^v^Avatar^v^ and critic James Cameron's ^v^Avatar^v^ are visually stunning and theologically provocative (or, I suggest in today's column that this film is not a good film in general, but from most reviews, you don't know: Cameron's blockbusters are impressively well received by Metacritic, while《 The latest rating of the top commentators on rotten tomatoes is as high as 10%. If you look at the online reactions of fans and movie geeks, you will find that a moderate (appropriate) rebound has been formed since last week (I especially like this fan's hostile comments, and in a sense, the root cause of this rebound is unexpected, because you would think like Avatar The most powerful defenders of this groundbreaking special effects and weak script science fiction epic movies, such as ainitcoolnews and chudcom, will be found on the websites of action movies and science fiction addicts. In the New York Times, those film critics who are regarded as ^v^the most unpopular movie^v^ think that the film is more like an old-fashioned film and adore James card Mellon took the path of insisting that there was more to epic than spectacles and special effects, because they insisted that sci-fi films were worth taking seriously, even if they were not as high-level art, they should be regarded as pop art, not just because he appeared in a film that didn't need to compare James Cameron's film with the rules of the game and found that Cameron's weakness also means recognizing the big difference between a truly great, special effects driven fantasy film the matrix (the first, not a sequel or Peter Jackson's), the Lord of the rings or Empire counterattacks, with the pompous disappointment of avatar, which has succeeded in stunning success, but failed in other ways.