Not a benchmark film

Rating: 6/10 (26 December 2009)

I was looking forward to Avatar. I saw it on the second day it played and paid the extra money for the 3D. I enjoyed it, but it's far from the benchmark film some have been claiming.
First the motion-capture technology is fine when used to replicate body motion, but not facial expressions. It can duplicate basic broad facial movements, such as anger or laughter, but anything subtle is simply not there. You still relate to the alien characters as being animated and the earth characters as being real actors. We're obviously expected to not be aware of any difference between animated characters and real actors, but there is a substantial difference.
There is also a huge lack of original ideas for both technology and the creatures inhabiting the planet. Star Wars, Alien, 2001 A Space Odyssey or even going back to Fantastic Planet, gave the public technology and environments which had never been seen on the movie screen before. It's not that these films were absolutely original as they did borrow ideas. But when they did borrow, for the most part, they were not from other films and so it was new to the general public. Avatar just borrows too heavily from other movies we've all seen. For heaven's sake, did the bad guy REALLY have to get into one of those giant robotic suits for the climactic battle? Technologically, there is nothing in here that compares to the first time the public saw the space station wheel in 2001, or the H.R. Giger sets of Alien, or the giant planet walkers in Star Wars. Then there are the animals which inhabit the planet which look far too similar to earth animals. Basically, the alien tigers look like tigers and even the dinosaur-like creatures, well, look like dinosaurs!
And the action scenes, somehow didn't generate the excitement they should have. For example, when they were flying on the backs of the giant bird-creatures, I never felt the particularly thrilled by it. A flying scene like that should have made you feel a sensation of vertigo. I was thinking that it might have been because the jungle environment was so strange and foreign that you had no sense of height the way you would in a city scene when buildings give your mind something to relate to. But I think there may have been a bigger reason. Greater importance was given to hammering home the message of the film, rather than simply being caught up in the action. So, flying on the backs of the birds was to show "the majesty of the natural world" instead of just the thrill of it. And the battle scenes were not the battle scenes in a Star Wars film, because it simply more important to feel the sorrow and horror of war. Compare the actions scenes in Avatar to Dark Knight and there is no comparison.
The only place Avatar excels is in the depth and detail of the planet. The jungle is probably the star of the movie. However, I could just go to an Imax showing of the real Amazon jungle and get the same experience.
If you keep your expectations reasonable, you'll probably enjoy Avatar. But this isn't the new Star Wars.