lotr-sam0711: My Review I really didn't like this film. Yes, it's pretty but there are plenty of better looking films that came out this year that didn't need to spend millions on CGI.
Are you saying better titles in 2009 related to what?
To the techniques used (titles with best use of cinematography, photography, etc. and more artistic value)? or that there are better pure CGI films than avatar?
EDIT: I've read your review and it's OK, I agree that the story of Avatar isn't all that original.
And I've noticed that you cited 2 or 3 times "a thirteen year old movie", is it a coincidence with Avatar being rated PG-13 or it's on purpose? Because I think that Cameron only dumbed it down (with a black vs. white, good vs. evil, a scheme being easier to digest as it is pure entertainment) to get more audience available to go see avatar, and help him pay his $500 Million costs with this movie.