S4doll

Larrok, your comparison is, if possible, even worse. The Hyenas are yet another type of film that, just like the other, doesn’t require large investments; there’s nothing on screen except for the cast. A Sci-fi film needs big budgets, otherwise, it looks like a pile of crap. You can’t create detailed alien worlds without significant funding behind it, with the exception of Star Trek, which takes place 90% within four walls, and still, in its recent excellent incarnation, required a pretty big budget.

20 million dollars is a small budget, especially for a Sci-Fi film. In fact, these days it's a ridiculous budget.

Larrok, I invite you to shed light on urban legends and not to mix water with wine... provided that El Mariachi is a film that, in terms of target/genre/concept, is not even remotely comparable to Avatar or Aliens (could you at least have the decency to make sensible comparisons?), the story of the 7000 dollars is old, worn out, and above all a bunch of nonsense. It’s possible that Rodriguez contributed only 7000 dollars of his own, but it’s equally true that he secured loans amounting to several tens of thousands of dollars, without which the project would have been entirely impossible. Estimates suggest loans of around 75000 dollars, but the legend of the 7k dollars attracts a curious audience to a film that is far from unforgettable.

Hellring, of course it's possible to make great movies with small budgets; Aliens should be proof enough for you when talking about Cameron, given that it cost less than 20 million dollars (which was more back then than today, but still a relatively small budget). A colossal project like Avatar necessarily required huge investments; just to give you an example, the camera invented by Cameron for this film (with real-time image rendering) didn't even exist 5 years ago. Making a film like that wouldn't have been feasible 10 years ago due to the available resources, and in fact, an attempt in that direction would have cost 10 times more in time and money. The fact is that Avatar manages to be a good film regardless of all this.

Applauding in the cinema is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I wonder if some people applaud in front of the TV as well.

bad review, full of banality and clichés, regardless of the final rating.

It depends, can you tell the difference between the irony of your link and serious things, or are you that far gone?

The day after, you feel fresher, having metabolized a bit of everything that was thrown in your face the day before... Avatar is a film that throws a lot, an incredible amount, at the audience, in almost every aspect; Cameron starts from an intriguing premise, though not original, and for over an hour he delivers an artistic spectacle that has no precedents: Avatar enchants, unless you are a troglodyte; each sequence oozes care, brilliance, and craftsmanship, every single creature or plant in Avatar stands out. The second part is probably the most difficult to manage, but Cameron handles it excellently, and a plot that is the offspring of a thousand books comes to life as if it were its first incarnation. A few rough edges in the dialogues, a villain who might be a bit too cool and flashy, nonetheless do not take away from the most expensive film in history (and soon, the most profitable film in history) its throne as the best film of 2009. 4½/5

Golden Globe for Best Film in the meantime...

P.S. I didn't see it in 2D but in 3D, so it's wrong for me to dismiss the classic form outright. But in 3D, it's a movie worth watching, even though Cameron doesn't quite capture the glory of the '80s/'90s, we're at definitely higher levels than a random Titanic.