Colin and I went to see Avatar I think the first weekend it was open here (or maybe the 2nd, I'm not too sure. But it was definitely before Christmas). I will say that we did not see it on a 3-D screen, so I'm sure we missed out on the coolness of that. I did not love the movie. I give it a C.
I am of course not trying to argue that the visuals were not stunning. They were. Completely. There were moments when I actually got a lurch feeling in my stomach because my body thought I was really high up in the sky and my fear of heights kicked in. The plants, animals, and people of Pandora were beautiful, breath-taking, completely amazing. I thought Gollum was an impressive digital character, but he was nothing compared to basically everything in this movie. Sigourney Weaver's Avatar's face looked freakishly like Sigourney Weaver, especially the movement of her mouth when she was talking.
The problem for Avatar comes in when you consider that visuals alone do not make a movie. There has to be a good story. This is where I believe Jimmy Cameron failed.
*SPOILERS* I found the story to be quite unoriginal and predictable. I've seen this story before - Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, The Last Samurai. The white guy infiltrates the "other" culture, falls in love with a lady, rescues the people.
I mostly agree with others who have said that the movie comes across as kind of racist. The main Na'vi characters were all played by actors of color. I don't know what the reasoning was behind that decision, but it just seems a little problematic to have your alien race played mostly by black people in braids or dreadlocks, almost naked, being saved by a white man. I have also read arguments against this view, and I understand the truth in them - Zoe Saldana's character was totally kick-ass on her own (and was the one to kill the worst of the baddies), Sully didn't take over leadership after he tamed the pterodactyl, all the bad guys were white (as were basically 99.9 percent of the humans, which I found ridiculous) etc. etc. It just struck me as an odd choice - I feel like he could have gone a lot of different directions with the Na'vi - why choose to make them aesthetically similar to stereotypes of Native Americans and Africans? They were so naive, and to quote Colin, they came across as "too dumb to know that the humans with the machines were going to hurt them."
I believe that Cameron was genuinely trying to get across that the Na'vi are superior to us, with their circle of life, we're all connected stuff. I don't know. I just think he could have done it better, and been more creative, instead of falling back on painted faces and arrows. Why have the Sully character at all? While Sam Worthington is hot, I don't feel like he's that great of an actor, and was a poor choice as the character for the movie to revolve around. Why tell the story from a human perspective? A movie just about the Na'vi would have been cool, a movie about their resistance of the humans, from their perspective, would have been cool.
Not to mention that the editing at the beginning of the movie, the part where the basics of the plot were being set up, was really freaking weird. I kind of thought it was another trailer for the first 5 or so minutes (I had no idea what the movie was about beforehand).
Plus, the robot machine things that the people ride in previously appeared in Aliens in 1986. I just feel like for $330 million or however much he had to make this movie, he could have come up with something new.
Those are my thoughts on Avatar. I guess what it comes down to is that Jimmy should come up with a more original storyline... and get some help on the script next time.