Peace,
Jamie

you mentioned in passing what was my greatest complaint, namely the socio-ethnic one; how the hero pays homage to the native who conveniently dies and then the hero becomes the king of the tribe. In his progressive thinking, Cameron isn’t really all that progressive at all. And in my worldview as a Christian the biggest problem is that the hero really never gives up his power in the end.

Oh which chalks it up to another perfect comparison: The Last Samurai

With Cameron’s previous track record, I had little doubt that it would be a commercial success. I agree with you that many of its critics (before it came out) are now eating their words. I also agree with you that the quality of the film making is far superior to the average action flick, out and by far. It is one of the most stunning films ever made.

I think I would take the critiques of the plot (which you acknowledge) a little more seriously. It doesn’t disqualify the film from being credited for its quality, but it is worth mentioning. However, I would say that the story line was lacking, not due to a lack of creativity, but out of a very genius understanding of what sells. A more provocative ending might have been artistically meritorious, but would have cost the bottom line. It is business, after all.

I think people will miss an opportunity for not seeing the film in its best medium. I am glad I got a chance. It was a fun ride.

Peace,
Jamie

Also, what really pissed me off is how these critics seem to seem unable to tell the difference in quality between Avatar and something else with a big budget with great effects like Transformers 2 which actually is pure garbage, with horrific direction. To band them all together shows they know nothing of the action genre, certainly of the modern action movie. Cameron is simply the best and most meticulous action movie director in the industry.

I’ve read so many articles explaining how it’s success is down to it being 3D, citing the fact that 3D sales are higher than those of regular screenings. Well, it’s easy to say that when you have the actual figures in front of you, but how do you know it wouldn’t still beat Titanic’s box office record if it was just a 2D movie? There’s nothing to disprove that if the movie was 2D-only, it would still take 90% or more of what it has actually taken. People are going to see an impressive movie, and they’re electing to see it in it’s most impressive format. Besides, the 3D effect just enhances what is already arguably the most visually impressive film ever made. In the same way, critics have said that the movie wouldn’t have done anywhere near as well if it was just live action rather than being computer generated. Again, how do you know? Other Cameron films have been visually stunning without loads of CGI. It’s not down to being CGI, it’s that the CGI is so well done, so natural. The fact is that no matter how it was made, with Cameron directing and producing the movie, it was always going to be visually stunning.

So it doesn’t have the best, most original plot. So it doesn’t have the best dialogue. I think we all knew that before entering the cinema. Any movie with a $300m-odd production budget isn’t going to be the most character-driven, dialogue-heavy film. But it’s incredible on so many levels and it does reach the audience in a way that many supposedly more thought-provoking films do not. There’s nothing dumb about Avatar, it’s just critics of the movie who are dumb.

As for any Guardian readers who stubbornly won’t see the movie because they’re so ‘above’ the action genre and blindly agree with the negative critics, all I can say is that by sticking to your prejudiced, condescending, snobbish artistic high ground, you’re missing out on what may be the best, most immersive cinematic, and yes, artistic, experience ever. When Alice In Wonderland comes out and replaces Avatar on the IMAX screens due to previous binding agreements, you may have missed your chance. Bravo.

Peace,
Jamie