Avatar - An Excessively Visual/Critical Overview

Recommended Videos

Hat of Controversy

New member
Nov 11, 2009
312
0
0
AVATAR
[small]Movie Review by - Kyle "Tootmania" Sorrell[/small]​
AVATAR (Directed by James Cameron) is the kind of movie that makes me weep. Not so much out of how good it is, no. More so, out of it's undeserving status. AVATAR is, in a lot of ways, the embodiment of what I dislike the most about the current state of movies. Even more so than films such as Transformers 2. Allow me to explain.

AVATAR is a science fiction "epic" set in the year 2154. The humans are venturing out into space in search of a rare, seemingly unobtainable mineral named unobtanium (pun intended.), and they come across a planet rich in the substance called Pandora. Though they can't just take the mineral (or so it seems) due to a local settlement of large, blue, humanoid aliens called Na'vi living on the land where the mineral currently resides.

Long story short, they recruit an ex-marine named Jake Sully (Played by Sam Worthington) for the "Avatar Program", where in he is able to take over one of the "empty" Na'vi bodies and use it as if it were his own, and send him in to learn about the local tribe, and try to convince them to move so the humans may mine for their precious difficult to obtain mineral.

From here, Pocahontas syndrome takes over, where in the gullible, white, military-experienced male lead is swooned by the local indians cherokees minorities underdogs Na'vi, becomes accustomed to their ways, and begins to question which side he should be rooting for.

This is where a lot of the controversy and arguments begin to arise when discussing this film. The Nay-Sayers argue that this film is nothing but a massive bundle of over expensive eye candy, and is completely unoriginal, while its supporters retaliate by mentioning that "Nothing nowadays is truly original, and if you look hard enough, you can find sources of inspiration and borrowed material in just about anything", and they also bring up the fact that the visuals alone make up for its flaws, due to how ground breaking and revolutionary they are.

Both sides make some valid points, though I do believe that the supporters are kind of missing the point of entertainment in the first place. Or rather, one of the most basic, and fundamental principals of it. One of the absolute oldest, most basic forms of entertainment is storytelling. Movies, video games, books, comic books, cartoons, even commercials, and music (to an extent), and even art. All of it, in one way, shape, or form, is trying to tell a story.

[small]"$300 million dollars was spent making this film so you could do ^this^. Seems like a good investment."[/small]
It seems as though most people have forgotten this, the importance of competent story telling. Heck, I mean, pretty much all that money you're spending at the theater is paying for the experience it provides, not so much the films themselves. It's almost like an alternative to amusement parks for really cheap people. The lights, the food, the giant movie screen, the top notch audio surround sound. That all doesn't pay for itself. Film makers have also realized this, and are taking great advantage of it. No longer does a movie have to be at all good or distinguishable to do well. As long as you pump up the CGI and advertise the heck out of it, it'll do well.

Which really brings light to an even bigger problem. You want to know a big part of the reason why AVATAR did so well? Advertising. It also had James Cameron on board, who is known for much better works such as Terminator, Rambo, and Aliens. That, plus the millions of dollars worth of visuals had people hooked. People are all to gullible for adverts. Dragon Age: Origins, Darksiders, Bayonetta, and just about every big name game coming out recently is proof of that.

But in all honesty, coming up with something new and original is not as hard as it seems. It can easily be done. most people are either just too close minded or afraid to really take the risk of trying something new, in fear of failing. People want security, but the funny thing is, security does not exist.

On its own, there is next to nothing in it that hasn't already been done before, and been done better. The Last Airbender wears the title better, and has more style, Lord of the Rings was more epic, Pocahontas was more profound and distinct, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Battlestar Galactica each had better, more interesting settings and ideas, the list goes on.

And I didn't even have to bring up District 9 to get THAT much out of it. Go figure.​
 

Hunde Des Krieg

New member
Sep 30, 2008
2,442
0
0
Oh boy another AVATAR hater. BORING! All the assholes have already done this. Here's a hint people, pretty much every story has been done before in some way or another, all anyone can do now is tell it a a different way or a different setting. No one cares about your annoying hipster hatred and imagined cinema expertise.
 

HardRockSamurai

New member
May 28, 2008
3,121
0
0
Firstly, your "review" of this movie has been copy+pasted EVERYWHERE, for QUITE SOME TIME! If you're going to critique a film whose various criticisms have been subjected to the entire world in the past month, could you at least try and include ONE original thought?

Secondly, your review is a little one-note. The best reviews are the ones that try to see things from multiple perspectives, otherwise it's just an obsessive rant or a maniacal canonization (yours is the latter). I think Mike "Plinket" (of RedLetterMedia fame) put it best when he said that "[Avatar] is not a great movie, but an effective one." As much as the world wants to hate Avatar, primarily for ripping off Pocahontas, Dances With Wolves, and Mass Effect (respectively), those of us whose hearts haven't shriveled up into little sacs of despair can't help but admit that we enjoyed the movie.

Avatar isn't going to revolutionize anything aside from cinema technology, and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. At this point, you're clearly jumping on a broken bandwagon. I don't mean to be so harsh because you obviously haven't wasted my time; just yours.

Please, try harder next time.
 

Mcupobob

New member
Jun 29, 2009
3,449
0
0
Anyone ever notice that the rock thing there after is called un-obtainable? Also how much that movie is like pocahontas? The main charater Jake sully, his intials are J.S just like the main charater in pocahontas whos name was john smith. pocahontas was going to marry that one guy the war tribe guy and then he got killed, same thing happen kinda in Avatar. Anyways thats all I got form the movie pocahontas in space, with smufes.

OT: okay review it just seems cluterd with pics and short sum-ups.
 

okogamashii

New member
Mar 15, 2009
194
0
0
HardRockSamurai said:
Firstly, your "review" of this movie has been copy+pasted EVERYWHERE, for QUITE SOME TIME! If you're going to critique a film whose various criticisms have been subjected to the entire world in the past month, could you at least try and include ONE original thought?
It is pretty amusing that he complains that the movie is unoriginal, but none of his criticisms are his own.
 

TylerC

New member
Nov 12, 2008
583
0
0
okogamashii said:
HardRockSamurai said:
Firstly, your "review" of this movie has been copy+pasted EVERYWHERE, for QUITE SOME TIME! If you're going to critique a film whose various criticisms have been subjected to the entire world in the past month, could you at least try and include ONE original thought?
It is pretty amusing that he complains that the movie is unoriginal, but none of his criticisms are his own.
I saw the movie on opening day, in IMAX 3D, and both my Dad and I called it Dances With Avatar, and also made a lot of connections to Pocahontas. So if so many people have the same thought, something must be up. I think it's funny how people will bury Michael Bay into the ground for his movie being all about the special effects with no real/original story, and this is exactly what this was.
Furburt said:
It's not that it's not a valid point (it isn't really, but I get the idea of it)
Can you explain how it's not a valid point? There are so many similarities its ridiculous, and I can name them off the top of my head if you really want...which you most likely don't.

But all in all, I know why you guys are getting so uptight with the Pocahontas/Dances With Wolves thing, so don't bash me on that. It's been said before, and we don't need another review about it.

edit:
$300 million dollars was spent making this film so you could do ^this^. Seems like a good investment."
It obviously was a good investment considering how much money the film made...
 

RentCavalier

New member
Dec 17, 2007
334
0
0
Geez, y'know, considering you all are complaining about him jumping on a bandwagon, you defenders of this movie sound ALL THE SAME.

"Oh, there's nothing original anymore."

You're right. TVTropes is proof positive of that--but borrowing elements from past stories doesn't make it derivative. The movie is DERIVATIVE because it takes elements from previous stories and tales and does absolutely nothing to make it fresh or differently. The movie's visual elements do absolutely nothing to advance the story, which itself is full of stock characters, little-to-no development of said characters, and a plot that has no surprises, and is so damn predictable that a five-year old could tell you how it'd end.

Look, this debate is never going to end. But let's take a note from our good friend Yahtzee (whom I paraphrase):

Keep in mind that all reviews are subjective opinions by individuals, and if you enjoyed the film there's no reason that someone saying they didn't, or that they found the film shoddy, should affect you.

Unless there's a little niggling doubt in the back of your head that you DIDN'T enjoy Avatar, but got so swept up in the hype, in the build-up, in the buzz that you will defend the film adamantly to your dying breath simply to avoid looking stupid. But no worries kids, because you do anyway. Cheers!