Now, what I really wanted to review is the "substance or lack-there-of" of this multi-million dollar investment. AVATAR rumors and hype have circulated the net and subsequently our TV screens for months. Fans have written reviews before even seeing it, and not-so-fans hated it likewise. Honestly, if forced to choose… I was in the latter group. Not that I am not a fan of James Camerons previous work. I loved Alien (all of them), Terminator, The Abyss, Titanic, and even had a soft spot for Jamie Curtis doing her awkward strip-tease in True Lies…BUT after reading and hearing so much about AVATAR I pretty much decided prematurely that it was a retold combination of "Ferngully" and "Dances with wolves" starring some very large smurfs!

Little did I know how only 15 minutes into the movie I would come to find Sigourney Weaver's portrayal of a snarky scientist with a die-hard smoking habit mildly amusing. Even the typically bland Sam Worthington gained life when inside the avatar body with the help of the FX people! And the parts of the storyline you expect and can get "cliche"  (and there are plenty) were easily overlooked. Zoe Saldana (although the least recognizable of the cast) was also funny and suprisingly exciting to watch.

Hype normally becomes a problem for moviegoers (not for the studios) because high expectations are usually not met. In this case, I think it somehow set me up for disappointment in that it made me believe it would be another substance-lacking boring-as-hell blockbuster in the same league as "Transformers 2" or "Surrogates" has  been this year. And so I was almost blown away when presented with a movie I would actually want to go pay for and see AGAIN. Here is a filmmaker who, albeit not exactly "artistic" in the pure sense, has proven me wrong in thinking all Hollywood needs to make good action movies are bombs, robots and A-listers. To Mr Cameron; I congratulate you on another great action flick.