It is, indeed, an unique life experience.

Rating: 9/10 (26 December 2009)

I've watched this movie a week ago, precisely. The reason why I didn't write my review after watching was very, very simple: I wanted to be as reasonable and rational as possible and not have my critic clouded by whatever emotions I was feeling at the moment. So it's best to wait until you "calm down". One thing I've noticed after reading reviews (and I've read a lot) is that many fans write theirs right after they come home, after watching the movie, which I believe will influence their opinion as they're not able to even think straight, for they're completely overwhelmed (like I was, I confess) with this movie.
That said, I went to the movies with absolutely no expectations as I avoided whatever publicity this movie had, aside from a trailer or two. I believe many fans committed the mistake of watching too much advertising and their expectations rose in such uncontrollable ways that some of them were disappointed, while others were absolutely satisfied. You can't compete against fans expectations, in any way. I knew the technology used was absolutely innovative, I have a major in Media Arts and complaining about amazing CGI isn't one of my hobbies, on the contrary, I'm an enthusiast and let me guarantee you that what Mr. Cameron did here is indeed new and revolutionary. I could use endless fancy technological terms to describe in detail just how much the technology used is innovative, but I'll just describe it as 3D motion capture in real time, I believe it is more fitting. Just for you, the reader, to have a general idea of how important this is to the cinema culture, just think that the 3D rendering, that takes hours and hours of hard work and polygon modeling won't be necessary anymore. Per example, each frame in Michael Bay's "Tranformers" required 36 hours of rendering, a single frame, while in James Cameron's Avatar nothing of the likes is needed. Mr. Cameron was able to watch, in real time, how the actors and their Na'vi, animated counterparts looked like without needing infinite hours of post 3D rendering. That's how groundbreaking the technology is. But let's not forget that this technology compliments the actors, not the other way around, respect is needed as their amazing performances made the whole movie possible.
What I'd like to comment as well is the "originality" issue everyone has been discussing. I'm a firm believer that such a thing as originality hardly exists anymore. Original concepts as far as innovation goes, do not exist, what may be called original though is the way an existing concept is portrayed and executed and this is definitely the case. So is the plot of the movie original? Absolutely not, it is in fact one of the most used and explored in the cinema industry. But is it original in the sense that it was inserted in something new and innovative such as the alien planet it is set on? Of course. The whole movie explored the whole "natives against invaders" plot, but it has its own consistency, its own criteria, its own world, a world in which hopefully you'll immerse yourself in. What you must not forget though, is as far as "realism" goes the plot is absolutely convincing and solid, and in my opinion if Cameron were to modify it, it would only destroy it. It would most definitely not work, in that sense, I appreciate it's simplicity as it portrays something we've been detaching ourselves from, and that is nature. Movies are supposed to tell a story and entertain, to make you forget that you have something waiting for you (whatever it is) outside the movie theater, and as far as that goes James Cameron delivers (once again!).
Do yourself a favor and watch it, expect nothing and you shall receive everything. It is, indeed, an unique life experience. Just inspirational.