I have finally managed to see the movie Avatar a few days ago. Rounded up a couple of friends, and off we went, and in 3D please.
In short, I found the movie quite amazing.
I have heard some of my friends complaining that the screenplay wasn't that great. However, I have to admit that I was way too busy gawking at the special effects to be bothered by the screenplay. Besides, I didn't find it that bad. Of course, the story was fairly simple and straightforward, with not much in the area of plot twists, or even complicated inter-personal interactions. That's OK, though. I don't mind simple plots. As long as it's consistent with itself, I'm happy. (Other than the fact that they're spending a shitload of munny developing these avatars to interact with the native population when they seem quite happy shooting said natives ded anyway. And that the natives call the Avatars the "Dream-walkers", which sounds like they know that they're remote-controlled, but then Warrior-guy screams bloody murder ("demon in a body!!") when Jake gets pulled from the simulator. And when ...)
All in all, it felt very much like one of those kids' stories, where the forest unites against the evil lumberjacks. You all know what I'm talking about; we've all seen at least 5 versions of the story.
I quite liked the visual effects in the movie. I was amazed at the richness and creativity of the forest's plants and creatures. The 3D effects and animations were also very well done, although I don't really know whether it's worth all the money they spent on it.
There was this one thing that annoyed me a little, though. They made the Blue Cats very hippie-like, with chanting and beaded necklaces, which reflects a certain stereotype of the people who are close to nature. Also, the scientist lady kept emphasizing that what the natives were experiencing was "real", due to the biological-internet nature of the ecosystem, and was something tangible. This somehow validated their experiences, as it proved that they were not just a bunch of tree-hugging lunatics, and, moreover, also made them more worthy of being protected.
I had the feeling that while on one hand, it said "These people have a real, tangible bond with nature, and deserve protection", on the other hand, it made it seem as though the ones who do not have this tangible bond with nature deserve less respect.