James Cameron's 'Avatar' - The next gen of cinema

OK, so here's my review of Avatar. :)

If I had to sum up the movie in two words, they would be: loud; colourful. You get plenty of noise for your money and your eyes will be overloaded by stimuli. Visually, it's gorgeous. Graphics are smooth and elegant. Cameron must have cranked his AA settings right up to the max. ("nVIDIA: the way it's meant to be played"!) :eek:

The 3D, sadly, is a mixed bag. There were some great scenes like when some little shiny particle things were drifting around and it honestly felt like I could reach out and touch them. I also had a few good "wince" moments when stuff flew at me from the screen. But as I've said in a previous post, the 3D effect seemed to fade in and out. Scenes with real actors looked best; scenes with a predominance of CGI varied in quality. Some were jaw-droppingly real; others felt rather flat. This is not ground-breaking, history making stuff. It's just vanilla 3D with chocolate sauce, in need of some more beta testing.

An unfortunate side effect of the CGI was that it tended to disassociate me from the Na'vi (the blue space monkeys who inhabit the planet of Pandora). While I really enjoyed the switch between Jake's two "worlds" (blatant deus ex machina but nevertheless very well handled) the CGI stuff never felt real and the graphics used to create them seemed a trifle cartoonish. Consequently, Avatar looks like it's been pasted together with vidcaps from a sophisticated MMORPG.

The Na'vi were shamelessly based on the classic "noble savage" stereotype, which immediately made me care less about them than I do about the dust under my fridge. A curious mixture of Native Americans and African Americans (two peoples traditionally enslaved and abused by white Americans, ironically enough) they were so dumb and hippyish that I couldn't take them seriously. During the rare times when they weren't babbling pseudo-mystical nonsense at the humans, they played "cowboys and Indians" with each other and hung around looking moody. Like that's going to save the planet from intergalactic invasion? :confused:

Even worse, they had no idea how to mobilise themselves against the humans. It took Jake (a symbolic "Great White Chief from the Skies") to unite the clans and get them doing what they should have been doing since before the movie even started. Apparently only Jake could do this because - having spent all of several weeks on Pandora - he had magically become a complete expert in every aspect of their language, culture, society, politics and history. Or, to put it another way: only Jake could do this because he was a white American (Avatar is replete with heavy overtones of cultural imperialism and white supremacy). Huzzah!

I've barely touched on the plot holes. Examples could be multiplied. There were also some dizzying leaps of logic - but don't even go there, girlfriend. :rolleyes:

To cut a long story short, Jake leads his new people to war after becoming even more of a noble savage than the noble savages themselves and accomplishing the great "once-in-a-lifetime-feat-which-only-five-of-the-clan's-greatest-Na'vi-have-ever-achieved-in-the-entire-history-of-Pandora." Which we knew he was going to do because the movie blatantly telegraphed it at least an hour beforehand. As, indeed, it did with so many of the plot's crude developments.

You see, the problem with basing your movie on stereotypical plot elements and stereotypical characters is that everyone can see what's going to happen from miles away because they already know what to expect from the stereotypes. Avatar slavishly adheres to this tired old formula which is why the story just isn't very interesting. It wastes new technology on old cheese.

I was checking my watch at the 90 minute mark, yawning after 2 hours and wishing I could grow a third buttock for extra coccyx support by the time we entered the final 20 minutes. That's when I wasn't laughing loudly at the atrocious acting and cringe-worthy dialogue.

In fact, there were quite a lot of laughs in the cinema and when the movie finally ended everyone just sort of shrugged and walked out. No applause, no "WOW!", no excited chattering. Like me, they were simply glad it was over. :o

5/10

Seems slightly over-harsh IMHO.

As for the "noble-warrior" stereotype, maybe, maybe not. I guess given basically any suggested mindset, you could find a pigeon hole for them, if you try hard enough...

And then with "apparently only Jake could do this," well let's not forget, (a) he had a somewhat different outlook to the Navi - you could argue more violent/cut-throat, and of course, (b) inside information of what the humans were going to do (eg: they were going to attack, what and when) - so yes, only he could do it :)

Yes, there were plot holes, or just some weak writing. And yes, the story was somewhat predictable, and that's a shame, but strangely I wasn't too bothered for some reason, and I wasn't after an episode of CSI when watching it, just am immersive experience. And Avatar certainly achieved that (for me).

The 3D, yes I'm not sold. I'd love to be able to hop between two screens, one showing it in 3D and the other normally... The jury is out for me on whether 3D is 'all that!'


Anyway, I'm not saying your points are in anyway mute or void, and indeed the Mark Kermode review I linked to a few posts above raises many of exactly the same points/issues, but like him, I agree that, "It's flawed, baggy, all over the place, but there was enough in it that you went, you know what, wow!"

I think I'd give it 7/10 for the first time I saw it, and 8/10 the second.

And I think one telling fact, and maybe this is why you've given it (seemingly) a quite low score, compared to many other people, is in your review you've not really mentioned (or tried to see) and of the positive/good aspects of the film, which of course did exist. You've put a lot of effort into listing/thinking about the bad, and none (far less) into the good?


And on a final note - Each time I saw it, there was actually one of those odd silences in the cinema after the film finished, where people were taken a little back and didn't start talking/moving for a little while...
 
Last edited:
Evangelion's review was to be expected really, given what has been said in this thread already, but a 5/10? Really?

I agree with a lot of what Evangelion said regarding the plot and storyline, but it was no worse then the majority of what is churned out at Hollywood these days and I'm sorry, but as for the CGI and SE - it was streets ahead of anything we've seen to date. I don't get that part of it at all.

So 5/10, not quite on par with the classic Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey then, which scored 5.6/10 on IMDB. :rolleyes:

Although it does just manage to beat the classic "Lost Boys: The Tribe" which I had the misfortune of watching recently, a truly horrific film that managed a glorious 4.6/10
 
Seems slightly over-harsh IMHO.

It's entirely proportionate to the hype which accompanied this movie. ;)

As for the "noble-warrior" stereotype, maybe, maybe not. I guess given basically any suggested mindset, you could find a pigeon hole for them, if you try hard enough...

And then with "apparently only Jake could do this," well let's not forget, (a) he had a somewhat different outlook to the Navi - you could argue more violent/cut-throat, and of course, (b) inside information of what the humans were going to do (eg: they were going to attack, what and when) - so yes, only he could do it :)

OK, I'll stop you right there.

Firstly, the Na'vi were already cut-throat. They weren't all sitting around in communes smoking weed. They attacked humans on sight, hence the need for the Avatars. The only "different outlook" that Jake had was the one he steadily lost throughout the course of the movie.

Secondly, Jake's "inside information" looks like a deal-breaker at first sight. But wait a second - was it really?


(a) The humans knew where the Na'vi clan were living (Sigourney Weaver's character had been running a school there, remember?)
(b) Sigourney Weaver's character also knew that the humans were straining at the leash and would attack at any moment; she could have told them this herself
(c) From the moment the first bulldozer appeared and tried to roll over Jake, it was obvious to everyone that the humans were heading for the tree

So what exactly did Jake tell people that they didn't already know or couldn't have figured out for themselves? Nothing that I can see. It's just weak scriptwriting.

Yes, there were plot holes, or just some weak writing. And yes, the story was somewhat predictable, and that's a shame, but strangely I wasn't too bothered for some reason, and I wasn't after an episode of CSI when watching it, just am immersive experience. And Avatar certainly achieved that (for me).

I agree, it was an immersive experience.

The 3D, yes I'm not sold. I'd love to be able to hop between two screens, one showing it in 3D and the other normally... The jury is out for me on whether 3D is 'all that!'

I agree with this also.

Anyway, I'm not saying your points are in anyway mute or void, and indeed the Mark Kermode review I linked to a few posts above raises many of exactly the same points/issues, but like him, I agree that, "It's flawed, baggy, all over the place, but there was enough in it that you went, you know what, wow!"

I think I'd give it 7/10 for the first time I saw it, and 8/10 the second.

And I think one telling fact, and maybe this is why you've given it (seemingly) a quite low score, compared to many other people, is in your review you've not really mentioned (or tried to see) and of the positive/good aspects of the film, which of course did exist. You've put a lot of effort into listing/thinking about the bad, and none (far less) into the good?

I was looking for some good; I saw some good; I commented on the good. That's why it got as much as 5/10 from me.

And on a final note - Each time I saw it, there was actually one of those odd silences in the cinema after the film finished, where people were taken a little back and didn't start talking/moving for a little while...

In my theatre, a couple of people yawned (one of them was me). The funniest moment of the night occurred just as my wife and I were leaving the theatre. We heard some chick say "Darren, if you really loved me, you would have got me a ******* banana!"

Which was simultaneously so weird and hilarious that we doubled up laughing. :confused: :D
 
Evangelion's review was to be expected really, given what has been said in this thread already, but a 5/10? Really?

I agree with a lot of what Evangelion said regarding the plot and storyline, but it was no worse then the majority of what is churned out at Hollywood these days and I'm sorry, but as for the CGI and SE - it was streets ahead of anything we've seen to date. I don't get that part of it at all.

I gave it 5/10 because the visuals were stunning. If the plot had been better I would have given a higher score. As it was, I couldn't give any points for the plot; those 5 points were all for the visuals.

So 5/10, not quite on par with the classic Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey then, which scored 5.6/10 on IMDB. :rolleyes:

Although it does just manage to beat the classic "Lost Boys: The Tribe" which I had the misfortune of watching recently, a truly horrific film that managed a glorious 4.6/10

Well, I haven't seen Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey or The Lost Boys and I am not responsible for the scores on IMDB. So I don't see how that's relevant.
 
Well, I haven't seen Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey or The Lost Boys and I am not responsible for the scores on IMDB. So I don't see how that's relevant.

They were just 2 examples of horrendous films that scored roughly 5/10. The point simply being Avatar was significantly better than these.
 
but as for the CGI and SE - it was streets ahead of anything we've seen to date.



I'm not aware of anyone denying this. The point that some of us struggling to make some of you understand is that whether the CGI is good or not has no bearing on whether the film is good. It's quite possible to make a brilliant film with no CGI, a good film with bad CGI (although it grates when it happens) and a bad film with good CGI (all the Star wars films for instance). In this case we had great CGI coupled with a trite plot, poor acting and fairly good (if lazy) direction.

The first time I saw the natives in preview I though they looked like Disney characters (and it's in an early post in this thread) and seeing the whole film didn't change my mind. Perfect bodies, big wide eyes, huge athleticism - ring any bells? This could easily be a Disney cartoon, especially the plot. There's nothing wrong with the cliché of white-man-goes-native (it's a cliché for a reason: it happened a lot in Imperial days), but you need to do something original with it.

Oh, and Jake, having decided to fight with the natives, and having the "inside scoop", makes a pigs ear of the defence. The aerial stuff is easy to sort out: dive bomb the helicopters and drop rocks/branches in their rotors. Better yet, ignore them and send everything against the shuttle: once you are close the escorts can't fire or they'll hit the shuttle as well. As for the ground forces, has no-one heard of trip-wires?

The idea of a "nerve" link between all creatures was a bit more advanced (if stolen from an number of stories, mainly Ursula leGuin's "Vaster than Empires and More Slow), but was thrown away in a spot of New-Age nonsense.

Also, am I the only person who suspects that the natives were made much bigger and stronger than humans to eliminate the most obvious way the natives would be abused in real life: rape? If you want to see how the story should have been done, go and read "The Word for World is Forest" - LeGuin again. Aside from spotting all the similarities, see how the theme is handles by an adult.


M
 
OK, so here's my review of Avatar. :)
.....

5/10
You raise some points that I believe most people have highlighted as being flaws, however I do think you're looking at other parts way too much and went into this movie with the intention of dissecting it instead of just trying to enjoy it, like most people do with movie entertainment.

5/10 is just silly, as you've been all throughout this thread.

Also this white supremacy thing, would that have stood if Denzel Washington was the lead? :p

Although it does just manage to beat the classic "Lost Boys: The Tribe" which I had the misfortune of watching recently, a truly horrific film that managed a glorious 4.6/10
Lol I thought I was the only one who had seen that load of ****.
 
It's entirely proportionate to the hype which accompanied this movie. ;)

Fair enough, but you're therefore suggesting if you'd read/heard less hype, you would have scored/thought more of it? Doesn't seem a very reasoned approach :)

Again, I absolutely agree with many/most of your thoughts, and I also felt let down somewhat by these aspects, but just as Mark Kermode has suggested, for some reason these pitfalls don't ruin the experience. And at the end of the day that's what Avatar (& any film really) is, an experience...

Yes, it has flaws, but for me - for some reason - it still was damn entertaining and enjoyable... Which at the end of the day is my main criteria.
 
Not sure where you are getting "gay/lesbian characters" from. I think you may be reading far too much into it.

No he isnt, he is playing games.

Or to put it in forum terms, "baiting".

Its got to the point with him where he doesnt really have anything fresh to say, and is just trying to wind people up, he thinks he is using a sophisticated sense of humour by by bringing things like "muslim subtext" and "gay and lesbian characters" up as a way of highlighting the fact that Avatar has a simple story.

I'd ignore his counter arguments to the case, they will be nonsense as well.
 
You said

"Jar Jar Binks was still the first (major) CGI character in a live action movie iirc"

not

"Jar Jar Binks was still the first (major) CGI character in a live action movie that used a human actor/stand-in and mapped out their movements using mo-cap iirc"

You can't keep revising the boundries :p

Sorry for the mis-understanding but that is what I meant by Jar Jar, Gollum, & the Navi. There have obviously been previous animated and computer generated characters in live action movies before that.
 
Evangelion's review was to be expected really, given what has been said in this thread already, but a 5/10? Really?

I agree with a lot of what Evangelion said regarding the plot and storyline, but it was no worse then the majority of what is churned out at Hollywood these days and I'm sorry, but as for the CGI and SE - it was streets ahead of anything we've seen to date. I don't get that part of it at all.

So 5/10, not quite on par with the classic Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey then, which scored 5.6/10 on IMDB. :rolleyes:

Although it does just manage to beat the classic "Lost Boys: The Tribe" which I had the misfortune of watching recently, a truly horrific film that managed a glorious 4.6/10

All score ratings are stupid anyway.

How are you supposed to tell what's better out of a 3 out of 5 stars comedy film and a 4 out of 5 stars action movie?

Its too vague and too generalised. I like reading reviews and listening to Kermode's verbal review of Avatar was interesting but as far as I know, he didn't slap some pointless 'rating' at the end of it because it means nothing.

Although, as Evangelion's done, there is nothing wrong with giving Avatar a 5/10 irregardless of what other movies recieved 'similar' ratings from completely different people on some wholly unrelated website.
 
I wasted 7 pounds.

P.S: I watched Toy Soliders afterwards, and enjoyed it 100x more.

Wasted £7? And "Toy Soliders" (huh ?) was 100x more enjoyable? Way to go for sharing those well considered points and rational arguments with the rest of the gang! If it helps, I prefered the last negative opinion of Avatar 26x more than yours?
 
I have to admit to you lads, I didn't read nor care for the thread discussion.

Just thought I'd share my opinion on the film, saw the thread for it and did. I thought it was a thread for posting opinions.

Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:
Although, as Evangelion's done, there is nothing wrong with giving Avatar a 5/10 irregardless of what other movies recieved 'similar' ratings from completely different people on some wholly unrelated website.

I am aware that ratings are subjective as opinions differ. But I was only trying to give some perspective as 5/10 is a very low score for what is a very entertaining movie. If Evangelion doesn't like the film then that's his prerogative.
 
I am aware that ratings are subjective as opinions differ. But I was only trying to give some perspective as 5/10 is a very low score for what is a very entertaining movie. If Evangelion doesn't like the film then that's his prerogative.

That's the problem though, I see the 5/10 'score' as bang-on average which the film probably is if you're not interested in the visual side of it.

I wish people wouldn't rate films out of ten or whatever though but if they write enough of a description of their thoughts then its that's okay. Critics should ditch the 5 stars system too.
 
Back
Top Bottom