Yes, yes, yes, I know it's not original. I don't care. No movie isoriginal anymore, this one just so happens to be blatantly obvious inhow it's not original. Yes, it's pretty, yes 3D is better because ofJames Cameron, yes I know all of this, that's not what I'm here to talkabout. I'm here to talk about James Cameron himself.

James Cameron is a man that I greatly respect. I'm sorry, a man Igreatly respectED. I loved True Lies, I enjoyed Aliens (even though itshouldn't have been made) Terminator 2 was amazing, and Titanic (Istill think it didn't deserve best picture) was a blast. This man has atalent for turning things he writes into pure gold. This man knows howto make a good movie. But making good movies is not what's on his mind.Can you say profiteer? I began to realize this when the 1997 AcademyAwards came around. They announced Titanic instead of Good WillHunting, and I was happy for James Cameron. Then, he got up there,grabbed his award, and said,"I'm King of the world!" so half-heartedly,flailing his arms around. Then a thought occurred to me, "THIS is JamesCameron? No, James Cameron is more original than ripping off his ownmovie!" That was just the beginning.

His specialty is character development. The characters always had a newperspective on life at the end (if they survive) in a way that bettersthem and makes the audience feel good about themselves even though theendings are not always happy. But then just after winning his threeOscars for Titanic, Linda Hamilton said,"Honey, you're focusing toomuch on your own movies. Here, I got some VHS tapes for you. I gotDances with Wolves, Pocahontas, and Ferngully and Star Wars Episode VI.Just relax and enjoy someone else's work." James Cameron fell asleepwhile watching the Smurfs, and had a dream that night. In 3D.

The 3D was the best part of that dream, and he started thinking, "I'vegot a movie." He crapped out a screenplay and began work on theeffects. That's my whole problem with this movie, he realized peoplelike special effects more than story these days. Because he likesmoney. We all know that films are stories. STORIES. Not art shows,stories. Every year, there are more and more profiteering filmmakersand James Cameron has taken off his veil to reveal the dollar signs inhis eyes. Watch as he devotes the rest of his career to making moviesprettier.

I have often seen two trains of thought regarding avatar: "this is thenext Star Wars!" or "this is trash!" I think it's far too hasty to jumpto either conclusion. When will it not be? When the sequel comes out ofcourse!

Half the actors were great, while the other half were kind of dry.There was no point when I didn't know exactly what was going to happennext, and what little moral ambiguity did present itself was downplayedas much as possible. The dialogue wasn't corny, but it too was entirelypredictable.

So let's get one thing straight. Avatar is a B-Movie, plain and simple,with every nearly every trope you'd expect from a B-Movie. Althoughbeing a lover of B-Movies myself, I didn't mind this.

James Cameron himself said Avatar was the film he wanted to see when hewas fourteen, which is obviously code for, "this film is meant forteenagers." But in spite of all of this, I do have to admit that thevisual and sound effects, music, pacing, action, and editing were allvirtually perfect. That, plus everything I've said above, pretty muchsummarizes the viewing experience of Star Wars in 1977.

But those of both trains of thought: "this is the next Star Wars!" and"this is trash!" forget one very important thing. The very best part ofStar Wars, was The Empire Strikes Back! Star Wars had an entirelypredictable pot, dialogue, and virtually no moral ambiguity. And ifthat movie stood alone, it would likely have been forgotten despitebeing the movie that coined the term, "blockbuster." What made StarWars extraordinary, and what cemented it as an icon of American cinema,was the sequel and ultimate conclusion. The Empire Strikes Back wasn'tpredictable. You couldn't tell what exactly was going to happen duringLuke's training with Yoda, or to Han Solo and Princess Leia at CloudCity. There was moral ambiguity in the form of Han Solo and LandoCalrisian's interactions. And in 1980, "No, I am your father!" was themost stunning plot twist ever! Star Wars was idolized for its visualand sounds effects and damned for its plot, just as Avatar is now. Butas I said before, The Empire Strikes Back made A New Hope what it istoday.

So I can't pass judgment on Avatar just yet. That will have to wait forthe sequel. Hopefully it *will* be unpredictable, it *will* have moralambiguity, and it *will* be more character drivel than plot driven. Ifthe sequel has all of these things, and does them well, Avatar may becemented as something truly great. If not, I will likely call the wholefranchise, "trash!" Any movie buff out there who says, "how could youpossibly reserve judgment for a movie based on a sequel that's at leasttwo years away?" I respond, "How could you have done that in 1977?"There was no cognitive antecedent for it back then, but there is now.

James Cameron's 'Avatar' has beaten his earlier 'Titanic' to be crownedmost expensive and highest-grossing film ever.

But was this merely an exercise in gross profligacy (between $237m and$500m, depending on whose gossip you prefer)? And is this re-releaseanything but a cynical scheme to add to the already ludicrousbox-office takings (over $2.5bn, and counting)?

Cameron, who brought us such 2-D classics as 'Terminator 1 & 2' and'Aliens', here re-releases 'Avatar' with an additional 8 minutes offootage.

Americans go to Pandora, a moon of an unmentioned planet, to mine foran element unobtainable on Earth called – wait for it – unobtainium.The only problem is that the indigenous Na'vi – these sylph-like,blue-coloured, 12-feet-tall giants – have a penchant for shootingdeadly arrows at intruders, and just happen to be housed above thedensest source of the precious element.

Diplomacy with the locals is exhausted far too prematurely and all-outwar is declared.

The plagiarism is too manifold to mention. But did Cameron think thatby colouring characters blue he would hide the fact that the centralplot – an interracial love story – is a facsimile of the ones seen in'Dances With Wolves' and 'The Last Samurai'?

A thought occurred to me: why are Americans, who invest millions to geta thing like 'Avatar' onto the screen, so keen to reinforce their ownstereotype as part of the story?

Industry experts are telling us that film in 3 dimensions is the wayforward; but 3-D visuals result in everything else beingtwo-dimensional. And they hurt your eyes.

We were promised so much: that we wouldn't notice what wascomputer-generated and what wasn't; that we would empathise with thecartoon creations as we would do with humans; that we would feel as ifwe were actually on Pandora. None of these things are true. Suchhyperbole is insulting to films more deserving of these effects; filmsmuch older than 'Avatar' and therefore more technically restricted,such as 'Jurassic Park' and the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy.

Cameron predicts that, in a decade or so, all films, irrespective oftheir genre, will be in 3-D. For the sake of all those who care aboutcinema, I hope he is wrong.

www.scottishreview.net