At a cost of around $500 million to make, Avatar is going to have to gross somewhere in the neighborhood of one billion dollars in order to break even. What do you get for all this money? Well, at the risk of my life being taken by angry fanboys (who’ve already pushed the thing to the level of “25th greatest movie ever made” on the IMDb at this writing), I’d say you get the longest, most expensive B picture ever made. While I liked the film better than I’d expected to, I was often bored and found myself marking time while waiting for the not only predictable, but telegraphed plot points to fall into place.
However, as pure technical spectacle, Avatar is pretty impressive most of the time. I didn’t find it particularly groundbreaking, which was a little disappointing, because I felt at first that it might be. The very opening scenes, with their almost offhand use of amazing effects, generated some of the sense of awe I felt in 1968 when I first saw 2001. Even the dime-store-level hardboiled narration didn’t dispel that sense, but the film couldn’t keep it up once its plot truly set in.
What you have is a standard-issue “noble savage” tale, trumpeting the superiority of more primitive cultures over that of civilization—and ironically using the most sophisticated technology that civilization can provide and money can buy to convey that far-from-fresh message. It’s the old saw about a man who attains wisdom by joining up with a “simpler” and “more pure” people and learning their ways. Indeed, this man may be the fulfillment of the people’s own prophecies. (I kept hoping someone would say that all this could be because our hero is the “Kwisatz Haderach.”) The fact that the man is a paraplegic ex-Marine (Sam Worthington)—who interacts with the blue-skinned, 10-foot-tall, vaguely simian cat people through a scientifically engineered avatar—is just flashy window dressing.
Thematically, Avatar is supposed to be important and rather daring as a condemnation of American military imperialism. But Cameron has hedged his bets by making the villains a greedy corporation out to displace the indigenous people of Pandora in order to secure a large deposit of the preposterously named mineral “unobtainium.” And their army is clearly identified as made up of mercenaries. What he ends up with is the warmed-over anti-corporate villainy of his Aliens (1986).
As action filmmaking, Avatar is as close to flawless as you’re likely to get. Cameron stages coherent action scenes—even if they often go on too long—and he does them for maximum excitement. It’s also noteworthy that he takes it all very seriously. Apart from a few one-liners and having Sigourney Weaver’s avatar sport a Ripley-styled wife-beater, the film has none of the camp of a Star Wars picture or the tasteless humor of a Michael Bay excess-a-thon. That in itself is refreshing.
And yes, the movie has a distinctive look that’s very striking—sort of like a Heavy Metal comic done in Maxfield Parrish colors and looked at under a black light in a head shop. But ultimately, it struck me as overbalancing the thin story line. This is an effects- and design-heavy movie that’s clearly the work of a first-rate technician, but whether it’s the work of a first-rate filmmaker is another matter. Personally, I was much more impressed with Neil Blomkamp’s similarly themed District 9.
Does Avatar signal the death of movies as we know them, as all the hype and a good many critics suggest? I seriously doubt it—not in the least because, technology to one side, it very much is movies as we know them. Will it change the way movies are made? My guess is—assuming that it’s the success it’s positioned to be—that it may change the way a certain type of movie is made, but not much else. Time will tell. Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking.
This movie must have been made for a target audience of 14 year old boys. Scantily clad natives that are a cross of Barbie and striped animals. A handicapped hero who magically is picked to save the world from greedy environmental plunderers that are supported by the military, and he gets the girl in the end. Lots of flashy colors and semi recognizable wild beasts as eye candy. My 12 year old nephew loved this movie, I needed 2 aspirins.
Sorta like “Watchmen,” on one hand–this is a beautiful looking movie, on the other, I remained very uncompelled. The only time I felt awestruck was for about ten seconds when the main hero falls off a cliff into rushing water. That effect was grand in 3-D. And the action scenes are really quite good. Just, they’d be even better if I actually had any kind of personal connection to the characters. In the end, “Avatar” is only ok. But I’m beginning to realize that when I say that about a movie, I’m saying it sucks.
Ken,
Did you see the 3D version? If so, any comments on it compared to other recent 3D films?
In the end, “Avatar” is only ok. But I’m beginning to realize that when I say that about a movie, I’m saying it sucks.
Especially with this much money sunk into it.
Did you see the 3D version? If so, any comments on it compared to other recent 3D films?
Yes, I saw it in 3D. Did it seem like some revelation compared to, say, Up and My Bloody Valentine? No, not especially. It looked pretty much like the same old new 3D to me.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw the many parallels with Dune (which they’re planning another remake of as we speak… most likely another disappointment.)
I had some thoughts that I was getting ready to add to the discussion, but this review pretty much covered everything I was thinking about, almost word for word. This is one of those weird reviews that looks to me as if I had written it myself (aside from the 2001 comment, because that’s obviously a personal kind of experience that I never had). I will say that I thought Sam Worthington’s performance was very good, despite my lack of really being emotionally involved and concerned over his well being.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw the many parallels with Dune (which they’re planning another remake of as we speak… most likely another disappointment.)
The parallels seemed pretty obvious to me. I have to admit that I actually like Lynch’s Dune, but then I should also note that I’ve no particular investment in the novel, which I read some time after I’d seen the film.
aside from the 2001 comment, because that’s obviously a personal kind of experience that I never had
I should probably note that pretty much all I got from 2001 was that sense of awe. Dramatically and emotionally it didn’t — and doesn’t — resonate with me even as well as Avatar does.
I will say that I thought Sam Worthington’s performance was very good, despite my lack of really being emotionally involved and concerned over his well being
I’d agree that he’s as good as possible within the boundaries of the script, but that’s pretty restrictive.
Visually impressive indeed, but not at all bad from a romance aspect either. It’s surprising how many people put this spectacular, romantic and gently themed film down, mostly snobby intelligensia trying to impress each other from what I can gather. That makes me, with my lowly bachelor’s degree and incomplete knowledge of every prior movie and book going back two centuries, a complete boor compared to these other mavens of multimedia. I think we should try and be honest and admit that powerful emotions are indeed invoked in this film, namely at the last 10 seconds of the film. But nobody wants to talk about that ephiphany, nor the tie-ins to yogic consciousness and the cultures of tribal peoples. In a world brimming with too many films, perhaps our enthusiasm has gone soft. People, this is a groundbreaking animated film, not a mature black and white Citizen Kane being judged for literary prowess. Now I know why I make it a point to see many films without consulting the paid-to-be-mean critics, whom I used to consult like my own personal oracle back when my OCD got the better of me. Delight and goodness just doesn’t sell. Meanies! You must all work for the Corporation.
If this was a shallow, emotionally vapid and boring film, then surely Star Wars series was about as bad, especially with Return of the Ewoks in the mix (oh, how my high school friends wanted to set those nasty stuffed things afire.). With a muddy reference to an ancient fight between good and evil, plot holes everywhere, and a lot of laser-sword clashing and mostly useless lightning bolts being cast between combatants, these films never got deep enough to have much of a plot. Yet they are considered some of the greatest films of all time. Therefore, Avatar should be up there with them — preferably higher up, since there is a noble theme of not stepping on the native rights in there somewhere. Or is it a tenet of our culture to obey Manifest Destiny and tread firmly upon every living thing, proudly extinguishing it? Consult the American Indians, for they know the real truth.
I think we should try and be honest and admit that powerful emotions are indeed invoked in this film, namely at the last 10 seconds of the film.
You presuppose that everyone shared the powerful emotions you derived from this, and that’s a pretty big leap. You have every right to be honest and admit what you felt, but that’s not necessarily a universal reaction.
People, this is a groundbreaking animated film
It’s an improvement over Robert Zemeckis in terms of motion-capture technology, but exactly how is it groundbreaking otherwise? Yes, it’s nice to look at, but beyond that?
not a mature black and white Citizen Kane being judged for literary prowess.
I’m not sure what black and white has to do with it, but really Kane is judged — and sometimes misjudged — mostly for its cinematic qualities, not its literary ones. And it’s certainly not celebrated for its emotional resonance, since there’s very little of that.
paid-to-be-mean critics
Really…explain then the three glowing reviews for Me and Orson Welles, Up in the Air and The Young Victoria. Moreover, I think I’m the only “paid-to-be-mean critic” in the group of folks who have expressed a degree of being underwhelmed by the movie.
You must all work for the Corporation.
If that was true I probably wouldn’t be driving a 1998 truck with a cracked windshield.
If this was a shallow, emotionally vapid and boring film, then surely Star Wars series was about as bad
I’d say the Star Wars series is worse.
Yet they are considered some of the greatest films of all time.
That kind of depends on who you ask. You might note that I found Avatar agreeably free of the Star Wars movies’ campiness.
Or is it a tenet of our culture to obey Manifest Destiny and tread firmly upon every living thing, proudly extinguishing it? Consult the American Indians, for they know the real truth.
You miss what’s being decried here — at least by me — since I don’t take issue with the basic idea, even though I find it romanticized out of all proportion and filled with the basic peculiar belief that primitive societies are automatically superior. The problem — or one of them — is that this is hardly new stuff and you don’t have to know 200 years of film to see it. It’s not for nothing that many of the film’s detractors refer to it as Dances with Smurfs. For a more interesting variant on these themes give Arthur Penn’s Little Big Man a look. It achieves a balance this lacks.
That makes me, with my lowly bachelor’s degree and incomplete knowledge of every prior movie and book going back two centuries, a complete boor compared to these other mavens of multimedia.
As is the case with what I would assume to be a rather large percentage of the population, there are a great many movies and books that I have neither seen nor read. From my perspective, one doesn’t have to really be all that particularly knowledgeable of such things, to know that this is a well-worn tale, that has been told on several different occasions, through various genres, with a slight twist thrown in to try and give the plot a bit of a fresh feel. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the story. In fact, I’d say that the reason we’ve seen it before (well, most of us) is because it does, in fact, make for rather good storytelling. It’s just that monotony can get a little bit stale and boring after awhile, even if it is dressed up with a beautiful, fresh new coat of paint. Some of us just prefer more original material, and it has absolutely nothing to do with being a snobby intelligensia. If it felt unique to you, than that’s great. Either way I don’t see what the problem is. I ENJOYED the movie, despite the feeling of been-there-done-that. I think that’s some sort of an accomplishment in and of itself.
I liked it, but not to the tune of $500 million dollars…
I was joking that the blue cats were just tall Ewoks, which upset my son. This was truly aimed at creating a new mythology for teens and pre-teens (which my son is). I fully expect coffee table books on the aliens to appear soon.
Nothing in the film to me was original. From the evil corporation to man vs. nature. I also thought of 2001 with the opening spacecraft and DUNE when Worthington is summoning creatures to ride.
Maybe there are no more original ideas in science fiction. Have we tapped the well?
I liked it, but not to the tune of $500 million dollars
That may be my biggest objection to the movie. That it cost more than any other movie ever made and to what end? To be okay? That seems kind of extreme.
Maybe there are no more original ideas in science fiction. Have we tapped the well?
That’s a possibility, but I suspect that there are still original ideas, and I suspect there are ideas out there in existing literature that have yet to be explored. But even if there are no more original ideas, I think the old ideas might be handled in a fresher manner. I wouldn’t call the basics of Danny Boyle’s Sunshine exactly new, but it certainly engaged me more on every level and I cared about the characters more.
Maybe there are no more original ideas in science fiction. Have we tapped the well?
I certainly don’t want to believe that, but I’m sure there is truth in that to an extent. HOWEVER, I maintain hope that in the right hands, sci-fi can feel a lot fresher than it might actually be. Case in point is the wonderful, recent District 9.
Well Ken, it would appear that I keep showing up a day late and a dollar short in posting my comments. It’s starting took like I’m just repeating and rewording your comments, which is probably annoying to some of the readers. Honestly, I’m not trying to do this people.
Case in point is the wonderful, recent District 9.
Which is not entirely unlike Avatar thematically, except that it stands one tradition on its head by making the aliens the repressed group rather than the indigenous people. And yet it does this to reflect the repression of an indigenous people, which is kind of interesting.
Well Ken, it would appear that I keep showing up a day late and a dollar short in posting my comments.
Actually, you provided an interesting talking point. I’ll be gone for a few hours after this post, so you’re free to post without fear of cross-posting.
Case in point is the wonderful, recent District 9.
Great film and pretty original, but I feel that I’ve seen it before. There’s also low budget fare like PRIMER, ABLE EDWARDS, AMERICAN ASTRONAUT and SLEEP DEALER.
I read an interview with Cameron saying how hard it was to bankroll a new film that isn’t a sequel, reboot or popular book adaptation. Maybe he made the story familiar to please the suits.
That could very well be. I fully expected Ken to trash this one (I love this kind of film but he, generally, does not). The fact that he didn’t should count for something, right?
Thank you Ken for responding to my thoughts… Your thoughts are very welcome. I stand corrected where I make unwarranted generalizations. Ah, for the good sci-fi epics and the truly original films, Sunshine (and Solaris with Clooney) left me breathless….
“I find it romanticized out of all proportion and filled with the basic peculiar belief that primitive societies are automatically superior.”
Huh? I think that the comparison wasn’t general, it was aimed at comparing the way of the Naavi to the barbaric destructive way of the miners. But yes, it may have been romanticized a bit too much.
I think the word “original” or lack of it in many of these comments is a blt overused. What exactly does original mean anyway? Everything that ever was or could be is right now. I judge a movie by how entertained I am. I saw this movie in St. Petersburg with my 8 and 14 year old grandsons and we all thoroughly enjoyed it. I would go see it again and I don’t say that about many movies. Who cares how much it cost.
Thank you Ken for responding to my thoughts… Your thoughts are very welcome.
As are yours — that’s the point of a comments section, even if you won’t always find agreement.
I think that the comparison wasn’t general, it was aimed at comparing the way of the Naavi to the barbaric destructive way of the miners. But yes, it may have been romanticized a bit too much.
Oh, you’re right that it isn’t general within the confines of the film itself. It’s that it’s a basic premise that’s been done so many times that it feels a little stale and simplistic. Unfortunately, romanticizing other cultures — particularly less developed ones — seems to go with the territory.
Great film and pretty original, but I feel that I’ve seen it before
It certainly has roots in things seen before, but it presents the ideas in a diffferent manner.
There’s also low budget fare like PRIMER, ABLE EDWARDS, AMERICAN ASTRONAUT and SLEEP DEALER
I haven’t seen those, but Moon might be a worthy addition — even if it ultimately is another evil corporation movie. It’s not that I don’t think most corporations probably are evil. It’s just overdone.
Maybe he made the story familiar to please the suits.
Maybe, but I tend to think — based on his other films — that these are the basic terms in which he thinks.
I would like to know (but probably never will) if Worthington’s one-liner, “Don’t get up,” upon entering a gathering of hostile natives is deliberately taken from Road to Zanzibar where Bob Hope says exactly the same thing in a similar situation. I’d kinda like to believe that.
think the word “original” or lack of it in many of these comments is a blt overused. What exactly does original mean anyway?
If you object to “original,” then use the word “fresh.” What a lot of people seem to be objecting to — or feeling let down by — is that all this hyped technology is at the service of a “been there done that” story.
Everything that ever was or could be is right now
Now, I have no idea what that means or how it applies.
I judge a movie by how entertained I am.
I think most of us do one way or another.
I would go see it again and I don’t say that about many movies.
Well, there’s nothing wrong with that and I don’t think anyone is saying there is. A divergence of opinion isn’t a personal attack. OK, maybe if you were saying that about Delta Farce…
Who cares how much it cost
Personal call — and it’s certainly not being downplayed by the filmmakers. For me, it just seems kind of wasteful, but I’m not sure I was really wild about any 2009 film that cost even a tenth of that final tab.
I haven’t seen AVATAR yet, so I can’t comment on it specifically, but I wonder if the originality of the storyline would be as much of an issue if the movie were more of a blatant remake of a classic story. For instance, what if this was MACBETH, for a new generation. Then, I bet we’d be talking less about the freshness of the story (which wasn’t even fresh when Shakespeare wrote it) and more about how well the update can engage a new generation in a classic story. The comments that suggest that AVATAR is just a rehash of the story we saw in DANCES WITH WOLVES makes me wonder: how many teenagers would be interested in watching DANCES WITH WOLVES? Of course, then the question remains: is the story a story that needs to be told (and thus updated for a new generation)? I figure if some new sci-fi film is going to create a new mythology for teens and pre-teens, it’s probably good that it emphasizes such issues as the wickedness of corporate greed and the need for respect of indigenous cultures, however much of a rehash it might seem to those that have already gotten that message from other films.
Given all this, there’s still the problem of whether the messages of that story are undercut by the pricetag of the spectacle, and the technological spectacle itself. That irony may still kill it for me.
I enjoyed the film and was wholly entertained. Star Wars was perhaps more ground-breaking but really didn’t employ much of a meaty plot either when you think about it. It functioned as an exceptionally entertaining, visually stimulating, and very familiar recounting of character archetypes. In that way the experience for me was very similar with Avatar, except that I’m not sure any film since — with the exception of perhaps Jurassic Park – has been as envelope-pushing as was Star Wars.
Beyond that it was really a signature Cameron-styled film. It really comes down to what kind of response or resonance his films have with you. Some people enjoy his style and some simply do not. With the exception of the ridiculous The Abyss, I’ve always come away from a Cameron film being duly entertained and far above that which appeals to the lowest common denomonator (re: Rush Hour or Transformers). Avatar might’ve been hyped by the long wait and enormous price tag (shades of GNR’s Chinese Democracy anyone??), but I really can’t honestly let the hype dictate to me how I should feel relative to it. Titanic was terribly hyped and trashed in the months preceding its release for its ballooning price tag and all of that melted away after I saw the movie. However I still know folks who refuse to see the film because it became “popular.” I’m sure that will happen here too.
Cameron always keeps us talking, at least…and others wholly entertained.
For instance, what if this was MACBETH, for a new generation. Then, I bet we’d be talking less about the freshness of the story (which wasn’t even fresh when Shakespeare wrote it) and more about how well the update can engage a new generation in a classic story.
Actually, I think you’re onto something here — although the existence the hip-hop world rethinking of The Great Gatsby as G might argue against it both artistically and as interesting a new generation or anybody else. I suspect that the problem — or one of them — here is that there isn’t really a definitive story on this particular theme. Or if there is, I can’t think of one. There are certainly movies dating back to the silent era that use the theme, but I can’t think of one that could be called definitive.
The comments that suggest that AVATAR is just a rehash of the story we saw in DANCES WITH WOLVES makes me wonder: how many teenagers would be interested in watching DANCES WITH WOLVES?
I cited it simply because it’s the film most cited. Well, that and FernGully. As for how many teenagers would be interested in watching Dances With Wolves…well, I’m not even interested in watching it myself. Still, this raises the question of whether or not the film is — or should be — specifically targeted at that demographic.
Of course, then the question remains: is the story a story that needs to be told (and thus updated for a new generation)? I figure if some new sci-fi film is going to create a new mythology for teens and pre-teens, it’s probably good that it emphasizes such issues as the wickedness of corporate greed and the need for respect of indigenous cultures, however much of a rehash it might seem to those that have already gotten that message from other films.
I would concede this — up to a point. Setting aside the question of whether it’s a story that needs to be told, I keep questioning whether it’s actually been updated except via technology. (And let’s not kid ourselves a lot of the audience is there for the fights and the battles and the assorted displays of bad-assery.) I suppose that can be viewed as updated in and of itself. The basics of the thematic aspects are not things with which I’m completely out of sympathy. What I don’t like is the simplicity of it all — civilization is bad, primitive society is not only good, but exemplary and so in tune with nature that it makes my teeth hurt. The argument that it might seem fresh to someone who has never been exposed to the concepts from previous works on the topic is valid enough, but that can be said of just about anything, assuming that the movie (or whatever) is being seen by a young enough audience or one that hasn’t seen a lot of movies. Nor do I think that factor rules out criticizing the film for lacking in original ideas or freshness of approach.
Given all this, there’s still the problem of whether the messages of that story are undercut by the pricetag of the spectacle, and the technological spectacle itself. That irony may still kill it for me.
That comes with its own irony, since I am more than a little doubtful that very many of the audience are likely to ditch their video games, cell phones, computers, Facebook pages or Twitter accounts to paint themselves blue and go live in the woods to commune with nature. (For that matter, I doubt James Cameron plans on anything like that.) That’s hardly unique to this movie or even this particular theme, however.
Star Wars was perhaps more ground-breaking but really didn’t employ much of a meaty plot either when you think about it.
Which might raise the question of whether or not ground-breaking is automatically a good thing.
It really comes down to what kind of response or resonance his films have with you.
In the end, that’s true of any filmmaker — at least any filmmaker who has a discernible theme or style.
However I still know folks who refuse to see the film because it became “popular.” I’m sure that will happen here too.
I know one person — a huge Star Wars fan (we’re talking convention-going, costume-making level here) — who refuses to see Avatar on pretty much that basis. People are peculiar.
Cameron always keeps us talking, at least…and others wholly entertained.
Well, Cameron has us talking now because both he and his movie are the current big thing. Of course, his work doesn’t resonate with me, so that’s certainly a big factor, but really I don’t generally talk about his work unless someone brings it up or it’s thrust on me, because I just don’t find it terribly interesting. That said, I’m finding the discussions on here far more interesting than the movie.
Of course, then the question remains: is the story a story that needs to be told (and thus updated for a new generation)? I figure if some new sci-fi film is going to create a new mythology for teens and pre-teens, it’s probably good that it emphasizes such issues as the wickedness of corporate greed and the need for respect of indigenous cultures, however much of a rehash it might seem to those that have already gotten that message from other films.
An issue being raised is that 20th Century Fox is also a wicked corporate giant that is operating solely for its own greed.
“An issue being raised is that 20th Century Fox is also a wicked corporate giant that is operating solely for its own greed.”
It makes me wonder what 3rd world countries supply the work force that assembles the Mattel Avatar action figures and accessories. The irony doesn’t stop.
As someone who takes great pride in being an Real American, I was greatly offended by this movie for a number of reasons. There is the obvious unpatriotic plot in which American soldiers are shamefully defeated by a small resistance group of ungrateful insurgents that don’t appreciate the gifts of freedom and technology, not to mention less revealing cloths. James Cameron and his liberal Hollywood friends are nothing more than a bunch of cut and run cowards that want us to fail in Afghanistan. I bet Cameron has an “ethnic” girlfriend, which is no doubt the source of the love story between the marine and the alien woman. The Bible clearly states that interspecies sexual relations are a sin. Do we want our children to see this movie and think that they can deviate from the norms of sexuality that the Bible set for our culture thousands of years ago? At least the movie did inform me of the value of investing in unobtainium, and I don’t care how many trees have to be cut down for me to get some.
It makes me wonder what 3rd world countries supply the work force that assembles the Mattel Avatar action figures and accessories. The irony doesn’t stop.
It’s Forrest Gump in the real world. Then again Gump never dealt with whether or not old Forrest provided minimum wage jobs for all those folks whose boats were destroyed when God decided to make our “hero” a success by wiping out everybody else.
Perhaps if we hadn’t seen so many pull at your heart strings movies..we too might have been moved to tears..I really wanted to cry..
Maybe. I’m a pretty easy sell on tear-duct assaults, but this didn’t do it. And I even fell for Nimoy’s narration at the end of Star Trek and I don’t much like Star Trek.
3D Technology? Well heck, to me it was groundbreaking when you consider this…the last 3d movie I saw was in the 50’s. It was a Western and a whiskey barrell seemed to come at you during a bar room brawl. I was very young at the time of course. I loved the visuals in Avatar. I loved the plot even if it was worn out and I did feel a connection with the characters. All in all I felt it was a wonderful experience, and I had gone in with a little bit of skeptism.
>>>Ripley-styled wife-beater
I’m not up to date with slang, and I haven’t seen the movie yet.
What does this mean? The exo-skeleton she wore in Aliens 2?
I’m not up to date with slang, and I haven’t seen the movie yet.
Well, wife-beater isn’t movie slang, it’s one of several names for those tank-top undershirts.
Well heck, to me it was groundbreaking when you consider this…the last 3d movie I saw was in the 50’s.
It’s come rather a long way since then, but that way has pretty much been in place for a few years now.
I loved the visuals in Avatar. I loved the plot even if it was worn out and I did feel a connection with the characters. All in all I felt it was a wonderful experience, and I had gone in with a little bit of skeptism
Again, no one’s suggesting you shouldn’t have. That’s your call.
I initially was reluctant to see Avatar. I had been totally turned off to the movie by the commercials, despite all the hype. But, my two sons really wanted to see it; their friends were telling them how great it was. So, we went to see it (the 3-D version) today.
I thought it was spectacular, in every sense of the word, and I thoroughly enjoyed it! That is not to say I didn’t have some problems with some parts of the story and point of view. Most significantly, I deeply resent any attempt to make a direct comparison between the “evil” corporation in the movie and the recent U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that is what Cameron believes and was trying to convey, he is dead wrong. On the other hand, it never hurts to remind people of the idea that just because a culture “appears” inferior to our own, that does not mean they are or that we have the right to dominate them. Also, while watching the movie, I did wonder why an American outpost of the future would have no knowledge of and never make the connection between the European colonization of the “new world” (i.e. North America) and the destruction of Native Americans with what they were doing on Pandora. It would seem like an obvious reference point and made for a large plot hole.
All that aside, the movie was incredible to watch and I did like the love story part of the film. I will probably go see it again, maybe next time in IMAX.
>>>Well, wife-beater isn’t movie slang, it’s one of several names for those tank-top undershirts.
Oh! Well, as I don’t need to say, I’d never heard it called that before. Ya learn something new every day.
Most significantly, I deeply resent any attempt to make a direct comparison between the “evil” corporation in the movie and the recent U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that is what Cameron believes and was trying to convey, he is dead wrong.
I don’t know if it extends to Afghanistan, but from things Cameron has said (substitute oil for unobtainium) the idea of a critique of the war in Iraq is deliberate.
On the other hand, it never hurts to remind people of the idea that just because a culture “appears” inferior to our own, that does not mean they are or that we have the right to dominate them.
That’s reasonable enough, but at the same time it doesn’t seem quite honest to paint the “inferior” civilization in a wholly idealized light and our own as utterly debased.
I did wonder why an American outpost of the future would have no knowledge of and never make the connection between the European colonization of the “new world” (i.e. North America) and the destruction of Native Americans with what they were doing on Pandora. It would seem like an obvious reference point and made for a large plot hole.
Here, I’d defend the film because I think most of the time we’re perfectly capable of repeating all manner of mistakes and even crimes from the past and thinking what we’re doing is somehow different. At the same time, the film only offers a handful of humans that are given enough characterization to even get near raising the point.
Oh! Well, as I don’t need to say, I’d never heard it called that before. Ya learn something new every day.
There’s a more common name for it, but it involves an ethnic slur.
“There’s a more common name for it, but it involves an ethnic slur.”
It’s interesting how ethnic slurs are taboo, but casual references to misogynistic domestic violence are no big deal. I’ve never quite understood that.
It’s interesting how ethnic slurs are taboo, but casual references to misogynistic domestic violence are no big deal. I’ve never quite understood that.
Well, no one’s worried about offending persons who beat their spouses. Then again, one wonders how underwear manufacturers feel about these garments being the prefered garb of guys who beat their wives.
Maybe there are no more original ideas in science fiction. Have we tapped the well?
I think it’s more a matter of mainstream film being generally about 30 years behind literature, and very few people in a position to fund a film being willing to risk the cash to try to bring something new to the screen rather than something that’s likely to make a lot of money.
The way I see it, film is only now catching up with the literature of 1960s in a lot of ways. I mean, just take a look at the explosion of comic book movies — Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Iron Man — almost all of which are telling stories originally written for teenagers nearly 50 years ago.
While there are exceptions, I’m not convinced modern audiences are entirely ready for the actual plot of “Starship Troopers” or “I Am Legend” (both of the film adaptations utterly missing the point of each book) much less something like “Stranger In A Strange Land” or most of the other ground-breaking sci-fi of the 1960s and ’70s.
I think it’s more a matter of mainstream film being generally about 30 years behind literature
If you confine that statement to expensive mainstream films, then I’d agree with it. Of course, it may simply be that your definition of mainstream is a little different from mine.
I’m not convinced modern audiences are entirely ready for the actual plot of “Starship Troopers” or “I Am Legend” (both of the film adaptations utterly missing the point of each book) much less something like “Stranger In A Strange Land” or most of the other ground-breaking sci-fi of the 1960s and ‘70s.
I say give ’em Stand on Zanzibar and let ’em see if their heads explode.
I have boys (8 & 10). What is behind the PG-13 rating? Is it harry Potter violence, sexual overtones or what?
i saw it today & im speechless with its BEAUTY.
(‘beauty’ here is not limited to visual sense.)
i’m gonna watch it tommorow & day after & day after & day after….
….probably than come back & comment.
I have boys (8 & 10). What is behind the PG-13 rating? Is it harry Potter violence, sexual overtones or what?
The official MPAA rating reads, “Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking.” The sensuality consists of some PG-13 lovemaking. I don’t particularly remember the language, but I often don’t notice swearing because it doesn’t offend me. It’s difficult to say if someone else would find the film offensive for 8 and 10-year-olds. It wouldn’t bother me personally, though.
@Ken Hanke. “I see 2 recurring themes in your critique of the movie”. A) It was’nt worth it B) I have seen all this before.
Look, I was spell binded by this effort. The way the movie is made has to be appreciated. As a assistant producer I understand the kind of detail and work goes in every single frame. In terms of animation nothing comes even close to it.
Second, universal stories keep on repeating themselves. If you have seen it before then whats the point of endlessly seeing the romantic comedy rehash that we all are subjected too.
And finally, while you have made a connection with the movie that revolves around the fact that the movie was unoriginal and bloated. There are many people who will make a connection with Avatar’s basic story revolving around exploitation and human greed.
Look, I was spell binded by this effort.
It’s your right to be “spell binded” by it. It’s equally my right not to have been.
As a assistant producer I understand the kind of detail and work goes in every single frame
And on what have you functioned as “a assistant producer?”
In terms of animation nothing comes even close to it.
In terms of motion-capture animation, I’d agree.
And finally, while you have made a connection with the movie that revolves around the fact that the movie was unoriginal and bloated. There are many people who will make a connection with Avatar’s basic story revolving around exploitation and human greed
I don’t doubt it. That doesn’t alter how it came across to me.
I liked the movie, but also found this review to be somewhat interesting. Give it a tumble.
rjmoeller.com/2009/12/avatar-white-imperialistic-capitalists-ruin-everything/
>>>I don’t know if it extends to Afghanistan, but from things Cameron has said (substitute oil for unobtainium) the idea of a critique of the war in Iraq is deliberate.
Too bad he didn’t put burnooses on the “Americans” … perhaps the viewing public would have seen the similarities to Muslims and the genocide/forcible conversions going on right now in the Sudan.
As a former director in the theatre, I find 162 minutes for this type of movie to be extremely “bloated”. I was trained not to waste the audience’s time and that just because you COULD put extraneous scenes in a show, it doesn’t mean you should. And while the animation is top-notch, the movie could have been an hour shorter and still have been just as impressive in that department.
As far as it’s basic theme, I agree with Ken that DISTRICT 9 did a much better job of it.
“I don’t know if it extends to Afghanistan, but from things Cameron has said (substitute oil for unobtainium) the idea of a critique of the war in Iraq is deliberate.”
That’s very disappointing, then. I’ve lost some respect for Cameron, although I certainly didn’t go to the movie based on his political views. Obviously, one of the reasons Iraq is significant to the world, not just the U.S., is its oil supply. Thus it is a given that our interest in Iraq is significantly affected by that. But to equate the U.S. to an Imperialist power, conquering a people and willing to wipe out an entire civilization, is absurd. There are no facts to support that argument and nothing we have done is comparable to that. Iraq is still in control of its oil supply, we have worked with its elected representatives (and helped facilitate the democratic election process, not to mention removing its evil dictator) and we are in fact moving forward with withdrawal.
If you confine that statement to expensive mainstream films, then I’d agree with it. Of course, it may simply be that your definition of mainstream is a little different from mine.
That’s more-or-less what I’m talking about. I’m not saying that film is always behind literature, or even that sci-fi films always are. Every so often a bigger budget film has something interesting or original to say, but it’s nowhere near as common as it is in literature. Then again, it’s not like Stephen King’s Under The Dome has much to offer as literature, either.
But it’s not like my standards are all that high here. I mean, when is the last time we even had something even as original as The Empire Strikes Back, which offered little more than “Sometimes bad people are more complicated than just being evil” and “Sometimes being good still doesn’t solve everything in 90 minutes”?
I say give ‘em Stand on Zanzibar and let ‘em see if their heads explode.
I vote for Dhalgren, personally. And that could probably be shot in post-apocalyptic modern-day Detroit for less than Cameron spent rendering 30 seconds of Avatar
Then again, it’s not like Stephen King’s Under The Dome has much to offer as literature, either
Well, like the films in question it adheres (I’m assuming, since I’ve not read it yet) to a successful formula. The thing about that is that I don’t object to that in and of itself. My objection comes when it’s peddled as being completely different from anything you’ve ever seen or read and it turns out to be formula stuff.
But it’s not like my standards are all that high here. I mean, when is the last time we even had something even as original as The Empire Strikes Back, which offered little more than “Sometimes bad people are more complicated than just being evil” and “Sometimes being good still doesn’t solve everything in 90 minutes”?
This is why I think we may have a definitional difference at work, since I’d peg a number of films that can be called science fiction as considerably deeper — or at least more emotionally complex — than that, including 28 Days Later…, Sunshine and District 9. I’d also call these essentially mainstream in that weren’t made to cater to an art house market. They are not, however, in the realm of wildly expensive, which does make a difference. And I realize that they do use a formula, but they do so in a different way, to different ends, and with fresh spins.
I vote for Dhalgren, personally. And that could probably be shot in post-apocalyptic modern-day Detroit for less than Cameron spent rendering 30 seconds of Avatar
But that’s self-defeating if the idea is to spend tons of money. Anyway, think about the possibilities of turning Stand on Zanzibar into a movie — the self-proclaimed “non-novel” could become a self-proclaimed “non-movie.”
Anyway, think about the possibilities of turning Stand on Zanzibar into a movie—the self-proclaimed “non-novel” could become a self-proclaimed “non-movie.”
It could happen. Winterbottom somehow made a movie out of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, even if the movie he made was largely about how impossible it was to make a movie out of a book that’s fundamentally a shaggy dog story.
Steve Shanafelt says: “While there are exceptions, I’m not convinced modern audiences are entirely ready for the actual plot of “Starship Troopers” or “I Am Legend” (both of the film adaptations utterly missing the point of each book) much less something like “Stranger In A Strange Land” or most of the other ground-breaking sci-fi of the 1960s and ‘70s.”
Or even earlier, as some authors were breaking ground from the beginning. Personally, I’d love to see some of Heinlein’s juveniles filmed, like “Red Planet” (technically a sequel or at least a companion to “Stranger in a Strange Land”) or “Tunnel in the Sky”. There’s a wealth of good SciFi out there, that no one has ever approached. Asimov’s “I Robot” (not the Will Smith rip-off, which was much like “Starship Troopers” in that the rights to the novels were purchased AFTER the scripts were written and similarities were pointed out.), McCaffery’s “The Ship Who Sang”, Spider and Jeanne Robinson’s “Stardance” for example.
even if the movie he made was largely about how impossible it was to make a movie out of a book that’s fundamentally a shaggy dog story
Well, after all, Cronenberg managed to make Naked Lunch into a movie by making it into a movie about writing Naked Lunch. It still amuses me to realize that the resulting film actually played in multiplexes.
There’s a wealth of good SciFi out there, that no one has ever approached.
Well, take heart. After all, Roland Emmerich is supposed to be tackling Asimov’s Foundation. Yes, Roland Emmerich. Scary, ain’t it?
Myself, I’d like to see someone — not Emmerich — tackle Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle.
I went to see Avatar without preconceived notions. I normally try to avoid all reviews and anecdotes for movie before I see them. Within 10 minutes I had accurately predicted the ending and most of the plot. How Cameron can fall from one of the best treatments of time travel (a very difficult subject to deal with) in T2 to this hackneyed “Dances With Blacklights” is a mystery.
Oh yes, and if Cameron is looking eeeeevil Big Business then he need only look in the mirror.
i think the problem was the aliens were hard to relate to, or care about….it didn’t happen with ET for me either, all right the hobbits did connect a little better, but perhaps their human qualities and tastes and distastes made them endearing, but Cameron’s creatures were still too cartoony….and the 3D made it too dark, when i took the glasses off, the colors actually seemed brighter, so i don’t think the 3D was groundbreaking as it was purported to be, i almost wanted to see it without the 3D….i think we’re still years away from a jaw dropping 3D experience that makes you feel like you are actually part of the movie.
i think the problem was the aliens were hard to relate to, or care about….it didn’t happen with ET for me either, all right the hobbits did connect a little better, but perhaps their human qualities and tastes and distastes made them endearing, but Cameron’s creatures were still too cartoony
I think this is pretty much where I am on this aspect of the movie. I’m not sure that it’s entirely the human qualities (at least if we’re talking physically) that made the Hobbits easier to relate to. I found the aliens in District 9 much easier to relate to than anything in Avatar and they have far less connection to human beings. While it’s true that Cameron’s creatures represent an advancement over the look achieved by Zemeckis in his motion capture efforts where everyone looks like Peter Lorre in his latex mask hiding his burn-scarred face in The Face Behind the Mask (or worse, the Wayans in White Chicks), that doesn’t make them look any less like cartoon characters.
Well, take heart. After all, Roland Emmerich is supposed to be tackling Asimov’s Foundation. Yes, Roland Emmerich. Scary, ain’t it?
Actually, that might work out: Neither Asimov or Emmerich have any gift when it comes to deep characterization or snappy dialog; both tend to pin their entire story development on single plot points resolved through back-to-basics thinking; and both have a terrible tendency to shoehorn in bad puns and shallow comedy into otherwise serious stories that really don’t need them.
I wonder why Emmerich would want this project, though. It’s not like Foundation has a lot of action in it (at least, not until the second book). It’s mostly about politics, which Emmerich tends to present a cartoonish view of in his films.
I wonder why Emmerich would want this project, though. It’s not like Foundation has a lot of action in it (at least, not until the second book). It’s mostly about politics, which Emmerich tends to present a cartoonish view of in his films.
Who says it’ll be anything much like the book?
“Myself, I’d like to see someone—not Emmerich—tackle Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle.”
Richard Kelly has supposedly written a screenplay for Cat’s Cradle (for what that’s worth). A few years ago, there was a rumor that DeCaprio’s Appian Way was interested in having Darren Aronofsky direct the script, but if that was true, the idea fizzled out. Something named Cat’s Cradle is listed on IMDB, though, with no information but a release date of 2011.
Richard Kelly has supposedly written a screenplay for Cat’s Cradle (for what that’s worth).
That might have at least been interesting, but after Southland Tales crashed and burned and Kelly’s attempt to be more mainstream with The Box fared no better, I’m not expecting his return to filmmaking — at least as director — any time soon. According to IMDb Pro, the 2011 Cat’s Cradle is for Appian Way, but there’s no director attached.
“I’m not expecting his return to filmmaking—at least as director—any time soon.”
Well, when reading reviews for THE BOX, I noticed a common sentiment that Richard Kelly is a decent screenwriter who betrays his own scripts when he gets behind the camera. I’ve never read one of his scripts, so I can’t express my opinion on that, but if that’s true, perhaps his script for CAT’S CRADLE is still part of the project.
Ken Hanke says: “I say give ‘em Stand on Zanzibar and let ‘em see if their heads explode.”
3 hours plus to even begin to do an adequate version of it. And who should play Chad C. Mulligan? Personally, I’d like to see Heinlein’s “Time Enough For Love” as a multi-episode miniseries, ala “Roots”.
I saw District 9 and was really impressed with how well the action sequences engaged you without seeming out of place, which I thought would have been a problem given the subject matter and the sudden immersion of the main character into the lives of the “prawns”. How does the action in Avatar compare?
If only Cameron had collaborated with John Boorman in a fit of full-on Zardoz madness…with all that technology and 3-D visuals that would have been one brilliant f@#king movie – hypothetically, anyway.
All of the special effects magic in the world couldn’t make Zardoz any weirder, I’d venture.
Finally saw it tonight. I’ll say four things about it:
James Cameron should have spent more money on avoiding cliches.
It was very pretty.
The 3-D didn’t give me a headache (for once).
and finally:
District 9 pwns Avatar. Out the ass.
Remember how I posted a couple weeks ago that I was surprised that the Rotten Tomatoes weren’t out in force to defend Avatar? I retract that statement. I retract it so hard.
My objection comes when it’s peddled as being completely different from anything you’ve ever seen or read and it turns out to be formula stuff.
Yeah, I don’t think that the movie is cinematically indefensible, but the fact that people are describing it as original is ludicrous. Cameron himself admits that he drew inspiration from every science fiction novel he read as a teenager (and I bet I can name several of them).
Anyways, I’m glad that I’m not the only one who remembers Dhalgren and Stand on Zanzibar. Book of the New Sun, anyone?
I’ve never read one of his scripts, so I can’t express my opinion on that, but if that’s true, perhaps his script for CAT’S CRADLE is still part of the project.
The screenplay is attributed to James V. Hart of Last Mimzy and August Rush fame. No comment.
Personally, I’d like to see Heinlein’s “Time Enough For Love” as a multi-episode miniseries, ala “Roots”.
I don’t know the source (I’m not really a big sci-fi fan when all is said and done), but I don’t care for the miniseries concept in general.
All of the special effects magic in the world couldn’t make Zardoz any weirder, I’d venture
Or any better. I’m good with Zardoz as it stands, though I’m happy to see the long-lost Mr. Mendes show up.
How does the action in Avatar compare?
It’s a very different kind of action and I can’t really think how to compare them.
Remember how I posted a couple weeks ago that I was surprised that the Rotten Tomatoes weren’t out in force to defend Avatar? I retract that statement. I retract it so hard
I haven’t looked. I don’t plan on it. But I’m not in the least surprised.
Yeah, I don’t think that the movie is cinematically indefensible, but the fact that people are describing it as original is ludicrous.
I think it’s technologically defensible, but I really saw nothing special about it cinematically. Competent? Yes. Coherent action? Yes. Special? Not for me. I think that was thrown into sharp relief yesterday when I saw The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. Yes, its effects were relatively simple and they often looked like effects, but I was much more transported to the world of Gilliam’s imagination than I ever was with Cameron’s techno-wonders. That’s partly just a preference for one kind of fantasy over another, but it’s also got a lot to do with the filmmaking style. (And I am not wholly uncritical of Gilliam’s work in general.)
“The screenplay is attributed to James V. Hart of Last Mimzy and August Rush fame. No comment.”
Ugh.
AND, I finally got to have an opinion on AVATAR today. I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would, and as eye-candy, it’s all I could have hoped for, which was all I was hoping for. The plot was unsurprisingly unsurprising with not a single moment of its story arc that I couldn’t predict, but the details were entertaining enough to keep my attention. I didn’t feel like Cameron over-glorified the peaceful-perfect life of the native peoples, as you suggested. Their lives weren’t perfect, as evidenced by the fact that a warrior class existed and there was a history of warring with other tribes of their own race (though there was a reference to the fact that they had recently been united). They did, however, come off as a people who deserved to live on their land undisturbed by alien oppressors, and the humans’ role as alien oppressors didn’t seem overstated to me. I would have liked to rewrite a few sections of dialog that could have been much more powerful if someone would have been willing to give it a second draft, especially the scene where Sully says that he’s changed and fallen in love. Those lines just seemed sketched-in, and a careful rewrite could have improved the movie a great deal, even accepting the cookie-cutter story arc.
One thing I really liked, though: watching a Navi who was plugged in organically to and riding a giant beast, battling a soldier who was plugged in to a giant robot suit. That’s a foil I haven’t seen before.
I haven’t looked. I don’t plan on it. But I’m not in the least surprised.
I shouldn’t be, but in my defense, the fanboys took longer than usual to mobilize. Unfortunately, now that they’ve mobilized, they’re not acting as politely, as tolerantly, or as intelligently as they did toward critics who wrote negative reviews for 300, The Dark Knight, and WALL-E.
I think it’s technologically defensible, but I really saw nothing special about it cinematically.
My experience was similar. I expected that even if Avatar was mediocre, I could at least enjoy it as an effects-driven blockbuster, but it failed even in that limited capacity. It never managed to absorb me, much less entertain me, even in its most spectacular moments.
I didn’t even have a problem with the fact that the story was predictable. I had a problem with the fact that the story was perfunctory. Australia and Sherlock Holmes were just as predictable as Avatar, but they were so stylish and so passionate that I hardly noticed.
I admit that Avatar is on the good side of okay — but it is still far, far more okay than any film that long, that sprawling, and that expensive has any right to be.
As far as immersive and technologically experimental cinema goes, I’m looking forward to the long-delayed Death of Doctor Island.
I think that was thrown into sharp relief yesterday when I saw The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus.
I’m rather jealous of you right now, sir. I believe you know by now that I’ve been waiting quite some time to see this. Oh well, hopefully I only have a week and a half to go.
District 9 pwns Avatar. Out the ass.
And was about 1/12th the cost.
I loved Avatar. Nothing I have ever seen even comes close to the technical excellence of this movie.
Was it predictable and a little corny? Certainly. But so was Titanic. Everybody knew the ship was going down, and how many people became corpsicles as a result. We all learned it in grade school. So what? It was still a marvelous piece of film making.
The sinking ship motif has also been thoroughly rehashed through the years, with the very good “A Night to Remember”, and the truly awful “Poseidon Adventure” (twice) standing out as timeless examples. Again, so what? I’m always ready to see a ship sink, a spaceship hurtle towards an inevitable confrontation with it’s destiny, a man (or something like it) go back in time to change his fate, and so on.
They’re all cliches. There’s Nothing New Under the Sun. It was true 2000 years ago, and it’s true today. The only thing that changes is the delivery. And the delivery in Avatar Rocks.
As for Avatar resembling previous Cameron efforts, the more works a person creates, the more we see of his style. We either embrace it, like Spielberg, or get rather sick of it, like Lucas (“I’ve got a really bad feeling about this”), but we recognize it immediately. I like Cameron, and I look forward to watching his next Flick with an open mind.
I didn’t feel like Cameron over-glorified the peaceful-perfect life of the native peoples, as you suggested
That isn’t exactly what I was saying, so much as I was saying — and still contend — that it operates on the superiority of a simpler, more primitive life to our own. This is an idea so bewhiskered that it was made fun of in the lyrics to “As Some Day It May Come to Pass” in Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Mikado.
I didn’t even have a problem with the fact that the story was predictable. I had a problem with the fact that the story was perfunctory. Australia and Sherlock Holmes were just as predictable as Avatar, but they were so stylish and so passionate that I hardly noticed.
I’d concede the point — and perfunctory is a better word for it — but at least the embellishments in Sherlock Holmes and Australia sometimes took the storyline in directions I couldn’t tell were coming. I don’t think there was a single thing in Avatar that gave me even a passing surprise.
Was it predictable and a little corny? Certainly. But so was Titanic
First, you’re assuming that everyone thinks Titanic was good. But more, you’re talking about a story that’s hemmed in to some degree by historical fact. No such restriction existed for Avatar.
As for Avatar resembling previous Cameron efforts, the more works a person creates, the more we see of his style. We either embrace it, like Spielberg, or get rather sick of it, like Lucas (“I’ve got a really bad feeling about this”), but we recognize it immediately
I can’t say I exactly embrace Spielberg.
I like Cameron, and I look forward to watching his next Flick with an open mind.
Well, no one is trying to stop you from liking Cameron — some of just aren’t on that bandwagon. But actually, you’re not looking forward to watching his next film (12 years from now?) with an open mind, but rather with a predisposition to like that film. There’s nothing wrong with that. You’re a self-professed admirer. It would be odd if you weren’t predisposed to like it, but it’s not like you’ll be going in without some degree of expectation that you’ll like whatever it is.
I’m rather jealous of you right now, sir. I believe you know by now that I’ve been waiting quite some time to see this. Oh well, hopefully I only have a week and a half to go.
Next Friday at the Carolina your wait will be over. I do not think you will be disappointed.
“I was saying—and still contend—that it operates on the superiority of a simpler, more primitive life to our own.”
I agree that when this idea pops up in art or history education, it is problematic because it always over-simplifies the situation and ignores the harsh realities of a primitive existence and the benefits of a technological one. I was expecting this to really bug me when I watched AVATAR, but it turns out that it didn’t. I didn’t feel like there was ever any dogma in the film implying that if we all shed our clothes and ran around in the forest with bows and arrows that everything would be better. In my reading, the critique wasn’t aimed at civilization in general, but only those aspects of civilization that would place technological advance over ecological stability to the point that technology completely replaces ecology. You can have your Hollywood blockbuster and your ipod and preserve forest ecosystems at the same time. It just takes a little balance. But when your technological advance threatens to destroy the biosphere altogether and then fly off to some other planet and destroy their ecosystem, too, then we have a problem.
In my opinion, the film didn’t suggest that a primitive way of life is superior to ours so much as it suggested that a primitive life isn’t necessarily inferior. The dichotomy I saw was less civilization vs. primitivism and more technology vs. ecology. There can be a healthy balance of both, and ecology without technology can work, too, but technology without ecology is a recipe for madness.
I have to admit, I feel a little silly defending the film because so much of the film was so silly, but having spent $10.50 and 3hrs on the thing, it seems I should get a little pleasure from discussing the things I DID like.
I agree that when this idea pops up in art or history education, it is problematic because it always over-simplifies the situation and ignores the harsh realities of a primitive existence and the benefits of a technological one.
Right. It’s also a condescending and paternalistic way of regarding people who are, however strange their cultures seem, just as human as we and therefore just as complex a mixture of virtue and sin. We should no more expect that their culture will solve our problems than we should expect that our culture will solve their problems.
I don’t think there was a single thing in Avatar that gave me even a passing surprise.
That’s a good point: it wasn’t just cliche, it was unembellished cliche.
Also, it was one of those films for which you could predict events in incredible detail. Within the first five minutes, I knew that the protagonist would provide information to the military, become more attached to his avatar than to his original body, fall in love with a native girl, be accepted into her clan, object to the military using the information he gave them, be blamed by the natives for the resulting disaster (whereupon his native girlfriend would shout, “I trusted you!”), complete some heroic feat that would identify him as the Chosen One, use his influence to unite the natives against the military, engage in a battle which would ultimately come down to a duel between him and the leader of the military, and leave his human body forever.
sucked thats all i have to say….waste of money,time
Finally trekked the 50 miles to Green Bay to see the 3D version and the story was as pedestrian and predictable and simple as I thought it would be. It had it’s moments of excellent effects, but during the final battle, I wasn’t sure if I was on Pandora or Endor.
This was a 12:30 matinee and the place was packed! Once was enough for me and I won’t be buying the dvd.
I have to admit, I feel a little silly defending the film because so much of the film was so silly, but having spent $10.50 and 3hrs on the thing, it seems I should get a little pleasure from discussing the things I DID like
Be my guest. I certainly wouldn’t stop you. I may not agree with you (still smells of noble savage romanticizing to me), but you’ve every right to espouse the view, and I understand where you’re coming from.
Here here Cranky Hanke. You are the best critic I know of and I have been a big fan of yours since moving to NC in 2001. I am so sick of going to the movies and seeing things like The Hangover, District 9, Avatar, etc. that everyone raves about and I am the only one in the group who leaves the theater disappointed and annoyed.
I would love to hear your take on things like the downfall of the Simpsons after season 8, what you think of shows like Northern Exposure ( seasons 1-4! ), Crime Story, and many other shows I love, but I am sure you have NO time for TV with all you do here.
Anyhow, it is nice to see REAL reviews that are educated and honest! Happy 2010!
I loved it sooo much!!! but wait, you guys saw it without being on a lot of acid? man do I feel your pain!
Happy to be here, Mr. Hanke. Thank you.
You are the best critic I know of and I have been a big fan of yours since moving to NC in 2001. I am so sick of going to the movies and seeing things like The Hangover, District 9, Avatar, etc. that everyone raves about and I am the only one in the group who leaves the theater disappointed and annoyed.
Thank you, but I should point out that I didn’t review The Hangover (nor did I see it) and I pretty much did rave over District 9.
I would love to hear your take on things like the downfall of the Simpsons after season 8, what you think of shows like Northern Exposure ( seasons 1-4! ), Crime Story, and many other shows I love, but I am sure you have NO time for TV with all you do here
Well, combine what I do here with my other job, occasional outside projects and what remains of a personal life and that’s pretty much true. Also, I couldn’t put these shows into any kind of context.
Anyhow, it is nice to see REAL reviews that are educated and honest! Happy 2010!
May all your moviegoing experiences be good ones.
I loved it sooo much!!! but wait, you guys saw it without being on a lot of acid? man do I feel your pain!
You jest, but I was once actually upbraided for not seeing Fantasia on drugs — and told that was the reason I didn’t appreciate it. And the person was dead serious.
Take this movie for what it is, but I think the idea behind the review goes back to the first line “At a cost of around $500 million to make” and think about that for awhile. Forget the easy to see parallels to corporate greed, and enjoy the effects and simple story the movie offers.
…to equate the U.S. to an Imperialist power, conquering a people and willing to wipe out an entire civilization, is absurd.
It’s not so absurd if you were paying attention to what happened in Fallujah.
Also, the Na’vi didn’t care about controlling the “unobtanium” supply, just as it is no consolation to the Iraqis that they have all that oil. I’m sure the Iraqi people would rather have their loved ones alive and living in peace.
“…to equate the U.S. to an Imperialist power, conquering a people and willing to wipe out an entire civilization, is absurd.”
Not absurd at all. If the U.S. were to run out of oil and power tomorrow, we would attack and take out anyone we would need to to get it, and this would happen with the blessing and insistence of the American people as well.
Not absurd at all. If the U.S. were to run out of oil and power tomorrow, we would attack and take out anyone we would need to to get it, and this would happen with the blessing and insistence of the American people as well.
It is not my intent to argue this point in any way, but I think the question deserves to be taken into consideration – is this merely an American thing, or a human nature thing? I’m not so sure that I can buy into a mindset that ‘survival of the fittest’ is strictly the mindset of the damn Americans. Maybe that’s not what’s being said here, but that’s the way it comes across. Obviously, the US is usually (and currently) in the spotlight when it comes to issues of this nature. I’d even argue that, generally speaking, Americans have become rather spoiled by our comfortable lifestyles, and therefore are oftentimes prone to react quicker, out of a desire to maintain that particular level of comfort. But when you start to talk in extremes, perhaps one should step back and look at the bigger picture of humanity as a whole.
“is this merely an American thing, or a human nature thing?”
Strictly human nature, and it’s been proven over the ages, mankind has always taken what he wants, and the weaker be damned. Actually, I think the next great war will be over fresh water rather than power, and we better be careful as we have so much of it here in the great lakes.
It is not my intent to argue this point in any way, but I think the question deserves to be taken into consideration – is this merely an American thing, or a human nature thing? I’m not so sure that I can buy into a mindset that ‘survival of the fittest’ is strictly the mindset of the damn Americans. Maybe that’s not what’s being said here, but that’s the way it comes across.
I suspect it comes across that way only because it’s in reaction to the idea that Americans aren’t that way — as put forth by the person who decried the idea that Cameron was in any way referencing Iraq.
Strictly human nature, and it’s been proven over the ages, mankind has always taken what he wants, and the weaker be damned.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. My thoughts exactly.
Actually, I think the next great war will be over fresh water rather than power, and we better be careful as we have so much of it here in the great lakes.
That strikes me as a very good, intuitive point. I’ve wondered about this in the past, but it’s ultimately a very depressing thought, so I try not to exert too much energy on the sad reality of what the future may hold.
I suspect it comes across that way only because it’s in reaction to the idea that Americans aren’t that way—as put forth by the person who decried the idea that Cameron was in any way referencing Iraq.
I can certainly agree with that, since it tends to elicit the same reaction out of me. Recently I’ve just been trying to hold my tongue when it comes to attempting to form an intelligent debate with certain individuals. I think that focusing more on learning to pick my battles will ultimately make me a wiser, happier man. Which is sometimes hard for me, because I love an intelligent debate/discussion – so long as it remains intelligent, and doesn’t diverge into a stupid, close-minded, name-calling argument.
Wars are fought over resources. Resources = Power. Always have, always will. Saying Americans invented any of that is ignoring human history. Americans are just the latest chapter in a very long book.
I don’t think anyone suggested we invented it.
Speaking of not inventing things, the fact that AVATAR’s story arc is extremely well-worn has been extensively discussed here, and it would be next to impossible to dispute. It’s plot is so derivative, it could be considered archetypal. One thing that we’ve seen countless times before in western story-telling is the theme of the “noble savage”, as Ken noted. I’ve been wondering, though, where in world literature can we find the earliest examples of the “traitor-as-hero” archetype? That the most money-making film so far this century espouses this theme is very interesting.
I was referring to the Iraq/Cameron comment made earlier.
I saw the movie last night and enjoyed it very much, but didn’t really expect it to live up to the hype.
Just a couple thoughts:
1) I haven’t seen that anybody commented on the role of the scientists. Ken, you said the message was “civilization is bad”, but the scientists wound up being heroic. It seems worthwhile to note the intersection b/t science and corporate greed/militarism and ecological balance/peace.
2) I found the whole concept of an avatar interesting: what is reality? Was any of what Jake experienced anything more than a video game character does? At one point he struggles with that, but they don’t go further in, which could have been interesting
3) Did anyone else think that the closing song sounded an awful lot like the Titanic theme song? Weird.
I’ve been wondering, though, where in world literature can we find the earliest examples of the “traitor-as-hero” archetype?
An interesting question that would take someone better versed in literature than I am to answer.
I was referring to the Iraq/Cameron comment made earlier
Yes, but which one? Most of the reaction has been to the apparent claim that America is somehow exempt from ever doing anything wrong and that our motives in Iraq are completely selfless.
“Yes, but which one? Most of the reaction has been to the apparent claim that America is somehow exempt from ever doing anything wrong and that our motives in Iraq are completely selfless.”
I didn’t say that. Nice cast.
Ken, you said the message was “civilization is bad”, but the scientists wound up being heroic
But did they do so in any way that had anything to do with science?
Did anyone else think that the closing song sounded an awful lot like the Titanic theme song?
I mostly just thought it felt cheesy and out of place, but I’m not sure I even know the Titanic theme song. Still, do any of these ending credits song exist for any reason other than keeping the “Best Song” category for the Oscars viable?
I didn’t say that
I didn’t mean to imply you did. It all started from a remark by someone else way back in the comments.
Was it predictable and a little corny? Certainly. But so was Titanic.
And TITANIC stank.
I must admit that I am totally over this movie genre… i.e. of “mankind” coming to his or her senses, awakening from his or her tyrannical ways, only to become the hero …standing alongside the victim!
It happened in Costner’s “Dances with Wolves”, and even in District 9 (which I thought was well-made) … but AVATAR is taking this “traitor turned hero” to the extreme, without giving us all anything to consider after the show ends.
This so-called film presents the indigenous “people” of the planet Pandora to us viewers as untarnished, with qualities a missionary man might have found in former African countries or in the Natives of the American plains,but, all in all, we “humans” remain as “the evil-doers” taking all from these “Others” without asking and then, the epic battle ensues, viz. the indigenous peoples defeating the much more advanced, i.e. technologically only, invaders of the planet. My cosmic goddess!! … I’m surprised our human brothers and sisters (i.e. the invaders) didn’t mount their own “Pandora:Mission Accomplished” sign on the main battle air craft just to demoralize the Avatars.
I hate seeing continuous epic battle scenes one after the other, e.g. as one finds in the Lord of the Rings, or Lucas’s “Star Wars: Attack of the Drones” … or maybe The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise or any other “final battle between the forces of “good” versus “evil” … no matter what era. I can no longer endure mass violence in my face simply for the entertainment factor!
AVATAR is neither anti-war, nor anti-political, nor anti-human. It is simply rotten ground beef being put through the giant grinder again, and the vermin are even reluctant to taste it.
There are no new ideas in AVATAR … I remind you the reader of “The Cell” with Jennifer Lopez and compare the way she enters into the minds of those whom she seeks to aid.
Avator truly exemplifies “there is nothing new under the sun”.
To me, “it’s been confusion from the word go!”
“I can no longer endure mass violence in my face simply for the entertainment factor!”…Childers
And yet you’re a fan of District 9? What was that violence by comparison?
“American soldiers are shamefully defeated by a small resistance group of ungrateful insurgents that don’t appreciate the gifts of freedom and technology”
They do not appreciate the gifts techonlogy I agree, but they actually lived free sir. Maybe not at the american way but free nontheless.