Essentially Avatar has had opposing reviews among the public and the top critics. Critics writing for the Washington Post and New York Magazine agree that the movie was magical. R.J. Jones, of the Chicago Reader uses symbolism to old time movies to get his excitement across, “Watching it, I began to understand how people in 1933 must have felt when they saw King Kong.” Claudia Puig, of USA Today says “For all the grandeur and technical virtuosity of the mythical 3-D universe Cameron labored for years to perfect, his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected. But for much of the movie, that hardly matters.” Generally speaking top critic reviews are in sync with this review. Top critics seem to use large words to convey the simplest of sentences. Is it really that difficult to write that the movie lacks originality and is whole heartily boring? The movie was just too long, and after 3 hours without an intermission, it was difficult to enjoy the 3-D graphics towards the end, due to the pounding headache and blurred vision I was getting from the awful 3-D glasses. General public critic, Philip Martin, finds the movie to be a complete waste of time and explains it in plain English, “...a big, dumb movie built to make money but hardly worthy of serious examination. Avatar isn't only critic-proof, it resists serious criticism. You might as well analyze a beach ball.” I want to read commentary that is short and to the point. Philip French puts it perfectly, “Avatar is overlong, dramatically two-dimensional, smug and simplistic.” I couldn’t explain it any better. This movie is widely viewed as great graphics, with an ordinary plot. If you want the straight forward every day sort of reaction to a movie, go to the public. If you want overly thought out, and somewhat exhausting (to read) explanation, read the daily news and their wordy commentary.

Written by Sarah Tucci