Well, I've seen Avatar twice now.

The 3D was much better the second time round, to the extent where I wonder (in retrospect) whether my first pair of Real-D glasses might have been slightly duff. Once or twice, I noticed a very faint double image, as if light intended for one eye was leaking into the other. It was definitely always 3D - occasionally very fine 3D - but it didn't quite pop or dazzle the way it did the second time.

I loved it, and loved it even more on my second visit. People have complained that this is "just" Pocahontas in space, but don't forget: Disney didn't write Pocahontas. Surely Pocahontas in space is a healthy dose more original than Pocahontas in Virginia, where it always was?

Plus, Why did no one complain that Apocalypse Now was "just" Heart of Darkness retold on the Nung River? Or that West Side Story was "just" Romeo and Juliet set in - I don't know - was it some kind of gay village? Either way - transplanting classic tales to pastures new is a fine venture for a storyteller, and in such cases as these, the question is not how original the story is, but how fresh the take is. And Pandora is about as fresh as it gets.

Yes, the story and characters were very broad-brush. The dialogue wandered into "by numbers" territory a few times, but only when I was too engrossed to do anything but lap it up. When old staples such as "villainous, warmongering vet", "hate-turns-to-love", and, yes, "Dances With Wolves" are wheeled out with such panache, they're no less charming for being familiar. I guess this is just a matter of taste, and it's clear that not everyone will agree with me, but that's my personal experience of film.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if there are two basic groups of cinema viewers: voyeurs and fantasists. Voyeurs go to the cinema to see something happen to someone else. They lose interest in simple characters, just as quickly as they would in real life.

On the other hand, fantasists - guys like me - are daydreaming as much as watching when they visit the cinema. The cinema experience is essentially guided fantasy. They imagine themselves, the objects of their desires, and their real-life enemies transplanted into the bodies of the agonists onscreen. While a voyeur might not care enough about Jake Sully to be emotionally involved in a film like Avatar, the fantasist - emotionally speaking - is Jake Sully, for as long as the Real-D glasses are on. And since one of the dominant themes in this film is "escapism", it seems only fitting that the film would appeal more to the daydreamers among us.

Having said which, the characters weren't entirely 2D. Jake Sully was funny at times, and Giovanni Ribisi was excellent - adding (with his facial expressions) an extra dimension to his character that simply didn't exist in the dialogue as it was written. And the villain, while cartoony, is surely the best nasty, evil-but-fearless warhorse since General Woundwort roared, "It's just a dog, you fools!!" in Watership Down.

Back to the 3D. I'm a sucker for it. In this case, the stereo vision is incredibly immersive. We are thrown into crowded cockpits, layered jungles, glowing night gardens, and busy interiors, which brim (thanks to the transparent screens and heads-up displays) with layers upon layers of mouth-watering 3D. First rate.

Now to Pandora itself. Although a lot of the flora and fauna will be much too "earth-like" for the hardcore sci-fi fans, fantasy lovers will lap up the whole ecosystem of Pandora. Adding bioluminescence to literally everything that lived was a stroke of genius, producing night scenes that rivalled and sometimes outdid the more otherworldly parts of Coraline for sheer, eerily glowing beauty.

For what it's worth, I class almost everything that happened after Jake Sully turned up on Big Bird as the most finely choreographed, adrenaline-soaked action I've ever seen.

Was the film perfect? No, definitely not. The opening left me slightly cold the first time round, because some of the exposition seemed a bit clumsy. There's nothing worse than one character reminding another character of something that she's already meant to know. "Hel-LO Grace! We're here for this, remember? The unobtanium?!" I would have preferred that level of detail to go in the video log voiceovers, since it was quickly established that Jake was using his to just generally explain what was going on.

Also, the Na'vi biology was so human (down to nipples and fingernails) that it was hard to see how the tentacles in the hair could plausibly fit in to their body plan. If they had a less human shape - so the tentacles came out from the flanges on their dorsal carapace, or something - then such an alien bodypart would have been (at the risk of conjuring up images of some seriously niche porn) much easier to swallow. Since the Na'vi were so mystical, I almost would have preferred for them to commune with trees and animals by simply touching them.

Lastly, the Na'vi were a bit too tribal for my liking, to the extent where I never felt convinced that I would enjoy their lifestyle on a full-time basis. I think Jake had the perfect balance when he could temporarily install his brain into a Na'vi, fly a dragon, have it off with his missus, and then wake up and play his Playstation or whatever.

Anyway. I loved this film. I want a trilogy. I would absolutely love it if the Na'vi (led by Jake) had to go on some kind of quest that was totally internal to Pandora in the second film - like, battle some kind of native Saurun from another continent - without the humans returning for a re-match just yet. Really flesh out the mythology of the moon.

A+ from me anyway.

Because it's making so much money it's definitely now become very overrated.
If it weren't for the effects where would you be?
Oh that's right Pocahontas.

And BKB without the B would be BK.

Pocahontas 2: Special Effects. I like that.

Should I call Spielberg to direct? He's an ace at directing things he doesn't write.

I would not want Spielberg to direct Cameron's foolish script.

Pocahontas was not written by Cameron, fool.

Although 'Avatar' is merely slightly differing from the Pocahontas tale, it is not entirely the same, as you seem to be thinking. What I was talking about, obviously, was Cameron's script: 'Pocahontas 2: Special Effects' alias 'Avatar'.

Avatar has since been directed.

I guess everybody knows that.

And only you cherish internet personalities like religion.

Was board so went and saw it in 3d for the first time. Still dislike 3d, but Avatar had the 3d I disliked the least out of all 3d films I have viewed. Considered a nap, but then Jake Sully's charm brought me out of my near slumber.

As I saw it, I thought Jake Sully may be similar to what I assume Chipmunky is like 'in real life'. So, naturally, I did not like his charm.

Oh, I felt the same way and meant it tongue-in-cheek. In reality, I only decided to not sleep due to the $11 ticket. I thought Sully was the epitome of bland and was relieved when the film was over.

I am somewhat relieved to hear that.

ich bin manchwas wiederverlsiert zu hören das.

Ich bin entlichtet zu sehen dass du bist noch lebendig, auch.

i saw it like 2 weeks ago and i must say its quite frankly one of the most beautiful movies i ever seen.

A+

you are wasting your eyes

^looking at your face...

I agree with xiayun's review.

But to add to it... I liked the story. Sure, it's been done several times before, but I'm not tired of it yet.

omg we're not still talking about this nonsense are we?

according to Giovanni Ribisi the cat should be a monkey, other than that this appears correct.