Avatar reviews - Attention : spoilers

[Carson Dyle]

What bugs me is the fantasy. The Na'vi weren't using guerrilla tactics. They wound up being saved by Deus Ex Machina.

How so? Cameron goes to great lengths to lay the structural foundation for the revolt of the natural world that occurs during the final act. Far from being a Deus Ex Machina, it's the direct result of decisions made by the characters.

But, yeah, if you're "bugged by fantasy" Avatar is probably not the film for you.

Let's face it, there are basically two kinds of stories: those which strive to depict the world the way it is (the rich get away with murder), and those which depict the world the way we wish it was (good triumphs over evil). Avatar obviously falls into the later category, but that doesn't mean its themes are any less relevant than those advanced by a film like Chinatown (for example).

Human beings like David and Goliath stories, and I think the reasons are pretty obvious; most of us relate more closely to David than we do Goliath. The fact that the Davids of this world usually get their asses kicked only strengthens our desire to experience dramatic scenarios in which David knocks Goliath down to size. It may not be "realistic," but it's compelling nonetheless.

At any rate, those who focus too intently on Avatar's technological angle miss the point; Cameron isn't advancing an anti-technological argument per se, he's simply pointing out that machines are a tool, and like any tool they can be used for good or evil.

As for the enduring appeal of the "noble savage" I chalk this up to a deep-seeded suspicion held by many that the human race has become too estranged from the natural world. This premise predates Hollywood of course (Walt Whitman wrote volumes on the subject), and while one may not agree with it, a case could certainly be made. Certainly the theme is no stranger to industrial age art and literature.

God knows Hollywood played the "godless savage" card with Indians relentlessly throughout the 40's and 50's. Likewise, we've seen a lot of alien invasion flicks over the years in which humans were the goodies and aliens were the baddies. Now Cameron comes along with a fantasy in with the genres are combined and the roles reversed. I for one welcome the change, if only for variety's sake.

 

[DARTH SABER]

I was curious about Avatar's box office performance, so I went on boxofficemojo.com to check out the daily grosses.

Aside from making more money on it's second weekend, It seems that it's also making more money on the weekdays of it's second week, than it did on it's first week.
Last monday it made $16.3Mil, this past monday it made $19.4Mil.
Usually films slowly drop in gross as the week progresses.


This film may very well have a shot at toppling Titanic.

 

[Sigma-LS]

How so? Cameron goes to great lengths to lay the structural foundation for the revolt of the natural world that occurs during the final act. Far from being a Deus Ex Machina, it's the direct result of decisions made by the characters.

But, yeah, if you're "bugged by fantasy" Avatar is probably not the film for you.

....

God knows Hollywood played the "godless savage" card with Indians relentlessly throughout the 40's and 50's. Likewise, we've seen a lot of alien invasion flicks over the years in which humans were the goodies and aliens were the baddies. Now Cameron comes along with a fantasy in with the genres are combined and the roles reversed. I for one welcome the change, if only for variety's sake.

I guess the planetary revolt makes sense if the Na'vi are considered ultra-important to the planet vs. everything else (and I guess the USB cables indicate such).


I know it's a feel good show, and I like the variety too. I just feel cheated that all the technological wonder and advances that we as a species have made is so easily countered by things that were arbitrarily designed as naturally better than us:The 10ft-tall carbon-fiber-boned natives, the harder to kill than an elephant wildlife, etc.

In the same vein of things I liked Princess Mononoke better. Sacrifices had to made on both ends. The majority of people were good on both sides but there were still massive battles and massacres. Then while you get a good ending it's not ultra perfect. It would be like Avatar ended and Jake was stuck as a human forever (actually that would have made me MUCH happier with the show). Ironically Mononoke was top gross in Japan in 1999 before Titanic came out.:lol

Last thing. "It will take more than one shot to kill a god." :cool

 

[Beeb89]

I saw it in IMAX this past Sunday... I thought it was just ok. I wasn't chomping at the bit to see this one but my girlfriend really was excited about seeing it. First off, I thought there were a LOT of familiar scenes & characters from Aliens, my girlfriend who isn't even a big movie geek like myself said the same thing. I thought the story was fair at best and way too predictable. I knew from the time they tried the "body swap" with Weaver's character that they were going to do the same with Sully. When I saw the first scene with the "big scary bird thingie", I thought, "well, I know what Sully will be flying by the films end."
My biggest gripe, from the time I saw the first trailer, was that all the CGI looked CGI, not believable to me at all. To me it was like a live action movie mixed with an animated one. Gollum was a believable character, like he was a part of the scene with the live actors, I didn't get that feeling with this movie at all.

By the end of the movie I was like, let's just swap bodies with Sully and end this thing already. rolleyes
-B89!

 

[Carson Dyle]

I just feel cheated that all the technological wonder and advances that we as a species have made is so easily countered by things that were arbitrarily designed

No doubt the passengers aboard the Titanic felt the same way.

 

[MooCriket]

Meh:rolleyes I guess some folks can never allow themselves to experience any joy or satisfaction with anything. I saw it in Imax 3-D, and enjoyed it for what it was...a fairy tale.

I did not allow myself to over think anything about it. I just sat back and enjoyed the ride.

Money well spent:thumbsup

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

I find it funny how "blockbusters" are always so polarizing. By no means is the movie horrible. Again, I will buy this when it comes out on DVD/BR. That does not mean it is the be-all, end-all of film making that Cameron made it out to be. I do not feel I wasted my money on this film. That does not mean we have to be so quick to brush aside plot issues because of the shiny trinket that is the animation in this film.

I am not going to look down my nose at people who really loved this movie, because hell, I get enjoyment from the Prequel Trilogy. I just see some are so enamored by this movie. To those who REALLY got into this flick, tell me what about the STORY you really liked. Not a slam, not a digging post, this is just me being curious.

 

[The Stig]

It was better than Transformers.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

It was better than Transformers.

It's got THAT going for it.

 

[Carson Dyle]

To those who REALLY got into this flick, tell me what about the STORY you really liked.

Okay, but first tell me what you really liked about the STORY of the original Star Wars.

Was it the clever plot twists?... the surprise ending?... the emotionally complex hero?... the multidimensional villain?... the sparkling dialogue?

I think if we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that neither film breaks any new ground from a narrative standpoint. The appeal lies in the totally immersive experience of being cinematically transported to another world. It's the whole package that makes the thing work, and when it works as well as it does in the case of Star Wars or Avatar it's a thing of wonder. At least, to me it is.

Thanks to all the crappy FX movies we've been blasted with over the last decade or so we've naturally become suspicious of flashy visuals at the expense of story. As a writer I can certainly empathize with those who feel that CG FX are often used as a crutch to prop up a phoned-in screenplay.

By the same token, I'm not so jaded that I can't appreciate a film as thematically rich, visually stunning, and breathtakingly epic as Avatar. It's movies like this that make being a sci-fi fan so much fun.

 

[Jeyl]

It was better than Transformers.

And for me, Star Trek 09.

Uhura = Useless
Neytiri = FREAKING EPIC

Say what you want about James Cameron's lack of originality when it comes to the story (though I thought it was creative), he knows how to write female characters. I thought he totally lost it with True Lies, but got it back with this. Neytiri is such a joy to watch because she's not one who is limited as a character whose sole purpose is to be the male lead's love thing. While the romantic element is there, it doesn't limit her in what she does. She fights the big battles, is willing to confront overwhelming odds alone, teaches our protagonist a lot of things that will become pivotal, and saves our hero more times than he saves her (About 5 times to his 1 time).

Oh, her Mom was awesome too.

 

[firesprite]

Still 83% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Clearly those who dislike it are in the minority.

@Jeyl: 100% agreed on Neytiri, and will add that ALL the female characters really had something to bring to the table. As I mentioned in my review, Trudy, the fighter pilot, is the first Michelle Rodriguez character I actually CARED about in any way, shape or form. Grace was amazing (no pun intended) to watch as she came to like and accept Jake, and Neytiri's mother was a real powerhouse as well.

 

[Nwerke]

Just saw it again, so here are a few more observations. There's more kinds of animals than I remembered, it is more like 13 or 14 species than 8 or 9. The lemurs have nostrils, but their arms make zero sense. The direhorses have four breathing orifices on each side of their necks, while leonopteryxes have only one on each side. But the great leonopteryxes have two on each side. Lots of variation on this planet. Both kinds of leonopteryx, and the large purple 'birds' seen in the big flock in the first helicopter scene, have four wings derived from their four front limbs, but have retained their rear legs. There are at least two smaller kinds of 'birds'.

The floating mountain scenes do have a huge amount of cloud and mist and some actual rain. Some mountains are stacked above others, so there could be condensation and rainfall dripping from mountain to mountain until eventually the lower ones get waterfalls. Or maybe there was a heavy downpour five minutes before the scene began. But no explanation could really stand up for that amount of water. Those are solid waterfalls and they look permanent.

Is there another Hometree-sized tree in the background behind the actual Hometree? Looks like it - I guess we know where the tribe will be living in Avatar 2!

All the human habitats are maintained at less than normal Pandoran atmospheric pressure. When there's a breach, the native atmosphere *always* flows in under pressure. Obviously good for drama, but makes little sense in engineering terms. The pressure differential should be positive. Speaking of engineering, I never noticed before that there's more than one kind of chopper - there's Trudy's troopcarrier style and a slimmer, more heavily armed dedicated attack type, the Scorpion. Am I the least observant person in the world?

Oddly enough I found the very colour-by-numbers emotional manipulation more moving than previously...I guess I'm an Avatard now! Never expected that...

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Okay, but first tell me what you really liked about the STORY of the original Star Wars.

Was it the clever plot twists?... the surprise ending?... the emotionally complex hero?... the multidimensional villain?... the sparkling dialogue?

I think if we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that neither film breaks any new ground from a narrative standpoint. The appeal lies in the totally immersive experience of being cinematically transported to another world. It's the whole package that makes the thing work, and when it works as well as it does in the case of Star Wars or Avatar it's a thing of wonder. At least, to me it is.

Thanks to all the crappy FX movies we've been blasted with over the last decade or so we've naturally become suspicious of flashy visuals at the expense of story. As a writer I can certainly empathize with those who feel that CG FX are often used as a crutch to prop up a phoned-in screenplay.

By the same token, I'm not so jaded that I can't appreciate a film as thematically rich, visually stunning, and breathtakingly epic as Avatar. It's movies like this that make being a sci-fi fan so much fun.

Thanks for answering my question with a question, but I will play along anyway.

The STORY of the original Star Wars hit me as a youngster. It was my first taste of true heroism. A seemingly insignificant "Nothing" farm boy has destiny hit him right in the face. He has everything he knows and loves ripped from his life. He goes against a galaxy spanning Empire to save one girl he doesn't even know for the greater good of the galaxy. Yes, he was a whiny little b...., but he also turns into a hero. THAT is what I really liked about Star Wars.

So, I've played along. What did you like about the story of Avatar?

 

[firesprite]

Thanks for answering my question with a question, but I will play along anyway.

The STORY of the original Star Wars hit me as a youngster. It was my first taste of true heroism. A seemingly insignificant "Nothing" farm boy has destiny hit him right in the face. He has everything he knows and loves ripped from his life. He goes against a galaxy spanning Empire to save one girl he doesn't even know for the greater good of the galaxy. Yes, he was a whiny little b...., but he also turns into a hero. THAT is what I really liked about Star Wars.

So, I've played along. What did you like about the story of Avatar?

Not to answer for Carson, but I would put forth the idea that the story of Avatar is very similar to that of Star Wars:

• Jake considers himself 'just' a grunt who shouldn't even be there. Luke is 'just' a farm boy who shouldn't even be there.
• Jake comes to develop an understanding of a different way of living, embracing the beliefs of the Na'vi. Luke comes to develop and understanding of a deifferent way of lviing, embracing the beliefs of the Jedi.
• Jake has to overcome his doubts and fears about his ability to help the Na'vi survive against what should be insurmountable odds against the security forces of the 'Sky People'. Luke has to overcome his doubts and fears about his ability to help the Rebel Alliance suvive against what should be insurmountable odds against the Galactic Empire.
• Jake as a 'wise sage' whom he comes to embrace as family, but winds up losing, in Grace. Luke has a 'wise sage' whom he comes to embrace as family, but winds up losing, in Obi-Wan.

Those are just the similiarities I can come up with off the top of my head at 8:30 in the morning with very little thought. Of course Jake doesn't make out with what we come to learn is his sister!

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

I would agree, but for a few counter points.

• Jake CHOSE to go to Pandora after his brother was killed and he was offered up money. Luke's life was changed when his family was killed. He had nothing at all left. He did not do it for the money, like Jake.
• Jake started out on the side of the humans, setting out initially to betray the Na'vi.
• The only doubt Luke had was how much they were paying Solo. He charged headlong into the fray. He talked Solo into rescuing Leia. Again, he wanted to be the hero after he found out he was left with nothing.
• Good point but for the fact that Grace could not stand Jake. Obi-Wan was watching over Luke his entire life. The Tusken ambush was not Luke's first run in with "Old Ben".

To me, Star Wars has more in common with Lord of the Rings than anything else. You seem to be forgetting that Jake went to Pandora as a mercenary. He was the "grunt" that was hated by the scientist types.

 

[Carson Dyle]

All of which explains why Jake is a more complex character than Luke.

At the beginning of the Avatar Jake is a self-serving mercenary whose loyalties are to the Corp (as it were), and at the end of the story he's risked everything to save those he had thought to betray. It's Jake's flaws, his moral uncertainty, that lend him a dimension Luke lacks. I mean, the worst thing you can say about Luke is that he's a bit whiny.

I'm not saying Jake is a "better" character than Luke, I'm simply saying he's more complex (a synthesis of Luke and Han, if you like). I appreciate Star Wars for its simplicity, and I appreciate Avatar for its (relative) complexity. Clearly the stories have a great deal in common, but Cameron made a science-fiction story with fantasy elements, whereas Lucas made a fantasy film with science-fiction elements. Both approaches are valid, but from a purely dramatic (i.e. character) standpoint I find Avatar has more to offer me as an adult, if only because the characters in Star Wars are almost purely archetypal, whereas the characters in Avatar have been given a degree of dimension.

At any rate, you asked me what I liked about the story, and part of what I like has just been discussed. Certainly there's nothing new about the Hero's Journey paradigm, but the concept of setting the Pocahontas story in outer space (or Dances with Wolves in Space, if you prefer) has never been done, and I think Cameron did a terrific job of exploiting the dramatic potential.

 

[Solo4114]

You mention the complexity vs. the simplicity of the two films. I think this may be the sticking point for a lot of people and why folks say "I like Star Wars better. I think it's told better as a story."

I think the issue is this:

- Star Wars is a very simple story. The heroic myth set in space. It's essentially a fairy tale with laserguns and spaceships. It hits everyone in a very straightforward way, and doesn't require any additional complexity. You can forgive it a lot of its faults precisely because it's a well-told fairy tale, and that's it. When you read a fairy tale, you don't expect a ton of depth of character. A certain amount, sure, but not tons.

- By contrast, science fiction stories -- the good ones, anyway -- are more complex. Thus, in order to execute them well, you need them to be complex enough to do the story justice. You can't approach them like a fairy tale and expect to get away with it.

I've yet to see the movie, but my hunch is that the people who dismiss it as merely "Pocahontas/Dances with Wolves in Space" are doing so more because of the "merely" part, rather than the lifted story. Dances with Wolves worked because, even though it's the Pocahontas story (well....kinda), it's got enough gravitas and characterization to carry the film even when it gets preachy or predictable. You say that Avatar is RELATIVELY complex. To me, that suggests that it's only so complex, and doesn't get much past that point.

What may, therefore, be the issue is that people see the POTENTIAL for greater complexity, and find the film lacking when it doesn't deliver, or when it could be so much better with the additional complexity. Whereas with a space fairy tale, they're willing to accept much of the simplicity because, hey, it's just a fairy tale.

In other words, for the people who didn't like Avatar, found it juvenile, or (as one review said) think it's no deeper than the discussions you have in your dorm freshman year, I'm betting the reason is that it goes only so far in how serious and complex it is. And in going this far but no further, it ends up highlighting the fact (for them anyway) that it didn't go far enough, or could've been amazingly better if it went further.

I had similar criticisms of the new Star Trek film. Yeah, I thought it was entertaining, but (aside from it not really being Trek to me), I felt that it was kind of juvenile and lacking where it could've gone a lot further. So while it's a damnsight better than 90% of the other dreck out there, it could have been so much better and the fact that it's "good but not good enough" only ends up highlighting that.


Like I said, I haven't seen Avatar yet (though I intend to), but I'd bet that's got a lot to do with folks' complaints. Just guessing, though.

 

[niennumb1]

Star Wars WAS simple until the Phantom Menace opened a box of WTF with all the medichlorians talk etc....

Has this thread elevated to Avatar vs. Star Wars now? This should be interesting!

 

[Carson Dyle]

When you read a fairy tale, you don't expect a ton of depth of character. A certain amount, sure, but not tons.

Exactly. Myths do not endure because of character complexity, they endure because their themes are timeless, universal, and human beings never tire of seeing them demonstrated in new and interesting ways.

Look, it's not a question of Avater being "better" than Star Wars, or vice-versa. As much as they have in common, there are also marked dissimilarities. For one thing, Cameron sets his story in our future, which brings another level of complexity (not to mention controversy) to the proceedings.

Suffice it to say Avatar is targeted toward a somewhat older audience than that of Star Wars. This is not a qualitative distinction, merely a practical one. Lucas didn't want any messy character complexity to overshadow his thematic focus, whereas Cameron isn't afraid to spend a little time setting up the characters and developing their relationships a bit.