Not only did I love the film, but I found myself having a rare reaction to the criticism I heard. Usually I’m a very even-minded guy: you’ll he’s me say “Yes, I liked it, but I understand the criticism.”, or vice-versa. In this case however, I feel that almost all the criticism I read was flat-out unfair and wrong.

Criticism 1: The noble savage theme. OK, usually I’d agree with you. But in this case, Cameron brilliantly sidestepped the condescending noble savage motif with all its pseudo-mystical glorification. There was nothing pseudo-mystical or even mystical about the Na’vi. They were not “connected to their planet in a great web of life”. They were LITERALLY connected to their planet in a great web of life. They were a component in a planetary USB network. This rock-solid literalism was key to the work being respectful rather than condescending, but of course the foaming-at-the-mouth PC wankers who jump at the chance to yell “FOUL! White people being condescending to indigenous peoples!” blew right by that nuance.

Criticism 2: Bad acting and bad dialogue. OK, maybe I’m a lowbrow, but I’ve seen it three times and I cannot point to a line I do not accept as something a human being would say in that situation. I don’t understand the criticism except to speculate that maybe people have come to expect spoken dialogue to sound like polished writing. Well guess what? People do NOT talk in a way that remotely resembles polished writing. People talk in halting, awkward sentence fragments. People speak inelegantly. And yeah, sometimes people as corny things.

Criticism 3: It’s a story that’s been told before/it’s like Dances With Wolves/it was predictable. Um… WHAT??? Are you saying that we don’t get to tell the same story over? For fuck’s sake we’re HUMAN BEINGS. We tell stories. We tell the SAME stories OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH VARIATIONS. I mean, did anyone in thirteenth century Scandanavia piss and moan because a scaldic bard was telling the same story around the fire at the mead hall that had been told around the fire at mead halls for well over four hundred years? Did anyone say “Oh my GAWD, that story was, like, SO derivative! And PREDICTABLE!! I totally knew Harold Bluetooth was going to win!” Get off your goddamned high horse.

Criticism 4: It was too long. I don’t know – all I can say is that it kept me on the edge of my seat the first time, and I wasn’t bored the third time. And I’m looking forward to a fourth viewing

Thanks for providing a good place for me to vent. It pisses me off when critics and pundits and sanctimonious stuffed-shirt PC culture police wannabes try to throw a wrench into the simple joy of a good story.