The game is not changed.
It has, however, been gussied up. The visual effects in James Cameron’s Avatar are undeniably excellent, and his use of 3D truly sets the standard for the way this particular gimmick should be employed in the future. Cameron’s frame is deep and textured, and the CGI characters have very expressive faces and are exceptionally detailed. Cameron has taken a step forward with CGI and motion capture, but it’s simply that – a step. Not a leap. Not a revolution. A step.
This is the only advancement Cameron has made. You would think that a guy who was working on a movie for well over a decade might take some of that time to fine tune his story and characters, but it seems that Cameron only cares that his characters are three dimensional visually. And he certainly doesn’t care that his story is hackneyed, corny and trite. The reason Avatar resembles so many other movies, comics and books is because it’s almost completely generic, a total retread of overly familiar tropes, clad in a new digital skin.
You’re not supposed to care either. You’re supposed to just get swept up in the visuals and in Cameron’s strong skills as a storyteller and action director and forget that what you’re watching is something you’ve seen a hundred times before. Watching the film I got the distinct impression that Cameron wasn’t homaging his influences so much as just simply swiping them; Cameron doesn’t want to remind you of Dune, he just wants to rip it off.
For the first hour I was on board. Avatar jumps right to the alien planet of Pandora, home of the nine foot Na’vi and the precious metal Unobtanium (honest), and it felt like Cameron was using the familiarity of his story to his advantage, cutting through the bullshit and the set up to get to something exciting and meaty. You know the basics: crippled Marine Jake Sully comes to Pandora to participate in the Avatar program, putting his human mind into a genetically modified Na’vi body so that he can interact with the natives in an environment and atmosphere that is completely hostile to humans. At first you can forgive the laughably one-dimensional baddies like the callow bureaucrat played by Giovanni Ribisi or the verging-on-parody version of the hard-ass military man played by Stephen Lang because there’s the feeling that Cameron is going big here, that these characters are just the dressing in a larger vision that uses the cliches as a springboard into something more interesting.
It’s not. What you see is what you get. This becomes almost distressingly obvious as Jake begins to go native and we spend forty minutes or so watching him learn to be a Na’vi. The native race is just a science fiction spin on the Noble Savage trope, a depressingly outdated white guilt construct that’s as reductive and destructive as the standard racist Backwards Savage trope. Except in James Cameron land, where nothing can be too on the nose, the connection between the Na’vi and their planet isn’t metaphorical or allegorical – they actually plug their fucking hair in to the ground and commune with the Mother spirit of Pandora (and in James Cameron land things can’t be too spiritual, so there’s a wonky science explanation for how this works). By about an hour and forty five minutes the realization sinks in that no new ground will be broken here and that Avatar is barreling directly where you thought it might go in the opening five minutes and that Cameron’s big statements are the kind that will resonate deeply with 12 year olds who recently discovered the ugly true story behind Thanksgiving.
Things get better in the last bit as the movie finally moves to action mode; Cameron stages huge pixel set pieces that are thoroughly excellent in a completely emotionally detached way. I didn’t give a shit about anything I was seeing on screen beyond the simple ‘That looks cool’ reaction . It’s like a painting of cyborg dinosaurs equipped with rocket launchers and ridden by beautiful naked women: totally fucking awesome but utterly without any deeper meaning or resonance. Except it doesn’t take two plus hours to look at such a painting.
Cameron’s incredibly good at what he does, and so Avatar never even approaches the level of being a bad movie. It fluctuates from being thoroughly okay to being pretty good, but the film never really comes alive in a truly engaging way. The visuals are what catch you, not the story or the characters. If the designs of Pandora’s flora and fauna appeal to you then I imagine that Avatar could be a thrillingly immersive experience. The film often feels like an adaptation of a guidebook, dwelling on the details of the planet’s ecosystem, much of which looks like it comes from a black light poster version of a prog album cover. There are a lot of comparisons being made between Star Wars and Avatar, every single one of which is off base, but most especially those that compare the world building of Lucas and Cameron. Lucas’ world building was done in broad brush strokes, in the briefly glimpsed patrons at the Mos Eisley Cantina. Cameron’s is done in nearly scientific detail. One world builder engages your imagination to fill in the blanks, making you participate in the world he made. The other makes you feel like you’re getting a quiz at the end of the reel. And if you can’t dig the designs, like me, you’re left cold. The horses the Na’vi ride just looked like the horse Ookla the Mok rode in Thundarr the Barbarian, and the Na’vi themselves never looked anything but silly – all gangly proportions and kitten features. Your mileage obviously may vary, and at this point you’ve likely decided how you feel about these designs, even before walking into the theater.
The cast is capable, if hamstrung by the script. I don’t understand why Sam Worthington couldn’t have just played an Australian guy, since his accent is all over the place in the movie, but he has a fierceness that works well for Jake. Zoe Saldana, playing Jake’s Na’vi girlfriend, does plenty of fine work through both a sheet of pixels and an incredibly silly made up accent. Stephen Lang – often looking bafflingly CGI despite being a real human being (is this a weird lighting thing, intended to reduce the Roger Rabbit-esque divide between the people and the toons?) – manages to make it through the entire movie with a straight face despite playing a guy who seems like he might literally eat nails. Seriously, this character is a complete joke, and Lang often feels like he’s in on it. I wonder if Cameron is. The rest of the cast does what they can – everybody is playing eighth banana to the bugs and fungi of Pandora anyway.
Those bugs and fungi are CGI creations, and they’re good ones. But they’re not the mind-blowing next level. CGI has actually been pretty good with environment creation for a while, and many films use CGI invisibly to enhance environments. You can easily forget that the lush jungle forests of Pandora aren’t just on a stage or shot on location but come from a processor. It’s the rest of the stuff – the animals and characters and mechs – that always look like they’re animated. Obviously the characters and creatures in Avatar aren’t as cartoony as the leads in the Toy Story films, but it’s the same principal in that you eventually forget that you’re looking at animated characters not because you believe them but because you accept them in context. Actually, Avatar reminds me a lot of Wall*E, a film that had nearly photoreal environments; the big difference is that Pixar stylized the characters while Weta has attempted to make Avatar‘s characters as ‘real’ as possible. But there’s never a moment when you’re watching the Na’vi or the big rhino monsters or any of the other beasts where you feel like you’re watching something physically real. What helps is that huge chunks of Avatar are completely animated (and by the way, let’s get off the idea that mocap isn’t animation. The mocap process requires tons of work from animators to create what it is that you’re watching on screen. It’s a disservice to skilled animators to pretend that the motions of the actors become what you see on screen without other intensive human intervention), so that aforementioned Roger Rabbit divide isn’t so pronounced. In fact, humans and Na’vi so rarely share the screen that at the end of the movie I nearly forgot that the aliens are almost double our height.
The most interesting thing about Avatar is its truly radical politics, all of which comes across as grossly hypocritical. The movie – the most technologically advanced film ever made, we’ve been constantly reminded – romanticizes the Stone Age Na’vi; it’s like Bill Gates telling you how good poverty is for the soul. But beyond that it’s almost John Walker Lindh In Space; we’re meant to cheer as Jake Sully doesn’t just support the Na’vi but actively takes up arms against his own people and helps kill hundreds upon hundreds of them. It’s as if Dances With Wolves ended with Dunbar leading the Indians at the Battle of Little Big Horn. While the film was conceived long before our current adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq Cameron makes ploddingly on the nose references to current events, having the bad humans talking about waging a ‘shock and awe’ campaign on the Na’vi and insisting they must fight terror with terror (despite the Na’vi engaging in no terror). Cameron’s idea of subtlety seems to be having Lang play Colonel Quaritch and not Colonel George Bush. Obviously taken in the context of the time Star Wars can be viewed as a pro-North Vietnamese piece, but Lucas wisely avoided naming any characters Ho Chi Minh or having Han Solo visiting the planet Tet; what would have been an otherwise arguable subtext in Avatar is blown into full on text, although I imagine it will be largely ignored by people simply being absorbed in the visuals.
Those visuals can be overpowering in 3D, which seems to be the only way to really see this film (have any critics seen the movie in 2D, a format with which a large chunk of the audience will have to make do?). Too often what is passed off for spectacle is really just incoherent noise – I’m looking at you, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen – but Avatar delivers the 3D spectacle in a major way. The vistas are huge and deep and detailed, and the action becomes more engrossing in 3D; I think you probably have some kind of neurological issue if you’re trying to swat away the Pandoran flies, but if any film is going to make the argument that 3D can be used as something more than a gimmick, Cameron has delivered it. It’s the 3D that had me most skeptical, and it’s the technical aspect that most won me over; rarely are objects pointing out of the screen but rather the jungle is given a dimensionality that comes closest to truly replicating how our eyes see the world – certainly closer than the average 3D film, which reduces everything to flat objects at different depths within a diorama. It’s the 3D that makes the film a must-see in theaters; most of Avatar‘s value will be utterly lost when translated to home theaters, unless you have some kind of super new TV that does cutting edge 3D (and they’re coming).
For me the 3D wasn’t enough. The film’s not bad, and I suspect that a second viewing would reward me with some extra details (sort of a graduate level study of Pandoran ecology), but it’s nothing special. As someone left cold by the film’s designs there was no way in for me – the characters offer nothing to grab on to and the story is feeble – and so the film’s running time was mostly spent admiring the work put into everything shown on screen. The Na’vi are laughably silly, juvenile versions of Native Americans, making Jake’s journey to their side feel like the actions of a freshman who just discovered Noam Chomsky; I found that I couldn’t get behind the natives or the guy who has gone native because of how simplistic they are. Strangely I was almost rooting for the evil corporate good guys because their mustache twirling evil colonialism routine is often pretty hilarious. And the love story between Jake and Saldana’s Neytiri is so half-baked that it carries all the weight of the legendary romance of Twilight‘s Edward and Bella. From my position on the outside of this movie I couldn’t help but roll my eyes at the heavy handed messages, the predictable plot points and the tiresome mysticism.
The prediction I make for Avatar is simple: this is 2009’s King Kong. It’s a movie that will dazzle many people, but in a little while – maybe months, maybe years – the consensus will slowly change. Distanced from that first spectacular 3D screening, people will begin to realize how hollow and stupid the story is, how there are no characters to care about and how ham-fisted Cameron is with his deep thoughts straight from the freshman dorm. Unlike Kong I suspect that Avatar will be somewhat watchable – Cameron does bloated better than Peter Jackson does – but removed from the big screen the film will lose all impact.
In the meantime I’m glad for those who were able to be swept away into the over-detailed world of Pandora. I wish I had been swept away as well, but in the end I need something more than pretty pictures to grab me.
6.5 out of 10
161 comments
This review was written weeks ago.
good, honest review. i'll be seeing it in 8 hours and my expectations are grounded now. but since i like the design and REALLY like king kong, i hope i'm getting more out of it than you did. and: 3dimensional characters were never camerons strength, but somehow his movies work for me anyways. i've always cared for his characters (yes, even jack and rose 😉 )
Devins movie reviews will never escape his bias against those who made them. And it will be cold day in hell before he ever admits to being wrong.
Good thing then he'll never be relevant in his field. Roger Ebert on the other hand gave Avatar 4 stars…
Good review, though I obviously disagree. Is this the last civil reply we'll see? You guys who rip Devin and the site here calling him names and stuff… He gets paid to write about movies and gets whisked around the planet to meet interesting people, many of whom appreciate his work. If it makes you feel a little better about your life by being a dick in a talkback, glad to give you a forum to anonymously show how cool you are. Try… TRY to put that lame shit aside and participate in a more constructive manner. Or, we'll delete your stuff and move on with our day.
You…You guys don't like King Kong? What the hell was wrong with King Kong??
You say "It fluctuates from being thoroughly okay to being pretty good".
But if you take that sentence out the review is 90% negative. I'd like to know what you loved about the movie to make it "pretty good".
Great review. Mind-numbing eye candy might be passable if the designs were good or original. It's the stupid look of the Na'vi and the garish tie-dyed creatures of Pandora that prevent this film from suspending disbelief. You can't get absorbed in it because Cameron has failed to create anything that looks like nature would have created. For all his half billion dollars, Cameron plays second fiddle to Roger Dean, the artist who created all those hippy-dippy Yes album covers, which (given Cameron's age) I suspect are the inspiration for Pandora.
Wow. Devin dislikes a movie that is set to be a huge blockbuster hit. That has never happened before. I love how he even finds space to mention Transformers 2, a move we all know he has a special hate for.
Devin's writing 'ability' is good. His skew on the world.. that's where the problem is.
Seeing this tomorrow. I'll be interested to see which side of the Nunziata/Faraci divide I fall on, as I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Cameron's films.
I understand taste is subjective, and different strokes for different folks, but a 6.5 rating?
Five random films Devin likes better than Avatar:
1) Doom
2) Tamara
3) Jumper
4) 2012
5) Lady in the Fucking Water
I have seen Avatar in 3d as well. It is not the end all be all of film as we know it. It is however vastly superior to the five films listed above (I understand this is my opinion…but really…Lady in the Water?)
Good job sticking up for Devin, Nick. I often disagree with the guy, but I don't see any reason for all invective. That said, I still find Jackson's Kong very watchable and still very powerful. It's a big, beautiful, heartbreaking movie. I still don't get the hate for it, and I have a feeling that if it didn't "flop," it would be regarded as a favorite among geeks. If Avatar measures up favorably to Kong, then we are in for a treat.
obviously he's been against the movie for the most part these past few months so this wasnt a big suprise he didnt like he.. he's the stubborn guy in the room who will never admit to being wrong.. it is his opinion but obviously it needs to be taken with some bias, this is (kind of) like an armond white review in that we all knew that it would be negative compared to all the other reviews.. based on all the other reviews that are online and with the top critics, Devin is in a small minority in not liking the film
It was always a worry that Cameron would ignore plot and character and focus to much on the flora and fauna. I think his best work is still Aliens, a film that's got so many larger than life characters and an amazing world for them to inhabit. He can do it when he's forced to work with a limited budget, an unfamiliar crew and a strict deadline. Why does he slip when he's got all the time (and money) in world.
C'mon Nick, now you're being a dick in the talkback. Devin's well crafted assault ends in a beautiful uppercut sentence. He says… (paraphrasing) "Anyone who likes this movie is a moron" and then between those words "C'MON! Hit me with your best shot you motherfucking bitchlets"… and in brackets "I''M THE KING OF THE WORLD!".
He says all this amusingly (and I love you for it Devin!), but he does say it.
Dun cheapen it with an executive admin threat to delete. He asked for it, let him have it. Dun pretend he doesn't love it. Or that you dun love the hits.
Arma.
I'll take the original Kong over the remake, thanks.
"Devin is in a small minority in not liking the film"
So what, it's wrong to be honest if he doesn't like the movie? How do you know the 'minority' will not like it? Box office doesn't mean quality, I mean shit, New Moon has done over 600 million worldwide and thats a pile of shit, I think we can all agree… so the dude didn't like Avatar, don't get your clit in a blender over it Nick J.
Two things, firstly whomever coined the term: "The Nunziata/Faraci divide" is a genius and should be rewarded. I laughed out loud, very witty. Lastly, I'm so in the 'could give a shit' box on this film. I agree with Devins take on the designs being average at best, disconnecting at worst. I really haven't been captivated by anything I've seen trailer-wise or design-wise so I too can't wait to guage my own personal reaction and compaire it to the 'divide'. Either way, this movie has my IMAX 3D money, I hope at least I get a good fun time at the movies, but I'd be suprised if I'm blown away. Great review Devin, keep bringing the reality around here, we 'normal' folk appreciate it.
God, you anti-Devin retards still don't get it do you? He was down on STAR TREK 11 pre-release, but upon release he came out very positive towards it. All this, "Devin can't admit he's wrong" horseshit is from the mouths of imbeciles. Shut the fuck up and stop embarrasing yourselves.
The phrase "could give a shit" means that you care enough for the film to present it with a sample of your fecal matter. The actual phrase is "couldn't give a shit", meaning that you cannot make yourself care enough about the film to make you want to bestow a chocolate log upon it as a gift.
NICK. J- Really? Is that why he mostly trashed Star Trek up until its release and then said he was mostly wrong about it? Yeah, he "obviously" can't admit it when he's wrong 😛
King Kong is the best remake in the history of cinema, therefore you suck!
Ok, so Devin is entitled to his opinion, and I kind of respect the guy for holding strong in spite of all the hate, but this is where he slips:
"It fluctuates from being thoroughly okay to being pretty good"
And you score it 6.5/10
That hardly sounds rotten, and if it's really ok at worst and pretty godo at best, then why is the review so steeped in negativity.
The way you wrote this the movie sounds like it's one of the worst ever and that quote should read:
"It fluctuates from being thoroughly awful to being ok".
It honestly seems like you let yourself get caught up a little in sticking to your guns, which I won't make too much of a fuss about, just seems a shame your review is so inconsistent.
Just saw the movie and completely disagree with this review. Probably the most immersive and engaging cinematic experience I've ever had. The story may be simple and familiar, but it was well told and I was thoroughly engaged. I bought into the characters and the visuals were mind blowing. For me, this is Cameron's best film, and may even beat LOTR as my new favourite epic. I'll give it more time to digest – I'm still buzzing.8
All the name calling towards Devin is childish. Why not logically argue his points if you disagree?
That said this review confirms what I figured about Avatar. Its funny that I read two positive reviews of this film but if you read between the lines both reviews admitted that the story and characters in Avatar where average at best… but my God! Look at the CGI!
"… He gets paid to write about movies and gets whisked around the planet to meet interesting people, many of whom appreciate his work. If it makes you feel a little better about your life by being a dick in a talkback…"
"You people are just jealous of Devin's kickass job! It CAN'T be that his bizzarre relationship with Avatar could influence his opinion of it — no no, you just want to get back at the world for making you work at McDonald's! Never mind his year long campaign of negativity against this film — He has Spielberg's autograph and it just burns you up inside!"
Sorry Nick, but pointing out that Devin couldn't possibly give this film a fair shake is legitimate. Devin has the same relationship with Avatar that the Republicans have with President Obama.
I've already scene this film, and Nick's Review is dead on. Devin, he has had his mind made up for MONTHS. Look at all the negative peices he's written, hell, he had to even do a piece called "best sequels ever" and completely ignore Aliens and T2…. I don't think I was the only one who saw that correlation.
When a reviewer writes pieces yelling "PLAGERIESM, LAWSUITE, ASSHOLE"… do you really think he's going to go into a movie with an open mind…..
All I can say, thank god Nick N. is back…..
I can't believe I read the whole thing…
Thanks for manning up and writing the review. It takes a lot of nerve to risk sounding small-minded. I suppose this just as easily could have been Star Trek, where you pulled a 180 because the movie pleased you… but I think the point here is that *ethically* as a movie reviewer and writer, you might be risking your credibility with the masses by writing tracts about movies you haven't fully seen. Of course, it's a James Cameron film, so it's easy to predict what you're going to get before you see it, but you reduce your level of perceived non-bias by expressing these sentiments months in advance.
PS. I know you put the talkbacks in to wipe the newbies off the forums.
I saw Avatar last week. I liked it a lot. And guess what? I respect Devin and like reading him as well. OH MY HOW IS IT POSSIBLE?! Seriously, you guys act like you're either pro-Avatar or pro-Devin. That's lame.
I don't get it. Why is the term unobtanium a surprise? I thought you were well read Devin. Unobtanium is a term that's been used for decades.
Would you rather he named it pandorium? Those kind of naming conventions caused you to take numerous shits on Chronicles of Riddick. What exactly WOULD make you happy?
Why are they mining the Unobtanium? Is it so they can have enough to build a drillship to be piloted to the Earth's core and re-ignite it? If so, I'd say this movie is for all of humanity.
This review can't be taken seriously. Funny how he complains about hollow characters andstupid story when he rates a movie like 2012 higher. So a stupid story and flat characters are acceptable in some movies but not in others. And don't try with something like 2012 is "something you shouldn't take seriously and enjoy for it is". Because if you do that with one movie you should do that with all movies. Avatar was, just like 2012, made with the main purpose to entertain. And at least Cameron TRIES to give his characters a little more meat on their bones compared to most other directors of big budget spectacles
Seeing the film in 3D tomorrow, will likely not enjoy the JC characters, but I'm hoping the visual density will capture me. It'll have a hard time topping Miyazaki or Mushi-Shi though for really engaging environmental meditations. —- RE; "Weird Lighting" on Lang. Very possible. Cameron and Co devised some custom lightbulbs/filaments on T2 so the humans would sit better in frame with the Silver Terminator form, as a way of making the FX seem more believable. Seems like he took it too far on Quarritch.
How much does Devin get paid? I assume not that much.
Check the Forums. It is the usual hilarity. Lots of people thanking Nick for a very well written and thought out review. Devin posts a link to his review and the ass lickers come out.
Seriously, Devin CAN write but he lets his personal opinions and his desire to cause controversy color his reviews far too often.
The Internet is for idiots who take blue cats way too seriously.
Jackson's "King Kong" is a fantastic film… unless you're a no-talent cynic. Like Devin.
Yes, Virginia, it is possible to like both the Jackson Kong and the 1933 original. Back to Devin on Avatar: At least Mr. Faraci is no Armond White, who, I'm becoming more thoroughly convinced with each dishonest stretch of a review he writes, is a masterful performance artist. Devin, however grudgingly, actually admits to liking aspects of Avatar. White's "review": http://tiny.cc/ZiT90
It's amazing that people can want to like something SO BAD, that they disregard a singular voice of reason like Devin's. Thing is, they should have learned he's usually right. If I really WANT to like something, I'll read Harry. If I want objectivity, I'll read Devin.
Thing is, anyone who thinks this is the best movie they've ever seen needs to see more films (and start with ones made outside this country).
I'm hoping for the best: cliched, mindless spectacle–which is why I already have my ticket for 3D Imax. Cheers.
That's one helluva long ass review for a film that's (according to Devin) just OK. Reads more like a defense of his early ComiCon take where he clearly put a stake in the ground that the movie would blow. This sounds like a hedging opinion — admitting it doesn't suck without stepping too far from that stake in the ground. I'm not sure these Devin reviews are really worth much. There's clearly another agenda at work, leaving this review hollow and completely bereft of true objectivity. Peace out on this total tool.
Jesus Christ, people, who cares if Devin didn't like the film as much as you did or want to? He has his own tastes and desired outcomes from movies and bases his reviews on that, just like any of you do. That said, this review has an enormously cynical core. I don't mind direct parallels to the evils of colonialism or military/corporation team ups, because I think it's a message worth emphasizing. Saying that such matters demand subtlety to be effective, lest the be cliche and eye-rolling, is as silly as Devin thinks the Na'vi designs are. Honestly, I can't wait for kids to be blown the fuck away by this, message-wise and visually, and I think that's the most important thing. All of Cameron's films have "cheesy idealistic moral centers" but cheesy idealistic moral centers are good.
After the 25-minute Comic Con preview (which Faraci praised — read his initial review — before doing an inexplicable about-face after vile attacks from Avatar fans), Faraci said of the designs "It's damn good looking. Design-wise the world of Pandora is excellent, rich, complex and detailed. It's a vividly imagined place" "The design is detailed, complex, fascinating." "The level of complexity in the design is incredible." Now he says he couldn't dig the designs and they left him cold. Ok, he saw the whole movie this time, so of course his opinion would change somewhat, but he makes no admission of that here, and the overall design of Avatar was pretty clear at Comic Con.
I won't comment on the rest of the review because I stopped taking Faraci seriously after he switched without explanation from calling the early footage "impressive" to saying "nothing I've seen so far interests me."
Sure Devin is entitled to his opinion. But he's supposed to balance that with an unbiased explanation of the film. I think he got stuck on the look, which looked too hippy, too passée for him. Cause he's so hip and modern, and he has to, you know, vomit his venom on anything not fashionably cool according to his limited tastes. I think it's pitiful, he's starting to act like one of those grinchy critics O'Toole voiced so accurately in Ratatouille.
Yes we know Cameron is not quite Shakespeare, but you go too far Devin. You miserably decided that you cant let yourself enjoy the film, and worse, wont let others enjoy it either. Pity on you.
Whenever a big blockbuster's coming up I'll look to Ebert's reviews first, Devin's second, and Harry's third. No single review can give me a complete picture, but mixing these flavors together is like glimpsing the future. Ebert usually gives a broad, thoughtful review that's free of context or internet bullshit, Devin gives a skeptic's review that's rooted firmly in the now, and Harry gives the sloppy blowjob.
Nopes, Jackson's King Kong is appropriate comparison if that's what avatar is too, a messy overblown scatterbrained movie that could and should have been great but will forever remain the story of Jimmy, the white kid with a Black mentor so we show how unracist this movie is… and a giant monkey's in it too. If not King Kong then Spielberg's War of the Worlds, another movie that gave me and likely Devin too a feeling of "if only they'd tried harder with this…" Even Lost World was more reserved than king kong and that movie's in retrospect the same damn thing, but you can tell it had more effort put into its story.
Isn't mocap just the CG version of rotoscoping? I'm with Devin on that one.
Admittedly, I tend to agree with Devin on most of his reviews, that's why I prefer to read his. I was worried by the trailers that Avatar didn't have any interesting characters, and this seems to confirm that. From the sounds of it, perhaps Cameron should have made a video game, at least then the focus could be on exploring an alien world. I'm impressed by the spectacle, but I'm not sure what can be done now that couldn't have been done before. Maybe it's mainly the scale. I like how Devin mentions the comparison to Star Wars, as Star Wars has interesting characters in an environment that leaves much to the imagination. I'll probably see it this weekend, if I can get tickets. If the third act isn't bad, I'll probably forgive problems in the second. But this isn't something I'm expecting to like outside of the theatre.
Great review Devin. I seem to be on the same boat as you when it comes to movies (the only recentdifference being Up In the Air, which I thought was excellent), but I can defintiely see where you're coming from. I'm gonna check this out at a midnight showing this upcoming Thursday. We'll see how it goes.
What's worse that a Devin basher? A Devin defender. now THAT is sad.
#1 is on point, but swap weeks for months.
I'm positive I'll have the exact same feeling walking out of the theater as you did, Devin. It's big, it's pretty, but it's not the revolution it wants to be.
Better than any Star Wars, you mook.
You disliked this? May your mother die.
What's worse than a Devin defender? A Devin defender basher.
And on… and on… and on…
why all the Devin hate? i agree with his review 100% the Na'vi look ridiculous, the environment is a blacklight poster.. nothing about the plot or acting looks engrossing.. these are things i did not need to hear from anyone else.. Go read Nicks review if you want to hear nothing but admiration and awe, some people are not so easily fooled though..
I remember all geekdom was enraged after the first trailer; the thundersmurfs, it looks fake, bad bad bad. I thought it was interesting, some pretty cool stuff to look at. The 2nd trailer had all geekdom back loving it. I was like, that is so pedestrian, so dull, those are the characters? Giovanni as Burke, this is the mineral we are looking for, it is really valuable, I expected a Dark Helmet – everybody get that? The drunk tranny humper from Last Exit to Brooklyn as evil military dude. The second trailer was just, this is how stupid we think you are, thus we explain everything. Michelle Rodriguez – you should see your faces, oh fuck off. It seems Devin has written a review that says yes, it is that dull, the characters and story are that flat and stereotypical. I watched a clip on youtube of "Jake SullY" (oh christ) Na'vitar escaping a monster with an alien queen head (I think the Koreans already made that monster). Do you think the monster returns at the end and eats evil military dude? Maybe?
Devin and Nick are both pretty reliable. I'll reserve judgment until I see the film. Thanks for the review.
Devin gave the fucking abysmal 2012 a score of 7.5 for offering good spectacle and being well-made trash. It's not that I don't respect his opinions, I just wish they were a little more consistent. Just review the fucking film, not the hype and the fanbase as well.
I think the review was helpful, though I doubt I will agree with its ultimate verdict, based on everything I've read so far from critics I trust far more.
I have to echo Rod Lane here, because I can't understand how giving DOOM a higher rating than AVATAR could possibly be honest. Devin is obviously an intelligent, educated person, but many of his criticisms come off as "Jim Cameron thinks he's smart, but look at all the ways in which I am smarter! The story is so simplistic, and I am not."
The movie is the movie. The fact that Cameron seems pompous or thinks he'g going to change the cinematic world, should not come into play in the review of the movie.
Most people are going to judge the movie on it's own merits.
I guess it comes down to "what is the purpose of this review?" Is it to give people information helpful for deciding whether to watch the movie? Or is the purpose of the review to entertain/show us what the movie sparks in Devin's head?
i.e. Is this review more about the movie or more about Devin? Certainly when I read Ebert, I never have to ask this question.
Well, I don't know about you, but the purpose of film criticism for me is to see what others are thinking about a film and to illuminate parts of a film that might otherwise have been hidden. Good criticism makes you think about a movie differently, or makes you enjoy it more.
This review wasn't all that illuminating for me, but I think that has more to do with the source material not having much to hide and being pretty straight-forward. But there were parts that I will take in with me to my screening of Avatar to see if they ring true after I have seen the film. Which is what the very best film criticism does: frame a movie and give you a cypher through whichto judge a work ON YOUR OWN. You would think that Devin writing this review is going to kill the movie for you or something. I look at it as a tool that I can use to make my viewing of the film better, not as a substitute for my own opinion.
And for people comparing this review to others on the basis of a score:
Reviews in general are prisoners to the time period in which they were written as well as the mood of the reviewer at the time of viewing. I bet, given the time to do so, Devin's opinions on many films would be different right here and now VS when the reviews were written 😛
#10 – I think Devin made a shift this year from the high school rating scale (7.5 is average, 5.0 or lower is failing) to a normal rating scale (5.0 is average). That would explain some of the numerical discrepancy with some of those movies, especially since he admits AVATAR ranges from okay to pretty good.
#32 – I think the difference lay in the level of badness. 2012 is transcendent in how dumb it is. So absurdly retarded it's entertaining. Devin apparently found AVATAR to be pretty good, just nothing special and a little dopey. And average movies are nowhere near as interesting and engaging as bad movies.
I think Devin usually approaches stuff on its own level, anyway. That's why he gives good ratings to some bad movies. No one goes to 2012 or PUNISHER: WAR ZONE to see engaging plot and characters. They might expect it from AVATAR, though.
No Batman potshots? I am disappointed.
I barely made it through Jackson's King Kong – it's not a good film and it's way too long. Of course, that is my opinion. I definitely feel Cameron is a better filmmaker, so I'll see Avatar (in 3D). But I'm not expecting much. And Devin is a very good writer, whether you agree with his reviews or not (I'm usually 50/50).
The review sounds level headed, and what I'd expect from a Cameron film.
I would like to know, however, what viewing this was based on. If it was based on a screening during normal hours, with sufficient sleep, that's one thing.
However, we know that Devin did see a screening of this at Harry Knowles' Butt Numb A Thon film festival, which requires people to stay up for 26 hours straight; and AVATAR was screened at the very end of that very gruelling fortitude test. By the time Avatar screened, Devin's mind and body was hungring for sleep. In that state, it's unlikely that, if the film deserved any generosity of imagination, or had any subtlety to it, that Devin was in any mental state to appreciate it. Devin's description of the charaters as being hollow and hard to connect with matches the usual type of character in Cameron's films, but it also could be the result of being too tired to connect on Devin's part.
If based on the BNAT screening, Devin really should see it normally before writing his final review.
i'm a newbie to this "movie" thing.
Which should I watch first, 2001 or 2012?
Which is better?
The best Kong is the DeLaurentiis one.
Avatard: a person will defend the honor of a film named avatar they have yet to see by a ego inflated self proclaimed king of the world filmaker.
Devintard: a person who will defend the honor of a net (key word net, not printed or published) "critc"with a inflated ego and gut who's opinion means nothing outside the safe confines of chud.
the war between avatards and devintards has begun.
While I respect your opinion about the film. I find you opinions on the matter to be half formed at best and I can not regard any of them as valid.
I don't see how this rips off dune at all. Dune, while containing themes of ecology and resources, Has nothing to do with mining and cultural meddling.
Dune was a baroque style story about warring uppercrust houses for control over a valuable resource. In the process, a house goes into hiding with the extremist group on the planet and inadvertently becomes religious leaders. Dune was not about good and evil, it is about the nature of power in all respects, from religious, to economic to political.
In avatar it's about clandestine pseudo governmental corporations killing innocent natives in order to pursue monetary gain. It's not about power, it's about fragmented morality in the face of gain and a character looking at the complexity of the situation and simply saying "no, this is wrong and I'm going to stop you."
Just because a message is simple and direct doesn't mean it can't be profound
3D CGI Cartoon: The Movie
by James Cameron
"an unbeliever! Persecute, kill the heretic!". It's a sad reflection that the same simple minded idiocy that's fucked over well meaning religions also occurs in cinephiles. "you don't love what I love so you must be a DICK and I must conduct a talkback jihad against you". Interesting review though, the reference to Bill Gates and poverty made me laugh out loud. Seeing it on Monday in 3d which I'm looking forward to but I imagine that'll be the one and only time.
everything devin says is painfully obvious, and King Kong wasn't very popular when it first came out, it made money but that doesn't mean regular folk were coming out of it in awe, they all kept focusing on how long it is, who gives a shit about the hardcore avatard fanbase, that's who we all know devin hates, but regular folk aren't gonna deep examine it. I swear if a shitty bearded college professor shows this in a class years to come, then I'll be pissed.
Devin you are so transparent. You secretly love this film but your childish hatred for Fox stops you from telling the truth. Plus, as always, you're an idiot.
I've got a crazy idea here guys, I'm going to see the movie and form my own opinion. If the film had a consensus of negative reviews I would wait to see it on video but that is not the case here, the majority finds it to be a fulfilling experience so I'll check it out.
I liked Nick's review….it finally got me excited to see the movie. But what Devin points out here are problems I have had with all of Cameron's films: ham-handed emotional content, silly dialog, paper-thin characters. I will see it with an open mind, but I appreciate that Devin can acknowledge what works well and maintain a critical mind about the film. That is what film reviews are supposed to be: critiques of what words and/or what doesn't work, not just synopsis or joining a chorus of other critics, and that is what makes Devin's reviews interesting and worthwhile.
Man, you people take this shit WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. Go outside, breathe some fresh air, talk to a real live girl (no WoW doesn't fucking count), and realize that these are just movies. They are entertainment. Devin is entitled to his opinion, which I don't always agree with. And sometimes I get irrititated with his editorials, but its supposed to be escapist fun. Grow up and move out of Mom's basement, fellas.
That said, I have my IMAX 3D tix for Avatar and I'm looking forward to a good time at the movies. Nothing more, nothing less.
Devin's review touches on a complaint that many reviews mention – the story is pretty cliche', and the some of the characters are disarmingly one dimensional (Stephen Lang, for example, was written as nothing more than a modern mustache twister). So if you're going to bitch about his review, bitch about ALL of them. I appreciate Devin's honesty – he certainly could've raved about the movie to placate the douches who'll rip him a new one, and in the process could've developed some 'net cred with the basement dwellers. But he didn't. He took an honest look at a picture that Cameron's posse pitched as Jesus on film, and punctured the myth. I don't see a problem with him holding Cameron's feet to the fire and asking him to cash the check his mouth wrote. Regardless, I'll see the film and probably enjoy it – I like Cameron's work – but I appreciate Devin's honesty in reviewing the film.
lol at the people getting hung up on the numerical score. OMG 2012 is really 1 point better?? great, insightful review devin. youre the resident pessimist at chud, shouldnt be a surprise to anyone posting in the talkbacks. glad we got nicks review as well. heres to hoping chud continues to offer us 2 separate, intelligent perspectives on all major releases from here on out.
Some other Devin reviews to keep things in perspective: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince – 9.5; Punisher: War Zone – 8.5. Two movies absolutely devoid of any plot or real substance. But for Avatar, Devin requires more than pretty pictures… James Cameron, throw in some effeminate British kids zapping each other with dinky little wands, and stupid cartoonish violence in your next movie if you want a favorable review from Devin.
I'm glad someone else brought up Devin's 2012 review. There's no way in any of the nine levels of hell that 2012 was a better film than Avatar. Sure, Devin is allowed to have his own opinion, but to score Avatar lower than 2012 is just absurd, plain and simple, and speaks volumes about Devin's bias against the Cameron and his film. You don't have to change the review, but for the love of all that is holy, PLEASE change the score (or at least lower 2012's score!). It's foolish to let it stand.
I think the Devster has been reading The Guardian (UK), to wit: "Sully quickly falls for the non-specific mystical rabbitings of the tribe, involving memory-harbouring trees, intimate relationships with flying lizards, and other such prog-rock-influenced stylings. It really is like a Yes album cover come to life." — cf. Devin's take: "much of which looks like it comes from a black light poster version of a prog album cover … "
His comparisons to King Kong perfectly articulate to me that I probably won't like Avatar. I hated the bloat that was Kong, I don't care for the designs I've seen in the Avatar ads, I hate movies that are retreads of worn out concepts only slightly less than I hate movies with hamfisted "messages." I did find it curious that Devin says he liked (and probably will still like in the future) Avatar more than Kong, considering he gave Kong an 8.5 and only gave Avatar a 6.5.
Grrrr About to have a meltdown! It won't matter, I will lose no matter what. A speck of irrelevant dust in the universe is having a crisis. This speck of dust knows it is on the path to oblivion and watches on. Fuck.This.
You guys are getting a little too caught up in this 1-10 scale. It's not a scientific rubric. There isn't a criteria checklist. Unless he's calling 2012 or whaterver a movie of the year candidate, then comparing scores isn't barely worthwhile. One commenter mentioned Ebert, a critic who points out regularly, that scoring systems are highly flawed, frustrating, and a poor way of comparing one film to another
But is it better than Fantastic Four?
Never forget. According to Devin: F4 is better than Batman Begins. This and his rumormongering about Star Trek pre-release (Though he came clean later) puts his credibility somewhere around Armond White, but not quite as entertaining.
This would have been a perfect opportunity for Devin to resurrect "Fuck You out of 10"
Guide to utilizing and understanding Devin's reviews. If he has been on a set visit, the movie will get a good review, as will subsequent reviews by the same filmmaker(that's why they do set visits, duh!). If it is something that the nerd community is excited about, and he doesn't feel he was responsible in some small way for being the first to jump on the bandwagon, he will hate it, no matter how much he actually enjoys it. Unless it is about a property he already loves(Star Trek, Friday the 13th), he cannot overcome months of negative campaigning to deliver an honest review. My advice, Chud is a great way to find out about movies, just listen to what Devin says and do the opposite. Can't wait to see Avatar be a massive hit….
Gwai Low, your lame comment gets a "time to tear you away from giving free blowjobs… out of 10"
"It's like a painting of cyborg dinosaurs equipped with rocket launchers and ridden by beautiful naked women…" — Hopefully that's Cameron's next film project.
LOL at your latest Tweet – 'I was expecting more hate blah blah". This was the review you had written in your head a year ago. You don't think anyone is …surprised, do you? I wish you had been big enough to let your petulant little feud with the movie go, but it wasn't to be. I thought your Star Trek bile and subsequent near-choking on crow would have taught you a lesson but no. Pineapple Express – 9 out of 10. 2012 – 7.5 out of 10. Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa. Dear Jesus.
Very interesting review of the marketing of the movie and some of the things Cameron said before release.
Philadelphia wouldn't pony up the money to keep Lee, who is the only real pitcher that team has!! And for Halliday instead?? Come on, people, doesn't this enrage more than a fat, hairy kid not liking Avatar?
I continue to be amazed by the hatred and panic a dissenting opinion will evoke. I'm also so very confused by people who simply HAVE to take sides in a non-argument. To paraphrase, it's "so glad to have Nick here to offset Devin's negativity" vs. "Way to go, Devin, you're the voice of reality in a sea of pro-Avatar gushing." What the fuck is going on? How does what one person likes or hates automatically make them a retard or a guru? My favorite is the guy above pleading with Devin about changing the score he gave the movie. Really? You can't live with someone else's Out-Of-10 score on a movie you haven't seen? What kind of insane fucking universe do we live in? Why is it so important that Devin shares your views? How does that possibly complete you? How does that possibly invalidate YOUR movie experience? "Man, I usually agree with Devin, but he gave Avatar a 6.5 out of 10, so now he's a DOUCHE." And who the fuck CARES if (IF) he had an anti-Avatar agenda going in. He saw it, he wrote about it, you read it. If you don't agree, tell us why. It's not a discussion about Avatar if all you can talk about is how much you can't stand Devin.
I find the Avatar phenomenon fascinating (without truly understanding it). Reading the boards on the IMDB, the talkbacks on Ain’t it Cool News and even the discussion on this review is interesting – what I don’t get is the insane level of passion. I share the view with many that Cameron was scared by his success on Titanic and felt the pressure to have his next film be a hit – especially after the king of the world speech at the academy awards (even though that in and of itself is misquoted). The 600m domestic box office record is going to hold for a long time – Titanic was lightning in a bottle (the perfect collision of historical interest, disaster porn, and enough romance for the ladies). Personally, I have medium to low expectations for Avatar, I’m not a huge fan of 3D and the plot looks extremely derivative, but I still plan to see it. Cameron’s work (particularly Aliens) ranks among my most enjoyable film experiences. I would characterize myself as a Cameron fan, and I’m really into film overall, so I would think I’d be the demographic to be really excited about it. The insane excitement/defense of the film before it ever got released has been something to behold – either getting older and having kids puts life into perspective, or Avatar mania represents how the explosion of Internet fueled narcissism (facebook, Twitter) is making everybody think in black and white terms to stand out, and Americans remain desperate to find a phenomena to get attached to (Twilight, Harry Potter, Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods) to help redirect their thinking away from their own unsatisfactory lives. Somewhere there’s a good book opportunity lurking. Enough rambling, hopefully Avatar is a good time at the movies.
In this age of constant remakes/sequels/adaptations I honestly think its what's different about avatar that scares people. What movie ISN'T part of some archetype that has been done over and over again? How can so many butthurt fanboys whine about their comic adaptations not properly telling them the same stories again and then whine about Avatar not being "original"
Once again you take any oppurtunity to bag on King Kong. King Kong dazzled before, and it dazzles now. In effects, STORY, performance, and every other way. You, quite simply, are a useless petulant fuck. I wish you the worst.
I totally get being frustrated by Hollywood when it simplifies and exoticizes historical examples of oppression for the sake of a story, moreso when they send the white dude in to fix everything. It both minimizes the oppression and further victimizes the oppressed group.
However, if 12-year olds never had a catalyst for thinking about "the ugly truth to thanksgiving", or "freshmen (never) discovered Noam Chomsky", well, nobody is born old school.
The weird thing is, unfortunately, the interview assumes these things are universal. There are plenty of people older than 12 that could care less about the impact colonization had on natives (and continues to do so, I don't care who is president), and plenty of adults who think Glenn Beck is intellectual and Noam Chomsky is crazy.
I didn't expect a movie to come out anytime soon that blew my mind…I got that out of District 9 this year, so anything else is a bonus.
This is as thoughtful and well-written as any of Devin's reviews. I enjoyed reading it.
No offense, but I don't think anyone is taking this review serious no matter HOW well it's written. There isn't anyting that wasn't written MONTHS AGO. Go watch Punisher War Journal or whatever other shitty movie you gave a better grade too…
'Hey let's put some smurfs on the rack and then they can shoot bows and arrows at Matrix machines.'
Actually, reminds me of Ewoks vs. The Empire. But Ewoks are cute.
Good review, Devin. I don't know why it's a sin to critique a film based on it's story just like you would with any other film. Avatar doesn't get a pass just because it looks good. I love the fact that most of you are whining that he made up his mind before he ever saw the film when most of you are doing the same fucking thing. As for you Nick, when will you learn that you cause more harm than good by opening that bitter, infantile mouth of yours. Shut the fuck up already or at least figure out how to revert back to the Nick from the early CHUD days, you tantrum spewing prick failure.
"Tantrum-Spewing Prick Failure" is the name of my band. Also, go fuck yourself, Sleestak. You're a douchebag of the highest order. "OOOH! Look how cool I am! I can name myself after a woman's PARTS." I hate 12-year-olds.
One thing it is safe to do… is disregard the opinions of people who haven't seen Avatar yet. Their opinions are worthless, as the marketing has not captured the frisson of this film. At all. I also usually agree with Devin nearly on almost all of his reviews – but on this one, I can't help but completely disagree. I feel Nick has it spot on this time. Although, the biggest WTF aspect of this review is that it gets a lower score than 2012. Devin, WTF! 2012? Really? That film was colossally stupid, with almost zero engagement… Avatar at least had honest character motivation for it's leads (especially Sully). I also disagree that Colonel Quarritch is as two dimensional as you suggest – it's right there in the scene where he meets Jake – the planet kicked his arse on the first day he arrived, and now he's determined to show that motherfucking planet who's boss (and chew scenery like a motherfucker). I like to think I'm reasonably film savvy – and Avatar completely swept me in its glorious CGI arms and carried me away. I didn't want it to end.
Nick I understand why you posted what you did but Devin sets his own tone. It's not like he never make personal attacks or calls groups of people names. He flames a lot of people and prides himself on getting peoples backs up. It's a bit rich to now act as if Devin is Above it all and doesn't do anything to warrant the reaction he gets at times.
Having said that he has gone to easy on avatar. I cannot believe people like this shit. And I am not a prerelease hater. I was behind it one hundred percent but it's a complete pile of garbage. The action is terrible the acting is hilarious and the script is fuckiNg inane. Maybe I havent seen enough films this year cos as it stand avatar is by far the worst. Anyone who hates phantom menace yet gives this a pass is mental. It's every but as bad as phantom menace. How can people complain as they always do about the over use of cg and then love this film. The film is an embarrassment and in the coming months people will see it.
"Noble Savage trope, a depressingly outdated white guilt construct that's as reductive and destructive as the standard racist Backwards Savage trope."
Okay, please tell me how saying the Native way of living is just as racist and destructive as the character type of them being murderous savages that only kill white men? Cause I can't understand how praising that way of life could be as bad as damning it.
Chinese Democracy took 15 years to make.
I hope this isn't its cinematic equivalent.
He gave the dark knight something like an 8.5 and rated 2012, a movie that never claimed to be a "gamechanger," a higher rating than avatar because it was never self-proclaimed to be this remarkable filmic achievment.
Out of all the movie critics on the web, Faraci is certainly one of them.
I think we should all look at comment #44 again, because it was GENIUS!
The talkback boards following Devin's reviews would make for a really interesting psychological study. Plenty of the folks who have posted here have been reasonable and intelligent with their opinions and views, but far too many seem to have a need to pick a side – it's as if everyone must either love this movie or hate it. The attitude is clear – agree with me and be my friend, but disagree and you're a mouthbreathing mongoloid who should never reproduce. Really? This is what cinema means now? It's film, people. It's a movie, not life or death. Devin is allowed to have his opinion (as well as his own style of expressing it) just like everyone else is. There's no such thing as a right or wrong opinion; it's OK to like the movie just as it's OK to dislike it. And if you believe that liking (or not liking) a movie somehow makes you better than other people, that speaks volumes about your own insecurities. Being elitist about movies is a sad cry for help. They're meant to be enjoyed as entertainment, nothing more.
Saw this movie in Bangkok on iMax 2 hours ago and this review pretty much tells it like it is.
Giving it a 6.5 though is too low because even though it is cheesy and cliche' for the last 40 minutes, it is still a spectacle to behold.
I want to love AVATAR too, but I'm not gonna hate on Devin just because he didn't. I already think I'm gonna have issues with Worthington's soldier fighting against his own.
On another matter … 2012 was AWESOME. It knew exactly what it was: A preposterous disaster movie. And on that level, it totally delivered. It was funny and spectacular. It even knew when its own jokes were lame — it was like they were winking at the fact they were winking at the audience. Or something. What a shamelessly entertaining movie, with truly amazing effects.
King Kong was – and still is – awesome. I was a fence-sitter about Avatar until you made the comparison, and now I'm sold. I'm looking forward to it.
6.5 out of 10 is hardly a *terrible* review. Did you guys even read it, or did you skim down to only see what he gave it?
I guess it was an OK review. I think Devin takes things way too seriously sometimes. I usually respect his ability to have instant coherent thoughts about movies (as in, react to what he saw) but it seemed like here he just wrote again what he has been telling us for months (as in, his opinion was already formed, and nothing was going to change it).
If you can't get swept away anymore then it is time to find something else to do with your life. You've lost the edge, you're hanging on too tight. Your ego is writing checks that your body can't cash. What are we going to do with you? I've got to send you to Miramar.
Umm…so what would have changed the game Devin? You said it yourself that he sets the standard for how 3-D should be used in the future and that he does it better than anyone has ever done it and that it isn't just done for spectacle. What else did you want the guy to do? What else could he have done?
65% = D. Pretty shitty no matter how you gussy it up.
No set visit = this review. But seriously, no one outside this webiste gives a shit what Devin thinks anyway so who cares? No one cares what some bitter, late 30's ugly as fuck internet critic thinks about a movie thats going to make a shitload of money.
law of averages people.. take Nicks love gush review and Devins overly realistic review and you've got a review everyone can agree on.. haters and lovers are eventually going to see this movie, you have no choice, you watch movies, sooner or later this will be on your tv sets..
My sister's boyfriend works for a theater and they saw Avatar last night. They said it was awesome, and compared it to a live action Ferngully. If awesome and Ferngully can fit in the same sentence for you, then you should be excited. Now if only Avatar's villian was a sentient smog cloud with the voice of Dr. Pool, it would be the perfect movie.
Nice to see Devin is as off-base with his reviews as usual.
Idiot.
Nice review Devin. I enjoyed reading your exploration of the various elements of the film. Though I myself was captivated by the visuals of the movie, I can completely understand the perspective of someone who didn't dig it. Interesting insight sir.
3D or don't bother. It's a theme park ride. Lang/Quarritch is the only pulse in the movie and he's a total cartoon. If it had the strength of it's aesthetic convictions and influences it would have featured a glorious Prog Rock score and even more glorious big blue alien boobs.
After seeing it last night I couldn't agree more with the review posted above. The last couple of reviews of Faraci's I have taken umbrage with, but this one just pretty much hits the mark. I think those who are praising it to the highest summit of filmmaking are just drinking spiked kool-aid. The visuals are stunning, but the story and the characters are mostly hackeneyed and laughably generic which is a shock to me for someone who wrote Aliens, one of the most character rich screenplays ever. There's nothing that we haven't seen before. I thinks its embarassing personally that one can spend 500 million dollars and 15 years of r&d and come out with a theme park ride instead. It'll make money, but not as much as people are hoping. The scant applause last night told me the tale. In IMAX no less.
This is closer to the mark than Nick's take.#118 is right. 3D or skip it. 7 out of 10 is the best I could give it.
Devin, while I often marvel at your insights -especially when they coincide with mine- I am diametrically opposed to your views in this instance (supposing opinions form a neat circle, not some haphazard scattershot of chaos). The only thing I didn't like was the 3D, not matter how well framed it was. I felt it was too much for a film this visually dense and detailed. The other nitpicks, like the storyline are "dust in the wind" to quote a certain Nunziata. Truly, the ecosystem is the experience. CGI has never looked better (and I generally hate CGI, even Gollum had some "unreal" shots). Avatar is the shit: that rare passage of a comet in your image-saturated life and hype-filled existence which tend to blot out the stars. I say this but I was a skeptic beforehand: thought the trailers looked blah and didn't like half of the cast. Now, I am elated and I want to find a place where it's not showing in 3D. Avatar is on par with Abyss and Aliens, which is to say, Cameron's best IMO. I also feel like you're just being a tad dishonest: this is light-years ahead of King Kong, more in Middle Earth territory. It's Mononoke good. 2001-ish wonderment. Are you sure you're not being a tad obstinate in your verdict?
Anybody else surprised Devin even knows who Chomsky is?
Ya, 6.5 was way too hard for this movie.
6.8 at LEAST.
I couldn't help feel I was watching the Mummy IV. New monsters, new special effects, and not caring in the slightest who lives or dies. Enjoyed the review, Devin.
Devin Faraci: The man who loved Terminator Salvation and hated Avatar.
Sucks to be you.
Spot-on Review. Good Job Devin.
I was ready to rip Devin. His review, while maybe a tad harsh, is pretty much correct. I didn't care at all what was going on.
I still like King Kong. Very much.
It was a very well written review, but I still can't understand your one-man-hate-campaign.
My take on Avatar? An incredible experience, but, I'll admit was boring/cheesy at times too.
Fuck yeah, I'm biased & will get behind Jim Cameron anytime. The dude had an impossible dream & made it happen. And how can anyone not get a kick out of hammerhead rhinos?!
I guess I'll post here since the forum will never let me register (apparently a mod will approve it but they never seem to). Anyway, Avatar absolutely blew me away. I felt a sense of wonder at cinema that I haven't felt since Fellowship of the Ring and before that, I can't even remember. There's a lot of talk about effects and all that but I just felt totally wow'ed at being transported to another world, then subsequently thought about it all the way home. To get a glimpse of a world like that (which may or may not exist somewhere, though that's for another forum) was just mind blowing to me. Will this still be amazing in 20 years? Probably not but yesterday when I sat in the cinema and watched it, I had my breath taken away.
"Making Jake's journey to their side feel like the actions of a freshman who just discovered Noam Chomsky."
Because that's really a simple and obvious cliche isn't it? No, no it isn't. In fact it's been quite a long while since Chomsky has gotten any real recognition in the media, he's kind of obscure to be honest. But I don't think that cliche even exists at all in the real world. I also don't think there'd necessarily be anything wrong about it if it did, except if that Freshman were a total idiot who could be easily swayed by critics calling Professor Chomsky a Pol Pot apologist.
I guess what I'm getting to is that you feeling like you are somehow more informed politically, or capable of making better decisions because you're not just now learning that Master sailor Christopher Columbus committed mass genocide, doesn't change the fact that there's a lot of sadly misinformed and poorly educated masses out there that still haven't gotten that message.
Your review sounds like much of what I expected from this film, but you're better when you're not coming off as an elitist dick Dev.
Since when has Devin NOT taken up the position of being an elitist dick? This guy knows everything and you're a fucking retard, didn't you know? Even with the ones who agree with him, he still finds a way to belittle them.
It's jus' a subconscious way of advertising green religions. Something that's being unveiled now, for it's hoax. Enjoy the fluffy-warm feeling whilst ya can!
I agree, its the impression Ive gotten from everything Ive seen about this movie. If you like the blue people and find the shinny Pandora visuals impressive you'll have a great time, if you find them silly (as I do) then you wont like it cause the story and characters arent that interesting to begin with.
The only person that I know that liked this movie is 27 years old – he plays Magic the Gathering and World of Warcraft. He dressed up as Snake Eyes for Halloween. He loved Alien vs. Predator and collects X-Men comics. He doesn't enjoy sports.
There is no story line. The acting is terrible. The movie looks better than anything I have ever seen. Corny. Preachy. Hypocritical. I think I saw that blue thing's nipple. I focused on that for most of the film. That's it.
Great review. Thank you for being honest. Most critics are cowards.
Yes, many critics are cowards for giving in to Cameron's hundred million dollar marketing campaign. Shame on you, Roger Ebert. But then, you already sold out a long time ago…
I didn't come away with those sentiments. By the way – the movie made global ticket sales of $272M over the weekend. Which is close to recapturing the $350M production costs, and $150M marketing costs.
I think if you want to appeal to a broad audience (to recoup such a large investment), you have to be slightly more formulaic in story. James Cameron is only concerned about over dramatization and special effects to re-create fantasy worlds.
Titanic
Terminator
Aliens
Avatar
This bloggerr would get pissed off at a Monet painting because it wasn't real enough. He might say soemthing like – "What's with the impressionistic crap, and why can't I see the optical illusion?" etc. etc.
The biggest genius here is that Cameron has proven that a movie of this production quality can be a sustained and profitable business. Like all of his other movies – they were ground breaking and paved the way for others to take equivalent risks with capital. Even with the watered down plot, there are some great concepts for the world at large. Concepts that are much better than a self proclaimed son of god that walks on water and has an endless basket of fish. I particularly like the idea of a singular tree being a neural network, and governing the balance of life. Or that energy is neither created or destroyed.. but borrowed. Very simple concepts – and easily digested by the global audience. Avatar is a modern day fable I can get behind, especially with its release on Christmas weekend.
i found avatar very underwhelming. the 3d gimmick was distracting and the story elements were cribbed from countless better ones. i spent the last 1/3 of the film hoping the predator would show up and kill everyone. including me.
ref to comment # 27
totally agreed
I agree. It seems like Devin can't make up his mind about whether he loves a movie or hates it. This is the internet; either a movie fucks your eyeballs out of your head, or it's the worst thing since AIDS. A middling review that likes some things and dislikes others is far too complex, and has no place on the internet.
Worst review ever. Don't kid yourself, you gave this a bad review BECAUSE of how much it cost and the hype it was getting. Way to be an unbiased professional.
"Critics" like you infuriate me. When you criticize someone's film/story in this manner, it makes me wonder, "why in the hell are you just a film critic for a minimally visited website?"
Why aren't you a cutting edge screenwriter or director or both who makes films that revolutionize storytelling? How can you criticize AVATAR in this manner unless you have your own scripts or films to show how easy it is to do better? I would LOVE to see you write a better script, and that's not me saying AVATAR is the greatest film of all time. I have my likes and dislikes, of course, but I'm not derogatory in my "criticism." I don't have a snide point of view toward it that indicates how simple it would be to tell a story that's vastly better.
I would love, love, love Devin for you to back up statements such as, "I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the heavy handed messages, the predictable plot points and the tiresome mysticism."
If you can criticize in this manner, surely you could hang up your critic hat and put on a filmmaker one and blow us all away with your ability to tell perfect stories … especially with how much you've learned by trashing the accomplishments of others.
You should focus on a more constructive tone in your reviews instead of condescending slander that does nothing but show everyone exactly why you're a critic for a mediocre website instead of a groundbreaking filmmaker. If it's so easy, let's see you do it better.
If you don't plan to try screenwriting and/or directing yourself, work on altering the tone of your reviews.
I thought that Devin's review was excellent, personally would have rated this film much lower it's a 5 at best.
I think it was a beautiful film with a universal message. I really couldn't find a thing wrong with it. I've seen it 3 times.
Devin was far too kind. This movie is utter shit and 3-D is a joke of a gimmick.
Hey, I think Devin is a self-absorbed ass with little or no talent for the one job he seems remotely capable for, but even I'll admit he's right on this review. The 'plot' of this movie is ridiculous.
the plot is total garbage.. what do we use 'unobtanium' for? our planet is dying and we're wasting time and resources mining a moon inhabited with life (does the film bother to mention life on other planets? wtf).. our first contact with advanced life and we do everything possible to avoid learning anything about it and everything in our power to destroy it.. sounds plausible.. so we're mining shit we don't need to survive (whats a dead planet going to do with metal no one can afford).. Sully and crew could of gone Return of the Jedi ewok-mcguyver style on the humans but instead he sends plenty of them to their death and saves the day alone with grenades.. lots of dumb in this movie, without 3D it would be an absolute travesty..
Devin can look past the 3-D unlike most people here.
Everybody who has seen the movie first words are "The Special Effects are awesome".When you watch TDK the first thing off your mouth is "HEaths ledger acting is amazing"
Cameron is just a better Michael Bay with even less story.
You people are a bunch of joyless bitches.
<Nelson> HA HA </Nelson>
"How can you criticize AVATAR in this manner unless you have your own scripts or films to show how easy it is to do better?"
Heh, Im pretty sure Ive read the exact same sentence in the New Moon comments. Whether they love Twilight or Avatar, all obsessed fans are the same in the end..
Execs at Fox are having a good time giving naysayers the holiday middle finger.
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/xx-8888
District 9 is much better. Has better visuals too
Its an honest an accurate review. Avatar isnt Dances With Wolves, its something much worse storywise – Dances With Wolves Lite: The Dumbed Down Version. If you want to see the "pocahontas" story with far, far more depth, better acting and richer story DWW is it. Thats a "Best Picture" film.
Sure Avatar was entertaining, fun, cool and looked great. Was the CG as seamless as the Prawns in D9 – no way. Sorry. Expressive yes, but there were times the physical mass just didnt feel right, more so in the body than the face.
Cameron does have a trump card though which was the best aspect of the film – the grand detailed tour of Pandora, its fauna, animals, landscapes and Na'vi culture saves the film.
Lucas dropped into the Star Wars Universe, Cameron guided us through a new world and shows us how it ticks.
The 3D I could do without. Aside from some cool floating computer displays, much of it still looks like my old ViewMaster from the 70s. This isnt how we see or perceive depth in real life. 2D film is actually closer, as 3D film is more of an over exaggeration visual "effect". Cool yes, real perception no.
@luiz — Not an obsessed fan. Like I said in my comment, Avatar has its fair share of problems. I have no qualms with anyone who dislikes it. It's when you review a film in such a derogatory, condescending manner, it begs the question: "think you could do better?" Because it sure seems like Devin believes it's soooo easy.
There's a culture of extreme malevolence and negativity toward films on the Internet, mainly in 2nd rate reviewer websites, blogs, and in the comments sections of sites like this. The ease with which "fans" criticize with such hostility seems to imply that the "reviewer" or "commenter" thinks he or she could easily write and/or direct a film that's a work of genius. A flawless film. A work of perfection.
It's easy to tear apart something someone's created, and I don't love every movie I see. There are a lot of movies I see and detest, but I'm respectful of its creator so I remain CONSTRUCTIVE in my criticism.
I challenge any one of you to write a screenplay that's better than AVATAR. Hell, I challenge any one of you to write a script that's better than INDIANA JONES & THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. If you could, you'd be a Hollywood millionaire right now instead of…whatever you are.
Have any of you acid-tongued commenters ever even tried to write a feature length movie? Take a crack at it. See how hard it is to create character, a world, environments … and then try to make each scene flow into the next so that it follows a logical progression and keeps a reader hooked page after page.
If you can do better than SKULL, I'd be utterly amazed. In addition, I would make it my personal mission to get in touch with every single Hollywood heavy hitter I could think of to deliver your script so you could become the next big thing.
So, again, dislike movies all you want. But until you write a script that's better, work on being CONSTRUCTIVE toward the film instead of verbally DESTRUCTIVE. If you can't back it up by example, you don't get to sound like you're some kind of expert filmmaker who could easily do better.
Sorry.
I wont debate the "tone" of the review, but I personally was shocked when I saw Avatar by how shallow the dialog and story were. The character development was very stereotypical. The connection and development of the two main actors was too abbreviated, too quick. The story literally goes from “You should not be here”, “to come with me”, from “I hate you”, “to I love you” in almost back to back scenes. As Devin notes, once people get off the ride, decompress from it and take a few steps back, these things will come into focus more. Also, I suspect many of the people who defend the film unconditionally probably have never seen any of the other films Avatar is derived and lifted from which have been noted endlessly. That alone disqualifies it from being best picture. Would I see it again, sure. Best picture of 2009? No way. Watchmen was much, much better. I still think D9 had better effects. As I noted, the aliens in that film were seamlessly integrated right down to the lighting, haze and grain of the natural environment.
Kudos to the reviewer for a balanced and informative assessment of this film. I am saddened when a piece of media with such an overwhelming bias becomes uber-popular because it will further polarize perceptions of our world and ourselves. There are virtually no situations in life that are so cut and dried as those depicted in Avatar and other equally dim films that the Hollywood Schlock Mill grinds out. I only wish that choices in my life were as simple as they are on Pandora where apparently everytime you eat a grape you must apologize to Mother Pandora and she forgives you. I firmly believe that films, especially popular ones are not merely entertainment but an indication of how the mass of our culture perceives their own situation. I am a liberal/socialist/environmentalist but am appaled at the overly simplistic comparison made between the virtuous dirt-worshipping Jenny Craig Navajo Elves and our own evil Donald Trump Imperialist Storm Trooper selves. Also predictable and boring.
Kong, for my money, was far better than Avatar. Good review, Devin.
I saw the film on Imax 3D last night. Just stumbled across this review and must say I agree with most of it. Avatar is an OK film in which the star is unashamedly the technology and you have to give Cameron and his staff a lot of credit for the skill shown behind the camera and the keyboard. In response to comment #154, I don't think criticism in this context ever "begs the question – could you do better"
All fine as far as it goes. It was just a shame that the characters and the narrative in no way match up to the visual treat on offer.
'When you criticize someone's film/story in this manner, it makes me wonder, "why in the hell are you just a film critic for a minimally visited website?" Why aren't you a cutting edge screenwriter or director or both who makes films that revolutionize storytelling?'
So from this person's position one can only criticize if one can produce something better. So I'm not allowed to criticize people who make say a computer that crashes every 5 minutes unless I could design a computer myself? Nonsense. Just like the computer a movie is a "tool" of sorts except in this case it exists for my entertainment. I don't need to be able to create one to state that a particular one doesn't fit my needs. Likewise I found very little to like about Avatar, even the visuals were kind of silly. I kept having to ignore all the poor science and technology. Furthermore it's not like the reviewer is asking for the world. Unless people are suggesting that Cameron used every iota of is ability to produce the visuals for this film that he had no strength to give it interesting dialogue or characters. We have all seen movies that have done more with less. Criticizing Cameron for doing less with more is hardly inordinate.
"The game is not changed" This should have been at the top of the Scott Pilgrim ass kissing review.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.