I finally watched 'Avatar' for the first time, and it has one glaring problem

Sometimes watching a "classic" after its prime makes it hard to understand what everyone loved about it.

In 2009, James Cameron's "Avatar" made history with the technology it used to capture actors' facial expressions in real time to later be used for animation. The film focuses on a U.S. Army mission to Pandora, an alien world full of resources earth desparately needs in 2154. 

“This film is a true hybrid — a full live-action shoot, with CG characters in CG and live environments,” Cameron told The New York Times in 2007. “Ideally, at the end of the of day, the audience has no idea which they’re looking at.”

Roger Ebert said"Avatar" was "one of those films you feel you must see to keep up with the conversation."

Well, I missed out on the conversation.

I never watched "Avatar," and I never had a desire to.

But finally, seven years after the highest-grossing film of all time premiered, I watched it. And honestly, I saw some problems. Maybe I missed out on the time that made it special. Maybe it was overblown. Either way, I'm pretty apathetic toward "Avatar."

These were my thoughts while I watched "Avatar" for the first time.

To be fair, I didn’t watch this film in 3D, as it was intended. However, I believe if a movie is truly so stunning, its greatness shouldn't be limited to a format. 3D shouldn’t make “Avatar.” Storytelling and cinematography should make “Avatar."

SEE ALSO: James Cameron just announced 4 more 'Avatar' movies — here's when they're coming out

DON'T MISS: Sigourney Weaver will return for the 'Avatar' sequels in a new role

One minute in and I'm already rolling my eyes at the dialogue — "They can fix a spine if you've got the money. But not on vet benefits, not in this economy."— which is not a good sign for the next 2.9 hours.

I want to watch TV like this. It would be perfect to fall asleep to.

Three minutes in and I'm finally seeing those really cool special effects I was promised.