web
counter
 

In Here Is the Dream

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (201)



avatar3.jpg

This review is being republished, as Avatar is set today to be re-released into theaters.

James Cameron spent the last fifteen years and the GDP of a small country in order to build the technology necessary to make his vision of a world and story a reality. The result is breathtaking.

It is a simple story in outline form, and one that is familiar to science fiction and told from start to finish in the trailer. Humanity has all but exhausted Earth. It stumbles upon a new unspoilt world, with strange new resources to loot, primitive aliens of hidden depth. The company wants to burn everything down, the scientists are appalled, the natives fight, our protagonist helps. But that summary is all facts and no soul.

Pandora is a fully realized world, the intricacy and detail astonishing. The exploration unfolds with a sense of wonder, joy, and danger reminiscent of the first half of Jurassic Park. Composites of dinosaurs, tigers, horses, wolves, monkeys, and yes, dragons. They’re not just obstacles or eye candy, they each have their own behavior, their own essence as living and breathing creatures. The details are monumental: mile high trees stretch into the sky, floating mountains hang in midair, waterfalls tumbling down off their rocky flanks into oblivion. The details are tiny and delicate: enormous plants sucking down into the soil with a plop when touched, the gentle bioluminescence of the flowers at night, delicate semi-sentient spores floating like oversized dandelion dust on the breeze. The genius isn’t in any one thing, or in the scenic perfection, it’s in the uniqueness, the creativity. This is not Vancouver or Mexico shot on location. By force of vision, will and technology Cameron has dreamed something magnificently alien into existence.

The Na’avi themselves are beautiful creations, all long limbs, grace, and violence. Cameron manages to imbue them with a nuanced culture, emphasizing their primitiveness and balance with their world, but never crossing that line into noble savage cliche. They’re grounded in reality, their notions of balance not rooted in the spiritual but in the nature of a world in which each life form can interface with every other. If you can feel the pain and joy of the life around you, you have no moral choice, no selfish choice even, other than empathy.

Our protagonists walk amongst them, remotely plugged into avatars, vat-grown bodies with DNA mixed from natives and the human operators. Though entirely computer generated, the Na’avi look real, not CGI. Their faces look like their human operators warped into alien form. It’s not just a clever and expensive trick, it means that the audience can tell each of the aliens apart just as they can tell human faces apart. Their faces emote with the detail of human expression, the actors’ every tic mapped onto their Na’avi counterpart, something impossible to coax out of makeup or create from scratch with computer artists.

Sam Worthington carries his own as Jake Sully, the paralyzed former marine who becomes the first to ever gain true acceptance with the Na’avi. He begins happy to provide intelligence to the military, but slowly realizes that he’s found something in the Na’avi world that he’s been missing his entire life. His world becomes inverted, his life with the Na’avi the real one, his groggy shoveling of food and filing of reports in a crippled human body the nightmare world. His body atrophies, his desperation grows. Sigourney Weaver plays the chief scientist, who slowly morphs from grudgingly accepting Jake to lovingly nurturing his real body while he’s under.

The film never feels long even though it runs for over two and a half hours. It catapults you directly into a rich world and manages an exquisite balance of pounding action mixed with reflective quiet. The exploration of the world continues throughout, comfortable enough with its richness that it doesn’t feel a need to mechanistically treat everything interesting as a Chekov’s gun.

All the same, the film is not perfect. The villains are far too one-dimensional, veering towards the cartoonish. Anyone who doesn’t know that the arrogant asshole meathead with facial scars is the villain of the piece the moment he walks on screen probably still believes in Santa Claus. The scientists are saints, the corporate drones are selfish profit-mongers, the soldiers (except for the two well known actors) are violent war-mongers. There was a chance in the story for more gray areas. Humanity is dying on a dead world, why not flood Pandora with desperate human refugees instead of clear antagonists and protagonists? The themes still work, the story even largely still works, it just could have been much deeper than it was without breaking with the vision of the film.

The motif of “avatars” is layered throughout the film, the distinction between mind and body. The mind is the spark that drives the body, the essence behind the dumb meat and metal. The scientists interface with their Na’avi bodies, the soldiers their power armor, the Na’avi their horses and dragons. The difference of course is in the give and take, whether the link is the enslavement of a tool or the partnership between two beings. The core of the story is the difference between a culture of slavery and a culture of empathy.

James Cameron has accomplished something truly extraordinary in Avatar. He has created in the flesh something completely new. It resonates with the influence of a hundred science fiction novels from Hyperion to The Dragonriders of Pern. The story could be more nuanced but so could that of The Lord of the Rings or every fairy tale ever written. We make movies so that others can see the visions we dream with their own mind’s eye. James Cameron has painted his upon this film.

Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here.









Add One Media Viewing Option, Subtract Another | In with New, Out with the Old | Steve Carell Continues Descent into Mediocrity | Put Down the Coffee, Pick Up a Decent Script













Comments

Yes! Ok, off to read the review now.

Posted by: the_wakeful at December 18, 2009 2:44 PM

i have absolutely no interest in that movie, but it kind offers many options to mock it. I like this approach:

http://www.titanic-magazin.de/uploads/pics/fadder-cameron.jpg

Posted by: moloteanie at December 18, 2009 2:49 PM

Hmmmm, very well written sir, though I feel you were way too kind. Yes, it was pretty, and awesome, and fun as hell, but the story was simply Pocahontas In Space and the dialogue was the cheesiest I've heard since T4. I really expected Sam Worthington to offer someone his heart, literally.

but never crossing that line into noble savage cliche.

I am in direct opposition of this statement, as I feel that the Na'vi were exactly the noble savages and never anything more.

But that's just my two cents. I still enjoyed it and will still see it again, I am sure.

Posted by: the_wakeful at December 18, 2009 2:53 PM

Great, well-written review, SLW. I have no idea when this will reach Bermuda, but it's on my agenda...

Posted by: malikvlc at December 18, 2009 2:55 PM

Wow. I'm glad it was good. For $500 Mil, it better be. It seems obscene to spend that much money on a movie, but I guess if it brings a little beauty and happiness into the world, so be it. Besides, SOMEONE has to stimulate the economy, it might as well be Cameron.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at December 18, 2009 2:57 PM

Great review. I really didn't have much interest in the film, but I have developed some over the last couple of weeks.

Looking forward to it.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at December 18, 2009 2:57 PM

My heart is still waiting for this sucked kinda review, which I am sure this idiotic masturbation film sourly deserve. Where can I find it if not here? SO so disappointed.

As an aspiring writer I don't think I'd see anything that pays so little an attention to the story. I fit's mythic, fine. If its not interesting, meh. FAIL.


Posted by: yocean at December 18, 2009 3:11 PM

Well thank you, Mr. Wilson. Heh. Wilson. I'm glad to hear you liked the flick and will be doing my civic duty as an American to help finance this film. However I have no idea when since I'm scheduled to go shopping tomorrow. But the reassurance that the 2.5 plus hour run time never dragged sealed the deal for me. I hope to see this soon.

Posted by: Kayanne at December 18, 2009 3:11 PM

Ferngully...anyone?

Posted by: Drix at December 18, 2009 3:14 PM

I was trying to think of something clever or witty to express my excitement after reading this review but its friday afternoon and I'm rotting a my desk craving a Smithwicks and all I can come up with is, "I have a boner".

Posted by: pete at December 18, 2009 3:19 PM

I just...can't...care. If he'd spent a few of the years on an intriguing premise things could be different.

It's actually quite a mental strain Mr. Cameron's put on me. It's like I'm....apoplectically indifferent. I don't know what to do with that! Ack!

Posted by: Jay at December 18, 2009 3:21 PM

Darn... someone used the "Pocahontas... IN SPACE" line before I got to it. Shotgun "Dances with Smurfs."

Posted by: Royalewithcheese at December 18, 2009 3:22 PM

I love reading your reviews, Steven. Whether or not people agree with your pov, it can't be denied you have a way with words.

You've solidified my desire to see this film.

Posted by: Cindy at December 18, 2009 3:24 PM

"Dances with Smurfs."

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: Jay at December 18, 2009 3:24 PM

I wanna see it now! I'll need to do so ASAP when I get back from London (been studying abroad for the semester, go home tomorrow).

Posted by: Woody at December 18, 2009 3:25 PM

Nice review, Steven! I have to say you liked it more than I did, but you still managed to put what I appreciated and disliked about the movie with a lot more eloquence than I've managed since seeing it.

When people ask you how you enjoyed the most hyped up movie of the season, it's very awkward to try to explain on the spot why you didn't love it or hate it, but liked it. It's as if our capacity for moderate enjoyment of a film must be inversely proportional to the size of its marketing campaign.

Posted by: ShinyKate at December 18, 2009 3:27 PM

I saw it at midnight...in 3D! Ummm...yeah...very very pretty but nothing more...Ferngully jokes were made (@Drix) as were Pocahontas jokes and Dances with Smurfs (got to love south park), and it was pretty.

It was also a billion cliches of James Cameron, I honestly expected an "I'll be back" too.

Posted by: Luke at December 18, 2009 3:28 PM

"If you can feel the pain and joy of the life around you, you have no moral choice, no selfish choice even, other than empathy."

...mad me happy and sad and sigh.

Posted by: JustMoFo at December 18, 2009 3:39 PM

Very lovely words, Steven, but I'm with Drix...

Ferngully, The Return....in 3-D!!!!!!

Simply no interest...too much hype. When they inserted it forcefully into "Bones" a couple weeks ago, that really put the last nail in the coffin for me.

Posted by: dammitjanet at December 18, 2009 3:40 PM

How could such a terrible trailer be reflective of something so "breathtaking"?

Is it because trailers suck? Because, they do. Trailers make everything look like shit. I remember thinking that Babe resembled a corny CBS comedy (redundant?).

But Stephen Lloyd Wilson has credibility with excellent reviews of classic science fiction (like Road Warrior the other day). You may have convinced me to check this out.

Posted by: Bluesilver at December 18, 2009 3:43 PM

I'm supposed to see this tomorrow and am trying to decide which theater to go to... the 2D is much more convenient, but I don't want to miss out on the full movie experience if the 3D makes a significant difference. Full disclosure, 3D sometimes bugs my eyes out. Any thoughts?

Posted by: Erin at December 18, 2009 3:46 PM

Isn't Dances With Smurfs from South Park?

Posted by: Snath at December 18, 2009 3:47 PM

Allow me to quote my Twitter account:

"See it see it see it see it see it see it see it see it see it see it see it!!!"

I had sky high expectations thanks to the hype and the film exceeded every single one.

Just because there's a mysterious culture of colorful creatures living in a tree in total harmony with nature and one scene with bulldozers does not mean it's Ferngully. As an avid fan of Ferngully, I find the comparison distasteful. At least Ferngully's environmental message wasn't as ham-fisted as Cameron's anti-war message.

That's probably the weakest part of the film: the anti-Iraq/Afghanistan War message. The film was clicking along so nicely as light, fluffy fantasy when BAM! - Happy Feet-like political twist, right ahead. You'd think with all that fancy equipment Cameron could have avoided a head-on collision, but he sure has a thing for sinking ridiculously expensive ships.

Still, I stand by my Twitter review. See it, in 3-D, while sober. Then fall in love with a small, industrious race of badass weapon-wielding, dragon-like creature riding warriors with a deep spiritual cores and lovely glow-in-the-dark bodies. It also has the single most-moving sequence I've seen in a film this year: a prayer circle. Stunning. I shan't say anymore.

Posted by: Robert at December 18, 2009 3:49 PM

99 gallons of ice cream plus one gallon of shit equals 100 gallons of shit.

A stunningly visual masterpiece that will forever alter how a sci-fi film should look ("look" remember). That's the ice cream. Unfortunately, in this case, it was coupled with a hot, steaming pile of script that James Cameron squatted over and produced with a clentched, beet-red face. It's only saving grace is that it came from his rectum in a single piece.

For a bitchy site with a decade-long vendetta against the supposed story and character failings of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it's disappointing to find you dick riding another hack with an unlimited budget and lots of pretty, shiny things that is all it needs to extract a billion dollars from the slathering masses.

You can climb on down from Cameron's dick now. Your money's on the nightstand.

Posted by: leftylad at December 18, 2009 3:52 PM

Apparently it is, Snath.

And I just realized my real problem. They're goddamn Gungans. The Gungan battle was the least interesting climactic battle in the series (of COURSE including the Ewok battle). Like they took the Army of the Republic (and Cameron is totally using clone gunships here) and said "no, no, let's not fight Wookiees, let's go back to the Gungans! That'll be cool, right?" This flying Banshee thing sounds a little like what they were riding over the water on Kamino.

Now it all makes sense to me. The trailers made me feel like I was watching the least interesting aspects of Star Wars I-III...but with all the Star Wars taken out! Thank you for letting me come to this analytical breakthrough. I feel better now.

Posted by: Jay at December 18, 2009 3:53 PM

I just can't shake the vision I have of former furries painting themselves blue, going to conventions and having sex with each other, while in costume.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 18, 2009 3:55 PM

Still want to see this. If nothing more than to kill an afternoon by taking in some awesome visuals. There are worse movies out there this season.

Posted by: Peanut_Butter_And_James at December 18, 2009 3:56 PM

Kayanne:
Does Fox pay you by the word or by the comment, or...?

Posted by: Jim Doggie at December 18, 2009 3:58 PM

BWeaves:
That
Will
Be
Awesome!

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at December 18, 2009 4:03 PM

Thank you, Cracked.

Posted by: Snath at December 18, 2009 4:04 PM

I was totally into this until I heard it was filmed in Vancouver. Takes me right out of the experience.

Posted by: logar at December 18, 2009 4:18 PM

It's a combination of every movie you've ever seen, but that's not really a bad thing. It's completely engrossing and a fun watch.

Posted by: kelsy at December 18, 2009 4:19 PM

Wait...there's no Santa Claus?

Posted by: John W at December 18, 2009 4:20 PM

I was totally into this until I heard it was filmed in Vancouver. Takes me right out of the experience.

Why would that take you out of it? It's not like you can recognize Vancouver in the film.

"God dammit, that fifty-foot neon flower is totally the one they have by the bus station. And that dragon is clearly just Homeless Jim with a different hat on."

Posted by: Snath at December 18, 2009 4:23 PM

Just a random thought or two ...
(Caveats: I'm not a deep thinky as several on this site, nor as word-crafty-mixy.
I'm not a 'fan' of sci-fi or comic book stuff. I'm no movie critic)

I find myself (whilst reading the comments here and on a few other sites this morning) slightly dismayed at the how &/or why of the opinions, where one
tries SO HARD to find the similarity to to some other event... and make it a big
fat negative most of the time. While trying to glue the discussed movie/script
to some true historical event, or some other movie good or bad, there's this
vitriol (I think that's the word I'm looking for) to try and tear it to chunks and
leave it for the dogs. So I ask, what's up with that [rhetoricaly]?
Can't someone go plunk their butt down in a seat and grab that overpriced
popped corn, and be carried along by a 'story' and be dazzled by the nifty
visuals / technology re shiny, blue, tall aliens who cavort in a forest?
I know, I know. That's what we do around here - review movies. I'm just not sure any of the movie goings-on have to actually MEAN jack shizz.

Anyways. I'll go see it, in 3D and plan to just take it in and to marvel at where
all the production money was spent.

Posted by: Ms MoMo at December 18, 2009 4:26 PM

Why, logar? Do you live here?

Posted by: Brenton at December 18, 2009 4:31 PM

Jim Doggie Fox in no way provides monetary compensation for my comments. I cannot confirm nor deny, however, if my payment is received by their associates not pulling the trigger on the gun that is placed to my temple.

By the way, have you seen Sunday Night's Animation Domination. *sobs*


(But in reality, M. Doggie, I'm just trying to psyche myself up because I'll have to see it Monday night with my friend. I, like many of the folks here, are ambivalent towards the movie.)

*lone gun shot*

All comments under the handle of "Kayanne" will now be commandeered by the Fox Corporation, who, under no circumstances will make an apology for the Glee delay.

Posted by: Kayanne at December 18, 2009 4:36 PM

OK, I get that it cost around a bazillion dollars, but are those blue people supposed to be remotely believable as anything other than cartoons? Is it just that the trailers aren't doing much on my small TV? I almost feel bad that I'm not excited about this movie.

Posted by: lainiefig at December 18, 2009 4:36 PM

Nope... Just a lame joke based on the fact that many Hollywood films are shot there, and they always have the same background flora and fauna. Avatar is completely CGI... Sometimes I post things just to amuse myself. I'd love to live in Vancouver, though.

Posted by: logar at December 18, 2009 4:37 PM

Humanity is dying on a dead world, why not flood Pandora with desperate human refugees instead of clear antagonists and protagonists? The themes still work, the story even largely still works, it just could have been much deeper than it was without breaking with the vision of the film.

. . . Children of Men Avatars?

Posted by: caroline at December 18, 2009 4:37 PM

Awww, if SLW is going to unzip and hang it all out there with praise that would embarrass a hooker before a john, it may be the real thing.

I'll at least give it a try now.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at December 18, 2009 4:39 PM

I know there's a lot of "Well, psha and good day to you Mr. Cameron!" going on here and elsewhere about this movie, and I completely understand that. This is an extremely overhyped movie, and James Cameron is just a wee bit full of himself. But seriously... fuck it. I want to and will see this movie. I'm even excited about it. Cameron has built up a lot of credit in my book. I mean, goddamn it, he made Aliens! My favorite and one of the best movies ever! And Terminator 2! And other, also good movies! Fuck the hype! Damn the man!

Posted by: Katers at December 18, 2009 4:40 PM

Great review. I'm looking forward to it even more than I was after the cracked review.

http://www.cracked.com/article/240_avatar-horribly-written-way-too-long-totally-worth-it/

Posted by: lwoodpdowd at December 18, 2009 4:41 PM

Ms MoMo, It's one thing to make a modern parable of Dances with Wolves, or Ferngully, or Pocahontas...IN SPACE, but you have to do it well. Being compared to these films is not a bad thing in and of itself, it's bad because the writing was just so goddamn lazy. Also, with such an amazing world at his disposal, Cameron could have created a much more enthralling story.

Posted by: the_wakeful at December 18, 2009 4:42 PM

When the new Yankee Stadium opened, with a price tag of $1.5 billion, I was astonished to read that the place had obstructed-view seats. How could you spend that much money on a ballpark and not give every seat a perfect view of the field? For another $500 million they probably could have, but ... well, you know the Yankees, notorious cheap-ass bastards.

Similarly, are you telling me Cameron spent $500 million and wants to me to invest nearly three hours of my time for a story as simple-minded as that? Whatsa matter, James, you cheapjack fuck? Why didn't you pony up another $100 mil and get a good and intriguing and novel humans-confront-aliens story like, I dunno, "District 9" did?

"Ferngully." Heh.

Pass.

Posted by: , at December 18, 2009 4:48 PM

KAYANNE! Why'd you have to go and play the martyr? *sobs* Someone call Cartoon Network and get her on an Adult Swim IV stat!

Posted by: ThunderSacTriumph at December 18, 2009 4:51 PM

Thanks for filling me with some hope. The husband is taking me to see this at some point, and I was hoping we wouldn't be horribly disappointed. Definitely going for the 3-D. Might as well do up the visuals.

Posted by: Reba at December 18, 2009 4:52 PM

Couldn't have said it better, ",". The movie's 2 1/2 hours long, so why not spend what you would have spent on that last 1/2 hour on hiring a scriptwriter who can write a better story that fits in 2 hours? I never get that whole "if the CGI's good, why not watch it despite the bad script" argument, because if James Cameron has enough money to pay the many, many animators to make a beautiful work of art, he also has enough money to hire writers to do the same thing. There's no excuse not to.

Posted by: Royalewithcheese at December 18, 2009 5:01 PM

This review reeks of foliage.

I'll catch it on HBO someday.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 18, 2009 5:03 PM

the_wakeful: Ive been saying that about the plot since I saw the trailers, and I certainly agree with you.

Posted by: Pandemic at December 18, 2009 5:04 PM

"[...] And that dragon is clearly just Homeless Jim with a different hat on."
Posted by: Snath at December 18, 2009 4:23 PM

HAAAAHAHAHHA! Snath, you just made me laugh so hard I scared the cat.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at December 18, 2009 5:28 PM

I saw this in during lunch with a few friends of mine. The opening half-hour was incredible, the last half-hour (the big battle) was OK. Everything sandwiched in the middle was excruciating to watch. I hated this movie by the end.

It's a typical 'civilized man meets the indigenous people to learn their ways' tale that just dragged on for way too long. I was impressed beyond belief, but once you get past that, you realize the story is just not there.

It's the fact that he's pushing the one-dimensionality of the noble people-of-the-land straight down your throat that's detrimental to the film.

It's frustrating.

Posted by: Paul at December 18, 2009 5:32 PM

Right on about the story. It was about as subtle as a train wreck, but this movie MUST be seen in 3D. It was without a doubt the most spectacular thing I have ever seen on a screen. Enchanting and epic and stunning and surreal. The trailers are cheesy and full of lose. They do not represent the film! The 3D movie is an experience unlike anything you've ever witnessed in a movie theater.

I've been thinking all day about what I saw, and will definitely be going back to see it in theaters.

Posted by: Parker at December 18, 2009 5:33 PM

But "Speed Racer" sucked, right?

Posted by: Jay at December 18, 2009 5:38 PM

Ok, the one thing that really bothered me about the movie, and it may seem petty, but: Everyone on that planet had 6 legs, except the na'vi, who had 4. What's the deal with that? Also the furry sex.

Posted by: Chugga at December 18, 2009 5:45 PM

Saw it yesterday: bored to tears. The movie telegraphs every single event hours in advance. This is not merely a dull script, it's utterly juvenile. There are, to be sure, pretty pictures, but I got most of those in the trailer. The floating mountains thing is risible.

And James Cameron's continuing obsession with Space Marines/Navy Seals/military porn in general is incredibly tedious.

The perfect audience for this is 12 year olds. Anyone older is going to snort their softdrink through their nose at some point in the film, because the storyline and dialogue are so bad it's funny.

It's certainly ripe for MST3K treatment.

Posted by: rocky at December 18, 2009 5:48 PM

Oh, also, from the review: "The details are monumental: mile high trees stretch into the sky, floating mountains hang in midair, waterfalls tumbling down off their rocky flanks into oblivion.

Never mind that none of them make any sense. Where did that water in the waterfall come from? Magic? I was bored enough to ask questions like this all the way through.

Posted by: rocky at December 18, 2009 5:51 PM

um. . . . . FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!!! sure hope its good. Seriously my parents would tell the terrorist to go ahead and shoot me in the face if they asked for 500 million dollars.......

Posted by: Nunzio Badalamenti at December 18, 2009 5:52 PM

I'm going to see this because Sam Worthington brings the pretty. And I like the pretty. Even when it's all blue and alien like...

Also:

And that dragon is clearly just Homeless Jim with a different hat on.

His name is Charles, not Jim, and he prefers to be called Homeless Chuck.

Posted by: Kelly at December 18, 2009 5:56 PM

Nonono, you're thinking Dreadlock Jimmy from San Jose, and he clearly doesn't play the dragon. How would he even get to Vancouver? He's a hobo, and he lives 1000 miles away. Come on now.

Posted by: the_wakeful at December 18, 2009 6:03 PM

I can't imagine this is any more than a CGI explodegasm and I have no interest in seeing it at all. Especially since this review was basically "look at the pretty!"

Posted by: Mr. Tusks at December 18, 2009 6:08 PM

Posted by: rocky at December 18, 2009 5:51 PM

That too! The only explanation I could come up with in my head to stop it bothering me was that it wasn't actually water, but some kind of heavier than air gas that was the result of the chemical reaction keeping the mountains afloat. Bullshit? Maybe, but at least it stopped me being as distracted.

Posted by: Chugga at December 18, 2009 6:13 PM

I'm with you, leftylad. With all of the elitist contempt this site has for LOTR I'm surprised their swooning for something that allegedly has double the spectacle and half of the story.

I rewatched the whole trilogy this week and was again mesmerized by everything, even the end credits of Return of the King. I know it's not great Aht, but damn is it as epic as the book. Avatar doesn't look nearly as interesting.

Posted by: Mr. Tusks at December 18, 2009 6:17 PM

I'm with you, leftylad. With all of the elitist contempt this site has for LOTR I'm surprised their swooning for something that allegedly has double the spectacle and half of the story.

I rewatched the whole trilogy this week and was again mesmerized by everything, even the end credits of Return of the King. I know it's not great Aht, but damn is it as epic as the book. Avatar doesn't look nearly as interesting.

Posted by: Mr. Tusks at December 18, 2009 6:17 PM

To be fair, fellas, this "site" doesn't have "elitist contempt" for LOTR. It's mainly just Dustin.

There is more than one person who writes reviews and such on here and they have differing opinions on a great many things.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at December 18, 2009 6:22 PM

I'm feeling ornery, so...

yocean- if you're an aspiring writer, I highly doubt you jettison "meh" and "FAIL" from your dialogue, along with an overall improving of your grammar. Listen, this film might not be a masterpiece, but you're an awful lot of film school away from touching it with the tip of your dick.

the_wakeful- who posts, then reads the review? This isn't some douchebag website, there are no "firsts!" here.

BarbadoSlim- you let me know what film you won't catch on HBO, what film you'll actually leave Grandma's basement for. Because evidently they're only produced once a decade. I'm looking forward to it. It should rock my cock off.

Bah.

Posted by: Midnight Monkey Madness at December 18, 2009 6:25 PM

Sound like a movie I have to see, but not like a film I have to see.

I really liked the review, though.

Posted by: Bizarro Sofía at December 18, 2009 6:36 PM

I wanted to watch this movie for the past week. A brief bit on MTV where Cameron demonstrated the process hooked me.

I plan on watching the film this weekend with no expectations or preconceptions.

The Critic's Dungeon awaits, the whips well-oiled and the nipple clamps' teeth sharp!

Posted by: The Wanderer at December 18, 2009 6:39 PM

Ok, the one thing that really bothered me about the movie, and it may seem petty, but: Everyone on that planet had 6 legs, except the na'vi, who had 4. What's the deal with that? Also the furry sex.

Chugga,
I haven't seen this yet, so I don't know what you mean by everyone instead of everything, but we're pretty much(thinking...yeah, pretty much) the only beings on this planet with 2 legs. Other than us, it's almost always 4 or more.

Posted by: pissant at December 18, 2009 6:47 PM

Midnight Monkey Madness, I posted before reading the review because I had been waiting for this all damn day and I was expressing my excitement.

Also: fuck you straight to hell, you are a random person on Internet and you do not have the authority to tell me what to do.

Hmmm... seems I'm feeling ornery as well.

Posted by: the_wakeful at December 18, 2009 7:06 PM

Pissant, I believe Chugga is referring to limbs rather than legs. In the movie, nearly every piece of fauna has six limbs, whereas the Na'vi only have 4. It kind of bothered me as well.

Posted by: the_wakeful at December 18, 2009 7:07 PM

Hmm. I guess I'll see it, but I'm not paying full-price for something I'm only vaguely interested in, and that's solely based on this review. I do want to see it in a theater, however. $2 it will be. In a couple of months.

Posted by: figgy at December 18, 2009 7:18 PM

pissant, the point is that we have the same body plan as other mammals, we just don't use two of our four limbs for walking. The Na'vi don't just have an extra pair of limbs they don't use, they actually seem to have have fewer limbs than every other species on the planet, even the monkey-like creatures we see early on who they're probably meant to be most closely related to.

And for those complaining about the floating mountains, I think the idea was supposed to be that "unobtanium" is some kind of room-temperature superconductor, so it was supposed to be a type of magnetic levitation. Probably if anyone did an actual calculation of how strong the field would have to be it'd turn out to be totally impossible (and would repel all those metal ships and walkers and stuff) though.

Posted by: Jesse M. at December 18, 2009 7:48 PM

Mountains come out of the sky, and they stand there!

Posted by: Jay at December 18, 2009 8:41 PM

As an aussie who does some actorin' from time to time, I was put off by Sam Worthington's faltering American accent. His flat Aussie vowels regularly poked through, just like they did in Terminator: Salvation.

Other than that: Wow. Better than a lot of shit I've seen lately but certainly not the Citizen Kane of this generation.

Posted by: Ed at December 18, 2009 9:00 PM

Well, "Citizen Kane" certainly rarely gets the "it's a silly story but AMAZING TO LOOK AT!" Punks just say it's boring. Phooey.

Posted by: Jay at December 18, 2009 9:02 PM

Aw, but I hate James Cameron. He took Alien and he made Action Action Space Shoot Gun out of it.

Posted by: Lucas at December 18, 2009 9:35 PM

Which is to say he took the best sci-fi/horror movie of all time and made the best sci-fi/action movie of all time. I still have mad respect for the guy despite Titanic and Avatar.

Posted by: Royalewithcheese at December 18, 2009 9:55 PM

SLW perfectly lists this movie's strengths and weaknesses. I liked this movie too for all the same reasons, but not as much. The movie was shiny, shiny but had the depth of a kiddie pool. There was no nuance and nothing to ponder when it was over. I'm OK with that. Comic book movies are like that. But the movie was out of my system about the same time as the popcorn I consumed while marveling at the pretty.

Posted by: ed newman at December 18, 2009 10:10 PM

It's well documented that I can't afford a TV, so a lot of the hype has passed me by. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the movie, but the cultural phenomenon is pretty interesting. If you want to see negative reviews yocean, The A.V. Club Talk wasn't glowing, and Kurt Loder seemed to despise the story.

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at December 18, 2009 10:29 PM

I have no doubt that this movie will be a feast for the eyes. Cameron's films have never been visually lacking. That said, one would think if you're investing half a BILLION dollars in a movie project you would make sure that each and every character had a deeply developed backstory- even if they audience isn't privy to all of it, hell for the money involved I want to know the names of ever plant, the brand name of adult diapers Jake Sully used, and the take-out bill of Singourney's last order of General Tso's chicken- 'coz I want my money's worth.

I'd also expect a story so well put together that you could take out all the bells and whistles and it could still be a compelling tale. This does not seem to be the case. The story seems very familiar as many others here have already mentioned.

I look at special effects as the garnish to the meal that is the story. It should enhance it, not the other way around. If your story is only a means to show off your pretty visual tricks and gimmicks, you're doing it wrong.

Posted by: bleujayone at December 18, 2009 10:35 PM

Just got back from it. Yes, it is visually stunning, but the terrible, overwrought, heavy-handed story made me hate this movie. Cliche upon cliche upon cliche.....two hours and forty minutes with (I counted) three slightly funny lines to lighten things up....I was desperate for it to end. If I don't care about the characters, I don't want to stay in their pretty world, and I couldn't wait to get out of this one.

Posted by: Xanthippe at December 18, 2009 10:37 PM

While it may be a movie with flaws, I just returned from seeing the 3D version, and I can sincerely say that I've never seen a movie that was so visually arresting and beautifully framed. It was breathtaking, and the best movie I'm seen in a long, long time.

A labor of love, yes. A vanity project, most definitely. A really fun thing to watch for two hours, absolutely. So what if it's not perfect? All stories are derivative of something else, if you look hard enough.

Posted by: cydeleida at December 18, 2009 10:55 PM

Okay. I want to see this. But I CANNOT get past that they named the blue people after the most obnoxious character in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

I'm sure I'll spend my entire theater experience waiting for one of the blue dudes to be all, "HEY! HEY!" and then make me press the C-Up button, and then they'll tell me something obnoxiously obvious and I'll want to die a little bit.

With all that money, he couldn't find an original name? Bitch, please.

Posted by: Bequafina at December 18, 2009 11:17 PM

I am kinda choking on the hyprocrisy going on, though it's kinda funny that even with so many Freshes at Rotten Tomatoes, there's hardly a review that's not heavily qualified. Mystifying, really.

Posted by: Jay at December 18, 2009 11:21 PM

"I have never felt so bored and numb in the face of so much goddamned fanfare."

Posted by: Jay at December 18, 2009 11:25 PM

Just saw it in 3D. Great review, I too wish it could have been more layered. Still, a lot of fun to watch.

Posted by: Mick J at December 19, 2009 1:19 AM

I really couldn't get beyond the whole "noble savage" business and the cliched story-telling.

In a 2+ hour long run-time, we didn't get a little back-story on our hero at all? No real clarity on why the earth was failing? While I know these two things might not seem that compelling. it would have been nice to know if our hero lost his legs via a drunk boating accident vs. saving a kitten from Dick Cheney. Same goes for earth.

For me, all the beautiful blue people and pretty flowers couldn't sustain my interest for very long. After a while I wanted a bit more of a compelling tale... something beyond "insert evil soldier here" and "insert noble, kind-hearted, nature loving Indian blue alien here." (Especially for a project that Cameron started writing the moment he exited the birth canal!)

This movie was Ferngully doing Disney's Pocohantas. And it was just as juvenile, trite, and slightly racist as both of those kid's films combined.

Maybe that's why I was a little insulted by the movie... It seemed to assume that I would be cowed by all the special effects and ignore cliched storytelling and that I would just go along with the whole "of course dreadlocked humanoids are primitive" thing.

Seriously, though, it is worth shelling out the cash to experience it in all it's bright-n-shinies on the big screen. Don't go for anything more than that.

Thanks for letting me jump in on the conversation.

Posted by: Sarah_Connor at December 19, 2009 1:21 AM

pissant and chugga:

Um, at least here in North America, only humans have two legs. Oh, and birds. Yeah, them too. But other than humans and birds, all the other life forms have scads.

Outside of North America, only humans and birds have two legs. Well, monkeys. Just people and birds and monkeys...

Posted by: Robb at December 19, 2009 2:09 AM

I'll see it tomorrow (I was always going to see it) but let me defend Cameron this way:

The man is a master visually, but none of his stories have ever been original.

Titanic was Romeo & Juliet aboard the tragic maiden voyage.

Terminator 2 was Frankenstein with Arnold's T-800 taking the place of Boris Karloff.

The Terminator was nothing more than your standard 50s horror movie with a sci-fi twist. Ditto for Aliens.

In fact, Cameron's greatest achievement has always been taking the tried-and-true and repackaging it in a brand new way. So I'm not in the least surprised that Avatar is the same way -- visually breathtaking but simple in story and depth.

More after I catch it tomorrow.

Posted by: Fredo at December 19, 2009 2:14 AM

I think the thing to get excited about is what other filmmakers will do with the technology he's forced Weta Digital to develop. The movie, not so much. But I'll see it.

Posted by: HappyGobo at December 19, 2009 3:14 AM

I'm just happy about the Hyperion reference. If the visuals for this are anywhere near as incredible as what I imagined for that series, then it's worth seeing for that alone.

Posted by: Alexandra at December 19, 2009 7:04 AM

And The Abyss, Freddo?

Posted by: idiosynchronic at December 19, 2009 7:10 AM

Mountains come out of the sky, and they stand there!

Posted by: Jay at December 18, 2009 8:41 PM
---
HAH! I'll be YOUR roundabout.

Posted by: , at December 19, 2009 10:52 AM

Good to hear it's great. Can't wait to see it.

Posted by: barf at December 19, 2009 11:29 AM

Pandora was already made: it's called Nagrand.

D3rp!

Posted by: Recondite at December 19, 2009 1:29 PM

Also, it looks like one grand either/or fallacy.

Spectacular reductivity!

Posted by: Recondite at December 19, 2009 1:41 PM

But... but... it's just SO RIDICULOUS!
What a convoluted concept. Okay, yes, humans ruin planet earth. Okay, yes, they find an "unspoilt" planet and want to plunder it, fine.

But WHYYY are the "primitive natives" WEIRD GIANT BLUE CAT PEOPLE? Someone please explain to me this fact. I can't move past it.

Besides it not scientifically making any sense, which I'm willing to give a pass, it just makes me wince to see more weirdly sexualized feline halfbreeds. It looks like furry porn. Blergh.

Not to mention: noble savage cliche, ding ding ding.

I get that this is supposed to be fun and explodey and silly, but I just don't understand why an exciting sci-fi adventure can't have a good, solid, decent story once and in a while. Sheesh.

Posted by: Tati at December 19, 2009 1:50 PM

I have YET to see any conclusive proof that this isn't THE. MOST. overrated piece of cowplop since that supposed remake of the Star Trek concept from some time back.

/of course, the Pajiban administration looooooooves it.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 19, 2009 3:07 PM

I think that you all are just pissed that this thing pulled a Star Trek, besides, it's Dustin who hates Lord of the Rings, Stripe and TK are the ones who like it.

I understand that people don't want something this gigantic to be any good, or even just want it to be boring, but I'm glad he accomplished something worthwhile, if cheesecake. James Cameron is a great director, and anyone who doesn't think at least one of his movies isn't the greatest of all time (Aliens, T2, and yes, Titanic) deserves a complimentary punch.

Also, despite my cynicism, I actually thought Titanic was a pretty good movie, though Good Will Hunting should have walked away with the Best Director/Screenplay/Picture Oscars.

I have YET to see any conclusive proof that this isn't THE. MOST. overrated piece of cowplop since that supposed remake of the Star Trek concept from some time back.

I pray everyday for your destruction.

Posted by: George at December 19, 2009 4:13 PM

Did anyone catch the similarity to the cartoons "The Littles?" Hmmm.

Posted by: readrick at December 19, 2009 4:51 PM

I pray everyday for your destruction.

Posted by: George at December 19, 2009 4:13 PM


---------------------------------------------

Make it happen son, make it happen.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 19, 2009 5:02 PM

George sez: I understand that people don't want something this gigantic to be any good, or even just want it to be boring, but I'm glad he accomplished something worthwhile, if cheesecake.

So here't the thing. Let's move past the ridiculous French theory that the director is auteur, and acknowledge that the bright shiny lovely detailed pictures were created by the good folks at Weta (and a score of other places_ and the turgid script w wooden dialogue and pretty one-dimensional acting was brought to you by James Cameron. I agree with some earlier posters - in the hands of another director this technology might amount to something.

BTW, I wanted this film to be good. I don't pay money to see films I think will be bad.

But it's bad. In five years, when the technology has moved on, it will seem about as relevant and revolutionary as the Abyss. And in case you haven't seen that recently, the worm thing looks silly.

Posted by: rocky at December 19, 2009 6:10 PM

Too many jaded fucks here. I'd say 90% of the haters have not seen the film (and all are obsessed with Fergully, like that was a brilliant masterpiece). So see it, or not, but shut up until you do. Bitch, bitch, bitch.

James Cameron spent $500 Million to make his vision a reality. And he did, and it's spectacular. What have you done today?

$500M, and it still only costs you the same as seeing Wild Hogs, or any other movie. It's his cash, not yours.

You think the plot's too simple? Go watch the Phantom Menace, then. That's convoluted up the ass, I'll bet you love it. Straightforward works well when entering a new world, "Alien" plot was killer alien is on the ship, "Star Wars" was rescue the princess.

There is a lot in this film, and it's worth the admission price. If you need some better dialouge after, then go see "A Single Man". If you need to laugh, go see "Hot Tub Time Machine". But if you want to see an amazing world, so see 'Avatar". If you walk out bored, or unimpressed, then I guess you should give up on movies for a few decades until they reach your loft standards.

Posted by: Doom70 at December 19, 2009 8:04 PM

oh come on you guys spend hours doing those tepid, unnecessary best of the aughts lists and you get some random dude to review THE MOST ANTICIPATED and HYPED UP film of the year?

COME ON!

dustin,where were you for this?would've loved to see you review avatar instead

Posted by: unevan at December 19, 2009 9:10 PM

forget the movie,

this passionless review would be pajiba's most disappointing item this year..

Posted by: sarah at December 19, 2009 9:18 PM

The Uncanny Valley is here and it's Sigorney Weaver as a giant blue cat! Did anyone else get the willies when you saw RIPLEY again?

Posted by: billyjean at December 19, 2009 9:46 PM

"James Cameron spent $500 Million to make his vision a reality. And he did, and it's spectacular. What have you done today?

$500M, and it still only costs you the same as seeing Wild Hogs, or any other movie. It's his cash, not yours..."


Hahahahahahaha I'll just leave this quote here.


And in answer to your query, I spent my day NOT jacking-off to James Cameron's 500 mil.

Yeah, "his" 500 mil.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 19, 2009 9:46 PM

Saw it loved it, the commercial do not do it justice. Best CGI since Jurassic park.

I felt like the story had some problems, but I'll be damned if it wasn't the best 3d special effects yet.

Posted by: Mebe at December 19, 2009 9:59 PM

Okay, not all of it was his $500M, but how many people can raise that kinda capital?

And, it was not Transformers (that was one for the simple-plot-haters! Explain that convoluted fuck-mess to me. There were no demolition ball testicles, or jive-talking robots in Avatar!). It was not Waterworld, or Phantom Menace, or Dune, or the Martix Sequels. It wasn't a re-hash of an old TV show of a remake, or singing chipmunks, or torture porn or a Genre Movie. Sure, it was similar to other things--there are no new stories, people--but it was spectacular.

If someone doesn't like something, whatever. There are all different tastes. I suppose what irks me is the peanut gallery armchair quarterbacking. Yeah, it cost a lot, and it shows. He wasn't using Government cash bailing out Wall Street. If some doofus spent $500 million on a statue in the middle of town, you'd go take a look.

Anyway. I liked it.

Posted by: Doom70 at December 19, 2009 10:03 PM

Okay

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 19, 2009 10:06 PM

Dustin hates Lord of the Rings, what kind of bullshit is that!!!

The whole family saw it today and my 6 and 7 year old boys were blown away. Lucky little bastards get to grow up with all the cool stuff.

Really haters need to get over it, I was surprised that it was so anti-millitary/corporation.

It was a good movie, and way more thoughtful than half of the tripe that costs almost as much. Transformers anyone!?!

Go see it in 3d, after the first few minutes you will not be able to take your eyes off the screen. I just said it and I will repeat, best computer graphics yet, the commercials make the cat people look like WOW rejects, in the theatre though they are completely convincing.

I also like that Cameron is continuing with his commitment to strong females as heros. That the make hero of the film is handicapped is done well and I had tears when he gets to use his new legs.

Haters, hate, and they can fuck off, this is a good movie.

Posted by: Mebe at December 19, 2009 10:07 PM

Wow, all the Avatartards really get defensive, don't they.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 19, 2009 10:10 PM

WAIT!! WAIT!

meant to say: Avatards

it just rolls off the keyboard.

Dose of reality you poor saps, you've been taken, bamboozled, Cameroned, dude has taken your money and he's laughing all the way to another BOOOOORING expedition to the Titanic.

Can't you SEE that?

Your opinion is flawed, the product of marketing manipulation.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 19, 2009 10:22 PM

Avatards is funny, no doubt. I liked it. I also don't think that I got ripped off. I had a good time and the whole family enjoyed it, so don't act like I got manipulated. I got a good time at the movies, exactly what I paid for.

Posted by: Mebe at December 19, 2009 10:31 PM

I have got to say that I'm disappointed - and I didn't have any particular expectations. Well, maybe I expected a different sort of story to go along with the beauty and visuals? Something not so predictable and CHEESY, perhaps?

Was the world beautiful? Sure. But the story, my goodness was it ever a combination of almost everything I've ever already seen. It went nowhere except where I expected, (poor) dialogue and all. It's a shame really. I could easily have walked out or died of boredom the second half.

Posted by: Cindy at December 19, 2009 11:23 PM

It does have story problems, I usually am pretty unforgiving in that respect, but that didn't bother me.

Come on, them flying the dinosaur-dragon-birds was pretty freaking cool.

Posted by: Mebe at December 19, 2009 11:26 PM

"I have never felt so bored and numb in the face of so much goddamned fanfare."

This nails it. I felt not one emotion. I saw some beauty, but I felt nothing.

Posted by: Cindy at December 19, 2009 11:28 PM

Also, keep in mind that the critics seeing Avatar are well aware of 10 years of Titanic. They gave it good reviews because James Cameron made an actual movie, and not some bullshit horror movie starring a grating starletard 1 year after everyone started hating your bullshit indie movie.

Posted by: George at December 19, 2009 11:36 PM

I also don't think that I got ripped off.

Posted by: Mebe at December 19, 2009 10:31 PM

Did you, or did you not pay to see this farce? Ah you DID? Popcorn, maybe some sodas?

Then you got ripped-off my friend.

You could have that money in your pocket right now, for gas, FOOD, BEER!

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 19, 2009 11:43 PM

Unfortunately,thanks to you Wal-Marters, Cameron will get the chance to finance his TRUE dream project:

Titaninator!

The year is 2258, the Titanic is converted into liquid metal and rises from the depths to wreak havoc on Earth.
Kate Winslet is attached.... to play the Titanic.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 19, 2009 11:51 PM

SLW, I have lost a great deal of respect for you. Tonight I was treated to a viewing of Avatar by a friend. I mention that he payed for it because this was the only thing keeping me from walking out and demanding my money back. What I just suffered through was a $500,000,000 smear of dog shit that Cameron has being dragging around on the bottom of his shoes for more than a decade now. You claim that the world is fully realized, but I say it is full of logic flaws, ridiculously outrageous evolutionary developments and blatantly suffers from being dreamed up by a man with too much money and not enough imagination. You claim he gave us something new, then immediately point out that it was influenced by hundreds of other stories and still ignore the stories that it blatantly copied and pasted from. You claim that the visuals are stunning, but I did not see anything that I couldn't find online from a talented student's portfolio. This film was a turd not due to hype, it was fecal matter because it never should have been made. For half a billion dollars the special effects (not so special when they run the entire length of the film, which brings up the question of whether this was a live-action or animated film) could have been more realistic and probably obtained more cheaply, thereby allowing for hiring better actors, better writers, and maybe most importantly, a better director and "visionary". I'll go back to my cheaply produced films now since at least when they suck I don't die a little inside thinking about how many starving people around the world could have been saved by the extra $470,000,000 that was shredded and poured on top of this atrocity.

Posted by: Mr. Teatime at December 20, 2009 12:45 AM

For those complaining about the film's storyline, a word from Alfred Hitchcock on content v. technique:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG43hjICE2U

What a g.

Posted by: Mick J at December 20, 2009 12:47 AM

In that case Mick J, can you please name me ONE movie Hitch ever did that as lacking for story, had such undeveloped characters, and had such cliched elements as what seem to be commonplace as in Cameron's projects? Granted some films were better than others, but Hitchcock wasn't called "The Master" for nothing.

Despite his words in that clip, Hitchcock's stories were almost always trailblazing and compelling. He was also famously known for running a fairly tight and efficient ship. Unlike Cameron who is famously known for running over schedule and over budget. And while like Cameron his movies featured visuals which have become staples in filmmaking, I can guarantee he's have never have spent the ungodly amounts of money Cameron has -especially for his last couple of projects.

So yes, While Hitchcock did indeed favor the "how" over the "what", I think you would be hard pressed to find any of his catalog as lacking in "what" to begin with.

Posted by: bleujayone at December 20, 2009 6:36 AM

It bugs me just a little that the greatest minds in filmdom (I don't know that I include Cameron there) can't come up with aliens that look truly and amazingly alien, like nothing at all on earth. Even the aliens in "District 9," though at least conjured to be revolting instead of cuddy for a change, looked exactly like (what else?) walking prawns.

I see an aliens movie, I wanna see something ALIEN, not cat people. Val Lewton did that 70 years ago.

Posted by: , at December 20, 2009 9:31 AM

It bugs me just a little that the greatest minds in filmdom (I don't know that I include Cameron there) can't come up with aliens that look truly and amazingly alien, like nothing at all on earth.

Some of the non-intelligent aliens in Avatar were pretty alien-looking, they were designed by the sci-fi artist Wayne Barlowe who created an amazing alien world in the book Expedition (sadly out of print but you can see some of the paintings from the book on this section of his website). I imagine that for Cameron, entertainment value takes precedence over realism, so he probably figured audiences would be more emotionally engaged with aliens that were more human-looking and whose faces could capture the nuances of an actual actor's motion-captured performance (and the motion capture in this movie really is way beyond what we'd seen in all those Zemeckis movies)

Posted by: Jesse M. at December 20, 2009 3:30 PM

You're saying The Birds had a deep nuanced story, Bleujayone? Bitch please.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at December 20, 2009 3:37 PM

Compared to Avatar, The Birds is freaking Ulysses.

And I also don't recall The Birds costing a the annual GNP of Belgium to make and promote either.

Bitch, indeed. Go back to wanking off your GoBots, "Optimus".

Posted by: bleujayone at December 20, 2009 4:43 PM

I'm sure this movie was fucking awesome if you turned your brain off before you put your 3D glasses on. Unfortunately, I did not.

It was an hour too long and didn't have a single good line of dialog.

I do have to say, Cameron made a few of those Naavi look totally fuckable, and that's a feat.

Seriously though, 500 million?

Posted by: k.b. smith at December 20, 2009 5:00 PM

I'm not defending Avatar. I'm just saying The Birds is dumb. Yes, Hitchcock is a great storyteller. But it's a weak story.
Please, present your counter-argument that the mysterious motive of the birds adds to the story. But it's dumb.
And while I'm pissing people off, Elf is dumb too.
(Also, please explain what Go-Bots are. They are a bit before my time.)

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at December 20, 2009 5:29 PM

saw this on friday night--what a piece of shite

Posted by: splinter at December 20, 2009 6:12 PM

Also, Mick J, Hitch was a pioneer in using the camera for audience manipulation, allowing his shots and editing to tell just as much of the story as the script and acting, if not more. Furthermore, Hitch was pretty opposed to the idea of using SOUND in his movies in the 20's and 30's, imagine how he would react to all of the meaningless CGI fluff in Avatar. He cared so much about form because he knew that formed mattered to the art, not because it was pretty.

I hardly think he would call what Cameron did "technique."

Posted by: Mr. Tusks at December 20, 2009 6:16 PM

Optimus, I admit, Hitchcock wasn't a literary genius. For all of the credit he gets for revolutionizing film, some of his features are pretty empty suspense-thrillers. But you still FELT something when you were trapped in that apartment with Jimmy Stewart, or when you were watching as he figured out there was a dead body in that trunk, or when you saw him lose his mind over a dead Spanish princess. The Birds wasn't a great movie and it has aged terribly, I'll give you that, but that's not an anchor that drags Hitch down to Cameron level. What Hitch did that Cameron doesn't is actually think about the emotional impact of his spectacle, aside from "wowzers, lookit the graphics." His thrills were real and he managed to indict the audience for their voyeuristic nature along with his villains. Hitch wanted us to connect with his people, and, through film, with our society and with each other. Cameron wants you to connect with your wallet.

I imagine Hitch would resist 3D completely, and if he ever gave in he would turn it into more than just a gimmick.

Posted by: Mr. Tusks at December 20, 2009 6:30 PM

It was visually stunning, I loved the 3D element, it was just enough to give an extra degree of immersion without being distracting.

However, I do agree with previous comments that noted the very humans bad/na'vi good dichotomy and sought no depth in motivation. That McGuffin "wachamacalitium" element worth 20 bazillion dollar a pound could have been substituted for a genuine desire to resettle a desperate human population suffering the death of Earth. Worse was the Deus ex machina that put the plot on autopilot about halfway in (very reminiscent of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Bullcrap).

Having said that, there are times when putting the old grey matter into neutral and enjoying optical popcorn will make this a worthy addition to the "plot light" section of my dvd collection...

Posted by: JS at December 20, 2009 6:41 PM

What I don't understand, I guess, is what you are doing that is SO important that you don't think it's worth paying $2 an hour to be visually stunned.

Yes, the dialogue was wooden and I wasn't at all convinced by the colonialist elements, and some of the environmentalism made me laugh--but I paid $6 for 3 hours of entertainment, and my family loved it. I'm pretty sure that if it were that versus 3 hours of reading Camus I'd take the movie.

Posted by: Jamie at December 20, 2009 7:18 PM

Fun Hitchcock Fact: He actually shot Dial M for Murder in 3D.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at December 20, 2009 7:27 PM

This might be getting a little hostile. I don't mean to say that empty entertainment is wrong, I'm just disappointed that this didn't live up to it's potential. I don't read Camus in my spare time, I watch movies like Iron Man because I care about what happens to Tony Stark AND things go boom.

Posted by: Mr. Tusks at December 20, 2009 7:59 PM

Wasn't this movie called "Fern Gully" the first time?

(Don't get me wrong, I freaking LOVE "Fern Gully".)

Posted by: Hayden Tompkins at December 20, 2009 8:52 PM

I'm maybe going to see this movie if I can rustle up anyone to see it with me, but mostly just wanted to second whoever mentioned "Zelda:Ocarino of Time" because the blue dude that said "Hey, Listen!" was so annoying.

Also, I loved the Yes song reference many comments back.

So I guess I mostly love this movie that I haven't seen yet for the comments it's generated.

Posted by: Katie at December 20, 2009 9:10 PM

*--cuddly. The "House" reference was in error.

Posted by: , at December 20, 2009 9:39 PM

Does anyone else remember the ridiculous amount of "rapping" in Ferngully? Tone Loc was a Salamander.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at December 20, 2009 11:02 PM

I didn't want to see this movie...I'm not generally into sci-fi or war scenes or gimmicky 3D, but I absolutely loved it and didn't want it to end! I will go see it again (and I never see movies twice)!

Posted by: kelly at December 20, 2009 11:49 PM

Sheesh, all you haters go out and watch the movie (in 3D) before you pounce on poor Jim Cameron's vison.
AVATAR was simply stunning..Cameron (and his team) devoted a sizable chunk of their lives to creating an entire living, breathing world -the amount of intricate visual detail in this film is amazing and wondrous...maybe if you stop PMS'ing about the simple storyline you might just see it...

Posted by: tinman at December 21, 2009 4:24 AM

You must not have read my post, Tinman, otherwise you would have seen that I did see it. To elaborate even further, I am no stranger to the hype machine and did my best to not set exponentially high expectations for it, went into it still hopeful, and got pissed on by Cameron for my troubles. I consider us all very lucky that Cameron blessed us with amazing films like Terminator, T2 and Aliens, but Avatar was nothing special. To say it was stunning is to display an extremely low level of expectation and that living-breathing world looks like any other world from a grocery store shelf syfy novel dipped in a shiny new coat of bio luminescent paint. In short: Avatar not only fell short of expectations, had a shitty story, terrible acting, but was completely and utterly not visually engaging.

Posted by: Mr. Teatime at December 21, 2009 8:03 AM

Based on all of your comments, I'm gonna check this one out--but I'm not expecting much. Pretty pictures do not a movie make. If the dialog is crap, I get bored pretty quickly, and I wasn't impressed by anything I heard in the trailer. Plus the blue dudes totally look like CGI. Impressive CGI, yes, but not for one second do I forget what I'm looking at, which was NOT the case when I watched the LOTR trilogy.

Someone wondered where the water in the floating mountains comes from, but I'm way more interested in knowing how the hell mountains can float.

I also agree with damnitjanet that the way Bones hyped the show two weeks ago was shameful and nauseating, but I blame that entirely on Bones and not Avatar.

Posted by: DeadBessie at December 21, 2009 8:19 AM

BarbadoSlim- I first read your comment as the TITanimator and I thought, "hot damn! I think I just might pay $12 to see Kate Winet's bosoms cause 3D havoc in a futuristic and bleak world." Come on James Cameron- you got a few hundred mil you can put towards making this happen, right?

Posted by: Nurse EagerBeaverBaby at December 21, 2009 10:47 AM

I will probably not see this movie until it comes out on DVD (or earlier if my husband drags me out to see it), but it already bothers me how heavy-handed Cameron was with the name of the material the humans are after: unobtainium (get it, because it's UNOBTAINABLE??). Good Christ on a cracker that's lame. I too was also dismayed when Avatar played a major role in a 'Bones' episode a couple weeks ago--I kept asking myself whether the show was forced to do it by Fox or whether they actually wanted to do it. I keep telling myself the only way it would have happened is if it was forced down the writers' throats (RIGHT?).

Posted by: birdgal at December 21, 2009 11:18 AM

I saw this last night in 3D, and it became, hands down, my favorite movie of the year.

I let go of any preconceptions I may have had, both good and bad, and let myself be drawn in. I completely bought into it. For almost three hours I just floated along in a completely realized world of absolutely amazing beauty. A couple times it was quite literally breathtaking.

Yes, you can see that yes the plot is by-the-book and telegraphed way in advance. Yes, there is a lot of preaching that has a real-world application. But you know what? I don't care.

I detached the film from the here and now. I let Pandora be its own world, with its own problems, and didn't think about how it related to wars over resources in the real world. It let me care about the characters on all sides, about the "noble savages" and the destruction of their home, about the conflict inside the mind of Jake Sully.

If you go see this movie, just do what I did. Treat it as its own special masterpiece, and then maybe for you it will be.

Posted by: Snath at December 21, 2009 11:59 AM

DeadBessie wrote:
Someone wondered where the water in the floating mountains comes from, but I'm way more interested in knowing how the hell mountains can float.

I think I mentioned this in an earlier comment, but "unobtainium" is supposed to be a room-temperature superconductor so the floating mountains are supposed to be explained by magnetic levitation.

birdgal wrote:
but it already bothers me how heavy-handed Cameron was with the name of the material the humans are after: unobtainium (get it, because it's UNOBTAINABLE??)

Well, "unobtainium" is a very old joke in geek circles (in use since the 1950s at least), and anyway I think the name of the mineral was only actually mentioned once in the movie.

Posted by: Jesse M. at December 21, 2009 12:55 PM

Jesse M: So if unobtainium is the reason the floating mountains float, why didn't the mining company focus on using them instead of under the tree? Seem to me that mining a bunch of chunks of rock that are mostly composed of this miraculous ore would be pretty easy since they're already out of the ground and all that. Please don't tell me it's an issue of electronic interference either, since the flux or whatever the fuck they called it only seemed to mess with radar. The ships still few fine, the rockets tracked targets well enough, and everyone's communicators worked, even when used by na'vi. I think it's safe to say that there is no legitimate defense to claims that Cameron and his crew did not think things out well.

Posted by: Mr. Teatime at December 21, 2009 6:04 PM

See this in 3D..it's the only way to go, and will distract you from the plot...the political subtext (although you can't call it subtext b/c the anti-war theme is about as understated as an atom bomb) was not needed and I wish good filmmakers would stop trying to give us allegory and give us story instead.

I also found it fucked that Cameron wants you to root for Marines to get killed. If that's not obvious enough, his big bad is basically Dick Cheney with muscles and a buzzcut.I honestly expected more from Cameron...how about a little subtlety, James? Does Sully feel any guilt about killing those he once served with? We never find out.

And how about making the Na'vi interesting and layered instead of simply portraying them as the ethereal stewards of the planet that the evil Americans, err, Earthers are trying to displace?

Posted by: stryker1121 at December 21, 2009 7:56 PM

What more amazing on this film is the "fact" that Na’avi use avatars too helped by nature not by the technology.

Posted by: lukaszz at December 21, 2009 9:02 PM

And BTW Zoe Soldana is smoking hot

Posted by: lukaszz at December 21, 2009 9:04 PM

This is easily the most disappointed I have ever been in Pajiba. I rarely disagree with a review on this site, but this is ridiculous. To claim this movie beholds any sort of greatness or brilliance what so ever is inept and ridiculous. If I were James Cameron I wouldn't tell anybody I've had this atrocity against cinema in my mind for roughly two decades. I found myself praying that the ending would involve two overweight teenagagers playing World of Warcraft, but alas, my hopes were not met.

Posted by: Ralvatron at December 22, 2009 12:24 AM

Whoever said that Pandora was like Nagrand, damn right!
It's the first thing that came to mind when I read the part about the floating mountains and amazing flora and fauna.

Actually, it's Nagrand + Zangar Marsh.

Also, I'm really disappointed with the shitty storyline. I completely agree that for the amount of money that was spent on this movie, the story should have been AS compelling.
This movie will not hold up to repeated viewings. After the intial awe over the special effects wears off, you're only left with the story, and if there is no story - well, then you have failed, Mr Cameron. Sorry.
I hope your ex-wife wins.

Posted by: Stella at December 22, 2009 9:48 AM

"I paid $6 for 3 hours of entertainment"-

Posted by: Jamie at December 20, 2009 7:18 PM

---------------------------------
Never mind the quality, feel the width.

Posted by: elzupasmonkey at December 22, 2009 1:29 PM

Snath, thank you for saying that. With all the hate floating around here I was afraid to say anything. However, I felt exactly the same way. As shallow as the plot was, I simply didn't care. The world overwhelmed me. I think the problem is seeing this in 3D. I thought about it, and I think I wouldn't have been as engaged if it was just regular movie. To get the full experience this must be seen in 3D.

Posted by: commandefunky at December 22, 2009 4:18 PM

The movie was very 'paint by the numbers' but I enjoyed the hell out of it. It told the story well with just the right amount of action and adventure to level it out and make it worth the price of admission . The Imax 3D experience added the right touch to the already engaging story

James, where the hell have you been??

Posted by: Candy at December 22, 2009 8:36 PM

Avatar made me think of Citizen Kane in that Citizen Kane pioneered deep focus camera work and Avatar's 3D worked like some sort of extreme deep focus.

Cinematography has probably been altered forevermore.

Posted by: Gigi at December 22, 2009 10:35 PM

Avatar reminded me of a Ruby Wax quote: "...like a beauty show contestant: gorgeous until it opens it's mouth".

The story won't enrich lives and the dialogue might turn stomachs but fuckit, the visuals in 3D- the only way to see it- were sheer goddamm poetry. It won't age well if future directors with better stories follow Cameron's technical lead, but right now it stands as the best use of 3D in mainstream film I have seen.

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at December 23, 2009 9:43 PM

This "whiteman/westerner's guilt analogy being touted by some reviewers is suspect at best. I, for one, don't feel that the military craft being blown up is an obvious, albiet a sideways reference, to political/realworld jihadis destroying US vehicles.

The antagonists are a multinational alien force with a murderous and greedy leadership; the Na'vi aren't religious extremists. After all, if your Hometree/city was annihilated unprovoked (which BTW can also be a sideways interpretation of the Twin Towers/Pentagon complex circa 2001), you'd be pretty pissed too, and the destruction of those forces responsible would be very much justified.

So I'd propose to all those real-world analogists, that the ass-handing the Earthers' received was a reverse 9/11, a cathartic revenge for unwarranted and unnecessary destruction...

Posted by: JS at December 23, 2009 10:03 PM

anyone who has read this review without first seeing this amazing movie is indeed an idiot, congratulations on ruining the movie for yourself

Posted by: blahblahblah at December 25, 2009 12:13 AM

"Performance capture" sums everything best for me with regard to "Avatar." The CGI was incredible but the acting was not. Saldana and Weaver deliver the juice but Worthington left much to be desired as a lead. I was affected by the performances given by the two ladies even when seen via "performance capture." In this instance the CGI worked for them. But Sully's avatar left me cold. I guess that what i am trying to say is that despite the technical advances clearly shown in "Avatar" the film cannot escape the need for good honest acting to catalyze the 0 and the 1's. When Sully gave his Braveheart speech to the Na'Avi I knew it was time to leave the theater.

Posted by: Mr. West at December 25, 2009 6:24 PM

I loved it. It was, simply put, breathtaking. I understand the story was simple and yes the dialogue needed tweaking but the visuals cannot be ignored. It's the perfect holiday and family movie. It's dumb thinking of this movie as some kind of breakthrough movie. The world has enough to think about and there are enough movies that succeed in fulfilling that. If u want 3 hours of enjoyable fantasy, watch this. If u expect subtle dialogue, watch a fucking indie.

Posted by: Tallulahc at December 27, 2009 5:37 PM

ferngully?
if that's the best comparison you can make you need to sit down and read a little.

the story owes strongly to both poul andsersons 'call me joe' and harry harrisons first deathworld novel. and, while it may not have all of the depth of either, it ain't, in my humble opinion, too shabby.

i would also like to mention that my mother, who totally does not get science fiction, loved it.

Posted by: thefatman at December 27, 2009 7:27 PM

HOLY SHIT GUYS! THE FATMAN'S MOM LOVED THIS SHIT! I'M SO GLAD WE GOT THIS ALL CLEARED UP!

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at December 27, 2009 11:07 PM

Come in acting like a twunt, and you will be treated like a twunt.


Saw it. Thought it was pretty. Wish it had been rewritten two or three times.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at December 27, 2009 11:08 PM

I just got home from seeing this with my feral children. I hadn't read any of the reviews beforehand, and am rather glad I didn't. I went into this knowing nothing about it (I don't watch commercials... yay, DVR!) and having no expectations whatsoever. And? I really enjoyed it. Now, I loathe a plot hole as much as the next person, but I'm far from elitist in my film-watching and often want to watch a movie simply for the opportunity to escape my own rather drama-ridden reality. I don't ask for much... make me laugh (except, of course, for movies that are obviously not supposed to be funny... I don't expect a good belly-laugh from Schindler's List or anything), have uplifting moments (whether the uber-cheesy things like the playing of 'Wild Thing' for Charlie Sheen's character when he walks on the field in 'Major League' (yeah, I know... bite me) or Jessica Tandy telling Morgan Freeman he's her best friend in 'Driving Miss Daisy'), invest in good special effects or beautiful cinematography, and if you make me cry? Redeem yourself by giving me a happy goddamned ending. That being said... I enjoyed this movie very much. I'm well aware the storyline has been done, or variants thereof, many times in many ways, but to me? It's like really good pizza... just because I've had it before doesn't mean I don't want it again. Change a few ingredients and eat other stuff in between visits to the pizza shop, and it's all good. I thought this was, of course, visually fun (although honestly? There were a number of visuals that I wasn't nearly as impressed with as everyone else seems to be), but more importantly I was able to actually like some of the characters, I laughed in some places and cried in some others(yeah, there, I said it), and it had me holding my breath a time or two, though it pains me to say it. I prefer to go into a movie like this with the open mind of a child rather than the jaded eyes of an adult... then I can enjoy the movie AND the BunchaCrunch oh so much more.

But that's just me.

Posted by: Nola at December 28, 2009 7:09 PM

Welp, I saw this after a joint or three and it was the best way to see it. Terrible story, cliche dialogue, but visually? Ho. Lee. Shit.

Someone mentioned that Cameron's MO is to take the tried-and-true and present it in a shiny new package. This is most definitely the case. He brings the pretty to distract you from the story. I am not normally one to say, "OooOOOH, SHINY!" when it comes to film, but I did that here. This movie was beautiful, especially the night scenes. Gorgeous.

But did the story suck? Yes. Dialogue? Yes. I did not, however, go for the story. I went for the pretty, and got my money's worth.

Also, the popcorn and Sour Patch Kids were AWESOME.

Posted by: Jessica at December 29, 2009 2:30 AM

Apart from the heavyhanded environmental, religious, racial, and political overtones, not to mention its being about an hour too long and as subtle as Kurt's sexuality on Glee, it was a visually impressive movie. Too bad I felt that the nine dollars I spent on popcorn and a fountain drink was a better buy than the nine dollar ticket. Seriously, the mining company exec was named Selfridge! Cameron should stick to coming up with shots interspersed with chunks of special effects and give up a tiny piece of the spotlight to hire a decent writer. And enough with the pervasive marketing! In the time it has taken me to read the comments, I have heard at least 4 Avatar commercials on the tv, and another one since I started typing this. It's just a movie, not something important like fast food, penis pills, or which household item might bring about my demise but probably not before 10:00. I don't need to be reminded every five minutes about James Cameron's latest way of funding the new "floating island" waterfalls for one of his indoor pools.

Posted by: Zipper McAngrypants at December 29, 2009 5:47 AM

You fucktards that whine about plot being more important than visuals need to go fucking blind. You have no appreciation of the visual arts, you want plot, read a fucking book, you want motion based visual stimulation, watch a movie. First off if you didn't see this in IMAX 3D then you did not see it as it was meant to be portrayed, if you did, and you where not entertained by it, then I feel sorry for you and your analytical ego based existence. Anyone who says they will wait until this comes to Jewray , DVD or fucking PPV are missing the fuck out on the one thing our predominately useless, mouth-breathing race has aspired to put above all other things, ENTERTAINMENT (and yes you are one of us regardless if you except it or not).If you enjoy being entertained, spend the 17 bucks and go see this on an IMAX. If your an analytical taint sniffer who wants to bitch about subplotish, rectal-regurgitated art-film-cocksuckery, please, stay the fuck home, watch IFC, and have a sixsome with one hand while the other hand forks your prepacked, pre-washed mixed greens whole foods salad, into your gluten free pie hole. that way your life is complete and someone else who knows and values entertainment can have your 17 dollar IMAX seat and enjoy money well spent.

Posted by: UhateMe at December 30, 2009 6:27 PM

Haha! U hate me, your comment is hilarious, you just made my fucking day! SO correct.
I also agree with Nola ^ a few posts above, I sincerely believe that you have to be a cynical boring little twit not to have enjoyed Avatar.
:-)

Posted by: Jade at January 1, 2010 8:19 PM

Listen. Defend Avatar all you want. That's fine!

But if you hypocritical, hype-riding, Cameron loving, band wagon know-it-alls makes fun of me for liking movies like X-Men: Wolverine or I Am Legend, or Crash...then you can all GO. TO. HELL.

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at January 2, 2010 1:16 AM

And for the record, I was more entertained by that garbage Terminator Salvation and Transformers than I ever was by Avatar. So screw your BULL$#%T entertainment defense.

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at January 2, 2010 1:18 AM

Oh. Hey; look. We hit the dregs of the comments.

I'm going to go watch a movie on Jewray now.

I hope there are no kikes in it.

/fuck you, Uhateme

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at January 3, 2010 2:56 AM

littleJon2001, you little assumer! I happen to like those movies alot, I think alot of peeps here need to take a heavy dose of chill pills..
:-)

Posted by: Jade at January 3, 2010 7:43 PM

Yeah but you have to admit that your were owned by Uhateme

Posted by: Jade at January 3, 2010 7:46 PM

Anyone who would admit that is even more retarded than Uhateme.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at January 3, 2010 8:20 PM

Hahaha, Uhateme isn't retarde, it's clearly you that's got the anger problems!
Oh and just to clarify, you were OWNED - whether you like it or not.

Posted by: Jade at January 4, 2010 3:16 PM

sooo...james cameron spent $500 mil on a film and didn't spring for a voice coach for sam worthington? what the? sorry but his quasi aussie/american crap pile of an accent was too distracting.

Posted by: amy at January 8, 2010 6:44 PM

I saw it last Thursday night and I must say the CGI effects were breathtaking. Yes, the antagonists were far too one-dimensional for my liking, but it was a pretty amazing film to watch on IMAX. I didn't see much of the point in 3-D though, but I'm not much for 3-D. IT was pretty trippy and I thought that the plot of the story is basically a mirror of the story of the Native Americans in the U.S. and how the military and political forces forced them out of their homeland. Oh, and the violence at the end of the film nearly merits an R rating, doesn't it? Eeek!

Posted by: ph at January 10, 2010 7:59 PM

Saw it last night and thought it was great. Except for the heavy-handed indian-ness of the Na'avi (c'mon, Magwa as the chief? I swear some scenes sounded like they cut and paste straight from Last of the Mohicans), I thought it was well done all around. Some weak points in writing and acting in areas, but still, not the abortion some people here are saying it is.

Posted by: protoguy at January 11, 2010 3:55 AM

Caught the movie today. It was really great. Yes the story is nothing new, but the way it was brought to life and told was quite remarkable. Yes some things could have been better, but all in all i would say a great success. For the haters, the ONLY reason they hate it is because truth is always uncomfortable when you are the crook. Don't worry meatheads - the native american's are not going to be able to rightfully take their land back from you or your cronies... that only happens in movies. In reality, the greedy meatheads always win.

Posted by: moviefan at January 23, 2010 11:09 PM

Saw it last night, was blown away. Spot review.

Maybe the story had a 'retread' feel of others like Last of The Mohicans, Ferngully, or Dances With Wolves; but isn't it a damn shame we haven't learned our lesson yet from those stories at all?

We can see this same scenario being played out in the rainforests in South America. Chevron's pollution destroyed land in Ecuador the native population relied on for a living and made them all sick with cancer. Chiquita Banana hires mercenary thugs to kill union organizers on plantation and spreads poison on the crops that kill people and wildlife.

China enables the genocide in the Sudan so they can tap the country's oil reserves. The US invaded Iraq; destroying everything with our shock & awe, killing nearly 1 million Iraqis and displacing 2.5 million..in order to control their oil.

So sure...maybe we've seen this story on film before, but we also see the same plot lines over and over enacted by real people in real time on this planet of ours. So, maybe when or if that ceases to be the case, the story will no longer need retelling.

Posted by: Cleveland at February 3, 2010 1:00 PM

Brilliant Movie. Leaves you in a state of wonderment. All the criticism of hackneyed plot devices or visual trickery are merely attempts to undress what is one of THE best films of modern times. I can't recall a time I ever so thoroughly enjoyed sitting in a theater for 3 hours. Anyone who avoids seeing this movie for some predetermined reason is just stubborn for the sake of it. Aren't you at least curious?

Posted by: idiotbox at March 11, 2010 4:14 PM

I really wanted this to be a good film. I didn't expect it from Cameron, but I really wanted it. Unfortunately, my expectations were correct.

Don't get me wrong, the special effects are extraordinary. They represent the future of cinema. But, God, what horrible display of writing and acting. With the proper pieces in place, this could have been a movie for the ages...interaction with alien life, subtle nuances about the waste we create on earth through greed, lessons to be learned from "simpler" cultures. Cameron took all that promise and destroyed it. One dimensional characters, simplistic solutions that employed the very methods he characterises as evil (I wonder if the aliens can go back to peaceful existence once they learn that force can achieve their goals).

In the hands of a master there would have been a subtle, gradual change in both the humans and the aliens with a lot of questions left unanswered about whether this inevitable change could leave either species better off, or at least culturally intact.

Istead we got a "aliens are good, humans are bad so lets finish with a happy ending that makes no sense". I would have been more impressed if Cameron had just ended the movie with a genocide, where the annoying inhabitants were destroyed by the evil humans. At least it would make sense. The movie could have ended an hour sooner and have fitted better with the historical norm of what happens when "advanced" civilizations meet "primitive" ones.

In the end Avatar is simply a bad movie with lots of eye candy.

Posted by: Chris D at March 14, 2010 4:11 PM

I liked that bullets did not go through the cockpit glass, but arrows did. The movie was filled with that kind of logical inconsistency w/in its own world.

I just saw the movie. It was good if viewed as a summer action sci-fi blockbuster. It was crap if viewed as an "important" film that will "change the way movies are made" forever. It had really great cgi animation. So what? Every year the cgi gets better and better. Cameron just spent more and was able to come up with the best to date. In 3-5 years, this cgi will look dated.

The story was cliched and the dialogue was servicable at best. the acting was as good as you can expect from actors doing everything in front of a blue screen.

So, not sure I understand the people who gush over this movie, but also don't understand the people who hate it. It was a big studio action / sci-fi production. It was not casablanca.

Posted by: smee at June 6, 2010 7:08 PM

awesome movie i ever seen .
the story and making it looking like real is just mind blowing.
my salute to james cameron and his brilliant ideas.
we can hope for many more awesome movies in future.

Posted by: acnenomore at July 2, 2010 9:34 PM

I know a hot club_______Mixed friends.c o m_______ which is a hot community for whites and blacks to find their interracial love. there has been thousands of single members online and many black and white single girls or guys waitting for you maybe you will like it.

Posted by: miaaa at August 27, 2010 10:07 AM

Anyone else notice that Sigourney Weaver's alien boobs were twice as big as the rest of them? I wonder if that's a conscious choice of Cameron's, or if it's just a function of the motion capture suit she had to wear capturing her real-life breasts.

I'd ask her in person again, but I'm not allowed within 100' of her.

Posted by: logar at August 27, 2010 10:22 AM

Moral of the story: sometimes Dances With Wolves is better when it has giant blue aliens and floating mountains.

Posted by: Chayes at August 27, 2010 10:24 AM

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG! Avatar is in theaters again with new footage! I'm so excited that I'm going to go watch it again and again and again! Thank you for permitting me to see it in the theater again George Lucas!

Posted by: admin at August 27, 2010 10:30 AM

Unless they re-wrote it so the plot isn't as old as Pocahontas and John Smith I'll pass.

Posted by: logan at August 27, 2010 10:46 AM

OVERRATED.

I HATE YOU JAMES CAMERON.

Posted by: figgy at August 27, 2010 11:57 AM

Wow, there are some unconvincingly glowing reviews here, that reek of studio plants. While this movie was as pretty to look at as any cartoon has ever been, it was, in reality, fucking awful. I hope Cameron's influence on ATMOM isn't felt in the least little bit.

Posted by: The Kilted Yaksman at August 27, 2010 12:29 PM

I never did follow up on my thoughts on Avatar. Guess I should be glad for the opportunity.

It was...average.

In fact, it's similar to this year's Scott Pilgrim. It's visually stunning. The special effects are marvelous. The action/fight scenes are exciting and fun.

But there is little to nothing holding it together from an emotional level.

The Na'vi are caricatures. CGI-perfect stand-ins for the "noble savages" concept of Native peoples. The villains are even worse. They're one-dimensional. At no point do you imagine they will take any other road but the evil one.

And in the middle you have Worthington as Jake Sully, who treats it all like a video game until he finds his e-peen rising at the sight of Saldana's Neytiri. Like a geek lusting after a video game character to the point he forces his girlfriend to dress up like her and engage in cosplay. Then doubts begin to creep in about his actions. Jake's "Hero's Journey" is predictable to the point of being boring.

Posted by: Fredo at August 27, 2010 12:41 PM

I'm surprised at how much I liked AVATAR. I liked it more after a 2nd viewing, on DVD. I expected the dialogue, cardboard characterization, & obvious plot to turn the whole thing into a wet fart, but I dug the hell out of it. I got tears in my eyes when the tension was ratcheted up to my threshold, & I'm a grown-ass man. AVATAR's dope.

Posted by: the new transported man at August 27, 2010 12:47 PM

i keep hearing the phrase, "cash grab" in regards to this rerelease. But in the city I live, it was in regular theatres until almost summer, and then in second run theatres and museum based imax's until very very recently.

It seems more like a disaster of ghost town viewing rooms waiting to happen. Is there seriously more cash to grab out of this movie? Is nothing else playing in the theatre?

It seems especially disasterous as reviewers are pointing out that the new material is utterly inconsequential to an already overly long movie. It's not like The abyss, where the new material completely changed the film.

Other than the probably 2-3 seconds of tall blue sex, most people probably won't even notice new scenes

Posted by: idleprimate at August 27, 2010 2:41 PM

I loved the movie but I see no purpose to it except for the fact that James stated that there will be another version of the dvd soon. One with even more than what thet are re-releasing.

Can you say fleecing the public?

Posted by: Candy at August 27, 2010 4:34 PM

Fine review, the best I've read on the subject. The little people can whine all they want to, but this film is both a technical and an entertainment triumph, and that combination is rather rare.

Is it art on the same level as Citizen Kane? That is debatable, but for people to talk as if it is a piece of shit is nonsense.

Posted by: mechadave at August 29, 2010 10:52 PM

I totally disagree that the na'avi don't cross the line into 'noble savage' territory. They are the epitome of the Noble Savage cliche.

I found this movie offensive and schmaltzy. That people lapped it up so readily can only be attributed to our current ecological crisis and the sense of powerlessness it brews in all of us. I can only hope people will come to their senses and start making fun of this piece of sh*t in a year or two.

Whole communities of indigenous people are pissed at this film. It seems grounded in reality because all Cameron did was take traditions of the most charismatic and well-documented indigenous cultures from around the world and ram them together. Is he writing a Llewellyn 'Modern Urban Shaman' book or something?

But what gets the most of my goat about this drek is that it mirrors real struggles without paying them any real hommage. It's as if Cameron *thinks* he's making this shit up. The sad truth is that this kind of genocide and land-stealing happen every day in the Amazon; but for some reason we need big blue noble savages to make the injustice hit home. I guess when it's wizened red people and there are only six of them left (because agrobusiness pays headhunters to murder their towns) it doesn't make a sexy movie.

If you want breathtaking scenery and lifelike animals, go take a hike on the Alaska Panhandle.

Dances with Smurfs is right on the money.

Some light reading:
http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2010/01/we-saw-avatar.html

http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar

Posted by: ghost taco at September 1, 2010 12:17 PM

I'm stunned by the amount of positive feedback this movie received. Seriously? Terrible story, terrible dialogue, wooden acting, ridiculously cliched... EVERYTHING... and didn't feel too long??? I was ready for it to be over by about 1.5 hours in, but it wouldn't freaking end. The 3D was interesting at first, but eventually became tiresome.

I also don't buy all the "visually stunning" comments. It was a pretty cartoon, sure, but it looked like A PRETTY CARTOON. Not even close to a realistic environment. I can go watch Planet Earth on Blu-Ray, and see actual reality presented in stunning HD.

I'm glad I went to see it, but I think it deserves very little critical praise for anything except the computer graphics. "Grizzled evil coporate-military thugs want to destroy the noble savages for no reason," is hardly a new concept, and it was executed with all the finesse of a shovel to the face.

Posted by: Chris at September 4, 2010 5:45 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time