Michelle, I expect more substance, justification, and defense of your opinion when you write a movie review as a critic. I agree that a critic brings their opinions, their prejudices and their bias when he / she critics a film. The “opinion” is a large part of a film review – but it is not the entire package. You also need to justify your opinion.

You wrote: “Since I really didn’t care about any of the characters or the story, the 3D work felt a bit cold and kind of old school 3D to me…” Why did you not care about the characters? Was the dialog, acting, or storyline / plot defective? How and why? A good critic justifies his / her opinion.

You wrote: “…it felt like a film that could have been made 5 or 10 years ago,…” Technologically, I don’t believe you understand what you were viewing. Avatar utilized a new film technique called “image-based facial performance capture” which required the actors to wear special head gear eqipped with a camera. This video technique allowed rendering of an actor’s face at an almost pore-to-pore level resulting in the expressive features of the Nav’i race. Five years ago, the camera required to do this rendering would have been the size of a refrigerator. Ten years ago, the technology did not exist.

You wrote: “There’s no talk about the Avatars themselves. These things are grown from DNA, walk, breath, have motor functions, etc. but are completely empty shells? There are no brains in them until a human links up with them? It seemed too contrived to me.” I believe you missed the symbolism of the use of avatars in the film. The word “avatar” is derived from the French avatarati + tarati which literally means “he decends” and “crosses over.” Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) literally and figuratively “crosses over” from the Human to the Nav’i race both in sympathies and also physically when he is “reborn” in his avatar. But all this is lost in your “review” because you can’t get beyond the concept of avatars? The “science” behind the avatars is not central to the various themes playing within Avatar, but you consider it important and a detraction from your enjoyment of the film?

And finally, you wrote: “This movie takes itself way too seriously; there are no cute or funny moments, no pump fisting moments, nothing. This is one blah movie, which makes for a hard review to write. I didn’t love this movie or hate it. It’s one big pile of “meh,” Jake Sully has several funny one-liners and some funny exchanges with Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). And in regards to “pump fisting moments,” there were several in both the epic air and land battles between the Humans and Na’vi including the climatic fight between Jake Sully and Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang). A “blah movie.?” Did you not feel any sympathy or emotion as the Na’vi world tree was destroyed, Neytiri’s father died in her arms, or an innocent, indigenous people were exploited and destroyed by a massive industrial / military complex?

Above all, I believe any person who calls himself / herself a professional critic needs to be honest with their readership and write a fair review. You may love, hate, or be indifferent (as you wrote) about a film. But, to simply state you don’t like a film without providing thoughtful and insightful comments to justify your opinion does nothing to elevate the critical discussion of Avatar. Instead, you present a “blah movie” that is “one big pile of meh.” Such sophomoric statements add no creditability to your “review” of Avatar and make me question your opinion on past movies that you “reviewed.”