- Avatar
- OPENING: 12/18/2009
- STUDIO: Fox
- RUN TIME: 162 min
- ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site
The Charge
“You should see the looks on your faces.”
Opening Statement
James Cameron’s event 3D extravaganza has already made sackfuls of money. Apparently no one cares about story or characters or stuff making sense any more.
Facts of the Case
Some time in the future, when mankind has decimated the Earth’s natural resources through pollution and deforestation and non-stop intercontintental plane trips to promote huge blockbuster movies, a shady corporation has traveled to the magical world of Pandora to mine for something called Unobtainium, which is worth big money.
Unfortunately, the natives of Pandora, tall blue-skinned cat-like creatures called the Na’vi, are resistant to the encroachment of the imperialist Yankee dogs, er, I mean, reckless corporate mercenaries, and the two sides are perilously close to all-out war.
In a final stab at diplomacy, the corporation’s science wing has developed the Avatar program, which allows humans to link up with synthetic Na’vi bodies and run around the lush forest world. Enter Jake Scully (Sam Worthington), a paralyzed ex-Marine who finds himself sucked deep within the Na’vi clan. So far so good. Now if only he doesn’t blow it by falling in love with the clan’s princess and going native then the deranged security chief won’t have to commit unspeakable atrocities with the full-throated support of the American GIs, er, I mean the awful bastard hired killers.
The Evidence
Warning: Heavy spoilers below!
You ever feel like you’ve gone through your personal looking glass and the whole world is whacked? Up is down, black is white, cats are dogs are living together and, now, Avatar is being proclaimed as the greatest piece of entertainment ever forged. Just look at some of the fawning reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes; this is a movie that I am convinced has caused critics to take a leave of their senses.
What am I missing? Did I see the same movie as everyone else, or was I one of the few to see the Half-Baked Straight-to-DVD Disney Plot cut? I haven’t had this much of a negative, visceral reaction to a hyped blockbuster since…well, never, since no movie has been as hyped as Avatar. “Movies will never be the same.” “Game-changer.” Etc.
My balls.
Look, before you lay the “lighten up buddy, it’s just a scifi action movie for entertainment,” let me just stop your right there. It’s not. Avatar is a message movie and not a very subtle one at that. While jammed full of pyrotechnics and CGI implemented on a huge scale, the film is interested more in Speaking Truth to Power than pumping out a solid popcorn experience. How else to explain the broad generalizations of the good guys (flawless “Noble savages”) and the bad guys (monstrous ex-Marines following a psychopath without question) and the intrusive chunks of social commentary (Colonel Miles Quaritch: “We’ll fight terror with terror”–what does that even mean, dumbass? What precisely has the Na’vi done to “terrorize” you? They’re perfect creatures that talk to @#$%#$&$ trees!).
Cameron is intent on sticking to his talking points and if that comes at the expense of mirth–this as humorless a movie about dragon-riding cat warriors from space as you’re ever going to find–and plot points and character actions that make sense, then SO BE IT.
Let’s start with the biggie, the lack of interesting people. Our main guy, Jake Scully, is a limp, charisma-free hero who moves between clumsy, nature-hating buffoon (how many times does Neytiri the Na’vi princess have to tell him to stop backhanding the magical butterfly cotton balls before he gets it?) to full-on slaughterer of American soldiers, er, ex-Marine-turned-heartless-murderers. Worse, we find out at the end, thanks to his narration, that the humans are being set back to their “dying world.” Hey, muchos gracias Jake! It’s not our fault down here that Colonel Quaritch is nuts and now all of us on Earth, including your extended family and former high school basketball teammates I might add, are sentenced to a slow death.
Zoe Saldana does a nice mocap job with Neytiri, but she’s shackled with a boring, one-dimensional heroine, the exact type you’ve seen millions of times before. She’s cunning and strong and always right and feels attracted to the outsider but holds back from a carnal entanglement until the worst possible time.
Then we’ve got the villains, who are crafted with the nuance of a Scud missile. Giovanni Ribisi’s slimy corporate head honcho is all evil, even when faced with the horrific fallout of actions taken in direct opposition to his orders. He wanted the Na’vi removed humanely (of course just because it would look bad back on Earth, not because he has anything even resembling a moral code) but when Quaritch defies him and nukes the Na’vi’s home tree, hey, whatevs. It’s not like anyone has a mobile phone camera to grab video of Na’vi children running around on fire to post online or anything. So screw those blue monkeys! (His words).
And then there was Quaritch, a neverending source of comic relief though he wasn’t written like that. This guy is not only psychopathic but utterly incompetent. Look, if the dude got results then maybe we can look past his unrestrained bloodlust, but as a tactician he’s a joke. Why is he so evil by the way? Who knows. He’s not offered a bigger slice of the Unobtainium haul, he doesn’t feel compelled to save Earth, he got a bunch of scratches on his face from the local wildlife but that isn’t genocide-provoking is it? Nope. He’s merely an imbecilic, bat-@#$% insane cartoon character who says stuff like “Come to papa!” and runs around with his shoulder on fire.
Oh, and Michelle Rodriguez is in this as “Michelle Rodriguez.”
No-dimensional characters aren’t anything exotic in Hollywood blockbusters. And if the story is coherent and the action is awesome, who cares right? Well, the action is awesome, but it is precisely because of the plot’s implosion that the mayhem rings hollow.
Set aside the corny predictability of our goofy hero turning into a tribe leader, banging the princess (whose fiance, by the way, gets over the humiliation fairly quickly), going native and fighting against his own people, there is a gaping example of storytelling sleight-of-hand here: the fate of Earth.
Remember when Parker reels off his handy bit of exposition to Sigourney Weaver’s character Grace (who you would think would be up on the whole point of the mission seeing she’s the one in charge of the Avatar program) he makes a passing mention of Unobtainium and how it’s a powerful mineral and that it’s worth a lot of money. And that’s all we get as far as why the mineral is important, right? So as the audience member I’m just going along thinking this evil corporation and the soulless dickheads who work for it are looking to displace the poor Na’vi to make a lot of money, but it isn’t until Jake’s final voice-over that we discover that, what do you know Earth’s dying and this mineral would have saved it. Which then means at one point, unless everyone involved in the excavation is brain-dead, someone talked to the Na’vi–Grace, for example, seeing as she helped build a school and had lots of pictures taken with native kids–and laid out how an entire planet was screwed if the Na’vi didn’t let the humans dig under their tree, or, at least point them in the direction of the second-biggest Unobtainium deposit. The Na’vi would have have obviously said “F— off” or something to that degree and, well, you can’t have that because then they’d have a character flaw and that’s not happening. They are the oppressed and the Yankee dogs are the oppressor and that is it. Cameron dropping this inconvenient truth at the end of the film, once we’ve presumably pumped our fists at the sights of American soldiers-er, I mean, Disgusting Corporate Mercenaries That Eat Baby Fingers is a hack manipulation of the highest order.
Anyway, here’s a bulleted list of other things that made no sense:
1. Jake knows the bulldozers are coming in three months. You’d think letting the tribe know about this detail would be of a slightly higher priority than, say, boning the betrothed of the village’s top warrior with his synthetic wiener.
2. Speaking of those bulldozers, they were rolling up to that site the whole time, right? And none of the Na’vi heard them? How about Enya, or whoever the planet goddess is? She couldn’t have sent out a message, maybe have the puffy butterfly things write out DANGER! YANKEE DOG DOZERS INBOUND!
3. Doesn’t take much to shut down those bulldozers though, huh? A few slaps at the remote control camera and they’re done. A three month trek for nothing. Strikes me as a design oversight.
4. How about that “flux,” the magic in the atmosphere that disrupts laser lock-ons and forces the American Imperialist swine-er, the lawless hired gunmen to stack ordnance on pallets and drop them out the back of the cargo hold. I suspect the name “flux” came about from “I’ve written myself into a predicament, how am I going to get the ‘flux’ out of it?”
5. Nuking the holy site of the Na’vi is the primary goal at the end so how about making a carpet bombing run out of the range of the dragons and birds and spears? Or spread out your aerial attack force and give them each some bombs to drop separately. Nah, I guess having your entire force bunched together is the smart move. I defer to your tactical genius, Colonel!
6. Wait a minute. I remember seeing a map of the Unobtainium deposits in the control room. They can get a read-out of mineral veins, but can’t pinpoint a tree?
7. Hey, and there was that other map that showed thermal readouts of all the Na’vi congregating at the very same tree during Colonel Genius’s pep talk. There you go, boys. Bomb that place with all the yellow blobs.
8. These are ex-Marines, right? And we know the economy is bad (Jake says so) so isn’t it possible that these guys couldn’t find civilian jobs after leaving the military and signed on for this work? And if so, wouldn’t you think at least more than one of them would have second thoughts of annihilating little blue cat-toddlers? Not so. Everyone except “Michelle Rodriguez” is all amped up to get their genocide on.
9. Not that “Michelle Rodriguez” was that much of a prized recruit for Team Noble Savage anyway. She paints her freaking gunship blue and white. You’d think it would be more helpful for her to infiltrate the fleet incognito and take out the Colonel’s flagship or something.
10. Real subtle 9-11 imagery James. If the hometree is the World Trade Center and the Na’vi are, I suppose, the victims of the al qaida attack that would make the guys trying to excavate the magic mineral to save planet Earth terrorists, right? Oh wait, we don’t know Earth is in mortal danger yet. We just think they’re in it for a steady paycheck and dental benefits. Never mind. Screw them!
11. Really, building schools and roads and offering Western medicine, er, I mean Earth medicine didn’t sway the Na’vi, huh? What was your first hint they weren’t digging your technological gifts, the fact they sleep in giant leaves or get from place to place on flying dragons?
12. Jake going to the magic tree and saying “I know you’re just a tree…” Dude, what else do you need to see to convince you that this place is magic?!
13. Neytiri showing up soon after saying that Enya the Planet Goddess doesn’t take sides. Uh huh. I’m sure She’s going to send some hammerhead rhino monsters over to the Colonel, give him a hand in the ensuing battle.
14. Jake’s motivation to screw over Grace and the Na’vi by feeding the Colonel intel was to get himself some new legs. I’m sure the woman who invented remote controlled alien bodies could probably give you a discount on the procedure, Jake. You might have saved a few lives there. Oh right, you’re a @#$%#@&*$ idiot.
15. Grace insults Colonel Quaritch by calling him “Ranger Rick.” I don’t get it. Ranger Rick is a park ranger, not an Army ranger. And he was a gentle raccoon, not a delusional murderer.
Closing Statement
If a movie has a Happy Meal tie-in do we still have to take the heavy-handed moralizing seriously?
The Verdict
Guilty of making me want to hurl abusive insults at my cat and go outside and punch a tree. Great job Jimbo.
2/10
58 comments ↓
So, is this your vote for Cameron’s worst film? Or does that title still belong to PIRANHA 2: THE SPAWNING?
Woah, you really hated this. I mean I know the story was cliche and the villains were infuriatingly igonrant and stupid but I think you were perhaps a leeeeetle pedantic with your ‘list’ of things that don’t make sense. Sci-fi films are full of plot-holesa dn inconsistencies because they’re introducing us to an alternate reality.
No that does not excuse plain dumbness and I agree with several of your arguments but perhaps a little too harsh there.
And 2/10 seems very low for such a visually striking film – doesn’t it at least deserve a few points for its imaginative images even if the story is lazy?
Just a thought.
Sure, maybe a few of those points were nitpicky, but the biggest ones were so dumb because they were implemented to augment THE MESSAGE. Remember, this wasn’t just a fun, popcorn sci-fi action film–this was a message movie, with Important Things to Say.
Characters make stupid decisions precisely because they only exist to support the lessons we are to learn from the film.
And as for the visual effects, they were great. I completely agree with you. I thought the effects in Transformers 2 and Terminator: Salvation were great, too; should those movies get a pass?
Such venom and hatred! I swear, you’re as bad as Ranger Rick.
In all seriousness, you make a lot of good points. I found the film immensely compelling on a certain level, though I have to grant you that there an awful lot of problems (which you’ve done a nice job of pointing out in this review). However, I did find the manner in which Cameron presented the organic world of the Na’vi to be very compelling.
David Johnson,
YOU. ARE. MY. HERO!!!!!!
Lots of California love for you man. That review was spot on.
I was surprised when at the end of watching this movie everyone in the theatre gave it a standing, well, sitting ovation. Granted it was the first showing opening night, but I felt like the only one who walked out of the film disappointed. For me, it was sort of like watching a recording of someone screwing my sister.
Regardless of how you feel about the film overall, I don’t think it was appropriate for you to slur those who enjoyed it.
It’s all a big left wing conspiracy theory isn’t it David. LOL, how sad…
I just re-read the review and am wondering what slurs were in there.
You are a useless reviewer, Avatar is an awesome movie
“Apparently no one cares about story or characters or stuff making sense any more.”
“Just look at some of the fawning reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes; this is a movie that I am convinced has caused critics to take a leave of their senses.”
“Did I see the same movie as everyone else, or was I one of the few to see the Half-Baked Straight-to-DVD Disney Plot cut?”
These are the kinds of slurs I’m talking about. Basically I’m objecting to David Johnson’s portrayal of the opposition as being blind to the alleged flaws and stupidity of Avatar. I just don’t think it’s appropriate to insult people just to put you over as the lone voice of sanity. It makes the film review less of a review and more of a bile-filed rant.
A slur is only a defamatory remark, sure, and those comments qualify. But do any of them fail reflect the facts of the matter? Unless they were untrue, I’m afraid I don’t understand your objection.
I took the time to read the reviews of many critics compiled at Rotten Tomatoes this morning and found that those in favour of the film were overwhelmingly swayed by the special effects rather than any substantive merit.
Furthermore, it has been my experience that this goes beyond the critics and can be extended to encompass those whom I’ve spoken to who have been entranced by this picture.
There is no “opposition,” this review isn’t attempting in any way to polarise opinion into camps of Moronically Indiscriminate Viewers and Perceptively Astute Viewers. The fact you are trying to create such a false dichotomy makes you intellectually dishonest at the very least. The main idea in this piece is that the necessary facets which comprise a quality narrative are entirely lacking in this movie and regardless of how attractively rendered it is, it fails to live up the expectations and standards of cinematic excellence. That’s it. Anything else you draw from it is conjured entirely from your own insecurities.
Thanks, Cody. Well said.
I really don’t know how those can be taken as slurs. Not understanding how so many people can be enthralled with something so flawed is not a slur. It’s a reaction that became an interesting read. Someone disagreeing with you and expressing that is not slurring you. Dave’s being critical. In a critic’s review.
This reviewer lacks credibility. Movies filled with cliches and plot-holes have been made for decades and many have won Oscars and have entertained hundred of millions. This movie isn’t perfect as it relates to the story or characters, but it wasn’t nearly as bad as Mr. Dave is illustrating either. For pure entertainment value and spectacle in a visual medium, to give a 2 out of 10 illustrates that this reviewer better not give up his day job.
Avatar=Entertaining. That is what movies are made for and this one, plot-holes and character flaws and all, was #$@%&*% entertaining. I saw this movie in 3D Imax in a full auditorium and was in awe of what I saw on display, as everyone else was. Spend the extra 5 bucks and watch this movie as it was intended. If you still don’t like it, your in serious need of a career counselor.
Cinema Verdict is officially deleted from my favorites menu. With narrow reviews like this one it doesn’t provide the service it is intending.
Good luck, Mr. Johnson!
2 out of 10….?!
Here is what James Cameron had to say about this movie, from a Hollywood Reporter interview in 2009:
THR: You’ve mentioned this ["Avatar"] is a parable.
Cameron: Really what this film ultimately does is hold a mirror to our own blighted history, where we have a culturally advanced civilization supplanting more “primitive” civilizations. Some of these civilizations and cultures have a lot more wisdom than we’ve shown. We just have bigger guns. We have ships that can cross oceans, we have horses and armor. And this country we’re in now was taken from its indigenous owners. And it’s kind of owning up to our own human history.
——————
There you go: this is a parable first and foremost. If you were entertained, great, I’m glad you got your money’s worth. Seriously.
But as Cameron admits, he’s pushing an unsubtle message on the audience–why should great visual effects trump any push-back from me, the viewer, on this sermonizing, especially since it comes at the expense of character and story?
“Cinema Verdict is officially deleted from my favorites menu. With narrow reviews like this one it doesn’t provide the service it is intending.”
I don’t think dissenting means narrow, and I’d rather read or hear a dissenting opinion over someone jumping on a bandwagon or being blinded by flash.
Oh boy that’s a harsh review. I actually ranked the film as amongst my very best of 2009 but that isnt to say I can’t see the validity in this perspective. I guess I was just able to let the familiar story slide because I enjoyed the performances, action and sheer scope and beauty of Cameron’s vision.
Still always interesting to hear someone who feels differently and I have to say some of the commentary here is fabulously stinging and entertaining.
Johnson,
You have been vindicated by a font!
M
http://prttyshttydesign.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-letter-to-james-cameron-from.html
I actually fell asleep. The last time that happened was during one of those Pokeman movies with my 8 year old son. During Avatar I managed to wake up in time to see the cat-people’s victory dance…I asked my, now grown, son if there were Ewoks in the scene
I don’t think it’s a good idea to review films or books that one deeply dislikes. It blinds one to any virtues the works may have, and you end up with, most often, a list of dislikes. But that’s not a review of a book or a film; it’s a sort of self-exposure. One ends up talking more about oneself than the work one is supposedly reviewing. One example: the corporate head, played by Ribisi. When I saw the movie, he struck as much like a lot of people I’ve met in real life, that is, not particularly bright, and more committed to the group he’s working within than any larger view of things. The characterization may not be particularly deep or complex, but it’s not inaccurate, and has a reasonable truth to life-ness. I don’t see Cameron as attempting and failing to make a message movie, but rather as using the technical resources at his disposal to do what science fiction can do best: create an alternate world, in depth, and clothe that in a reasonably interesting narrative. It ain’t Henry James, but so what? It’s a good story, pretty well told, and with gorgeous visuals (which is, after all, what films must have if they’re to work at all).
“I don’t think it’s a good idea to review films or books that one deeply dislikes.”
I couldn’t disagree more sharply with this assertion. I find that deep dislike of something often inspires a critic/reviewer to reach greater heights in their writing. It’s the movies one feels ambivalent about that tend to inspire the weakest reviews.
You missed the most ridiculous element in the plot. The evil corporation has biotech that can create a Navi body with partially human DNA, and it has technology to let the hero remote control that body; but it doesn’t have technology to permit him to remote control his own legs.
However, some of your complaints are off base. See George Armstrong Custer re the demonstrated idiocy of commanders engaging primitives. And, see Wounded Knee re ordinary folks being complicit in massacres of primitives.
Further, much as we would all like to think it not so, safe here in our cocoons, it’s altogether likely that if our descendents encounter technological primitives out there, they will take what they need using whatever methods they find they need, and some primitives, ala the Aztecs, Maya, Amerinds, Maoris, etc. will find themselves eliminated from the scene. But rest assured that the descendents of our callous descendents will heartily disapprove of their grandparents’ actions, and make movies like Avatar in reaction.
The reverse, of course, will happen in the event the descendents of the Navi happen to arrive here with superior technology. The world belongs to the survivors of the tribes with the better clubs. And the universe will eventually, as well.
And another ridiculous plot point. The hero is the only man in the universe who can control the expensive avatar developed for control by his dead identical twin brother who was chosen for the program in part, one assumes, for his intelligence, since it’s a pretty complex diplomatic sort of task.
Yet the hero was too stupid to realize he had the negotiating clout to require repair of his legs as part of his price for taking on the contract.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea to review films or books that one deeply dislikes. It blinds one to any virtues the works may have, and you end up with, most often, a list of dislikes.”
Then should the same be said of the opposite? One shouldn’t review a film that one deeply likes. It blinds one to any problems the works may have, and you end up with, most often, a list of likes.
Also, isn’t that what a review actually is- what someone liked and disliked about something? What if they did not like anything?
“I don’t see Cameron as attempting and failing to make a message movie”
But he did make a message movie. He has stated that many times. It’s a parable. Or “a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.” He just set in a sci-fi world.
Also, he has said,”‘Avatar’ is really cutting edge in how it was made,… But that’s not what people want to hear about. They want to hear about the story.”
Dave was telling us about the story in Avatar, not the special effects. After all that’s what we want to hear about, at least according to Cameron himself.
But what did you think of it, Dave?
This is a terrible review. Thanks, Google, for directing me to this garbage. The “bullet list” this reviewer has at the end shows me nothing other than movie magic has long left him. Go back to the Burger King you came from, “movie reviewer”.
Mr. Ebert,
Just wondering how the weather is in Kirkland, WA where your post originated. Better than Chicago?
I don’t often do this but. . .
LOL
Quite the review, Dave. You’re trying to get all us staff writers murdered, aren’t you? ADMIT IT.
While I can’t quite sink to Dave’s level of cynicism for the film–I admit, I drank the Kool-Aid and enjoyed it immensely–I genuinely find it interesting that all his points are absolutely with merit.
The story IS pretty amateurish. The character archetypes ARE pretty hackneyed. Michelle Rodriguez is IN the movie. I mean, it’s all true.
Truly, a love-it or hate-it experience.
Good points, Dave. There are some indefensible flaws with the story. Still, I’m in the love-it camp on this one. There was a high “awe factor” throughout the movie and I had fun watching it.
You’re right to take Cameron to task on his mission to deliver a message. I didn’t hear his sound bites beforehand so I didn’t go in with the intention of measuring the movie against his ego. Maybe that’s why your reaction is so strong.
Personally, I like movies with messages — even poorly delivered ones. If a movie doesn’t have anything to say, it’s just flashing lights and sounds. Art, good or bad, inspires thought and conversation. That AVATAR inspired your review almost justifies $300 million.
I agree with the review, 2 out of 10. Stephen Lange was the best thing in this film. I liked this film better when it was called “Little Big Man” and “Dances with Wolves.
Wow, surprised you gave it a 2. But I do agree with . Didn’t seem like this movie deserved all the thumbs up it’s getting.
OK – I HAVE ENOUGH OF THIS WEBSITE. This is it. Reviewing with %?#%s all the time sends a clear message : you need to develop your vocabulary and show a little more objectivity. You must be frustrated thet you paid to watch the movie and you decide that you will SCREAM your hatred for this movie on this page. I am tired of people who think they know it all.
Hey, it’s an action flick for the entire family, not a philosophical documentary. What did you expect? A reason to fill up your page with ?%$#$%&?&**s. Grow up and stop reviewing movies, it’s not for you. As for me, I have enough of your subjective verdicts.
Thank you Emmanual for that unbiased and objective insight.
If I am not mistaken, unless DVD Verdict or any other critical outfit reviews a movie by a committee of several people whose judgments are culled together to make a single rating, then all the reviews are the result of the reviewer’s subjective thoughts. I mean, what makes Roger Ebert qualified to review a movie other than the fact that he’s been doing it so long? Did he go to Film School? Has he ever created special effects? I firmly believe that he gave the movie 4 stars more because of his political beliefs and not for the actual quality of the characters/story, which he usually puts far above special effects. The fact that David Johnson gave the film 2 out of 10 due mainly to the fact that the story/characters were very poorly made is not much different than Roger Ebert giving it 4 out of 4 stars and heaping tons of unjustified praise on the movie because of his personal beliefs and subjective opinion. Isn’t that what film criticism is all about?? If you don’t agree with the review, get over it. It’s the reviewer’s opinion. And don’t give up reading an entire website because of one little review that got your panties in a twist. There’s plenty more to enjoy here.
Besides the crummy story and poorly written characters, my argument to this film is the irreperable harm it does to the genre of science fiction in general. Gone are the days of Heinlein, Bradbury, and Asimov, writers whose works have inestimable cultural value and significance, not because they wrote of rocket ships, robots, or lasers, but because what scifi was always supposed to be about is , dealing with issues of human nature, and the barbaric or noble aspects of it. One cannot help but look at the drivel that passes for scifi, Avatar included, and wonder where are the awards for great works of fiction such as Andromeda, Jericho, or my personal favorites Battlestar Galactica, and Firefly.
These were all intelligent well written shows with compelling characters and beautiful settings.(Sorry if its not the latest 3-d like Avatar)
The sad fact is of those shows Jericho and Firefly got axed due to ratings, and they had equally important messages, regarding freedom and individual liberty. Nearly all the shows I listed dealt with law and how it pertains to society in exigent circumstances, but becuse they had no multimillion dollar budget to push the latest CG and SFX they largely got pushed by the wayside developing cultish followings with the notable exception of Battlestar which has achieved a small meausre of sucess, but not in proportion to its greatness.(Try it ask someone about Battlestar and they will say ‘my parents watched that when they were kids’ or ‘oh I don’t watch scifi’, then ask if they watched Avatar, Nuff said).
Now as to Politics I’ll keep it brief, I am a conservative, but I don’t mind watching movies with positions I don’t agree with, because at the end of the day it helps e to see how others think, or gives me food for thought. What I cannot stand is a gross mischaracterization and forced roles and stereo types based on biases, at least not if its backed up with a decent story line and good action. Personally as part Cherokee the stereotype of the noble savage in Avatar offended me because the Native Americans were intelligent people who shaped the world around them and didn’t ride around like savages helpless to white men until they entreated of some primitive deity.
Last thought i will leave you with is a quote from Robert Heinleins book Starship Troopers ” But does man have any “right” to spread through the universe?
Man is what he is a wild animal with the will to survive, and (so far ) the ability, against all competition. Unless one accepts that, anything one says about moral, war, politics – you name it – is nonsense. Correct morals arise from knowing what Man is- not what do gooders and old Aunt Nellies would like him to be.”
Take it or leave it, but that my friends is the basis of great scifi.
Brilliant review. Don’t get the universal praise for this film. What riles me most is the ‘future of movies’ type stuff. If this is truly the future then I’m going to stop watching films altogether. It feels like my head is rotting watching this garbage.
Also the comments here are funny. I guess brainless people like a brainless movie. I think as a reviewer you have explained yourself very well. Keep it up.
This image should be cropped at the end of the review. . .
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/130283/original.jpg
Thanks for a real review, a review that wasn’t ‘blinded’ by expensive and worthless CG and 3D imagery. James Cameron failed US with this movie, he failed with a very slim plot and forgettable characters.
The main thing you got to realize is that this IS a James Cameron film, the guy that brought you Terminator and Terminator 2, two of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time. This is the guy that made you LOVE Sarah Connor, that made her the baddass mom she is…so, what does he do in Avatar? Gives you blue ‘interconnected with nature’ people who hiss….okaaay…
I too fell asleep during the movie (well, just for a few seconds), and my brother who usually enjoys popcorn movies more than me, fell asleep for almost 20 minutes during the last hour!!
I must admit, the movie picked up after Jake begins training as a Na’vi, but that’s it. ALL the characters are forgettable (except Michelle Rodriguez, sorry, it’s true), the story will never take you anywhere, he choses ‘easy’ fixes to his plot twists and……..he failed.
You have a $500 million dollar movie that has almost made 3x that amount in gross worldwide revenue, just because of the hype, just because of the ‘great’ (NOT in my opinion) CG, and the 3D (which again, useless and pointless)…
Yes, I agree the way people behave, “I don’t like CG/sci-fi movies, or “cartoons”", but yet they go and watch Avatar and are mesmerized by the visuals because they are NOT used to them, we are! We’ve seen Star Wars, LOTR, Iron Man, we already are used to great CG, and to see Avatar, it’s a ‘meh’ feeling.
Again, thanks for this review Mr. David Johnson…
…oh, and Mr. Cameron, redeem yourself by making a sequel in which the stretched smurfs get killed by the humans and they destroy their world. (No part 3, “revenge of the Na’vi” necessary, it’s already been copyrighted and I’ll sue you once you make 3 and billions so that I can get a cut of it…)
Like everything else nowadays, the film is seen through a partisan political lens. David Johnson is a conservative republican type if I remember correctly from his DVD Verdict reviews. Of course he hates the film, for many of the same reasons that Roger Ebert, a liberal, loves it, even though Roger admits some of the weaknesses of the film written by David Johnson. But 2 out of 10? I’d be intested in seeing all the movies that David Johnson has given 3 or more out of 10 scores. I’d guess he gave lots of far inferior films higher scores. The review was reasoned but the score was a fit of pique, no doubt of that in my mind. Is this film really on the level of “From Justin to Kelly”? Of course not. The film is a visual marvel, one that sets the bar for hi-tech films of the future, and made enough money to make 5 more like it. To the extent that the commons have a wisdom, it seems the market thinks David Johnson is full of crap.
Nothing gets a conservative madder than a liberal enjoying success.
One more thing: This site could really, really use another review of the film to accompany this one, since this one is out of step with the views of the site as a whole, I believe.
I’m a very liberal and open minded person, but I still disliked the film, it is a very WEAK film by James Cameron, that is the main point.
It’s ironic that people critiziced Wall-E because what it criticized, but Avatar (because it comes from James Cameron) is NOT.
Plus, 3D failed. Fly me to the moon did it better, and so did the Toy Story bundle. Again, $500 wasted on a movie that has a worse story than Battle for Terra.
Oh please. I don’t care if James Cameron lifted lines straight from de Tocqueville: Avatar failed because as a movie its story and character flaws were voluminous.
Heil Rove!
Not to leap to an “Evil, cranky Conservatives” defense(I personally could care less what Mr. Johnsons politics are) but what does it matter. Take off your rose colored glasses and read what people’s complaints are Eclectic I wrote a few paragraphs outlining my position, and how I felt about this movie. I disliked it because of many reasons beyond politics, and the review was pretty a political, just a man pointing out flaws that certainly ruined what had potential to be a new American Classic tale, and a great Scifi, instead we get a D-list story that they would have rejected even in the days of hokey scifi, and a main villain so cheesy and predictable, that the least they could have done was try to attract Micheal Ironside to play as Colonel “Ranger Rick” Quaritch. Shoot at least if they did that we’d have gotten ONE compelling performance.
Bravo Mr Johnson spot on review, funny how the many liberal minded loved this movie they must be the same type who agreed with their “anointed ones” apology tour through Europe saying what arrogant and irresponsible people us Americans are, HOGWASH!!
Politics aside though, I did find many of the CG 3D world images to be cool looking and awesome, to a point. But only to a point, after seeing them for several minutes the images mixed with a boring and uninspired story did begin to grate on my senses. I began to feel overwhelmed visually yet disappointed emotionally. I loved the floating mountain stuff and the bio-luminescent scenes only because I had thought for sometime of using a similar scene for a script draft I had written for a movie series idea when i was about 15 years old and wondered how it could be created. Of course that was years before CGI was anything near what we have now. My immediate thoughts which i whispered to my son sitting next to me was “see Dragon Riders of Pern could be done now!
I too fell asleep for a few minutes, shorter than during my viewing of The Day The Earth Stood Still (another disappointing film) only because my 13 year old daughter elbowed me and woke me from my nap. Opening my eyes I was sad to notice the clock had only moved a little forward and the blue guy was still riding that dragon rip off. In many parts I found the film dragged some parts I found it went to fast. The only positive note is that at least I could focus my eyes on the action scenes and take in what was going on unlike many action films now whose editing and camera work is so choppy and shaky it makes me nauseous, ig. Any Michael Mann or Bay film etc, you all know the movies guilty of this, we have said it before.
I too was pissed off at the end finding out about the Earth’s impending doom. Hated the fact that Jake betrayed his people, hate and always will even when she was on LOST M. Rodriguez, (my favorite part on LOST was when she was killed-off) Bored by Weavers performance, though she was the best of the worst. Well I cant stand to write anymore, I had hoped seeing Avatar that I could say welcome back Cameron but all I can say is Thanks for helping along a new technology in film making that someone else can do better with, I hope….but with what has been passing for block busters these days I wont hold my breath.
You are all dismissed to go an watch some decent sci-fi or even better read a book!
“The review was reasoned but the score was a fit of pique, no doubt of that in my mind. Is this film really on the level of “From Justin to Kelly”? ”
Let me just point out that ratings are a relative thing based on a wide variety of factors. Just because two films have the same star/numerical/alphabetical rating does not mean that they are equal. It only means that they have the same rating.
Wow… In reading many of the above posts I think the future is ripe with future directors! So many critiques for an above average film? Lighten up!
For the harsh critics I would suggest you stock up on plenty of liquor to dull the pain of Avatar becoming the highest grossing film in the history of cinema. I’m sure Mr Cameron thanks you for spending the extra cash to watch it in 3-D as well!
This reminds me of the coach vs player analogy. The best coaches usually sucked at the sport they coach. Ultimately the coach wishes it were he who ran the touchdown.
Score: James Cameron= 7——-Staff writers= 0
I love the Americans that worship at the altar of capitalism, taking a solid economic conceptual framework and elevating to the heights of religious reverence.
If it makes money, it can’t be mediocre right? Beanie Babies, Pet Rocks and Crocs must reflect some sort of transcendental milestone of human progress given how marketable those products were and the profit to investment ratio of their manufacture. You’re right “Surgikal,” I was a fool not to have seen it sooner, any movie which makes this much money cannot possibly be crippled by numerous flaws.
I mean, look at what else is listed in the top ten all time highest grossing films. Shrek 2! Star Wars: The Phantom Menace! Transformers 2! How could I possible have thought movies so successful might be populist rubbish!
Actually Surgical Strike, the Highest Grossing Film in cinema history is Gone With the Wind. Adjusted for inflation of course, it also ranks number one in ticket sales as well, pretty good considering no midnight showing, comic con teasers, or $255 million special effects budget.
So, this website gives Avatar a lower rating than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. That makes perfectly logical sense.
Actually it makes perfect sense, because Revenge of the Fallen was a superior film in nearly every respect to Avatar especially in terms of the story, plus Tranformers didn’t try to pass itself off a the greatest thing since Holy Terra and the God-Emporer of Mankind. Transformers was a mindless summer action flick that gave me what i expected Hot women, nice cars, and Freaking cool robots. Not a spiel on race/alien robot relations, or in avatars case an environmental diatribe that would put Ayn Rand to shame.
Wow. Some very stong views here! I think I’m with Clark Douglas on this one.
I’ve now seen Avatar twice, once in ‘normal’ size 3D and once in IMAX 3D. In the latter format this is certainly some of the most impressive eye candy ever. And I agree with Clark that on one level it was pretty compelling viewing. But yes, it is terribly simplistic for a James Cameron film.
People are saying its a sci-fi ‘Dances with Wolves’. But the film it most reminded me of story-wise was ‘The Last Samurai’.
It is a game-changer? We will see. I’m not personally persuaded of it at this time.
please i need a moral lesson i like it!!
An excellent review that echoed many of my thoughts.
I have to say that considering the length of time I was waiting for a James Cameron film I was a little disappointed. Yes it was visually spectacular but it was also desperately predictable. I mean it is basically Dances with Wolves meets Apocalypto but not as good as either of those.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge Cameron fan and Titanic is my all time favourite film but whereas as in Titanic the effects served the main story, i.e. that of the sinking ship, in Avatar they controlled the story. You felt James thought of the 3D technique and then thought what would show it off best.
I remember some saying ‘why would I want to see Titanic when I know what will happen’ but Avatar was so much more predictable ticking all the big budget family action films. Half way through I was still being entranced by all the wonderful neon colours and far reaching vistas but then you felt the air of predictability setting in.
The ostracisation of the main character, him having to win everyone back by taming the wildest horse (sorry dragon thing), doing the ‘Braveheart’ motivational speech that lacked a little oomph, then the battle which unlike the ones in Braveheart or Last Samurai lacked tactical invention, the 2nd in command buys it, the main female lead gets into trouble, the animals come to the rescue in a Jumanji meets the stampeding cows from Zulu and you get a final standoff between the two main adversaries
It felt so Disney with the age classification really preventing you witnessing anything that might shock you or keep you on the edge of your seat. Who would live, who would die? – You pretty much knew what was happening right up to the sugar coated ending.
I think what happened was that Cameron was surrounded by too many ‘yes’ men. It’s understandable really. When you’ve had the fight that he had with Titanic and been proved so comprehensively correct nobody dared challenge him or question any of the story elements for Avatar. And that’s the problem. Having a single minded idea is fine but without refinement or additional input it can be either spot on or wide of the mark.
No different really from George Lucas with the three Star Wars prequels, Quentin Tarantino after Pulp Fiction or Peter Jackson after Fellowship of the Ring dropped.
It’s like Cameron hasn’t been watching films or playing games for the last twelve years. Even worse he assumes that his audience hasn’t done the same.
When you’ve got the likes of Moon and District 9 pushing sci fi in interesting fresh angles, King Kong doing the whole ‘fantasy island with amazing flora and fauna’ rotuine and computer games such as Halo and Mass Effect weaving fleshed out futuristic stories, then Avatar doesn’t come across as that ground breaking.
An example would be the heavy handed environmental angle. 5 – 10 years ago it might have seemed fresher but with Hope-enhagen in the news all the time and every negative rain drop attributed to climate change, one does get a little tired of the endless tree hugging. Being one with nature and respecting the fallen animals is nothing new and once again was covered in Dances with Wolves but without the hammering environmental guilt.
Ultimately it was an entertaining film. The 3D was good and the CGI was impressive but it wasn’t the revelation that I’d been expecting or had been mooted. The idea that it will revolutionise cinema attending and that Lucas wants to re-do some of the Star Wars films with this technique leads me to think, don’t bother.
It might be interesting but it doesn’t elevate it to the next level and is only immersive whilst you are looking at the screen. Yes, it’s nice to look at but an OK film isn’t elevated to brilliant when shown in HD and likewise this technique doesn’t patch over a poor story.
For me Avatar was nothing more than a glorified Disney film that could have been made by any number of other directors.
The mantle of best sci-fi film (and overall film) of the year for me is now securely in the hands of
District 9 for it’s creativity, freshness and excitement and Avatar unfortunately slips way down the league of Cameron films.
A couple comments:
1) I’m probably more liberal than James Cameron and I thought this film did a disservice to the message it tried to illustrate. As a film, it was cliched, unimaginative, and pretty dull.
2) I’m glad the other people connected to this website are loyal to one of their own, but is the reader comments section the place to be badmouthing (is that too strong a word? we seem to be averse to strong comments here, unless they appear in a review) the people who take the time to respond with reader comments? I’m pretty sure the reviewer can handle all the backlash or he wouldn’t be putting his name on the review. And to David Johnson, I address this comment: keep doing what you love. I enjoy the podcasts a lot. I wonder though if this film got under your skin because it took a macho type that you seem to love in other films and placed him in the service of a Prius owner’s message. Why is Colonel Whatshisname so cartoony here but acceptable, if not laudable, in a Rambo film, for instance?
As Larry King used to say, “Your thoughts.”
Thanks for the kind words!
I’d have to say Jake Sully might have been the least-macho (certainly the most boring) action character I’ve seen in some time. He was definitely the dumbest. The Prius owner can do much better than this stiff!
And the Colonel was so funny because his actions were utterly moronic, especially when juxtaposed with the SERIOUSNESS of the movie.
Did RAMBO 3 feature cartoonish villains? Oh yeah, but that was a movie where a tank and a giant helicopter rammed each other, not an extended lecture on the evils of imperialism and human encroachment into the virgin forest.
“He was definitely the dumbest.”
You can say that again and again; but he had to be dumb or he would have negotiated repair of his legs as a precondition for taking over the expensive avatar that had been specially constructed for his identical twin brother. And then Cameron would have been unable to add the “I am differently abled, hear me roar and see me triumph” trope to the movie.
That said, it was an amusing couple of hour romp, which is all one can reasonably expect a movie to be. And the settings, with their (Larry) Nivenesque rounding out of credible plant and animal inhabitants of the ecosystem were as good as any movie I’ve seen.
Leave a Comment