"You grew up hearing about it, but I never figured I'd be going there"

Rating: 8/10 (8 February 2010)

Defying all analytical expectations, James Cameron's follow-up to 'Titanic (1997)' not only proved commercially successful, but actually out-grossed its colossal predecessor. Yet the mantle of history's highest-grossing film is not easily borne. By the end of January 2010, with $2 billion worth of ticket sales behind it, one finds it impossible not to form unrealistic expectations before a first-time viewing. 'Avatar (2009)' succeeds admirably in many regards, but also disappoints in a few. In a purely technical sense, the film is a masterpiece. Cameron's use of the 3D technology (particularly viewed on the mammoth IMAX screens) isn't gimmicky enough to draw attention to itself, but instead strives to immerse the viewer in the incredible computer- generated landscapes of Pandora, where ferns brush against your face and insects buzz lazily through your field of vision. This is the closest we've got so far to a visceral, immersive cinema experience.
Where I did take issue with 'Avatar' was its screenplay. We know that Cameron is a capable screenwriter – both of the "Terminator" films (1984; 1991) and 'True Lies (1994)' were impeccably-scripted action films – but here he traipses a well-worn path. The story, strongly indebted to the story of Pocahantas, and every other cinematic derivative, never (and I really mean never) takes an unexpected course. This painful predictability did inevitably detract from my enjoyment, because one would expect a majestic otherworld like Pandora to be fruitful with unexpected delights, and yet Cameron delivers few. Also, quality science-fiction films are rare nowadays, and I didn't particularly like how 'Avatar' had morphed into full-blown mystic fantasy by its conclusion. I recently rewatched Ridley Scott's 'Alien (1979)' and was entranced by the simple act of exploring a foreign planet; such sequences, too, were the clear highlight of Cameron's film.