1. The reviews for the film have been almost universal in their gushing, especially in regards to the film's visual effects... so, why was I somewhat underwhelmed by the movie's look? Cameron's movie is by no means unattractive, and there were definitely some moments (especially in the beginning) of great beauty... but in the end, I didn't find the film to be the great visual leap forward that other critics claimed. Impressive, but no moreso than the Lord of the Rings movies, or even the last few Star Wars prequels.
I think the greatest disappointement was with the lauded 3D technology... the 3D really doesn't create anymore of an engrossing experience than regular 2D, and actually dims the screen to such a degree that some of the more spectacular visuals turn kind of drab.
I've now seen 3 recent movies in 3D, (Coroline, UP, and AVATAR) and can honestly say that the 3D hasn't enhanced the experience in any meaningful, either of those 3 times.
2. James Cameron will never be confused for David Mamet, but the storyline seemed especially rote, even for a Cameron movie. And while the depiction of the Na'vi (cough cough, Native Americans) isn't blatantly offensive, lets just say it ain't exactly progressive either.
3, I was still, very much attracted to Zoe Saldana, even in blue, 'monster-elf' CGI form.
Final Grade: C+