Solid - nothing more, nothing less

Rating: 7/10 (6 January 2010)

Twelve years in the making does "Avatar" justify its long production time? No, but it isn't a catastrophe, either, which if you look at the pressure James Cameron must have been under, is a little wonder. Of course, "Avatar" is still a little disappointing. With its three hours running time, its usage of extra special super-wow 3D-effects, and a director who's out to prove himself, one would have hoped for nothing less than a masterpiece. That it is not.
However, "Avatar" is an original and unique Sci-Fi/Fantasy-flick. Cameron and his crew have thought up a creative universe of colorful plants, imaginative animals and a whole alien nation. The story itself is pretty standard and kind of predictable, but still interesting enough for you to stay with it until the very end.
"Avatar" still doesn't come close to Cameron's best works such as "Terminator 1 & 2", "Aliens", and yes, even "Titanic" and the much more entertaining "True Lies". This movie compares best to "The Abyss": It's got great special effects, epic design... but the basic premise just isn't that interesting - and no CGI can change that, no matter how impressive and supposedly revolutionary it is.
What's to be expected, is that after this movie's huge success, Cameron will turn it into a trilogy and blow everything out of proportion ("The Matrix", anyone?). If that happens the "Avatar" moniker will become annoying pretty soon. As it is, it's a solid movie, but to us fans of "Terminator" and "Aliens", Cameron still has to prove that he "hasn't lost it", yet.