I was thoroughly entertained. All the money's up there on the screen. The story is meh, but the spectacle is A+. The world is amazing. The 3D is great, but not totally in-your-face. It enhances, rather than overwhelms. You will forget what is computer-generated, and just believe what you see. I've heard it's okay in 2D as well, but for a big-screen showing, see it in 3D. The glasses fit over my regular glasses.

I emailed a friend who wants to see it that I'm happy to see it again with her.

I saw it in 3D and I think it would have been fine in 2D and less strain on the eyes.

I saw a preview for Alice in Wonderland, however, and that looks like it will be AWESOME in 3D.

My wife, who is into Wiccan stuff, loved it for its take, however hackneyed, on pagan spirituality.

I just loved it, period.

Doesn't pagan generally refer to polytheism, or no? Cause I thought the movie was actually a little heavy-handed with the God (in this case, Eywe or whatever it was called) message.

Saw it in 3D Imax and loved it. You really do feel like it's a documentary at times, the visuals are so immersive. The story is not original and a lot of the plot points and characters are recycled from earlier Cameron movies but so what? Star Wars wasn't exactly original either. The script holds together very well; it's at least internally consistent and does a good job of patching over plot holes.

On the other hand, I wish he had just hired Paul Riser and Michael Biehn as the bad guys since those parts seemed written for them. At least he had the sense to cast Sigourney Weaver for the Sigourney Weaver character.

Hm, "strain on the eyes" doesn't sound so good.
How bad is that?
I'm planning to go watch it in 3D on the day after christmas. To you US people that is 2 days after christmas.
Yes, not only do we have universal healthcare in NL, and awesome biking paths all over the country, and Belgian trappist beer in every supermarket and the tallest women in the world and, and... But also our Christmas lasts 2 days!
Yay for Europe!

amro, the Earth Mother is generally the basis of pagan worship, at least as it's done today.

How bad is the 3-D eyestrain?

Not bad enough to detract from the overall experience. But it took a few hours before my rods and cones felt normal again.

I wouldn't advise anyone leaning towards a 2-D showing to change their minds. The 3-D is a topping on the sundae of visual splendor - not the sundae itself.

Ok. Thanks for the info Joe.

I didn't notice any eyestrain but I've been to a lot of 3D movies, maybe I'm just used to it.

The story is meh, but the spectacle is A+.

I gotta admit I just don't understand this attitude. I mean how long is the spectacle going to be sufficient? It's been such a classic Hollywood trope that when sales flag to up the spectacle (this is what, the third time for 3d?). CG in film will always improv along with the technology until it becomes totally transparent. That's the goal, not the spectacle. From all I've seen Avatar doesn't cut it in that regard. Finally it's time for the technology to serve the story, I for one am not interested otherwise.

The reason this is a great use of immersive 3D is the setting. It's a lush world of huge trees, cloud-shrouded floating mountains, perfect for aerial maneuvering that did feel rather documentary-like at times. Sometimes it felt like the script was crafted to make use of the deep 3D setting. Not all movies would be enhanced with 3D filming. For some reason, I'm stuck on Stand and Deliver as an example of a movie that doesn't need more visual depth (classroom-based drama). In Avatar, the setting was key to the movie, where Stand and Deliver could be any less than great looking classroom, and I doubt many would pay more money for Stand and Deliver 3D.

I saw this at a "normal" (non-Imax theater) in 3D (with polarized lenses), and sat in the front 1/3 of the theater, mostly in the center. There were some "oh shit, this is good 3D" moments (in a personnel carrier and in the ashy landscape scenes) and there was maybe 1 "throw something at the audience" moment (a quick jab from a character, not something they focused on at all). My eyes did feel a little weary after the 2 hours 40 minutes, but I stopped caring about the movie by the second half, which probably didn't help. Regardless, I want to see it in a full Imax theater, to see how it works in that setting. Too bad that the closest one is 3 or 4 hours away (also: international list of Imax venues).

As for the story, there's an interesting article on io9, entitled "When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like "Avatar"?, citing similarities to Dances with Wolves, District 9 and even Dune. It's not epic story-telling, it's just fun. The graphics were (for me) a key reason to go, and I enjoyed it.

The 14-year-old boy in me LOVED it. The jaded adult thought the plot and dialogue risible, but was bribed into silence by the repeated administration of popcorn and Sno-Caps.

I go to movies for the spectacle. I can watch TV or movies that deal with complex narrative and characters at home but when I drive to the theater and pay for my $10 popcorn, I want to see something that I can't see elsewhere.

I think it's only worth it with the 3d, IMAX would be great. The spectacle of floaty things and bits of floaty embers were the only thing making the thin story tolerable.

The story isn't original, but even so, it was an awesome pop-corn movie. If it hadn't been for the long lines for the next showing, I think the mister and I would have seriously considered seeing it again right then. As it is, we'll probably go again.

The 3D glasses fit fine over our glasses; no eyestrain for me and the mister didn't mention any for him.

I go to movies for the spectacle. I can watch TV or movies that deal with complex narrative and characters at home but when I drive to the theater and pay for my $10 popcorn, I want to see something that I can't see elsewhere.

It's the same for me. There are "theatre movies" (explosions, action, costume dramas) and "DVD movies" (drama/serious, comedies). Avatar is definitely a "theatre movie".

I'm familiar with the term Magic Negro but is there a term for the fictional white man who goes native and in doing so saves the culture? It seems a common enough trope to have a name.

White Man's Burden seems closest. Avatar sounds like it also dabbles in The Noble Savage.

BTW I tend to agree about the difference between movies to see in the theatre and those that are okay on dvd, but more me the theatre films are the films of Terrance Malick, Terry Gilliam, animation and so on. Things filmed in scope with beautiful cinematography. Things that trade on explosions etc are in a third category: wait for the Rifftrax.

Ugh I mean Terrence Malick. Mea culpa.

(also that "more me" should be "for me. sigh.)

Filthy light thief, Stand and Deliver, thank you… how long has it been since I’ve seen that again. :)

I’m planning to see Avatar in an I-Max theatre today (say, what’s the difference between that and a 3D viewing anyway… I thought they were both the same) and like to thank everyone for all the input they gave.

Ugh I mean Terrence Malick. Mea culpa.

I've never managed to see one of his movies on a big screen. The New World never actually opened here so we got to see it on DVD.

But for me, Cameron is in the same category as Malick where the visual is the important thing.