A visual masterpiece; Same old, same old, story-wise

Rating: 7/10 (19 December 2009)

I understood that this would not be "Aliens" or "Terminator". I knew even without reading anything about this movie that this would basically be aimed at a younger audience.
I can't blame Jim Cameron. He has been out of the game for a while so when returning to the stage, naturally he plays it safe and goes for a big time matinée that in every single category (and those are one) will please the guys in charge of finances (and it will... many times over).
The good stuff: The CGI is nearly groundbreaking. I say "nearly" because the concept of this film is so out of this world (literally) that a CGI element is unmistakable to recognize 99% of the time, and you always have this in the back of your head. They are still very, very nice, however. I love the colors, the concept of this imaginative world and the production design (even though at a few occasions I felt I was watching the Pride Parade). If you like fast-paced, eventful films (and I do, among many other types of films, having a very dynamic taste in motion pictures) this is a good film. Not super-good or even great; but just plain good. It entertains you for over 2½ hours, but not much more; I don't really feel breath-taken after having seen it in the cinema.
The bad stuff: The story. I've seen it before. More than once. The references to contemporary American politics are a little bit too "in your face" (although not as bad as the references to how bad racial problems are, in the movie "Crash" for instance). The acting is mediocre; suitable more for video-game cut-scenes, but then again, of course, that is pretty much what they were shooting for I suppose. Another thing to remark on is that cinemas today is no better than a semi-cheap home-theater system. The sound is just louder. And in a cinema you have to sit with a hundred other people you don't know who makes noises and interrupts at times when they need to go to the bathroom... and then there is the annoying subtitles (in non-English theaters)... the loss of focus at times... etc. etc.
My advice is: Buy a BD-player, A full-HD Plasma-TV (or LED) and a small, suitable home theater system and watch it at home. It won't cost that much, and it will be worth it over time. Then a movie can get the attention and quality it deserves.
Anyway: You have to see this movie with the right sort of mind to really, really enjoy it. Had I been fifteen I would have loved it, the way I loved Jurassic Park when that came (a movie I rate about a 6 today but would have called at least a 9 back then). You have to think of this movie the way you would about a Disney Pixar movie, but with some real live elements in between the massive orgies of CGI splashed at you.
I think of the visuals when I think back on it now. I think that when I purchase the Blue-ray late spring or whenever (and I will), I will buy it to see the visuals, and not at all for the story. It will basically be a fairly expensive screen-saver for my Plasma-TV. I pray that is not what Jim Cameron wanted it be and that his next feature will be far better written and developed in that regard...
Summary: A stunning movie, visually. A mediocre movie story-wise. Does it deserve a place on IMDb's top250? Hell No! But there are plenty of movies there that does not belong there these days, right (after IMDb now being run by teenagers, basically)? When asked about this movie I would say: "An OK adventure movie if you need to relax and no be too judgmental, wrapped in pretty CGI and decent production design. Don't watch this movie as an adult; watch it as a kid. And don't see it in the cinema; buy the Blue-ray and watch it in the controlled environment of your home."