Was Avatar good/bad?

Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,174
Was chatting with a few friends last night about films that should have been bad but had their fates changed, we basically came to the conclusion that the "taken" films were rubbish ideas saved by Liam Neeson (they have Stephen Segal DVD bin written all over them) and that Avatar was a bad script with bad acting that was only saved by amazing effects, one guy however maintained that the film was amazing in it's own right and will stand the test of time like Star Wars (we all laughed at him).

I am now wondering however who is right, the was a lot of negativity on the internet when it launched but how do people feel now?

My opinion has always been that it was basically a pocahontas ripoff with blue aliens instead of Indians and that the acting was subpar and the story was dire, the only difference between it and a straight to DVD disaster was the AMAZING effects which served as an exhibition/benchmark of the new 3D technology, but this will not hold true forever and it will end up like The Lawnmower man (only good thing was the effects which now look dated).

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone say "I watched Avatar again last night, it's still awesome", probably because nobody says "I know what I'll rewatch Avatar tonight" in the first place. People will freely re-watch the LOTR films, Terminator 2, and all sorts of classics but nobody really rewatches Avatar because it's a showoff film with no substance, once you have seen the effects you have seen the effects and that's all the film ever had going for it, just like Lawnmower man and many others.
 
Yep, he was wrong. It's an abysmall film which only got the hype it did cause Cameron spent millions on creating the terrible 3d revolution we are in.
It gets a solid 4/10 from me.
 
Wasn't it basically dances with wolves, set in space?
I actually quite enjoyed it, even the ridiculous bits and questionable acting.
 
It's not great, but I don't think it's as bad as people make out (think a lot of that is down to the current trend of over-exaggeration but thats something else entirely). I don't think it'll go down the lawnmower man route, the graphics used aren't really the type that would get dated as such, it also wouldn't surprise me if the series as a whole doesn't improve as the prequels/sequels come out.
 
I thought it was brilliant. I Hate 3D but i would only ever watch Avatar in 3D, just simply stunning.

Mrs didn't rate it though.
 
Some films due to their popularity get dumped on a bit more than they deserve. It's a solid entertaining film with brilliant sfx.

Felt the same about the John Carter movie, that one got ripped a new one by critics but I actually quite enjoyed it!
 
LMAO I'd forgotten about lawnmower man!!!! even the title is rubbish!

I quite enjoyed Avatar.

Ive never seen it in 3D and I'm not a fan of 3D movies generally. My Brain does a fairly good job of working out what is in front of what, and the insistence of them dangling things in front of my face is off putting and I find it fatiguing (if that's even a word).

I'm fairly easily pleased when it comes to movies, I tend to sit and absorb it, rather than analyse it too much. I can cope with low budget no problem, even average acting doesn't bother me too much, but awful acting can ruin films for me.

For me, its crap characters and dodgy scripts that I cant stand. I watched Chappie fairly recently and it was dire. all the characters were so unbelievable that anyone like that could actually exist, that I wanted them all to get killed by about 10 minutes in. I did watch to the end, but I wish I hadn't have done. The story was ok, but nothing new, the effects were ok, but what was going on with the rest of it?

Ive wandered off topic, but avatar is no future classic, but i'll watch it again.
 
People say 'Pocahontas or Dances with wolves set in space' like it's a bad thing. I enjoyed both of those films and Avatar stole that plot and supercharged it with mechanical exo-suits and Pterodactyl things. What's not to like??
 
It was a stunning film when I first saw it. That first viewing on the big screen was a special moment.

Same for me. Such a spectacle.

Seeing it for a second time, and going past the fantastic visuals, you kind of realise that there isn't much else to get out of the film other than the jaw dropping effects. If it was something new and different, maybe repeated viewings would hold up more, but we've seen it before in Ferngully, Pocahontas and possibly to some extent, Dances with Wolves.

It's certainly not a bad film, but now to me, it seems like more a 2hr+ SFX demo.
 
...and will stand the test of time like Star Wars (we all laughed at him).

...that the acting was subpar and the story was dire, the only difference between it and a straight to DVD disaster was the AMAZING effects

So basically Star Wars when it came out then. There was nothing original in the first SW in terms of the story (just a western/save the princess story in space) and the acting is nothing special. Star Wars is only saved by ESB and ROTJ, as a standalone film, effects aside, it's fairly poor.

Not even trolling, not one little bit.
 
Last edited:
So basically Star Wars when it came out then. There was nothing original in the first SW in terms of the story (just a western/save the princess story in space) and the acting is nothing special. Star Wars is only saved by ESB and ROTJ, as a standalone film, effects aside, it's fairly poor.

Not even trolling, not one little bit.
Spot on. When I watch New Hope I cringe at some of it. It's the other two that make the trilogy what it is.
 
Awesome movie in regards to the visuals and technology used to get said visuals, I want to spend a month or so camped out in that bio-luminescent forest. Story line was flaky as hell though, but it had Michele Rodriguez and some cool helos which redeems it a few points.
 
Back
Top Bottom