New Star Trek Movie

[Elok]

Denise Richards was absolutely gorgeous, but she was still a lousy actress. If all you're looking for is an appearance, it's not a movie you're looking for so much as a painting, or a series of paintings. And Avatar failed on just about every other level: plot, characters, dialogue, setting, all cliched, ripped-off, derivative or simply uninspired. The acting...well, there wasn't much to act, since every character barely aspired to one-dimensionality, so I'll give that an N/A grade. I don't remember anything about the music and sound, so I guess those get a pass grade, for what that's worth.

Also, significantly less moral complexity than Michael Bay's Transformers movies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was a ****ing tech demo, not a movie. You admit as much yourself when the first thing that pops into your mind is how purty it was rather than its plot. 3D in general adds nothing to the value of a movie IMO and only serves to pad the price of the ticket.

It was a worthwhile tech demo . And the 3D was absolutely stunning in Avatar.

I still consider it to be a good value.

[Colon™]

IIRC that rancid ****burger Avatar garnered an 80% or so on RT, so that doesn't mean much.

Wrath of Khan gets 91%

[Elok]

When it came out, Gene Weingarten compared it to the utter dreck produced in the early days of cinema, citing a "film" that was just footage of people doing pratfalls for a couple of minutes. The point being that people will drastically lower their standards where novel technology is concerned. Our kids, raised on (hopefully) less abysmally stupid movies made with the same if not better technology, will laugh at the rave reviews for Avatar.

[DaShi]

IIRC that rancid ****burger Avatar garnered an 80% or so on RT, so that doesn't mean much.

You let your own personal bias color your judgement too much. It makes you a poor critic. Avatar had many redeeming qualities that made up for its generic/recycled plot, which in itself, isn't a good criticism.