You are here: Home / Movies / Avatar Movie Review

Avatar Movie Review

December 21, 2009 By 67 Comments

There's something to the responses you're going to hear that rather negatively call out Avatar as having the same story as Dances with Wolves and any number of "going native" films, though it should be remembered that none of them are particularly original stories themselves. Apart from going to an alien world to meet your natives, and becoming one of them by transferring your mind into a created body, there isn't that much that separates Avatar from any number of films, and that's something you have to look at more openly than some may care to.

After all, people have liked those other films that will be mentioned, and at best they are equally similar to each other.

What I suspect will come flooding forward among what negative reviews Avatar receives is a kind of misplaced response, but one that is understandable. The truth is, the problem is not that Avatar is simply Dances with Aliens, it is that it is that same story told so poorly.

As is probably not surprising, given that this is James Cameron, everything about the story is delivered in the simplest possible terms, whether that manages to make any sense or not. Ideas are played out because they sound cool, and there isn't really much thought about what they do to the overall structure.

Your Ad Here

The humans who are attacking the natives on this planet that is a five-year voyage from Earth have mechanized armor suits, because that looks really cool. They are after some rare mineral, and they find a huge deposit of it under the giant tree the natives live in, because otherwise there is no story. When the natives don't seem inclined to let them destroy their home, the only alternative is to destroy them, because then they are not just the bad guys, but the really bad guys.

This is all well and good in a movie like Aliens, or The Terminator, where we just zip along for the ride, but Avatar thinks itself rather clever, and demands you to think. Frankly, it's rather condescending about it too. There is a good deal that might be forgiven with the right approach, but Avatar is so slow, the "bad" is so overblown, and it's ultimately so oddly preachy, that at some point less and less makes any sense at all. You want to let it go and throw off your disbelief, but it gets pretty hard.

We can send people on five-year space missions, but we can't drill over to some ore? Or, fire a couple of really cool missiles at them from fifty miles away instead of going in so that we can have our obligatory war scene? Or, find some other places to get this ore on the whole planet despite this cache being pretty close to where we setup our base? What does distance matter?

But, you might quite correctly be thinking, this is all the same sort of thing one has to put up with in any movie. Well, fair enough probably. It doesn't help things that the really bad guy is in a final showdown that is utterly pointless, and I mean pointless in the sense that your reinforcements are five years away, but it says something about big showdowns in some book on scriptwriting, so what can you do?

When it all comes together though, it's not only trite, it's delivered from such a cornball perspective that it doesn't have full understanding of what it's being trite about. Imagine, for example, if Dances with Wolves really came across as having an agenda. I know, you can't access that sentence with a straight face, can you? But, imagine if Dances with Wolves initially came out with this 'spirit of the Earth', interconnectedness of all life philosophy, but after a bit Dunbar was actually taken to meet The Earth Mother, and the goddess came up and said, "Hello. Yes, I'm the Earth Mother, and let me show you exactly how all life actually is connected, and you can see the whole design... Boo! I'm God!"

Well, then the opposition isn't a misguided group with an alternate, but at least semi-legitimate viewpoint (especially if they're whack, money hungry warmongers, of course), they're just idiots. That's rather a different story, and frankly a silly one.

Avatar sure looks pretty though.

Now, all that aside, it's a fun movie. Terminator doesn't necessarily withstand a lot of scrutiny either, but it's a good ride. If you're just out for a good time, this is your movie. It has incredible special effects, and you can really see the time that was put into the effort. Let yourself drink in the sights, and play right along with plot you knew every piece of anyway. There's a worthy encounter there. But, when it slows down and wants you to think about something (and pretends there is some intelligence to the story and that the characters aren't ridiculously hollow), don't fall for that trap.

Rating: ★★★☆☆ 

RU?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

© 2009, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Follow us on Twitter

About Marc Eastman

Marc Eastman is the owner and operator of Are You Screening? and has been writing film reviews for over a decade, and several branches of the internet's film review world have seen his name. His reviews have brought him personal praise from the director of a major motion picture, and have been used as required reading in a course at a major University. These priceless rewards, along with just bags of cash, keep him from straying from freelance writing. He is also a member of The Broadcast Film Critics Association and The Broadcast Television Journalists Association.

Twitter | Facebook | More Posts (1450)
Filed Under: Movies Tagged With: , , ,
  • Steve Capell

    Thanks for your review. I will be seeing this movie this week with my son. I hope the plot is good enough to make it worth seeing … only time will answer this question.

  • Guest

    This makes me wonder if your criticism is for a lot of modern big budget PG-13 type stories not just Avatar. The more a movie attempt to appeal to this huge and segmented audience the more it tends to get dumbed down. Would your criticism of james Cameron be better directed at the studios or the corportate board that would state “during our test audiences 20-35% stated that they didn't feel sided with the aliens enough.” I don't mean to defend James Cameron as much as state that with a lot of modern movies I've been beaten with the plot bat so much that I'm almost starting to enjoy my modern cinema/concussion.

  • http://Rockets-r-Us.blogspot.com stephanieebarr

    As a general rule, we often see eye to eye. Here, we don't.

    It's all well and good to say the story makes no sense to have people (who don't see themselves as bad guys) travel through thick and thin to displace the natives from their land when other land is handy or workable, when there are alternatives, but that's exactly what happened. In history. Natives were kicked from their land over and over so people could take it when there was a whole continent (Africa) within easy reach to Europe. With at least as many natural resources. (And, since they were strip mining, the most destructive but easiest method possible, drilling underneath is not an option).

    Dances with Wolves bored me to tears in moments. I know too much about Native Americans and history to stomach my way through. And, in my opinion, Kevin Costner can't act at all or hasn't in anything I've seen him in since Silverado. Admittedly, I don't search out his movies.

    Although I agree that this is a timeworn, much used story. I'm glad it is. It almost can't be trotted out enough. In a world (this one) where there are so many people advocating hatred of this group or another for whatever reason, a reminder that truly learning about a culture makes it almost impossible not to respect and even admire it.

    My Native American background responds to this story, to this world, to these people. I understand them and don't find them shallow in the least. I don't even find the bad guys shallow – I buy them and I'm cynical about people.

    My scientist body marvels at biology that makes sense and is plausible, from both biological and physics standpoints (and that rarely happens). Arrows through armor, someone scoffs, but I say not impossible. Animals move the right way and fly the right way. The medula oblongota (where their nerve queues come from) controls movement.

    I'm genuinely sorry you didn't have an experience like I had, like the others in my theater had, that the surface story blinded you to the subtleties I saw. I like Cameron's dialog, like his vision. But, most of all, I like that he reminds me once in a while why I still go to the movies.

    Because I want to be immersed in a world where things end right. Not without pain, not without challenges, not without death and sacrifice, but where right can win out over superior weapons.

    It's beautiful and seemless and makes it all but impossible to see the line between real action and digital (I didn't see it). I understand and grasp the characters. I absorb and understand the story and a number of subtleties underneath it. I don't feel talked down to, I feel reminded because, even with our history, we keep doing the same stupid things over and over, destroy what is part of our world. If the lesson was really already understood, we'd take far better care of the world we have now.

    You don't have to agree with me, but I won't apologize for my response to the movie. Are there logical fallacies, do people do things that seem foolish in the extreme from the outside? Yes. Happened in history, too. Hell, it happens now. I wish it was just the movies.

  • Rose

    I usually prefer stories with shades of gray, rather than black/white, good/bad storylines.
    However, I really did enjoy this film. As an archaeologist, I can tell you that destroying people's land and disrespecting their culture for the purposes of monetary gain is nothing new, and a lesson we should not forget in a hurry.
    And the effects, IMO, were amazing. The most visually stunning film I have ever seen.

  • David

    Just saw Avatar and I agree that the story is basically, basic.

    When the Riders rode up it felt like a western or hell even Chaka Zulu. The well armed against the Uncivilized. However, that's when it changed for me. The basics of the movie added other levels of basics – Spiritual overtones, environmentalism ideologies and corporate greed – which actually made it interesting.

    Then there's this beautiful world (even without the 3D glasses a gimmick I could've done without, actually). Plus, brace yourself, it was actually a manly flick. I mean Mech-Warriors, Discovery Chanel style animal fights, big guns, death, aerial warfare and Aliens! Yeah, rock on. Plus your notwithstanding, love story. Good times.

    Basic plot? Yes, very. Nothing new just turn on any cable network news channel. Manly Flick? Sure. Girly Stuff? Absolutely. Including a strong woman figure for the “Feminist”. I said it already but it's good times. Remember how Jurassic Park (The first one) changed your life? Expect that.

  • Brian_Barker

    And before “Avatar” and “Star Trek” there was Bill Shatner speaking Esperanto, in the horror film called “Incubus”.

    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F77k6SQX7iQ&feat…

    As an Esperanto speaker I found it terrifying! His Esperanto pronunciation that is, not the film.

    Your readers may be interested in http://www.lernu.net :)

  • my”Kael

    Having seen the trailer on TV, and accepting the “hype” for what it is – promotional rederic (sp?), I had no expectation of a sensible plot. As an online player of WoW (World of Warcraft), I assumed it would be alot of “toons” running around killing and mining resources. In that respect, I was not disappointed. Unlike WoW, which does have lore if you care to delve into it, I found nothing in Avatar worth exploring.

    As an indie game developer, I was NOT that impressed with the visual effects as they lacked real imagination. Nothing truly new was created. Stock, right out of the box MegWars type machinery, blah-say biologicals and too photo-realistic realms/terrains.

    From a philosophical point of view, it was an age old story retold. As for Cameron’s direction – egotistical and overly ambitious as with most of his prior movies.

    I left the theater feeling ambivalent, which equate to me a waste of time and money. Considering the cost of production, I was abit angry that in today’s world it could have been money better spent. Hence, I would not recommend it to friends and family, even as a “go along for a good ride” adventure.

  • EricTe

    “Avatar thinks itself rather clever”

    The irony is that it's Marc who thinks he's clever — for picking apart the script of an escapist fantasy, inspired by A Princess of Mars (Edgar Rice Burroughs). Shall we tear into the plot of Star Wars, next? What's up with light sabers? How does light just stop like that? Doesn't George Lucas know there's no sound in space? What a stupid movie! Right?

    As a scientifically literate 40-year-old who still possesses the capacity for willing suspension of disbelief, I can only hope I never becomes as jaded and joyless as Marc.

    I can't wait to see Avatar again.

    • areyouscreening

      Light sabers and sound in space are not really the plot of Star Wars, but are we not allowed to tear into the plot of Star Wars?

      The question is not whether or not light sabers make sense (I don’t know that they don’t), the question is whether or not other things make sense within that world. Suspension of disbelief is allowing the world to be put forward as having light sabers in it, or technology that allows for five-year trips through space and coordinated mining bases on alien worlds.

      It was a fun film, but being escapist fantasy does not remove the need to have characters that are somehow real, and plots that are not internally nonsensical.

      • http://Rockets-r-Us.blogspot.com stephanieebarr

        Ironic. I always thought Star Wars’ plot made no sense. Just goes to show. Another ancient story line with classic (or, if you prefer, cliched characters) set in a new “world.”

      • Anonymous

        “Light sabers and sound in space are not really the plot of Star Wars”You’re missing the point: you’re nitpicking the technology of a FANTASY FILM. The mineral Generic Evil Corp is trying to mine is freakin’ UNOBTANIUM, most famously used in another outlandish scifi-fantasy set on an alien world: Larry Niven’s Ringworld. In A Princess of Mars, which James cited as an inspiration, John Carter goes to mars by simply closing his eyes and opening them on the surface of Mars, where he fights four-armed red men to win the heart of the Martian princess. Do we dismiss Edgar Rice Burroughs because his premise is absurd, or do we simply accept the premise and enjoy the tale? I don’t think Bradbury ever used a scientifically reasonable premise in ANY of his science fiction. I guess we should dismiss his work, too.”It was a fun film, but being escapist fantasy does not remove the need to have characters that are somehow real”What does “somehow real” mean? Do you know how astronomically unlikely it is that aliens would be even remotely humanoid? The aliens are made humanoid so that WE MAY RELATED TO THEM, because the audience is hardwired to read emotion on HUMAN faces, not because it makes any sense. In Lord of the Rings, there are Elves who can do magic. Do you honestly find that “somehow real”?Honestly, I think it’s a testament to Cameron that his movie has, as he puts it, enough of a “patina of reality” that people feel the need to criticize it as if it was hard scifi, when in fact it’s pure escapism — escapism about escapism — where a cripple can close his eyes and awaken in the Garden of Eden, fly on dragons, and win the love of a beautiful princess. Taking it as more than that is seriously missing the point.

        • areyouscreening

          I think you’re missing the point actually. I’m nitpicking the technology of anything, I’m nitpicking the internal logic of the story. The other stories you mention do not suffer the same problems. They build their world and what follows flows logically from the world created.

          The science is irrelevant.

          Somehow real means not caricatures.

          And, I don’t mind escapism at all, but I still maintain that the internal structure has to make a bit of sense. Burroughs and Bradbury (I’m a fan of both) create the rules of their stories and stick with them. Indeed, they both rather painstakingly thought through their worlds and why and how things in those worlds would be the way they are.

          • Anonymous

            “I’m nitpicking the technology of anything, I’m nitpicking the internal logic of the story. [..] The science is irrelevant.”

            What? The science is irrelevant? I’m responding to a post which asserts that interstellar travelers should have the TECHNOLOGY to reach Unobtanium via means other than strip mining. This is a science question, completely out of place in an a pure escapist fantasy where A BLUE PRINCESS FLIES AROUND FLOATING ROCKS ON A DRAGON. You’re seriously missing the forest for the trees.

            Again, it’s a testament to Cameron that you guys seem to miss the outrageous fantasy right in front of your face and nitpick utterly irrelevant ancillary details.

            “Burroughs and Bradbury (I’m a fan of both) create the rules of their stories and stick with them. Indeed, they both rather painstakingly thought through their worlds and why and how things in those worlds would be the way they are.”

            *rofl* You’ve clearly read neither. Please explain the “painstakingly thought through” reason that a man can close his eyes and wish himself to Mars?

          • areyouscreening

            On the first point, I guess you’re just not getting me. It’s not the technology, it’s the internal consistency. You either get it or you don’t at this point.

            As to – “*rofl* You’ve clearly read neither. Please explain the “painstakingly thought through” reason that a man can close his eyes and wish himself to Mars?”

            you similarly have no idea where I’m coming from apparently. It’s not in the sense that there is some reason that we explain by way of the real world (I guess, I’m not actually sure what you’re asking).

            As example, take a fantasy story involving magic which has rules by which people can use magic. If that story then has other things thrown out which don’t make sense according to those rules, that’s a problem. In other words, “in this world where magic works like this, does it make sense that… whatever.” That’s what I mean by internal consistency. Finding that to be a problem does not mean that I would be mocking the very existence of magic in a story, and it would not make sense to ask me to explain the reason by which magic exists.

          • Anonymous

            “It’s not the technology, it’s the internal consistency.”

            Dude, the supposed “internal consistency” I’m discussing IS about the technology: the claim that interstellar travelers should have the TECHNOLOGY to reach their mineral in some other way than displacing natives. I’m being extremely specific here, and you’re being deliberately vague, probably because you realize you have no point.

            “you similarly have no idea where I’m coming from”

            Again, you’re evading a direct rebuttal to bullshit claim. You said that Edgar Rice Burroughs “painstakingly thought through [..] why and how things in those worlds would be the way they are”. This is simply false. If you care to argue the point, answer the question: what “painstakingly thought through” reason did Burroughs have that allowed a man to wish himself to another planet?

          • areyouscreening

            I’m not being vague. That particular point of the technology of the story I find rather internally inconsistent. And?

          • Anonymous

            YOU: “I’m not nitpicking the technology of anything”
            YOU: “It’s not the technology, it’s the internal consistency.”
            YOU (when pressed): “That particular point of the technology of the story I find rather internally inconsistent.”
            YOU: directly contradicted yourself because your point was shown to be ridiculous.

          • areyouscreening

            I didn’t contradict myself at all, but this has been about as fun as it’s probably going to be.

            You can’t even follow that setup you just put together.

            You could have a similar case like this –

            I complain that it is rather odd that halfway through the movie it is revealed that the natives always give birth to twins, and as part of their religion always kill one and raise the other. You say, don’t nitpick about little trivialities of the alien religion. I say, it doesn’t have anything to do with religion really, it just seems internally inconsistent to the religion they have as presented in other ways throughout. You say, don’t give me this internal consistency, you’re talking about religion. I say, yes, this point of their religion seems internally inconsistent. You say, aha, see, you are talking religion.

          • Anonymous

            “You can’t even follow that setup you just put together.”

            Again, I responded to a ridiculous nitpick about technology in the premise, namely that space-farers can’t drill for Unobtanium. This is a nonsensical nitpick because we aren’t given enough details about the mineral to make any technological assessments.

            More importantly, it’s ABSURD to nitpick a technological premise in a FANTASY INVOLVING A BLUE PRINCESS FLYING A DRAGON AROUND FLOATING ROCKS.

            You respond, “I’m not nitpicking the technology of anything.”

            This is a lie. I point this out, and again you lied, “It’s not the technology, it’s the internal consistency.”

            When pressed you to stop being vague about the “internal consistency” you finally admit, “That particular point of the TECHNOLOGY of the story I find rather internally inconsistent.”

            Learn to think.

          • areyouscreening

            I vaguely suspect you might be serious.

  • areyouscreening

    I'm not completely sure if I understand, but I think my response is no. Cameron does what he wants, especially here, and he wouldn't think the movie is dumbed down (I would wager).

  • Jake

    I saw the film a few days ago. It is a visually-stricking flick, entertaining with a touch of a moralizing plot. Let's not try to compare it with other such films (Dances With Wolves, for example). But let's also not forget what is happening in the Amazon basin, the Island of Borneo and other areas where man's greed and/or quest for resources is damaging the environment (read people, flora, fauna). Avatar is a film which will entertain for a few hours… but hopefully will cause you to think, if only a little bit, of how WE as a species are impacting this world.

    And I fully agree with stepanieebarr down below!

    • areyouscreening

      I pretty well agree with your comment, but it doesn’t seem that your comment is itself agreeing (in a very precise sense) with Stephanie.

  • Jake

    Right on, Stephanie!

    Let's not try to get too intellectual here. If the movie can, although simplistically, arouse in the viewer some sort of consciousness about man's immoral actions, then it has achieved one of its aims. The other is to simply and purely entertain.

  • areyouscreening

    “It's all well and good to say the story makes no sense to have people (who don't see themselves as bad guys) travel through thick and thin to displace the natives from their land when other land is handy or workable, when there are alternatives, but that's exactly what happened. In history. Natives were kicked from their land over and over so people could take it when there was a whole continent (Africa) within easy reach to Europe. With at least as many natural resources. (And, since they were strip mining, the most destructive but easiest method possible, drilling underneath is not an option).”

    To say it is what actually happened, so it is “okay” (or whatever) that it happened here is precisely the problem. The situations may be analogous, but when the movie tries this hard to be serious, the analogy begins to fail. It demands you think too much, take it too seriously, and then the comparison fails. The completely general statement of what happens is the same, but the situations are too different.

    In the case here, it is exactly as simple to get the ore somewhere else. That is not the case in reality. There is no benefit to getting it from the natives, other than that you get to kill natives to get it. And yes, even that happened in reality, but not in situations that are actually comparable.

    For a kind of example point, when the natives start massing, we hear the speech about how soon there may be 20,000 (like we don't know how many there are, which are moving) and then they will overrun the position. What? With their bows? We really have some fear there? No. It's just the filler for the statement of the analogy, but in the story it's nonsense.

    And, saying drilling is not an option is simply untrue. If you can fly through space for five years, you can drill.

    “Dances with Wolves bored me to tears in moments. I know too much about Native Americans and history to stomach my way through. And, in my opinion, Kevin Costner can't act at all or hasn't in anything I've seen him in since Silverado. Admittedly, I don't search out his movies.”

    To each his own I guess. I'm not sure that describes a flaw in the movie, and I can't imagine how it is not a miles better version of the general theory than this one.

    “Although I agree that this is a timeworn, much used story. I'm glad it is. It almost can't be trotted out enough. In a world (this one) where there are so many people advocating hatred of this group or another for whatever reason, a reminder that truly learning about a culture makes it almost impossible not to respect and even admire it.”

    That was precisely my point at the beginning of the review. It is not a problem with the film that the story has been done before, though I suspect many will review it from that perspective.

    “My Native American background responds to this story, to this world, to these people. I understand them and don't find them shallow in the least. I don't even find the bad guys shallow – I buy them and I'm cynical about people.”

    I don't know how to respond to that frankly. There are no people in this movie at all. There are only plot arc components. If these people are not hollow stereotypes built only to fit what we want to happen in the film, who are? You buy the bad guys? I'd need more to go on to formulate a response.

    “My scientist body marvels at biology that makes sense and is plausible, from both biological and physics standpoints (and that rarely happens). Arrows through armor, someone scoffs, but I say not impossible. Animals move the right way and fly the right way. The medula oblongota (where their nerve queues come from) controls movement.”

    I guess there's no real response to that either. Much of the biology of the planet is interesting. What isn't interesting is moving from the way that world is to a philosophy.

    “I'm genuinely sorry you didn't have an experience like I had, like the others in my theater had, that the surface story blinded you to the subtleties I saw. I like Cameron's dialog, like his vision. But, most of all, I like that he reminds me once in a while why I still go to the movies.

    Because I want to be immersed in a world where things end right. Not without pain, not without challenges, not without death and sacrifice, but where right can win out over superior weapons.”

    Well, I can't say I'm sorry really. Not to sound cold or mean, and I know a lot of people really like this movie, but I greatly prefer not having the reaction you had to this movie.

    As I said, there's nothing really horrible about it. Insulting your intelligence is something you put up with as a general rule, just like suspending disbelief where it cannot even legitimately be suspended. It's filled with fun and adventure, looks brilliant, and has a kind of plot that keeps it going.

    The problem isn't that the story is much used, it is that Cameron tells it as though it isn't, and thinks he is tremendously clever. Worse, to me, he works from the curious viewpoint (from a kind of morally superior movie) that if we strip mine massive amounts of the planet, but don't bother the natives much, that would be fine.

    “It's beautiful and seemless and makes it all but impossible to see the line between real action and digital (I didn't see it).”

    Yes, it is really pretty. Hooray.

    “I understand and grasp the characters. I absorb and understand the story and a number of subtleties underneath it. I don't feel talked down to, I feel reminded because, even with our history, we keep doing the same stupid things over and over, destroy what is part of our world. If the lesson was really already understood, we'd take far better care of the world we have now.”

    I suspect frankly, with this sort of statement, that you are beginning to lean toward this movie being good whether it's good or not.

    “You don't have to agree with me, but I won't apologize for my response to the movie. Are there logical fallacies, do people do things that seem foolish in the extreme from the outside? Yes. Happened in history, too. Hell, it happens now. I wish it was just the movies.”

    You don't have to agree with me either. I simply find it very hard to follow the film appreciation angle that moves from – much about this film is really stupid – to – well, happened in history.

    It seems a cheat of a defense frankly, and the idea behind it seems like one in which someone is going to find any defense as long as it gets them the result they want.

    In other words, what could you not use it for? I could say the characters are ridiculous, wooden, caricatures that simply fill roles, such as “sinister nogoodnik,” and you could just say, well, people have been like that in history.

    I don't actually mind the movie, and I can see a lot of people liking it, much as I can see a lot of people liking Transformers 2, not that they are similar films in other respects.

    It seems to me that though you put out ideas which seem meant to be taken as general points, your position is that you like this movie, and for very personal reasons. It seems the same with your dislike of Dances with Wolves.

    That's actually fine, and as I said many times, I had a decently fun time with it, but I think it ultimately goes quite wrong, in my opinion, for reasons more objective than personal response.

    I find it surprising that you would speak well of the characters. Not only are they odd cut-and-pastes from stock characters, they are so unnecessarily. Does the main bad guy have to be a raving lunatic, a mere talking black hat? No. The natives have their triumvirate of power (chief, holy person, really aggressive warrior) straight from every movie pre-1960 that had Native Americans in it. Why?

    At any rate, it's fun and I have nothing against people who like it, I just find it very flawed.

    • J Moore

      You must be joking!

  • areyouscreening

    “As an archaeologist, I can tell you that destroying people's land and disrespecting their culture for the purposes of monetary gain is nothing new, and a lesson we should not forget in a hurry.”

    Really?

    Yes. Interesting lesson. That doesn't make a movie good… hopefully.

    It is, however, not taken too seriously, certainly a fun ride.

  • areyouscreening

    Well, changed your life might be a little much, but I pretty much agree with you completely.

    It's wild and cool, looks amazing, and throws in something for everyone. If it had taken itself a little less seriously, I think it would have been better, but for purposes of going out and having a lot fun watching a movie, this is a great choice… no question.

    It just could have been better.

    I agree about the 3-D as well, I'm not sure that it made a lot of difference.

    • David

      Life changing may be a wee bit excessive. However, after reading your many responses, you have gained a new reader.

      May I add. I was left empty from the “Human” character development than realizing any of the other inconsistencies you’ve pointed out. The Humans annoyed the hell out of me the more I think about it.

      The Marine was a “loon”. He overpowered the Corporate Mogul who should have had more of an aggressive mentality since he felt it necessary to drill “there” and satisfy quarterly earnings. The constant shots of facial strain on the corporate guy annoyed me, he simply was an empty character. The audience was left to decide what those expressions meant. It wasn’t that obvious. Am I carrying this facial strain because I”m killing innocents? Or am I stressed that if this fails I will have a political orgy all over me with angry shareholders rallying my demise? Or if this doesn’t go quite right how do we PR this back on Earth?

      Sigourney’s character fell short as well. The narrative was abysmal about her relation to “The People” yet she is accepted by Ewya? What happened to those schools?

      How was it that the Earth scientist was able to replicate The People so precisely that nature was unable to tell the difference from a “empty suit” and those whose DNA flowed through the blue skins? Why not replicate the “king” guy and have the impostor move The People instead?

      This is why I am an associate and not making movies, I guess.

      In essence I am a cubicle dweller who still enjoys video gaming (Luckily I have a companion who WOW’s with me occasionally). AVATAR was to me… The marriage of HALO and WOW. Yes, I am your classic escapist. So my escapism was satisfied. That’s why I enjoyed it. Yes, the overdone basics have been overdone and I agree that Mr. Titanic attempted to slide it off as deep and brand spanking new.

      But if it got you to think about displaced natives, corporate greed or environmental issues. Than good for you. But for me it was just a hell of a ride.

      • areyouscreening

        I’m glad to hear the positive response. I largely agree, as I’m sure you know by now.

        I appreciate the time it took to add to the conversation.

        Cheers.

  • http://Rockets-r-Us.blogspot.com stephanieebarr

    It's the description that the “bad guy” – i.e. the marine is just “a raving lunatic, a talking black hat” that seems to argue we really saw this movie differently. You really didn't see more than that? I guess we look for different things in characters.

    The interaction and methods for interacting between Navi and plants/animals was brilliant to this sci-fi writer. I guess I know too many people like these characters on both sides, most of who weren't good or bad, but possibly misguided. The fact that any, but the money guy, are black and white to you really surprises me. But I have always responded well to Cameron characters. Clearly, we look for different things.

    And, as a scientist, if you think you can “always” drill for everything, you might want to study up.

    I did expect to like this. My husband, who hated Titanic, didn't. But he was ready to turn around and watch it again when we were done. I don't have anything against you because you didn't see what we saw in it (or that we mentally corrected what you saw it lacking – we may never know which it was). I'm sorry you missed it. Not for my sake, but for yours.

    If, in actuality, you are right, I can only be grateful for my ignorance. It was an unforgettable experience.

  • http://Rockets-r-Us.blogspot.com stephanieebarr

    True. I think it works on that level as well. But that's just my opinion.

  • areyouscreening

    I think it works on that level too.

  • http://Rockets-r-Us.blogspot.com stephanieebarr

    My husband agreed with you about the marine. Odd.

  • areyouscreening

    Yes, I really didn't see more than that. Apart from the many examples throughout the film, the end solidifies all the rest. He's really just a loon. His actions are build the same things in many situations, but if you are going to fight one guy in an army, of which you know much remains, when you also know that your army is lost, and there's no one else coming for five years… you're just a nut. There is nothing to him at all, except stereotypically nutjob marine.

    I am not a scientist, but you are making a poor claim here. Always? Well, I suppose you can't always do anything. Is that relevant? You can't always fly five-year space missions either, but in certain circumstances, like making some crap up, you can. In terms of the technological advances necessary for the entire world here, it doesn't make sense to argue from the perspective of technology available in reality.

    I don't have anything against you either.

    I suppose different people see different things in many forms of art, and “art.” That's the beauty of it all perhaps.

    You see worthwhile characters. I see what basically amounts to a average children's story, with characters who are not remotely explored enough to even qualify as possibly having depth.

    You see a story that has some meaning, and a movie that you had a very positive reaction to. I see a bit of fun that is well worth a night out for a good time, but little else, and one that should not pretend at being serious.

    But, with all the points on which people may differ, there is this -

    “I can only be grateful for my ignorance.”

    Above everything in the world, I will never say that.

    • http://Rockets-r-Us.blogspot.com stephanieebarr

      Context is so important. I said “If, in actuality, you are right, I can only be grateful for my ignorance.” I can think of other places where I’d apply it, too. If I had a child who grew up to be a mass murderer, I might be grateful for my ignorance hwne I raised him, too.

      Example of something that can’t be mined effectively where you find them: alluvial diamonds. You can, of course, mine for diamonds, but not where you’d find the alluvial ones (and the cost differential for mining for diamonds and picking them from the soil is astronomical). As for the argument that traveling for five years is so much more difficult than say mining a different way, depends on what’s easiest. Going by boat even at many times the distance used to be much easier than going across land, even a hundred miles, even though going by water was dangerous and time consuming. But you could carry much more, some things that, even today, can’t go by land. (The lack of water routes for Russia was a big factor, perhaps even a deciding factor, in their inability to build a moon capable rocket).

      Some of it seems impractical at first blush, but I’m not convinced its noncredible. However, you can see it as you choose.

      I’m not out to tell you what you should believe or think. Once someone has seen something a certain way (and I’m not sure there is a right or wrong way to see something), it’s unlikely they’ll see it differently. That’s not a bad thing.

      I’m surprised we saw it so differently, but that happens. Perhaps my reaction was so strong because this is the first of you reviews where I was grateful I saw the movie first.

      Oh well. Peace. To each his or her own.

      • areyouscreening

        “Context is so important. I said “If, in actuality, you are right, I can only be grateful for my ignorance.” I can think of other places where I’d apply it, too. If I had a child who grew up to be a mass murderer, I might be grateful for my ignorance hwne I raised him, too.”

        I’m not sure it is. If I’m right. If I’m not. There is some circumstance in which you would be grateful for your ignorance. If I am right, then you are. I would not be.

        “Example of something that can’t be mined effectively where you find them: alluvial diamonds. You can, of course, mine for diamonds, but not where you’d find the alluvial ones (and the cost differential for mining for diamonds and picking them from the soil is astronomical). As for the argument that traveling for five years is so much more difficult than say mining a different way, depends on what’s easiest. Going by boat even at many times the distance used to be much easier than going across land, even a hundred miles, even though going by water was dangerous and time consuming. But you could carry much more, some things that, even today, can’t go by land. (The lack of water routes for Russia was a big factor, perhaps even a deciding factor, in their inability to build a moon capable rocket).”

        I’m not sure examples are getting us anywhere. Do those examples really hold up to a made up technology hundreds of years in the future? I find the argument strange. It seems to me that given the technologically light years ahead world we’re working with, it seems the plot is rather slipshod, because with what we’re given it doesn’t seem to really connect that we really have to destroy the homes of the natives. But, you have an argument against that? That seems strange.

        I mean, why not just say it is the only source of this stuff there is, rather than the only big source for some number of clicks? Why would we not, as I mentioned, just launch a few missiles from behind our desks instead of going into the trenches? Well, because that’s what we need to make our movie work, and do the things we want to do.

        “I’m not out to tell you what you should believe or think. Once someone has seen something a certain way (and I’m not sure there is a right or wrong way to see something), it’s unlikely they’ll see it differently. That’s not a bad thing.”

        The statement is true in general, but I rather do think it’s a bad thing. Of course, depending on how deep you go perhaps. If someone has enough reason to support a different reaction I may change my mind, especially when I see it again. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that I liked a movie a lot better after further viewings, and time has passed. Heck, there are a lot of movies I like a lot better (or worse) than when I first saw them, when all that happens is time passes and I think about them for a while. Perhaps your reaction will be different at some later date as well. Who knows?

        I do not subscribe to the idea that this is the idea I’m stuck with simply because I had it. Maybe I’m wrong. I am, by training, a philosopher… we are wrong as a career. If I am wrong, I will hopefully come around, but I do not intend to be wrong forever simply on the basis of being wrong now.

        As a pure entertainment experience, I don’t mind it. I just think much of it is rather thrown together without a lot of thought behind it. Which is fine actually, until it thinks it’s really smart and deep at me.

        I’m surprised we saw it so differently, but that happens. Perhaps my reaction was so strong because this is the first of you reviews where I was grateful I saw the movie first.

        Oh well. Peace. To each his or her own.

        • areyouscreening

          Woops on the pasting at the end there.

          • http://Rockets-r-Us.blogspot.com stephanieebarr

            No worries and I understood. Admittedly, some movies lost their charm after multiple watchings and others grew on me, so that point is well-taken. In fact, I ruined some of the Star Wars flicks for my husband by pointing out all the plot/character problems that made it untenable for me. It’s certainly not impossible that your view on things might make me look at it more critically in the future.

            I suppose I was surprised because the same things I thought made a smart story were the things you felt were so ridiculous (though I agree the line about “richest deposit within 200 clicks” didn’t make much sense to me either – I noted it at the time). But that you’d bring a small fighting force but big mining equipment makes sense to me if mining is your goal. My space science background is part of it; I recognize taking current trends to a (but not the only) conclusion. But that’s just following a particular trend. It could go quite differently (where mass stops being an issue) and that would change it radically.

            I guess I’m saying that the plot points you note as nonesensical I found plausible and that (other than a different view on characters) seems to be the biggest difference between us. I do disagree that those plot decisions were without thought (other than worrying about the distance on planet surface) because I can duplicate the thought process. Of course, that’s flavored by my belief that I’m not an idiot. And, really, I can see how you would reach your conclusions. It’s not a bone of contention, I don’t think. I dont want you to change your mind, I don’t even think. I probably should have just shut up some time ago.

            I guess I’m just a little sad that it ruined the movie for you.

  • Steve Capell

    Just got back from seeing Avatar … and I love the plot. The hero in the wheel chair brought back memories for me of Gary Guller the man that made to to the top of world by climbing Mt Everest even though he is missing one arm. This movie has some of best scenes that I have seen in a movie. I will most likely see this one again.

  • Steve Capell

    Just got back from seeing Avatar … and I love the plot. The hero in the wheel chair brought back memories for me of Gary Guller the man that made to to the top of world by climbing Mt Everest even though he is missing one arm. This movie has some of best scenes that I have seen in a movie. I will most likely see this one again.

  • Keithmats

    I have to say, despite what many critics say about avatar, its a must see. Even if you think the plot sucks, well, at least go to see the best visual graphics and effects ever seen in a movie.

    I do agree very much that its a cowboys and indians all over again, however, people liked it back then, right? And Avatar is the modern, realistic i might add, take on this.

    Everything in the movie has a point as far as I can see, very little is added just for show. Many things that might seem pointless in the beginning end up having a point in the end.

    Even if Avatar is just a overplayed cowboys and indians scene, I could go to watch a few more hours of the Na'Vi life and training of Jake in their ways. The absolutely amazing graphics and sound quality coupled with the good old “Training” phase of the movie is great.

    Avatar reminds me more of a book, a long, complete thought with defenite phases to the movie, not just jumbled together like many movies these days. You can relate to the characters because you have enough time to get to know them, the movie is by no means rushed.

    Even though so many see it as just another retake on an old story and shrug it off, it has great value as a romance movie if thats what you want to make it. There are a few moments where Cameron has you about to burst with anticipation, wanting to yell at the character to not do it, and then he turns it into an epic save and the romance continues.

    Stricly speaking, Avatar has all the tricks in it. It gets the viewers to feel emotion with the actors and get involved in the story. Too many people are focusing on the plot or the graphics or whatever it may be, they are focusing too much on one single point of the movie, but when taken as a whole, Avatar is the best movie to come out in a long time.

    Hey, I see the viewpoints of everyone and understand, but take it as a whole and just enjoy it. Seriously, what movie have you seen lately thats better than it anyway?

  • Keithmats

    I have to say, despite what many critics say about avatar, its a must see. Even if you think the plot sucks, well, at least go to see the best visual graphics and effects ever seen in a movie.

    I do agree very much that its a cowboys and indians all over again, however, people liked it back then, right? And Avatar is the modern, realistic i might add, take on this.

    Everything in the movie has a point as far as I can see, very little is added just for show. Many things that might seem pointless in the beginning end up having a point in the end.

    Even if Avatar is just a overplayed cowboys and indians scene, I could go to watch a few more hours of the Na'Vi life and training of Jake in their ways. The absolutely amazing graphics and sound quality coupled with the good old “Training” phase of the movie is great.

    Avatar reminds me more of a book, a long, complete thought with defenite phases to the movie, not just jumbled together like many movies these days. You can relate to the characters because you have enough time to get to know them, the movie is by no means rushed.

    Even though so many see it as just another retake on an old story and shrug it off, it has great value as a romance movie if thats what you want to make it. There are a few moments where Cameron has you about to burst with anticipation, wanting to yell at the character to not do it, and then he turns it into an epic save and the romance continues.

    Stricly speaking, Avatar has all the tricks in it. It gets the viewers to feel emotion with the actors and get involved in the story. Too many people are focusing on the plot or the graphics or whatever it may be, they are focusing too much on one single point of the movie, but when taken as a whole, Avatar is the best movie to come out in a long time.

    Hey, I see the viewpoints of everyone and understand, but take it as a whole and just enjoy it. Seriously, what movie have you seen lately thats better than it anyway?

  • diansofia

    Why so sour? A lot of work went into this movie and I appreciate the core creativity that was Cameron's vision. If it was so easy someone else would've come up with a movie like that (and by like that I mean the minute detail of Pandora: zoology, biology, sociology, culture and the physics they worked into the hypothetical military gear) and the execution and delivery is simply, breathtaking.

    I didn't find anything preachy… it's just another angle to look at one of our own terrestrial/global issues i.e. the environment; a familiar theme much like what you find in Happy Feet or whatever else like Fern Gully. The message is the same, not a new idea being preached just a general theme.

    Yes, you can criticize it to death for being boring/condescending/same old story/Dances With Wolves heck, just lighten up and enjoy a movie– what do you go to a cinema for if not the experience? So they have mechanized armored robots you happen to find cool– why is that bad? I didn't find it outstandingly awesome, but it made for great cinema.

    Maybe you can stop watching movies and join the UN Commission or something.

  • diansofia

    Why so sour? A lot of work went into this movie and I appreciate the core creativity that was Cameron's vision. If it was so easy someone else would've come up with a movie like that (and by like that I mean the minute detail of Pandora: zoology, biology, sociology, culture and the physics they worked into the hypothetical military gear) and the execution and delivery is simply, breathtaking.

    I didn't find anything preachy… it's just another angle to look at one of our own terrestrial/global issues i.e. the environment; a familiar theme much like what you find in Happy Feet or whatever else like Fern Gully. The message is the same, not a new idea being preached just a general theme.

    Yes, you can criticize it to death for being boring/condescending/same old story/Dances With Wolves heck, just lighten up and enjoy a movie– what do you go to a cinema for if not the experience? So they have mechanized armored robots you happen to find cool– why is that bad? I didn't find it outstandingly awesome, but it made for great cinema.

    Maybe you can stop watching movies and join the UN Commission or something.

  • avatar review

    I think the reviewer's comments have some merit in the simplicity of the plot. Yet we need to remember it is a movie. Yes a “I have nothing to do tonight so will go watch a movie”. To try and derive a sense of direction and meaning to the issues that confront the world will not be solved by watching Avatar. Come on!!!

    I enjoyed the move, took on the themes of environment, spirit of the people and their bond to the planet, etc. Would watch it again.

  • avatar review

    I think the reviewer's comments have some merit in the simplicity of the plot. Yet we need to remember it is a movie. Yes a “I have nothing to do tonight so will go watch a movie”. To try and derive a sense of direction and meaning to the issues that confront the world will not be solved by watching Avatar. Come on!!!

    I enjoyed the move, took on the themes of environment, spirit of the people and their bond to the planet, etc. Would watch it again.

  • Luke

    I think you're wrong. I think this story was told wonderfully. See it again, knowing what to expect. Try to love these characters for who they are… not who they are supposed to be… and trust me, you'll have a wonderful time at the moves.

  • Luke

    I think you're wrong. I think this story was told wonderfully. See it again, knowing what to expect. Try to love these characters for who they are… not who they are supposed to be… and trust me, you'll have a wonderful time at the moves.

  • Carlos Gomez

    hahahahahahahahahaha, funny.
    I guess envy is talking from this guys mouth.
    (Excuse my little english, Im only good at it while reading)
    Avatar is a great movie.
    It is visuable amazing, YOU want to be there, YOU want to touch those animals, plants, you want to climb those threes and flying mountains.
    It has great and solid characteres. Neitiri is incredible -and the actress does a great job-, its the first time in very long time that I dont get sick of the woman character in a adventure movie. Same with the main character. He is sweet, charming and a leader, but he has soul and is very human.
    The storyline is very well written, when it was so hard get Jack on his Avatar again after the general took him from it the first time… etc.
    I could keep going, but is late, I you better see with your own eyes.

    PD. Please Mr. MARC EASTMAN dont let your mediocrity eat you alive, and dont tarnish others people great job because of your envy.

  • Carlos Gomez

    hahahahahahahahahaha, funny.
    I guess envy is talking from this guys mouth.
    (Excuse my little english, Im only good at it while reading)
    Avatar is a great movie.
    It is visuable amazing, YOU want to be there, YOU want to touch those animals, plants, you want to climb those threes and flying mountains.
    It has great and solid characteres. Neitiri is incredible -and the actress does a great job-, its the first time in very long time that I dont get sick of the woman character in a adventure movie. Same with the main character. He is sweet, charming and a leader, but he has soul and is very human.
    The storyline is very well written, when it was so hard get Jack on his Avatar again after the general took him from it the first time… etc.
    I could keep going, but is late, I you better see with your own eyes.

    PD. Please Mr. MARC EASTMAN dont let your mediocrity eat you alive, and dont tarnish others people great job because of your envy.

  • areyouscreening

    To a certain extent I appreciate your point of view, and I did give the idea that as a popcorn bit of fun it was actually not bad. Thus, generally, it has some stars in the rating and not none.

    It is, for the very simple what it is, a fine enough time, it just has a lot of flaws.

    As to your comment more generally, can you not just find every negative review of every movie and say, “Hey man, it's just a movie. Why so sour?”

    In other words, your comment doesn't seem to really aim at this review, but just the very idea that there are negative reviews.

  • areyouscreening

    To a certain extent I appreciate your point of view, and I did give the idea that as a popcorn bit of fun it was actually not bad. Thus, generally, it has some stars in the rating and not none.

    It is, for the very simple what it is, a fine enough time, it just has a lot of flaws.

    As to your comment more generally, can you not just find every negative review of every movie and say, “Hey man, it's just a movie. Why so sour?”

    In other words, your comment doesn't seem to really aim at this review, but just the very idea that there are negative reviews.

  • Carlos

    PD2. And you gave the same number of stars to It's complicated that to Avatar? That MUST be a joke.

  • Carlos

    PD2. And you gave the same number of stars to It's complicated that to Avatar? That MUST be a joke.

  • diansofia

    Hey, it's your site– If you're posting a negative review, be prepared to justify your opinion.

    I just went to look for Avatar reviews because I thought it was really great and I wanted to check out if 3D would be worth going and found this instead. I was surprised that someone else wasn't amazed and what's more was offended by Avatar so I commented.

    Also, I never said “Hey man it was just a movie”, I said it was great cinema and a lot of hard work went into it– I'm gonna go watch it in 3D too, everyone says it's the way to go!

  • diansofia

    Hey, it's your site– If you're posting a negative review, be prepared to justify your opinion.

    I just went to look for Avatar reviews because I thought it was really great and I wanted to check out if 3D would be worth going and found this instead. I was surprised that someone else wasn't amazed and what's more was offended by Avatar so I commented.

    Also, I never said “Hey man it was just a movie”, I said it was great cinema and a lot of hard work went into it– I'm gonna go watch it in 3D too, everyone says it's the way to go!

  • areyouscreening

    I justified my opinion in the review, and rather well I thought. The point is that I'd love to defend my opinion, except that you didn't attack it. You only attacked, basically, any negative review of anything.

    No, you didn't say the exact words, “Hey man it was just a movie,” but, “it was great cinema and a lot of hard work went into it,” doesn't particularly change the sentiment.

    “It's great cinema,” doesn't really tell me anything, and therefore doesn't really provide a lot of support.

  • areyouscreening

    I justified my opinion in the review, and rather well I thought. The point is that I'd love to defend my opinion, except that you didn't attack it. You only attacked, basically, any negative review of anything.

    No, you didn't say the exact words, “Hey man it was just a movie,” but, “it was great cinema and a lot of hard work went into it,” doesn't particularly change the sentiment.

    “It's great cinema,” doesn't really tell me anything, and therefore doesn't really provide a lot of support.

  • Pingback: Best Movies Of 2009

  • Anonymous

    Avatar is a fantastic film. James Cameron’s labor of love is revolutionary, and this is a film you will remember for years to come.more to see here : http://www.talentwatchers.com/

  • Heim

    If they all got nuked at the end, I don't think it would have mattered to me. The exceedingly predictable one-dimensional characters got in the way of the scenery.

    So what was left was the plot and the visuals. …At least the visuals were well done.

  • http://www.nikemaxsale.com air max shoes

    Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really reasonable and you guy give us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum!

  • http://www.mbt-outlet-store.com walking shoes

    Hhe article’s content rich variety which make us move for our mood after reading this article. surprise, here you will find what you want! Recently, I found some wedsites which commodity is colorful of fashion. Such as http://www.always11.net that worth you to see. Believe me these websites won’t let you down.

  • Pingback: Avatar Blu-Ray Review

  • http://www.cheapbootsforsale.us ugg boots

    Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really reasonable and new balance shoes you guy give us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum!

  • Joel V

    I definitely agree, it didn’t seem like it was going to be the best movie and there were some parts that didn’t make sense, but when I saw the movie, I was hooked and quickly got over the flaws. The graphics were amazing whether it was in 3D or regular! Now I love watching this movie. I just finished watching Avatar on DISH Online and I can’t get enough of it! Normally I would have access to a lot of shows and movies, but just for being a customer of DISH Network, I have access to thousands more shows and movies! I love DISH Online, and that is why I encourage anyone and everyone to take a look at dishonline.com, I know that it has something to offer to everyone, so take a chance!