meets human acting. Its ok, nothing to write home about, but not horribly bad either. I will say, though I don't see the digital face mapping effects as being as superbly new as some point out, I really like that the actors faces (the human/avatars) did have the same facial reactions/expressions when the guy was human vs Avatar. That really helped make the film work for me. The plot, well, its nothing special (in fact, to me its the melding of at least two movie plots, and was pretty much the weak point of the movie). Some will say just watch the movie and ignore the plot, which is possible in many eye candy films (Transformers for example). But Cameron obviously wanted you to pay attention to the plot, cause he kept making it so very important, and that made the film harder for me to enjoy.

Overall I give Avatar a B. The Visuals are a A+, but the plot is a C-, and the acting was just a B. I did like the film, and I do wonder what it would be like on a smaller screen (3d or not).

tRuMaN

Continue further for the spoiler version.














Keep going, just a bit further















Ok. First off, let me say the plot felt like someone took Dances with Wolves and Meshed it with the ending of Last Samurai, then ripped the Deep Thought Plant computer plot from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It wasn't convoluted, or even bad, it just felt, I don't know, not well thought out. What was the point of the masks outside, if you aren't gonna tell us why the air is harmful? If Jake Sully was working for the military type guys, why did they allow them to leave the base? If they could monitor his Avatar, which seemed apparent when they showed clips of where he had been, why weren't they doing that the entire time? Why did the flux wipe out the single helicopters sensors, but seemed to work when the massive air assault was taking place? At times I was left with way more questions about why that happened, then I was with "wow cool" thoughts. Why didn't the flying Navi drop stones into the rotors of the helicopters? They were obviously higher, could easily have done that, and with less casualties? Why did Jake Sully hide for so long in the big fight, when so many others were dying (obviously, its to let him be the hero, but it felt wrong after he led the charge, etc). The plot turn what could have been an A rated move into a B for me. Maybe it Cameron had had another 3 or 4 years to work on just the plot, and not worry about the Technology to make the film, it would have succeeded.

As for the visuals, I loved them. As I said, I don't see where he did anything absolutely groundbreaking (from the stories I have read on the tech) beyond using an old idea in a new way. But without the facial mapping stuff, the movie wouldn't have worked so well. It was/is essential that the Human/Avatars have similar facial movements in both forms, to make it feel like they are the same person. I liked all the little things to make the 3D feel more immersive, just as the bugs, the seeds of the Tree, etc, which could float in front of the characters. My only real negative thought is that it seemed as if they had almost digitally airbrushed the humans at the beginning of the movie (after I while it didn't bother me as much, so I have no idea if it continued throughout).

I did love that because they used the facial mapping stuff, they were able to capture so much of the chemistry between the real life actors, regardless of whether they were human, or Navi.

I guess that is all the spoilerish thoughts I have.

tRuMaN