Great film - but far from "revolutionary".

Rating: 8/10 (28 December 2009)

First off, let's get all this hype out of the way about the technology used to create Avatar being "groundbreaking." I'm sorry, it's great, but it's simply an evolved version of the technology used in the last two "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies. Dots painted on the face of the actor? CGI mapped to the dots? Yeah, watch the behind-the-scenes of them making Davy Jones.
"Groundbreaking" by bum. In Pirates it was basically laying the CGI over the actor's head, with the dots-on-face trick used to preserve the performance on the CGI face. With Avatar, they went from CGI head to CGI EVERYTHING. Big whoop. Great work. Looks fantastic. But it isn't "groundbreaking" by any means. Sorry, and I think it's rather rude that they would take the trophy away from the Pirates crew who worked very hard on their projects.
----------------- That aside, the movie was great. Hardly anything wrong with it, really. I found it strange, the level of quality put into the production - and then one of the first action scenes had an animal using the T-REX ROARS FROM JURASSIC PARK? I mean -- REALLY? ... And that's really about it. I'm rather astonished that there isn't much to complain about with this movie. I actually had plenty wrong with Titanic. Great film. Very sleek, "organic" pacing from shot to shot. Near-perfect writing, though Michelle Rodriguez's character was practically pointless. You definitely watch the film through the director's eyes - and you can actually TELL.
Good job, James & co.
And to all you people saying this film has no originality, you don't know squat about this industry. Seriously.
8/10 because, honestly, I think this film could've waited a few more years. The technology was ALMOST there, but not just yet. It's right around the corner. Some of the stuff on-screen is still trying to be too advanced for its own merit. Great stuff, but far from perfect.