The difference between Spielberg and Cameron

Rating: 10/10 (19 December 2009)

The one thing we ultimately connect to in a movie are the characters. No matter how stunning the visuals are, it's the people we link up to. Spielberg's characters have so much heart they seem lifelike. Cameron's characters are a little two dimensional, the dialog doesn't always ring true. I'm reminded of those times I've gone out on a date with a pretty girl, and all seemed well until she did that one weird thing that kind of killed the mood. That's how some of the moments in this movie are. Credibility issues with the characters, not horrible by any means, but kind of make you wince. Which takes you out of the story and kills the magic, no matter how great the visuals are. You don't find these problems in a Spielberg movie. None the less, given the stunning visuals in this film, and a realistic notion that no one is perfect, I'm willing to forgive those shortcomings. With all the energy it took to develop this technology and create CGI characters that are so real, it would be shameful to fault Cameron just because he isn't as perfect there as he is everywhere else. I really commend him on his achievement. Yes, some scenes could have been better drawn for their dramatic potential, but I can see Cameron was so preoccupied with the many other technical elements at hand, he glazed over them a little. Spielberg never had this problem in Close Encounters or ET or any of his other movies, and really gets down into the humanity in key moments. But directing this new technology in 3D and developing the new effects would more than dwarf most other directors, so I have nothing but admiration for Cameron. This is a must see film, and despite the wincing moments here and there, I still cared a great deal for the Avatar characters and the NA'Vi. Overall, a terrific work, well worth your time and money. And, the best 3D I've ever seen, period.