Story? No. Visual Effects? Yes.

Rating: 7/10 (13 March 2010)

I was interested in seeing what this movie could bring when I first started seeing previews for it. At first, I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be a video game or a movie. Indeed, it's a movie!
I saw it around Christmas time. Also, I saw the flat version. Yes, the 2D version...it exists. Seeing this version, it was an enjoyable movie, but without the third dimension to cover it up, you see the absolutely gaping flaws that are in this movie. I won't go into great detail, but we all know that the story is an exact, 100% copy of Pocahantus with different names and places and time period. Color me cynical, but being the "great" guy that Cameron is supposed to be, you'd think he could come up with a more interesting story. The story was predictable. I knew what was going to happen. At all times. He did not deviate from the cookie-cutter story he was using at all. Had he done this, it may have been more interesting. Oh well, though. He's bathing in money because people suddenly think that 3D effects are what make a movie good!
It's a shame. Just like books are losing way to the internet, good story lines are losing way to special effects. The movie was entertaining, but nothing more. Not thought-provoking, not inspiring, no more than a Disney flick. See it in flat form, and you'll understand. Give a rust bucket car a new paint job, and it's still a rust bucket underneath. Thankfully this movie didn't win "best picture," which "The Hurt Locker" totally deserved to win, even though it cost 4% of what it took to make Avatar. Proof that a good story is more important than "OH MY GOD SFX!"