Film review: Avatar

posted at 12:48 am on December 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The buzz on the film Avatar was that it would “change the way films are made,” and that it would be as transformative an experience as the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Perhaps that advance promotion was unfortunate, because James Cameron has made an entertaining popcorn movie that moves quickly and creates a beautiful vision of a forest world with its stunning CGI.  Unfortunately, it also uses stock characters and a plot that telegraphs every single punch, making it a fun amusement-park ride but not a terribly engaging story.

Let’s start with the best aspects of the film, and the best of its best is the CGI for the scenes on Pandora with the Na’vi, an indigenous race on a planet whose natural resources are coveted by “the Corporation,” an East India Trading Company for the 22nd century or so.  That plot line revolves around an element laughably called “Unobtanium,” but more on that in a moment.  The film was made using similar techniques employed by Lord of the Rings in animating Gollum, and by Beowulf in animating all of the characters.  Beowulf did a poor job of it, badly translating facial expressions and movements by the actors into its animation, making everyone in the film look wooden (except for Angelina Jolie, perhaps).  Avatar accomplishes what LOTR did and Beowulf could not.  The characters come alive, at least physically.

The scenery is lush and seemingly magical.  It is truly a character in its own right, and for a purpose.  The flying scenes with the Na’vi are spectacular … but in the manner of the world’s best video game.  Only in a scene at the climax does it seem realistic at all.  That doesn’t make it less enjoyable, but it’s hard to shake the World of Warcraft feel.  It’s about the same feel as The Mummy, which was also a good popcorn flick, but with far fewer pretensions at being something else.

All of that gets wasted to some degree on a plot that combines Dances with Wolves and Dune, with a dash of Return of the Jedi for a Luddite noble-savages-defeat-technology flavor.  Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) gets to be Paul Atreides in this scenario, the outsider who becomes a messianic figure for the natives after mind-linking to an engineered body of a Na’vi.  The Corporation sends him to learn about the Na’vi so that they can convince the natives to let them rape their land.  Does he succeed, or does he lead a heroic revolt against his own greedy people who have “killed their own mother [Earth]“?  If you can’t answer that from the trailer, then this may be the first movie you’ve ever seen.

Conservatives have more or less primed themselves to hate this film because of the presumed anti-war politics of the movie.  It’s there — in fact, it’s unmistakable — but it’s not as bad as one might presume.  It mostly comes later in the movie, when the commander of a military base attempts to rally the humans in response to what he calls “terrorism,” talks of making a “pre-emptive strike,” and promises a “shock and awe” effort.  All of that happens within about a five-minute burst.  As for the anti-business Corporation plot line, that’s a retread of Aliens, which Cameron wrote and in which Sigourney Weaver also starred.

The real flaw in this film is its predictability.  Except for loud noises and some creative imagining of animal and plant life, nothing is terribly surprising in this movie.  It tells no new tales or offers any lessons that haven’t already come out of Screenwriting 101.  The cast does a very good job with this limited material, which makes it entertaining but hardly a deep intellectual exercise.  The pace was good but the film was too long at 2 1/2 hours.  I enjoyed it, but at best would give it a 7 on a scale of 10.

Addendum: Just to make sure I had a realistic take on the film, I went with the Mathemagician to see it, whose perspective on politics differs from mine.  We both largely concurred that it was entertaining, but very predictable.

Update: Gabriel Malor agrees almost entirely, and mentions one point I’d forgotten.  People have presumed that the film is anti-military, but it’s actually more anti-mercenary.  The soldiers in the film are employees of the Corporation, not a military unit.  That gets explained in the beginning, but not terribly well.  For mercenaries, they certainly have some very expensive machinery.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

When I heard of the movie “Avatar”, I thought it was a movie version of the Manga-type “Avatar: The Last Airbender”. I was all go for it, after all, my son loves it.

ProudPalinFan on December 20, 2009 at 8:51 AM

The Last Airbender comes out in Summer 2010–a live-action movie of the cartoon.

Enoxo on December 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

As I like to think of it… a Smurf and a ThunderCat having a baby.

Enoxo on December 20, 2009 at 8:42 AM

…and that nails it.

Mr Purple on December 20, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Smurfs on steroids.

DLEW on December 20, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Gabe:I liked Ed’s review,it was spot on,and everyone has
their opinion,and saying Ed loves Jihadys is, pure
lunacy crazy talk!!

canopfor on December 20, 2009 at 8:44 AM

I’m not saying he “loves” jihadis, but that he compromises with them, just as he compromises in this review of Avatar, an extreme, anti-American, leftist movie posing as entertainment. I like what csdeven says:

It’s more America bashing and the more money it makes, the more it’s clear that people aren’t bothered by the trashing of American values.

When “conservatives” aren’t bothered by a movie that trashes America (and Ed Morrissey in his review clearly isn’t), a movie that is a propaganda piece for the America haters throughout the world, and then give their money to it, they are part of the problem.

Gabe on December 20, 2009 at 9:03 AM

When you have young boys it’s almost a guarantee that you will have to at least rent this flick. I’ll let them see it for the “oooo ahhhhh” moments and pay for therapy later.

Bishop on December 20, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Moral of the film: “The White man is bad”

Chris Matthews take: This film proves that teabaggers are racist

faraway on December 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Gabe on December 20, 2009 at 9:03 AM

So, have you seen it? Or are you just mouthing someone else’s opinion?

Bleeds Blue on December 20, 2009 at 9:11 AM

Weirding modules are awesome.

Darth Executor on December 20, 2009 at 1:37 AM

Don’t make me pull my crysknife…

Bill C on December 20, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Think I’ll wait for it to come out on TV. Not pay TV either.

petefrt on December 20, 2009 at 9:15 AM

The only reason I am giving this film a pass is that it just looks too gimmicky for my taste. I like action films that are just plain entertainment, without being too preachy.

This film looks like it is just too stock full of new CGI effects to make it anything less than a demonstration piece for new CGI effects, plus being close to 3 hours in length is just way too long for a movie these days.

Not to mention that frankly, 3D gives me a headache anyway.

So like I said, I think I’ll put my $10 admission towards something better this time around, like maybe a Christmas gift to someone.

As for Avatar, it is now on the bottom of my Wait-For-The-DVD list.

pilamaye on December 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM

Now Ed Morrissey is promoting a movie that couldn’t be more anti-American, a movie that liberals and Muslims will love.

Gabe on December 20, 2009 at 8:35 AM

Enough with the Ed bashing. If you hate his blogging, you can start your own blog; I am sure we will all be right over there to read it — not.

bitsy on December 20, 2009 at 9:24 AM

When you have young boys it’s almost a guarantee that you will have to at least rent this flick. I’ll let them see it for the “oooo ahhhhh” moments and pay for therapy later.

Bishop on December 20, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Kids need to be exposed to a few germs and some liberal thought so they can build up their immune systems.

bitsy on December 20, 2009 at 9:26 AM

I’m not entirely keen on this movie but I live walking distance from one of the best screens on the East Coast, so the special effects should be pretty amazing.

Bleeds Blue on December 20, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Eh, I think I’ll rent Wall-E instead.

vcferlita on December 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM

The drawn out, over-the-top and unbelievable action sequences are tedious.

The scenes of Gaia-like worship culminate in a promise of eternal life.

shaken on December 20, 2009 at 9:31 AM

bitsy on December 20, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Public schools bitsy, public schools.

B Man on December 20, 2009 at 9:31 AM

Kids need to be exposed to a few germs and some liberal thought so they can build up their immune systems.

bitsy on December 20, 2009 at 9:26 AM

My son and I don’t have the same perspective on politics, but he complained about the heavy-handed lecturing in the movie — so you are definitely on to something here. I taught him critical viewing with The Simpsons when he was young.

Ed Morrissey on December 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Watch the trailer, then watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyWWiZAuroA

Even has the hot blue chick jumping off a cliff.

Rebar on December 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM

A word of warning. Those Na’vi casinos are unregulated. Take your Unobtanium bucks elsewhere.

Fletch54 on December 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Eh, I think I’ll rent Wall-E instead.

vcferlita on December 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Wall-E was actually very good, not nearly as preachy as I was told it would be. Think “Idiocracy” in CGI with sentient robots, a happy ending, and some too-close-to-reality-for-comfort commentary on our piggish culture.

Dark-Star on December 20, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Ed Morrissey on December 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM

The problem is, liberal parents don’t think critically themselves or they wouldn’t be liberals. But they do pack up lib jr. and send him off to the bright shiny blue indian movie for that feel good sensation.

Fletch54 on December 20, 2009 at 9:42 AM

I’ll go to see it since my hubby wants to, but I’m glad to see Ed give it a 7/10 (at best, I could even handle a 5 or 6). I was worried it would be unbearable. Usually I’m able to ignore the far-left messages of Hollywood to enjoy decent films, so this will probably be no different. But I liked the “Dancing with Smurfs” line, haha! Mostly, the trailer just really reminds me of Ferngully.

jtownsley on December 20, 2009 at 9:43 AM

I listen to a whole lot of radio so I have no idea where I heard this but someone did a whole hysterical riff on the “Unobtanium” and how it was a rip off of Rocky and Bullwinkle. I am pretty old and I remember R&B and don’t remember this but they described a mountain that had to be tied down? I have no idea what I am talking about but the routine was very funny. It was probably Beck and his gang.

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2009 at 9:45 AM

It looks horrible.

Metro on December 20, 2009 at 9:47 AM

I’m gonna say it’s on the top 5 list for best movies of the decade.

rogue780 on December 20, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Gabe on December 20, 2009 at 9:03 AM

How do you know what bothers Ed?

blatantblue on December 20, 2009 at 9:50 AM

This isn’t my kind of movie so I will hang onto my money and maybe go see Robert Downey, Jr. as Sherlock Holmes. And I will continue to encourage everyone to see The Blindside. Now that movie was a real break from the normal Hollywood garbage.

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2009 at 9:54 AM

I’ll wait for the Phantom Menace reviewer’s review….. :-)

Caper29 on December 20, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Enough with the Ed bashing. If you hate his blogging, you can start your own blog; I am sure we will all be right over there to read it — not.

bitsy on December 20, 2009 at 9:24 AM

“Bitsy” sounds like a typical liberal: I guess she thinks if we don’t like what what is in the Washington Post, we should shut up or start our own newspaper. Or if we don’t like the bias on NBC, we should shut up and start our own television station. Or if we don’t like the liberal bias at university, we should shut up and start our own university.

Sorry, if Hot Air is a news source with commentary, then we should be to comment when we disagree as well as when we agree with something. Liberals usually don’t understand such a thing. Anyway, Ed works for Michelle Malkin, and I suspect she wouldn’t like the movie.

And Ed Morrissey is completely wrong here with his review. Debbie Schlussel’s review is much more accurate and principled: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/13898/dont-believe-the-hype-avatar-stinks-long-boring-unoriginal-uber-left/ Ed is promoting an extremely anti-American movie and is not bothered by it.

Gabe on December 20, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Ed is promoting an extremely anti-American movie and is not bothered by it.

Gabe on December 20, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Again

How is this promotion?

Unfortunately, it also uses stock characters and a plot that telegraphs every single punch, making it a fun amusement-park ride but not a terribly engaging story.

All of that gets wasted to some degree on a plot that combines Dances with Wolves and Dune, with a dash of Return of the Jedi for a Luddite noble-savages-defeat-technology flavor.

The real flaw in this film is its predictability. Except for loud noises and some creative imagining of animal and plant life, nothing is terribly surprising in this movie.

It tells no new tales or offers any lessons that haven’t already come out of Screenwriting 101. The cast does a very good job with this limited material, which makes it entertaining but hardly a deep intellectual exercise.

I really can’t stomach “conservatives” like you, who get off on labeling everyone else a liberal. Get over yourself.

Schlussel, too.

blatantblue on December 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Ed’s review is just that, a review. If you think the above is a promotion of the film, then it may be appropriate to question your mental faculties.

blatantblue on December 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I wouldn’t describe the comments here as Ed-bashing. Though it may sound harsh to say I think Ed is, along with most conservatives, very passive culturally. Most conservatives would not want to live in a conservative culture or at least would find it difficult. Culturally and socially conservatism for most seems to just mean applying liberal attitudes circa 1964 (‘I have a dream’ etc.) consistently and opposing abortion but not out-of-wedlock birth or egalitarian feminism, like Palin. For these purposes, existing within (or at least orbiting) a modern liberal cultural universe is the easiest fit.

As for Cameron being anti-mercenary rather than anti-military, I think that is too fine a distinction. He told a journalist the other day that the US invaded Iraq for the same reason a dog licks its balls, because it can. Of course he probably doesn’t hate every individual soldier or anything like that but who does?

aengus on December 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

I concur with Ed. Went to see it in 3D. That was pretty cool, particularly the battle scenes. Pandora (Endora? Andora?) was very well done. Cameron did his part on that. But the story… I nodded off a couple of times because it got too slow and predictable. Wayyy to long for me.

If you want to see a movie, go see Princess and the Frog. Disney went back to it’s roots with that one. No more 3D animations. 2D drawings reminiscent of their other princess movies. Better story line too.

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2009 at 9:54 AM

I want to see Sherlock Holmes too. Probably after Christmas.

xax on December 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Ed, the Christian Science Monitor web site has a review that reads a lot like yours. They called it a “cowboys and indians” movie.

“Un obtain ium” Wow how lame. He worked on this how long?

The left sees all soldiers as mercenaries, btw, regardless of anything they say, they hate the military.

I will wait for the bargain bin, if I every see this.

dogsoldier on December 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Meh. I’ll wait until RedLetterMedia on youtube reviews it…Then I’ll watch his review tear it apart. That will be much more entertaining than the movie itself. (Much like his Phantom Penace…err…Menace review is better than the movie…)

I may see this movie if someone else rents it, but I’m not putting any money in a big leftist’s pocket if I can help it.

Battlecruiser-operational on December 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Cindy,

That was was made of upsiedaisieum ( Up See Daisy Um) Rocky and Bullwinkle was full of puns and great character names (Captain Wrongway Peachfuzz reminds me of some Senators)

Duncan Khuver on December 20, 2009 at 10:09 AM

I thought it was good. I’ll likely buy it on DVD.

However the Corporation was portrayed as entirely soul-less. At one point you got that they might have a change of heart and some conscious… but no.

Go see it, if you can ignore the all corporations are evil and soul-less you’ll likely enjoy it.

Venar on December 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM

My daughter called it “Smurfahontas”

N. O'Brain on December 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Have to disagree with you dogsoldier at 10:06AM. The Left is OK with warriors as long as they are advancing the correct agenda. In this case, the morally correct warriors triumphed.

The film is anti-capitalism, anti-technology, pro-Gaia. The nobility of the blue savage is evidenced by casting the blue hero as a chosen messiah, resurrected in the end.

In the end, we witness the resurrection of Gaia’s yellow-eyed blue Jesus. But that’s after a battle triumph.

On the left, soldiers for Gaia are just fine. Soldiers for capitalism, not so much.

shaken on December 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM

The Cooperation = Blackwater = Halliburton

tjexcite on December 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Duncan Khuver on December 20, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Thank you for the information. The trailer of this movie shows a rock that floats so maybe the comparison wasn’t far off. I loved R & B for just what you noted, silly puns and tongue in cheek humor.

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2009 at 10:24 AM

xax on December 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Looks good doesn’t it? Mr. Downey is an excellent actor.

Cindy Munford on December 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM

I am a big sci-fi fan (and yes, I’ve spent plenty of time with the kind of people who would chastise me for calling it sci-fi). My politics are somewhat to the right of Dick Cheney. So I went to see “Avatar” in IMAX 3D prepared to enjoy the movie and filter out the liberal cr*p.

I thought it was very enjoyable. Not revolutionary, not original “Star Wars” awesome, but enjoyable.

A word about the 3D: it is very cool and very pointless. I’m not sure it adds much to the movie — perhaps in one or two flying scenes but that’s it. My wife gets queasy watching some 3-D effects so I saw this one alone. After seeing the subtlety of the 3-D I will have no reservations about taking her to see it in 3-D (since that is the real technical selling point of the movie). But in terms of viewer experience and cinematography, I think Cameron has really over-sold the importance of 3-D.

Politics: as in most sci-fi (OK, speculative fiction, geez) you can take the story-world literally or you can go hunting for contemporary metaphors. I would say that Cameron took a stock sci-fi premise that he worked up years ago and then giggled to himself while he threw in some anti-Bush one-liners. It’s annoying and juvenile but I expected it, so it didn’t really detract from the overall film.

As everyone has said, the plot is basically a Western — the greedy white man against the noble American Indian (although in this case they are blue and have tails). I myself giggle when I think of Canadian-born James Cameron lecturing Americans about our eeeevil treatment of American Indians. Was Canada a pristine wilderness unspoiled by human habitation before the French showed up? Piece of advice to Mr. Cameron: go read about the French & Indian wars and get yourself a copy of “I buried my heart at Wounded Knee” for a first-person account of the Indian viewpoint on the battle for the American West. Yes, the history is tragic but to portray Indians as simple peace-loving noble savages is to utterly disrespect their own warrior culture. Go read about Tecumseh: he nearly checked American expansion at the Mississippi.

I think Ed has it right: this is a 7/10 movie, and good mindless entertainment.

My overwhelming feeling a day later is one of sadness. This movie proves that literally anything imaginable is film-able. With this kind of creative power, why can’t Hollywood do better?

Anton on December 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

shaken on December 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Great point. You are absolutely right about “Gaia’s Jesus.” I wish I thought up that phrase….

To all: the phrase “unobtanium” is a common inside joke in engineering circles. I’ve seen references to it in things written as far back as the 1930s. Cameron is trying to show his geek cred with the phrase.

Anton on December 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Disclaimer: I have not seen the film.

I polled several of my employees who have seen it (all are twenty-somethings) and they related back to me that they loved the special effects from the combat sequences. Anyone else see irony in that, or perhaps a hypocrisy on the part of the filmmaker? If a profitable film is Cameron’s unobtainium here, his use of “Shock and Awe” is how he chooses to extract it from his audiences–not through civilized diplomacy (i.e. nuanced characters).

hungrymongo on December 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM

If the writers can’t be bothered to change ‘unobtanium’ to a more creative material, than the movie can’t rate out better than a B+

phreshone on December 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM

I have no intention of wasting my time and money on a limp story. Within a year, there will be a number of movies underway using the same technology, if not improvements on it. It isn’t because of the liberal bent of the movie, which is such a common malfunction in movies these days that you either learn to filter it out or stop seeing movies. It helps when they aren’t ham-handed about it of course, which they often are. What I won’t do, however, is hand box-office money to a filmmaker who choses to be in-your-face with his politics, daring you not to watch it. Cameron is guilty on this one with his commentary, and with a movie that needs to be huge just to break even, that’s a stupid idea. I intend to do my part to instruct him. I’m an adult. I have long since learned how to resist the urge of “everybody’s doing it”.

Immolate on December 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Unfortunately, it also uses stock characters and a plot that telegraphs every single punch, making it a fun amusement-park ride but not a terribly engaging story.

Sounds like any “Star Wars” movie to me…

SouthernGent on December 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I have not seen this movie, but as others have pointed out, I wish that filmmakers would stop making the decision of what side to be on for you.

For me, the best stories are those where I have a difficult time deciding whether I like or dislike the protagonist(s), or where there is some vague, elemental sub-text left to my imagination.

I still wish they’d make movies about one of my favorite trilogies, “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever”. A story in which pretty much everybody hates him, but expect him to be their savior and where virtually every decision he makes backfires on him.

swash_plate on December 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Some people need to lighten up. Both the conservatives who claim it’s anti-military, anti-America and the liberals who claim it’s a celebration of imperialism and white guilt. And especially Debbie Schlussel, now that she’s been quoted. Sheesh, she knows how to suck the fun out of everything.

The film was a good time. Too long, but still a thrilling experience. Much better than the trailer made it appear. The flying sequences, especially, were enough to take your breath away. If you’re really so angsty about sending eight bucks to Cameron’s evil commie fascist money machine, buy a ticket to Old Dogs and sneak in, for crying out loud. Just don’t wait for the DVD – it’ll probably look cheesy on the small screen.

Siobhan on December 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM

My daughter described it as “Fern Gully” with guns.

roux on December 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM

For mercenaries, they certainly have some very expensive machinery.

That depends upon the mercenary company involved…

I R A Darth Aggie on December 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM

See the thing is, for people saying the effects are great, the CGI is not all that good if you have seen other, better CGI. Most video games at this point easily rival this movie, and the movie Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, easily makes better use of CGI and that entire movie is CGI. (This is different from The Spirits Within.)

On a more personal note, I’m just not impressed when they try to wow me with these essentially tech-demos and then forget about all the other things a movie should do.

CrankyTRex on December 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Why don’t you real americans make your own movies? Lots of eagles and flags and terrrurrists being ‘smoked out’ and ‘brought to justice’. How about a fantasy tale about finding the wmds?

simplesimon on December 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Something I find amusing about this is that the Hollywood reviewers are all a’slobber over this movie, but trash the Transformer movies.
They both seem to be the same basic design. A storyline that can be explained in a half-page and then several hundred million dollars worth of CGI.

Nathan_OH on December 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM

The story and dialogue are relentlessly, mind-numbingly stupid. If you think any kind of “visuals” are compensation for this kind of punishment to your intelligence, this may be the movie for you.

rrpjr on December 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM

“Unobtanium” just might be the dumbest name for a fictional mineral. Conversely, the best one was in Wolverine: “adamantium”. It always made me wonder if it was discovered by Adam Ant.

flipflop on December 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM

As for the anti-business Corporation plot line, that’s a retread of Aliens

I never thought of Aliens as anti-business. It seemed to me that Paul Reiser’s character was greedy and self-serving, but I didn’t think he was acting on orders from the company.

Kafir on December 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Teh Ghey…

Seven Percent Solution on December 20, 2009 at 12:04 PM

trash the Transformer movies.

Nathan_OH on December 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM

And deservedly so. Garbage.

CWforFreedom on December 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

That Real American thing sure seems to strike a nerve with our resident traitorous troll.

CWforFreedom on December 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Why don’t you real americans make your own movies? Lots of eagles and flags and terrrurrists being ’smoked out’ and ‘brought to justice’. How about a fantasy tale about finding the wmds?

simplesimon on December 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Easy – it wouldn’t be profitable!

(I guess the old saying about stopped clocks really is true!)

Although…ever heard of ‘war porn’? I’d think that would at least partially fit the bill. Nothing like watching trained men and women shooting at hostile targets (coughrevoltfantasiescough) and besides, what red-blooded male doesn’t like movies with lots of Grade-A “blam” to them?

Dark-Star on December 20, 2009 at 12:11 PM

And deservedly so. Garbage.

CWforFreedom on December 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM

“Revenge of the Fallen”, or both? The first movie was pure awesomeness minus the uber-awkward bedroom scene (who the hell wrote that in!?) but the sequel…BLECH.

Dark-Star on December 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM

I’ll wait for the Phantom Menace reviewer’s review….. :-)

Caper29 on December 20, 2009 at 9:58 AM

LoL. That was my first thought. Either that or have these guys take a crack at it.

How about a fantasy tale about finding the wmds?

simplesimon on December 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM

How about a fantasy tale about finding your intelligence and common sense? That way there’d be guaranteed sequels.

Left Coast Right Mind on December 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM

“Revenge of the Fallen”, or both? The first movie was pure awesomeness minus the uber-awkward bedroom scene (who the hell wrote that in!?) but the sequel…BLECH.

Dark-Star on December 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM

I could at least finish the first one. That is about it.

CWforFreedom on December 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Something I find amusing about this is that the Hollywood reviewers are all a’slobber over this movie, but trash the Transformer movies.
They both seem to be the same basic design. A storyline that can be explained in a half-page and then several hundred million dollars worth of CGI.

Nathan_OH on December 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Agreed.

I really enjoyed the first Transformers. It really exceeded my expectations considering I thought there was no way they could make a decent Transformers movie. (The second one goes off the rails 1/3 of the way through.)

Also, the Transformers themselves looked 10x more real than anything I saw in Avatar.

CrankyTRex on December 20, 2009 at 12:31 PM

I don’t like my movie robots trying to be funny or human. Movie animals either for that matter.

/

CWforFreedom on December 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM

All of that happens within about a five-minute burst.

Those five minutes of modern liberal political thought slapped on the top means I’ll buy it out of the bargain bin when it finally arrives there.

That’s what I did to Canadian Bacon (my $4.99 Michael Moore movie), which also has its 5-10 minutes of Moore’s ideas about our Government inexpertly woven into the visuals at various minor points in the movie (think of Special Forces guys killing their own wounded with a shot to the back of the head in order to prevent them from falling into the hands of the enemy).

No thanks — if I have to pay for poo, I’ll pay the least amount possible.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Why don’t you real americans make your own movies? Lots of eagles and flags and terrrurrists being ’smoked out’ and ‘brought to justice’. How about a fantasy tale about finding the wmds?

simplesimon on December 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM

We do.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM

At least The Core had a reasonable explanation for calling the magic material ‘unobtanium.’ The guy who developed it thought it was way too difficult and costly to produce to ever ‘obtain’ enough of it to use it, so he named it appropriately. (That was, of course, about the only reasonable explanation in the entire movie.)

James on December 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM

“The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever”

WOW. Now there’s a series I haven’t thought about in years. I remember it vividly — like a car crash decapitation from which you couldn’t look away. I read the first TWO trilogies — twice, as is my wont with most epics — even though it was beyond painful. 3000+ pages of a weak, ineffectual beta-mail whining and bemoaning his fate . . . . Excrutiating. :)

voxpopuli on December 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM

I just have no interest in seeing the James Cameron : Avatar for several reasons.

First: The idea that this is a stunning new level of technological achievement destined to transform films forever if you can afford to pay a couple hundred million to do it means 99.99 percent of films wont be able to use it so basically its just a gimmick.
Second: I am tired of the humans have used up all their resources and destroyed The Earth based movies.
Third: I am tired of the plucky peace-loving in tune with their natural environment primitive cultures movies
Fourth: I am tired of the Evil Corporation ruled by Greed and Profit coming to wipe out the plucky peace-loving primitives movies.
Fifth: I am tired of preachy movies who just play the same tired old tunes over and never trying to strike some new chords.
Sixth: If this movie’s focus had been reversed liberals would be shaking their head in disgust at the waste of resources that could have been used for cancer or some other more worthwhile goal instead of frivolous entertainment. I being a conservative am just not going to see it and let you decide if its worth it for yourself as its not my money spent either way.
Seventh: Going to see a movie doesn’t make you UnAmerican nor does giving a review of it. It does however mean you put money in the local economy if you buy the popcorn and drinks and snacks which means the Theater stays open and some people have jobs which is Capitalism which is a chord in the American Ideology.
In the end I think Avatar might break even but I doubt its going to be looked back in 5 or 6 years as a great stands the test of time movie. I think movies like the Alt-Star Trek or Iron Man will do much better in that stands the test of time because in the end they did a better job at story telling.

alloyiv on December 20, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Not interested, not on any plane. I don’t see many films anyway, and this isn’t going to be one of them.

Bob's Kid on December 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I think it’s kinda cool. I like the underlying message of the evil government stealing the wealth of the peasant common folk. I like the angle too, of how the common folk are righteous in their dissent against the powerful fascist government types. The blue people are standing up for their homes against tyranny and defending freedom. Was that something like a tea party they were having? Some kind of protest or political dissent up in the trees!! Really cool! I also noticed in that one scene the blue person was riding an animal that you could only compare to an SUV! Certainly not a little Al Gore Obama car! Anyone else see that?

Definitely a movie that is standing up for the 2nd amendment, that’s for sure! We seldom see that! Where would all those blue people be if they had allowed the fascist government to take their bows and arrows!

JellyToast on December 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Not going to pay to see it, no matter how visually stunning it is (perhaps its only positive aspect…). Just knowing it has those “Anti-War” and “Anti-Imperialism” aka Anti-Americanism points turns me off and would ruin even the visual aspects for me.

And did you need to drag DUNE into this? My favorite book of all time, one I’ve reread over and over and inspired me in my own writing. Plus, Frank Herbert was a Conservative whose “environmentalism” was driven by his direct observation of a closed system (though I admit is is likely out of date and a tad Mathulsean in its conclusions) but his work at least left space to reach one’s own conclusions – Cameron has basically admitted to make propaganda for a his side here.

Sharr on December 20, 2009 at 2:28 PM

And the Fremen were not peaceniks, just the opposite in fact…

Sharr on December 20, 2009 at 2:29 PM

I’ll stick with Zardoz, at least that movie has Sean Connery in a diaper.

WarEagle01 on December 20, 2009 at 4:59 AM

Oh my Gosh. I think that is the worst film ever made in human cinematic history.

Conservative Samizdat on December 20, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Ed, I would buy the “mercenaries” line except for the fact that calling US troops “mercenaries” because they’re volunteers is a well-worn Lefty trope, as is the idea that the US government is just a shill for corporate interests using the troops to fight “wars-for-oil” as Halliburton directs.

SDN on December 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I will see it when it comes available on Netflix

JeffinSac on December 20, 2009 at 3:41 PM

If Avatar is light fare, then it bears little comparison to Frank Herbert’s Dune series. It seems the closer one pays attention to each word of the original Dune books, the more comfortable one becomes at a level of communication at which much of importance is said indirectly. Frank Herbert resembles his character Leto II, who is said always to be testing, always. In fact, it has come to seem that one’s understanding of the Dune series improves, or at least one becomes more aware of the many matters still to be understood, as one becomes more familiar with Hesiod, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and very likely others.

Kralizec on December 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Kralizec on December 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Your review definitely is in the style of Dune itself.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM

I just watched the trailer. “This is our land!” The land seems always to be occupied and always ripe for invasion.

Kralizec on December 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Your review definitely is in the style of Dune itself.

unclesmrgol on December 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM

I don’t know. However, I’m sure my way of writing in general has been influenced by Herbert, among the others listed.

Kralizec on December 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM

It was the forest MOON of Endor, not planet. Geez, I hate to have to mention that.

Americannodash on December 20, 2009 at 1:05 AM
This was the first thing I noticed, also. does this make me a dork also? (sigh)

opiemuyo on December 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Mama Smurf and Yoda‘s illegitimate offspring kick Earthling butt?

Of all the potential protean storylines latent in the sci-fi Zeitgeist, Cameron picks the lamest.

Not even the wit of “”It’s a Cookbook!” to leaven his loafer’s preaching.

(In the video game… which this bloated promo is simply the commercial for… will you be able to have The Corporation win?)

To quote an earlier movie director:

You earthlings are stupid! Stupid, stupid, stupid!”

profitsbeard on December 20, 2009 at 4:35 PM

You have to see it in 3-D to appreciate it. Somewhere in a dark theater George Lucas is crying. It brings a whole new dimension to sci-fi. It was a combo-Starship Troopers-Fern Gully. Very fun. Loved it. Didn’t think I would but I dragged husband to New Moon so I owed him. I want to see it again. Definitely worth the $$

BrideOfRove on December 20, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Yes, the history is tragic but to portray Indians as simple peace-loving noble savages is to utterly disrespect their own warrior culture.
Anton on December 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I have Indian heritage and this is one of the things that I really hate. My ancestors were awesome and fierce warriors and have been turned into nature worshiping pansies by guilty white liberals.

RagTag on December 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM

I see there are many folks who are insecure about themselves.

Anyone who can read has known for quite some time that this movie was going to have a leftist bent. Yet, knowing that going in, people still want to act like jackasses over a movie review.

If you are disinclined to see the movie, fine. If you are a conservative, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever, going to see this movie doesn’t make you a shill for the Left for goodness sake.

If you can’t go into anything, especially forearmed and forewarned about it’s content and let yourself have a good time watching a movie – then you are simply a pent up jackass.

catmman on December 20, 2009 at 5:45 PM

After reading the comments (here and at Ace) I’ve come to the following conclusions:
.
1. As proven by “Smurfatar”, drinking collodial silver is just funny
.
Seriously (as pointed out at Ace): “blue people in a green world“?
.
Besides, where is the diversity?
.
Or is this the result of central planning eco-bio-organic-vegan healing bio-net-connectivity whatever the non-technical director translated the script filler “[tech]” into.
.
.
2. There is NEVER a shortage of “u nob tanium”.
.
Proof: James Cameron’s writing, plot and script.
.
Try not to sell this plot again, okay?
.
Twice is enough. 1952 really was long ago. Also, FYI, us techies are no longer much impressed with oscilloscope traces.

Arbalest on December 20, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Enoxo on December 20, 2009 at 8:42 AM

As I like to think of it… a Smurf and a ThunderCat having a baby.

——
Mr Purple on December 20, 2009 at 8:59 AM

…and that nails it.

Doesn’t quite nail it for me. They struck me as more of a cross-breed between the Orakai from Lord of the Rings with The Smurfs.

And I disagree with the update. This film wasn’t just anti-mercenary, but certainly anti-military as well. Many of the soldiers were Marines. So, Marines forget all they learn about honor and country to whore out for a corporation? Sounds anti-military to me…

ynot4tony2 on December 20, 2009 at 6:25 PM

My wife made a liar out of my by insisting that we go see a movie today, yes after I’d posted my lack of desire to pad Cameron’s pocket with my cash. Okay, it was at least partially my fault since the other films available weren’t exactly compelling. So we went and saw it.

First, there was a lot of the “bad corporation” vibe going on throughout, which is standard fare for anyone who watched the Alien series and the Terminator series. There was also a single character who embodied all of the negative military stereotypes–a villain so thoroughly bad and… well… villainous that he could easily transplant into a Disney film. Maybe Scar in Lion King? Anyway, he was bad, he was hateable, and he was pretty much the only negative military character in the film.

Yes, the usual liberal clap-trap of noble savages and a sentient mother earth concept are pervasive throughout the film. A few times that became mildly annoying, but not much worse than that.

Overall, it was an excellent film. The story was shallow, but action thrillers often are, and this one was thrilling. My wife is not a fantasy/sci-fi nut like me, but she was as blown-away by it as I was. I’d go see it again in a hearbeat. It was long at 2.5 hours, but I never felt like it dragged for a minute. I’d give it a solid 9 on the 10 scale. It was that good.

Immolate on December 20, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Some aspects of this film seem a direct rip-off of Harry Harrison\’s late 60\’s Sci Fi novel \’Death World\’ where every living creature (plant or animal) is dedicated to the total annihilation of mankind because we exude \”hostility\” in our mannerisms. Thus ordinarily peaceful trees and lizards and birds evolve into claw-tipped, fang-mouthed, venom-dripping horrors to kill the invading human \”virus\”.

MaiDee on December 20, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Yes, the usual liberal clap-trap of noble savages and a sentient mother earth concept are pervasive throughout the film. A few times that became mildly annoying, but not much worse than that.

Immolate on December 20, 2009 at 8:14 PM

I just saw it and I don’t think I was watching the same film that some here saw and many didn’t.

I agree with your bad guy analysis but not with your sentient mother earth concept.

The scientist clearly stated that they were seeing some sort of electrical activity between the plants. A kind of information network and it was clearly shown that the animals including the natives could tape into. This brings it way beyond the mother earth concept and into a reasonable scientific explanation.

This was not a one with nature religion type of thing but an actual interface to nature and each other that all the animals had. They also made it pretty clear that the memories of the natives could be uploaded to the network giving them a kind of immortality. The only religious aspect was that the natives did consider the “network” as some sort of deity but they were after all primitives by our standards.

Jake going native may have also been more the company’s fault then his because they asked him to infiltrate the tribe and he stupidly connected to the network which even upset the scientists. For all we know he was unable to do anything but go native after connecting up because it was only after that that he stopped feeding the company information and went full native.

I went in baised by reading comments here and expected dancing with smurfs, anti-military and anti-American preach fest and I just didn’t see it.

All the scientists, some of the security and even the corporate guys were not fully on board with the lunatic that was head of security.

Of course other opinions will vary.

RagTag on December 20, 2009 at 8:51 PM

MaiDee on December 20, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Wow another “Death World” reader. I told my son that it reminded me of one of the “Death World” novels were every plant and animal wanted to kill you.

RagTag on December 20, 2009 at 8:54 PM

Rag Tag “Every animal, insect, and plant on Pyrrus was dedicated to to the elimination of mankind. Even the soft, green lawn was a carpet of death…” Harry Harrison’s ‘Death World.”

MaiDee on December 20, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Hi Kini.

Being the resident Hawaiian, I was curious if you you saw Mrs. Palin on her last vacation?

disillusioned on December 20, 2009 at 3:53 AM

No, Palin stayed on another Island.

However, Palin is welcomed here with all the Aloha that anyone here can give.

Then again, we would have given Palin all the privacy they deserve

Kini on December 20, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Just don’t wait for the DVD – it’ll probably look cheesy on the small screen.

Siobhan on December 20, 2009 at 11:06
If it is really good CGI, it should look even better on DVD.
Maybe even better with HD…. The movie theater is the 21st century drive in.

dec5 on December 20, 2009 at 11:02 PM

I don’t see why interesting CGI characters are anything to get excited over. Looks to me the like the acting and character expression is at least as good if not better in Dragon Age then Avatar. Claudia Black and Kate Mulgrew are certainly better then Michelle Rodriguez, anyway. Maybe if Sigorney Weaver reprised a role fighting for the space marines instead of as a social worker then I would change my mind.

Resolute on December 21, 2009 at 2:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3