So much attention to detail! So little attention to everything else!

Rating: 4/10 (2 February 2010)

And I thought "Shock and Awe" was a tactic used only in war! I'm amazed James Cameron is not doing MTV music videos, because that's exactly how Avatar plays out: a massive, carefully crafted, thunderous gargantuan tower of nothing. I really can't explain this film: I actually enjoy a film when its goal is pure and simple entertainment. I don't expect everything to be a revolutionary Godardesque "work of art": if a film is cliché, but enjoyable, then fine. But this thing isn't enjoyable at all: it's overlong, tiresome, cumbersome, heavy-handed, filled with attention to detail but also filled with contempt for the overall picture. There's nothing catchy, nothing endearing going on: it's just ham-fisted down your throat for more than two hours and a half. In terms of James Cameron, this is closer to Titanic than to Terminator II.
On the other hand, it's okay for a film to be long, heavy and unforgiving... provided it has something INTERESTING to say. Avatar has nothing: everything here has been done before, and better. Everything! Every little piece of the film, especially the plot, is recycled. So he created a whole new world? Who cares? Many have done that before! Go back to Tolkien if you want a classic example! There's nothing here worth to be seen, and if you want to have an "amazing" cinematic experience, it's better to see 10 films which are excellent on their own ground, rather than a single film that claims to be everything but falls short in every aspect -- except for the "Shock and Awe", of course.
3D? I'm glad I didn't see that in 3D; I'd rather leave it to more lighthearted, actually fun films, not this overblown pile of misery.