Of course he tells a story. Granted it's a clichéd, unoriginal, ham-fisted lecture of a story where there is absolutely no grey area. But it's there.

Not a bad movie by any stretch. More of a 3D glorified Disney film. Works in that niche.

Oh, and there's really awkward 300-style sex smack dab in the middle of it. Bring the kids.

FormlessOne: It's a great display of visual effects, but it's not a good movie.

That's been pretty much what I've heard, and the main reason I haven't bothered. No amount of special effects can "wow" me.

Kaeishiwaza: I guess with all the positive reviews, I thought there would be more complexity.

Well, that's what the positive reviews flat-out say. Excerpts from Rotten Tomatoes:

"It is cool. But all this "change the way you look at films" hype is just that. While Avatar is impressively seamless, you're never fooled. This doesn't look like a documentary film; it looks like a video game."

"For all the grandeur and technical virtuosity of the mythical 3-D universe Cameron labored for years to perfect, his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected. But for much of the movie, that hardly matters."

"Along with the eye-popping visuals in writer-director James Cameron's sci-fi epic, there's also a lot of eye-rollingly silly stuff."

"As visual spectacle, Avatar is indelible, but as a movie it all but evaporates as you watch it."

"If only Cameron, who also wrote the script, had spent as much time on the story as he did the effects he uses to tell it."

"If your exhilaration with the (approximate) first half is undercut by an increasingly deflating pffffftttt sound, Cameron nonetheless has delivered the screen's most anticipated and persuasive blend of live-action and motion-capture animation to date."

"Did everything make sense? Nope. And you know what? Who cares! Avatar is thrilling, exciting and, best of all, something new that your eyeballs didn't even know they very much wanted to see."

"A movie whose effects are clearly revolutionary, a spectacle that millions will find adventure in. But it nevertheless feels unsatisfying and somehow lacks the pulse of a truly alive film."

Again, not a bad movie by any stretch. Just not particularly good beyond all the spectacle.

A decent flick. But did anyone else feel 3D added nothing to the film?

bravian: A decent flick. But did anyone else feel 3D added nothing to the film?

I liked the 3D, though actually I enjoyed it more in the lab scenes than flying through Pandora itself (primarily because the lab scenes looked more real). Felt like I was really standing in these labs, watching these neat technologies whirring and humming.

farkeruk:
Have you ever seen a bad James Cameron movie? I haven't and I've seen all of them but Pirahna 2.

Titanic? Sucked. Hard.

I rooted for the Iceberg.

/it had the best acting performace in the film.

It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. They did a good job of blending the CGI & the live action.

The storyline was a little corny & predictable, but not so bad as to ruin the movie.

MrSteve007: Philip Francis Queeg: Titanic? Sucked. Hard.

I rooted for the Iceberg.

/it had the best acting performace in the film.

This just in, a farker doesn't like the highest grossing film of all time, and is one of the most award winning films, being awarded 11 Academy Awards.

/to be fair, it didn't win any awards in acting - but still won best picture.

This just in, farker doesn't believe film awards mean shiat. (Especially when you look at what it was up against)

I thought it was a shiatty movie through and through. I never understood the praise for it.

I Like Bread: I'll probably rent it or something.

This