You were told to think this was good...they succeeded.

Rating: Null/10 (5 January 2010)

James Cameron's Avatar. Oh the hype, the rumours and the budget.
Whilst many saw the dizzying heights Cameron was willing to risk the few of us only saw the inevitable. This film would be a mega blockbuster.
But ticket sales alone will not vindicate this movie nor will its budget or any other extravagant claims from Cameron. Truth be told is this film is average at best.
For all the bark Cameron makes of making an alien world the use of cgi and humanoid aliens with the pseudo political overtones makes it feel more at home in the star wars universe. The so called groundbreaking effects feel to be in the same vein as new star wars trilogy with a whole world being constructed on the backdrop of green screen and even the movements, colours and gestures seem traceable to those movies. And yet the film has heavy stereotypes of natives like something out of the peter Jackson movies, in an epic 3d landscape with 2d stereotypical portrayals. just about every character in this movie fits the stereotype so much that the plot itself becomes derivative and utterly predictable. So when the preachy new age underlying message tries to appear we are left unmoved and unimpressed. The film itself might as well have been called George Lucas's and Peter Jacksons Avatar in 3d.
But people and reviewers are raving about this movie claiming it to be the an artful masterpiece of cinematography. But were you ever in doubt that what you were looking at wasn't real? The CGI still has the unnatural tones and blitzy light so recognisable as computer generated. And the fluid movements and slight gestures still look unconvincing. just look at the earliest use of cgi in the movie for the humans just as the protagonist arrives. It looks nothing more than the opening for a ps3 game. The 3d manifests itself as particles that float between your field of vision rather that of any large moving cgi, this adds more realism and yet it doesn't really justify at revolutionary either based on the scale of its use.
And just ask them about the plot and they say the same resounding thing, that it was predicable and then they simply pass that aside.
Forgive me for thinking that films with a truly original plot and innovative ideas were what goes into making a good movie. Oh well i suppose because we now have avatar,dancing with wolves isn't as good anymore despite having class acting, beautiful landscapes and a genuinely emotional plot as it lacks cgi, marketing and 3D.
But history will ultimately give the final verdict and as technology and cgi improve all you are left with is the story and the idea. And what seems quite clear is that Cameron attempted like many other to push the boundaries and make a foot mark and yet he has not achieved the title first for anything this movie offers.
What seems clear from all this is a sad resigning fact of what people expect. They accept the films with no new concepts, big cgi budgets and heavy marketing. They applore the average. Average is indistinct and a waste of time at a running time of over two hours, a mighty one. The people watch what they're told almost to the point of being unthinking for themselves in quality.
I would happily accept that it is an average movie but the straw that breaks the camel's back is that it isn't just the masses who support this movie, but even the long time reviewers.
It seems everyone has adjusted their bar that much lower and are willing to support the status quo and remain in their comfort zone. The bold and different have been left silenced as the vocal vanguards turn tails.
This film is momentous to one horrifically true fact; the stagnation and predictability of Hollywood.