James Cameron's 'Avatar' - The Way Of The Future? See trailer here and judge for yourself

I don't doubt that the plot for 'Avatar', Cameron's new movie, will be anything less than spectacular.

What we already know of the premise is intriguing: US marine Jake Sully (Australian actor Sam Worthington), paralysed from the waist down, is given the chance to walk again by having his consciousness transferred into an 'Avatar', a host body that is a genetic mix of human and Na'vi, an alien race. As part of the Avatar program, Jake, in his new body, travels to the home planet of the Na'vi, Pandora, to explore its unique world. As Jake becomes accepted by the Na'vi people in the face of a marine invasion, he must choose between Pandora's natives and the forces of Earth, who want only to strip the planet of its natural resources.

It's admittedly a great idea, one of those where you think 'damn, I wish I'd thought of that.'

However, footage I've seen doesn't appear to be the industry-changer the film has been touted to be.

As is probably obvious, the majority of the film had to realised through the use of digital effects; it was that or Cameron would have had to discover a genuine race of blue humanoid aliens.

Almost the entire movie is filmed in motion capture, a method whereby actors wear specialised suits that pick up their every movement then, in post-production, these movements are utilised to create CGI characters that move realistically.

This should give a more believable look to the characters, but there has been negative word from critics ever since the first 'Avatar' trailer was released saying the effects of the Na'vi (and the other creatures that inhabit the planet of Pandora) don't live up to expectations and the wave of hype surrounding the film.

Cameron, who bellowed 'I'm King of the world!' at the 1998 Oscars ceremony so is renowned for his modesty, has long referred to 'Avatar' as "photorealistic", something most bloggers and movie critics don't seem to agree with.

However, other movie critics have been even kinder than Cameron, mentioning 'Avatar' in the same breath as 'The Jazz Singer'.

Forgive my cynicism, but I suspect 'The Jazz Singer' had more of an impact on cinema than 'Avatar' will.

'The Jazz Singer' was the first sound film ever released, practically signalling the death knell for silent cinema and ushering in the age of sound in the movies. 'Avatar', on the other hand, uses an improved form of technology, motion capture (or 'mo-cap'), that has been around for years and has yet to make any huge impact on the silver screen.

Maybe that will all change with 'Avatar' though, if the end product looks good enough? Well, perhaps that would be true if the opinion wasn't widely held that it looks like a cheap video game's cut-scene.

For 'Avatar' to be classed as 'the next 'Jazz Singer'', it will have to change the way every single movie is made in the future. Maybe one day we will have only mo-cap movies on our screens, but I highly doubt it'll be because of 'Avatar'.

Aside from the fact that cinema purists will object, it's nonsensical to think mo-cap is a better alternative of film-making for all pictures anyway. What's more, the process is costly, so you won't find many studios outside of Hollywood utilising it any time soon. Plus, it still hasn't been perfected - the majority of critics think 'Avatar', supposedly at the forefront of mo-cap technology, has its footing firmly in uncanny valley.

To explain, 'uncanny valley' refers to CGI that resembles reality but falls just short of looking entirely convincing. Cameron talked of how 'Avatar' would be the first film to take CGI out of uncanny valley and into the real. Well, people have seen the trailers, and all I can say is, they don't think you've quite made it out of the valley yet, Jim.

There is one form of technology that was used on the film (known as 'The Volume'), an improved method of capturing facial expressions, that is very impressive. There's a moment in the first trailer where Jake Sully, now in his Avatar body, awakens from the transfer procedure and every nuance of Sam Worthington's performance is captured perfectly.

Still, this is cheapened by the fact that Sully's Avatar is less well-rendered than Gollum was seven years ago in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. I simply expected more from a film with an estimated £150 million budget.

In these credit crunch times, when films as good as 'This Is England', one of the best of the last decade, are made on a budget of just over £1 million, I know which I prefer from a moral stand point. From a quality point of view, I now also expect 'Avatar' to be 150 times better than 'This Is England.' Only then will I be convinced that mega-budget Hollywood films such as this one deserve the money and hype piled upon them.

Do your worst, Cameron.

Make your own mind up about the film by watching the trailer below.