Avatar

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, who else has seen this? I did, and found nothing special in it. The effects were good--nothing really blew me away (and I did see it in 3D). The story was atrocious. Predictable, insultingly obvious allegory, and the most cliched characters I've seen in cinema in a long, long time. A lot of people say it was so visually stunning, you should just sit back and be absorbed into the world. Well, I'm sorry, but I've gotten to the point where I don't care how good the effects are, they could be ten times better than Avatar's; is the story is crap, the movie is crap.

But this opinion is obviously in the negative. With an 8.7 on IMDb (last time I checked, and over an 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, and now 11 nominations by the academy including best picture (if any of that matters), I must have really missed something, because everyone I have talked to thinks it was "one of the best movies ever." Except for my dad.

So, what do people on here think? Is it just me?

[Amundsen]

You are right. Story is unbelievably predictable. Typical movie for quantum of people. But the visuals are good. I have liked the antihero. He was good but he is not elaborated. Why he hates the Na'vis? I don't know and I think it's not because of his scar. But most stupid was the society of Na'vi. It was perfect. Life without bad human side, without diseases, without wars, without negative life aspects. With answers to everything. Perfect life in perfect world with --- and that's most attractive for quantum of people --- almighty and replying god. So replying that you don't have to think. --- Like bear. What do you have to do when you meet bear? You don't have to do anything, bear will do everything. :)
So? That's why people like this film so much. They like the idea of living in perfect world without any negatives. It's like that they don't like the idea of living. Ironically funny, isn't it? :)

[AimusSage]

Even though I was rooting for the terrans rather than the Na'vi I really liked the film for it's presentation. The story was weak, but it was entertaining, and while I wouldn't say it is the best film I've ever seen, I enjoyed it more than many of the Art house and more story driven Hollywood films I have seen recently that forget that even though you might have an amazing story, film is more than just the story and needs proper cinematography, sound etc. too.

[Nightshade]

See I thought the film went on too long it should have finished when it looked like the humans had won, when the tree thing was buring, I just think it would have been a more powerful film! But of good could human saves the day ...pffffffft!:as-sleep:

[Drkshadow03]

Avatar (2009) - Pretty blue furry creatures based off racist stereotypes of Native Americans, check. Simple plot we've seen a hundred times before where the white dude infiltrates the natives and falls in love with their culture and then saves them from complete destruction, check. Heavy-handed environmentalist and colonialist themes, check. In theory there are so many flaws with this film that it should be irredeemable. Even the idea of the avatars themselves seem forced into the movie. After all, the story reveals later on that the Navi banned avatars from living among and closed the education schools they ran, so how does it make any sense that the corporate-sponsored military would be holding out for a diplomatic solution when the original diplomatic efforts already failed by the opening of the movie? Nevertheless, I still must credit to my visceral reactions rather than just my logical reactions to the film. When I do that I not only enjoyed watching the movie, but found myself entranced by its world. To claim that the setting epitomizes the word "gorgeous" is an understatement. The simplistic plot in many ways works to the advantage of this type of film, allowing a stronger immersion into the beautiful world. Nor is the world merely eye-candy as it functions as a significant part of the plot so there is a reason for this intense immersion. It's like being sucked into a lush Rococo painting, except the coquettish French girls are transformed into blue furry warriors. Certainly special effects aren't everything, but this is one of the few films where special effects manage to raise the film to another level. Other special effect heavy films like the Star Wars prequels fail to meet the standards of Avatar because of other mitigating factors like the horrendous dialogue and awful plot (not just a simple and unoriginal one), thus the special effects cannot save such a film. Avatar, on the other hand, while sporting mediocre and predictable dialogue still never quite degenerates into the horrendous dialogue exemplified by the painful love scenes found in the Star Wars prequels. To put it another way, none of the dialogue in Avatar ever stood out as being particularly abysmal the way it did in the SW prequels, while at the same time none of it ever felt like anything I hadn't heard before either. Other reviews I have read pointed out how unbelievable it is that the corporation at the end of the flick didn't retaliate against the Navi by nuking the planet. While this complaint proves valid if one judges the film with the cynical eye of a person living in the modern world, I have to admit that I still appreciated that the natives win in the end. Despite its flaws, I was entertained and the pretty world gave my eyes orgasms. In other words, an average film (if judging by traditional elements like plot, character, dialogue, etc.) made above average by the special effects.

[stlukesguild]

I must agree with Drkshadow03. I somewhat suspect those who overstate the "horrible story" Cliched characters" etc... simply take the obvious contrary position: "All Hollywood pictures are bad... especially to someone as cultured as myself." Certainly the story is simple... a somewhat obvious re-staging of the Battle of Little Big Horn: the powerful white men want some mineral that just happens to be found in great quantities in the sacred grounds of the natives. After a few skirmishes in which the natives are slaughtered they call all the tribes together. The white men, led by the colonel (Custer) rush in blindly... and we all know the rest.

As Drkshadow suggested, I think the simplicity of the story works for what the film was intending... which is not some deep, realistic portrayal in which the faults, and ugliness, and difficulties of the Na'vi might have been explored, and the colonel and the representatives of the corporation would not have been examined in such a one-dimensional manner. The focus of the film, however, was visual... the visual recreation of another world. The obvious point of the film is that something so incredibly gorgeous as an entire world can be destroyed by greed and stupidity. Obvious... but no less obvious than the morals made about greed and poverty in a novel by Dickens.

I have never bought into the notion that a film needs to function in an equally brilliant manner on all levels. Most works of literature would fail that test. Shakespeare is a master of language and character and character development... but were not his stories somewhat "obvious" considering that the narratives were usually built upon known stories or historical narratives? J.L. Borges, on the other hand, might certainly be accused of not developing the characters or the setting much. One can accept simplistic elements in a film... "simplistic" not truly bad or abysmal... and with the exception of the Rambo/Terminator-like colonel who refuses to yield even at the very end... I don't find any of the characters, dialog, or narrative to be truly bad... merely simplistic.

Obviously, as a visual artist I am likely to be more attuned... more seduced by the purely visual splendor or "eye candy" of a film such as this... and any suggestions that the purely visual aspects of this film were nothing special is just sour grapes. I like DrkShadow's analogy with being sucked into a lush rococo painting. There is the magical, fairy-tale aspect of being drawn into an imaginary world... perhaps not unlike Alice after tumbling down the rabbit hole. Speaking of Alice... I see this film as being a spectacular of artifice not unlike the films of Tim Burton (whose Alice in Wonderland film is being released tomorrow). I also imagine the film as somewhat akin to something like Spielberg's Indiana Jones films... except where those films take one visually on a non-stop roller-coaster ride of action, Avatar is more of a spectacular unfolding and discovery of an unknown and magical world.

No, Avatar is not a profoundly deep work of art as we might expect from a Bergman film... but it is a visual extravaganza and a couple hours of splendid entertainment... which I would assume was its modest aim... and there's nothing wrong with that.

[skib]

I must agree with Drkshadow03. I somewhat suspect those who overstate the "horrible story" Cliched characters" etc... simply take the obvious contrary position: "All Hollywood pictures are bad... especially to someone as cultured as myself." Certainly the story is simple... a somewhat obvious re-staging of the Battle of Little Big Horn: the powerful white men want some mineral that just happens to be found in great quantities in the sacred grounds of the natives. After a few skirmishes in which the natives are slaughtered they call all the tribes together. The white men, led by the colonel (Custer) rush in blindly... and we all know the rest.

As Drkshadow suggested, I think the simplicity of the story works for what the film was intending... which is not some deep, realistic portrayal in which the faults, and ugliness, and difficulties of the Na'vi might have been explored, and the colonel and the representatives of the corporation would not have been examined in such a one-dimensional manner. The focus of the film, however, was visual... the visual recreation of another world. The obvious point of the film is that something so incredibly gorgeous as an entire world can be destroyed by greed and stupidity. Obvious... but no less obvious than the morals made about greed and poverty in a novel by Dickens.

I have never bought into the notion that a film needs to function in an equally brilliant manner on all levels. Most works of literature would fail that test. Shakespeare is a master of language and character and character development... but were not his stories somewhat "obvious" considering that the narratives were usually built upon known stories or historical narratives? J.L. Borges, on the other hand, might certainly be accused of not developing the characters or the setting much. One can accept simplistic elements in a film... "simplistic" not truly bad or abysmal... and with the exception of the Rambo/Terminator-like colonel who refuses to yield even at the very end... I don't find any of the characters, dialog, or narrative to be truly bad... merely simplistic.

Obviously, as a visual artist I am likely to be more attuned... more seduced by the purely visual splendor or "eye candy" of a film such as this... and any suggestions that the purely visual aspects of this film were nothing special is just sour grapes. I like DrkShadow's analogy with being sucked into a lush rococo painting. There is the magical, fairy-tale aspect of being drawn into an imaginary world... perhaps not unlike Alice after tumbling down the rabbit hole. Speaking of Alice... I see this film as being a spectacular of artifice not unlike the films of Tim Burton (whose Alice in Wonderland film is being released tomorrow). I also imagine the film as somewhat akin to something like Spielberg's Indiana Jones films... except where those films take one visually on a non-stop roller-coaster ride of action, Avatar is more of a spectacular unfolding and discovery of an unknown and magical world.

No, Avatar is not a profoundly deep work of art as we might expect from a Bergman film... but it is a visual extravaganza and a couple hours of splendid entertainment... which I would assume was its modest aim... and there's nothing wrong with that.

You are my new favorite person.