3 Hrs. 12 min!

I recall braveheart and dances with wolves (a 4 hour film!! ok - 3 hours upon the theatrical release) and both were incredible.
While I have a strong suspicion that this avatar film will suck, as some reviews have pointed out - film's duration is by no means something one should judge it by.

In fact, one review mentions dances with wolves - lol

--------------
One of the chief criticisms of James Cameron’s Avatar was that its tale of a soldier going native had been told many times before: it was just Dances with Wolves in space, or Pocahontas with Cirque du Soleil-trained Smurfs. As complaints go, it was an odd one – plots attain classic status for a reason. But it certainly can’t be levelled at this decade-in-the-making sequel, which has almost no plot whatsoever to speak of, original or otherwise.

Some movies with a good story (really good story) I'm fine to watch for 3 hrs, but it's true I don't find the first Avatar to be one of them. Average story (similar to other movies, as maximmm says, nothing suprising), but nice visuals for sure. And I bet the second movie will be just like that, mainly pretty 3D, so I'm not so sure too. I'm still suprised of its rating, maybe the ratings come mainly from parents based on how their kids liked it.
I'll wait for more reviews and for what other people say...

That's gonna drive off audiences more than the RT score.

I like long movies, but movies that look like videogames aren't for me.

Funny that people can "binge watch" TV shows but act like it's a big deal to sit down in a theater for 3 hrs.

[deleted]

Give me the good old roadshow days where you had an intermission.

Yeah, it didn't need to be that long. They could have easily cut out quite a bit.