What’s the plan, Jake?” someone asks our hero in the second (or is it third?) hour of Avatar. “There is no plan,” he replies – which typifies my problems with this much-hyped action fantasy. Anticipation for the film has been off the charts, and most fans (and critics) have pronounced themselves satisfied.

People said it would revolutionise Cinema, and most people now confirm that it has revolutionised Cinema – but it’s done so in ways I don’t much care about, at least as a viewer (caveat: I didn’t see it in 3-D).

Filmmakers now have grand new technology to play with, and will thank James Cameron for that; Avatar was described by Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times as “The Jazz Singer of 3-D filmmaking”, alluding to the 1927 film that’s credited with having introduced Talkies after decades of silent movies. Revolutionary? Maybe. But what’s onscreen is overlong, under-imagined and mostly dopey.

The plot is simple: ex-Marine joins the ‘Avatar’ programme, gets a super-sized version of himself which he controls remotely, infiltrates a native tribe called the Na’vi, initially feeds information to his Marine friends – who plan to destroy the tribe’s land and steal precious minerals – but gradually ‘goes native’, falls in love and fights against the evil soldiers. Almost everything here is predictable. The notion of a human hero turning alien recalls the very similar District 9. The remote-control avatar is this year’s Big Idea, also turning up in Gamer and Surrogates – though, to be fair, Cameron thought up his idea 14 years ago, and Jake (our hero) doesn’t so much control his avatar as simply be it (it’s DNA-based, so their nervous systems are automatically in sync). The Na’vi are tree-huggers, viewing the Earth as an interconnected “network”, like James Lovelock’s Gaia. The Marines (and their superiors) are Bush-era monsters, talking of “terror” and “shock and awe”. The scientists – led by Sigourney Weaver – are enlightened but finally impotent. Our hero is hunky, not especially bright (“stupid, like a child,” says his Na’vi girlfriend) but somehow Chosen, able to lead the hordes to victory.

So much for plot and characters. That leaves the look and special effects, which are mostly what fans have been raving about – and they have a point. The Na’vi, who are tall and blue (they look like giant fauns, with a touch of cat or goat), are technically flawless: Cameron’s 3-D never succumbs to the plastic look of CGI, or the dead-eye syndrome that afflicts motion-capture technology (see e.g. The Polar Express). Pandora, their home planet, is also impressive – not as eye-popping as Jurassic Park 16 years ago, or as thrilling as the jungles of Skull Island in King Kong (2005), but impressive. There are dinosaurs, horse-like creatures – with which the Na’vi “bond” by linking tails – and little floating shuttlecocks which are “very pure spirits” from the Sacred Tree. Everything is linked (that’s the Gaia philosophy) and when the Na’vi hold their ceremonies they themselves become linked, looking from above like a giant tree or power grid.

Trouble is, special effects only take you so far. Yes, it’s great that the Na’vi each have different facial features, variegated to reflect the actors ‘playing’ them – but the same was true (more or less) of Planet of the Apes 40 years ago, even though the actors in that one were merely wearing monkey make-up. Yes, the climax is spectacular, two opposing armies clashing both on land and in the air as the soldiers try to blast the tribe’s Sacred Tree. Unfortunately, it’s also pretty silly.

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the Na’vi simply charge their enemies, fully expecting to be mown down? I blame Lord of the Rings, which also ignored strategy in favour of spectacle – but it’s slightly absurd watching all this build-up (the call goes out to “other tribes”; the other tribes join the main tribe; Jake gives a fiery speech; thousands of Na’vi cheer and pledge to fight the invaders) just so the Na’vi can confront armoured vehicles with bows and arrows. They shoot their arrows; the arrows ping harmlessly off the tanks; the soldiers fire shells and daisy-cutters; lots of tribesmen are killed; the survivors shoot more arrows – and you have to wonder, in the 14 years that Cameron’s been nursing this project (including 12 years since Titanic when he’s made no other films and been powerful enough to enlist the help of any writer in Hollywood), did no-one think to make Jake slightly more intelligent? All he has to do is provoke a dinosaur stampede – as it is, the dinosaurs attack of their own accord, saving the day – or tell the Na’vi to surround the soldiers. Hell, all he has to do is say: ‘Don’t shoot arrows at tanks. It’s not going to work’. What’s the point of being the Chosen One (and an ex-Marine) if you don’t have any ideas?

Does it really matter? Isn’t the climax exciting, even without strategy? Isn’t the film absorbing, even without complex characters? Isn’t it possible to enjoy the trip without worrying overmuch about the destination? Yes, yes and yes.

There are pleasing visuals, some good scenes – Jake scaling vertiginous mountains to find his ‘Ikran’, or flying dino  even an Iraq/Vietnam analogy, for those so inclined. And of course it’s a good thing that James Cameron, the erstwhile and possibly current ‘King of the World’, is putting all his might – and well over $200 million – into telling people to be nice to the environment. I don’t begrudge Avatar its success, but it’s mild and simplistic and it left me wanting more. The technology may be 3-D, but the film remains resolutely one-dimensional.a