In a galaxy far away Pocahontas was blue...

Rating: 6/10 (4 January 2010)

REEDITED AFTER A SECOND WATCH:
Visually stunning. Full stop. No one in their right mind would disprove this statement. And I must say that it actually keeps you in your seat in awe for about 80 minutes. The problem is finding something to do with the remaining 80 minutes...
After a second watch (due to my wife not seeing the movie yet) I felt the necessity to re-edit my review. Basically I felt I exaggerated some of my claims, albeit I stay with the general grade. Nonetheless a lot remains true, as i.e. how extremely shocking it is that after all the love devoted to the graphics and hitec (absurdly used for a tree-hugging 'technology sucks' extravaganza) he was unable to give even 10% of the same amount of care to the script.
As far as acting is concerned it wasn't as bad as initially thought, albeit James Cameron's tie with actors is progressively getting worse with each movie - basically he has become too focused on the technical side and lets too much subpar acting enter his movie with a drive for perfection. "Avatar" is tragically miss-directed and it seems Cameron spent not enough time with actors as he was too immersed in the 3D. The acting in general was passable, albeit Sam Worthington was well below par, while his voice-over vlogging was cringeworthy and initited a couple of unwanted laughs of ridicule. Of all the characters only Stephen Land as Colonel Miles Quaritch made a good impression, while the less said about the rest the better. However there is no character in the whole movie, who isn't basically nothing more than an archetype. It is as though Cameron decided to totally ignore character-building so he could focus on the gimmicks and therefore decided to copy-paste multiple paper-thin stereotypical characters that populate the planet of Pandora. Even the two main characters of crippled ex-marine Ben (Sam Worthington) and his Na'vi female companion Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) have no emotion in them.
The above also says a lot about the special effects, as the facial expression of the Na'vi lack a lot of emotion. Surprising given graphically inferior pictures like "Up" manage to touch the heart. On a graphical level the movie may be breathtaking, but it is not flawless. The Na'vi characters look quite ridiculous with the dumb-looking ears sticking out especially awfully. Also the movement of Na'vi tries to be realistic, but plainly isn't and I have seen character animations done much better in films with 1/10 the budget. It also says a lot that the Mechrobot in "District 9" looks way better than in "Avatar". The most influential imprint of the movie is the wildlife, forests and general settings, albeit a couple of animals in the movie are rather pathetically done (i.e. the Pandora lemurre).
That brings us to the script itself, which is immensely flawed. Instead of intelligent conversations and complex storyline we are served a Pocahontas remake in space populated with one-liners and some very lax plotting. Plot holes galore most of them can be forgiven or even missed altogether. It is a shame, because some of the ideas in the movie are quite intriguing, even if wasted by the terribly uninspiring storytelling. The biggest flaw to the storytelling comes with the final fight sequence, which is plain moronic from a tactical point of view and punctuates the fact that the scriptwriter/director was really subpar/underdeveloped/weak. James Cameron really should have given the script to someone for consultations. Even without a military background it is quite apparent to any one with a brain that you do not coordinate a full frontal attack on superior forces, if all you are armed with are arrows. How the hell did an ex-marine tactics come down to attacking machine-wielding Mechrobots with indians on horses? And they are surprised that this ended in a massacre? Guerilla tactics ring a bell, Cameron?
But in the end this is eye-candy and for that alone it deserves accolades. But this really brings us to answer the question: What is art in film? This film is a piece of graphic art on so many levels and as such should be screened in art galleries all around the world. But film is not solely about full-frontal sensory-rape.
I can see people loving to immerse into this beautiful world and delving into escapism. It is a symptom of the era in which we live in, where what surrounds us does not bring enough joy or hope. Hence we fall into fantasy worlds be it through games (like World of Warcraft), books or movies. On this level I would be capable of giving Avatar a much higher score. But then I remember what Peter Jackson did with "Lord of the Rings" and how well crafted the movie was on every level and I know it would not be just to place this terribly subpar but beautiful movie anywhere close to Jackson's convincing portrayal of Middleearth. There were reasons why Ian McKellen was taken into account by the Academy for his role in The Fellowship... "Avatar" will be forever remembered solely for its technological achievement, as there is nothing else of consequence going for this movie...
After re-watching "Up" (a far superior movie on every level) it just came to me that in the future Pixar and others will be making movies in the same technology. And their stories and direction will blow Cameron out of the water. This movie may be a hall-mark but with each passing year it will become even more out-dated and the faults of the script will stick out like a dozen sore thumbs...
To sum it up: A breakthrough - yes. A masterpiece - far from it. Take away the awesome bling and you have a Razzie award winner.