I didn't like Avatar for essentially the same reasons that everyone else who didn't like it uh...didn't like it. In other words I felt that everything except the amazing visual effects basically sucked.
The characters- completely boring cliches
The plot-obviously it's been done before. That's not my beef. Plenty of plots have been succesfully recycled: Hamlet in The Lion King (and I'm sure many others), Dickens' novels etc. The problem is that the plot is simply not developed enough. It relies on the fact that you already know the story and its players (which you do). However, this causes the events in the film to come of as more or less ridiculous. For example, the film relies on the fact that you know that Jake Sully will be accepted into the native culture, so it spends little time on his rise to acceptance. But, this is such a crucial part of the plot that its being glossed over simply doesn't work. I found it difficult to buy into his acceptance--even in the context of a film about super-sized cat people.
The writing-Oh my God don't get me started. For the sake of time, I'll just say that Avatar's script damn near reached the seventh-ring of screenplay hell reserved only for Transformers 2 and Shark Attack 3 (If you've seen the latter, you know what the hell I'm talking about).
Performances-Difficult to say considering the material they were working with. I mean I don't think Daniel-Dey Lewis could have done much with this script. So we'll just leave this one on the backburner.
So, in response to my above-stated opinions, I generally hear,
"Dude it's not all about the plot and such you smug douche bag."
Too right. And Avatar knows this. It knows that its draw is visual effects straight up. Very few films can excel in every aspect of the mdeium. Most "good" (not "successful") films excel at one, two maybe three aspects. However, they don't let the "other" aspects (the one's they don't excel in) get in the way of the one's they do. In other words, a good films other aspects are at least serviceable.
Examples: Zombieland= Good Film, characters=interesting, visuals=exciting, writing=witty, plot=servicable etc.
Edit: Those who said "no discussion value" were warranted; a less-than-functioning keyboard caused a double post cutting out what follows:
No Country for Old Men= Great Film. Well everything's great IMO
Training day= Average film. Shitty plot brings down a great performance and clever dialogue
Avatar= Below Average Film (I didn't say "bad"). Shitty everything but visuals brings amazing visuals way down.
So, what I'm saying is Avatar's "other" aspects get in the way of me enjoying it for what it is: a visual feast. It was too difficult to be engaged by the visuals when I had to endure the one-liners and "I see you". Oh God the one-liners!! Anyway, I would have enjoyed it more if it was simply a 20-minute 3-D tour of Pandora without all the other you know, stuff, getting in the way.
Finally: "movie of the decade claim rant"
No.
Us all being nerds here, let's take two purported "movies of the decade:" Star wars ep. 4 for the 70's and Avatar for the_____(insert unwieldy goddamn name given to the last ten years).
Both were regarded as technological breakthroughs of their respective time.
Both made an absolute killing at the box office.
One was a damn good film.
One was a damn good tech show.
The difference here is "heart." Star Wars has it, Avatar doesn't. I highly doubt that anyone will remember Jake Sully (or anyone from Avatar) the same way they remember Han Solo or Darth Vader. There's simply nothing endearing about Avatar. This movie will be forgotten soon as the next technological breakthrough blows us away. It will go down in the history of visual effects, but not in the history of film.
Ok, I'm done. Thoughts?
The characters- completely boring cliches
The plot-obviously it's been done before. That's not my beef. Plenty of plots have been succesfully recycled: Hamlet in The Lion King (and I'm sure many others), Dickens' novels etc. The problem is that the plot is simply not developed enough. It relies on the fact that you already know the story and its players (which you do). However, this causes the events in the film to come of as more or less ridiculous. For example, the film relies on the fact that you know that Jake Sully will be accepted into the native culture, so it spends little time on his rise to acceptance. But, this is such a crucial part of the plot that its being glossed over simply doesn't work. I found it difficult to buy into his acceptance--even in the context of a film about super-sized cat people.
The writing-Oh my God don't get me started. For the sake of time, I'll just say that Avatar's script damn near reached the seventh-ring of screenplay hell reserved only for Transformers 2 and Shark Attack 3 (If you've seen the latter, you know what the hell I'm talking about).
Performances-Difficult to say considering the material they were working with. I mean I don't think Daniel-Dey Lewis could have done much with this script. So we'll just leave this one on the backburner.
So, in response to my above-stated opinions, I generally hear,
"Dude it's not all about the plot and such you smug douche bag."
Too right. And Avatar knows this. It knows that its draw is visual effects straight up. Very few films can excel in every aspect of the mdeium. Most "good" (not "successful") films excel at one, two maybe three aspects. However, they don't let the "other" aspects (the one's they don't excel in) get in the way of the one's they do. In other words, a good films other aspects are at least serviceable.
Examples: Zombieland= Good Film, characters=interesting, visuals=exciting, writing=witty, plot=servicable etc.
Edit: Those who said "no discussion value" were warranted; a less-than-functioning keyboard caused a double post cutting out what follows:
No Country for Old Men= Great Film. Well everything's great IMO
Training day= Average film. Shitty plot brings down a great performance and clever dialogue
Avatar= Below Average Film (I didn't say "bad"). Shitty everything but visuals brings amazing visuals way down.
So, what I'm saying is Avatar's "other" aspects get in the way of me enjoying it for what it is: a visual feast. It was too difficult to be engaged by the visuals when I had to endure the one-liners and "I see you". Oh God the one-liners!! Anyway, I would have enjoyed it more if it was simply a 20-minute 3-D tour of Pandora without all the other you know, stuff, getting in the way.
Finally: "movie of the decade claim rant"
No.
Us all being nerds here, let's take two purported "movies of the decade:" Star wars ep. 4 for the 70's and Avatar for the_____(insert unwieldy goddamn name given to the last ten years).
Both were regarded as technological breakthroughs of their respective time.
Both made an absolute killing at the box office.
One was a damn good film.
One was a damn good tech show.
The difference here is "heart." Star Wars has it, Avatar doesn't. I highly doubt that anyone will remember Jake Sully (or anyone from Avatar) the same way they remember Han Solo or Darth Vader. There's simply nothing endearing about Avatar. This movie will be forgotten soon as the next technological breakthrough blows us away. It will go down in the history of visual effects, but not in the history of film.
Ok, I'm done. Thoughts?
