I’ll leave it to the box-office gods to decide if the slightly soft opening of James Cameron’s Avatar this past weekend was actually the result of a Northeast snowstorm, whether that was just studio spin, or if it’s some combination of the two. (I vote for the latter.) What I will say is that the visually shimmery, feast-for-the-eyes 3-D psychedelic action spectacular that I saw a week and a half ago was hampered — rather obviously, to me — by a so-so, functional-but-never-more-than-functional storyline, that it still has a so-so storyline, and that it always will have a so-so storyline. I’m not just talking about the fact that Avatar, as so many have pointed out, is a Pocahontas/Dances with Wolves retread. (Recycling old myths and narratives is something that movies have a right to do.) I’m talking about this story’s almost generic lack of surprise, psychological conflict, and dramatic layering. There is, for instance, nothing of any interpersonal charge happening within the Na’vi tribe. They’re just saintly utopian good guys. And Sam Worthington’s Jake, as both romantic hero and born-again anti-corporate-military eco-crusader — basically, he goes native to save the Pandora rain forest — remains, to the end of the movie, a character without a whisper of interior fascination. As a handsome Na’vi warrior, he’s virtual, all right: There’s virtually nothing to him but his “arc.”
And yet, of course, I realize that I’m behind the curve in even voicing such sentiments. In Avatar, or so we’re told, the 3-D primeval-forest-as-techno-Eden imagery is so potent and cool and “visionary” that it overpowers any pesky, stodgy 19th-century pleas for bold, fresh, and original narrative excitement. What’s far more interesting to me right now than the rotely predictable storyline of Avatar is the potential cultural-wide acceptance of the notion that this is now all that a movie really needs to be. Reading some of the prestige critics who have swooned over the film, such as Manohla Dargis of The New York Times (Avatar, she writes, is “glorious and goofy and blissfully deranged,” and Cameron “is a filmmaker whose ambitions transcend a single movie or mere stories”), or my friend David Denby of The New Yorker (“The movie’s story may be a little trite, and the big battle at the end between ugly mechanical force and the gorgeous natural world goes on forever, but what a show Cameron puts on!”), what strikes me is that although both these critics make brainy, passionate cases for the movie as something radically new, what they’re really embracing, in effect, is the visual-pow!-trumps-narrative aesthetic that has ruled Hollywood for the past 25 years. Both these reviews might have run under the headline “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Eye Candy.”
For, of course, the sentiment that I keep hearing (on the message-board postings of my original review, for instance), the one that says that the images of Avatar rock, they rule, they transcend, is as old and familiar as the audience response to every “awesome” FX blockbuster from Star Wars: Episode II — Attack of the Clones to Live Free or Die Hard to 2012. Avatar may be trying for something greater, but the aesthetic, in essence, is the same: Put my eyeballs on drugs, and nothing else matters.
It’s worth mentioning, in this context, one other film: Cameron’s Titanic, which moviegoers all over the world, including me, think of as a modern classic — a movie for the ages — but which, in the 12 years since its release, has been subjected to the most vitriolic and telling revisionist backlash of any movie of its time. You know the point of view I’m talking about. The one that says: That script sucked! It had awful lines! And all those terrible flowery romantic clichés! I don’t feel as if I need to defend Titanic (you either love the movie or you don’t), but I will say this: As an act of storytelling, with two wondrously sympathetic and expressive young matinee idols enacting a stormy reverie of youthful love that catastrophe renders timeless, it is Shakespeare compared to Avatar. Or is Avatar now the new Shakespeare?
I open the question up to you. Did anyone else find Avatar‘s storyline as lacking as I did? And, maybe more to the point, how much does story matter in a visually driven contemporary blockbuster? Does it matter less than it used to? And, if so, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
It reminded me of Brave New World.
Enough with the “simple story, cardboard characters” argument. STAR WARS, BATMAN, SUPERMAN, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, and plenty other classic films have had archetypes instead of characters and tropes instead of plots, and they still became cultural phenomenons. AVATAR is an extraordinary, astonishing experience that redefines how we watch films, and the fanboys are complaining about “so-so stories”? Gimme a break! You want a stupid ass blockbuster? Try TWILIGHT or TRANSFORMERS
It didnt redefine how I watched the film no matter how much James Cameron wishes. And even though Avatar was an orgy of his past films mixed with a “tale as old as time” plot- I was still blinded by the pretty colors… As much as I didnt really want to like Avatar, I still did- Sure, it was a little too long but damn, that man really KNOWS how to make an action film. Michael Bay & Brett Ratner NEED to take notes. James Cameron KNOWS how to do visuals that dont engulf the screen- sure he doesnt paint a portrait like Peter Jackson does, but he’s Not an artist. Also, I have to commend the editor for not over-editing for the lack of action like most do nowadays which have been enamored by that cheap gimmick of the shaky cam + hyper editing… Maybe thats why people are sucking off Avatar- its an action movie that actually FEELS like a meticulously done Action movie as opposed to a cheap multi-billion dollar “blockbuster” that spends more than half its budget on advertising, gives you half-a$$ed visuals and shoves the film in a blender.
I believe he gave Transformers 2 a B. ‘Nuff said.
sorry when I meant “engulf” the screen with visual effects, I meant in the way that Transformers does it, where you dont even know what it is you are looking at- James Cameron “pulls the camera back” to see the scope of the effect as opposed to an extreme close up of a rorshach test
I do wish James Cameron would Stop writing his own scripts… he’s beginning to remind me of George Lucas and we all know That is NOT a good thing.
The difference is that those films stood the test of time and have proved to have impacted cinema; and Twilight or Transformers were never positioned as “quality” films…no one has claimed them to be any good, beyond being appealing to a certain group of people. Avatar has been hailed as a revolutionary film before we have had a chance to see its influence, and it IS getting good reviews and Oscar buzz…so it is perfectly legitimate to discuss it’s story, as well-reviews Oscar worthy films should generally have a good one.
Paige, “he’s beginning to remind me of George Lucas and we all know That is NOT a good thing.” What a snarky, lazy comment. George Lucas created Star Wars and Indiana Jones and if that’s not good enough for your resume than I don’t know what is. Let me know when you create some of the biggest films in the history of cinema and then we’ll talk.
I’m not sure what Transformers or Twilight have to do with this movie. James Cameron is supposed to be in another league altogether. We should be expecting a lot more from him than just “it’s better than New Moon.” That should be a given. I’m more interested in how this movie stacks up against his other (award-winning) work.
I for one hated Avatar. It was a visual feast that beat you over the head with its messages, offered nothing new beyond its visuals, and quite frankly was more than a little boring. How do you stay invested if there aren’t characters to care about and the end of the movie is telegraphed from the very beginning? In my mind…you don’t.
A well told story is a well told story. The characters and plot do not always have to be of epic weightiness to be worthwhile. Telly B, you mention recent films, but you can include some Shakespeare in there too. Much Ado About Nothing has a flimsy plot, cardboard characters, and is made up of themes that were cliche at the time, and it is still a great play. When a story is told well it hardly matters what the story is. That is how I feel about Avatar.
sorry but George Lucas his a horrid screen writer- I think Star Wars & Indiana Jones are excellent films but they are not remembered for screen writing. not at all. SO, if you Re-Read my comment, I wrote that James Cameron needs to stop writing his owns scripts, I compared him to George Lucas. Rightfully so if you ask me… I never once questioned George Lucas’ imagination or creativity in the visual department… just his awful use of dialogue…
sorry his=is (just in case grammar police attack me)
This coming from a man (Owen Glieberpoop) who hated every Coen Bros film until they made a very jewish movie.
Those movies you listed had epic storylines and they all redefined how movies are watched. Star Wars opening scene alone blew away audiences and changed how SCIFI movies were made ever since. Raiders was an ode to old Hollywood serials and was a template for many future action movies. Superman showed it was possible to make a serious movie based on a superhero and Batman opened the door for dark superhero movies. Take away all the special effects and you know what those movies are still great, many of their best scenes involved no special effects. Can Avatar say the same, can you strip it of all its special effects and its still a good movie? I don’t think so. To make a great movie acting, writing and plot must blend in perfectly. You can get away with cheap or limited special effects if the before mentioned are top notch.
Ana, while I agree “better than Transformers” and “Twilight” is not enough to label it a masterpiece, they’re probably being brought up because of Gleiberman’s praise of them. In particular, he praised New Moon because the lack of action scenes and the endless moping made it more of a character piece or some such nonsense.
No matter how revolutionary or state-of-the-art a movie’s SFX are, eventually the effects will become old hat.
It’s the story and the characters that will determine whether the movie stands the test of time.
That said, a script doesn’t have to be ‘Shakespeare’ to be good. It just needs to have good pacing and structure, have endearing characters and possess an internal logic and integrity. (that is to say, you can’t just have R2D2 suddenly sprout rocket engines whenever it’s convenient, even if it has been firmly established that said robot cannot fly)
Lmao. ‘Stop worrying and love the eye candy’. It’s entertainment. (I guess it is the author’s job to worry though.)
I believe South Park nailed it a few weeks back with “Dances with Smurfs”.
And if they’re going to throw around words like “revolutionary” and make claims that it will change the way we watch movies, I want more than a multitude of Jar-Jar quality (of animation), blue Ewoks starring in a 3-D sci-fi rehash of a story that’s been told several times already.
And Titanic was god-awful, trite and manipulative (albeit with quality performances, especially in light of the materials they were given to work with).
george lucas did make star wars and indiana jones, but he also drove them to the ground after the original trilogy.
on avatar, i’m honestly a bit surprised at all the people that treat it as a masterpiece. as soon as they said it was in 3d, it was obvious that story took a back seat to how pretty they could make it look. i guess some people didn’t catch on, but for the few that did, some of them relegated it to the level of a summer action blockbuster rather than the gospel reborn. if i see a movie in 3d, i watch for the pretty colors that jump out; if i see a movie touted to be revolutionary, i watch it for the story and couldn’t care less if it was done on an old timer’s crank camera. there’s just a conflict of interest between the eyes and the mind, and you can’t have it both ways.
This comment is for paige, actually – want to talk about a BLockbuster that spends half its budget on advertising? I bought a 24-pack of Coke Zero and “AVTR” was printed where the logo used to be and just as large. I wasn’t buying Coke, I was buying Avatar juice. And Fox’s whole lineup managed to incorporate Avatar somehow. WHO spends half their budget on advertising?
Just to clarify, Lucas didn’t write the screenplays for Raiders of the Lost Ark or Empire Strikes Back…Lawrence Kasdan did. He also wrote Body Heat and The Big Chill and has been nominated for a couple of Oscars. And Steven Speilberg also contributed ideas to Raiders of the Lost Ark. So it wasn’t just the “George Lucas Show” on those films. He had some other talented people around him, too, and he let them do their thing. The prequels, though, were totally him.
New Moon may be better than New Moon (almost every movie but Transformers was better than that boring New Moon) but Avatar was not better than Twilight. Twilight was awesome. Sorry fanboys.
Well said, Telly B. Agree completely.
The difference between Star Wars and Raiders of the Last Ark and Avatar, is that the former two films suggested a deep and intricate backstory without the aid of needless and boring exposition. In Avatar, everything is explained to us through some of the worst dialogue I’ve heard in a “critically acclaimed” movie. Addtionally, while many of the characters we encounter in Star Wars and Raiders are familiar archetypes, they are imbued with all manner of colorful details that make them truly memorable. Can you really say the same about Sam Worthington’s character in Avatar? And what about the military guy? Isn’t he the most hollow sterotype of a military man in recent film history? In general, I found Avatar to be a rather silly, poorly written film disguised as a serious epic because of its so-called “deep message.” Personally, I liked it better when it was called Dances With Wolves.”
am I the only one who recognizes the anti-war theme? I have a feeling conservatives are hating this film.
If you’re referring to the 1978 Superman and the 1989 Batman, I think you’re actually proving Glieberman’s point. Watch either of these movies when they come on TV: they creak like a rusty drawbridge (Superman especially takes forever to get going). Raiders Of The Lost Ark is propelled by a snappy script by Lawrence Kasdan (who obviously saw more than just action movies growing up), and Star Wars? I can’t be objective about Star Wars. So my point is that “archetypes” can only go so far, you need some meat to the story, and possibly some shades of gray. (Even Indy and Marion are a little more complex, although the movie moves so fast you can barely tell).
@ Paige: “he doesnt paint a portrait like Peter Jackson does, but he’s Not an artist.” I’m not defending Cameron in anyway here, but I think he might be offended by that statement. Also, explain to me how Jackson is an “artist”, I’m a bit confused by this because when it came to cinematography, production design, art direction, set decoration, costume design, ect (you know, all the “art departments”)…Peter Jackson was not involved. Also “George Lucas his a horrid screen writer- I think Star Wars & Indiana Jones are excellent films but they are not remembered for screen writing.” Are you high?! To this DAY I hear kids and adults of all ages still quoting phrases from those movies, mostly Yoda and Indy (“I hate snakes” “Do or do not, there is no try” etc…) but it’s apparent that the writing did make an impact upon society, be it the one liners or not.
Bull Hater: I seem to recall another epic trilogy, written by and 2 directed by, James Cameron called Terminator. The 3rd not being directed by him, the 4th not worked on by him at all. However, he did write the Sarah Conner Chronicals as well. Lucas wasn’t the only one who ran his series into the ground. In fact, Cameron destoryed a horror icon long before Lucas destroyed his, by making an awful sequal to the movie Alien.
Thank the Lord a legitimate critic has the balls to call this film out. God forbid the “genius” James Cameron do any wrong! Really!?
Anyone who’s argument in accepting this film because “Transformers” and “Twilight” are worse, is a pathetic and sad argument.
James Cameron clearly has incredible vision, but his dialogue writing is some of the worst I have come across by a “lauded” director ever. The writing in “Commando” and “Predator” comes across like Faulkner compared his wordings. There are better ‘one-liners’ in a Dolph Lundgren film. Why we even need ‘one-liners’ is this film is beyond me.
Memo to J Cameron – keep directing, keep producing, keep inventing, but for the love of cinema – please hire a real writer!!!!!
“Thank the Lord a legitimate critic has the balls to call this film out. God forbid the “genius” James Cameron do any wrong! Really!?”
I actually didn’t like Titanic too all that much. Story was shallow and subjected to visual feast also.
“Legitimate critic”? And I thought it was the standard we held a film’s story to that were falling…I am joking of course, but Owen, your views seem to never demonstrate any consistency. You grade Transformers 2 a B because it did not position itself as an actual film but as some kind of blockbuster… But Avatar, which positioned itself as a film that would open peoples eyes to the benefits of 3d film making isn’t given a similar pass? The sequences in that film are breath taking, and since this is film, a medium in which the visual has an essential role, that is important. I am curious whether you hate all terrence malick films, or because of its meditative nature, story also gets a pass in those films (and he actually did do Pocahontas)… You did give “A thin Red Line” a b- though, so perhaps it is simply your taste. For me, the visuals of a film are a component, along with narrative (and I give a broad definition to what I consider a narrative), and sound. Whats happening, what it looks like, and what it sounds like all combine to make me feel a certain way. What I was most impressed with in the film was that I actually did relate to the two leads, and they were big blue aliens. Typically, pixar (brad bird being my favorite) and spielberg are really the only two filmmakers out there that consistently get me to relate to ridiculously outlandish characters, archetypes or not. Brad bird made a rat a hero, and anyone that has seen ET… well I dont think I need to even finish that sentence to get the point across. In both cases, I think it is the choices they make in the visuals that ultimately make the film successful. Wall-E is another great example, a character that didnt really speak and wasn’t human, but it was the 3d animation that was responsible for the life in the character (and not the story, which by the way was pretty simple).
Just for the record, I also do not agree with the hatred toward the story at all. I disagreed with your downgrading of the importance of visuals to film more so i commented on it first, but I was actually really happy with the story. It is pretentious to me that to relate to a character that they have to be brooding or the film needs to be quiet and action less. I actually prefer when I am allowed to imagine what the character is feeling by the subtle stuff, by what they are actually doing and feeling, instead of being hit over the head with “dramatic” “powerful” scenes. You have a man that couldn’t walk given a chance to be whole, a realization that love doesnt just transcend class or sex but in this case species, and a soldier forced to make a choice between duty and love… and I bought it. The idea that this film is about love the environment kinda bothers me too (spolier alert), since in this case the environment was a biocomputer that held the memories and consciousness of every member of the species in existence… It is more like defending the library of congress than the everglades.
And this whole Dances with the wolves comparisons bother me probably the most of all. Becuase the na’vi value nature, they are like American Indians? American indians (another pretty big spoiler) did not have the ability to upload consciousness to a gigantic bioweb. That is not a culture that is simplistic or primitive. Their environment dictated their incredibly sophisticated way of life. The fact that it was biological based and not a synthetic solution does not mean we should treat it as being any less advanced than our own. I do not necessarily hold that same belief for many of the American Indian cultures, which while they had great cultural value, maybe were not as effective a way of life as that of other cultures around the world in the same time period (pretty much every major culture, Europe, Asia, etc.)…
Overall I thought the film very successful, Cameron reminded me just how much better he is at these kinds of movies than the majority of his peers, and that he was never scared to have the more intelligent aspects of the film stay in the background and provide depth, but at the viewers own leisure.
In other words, I loved it. Not my favorite film all time, or even my favorite cameron film (or cameron/weaver team up), but better than 99% of the films released everyday, with a story that I think people will start to realize is much more than the sum of its parts the more they think about it and dive into it.
EW, if this wasn’t a blatant plea for a word limit on these boards, I don’t know what is.
Thanks for the novel, David. Now I can skip the Nyquil tonight. I love people and their $.02 on here. Everyone thinks their opinions, critiques, etc. are going to be heralded by the media and all of their hopes and dreams of being noticed will be squashed along with their shattered egos.
Get a dose of reality there, pal!
Like I wrote on other boards, I thought I was listening to Saturday cartoon characters talk.
David, our comment was very insightful and I agree with a lot of your points.
Legitimate critic? LMAO!
David, I too appreciated your comment. I’d rather read a well considered fair minded “overlong” than the curt snark and insults that more often poison the atmosphere on message boards.
David,
I was with you and you lost me. American Indian culture was strong, consistent, and changed little over a period of five thousand years. They had a spiritual relationship with the earth, and did have a sense of territory. Many were migratory, so they did not build houses which Europeans assumed meant they did not have a sense of ownership. They also lived longer healtheir lives than most Europeans, because they did not live with their waste like those in cities had to do.
Anyway, most of your other points were OK, but the Navi were both representative of American Indian and African cultures.
lnookswook, right on! People use STORYTELLER and WRITER interchangeably. You could be an insightful writer, able to delineate complex, nuanced characters, and still be a crummy storyteller. That’s where Cameron is amazing…how he uses these archetypal, cliched characters and tell their stories in imaginative, engaging, memorable ways. That’s why Jack And Rose, two “cardboard” lovers have become imprinted in our cultural fabric, as well as Ripley, Indy, Darth Vader, etc.
James Cameron is a fantastic storyteller, and AVATAR is the best movie that I have seen in 2009, for sheer solid craft and entertainment bang-for-your-buck value.
I agree. I love the story, well aware and even appreciative of its many inspirations and forerunners, but impressed with how it speaks to to our current cultural and social concerns (environment, occupying foreign lands, identity politics, war on terror, 9/11 style catastrophe etc.) while keeping its eye on telling a good yarn. I think the characters and relationships are stronger than OG gives credit to. Yes, I mostly saw where the plot was likely going, and I was OK with that, since I liked where it was going.
I hated this movie. It’s the first movie I’ve seen this year where I absolutely hated sitting through it.
I LOVED this movie. It took me completely out of myself and for a brilliant ride! If I’m looking for great script, I know where to find one. That’s not why I went to see Avatar. I went because I knew Cameron would enthrall me! And I wasn’t disappointed.
Let me guess. You loved new moon.
If you hated it so much, why did you go in the first place? You could have always walked out if you hated sitting through it. Nobody would have cared either way.
Worse than New Moon. She loved The Blind Side.
Sally in Chicago is just a sad person. I have been on about 5 different pages about Avatar on EW and all Sally does is bash the movie. IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE MOVIE GET A LIFE AND LEAVE US, THE MAJORITY WHO LOVED IT, ALONE. Stop going on message boards and spreading your incessant drivel.
Maybe you should have smoked more pot? 3-D Imax was awesome stoned!
My God! Enough with that Twilight/New Moon fanatics! Some people are favoring chick flicks with sci fi movies with social relevance. Lame and insane.
You mean the New World, with Colin Farrell? Yeh, that’s a good comparison.
No, I think the first comment refers to Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.”
Avatar was a mesh of Dances with Wolves meets FernGully: The Last Rainforest.
Comparing this film to the brilliant Huxley book is a far fetch. It doesn’t change the fact that Cameron used the same technology idea that Peter Jackson used for Gollum and instead created a whole world using motion capture ANIMATION. I still prefer movies with story, but it might be fun to watch this the way I watched “The Wall” in college. All the colors.
I just saw this film last night and can’t agree more with your article! I knew I had made a terrible mistake by paying for the ticket just two minutes into the film and that I would have to somehow find a way to keep myself entertained for three hours. It had all the standard cliche characters that are part of any Michael Bay film–the feisty no-nonsense female scientist with a higher purpose, the merciless, tough-talking drill sargent, the overprotective older brother of the female romantic lead, etc. Every line in the film looks like it was lifted straight out of the scripts from Transformers, Armageddon and all of the other big-pic trash that has ruled over the last 20 years. Giovanni Ribisi looked like some kind of holographic image of a character acting out his lines in Entourage or Wall Street transposed onto the screen just to make what we were seeing even more senseless! There was not one single thing about this movie’s plot that was interesting or containing a twist. The dialogue was as cookie-cutter as you can get. What I can’t figure out is why everyone (in Hollywood and otherwise) is so afraid of bashing this film? All I’ve been hearing for two weeks now is “the long awaited return of genius James Cameron” media stories and seeing random movie stars who aren’t even in the movie sit on Conan O’Brien and Dave Letterman’s couches talking about how “revolutionary” it all is…someone please be honest with me–if you hadn’t ever seen the movie and I was just telling you the story about what took place in it, the plot sequence, etc., would you think it was even a story worth telling or a movie worth making in the first place?
you think too much about movies. so you probably get headaches. cuz if you see this movie not tryin to hate on it you will realize it flows nicely, has a borrowed but in a freshened way story that works magically, and you can love the characters because of the messages of hope for humanity. their has never been such real magic put to the screen. photorealistic. and your too harsh its an amazing achievement. and in less than two weeeks it has made 745mil worldwide and most people love it because they dont care that the story has been told in different ways! not in this way!!! avatar is beautiful
What an insulting title for this topic.
I would’ve loved to have seen EW post the same comment about Twilight.
exactly
This.
I know right!!
It’s funny how originally it said “mediocre” instead of what is now “so-so”.
It looks like some damage control was done.
“So-so” isn’t any better if you ask me. EW has got some muthaf**kin’ nerve. I have a feeling this article was written to try to decrease interest in Avatar so that EW’s precious New Moon won’t be passed at the box office by a film that actually DESERVES the money and the attention.
I swear they get kickbacks somehow from the Twilight series.
Does Time/Warner own that as well?
Time/Warner owns MTV AND EW. MTV owns Summit. Summit owns Twilight.
“Time/Warner owns MTV AND EW. MTV owns Summit. Summit owns Twilight.”
Knew it.
Hate to defend Twilight… but that’s not true. Viacom owns MTV.
dang! We were so close to cracking the mystery.
maybe this is a paid bad publicity. lmao!!!
amen. didn’t even think about that at first but it’s so very, very true. people can call me a hater (even though i don’t “hate” twilight at all), but i cannot see how avatar’s plot bad, let a lone more lacking than new moon. and on top of that, avatar had more going for it other than plot, whereas new moon did not. the special effects weren’t good in new moon, the acting wasn’t good… i mean, other than eye candy, i don’t know what to say positively about new moon. and i hate to make this post about new moon when i, myself, am sick of hearing about it, but i really just wanted to support this comment and point out the recent unfair bias of EW.
If you remember Owen’s post, he was talking about faces and how the story was told there.
I agree Avatar is dramatically superior to New Moon, but the characters and what they were supposed to feel is what theoretically drove the movie…
Does any of the EW staff ever have the balls to comment on these comments?
i don’t see how this movie is not character-driven, though. obviously it’s not the most character-driven movie out there, but i’d say it’s much more than most other scifi movies. i think the audience is sort of supposed to “be” sulley in the movie, so i can understand that there wouldn’t be a TON of inside character development with him. this is because the audience will feel the same way he does, and would theoretically make the same decisions as him. i think it’s largely a POV story, if that make sense. trying to see the na’vi (or native american) story in a perspective that–from my experience–many people refuse to see it. obviously, it has a much different ending but i think you get my point. also, the na’vi were very emotionally compelling i thought. i’d say the best example of character out of everybody is sigourney weaver. i thought she did an excellent job and her character got the biggest response from me. michelle rodgriguez also did a great job.
THANK YOU.
No one — nobody — on EW has pointed out the asinine, immature and pedestrian “story” in Twilight, instead choosing to shill it and attach deeper meaning (i.e. the half-dozen “Is Edward a stalker?” posts) where none exists.
So I’m curious as to why Owen chose THIS film to slam for having a so-so story.
Because Avatar is billed as a “good movie” based on quality, not so much as a blockbuster franchise. The creators have emphasized it’s not a franchise. Moreover, it’s gotten very good reviews, which New Moon did not.
It’s meant to be a work of art, ultimately, rather than a product.
It was funny that EW chose to put Sandra Bullock on the cover a couple of weeks ago for a movie that was at least 2 weeks old instead of putting Avatar (wow, they got the corner!)in the rightful place.
Cameron went on record stating he has in mind at least 2 sequels if this movie does well.
That sounds like “franchise” to me.
Not to mention they had a New Moon slideshow on the front of the site all weekend long.
I’m willing to bet that there will be something regarding New Moon on the front page at least through to the end of January.
January? I wish. This will never end. The Oscar issue will be replaced by drawings from New Moon. Then the DVD will come out and we’ll have the EW second-by-second break down of the special features. Then the build-up to Eclipse and then Breaking Dawn and then…
The difference is that Avatar is being hailed as a masterpiece and Oscar contender by his colleagues. New Moon wasn’t. That’s why the question of story matters more in this situation, because it’s a larger aspect of the cultural discussion on this film.
You guys are either being very revisionist or have short memories. There were a couple of articles from one of the critics (I believe it was Lisa, but I’m not sure off the top of my head) about how unaffected they were by New Moon. It was not the much-deserved slam the movie deserved, but it was definitely not a ringing endorsement of it, either.
I think we all knew way back when on the first Avatar day, when the first clips were shown and everyone was like “okay, so those were all very simplistic story-wise, BUT LOOK AT THOSE EFFECTS” that we weren’t going to get any grand revelations story-wise. I’m a little disappointed at how ripped-apart Avatar is getting. It’s like Titanic, only a decade later with faster technology and therefore the backlash is much quicker.
avatar is only being ripped apart here.
Okay everyone, Avatar is not even being ripped apart here. To suggest that Avatar doesn’t have the best story there is doesn’t equate to ripping it apart. Does everyone really think that Owen loved Twilight and has a secret plan to promote it over Avatar? Give me a break. Twilight is getting attention at EW because twihards have been willing to buy anything with the stars in it. Avatar is a big movie from a big-time director and Owen is asking the valid question of whether we should expect more than just incredible effects. I liked Avatar a lot, but I also see his point.
It’s not just here, and maybe I’m being slightly dramatic, but I do get the impression overall that some people are being overtly critical of Avatar’s pedestrian plot.
The story sucked big time. And I wasn’t blown away by the visuals. Any good digital artist could draw those flying creatures.
Do you even know how hard those visuals were to be made? I think not. I’d like to see you try. The whole landscape of Pandora was CGI animated, and in my opinion (like most people that aren’t trying to start a virtual fight like you, it was brilliant animation.
Yes, you’re right Sarah. I saw the trailer and thought it was awful and threw it away as another big budget SF bore. Saw it with little expectations and was enthralled, captivated, and moved. The press for this movie wasn’t what it is now, so I had the chance to decide that it was a great movie, without being manipulated by anyone, just my own experience…and you know what, the writing was never distracting.
I honestly didn’t think it was needed. It is implied that Twilight or New Moon or all of that crap isn’t exactly a GOOD story. It’s just teenage hype.
I think he chose this since it’s more than hype. Cameron, unlike any of the Twilight directors or writers, is actually a great director/writer so it’s in need to question the story of such a visually amazing movie.
Why don’t Gleiberman just come out and say that every movie that is not Twilight is crappy and does not deserve his attention. Avatar is a groundbreaking movie, it will change the direction of cinema. I haven’t felt this way about a movie experience since LoTR and The Matrix.
I agree with you completely. LoTR has one of the most simple themes: friendship. Avatar is similar. It’s about love, making mistakes and making them right. Most “classic” films have simple storylines that resonate with people all over the world. “Dances with Wolves” is an extraordinary story? I don’t think so…
GGG, did you not read LOTR or see the movies? It was about so much more than “friendship.” There is no comparing the storytelling of LOTR and Avatar. LOTR has rich, complex characters, histories, and a very rich narrative with characters that actually *gasp* develop.
I hope you all see the irony here…not once was Twilight/New Moon mentioned in this article. You brought it up.
I know EW has been in overdrive with the whole New Moon thing, but aren’t you contributing to it when you do this?
Yeah, we brought it up because we’re pointing out that this magazine cannot bring itself to point out the flaws of that travesty of a “film”, yet go out of their way to knock the “next big thing”!
Get over yourself and you’re defense of all things Twilight. It really shows what a dolt you really are!
Hey, did you go see it? I’m genuinely curious what you thought.
Thank you, Ambient Lite! I was scrolling down and reading these comments, and thinking exactly what you just said. The posters on these blogs are feeding this Twilight obsession. I’m sure TPTB at EW are checking these posts and saying to themselves “Hey, people keep mentioning Twilight, so let’s put the damn movie on the cover again.” Stop mentioning the movie so much, and maybe EW will stop writing about it.
See it? I almost sat through the original movie when it came out on DVD (rental) and was happy the copy I received started skipping about 2/3 through. It gave me enough reason to eject that crapola and send it back. I didn’t even bother to report the problem so that the next sucker would be given the same consideration. (I’m still waiting for a thank you note.) I cannot believe the hype for such mediocre garbage. All of this Twilight nonsense will come back to haunt these fans in 10 years time as a “guilty pleasures” article on EW.
I was asking Ambient actually… you and I commented at the same time. But your comment was pretty funny, so no harm.
crispy, I did not see it yet…I think I can manage to hold it off until after the holidays – but I’m sure I won’t have any problem sharing my opinion with you once that happens! heh
As for you CGI McNutz, I guess my point went over your head. Sigh. Like crispy, I did enjoy the hilarity of your Twilight review. And FYI, most fans would agree with you that it’s a guilty pleasure, not something we’re hoping will change the world.
Cheers.
Ambient Lite, I agree with you. All of the people that hate on EW for their NM coverage is on a non NM related article and bring up NM. Hmm .. imagine that. I have not see Avatar yet, so it would not be fair for me to state an opinion on the movie. However, I think it is a shame to label a movie as the next big thing just because James Cameron is behind it. But whatever. This is sci fi for men, so Lord forbid we criticize, right folks?
You need to see it, Ambient! I was talking about it with the young woman who cuts my hair… she told me it was her 2nd favorite movie experience of all time. Naturally, I asked her what her favorite was. I’ll give you one guess. Before she even got the word “Moon” out, I stabbed her in the eye with a pair of scissors.
Sci-fi is for men? Such a dumb statement. Learn to speak for yourself and not make stupid generalizations. I’m a woman and I love Avatar and many other Sci-fi movies and I think the whole twilight franchise is nothing but trash.
maybe Ambient Lite is an EW staffer. LMAO!!!!
NEWSFLASH: Heather2 is an EW staffer too! Kidding. LMAO!
Y’know, I’m starting to like AmbientLite.
Oh, crispy…you’re the crispiest. I heart you for evahhh!
I am fairly surprised about the female geek uprising in support of this movie…it might just be compelling enough to get me in the door.
Now about that thing you said about the penis in the ear…
CGI McBride, seriously, I didn’t see any defense of Twilight in this comment.
I’m no Twilight fan, but Twilight also wasn’t positioned as the movie to change cinema as we know it. It would be nice if such a film pulled off an amazing storyline to match its amazing effects. I’m surprised by the number of reviewers who are directly commenting about the so-so story, yet ultimately seem to push that aside because the effects are cool–as if effects give the movie a free pass.
I hope this does not become a trend, where viewers must settle on story as long as it looks flashy. If viewers like both the story and effects of Avatar, however, that’s a different story.
I found this movie to be great. I did not find the story to be that bad. I mean it was generic but it did not bother me so much. I was invested in these characters. Yes, the social commentary was typical but honestly I liked it.
I agree. And maybe it was my pregnancy hormones, but I was nearly in tears when the attack was launched against the Tree.
I’m with you Sarah. The story was predictable and basic, but it still managed to make me feel. I was misty-eyed with the attack and my heart was pounding during the final fight
It was your hormones. Avatar is Dances With Wolves in Space only there are no interesting native characters. They’re just … there. The visuals were stunning, but the story was unoriginal and dull.
I as a 22 year old male have never been so moved by a movie as I have by avatar…specifically the tree scene and the scene where neytiri saves jake as the human ans shes looking at him and holding him in her arms…really if ppl cant say this movie gave them characters to invest in they have some serious issues…this movie was amazing…i think we can ask the two forty plus women to my right who were crying or my date who was a 20 year old female who admittedly “hates sci-fi movies” but “couldnt believe how emotional this movie made her”
Completely agree. I was tearing up at the end. Clearly I had enough of an emotional investment in the characters and plot. I didn’t notice bad dialogue either. I’m so frustrated that people keep focusing on the “bad plot”. It’s a sci-fi/action movie! WHAT THE $@#$# do you expect??? Shakespeare??
To say that this film had a “bad-generic-cliche story-line” is beyond me completely. Did you pay attention to the movie? Are you just trying to compare it to something despite how radical the comparison is? To anyone who wasn’t taken back by Avatar – I feel sorry for your lack of emotion. I wish, for once, that people would stop using things like horrible political arguments and opinionated hatred of the director to back their judgement of a great work up. The story held so much meaning in it’s symbolism and themes throughout. On top of all that, you have groundbreaking, revolutionary CGI in play in a stunningly pure and beautiful world. You might actually have to think a little bit to “get” and appreciate this film, which may be difficult for those of us who can’t see beauty unless someone straight up tells them that it is beautiful.
I loved Avatar.
Yes, it was a glorious feast for the eyes. But hell, i felt for the characters. I teared up a little throughout the movie, when some characters died, when the location was destroyed. They are so expressive. The story was good in my opinion, and you know a movie is good when you actually root for a group of people to come out victorious.
And Yes, EW. Cmon. This movie has gotten some of the best reviews of the year. And one of the worst reviewd movies of the year, twilight, you gave a B+. You have no say in what justifies as a ‘so-so’ story.
I disagree. I started clock watching at 1.5 hours. It reminded me of every cliche alien – sci fi – Marvel comics movie I’ve seen in the past 2 years. There was NOTHING ORIGINAL ABOUT IT EXCEPT THE BLUE PEOPLE.
Nothing original? Really? Please do tell me which movie featured alien creatures mentally linking to winged animals through proboscis-like probes. I’m waiting.
LOL crispy!
“Please do tell me which movie featured alien creatures mentally linking to winged animals through proboscis-like probes. I’m waiting”
.
^^^^ Wait no longer. The same principle was used in 1999 in another mindless sci-fi flick named the Phantom Menace. Where it was explained that every single living being in the galaxy had midicloreans which allowed them to connect to the Force in the same way the Navi connected with whatever they connected their USB-like tails into.
.
Yet another Avatar idea ripped-off from somewhere else.
Not even remotely the same thing. You suck. Try again.
Original doesn’t mean good, Crispy. That detail was really trite and didn’t add anything to the film.
Really? Nothing original? Why don’t you stop trying to start fights around here by commenting and disagreeing on every single person’s comment that likes this movie.
Trite? You’re off your rocker, Matt! That “detail” was a critical component of the story, it’s what distinguished the enlightened Na’Vi from the greedy corporate slimeballs.
Because the greedy corporate slime balls would have been better with a random appendage that enabled them to connect to animals and nature? It was heavy handed symbolism and completely inept from a storytelling POV.
I believe the phrase you’re looking for is “pantheism.” You clearly missed the point of the entire movie. Maybe if you finished high school?
I don’t see why you must revert to personal attacks because I don’t agree with your opinion.
I understood the film. But, again, it was overt symbolism–a message film that never stopped beating you over the head with its message. “The New World” had a better race with pantheistic tones, and it didn’t need obvious and dubious visuals to get there.
Yes, I know these people connect with the land, and you don’t need to show them ACTUALLY connecting with it for me to get that.
I can’t help make personal attacks when you so obviously have a personal agenda. How else would the movie reveal that the Na’Vi connect with their environment unless they showed them doing so? That doesn’t make any sense.
I have a personal agenda in expressing my opinion…just like everyone else on a message board. Still no call for an attack. And a good filmmaker (which Cameron has proven himself to be on more than one occasion) would have left that detail out. The film demonstrated the Na’Vi respect and connect with the land spiritually (their culture rested on her mother’s guidance) and thus no physical expression of that was necessary–especially one so blatant. But, I digress. Some people like sloppy entertainment. I’ve just come to expect more from directors like Cameron.
It wasn’t sloppy. It was fascinating. But some people refuse to be entertained.
Exactly. All the people who didn’t like it spent $14 on a movie ticket because they REFUSED to be entertained.
It’s an environmentalist movie. The theme was big corporation against preserving the earth. What’s to get sympathy for?
Ahh, and now it all makes sense. The most ardent haters are the Fox News parrots who don’t like the anti-corporation, pro-environment theme of the movie.
So you empthaize with corporations? Yeah, they got it rough! $20,000,000 bonuses and all, they must be hurting. Especially this recession which the damn dolphins created. And damned organic life, they keep raping me with interests rates, price gouging, and the aforementioned recession which they put us in. Oh, and every other recession, depression, and hundreds of millions exploited by corporations, and there dealings with authoritarian regimes that make us normal civilians terrorist targets. F**k the environment, with its exploitative and conspiratorial ways! Go corporations! Yay MADOFF!!
Wow. I won’t disagree that it didn’t provide environmentalist themes, but it is so much more than that. It was about man taking what is not his then paying the unexpected price for it. Did you even understand the plot? Corporation wants money. Tries to get natives to give up land. Natives won’t because it THEIRS. Corporation pulls out gun. It offers the message that you can’t take what is not yours (among the countless other great messages in this movie).
a well respected critic named roger ebert disagrees. Comparing avatar to the last die hard is ridiculous. Questioning avatars weekend numbers? Paraphrasing other critics to support your point? Honestly ew is turning into a joke
As to Ebert, he’s a man famous for creating the “thumb’s up” school of critique, so he might be well-respected in your illiterate corner of the world, but he’s not in the realm of true film criticism.
read his review pos. he is well respected. maybe not to someone who thinks ew reviews are spot on? the proposal B no country for old men a C? i wasn’t aware chicago was the illiterate corner of the world? i am sure your oklahoma town has more culture
is that so? I’m sure people would say he is the second most respected film critic after Pauline Kael…
That is correct has been 1 of the most respected critics in this country. The man was awarded the Pulitzer prize for his film critics. That’s how good of a writer the man is considered
I believe that they actually gave No Country an A and that there is a mistake on the online review.
Actually, Ebert is considered one of the best film critics out there. Have you even bothered to read any of his incredibly well written critiques? I can also say that Ebert is one of very few critics that have some sway over academy members and Oscar campaigning. I’m sure even Owen Gleiberman would agree with me.
And Owen gave Avatar and “Couples Retreat” (close to the worst reviewed movies of the year) the SAME GRADE. Right.
Ebert USED TO BE a great critic.
.
These days, not so much. I mean, Ebert liked “The Happening”… one of the worse films of the decade.
I have no respect of Gleiberman anymore, catering to all the teen hype. Most of the movies he rates well will be forgotten in a year or two.
avatars story was lacking? what about new moon, the proposal? You gave these movies a B rating? you are supporting movies that will win teen choice awards? Or mtvs best kiss? EW has completely fallen off the deep end.
amen
amen x2
amen. this should be pinned on top of all comments!
What with you dopes trying to validate Avatar by comparing it to New Moon? Don’t you get it? That’s like comparing a pile of dog crap with a pile of hose manure.
I think it does matter. Avatar is just this year’s Cloverfield, in about 6 months anyone who comes out saying they like it will be torn apart on the internet.
Doubtful. When was Cloverfield ever considered Oscar material? It just another monster movie that got some attention because of the camera work and you could tell some intelligence went into it. Avatar is on a whole different level.
“Avatar is on a whole different level”
It is just this sentiment that warrants the movie’s being dissected in just this way. Nobody ever remotely suggested the other tripe being bandied about in these comments was on a “whole different level”.
I wasn’t talking about the other “tripe.” I was talking about Avatar and Marten referring to it as 2009′s Cloverfield. Which I took to mean that it’s only getting attention because Cameron did something different and out of the box, but once that hype is over people will actually look at the story and then decide that it’s unoriginal and unworthy. I disagree. I think Avatar is on a different level because it’s creative. Movies these days have been lacking a lot of creativity. They’re all based on some book or comic book. Even though Avatar has strong themes of the New World and other familiar themes that have appeared in past films, it’s still unique and it brought something new to the movie watching experience.
Anyone who has any idea of the technology and software innovation that went into Avatar cannot honestly compare Avatar and Cloverfield. I am simply amazed at the innovation present in Avatar, and being a software developer, I know what I am talking about when it comes to 3D technology, CGI and motion capture.
I agree. I think that’s what makes this film so relevant and important… It has changed the way cinema is made and stories are told. It’s not the best film or the best story of the year but it’s certainly the most relevant.
I doubt GGG that it has “changed” the way movies are made and stories are told….what story?
ew has lost their matter and relevance
Lost their matter? Whatever that means… Have you lost your period?
I think he’s referring to the title that’s asking if Avatar’s story “MATTERS.” And I agree EW has lost their matter. Their opinion isn’t even relevant at this point.
grey matter simpleton
I found it totally lacking! I mean, it pretty much is Pocahontas. I’ve also played some video games and seen some anime (Princess Mononoke, anyone?) and found it to be not really original. IMO, people are quick to defend it b/c of its shimmery effects and the respectable name of James Cameron.
Also, for you Twilight voicers, EVERYONE knows who the true audience is (pre-teens). It’s sorta stupid if you pit something like Avatar (for the younger and older adults) with something like Twilight. Everyone knows that Twilight is supposed to be a shiny piece of [insert your word here].
Shiney piece of vampire’s sparkly ass.
As long as there are grown women out there who love Twilight, I reserve the right to compare it to “adult” movies. People hate it when Twilight is stereotyped as a teenage girls’ movie, but they equally hate it when it’s held up against other books and films of substance.
Stop trying to have it both ways.
People are comparing Twilight to what is supposed to be a cinematic achievement (as DL states below). There are always going to be adults who enjoy what is stereotyped for the younger people (Spongebob, Hannah Montana, etc). I don’t like Twilight, but I don’t think it’s fair to hold it up to what is supposed to be a piece of cinematic art.
But on a separate note, yes, Avatar’s story is archetypal (so is PM and Pocahontas) but it’s what you do with the details that makes it a great movie. I compare Avatar’s plot to District 9′s, but like I said on another forum, D9 did it better and more originally.
I agree that it’s ridiculous to compare Avatar with Twilight, because the former is meant to be a cintematic achievement whereas the latter is a product. But over 50% of the movie-goers who saw it were 21+ age, wise. It’s not just a preteen movie.
shiny piece of turd.
The story in Avatar was wonderfully done. It’s an old tale, but James Cameron did his own thing with it. He made it different and special. I loved the whole movie and I can’t wait to experience it again.
rip avatar but support the likes of twilight, and adam lambert?
loved the eyegasm. Plan on having multiples
Owen, I found the plot of Avatar rather predictable. And the resolution of the conflict was reminiscent of Return of the Jedi, in that hopelessly outclassed noble savages successfully overpower a well-armed, hi-tech foe. The photography was spectacular, but the story left something to be desired.
I find it hilarious that complainers compare it to something like Return of the Jedi. As if the Star Wars saga was the first to feature such a conflict! Joseph Campbell would like to have a word with you.
The story wasn’t that predictable. I wasn’t expecting them to succeed in destroying that big a*s tree. I wasn’t expecting 5 of the main characters to die especially since I knew it was suppose to be a trilogy. The general story wasn’t new, but it was still unique. He created his own language and creatures and technology. It was pretty awesome.
Totally agree. So many characters died! That was definitely unexpected.
The original “Alien” was one of the first sci-fi films that had every major character (and movie star) die on screen. Leaving only a then unknown Sigourney Weaver as the sole survivor. That’s something else Avatar RIPPED OFF.
.
And back in 1983, George Lucas created languages for the Huttese and Ewoks in Return in the Jedi. Star Trek had some of the same as well. So it’s funny how these film-newbies try to make it seem like Avatar is doing ANYTHING new here. It is not.
And way back in 1954, Tolkien created languages for the elves of Middle Earth. It’s funny to me how the haters keep bringing up such highly regarded movies, yet they suffer the same criticisms as Avatar.
Eddy, What the hell ar you talking about!?! James Cameron WROTE Alien. And the movies you named are NOT the only ones in which many of the main characters die. It happens all the time. No one said it was NEW!
James Cameron did not write Alien. But Eddy is still a mindless troll who doesn’t know much about film history.
Oh sorry, I got Alien mixed up with the sequel Aliens. James Cameron did write and direct that one.
Is the story somewhat well-tread? Yes. Does it matter? No! Just about EVERY story these days follows some sort of archetype or storytelling thread or formula. I’m not sure why people are only just noticing this when it comes to Avatar.
Honestly, I think the technical specs of the film are just that perfect that people HAVE to nitpick and complain about the story just to have something to complain about.
All I know is, I was in a sold-out IMAX 3D showing Friday morning. When THAT is on the screen in front of you, I’m sure most people in the theater couldn’t have cared less if they were watching Dances With Wolves meets the Smurfs. That’s NOT why you see a movie like this.
And Owen, for someone who refuses to call out actual, cynical, cheap garbage when he sees it (like Transformers and Twilight), I’m surprised to see you suddenly finding your snob wings with Avatar.
And — the movie is a metaphor about Afghanistan war.
try “bury my heart at wounded knee”
you want a real story about the wars watch”the hurt locker’ that movie really takes you to new visionary places.
James Cameron copied the story of Pocahontas ¬¬. Even the tree is the same.
They fly dragons in Pocahontas?
Wow, you are amazing, and not in a good way.
In your strange world, unless something is a carbon copy it is not similar?
Avatar has nothing new to present, other than visuals, which means it is a failure as a movie.
Were the natives 9 feet tall, blue with tails in Pochahontas?
Wow, and all this time I gave Avatar credit for being (at least somewhat) a metaphor for environmental imperialism. Guess I was wrong and the movie actually IS just about dragons and 9 feet tall blue people.
It IS about that. When they blow up that tree and destroy that forest it really makes you think about what the government does to our world. The whole thing is a metaphor for just that. The Na’vi and the creatures of the forrest get their home destroyed just because the greedy humans want to make more money.
So in other words…Pocahantas
Yeah Whatever I get your point. I thought it looked like Pochahontas too. That’s one of the first comments I made about it. But even though it has the same themes and basic storyline as Pochahontas and some other films. It’s still different. It’s telling the same story, but in a more modern way.
And Pocahantas was a Romeo and Juliet story. What’s your point, Anne?
No, Pocahontas really happened.
So. Doesn’t make it any less of a Romeo and Juliet story. The reason the tale resonated with people is because it tapped into a well-worn archetype, just as Avatar has done. (And for the record, I believe we were talking about the Disney Pocahontas… are you suggesting Disney’s version actually happened?)
it ain’t just about dragons and 9ft tall locals. it’s about what we humans could do.. how humans could exploit a civilization out of greed, money and power. it’s an age-old theme but it’s still relevant to this day and perhaps still echoing in 2154.
haha, “pocahontas really happened”. that’s funny. someone takes disney a little too seriously.
No – He copied Fern Gulley minus Robin Williams!
Totally! As soon as I saw the trailer I thought, “Man, they spent a lot of money on this Ferngully remake.”
Lmao.
I cannot remember the last time I saw a movie with an absolutely “original” story to tell, so “originality” is not really the yardstick by which I measure a movie. If the movie grabs me by at least one emotion, keeps my attention, and I can walk out of the theatre without wondering what just happened to the last two hours, then I consider it a good movie. Great movies, however, have to really make me care about the characters, invest me personally in both the ride *and* the destination, and leave me feeling like I’ve experienced something worthwhile. As you can imagine, the majority of movies I see are good but the really great movies are few and far in between. From the trailers, this looks to be one of the few great ones, but I’ll have to reserve final judgment until this weekend when I can actually get a ticket to see it. (All four showings were sold out Friday, Saturday and Sunday here in my hometown.)
You got it wrong.
.
The problem with Avatar is not if it is original. Is the fact that the story is merely a pastiche of the plotlines of relatively recent films that almsot everybody has seen.
.
For instance, when you see the protagonist infiltrating the natives of Pandora and then (surprise!) falling in love with the local hot babe and later joining/leading the fight against their oppressors (the protagonist own kind-mostly white humans), you’ll be hard pressed not to be reminded of several films that tackled the same idea BETTER and which much less crappy dialogue.
.
Yes, other great films were based on books or ancient myths. But at least those films re-mixed that material and added something new to the mix. Avatar doesn’t do that since it simply re-uses plot devices to move the film to the next eye r4ping all-cgi scene. I mean, the point of Avatar is simply to claim that 3D is the future. Just like Hollywood tried to make audiences believe back in the 50′s.
Eddie you are so RIGHT! At one point I thought I was watching District 9; then I thought, nope, it’s Pocahantas. Nope, I thought it’s that Al Gore movie, an Inconvenient Truth.
And the comparison to different movies just kept rolling out my head. It was the most UNORIGINAL dribble I’ve seen in such a long time, I felt embarrassed for Cameron. He doesn’t know how to tell a story.
Sally, I’m just wondering (since you like to bash on films), what is YOUR idea of a good and original movie?
Sally’s idea of good storytelling is The O’Reilly Factor.