Avatar: The parts that miss are good enough and offer hope for more

Rating: 9/10 (18 December 2009)

Avatar, Avatar twinkling from afar. I wish I may, I wish I might review your wonder near as bright.
UPDATE: AFTER SEEING THIS AT A DIFFERENT THEATER, I WANT TO ADD THAT 3D EFFECTS WERE BETTER, AS WAS AUDIO, BUT IMPROVEMENTS ARE STILL NEEDED TO MAKE 3D A RELIABLE ACROSS THE BOARD STANDARD. BUT STILL AN EXCELLENT MOVIE.
This is not a negative review, so everyone can breathe free now. I liked the movie as it was done, Unfortunately, for those of us who can be overly analytical, I really think some things needed to be done to make it a better appreciated 3D movie. Perhaps I should say that I have my doubts about the capability of the theater I was at even though it is one of the newer ones. As a result, I have to see the movie again at another theater.
****SPOILERS HERE**** The 3D effects were good but with obvious fault. The less important, tiny features stood out better than the more important, screen filling creatures. Colorful plants were cute and charming, knives and arrows pointed at the screen seemed almost real and disarming. Flying and falling, which I thought would thrill, were flat, giving me little more than a chill. Running through the jungle was exhausting to say the least, dodging bushes, branches, huge trees and wild beasts.
Seriously, after all the hype and high expectations I did find some things that needed more attention. For a true 3D movie, I wanted 3D sound as well. The beasts and huge machines that should have made the ground tremble and send sounds of thunder were not as impressive as they could have been. It seemed that more attention was given to vision than to the audio and it was way too noticeable. Again, I will be seeing Avatar at another theater which may correct that problem. However, I am not able to see Avatar at IMAX, so that's out.
While the Na'vi were well done, I didn't see the advantage to watching in 3D as opposed to seeing it in digital. I could have been happier seeing it in digital because I would have been less critical of the faults of 3D. Not that I disliked the effort, because I think Cameron did a great job - much better than most other directors probably would have done. But he could have used something that J. J. Abrams used, flaring or glaring flashes of light that gave screen images the appearance of being lively. Abrams may have used it a little too much in Star Trek, but it worked very well. It's just that bright lights in Avatar were not as bright or real as they could have been.
While the story was good, it was a little much to see military and corporate people in the year 2154 being so cruel and soulless as some appeared. I do not believe we can be such idiots so far into the future. The Na'vi were much more appealing and spiritual. Their desire to work with nature gave them a definite advantage in the "smarts" department. I was wondering why no one gave Enya a vocal part during rituals at the tree of souls. She would have fit beautifully. Yeah, that's right, I like Enya. And yeah, that's right, I am saying this is somewhat of a chick flick with heart and soul. At least Avatar has huge battles and Tarzan-like scenes with wild animals doing harm to man-kind. And there were wild animals that were tamed and loved. So there was definite balance.
So, to finish, I say see Avatar. It is a very good movie and 3D effects were very good but they also missed the mark when it came to getting the full affect from visual and audio immersion. That's not a complaint, just an observation. I hope Cameron continues in this effort to perfect 3D because I think he can do it after learning from his mistakes.
Even after all the things I did not like, my love for the movie as a whole I am glad to give this a 9/10