Is it possible for a film that cost nearly a half-billion dollars to make and was made by a filmmaker whose last film grossed more than a billion dollars to exceed expectations?

Well, not quite.

Visually, “Avatar” does for film what “Star Wars” did 32 years ago. It did what “2001: A Space Odyssey” did 41 years ago. It did what “King Kong” did 76 years ago.

It’s a monumental masterpiece by James Cameron, creator of another epic, “Titanic,” which made a King Kong-sized $1.8 billion after it was released more than 12 years ago.

But “Avatar” takes filmmaking to another level. It uses a new brand of 3-D and CGI techniques to bring a visual masterpiece never seen before.

Many wondered if it would work. It was well documented throughout the filmmaking process that Cameron’s film would cost something of an arm and a leg. But could it really look that good?

In a single word: Yes.

Cameron creates a completely new world in the moonlike Pandora, which humans have overtaken in an attempt to foster a large oil supply while studying the lengthy, blue creatures, the Na’vi, that inhabit it.

The entire universe is created through CGI technology, and it looks breathtaking, as the viewer is taken through the incredible land – even more so in 3-D.

The only problem with “Avatar” is its relatively weak story. It’s about as cliché as one can get, but in today’s filmmaking day and age, why spend an inordinate period of time with a story when you can wow the masses with space-age technology.

Obviously, the public doesn’t mind. As of Tuesday, “Avatar” had already grossed $1.3 billion worldwide, trailing only – you guessed it – “Titanic” for the all-time No. 1 spot.

While the story lacks, it hardly matters. “Avatar” is a visual masterpiece that should not be missed. The generation of people who see it will tell their kids about when they saw it in theaters like our parents tell us about “Star Wars,” and their parents tell them about “King Kong.”

Collin Whitchurch can be reached at 581-7944 or

[email protected].