Man, such pressure. Almost want to recant so I can't be held responsible.

But I guess it is an opportunity for anybody who felt I was calling them stupid for liking Transformers to get revenge.

LOL well I did just get back from seeing it in 3d and it was one of those movies that ended up being more or less what I expected, plot-wise, visual-wise, etc. In other words, I enjoyed myself, but wasn't blown away or anything.

A few observations:

1) Sigourney Weaver is still my favorite actress. She rocks in everything, and I was pleased to see she had a bigger part in this than I thought. Though, where did her avatar find such big dorky shirts?

2) Sam Worthington needs to pick an accent and stick with it.

3) I was pleased to see that James Cameron got over the "creepy" eye factor with humanoid computer animation that Robert Zemeckis can't seem to get right -- namely, he did so by giving the Na'vi non-human eyes. It works. The Na'vi are very expressive CGI creatures. That being said...

4) ... it still looks like I'm watching a video game (especially in the non close-up flying shots), albeit with very high resolution textures. I'm not buying the "this is a giant leap forward in motion picture technology" stuff. With the exception of the close-ups of the Na'vi being slightly more expressive, the CGI seems more incrementally better than "oh-my-god" better.

5) I like how half the animal and plant life on Pandora either glows, spins, or glows AND spins. If there wasn't a danger of being eaten, I would totally relapse on acid there.

6) The plot definitely got more fun as time went on and it started getting away from the "Pocahontas... IN SPACE!" stuff (I swear, at one point I started humming "Colors of the Wind"). I won't give away a major plot point here, but after there was a rather large explosion, the action factor went into overdrive and I stopped looking at my watch. Oddly enough, even though it was all just pixels fighting, it didn't devolve into the mindless crap of Transformers. I mean, there WAS mostly a point to the whole thing.

7) The dialogue is really pretty terrible. Giovanni Ribisi gets some of the worst lines. (And does some of the lousiest acting, which just ups the "really?" factor) But then again, the dialogue in most Cameron movies isn't too great, right?

8) I mentioned how much Sigourney Weaver rocks, right?

So that's my review. You'll be entertained, you'll think the pretty video game graphics are gorgeous, you'll want to make out with Sam Worthington and/or Sigourney Weaver and/or both at once, but it doesn't break too far from the expected plotline.

7 Jolly Blue Giants out of 10 :)

Probably going to see it today. One of my friends reminded me of an Outer Limits episode called "The Chameleon" that was first aired in 1964. The wikipedia synopsis:

I'm going to have to watch this one soon...

Two things I don't understand from critics of the movie (though it is fine with me if people don't like it):

1. Those saying it is a comment on current US policy seem to forget that Cameron wrote this back in the mid-90s.

2. If this movie is solidly liberal then I guess the Spanish destruction of Central and South America resources and people is a convervative ideal? More than anything, that is the real world example the overall story reminded me of.

3. People sayign that it is a rip-off of Dances with Wolves seem to think that the fundamental story progression was original to Dances with Wolves. "Warrior goes native, realizes his side is wrong" is a much, much older idea than that.

I'm going to see it today, but I have just lowered my expectations a notch, just in case....

Just saw it. Immersive. Beautiful. A great technological leap forward. But somehow emotionally not there. It reminded me of the first time I saw Jurassic Park. There were plenty of "wow" moments, and I knew instantly that the bar had been raised for special effects movie making, but I also knew that the cool stuff that I was marveling at would be quickly adapted for TV commercials, etc. As far as storytelling goes, it was more "big spectacle" ("Braveheart" "300" etc) than clever. Last week I rewatched The Matrix trilogy (I know, I'm not supposed to like 2 & 3 - sue me), and I think that the story of those movies held up years after the special effects became mainstream. I'm not so sure about Avatar.

I saw it. Liked it a lot. But it did have its problems...

As Alex had mentioned earlier, I kept thinking of Dances With Wolves all the way through. Now that Cherny mentions it, Pocahontas works too.



I'm beginning to wonder if I just saw the winner of Best Picture... You never know.

I haven't seen it yet, but I did have a Big Mac, which allowed me to enter the world of Pandora, and find things like a box of fries hidden in the foliage - unfortunately my fully emersive experience in McDvision was cut short because I need to eat more Big Macs to advance to the next level of play.

And can I just say... The cost to make this movie: $300 million?!!! WOW!