AVATAR 2: THE WAY OF WATER (2022)

Yeah the theater was pretty decently crowded when I went. I would say that there is a reason this film draws crowds despite it's length. Cameron has already went and said that hte movie has now done well enough for him to make 4-5. So we will get to see the conclusion of this story.
 
Cameron has already went and said that hte movie has now done well enough for him to make 4-5.

On a long enough timeline it becomes inevitable.

Nicolas-Cage-Avatar.jpg
 
Last edited:
Final side note: I am 100% certain I heard this “villain motif” from Willow used several times in Avatar 2.
View attachment 1649127
FWIW, Horner used that motif in several scores, so it's kind of fair game if they wanted to Hornerize this one.

Liked it okay. Beautiful. Way too long. WAY too much time spent showing Bad Guys Doing Bad Things. They're bad, we get it. We don't need a training video on how to hunt whales.

Characters do stupid things because PLOT, something I really hate.

Someone explain to me the logic of an underwater choke hold.
 
FWIW, Horner used that motif in several scores, so it's kind of fair game if they wanted to Hornerize this one.

Liked it okay. Beautiful. Way too long. WAY too much time spent showing Bad Guys Doing Bad Things. They're bad, we get it. We don't need a training video on how to hunt whales.

Characters do stupid things because PLOT, something I really hate.

Someone explain to me the logic of an underwater choke hold.
Yes, to be fair, I recently watched “The Mask of Zorro” for the first time, which has a Horner score, and it was riddled with Jumanji and Willow motifs left and right.
 
It has already become the 6th highest grossing film of all time over the course of one month. At this pace, both Avatar films will be #1 & #2 on the list.
 
Yeah it's been a big surprise.

I never thought A2 would bomb but I was very sure it would fall short of A1.

The international earnings are remarkable. That's probably the clearest lesson that the studios will see in it.


But having said that, it looks wrong-headed to focus on nations/politics/etc. The two biggest recent hits are Top Gun 2 & Avatar 2. One of them has been called "America, uck Yeah!" and the other one is closer to the opposite. They both probably share a lot of overlapping viewers.

What they do have in common is that they are very traditional type big hits. At the story/script level they feel like mainstream 1980s-90s stuff. No clumsy heavy-handed Wokeness (and no clumsy heavy-handed anti-Wokeness, either). Visually they are big action spectacles. Cutting-edge VFX. That also matches 1980s-90s thinking even if the current tech is different.
 
Last edited:
A conversation came up the other day regarding 70'/80's era directors and if they had entered the current entertainment industry now as young film makers how different things may have been. On that note we've seen what Star Wars may have been with the prequels, Mad Max with Fury Road and soon to be Furiosa, Indiana Jones with Krystal Skullz, or Spielberg with Ready Player One, oddly enough we even have Scorsese with the Irishman (CG world building) and now Avatar and Cameron.
What if Cameron leaves avatar after the third film and retires on a reimagined Terminator. It's interesting to see how a creators vision changes with technological advancements. Where the first avatar film was an advancement in cgi the new sequels have been an advancement in everything going in to capturing the film itself.
 
A lot of those icons wouldn't have gotten to make their own movies today. Somebody like Spielberg might have spent his first 15 years making comic superhero flicks and we would never have gotten 'Raiders' or 'Close Encounters'.

George Lucas got the money for 'Star Wars' after his only previous work was 'THX-1138' and 'Graffiti'. And there was absolutely zero faith in swashbuckling sci-fi movies at that time. The studios don't take those kinds of risks on such inexperienced people today.


If Cameron goes back to 'Terminator' then it's gonna look & feel like a whole different franchise. It might be interesting. But it won't be what the fans of the early movies want. The only way we will get a fan-pleaser is if Cameron delegates the project to somebody else again (like they did with 'Dark Fate').
 
Last edited:
Up till more recently film makers had inspiration as escapism VS today's film makers inspired by profits. Who was the last great visionary director to come out of the digital age of film making? Do we even have one in the past ten or more years? Anyone in the pipeline to take up the future mantel of Cameron, Spielberg, Scorsese...
 
Up till more recently film makers had inspiration as escapism VS today's film makers inspired by profits. Who was the last great visionary director to come out of the digital age of film making? Do we even have one in the past ten or more years? Anyone in the pipeline to take up the future mantel of Cameron, Spielberg, Scorsese...
I know that we always make comparisons with what was to go toward the future...another one of those? Nope! Another Director making a movie/franchise that will move us? Sure; we haven't seen him/her yet...but it's bound to happen.;) I'm hopeful!
 
This is admittedly a super-belated review, but having grown tired of waiting for a new theatrical release of interest, and still puzzled by such disparate responses, I finally went to see Way of Water on Sunday. As mentioned earlier, I was moderately skeptical based on the ads, but also found the first Avatar impressive overall after initially doubting the hype, so I genuinely hoped for another pleasant surprise. And I sort of got one… but largely not.

Where it succeeded with flying colors was in the technical visual effects achievement. From an objective “does what I’m seeing on screen look real?” sense, the rendering was impeccable, far-surpassing impressions I got from 2d trailers. I even agree with an earlier comment that the 3d didn’t seem particularly deep, but regardless, I could just about count on my fingers the number of times that a facial movement, skin texture or interaction with the environment gave away that I was watching CGI. It’s got to be the most realistic animation I’ve witnessed, thoroughly earning its Oscar.

And yet, after maybe an hour… I became very, very bored. This was honestly difficult for me to reconcile while watching; how could I be simultaneously intellectually-amazed by the technical achievement, and totally unmoved emotionally – to the point that I considered leaving early? Surely I should’ve been on the edge of my seat, and in gaping awe. Even if I didn’t exactly fall in love with the original story or its characters, I was certainly never bored by them. The more I tried to engage with this one, though, the more it dawned on me that past a certain point and save for the occasional shot, the visuals just weren’t enough on their own to make up for a script so brimming with contrivances, inconsistencies, and repetition (in my opinion).

I respect that there are many who enjoyed Way of Water and saw something in it that I did not. But for the sake of adding one more perspective to the mix and a little support to viewers accused of unfair criticism, I unfortunately have to give it about a 4/10 – in spite of the groundbreaking visuals.

Sorry James; I’m out.
 
That's the problem. This isn't for people who actually want interesting characters, a compelling plot or a well-executed movie. It's for people who just want to look at pretty colors for a couple of hours. That's modern-day Hollywood. Pretty, but dumb.

Hard pass.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top