Avatar
Sam Eagers checks out James Cameron’s latest..
“…the fourth highest-grossing movie of all time…”
Avatar arrived at the end of last year surrounded by a massive amount of hyperbole and unsurprisingly has already taken over a billion dollars globally, making it not only a must-see, but the fourth highest-grossing movie of all time.
For those of you who don’t know about James Cameron’s latest juggernaut, the film is set in 2154 on a planet named Pandora after the invasion of a big nasty corporation who attempt to try and secure the cutely named and vastly valuable ‘unobtanium’. The protagonist, ex-marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), replaces his dead brother’s role in an avatar programme, where he will take over a half-man, half-native avatar, to try and win and understand the hearts and minds of the 12 foot blue Na’vi, as well as moving their asses off the massive stockpile of unobtanium. In other words, the film could have been renamed ‘Smurfahontas’. Jake, who is disabled, initially does his duty for his psychopathic general and country, on the promise of getting his legs back, but soon ‘goes native’ as he falls in love, and this leads to predictable complications. As a plot, Avatar is very linear and predictable, and at times the writing is a bit clunky. However, it is easy to follow, with the not so subtle political references to ‘evil corporate America’, and is in no way a parallel to Iraq and America’s involvement in a war for a natural resource in a place where they’re not wanted. The film also could have done with some quite considerable pruning, as there are some sections which not only drag but feel superfluous because of their predictability. Despite all this, the plot is a simple enough vehicle for the actors to do a fantastic job of immersing the viewer into the world of Pandora.
“Giovanni Ribisi, however, appears to have a lot less to work with…”
Sam Worthington’s excels as the fish out of water ex-marine Jack Sully and Sigourney Weaver, as the experienced
hippy Avatar driver, is a good contrast to the gung-ho psychopathic general played by Stephen Lang, whose tactics again in no way resembled the Iraq war’s method of ‘shock and awe’. Giovanni Ribisi (as Parker Selfridge), however, appears to have a lot less to work with as any subplot he is involved in leads nowhere. At points there seems to be some movement toward characterisation- the envy he feels towards Sully, for example- but unfortunately nothing is ever fully explored.
The second paragraph about plot may read as largely criticism, and that’s because it is. Avatar is flawed, and could have done with a tighter script, and thus isn’t going to somehow change your life, or be the best cinematic experience of all time. However, it is, despite all this, a very enjoyable film. The above points mean that to get the most out of Avatar, the hardly designer 3D glasses should be donned. Despite looking like a tool, 3D does add depth and enhances immersion into the Avatar world. This is subtle 3D however, and perhaps disappointingly has none of the ‘reach-out-in-the-air-in-front-to-try-and-grab-something-you-can’t-see’. In spite of this, there are moments in the film that are spectacular to watch, and it is here you can see the ridiculous budget being well spent. Avatar certainly did well with 3D; however whether 3D will stand the test of time is another question. Most films, such as romantic comedies, will have no need for 3D, and the glasses only improved the film marginally. There are many differing schools of thought on this however, so it might be something for you to make your own mind up on.
In summary Avatar is good, but not amazing. The 3D aspect is the source of the hype, and time will tell whether it was just hype. People marvelled at Toy Story for its graphics, however it is now more fondly remembered for its wit and strong writing. 3D does improve the film, but not dramatically enough to make up for the 2D script.
Sam Eagers
Perhaps a film reviewer with a slightly better awareness of film and reviewing would be an advantage. When the reviewer says things are in no way a reference to the Iraq war, is he being ironic? It’s not entirely clear. The sentences are very clunky.
Agreed.
It doesn’t really say anything of worth… and also just to clarify, when you mention them ‘moving their asses’ which breed of donkey are you specifically pertaining to?
Cheers,
B H-S
Hiya – glad you both enjoyed the review – although if you thought it was badly written fair enough. Tom – the Iraq thing was sarcasm not irony. Admittedly tone is a problem over the internet, but I thought the large references to going into a foreign country for a natural resource would have been a clue to that point. I guess I was mistaken. B H-S – I didn’t realise the corporation wanted to move only one specific breed of donkey; what with Pandora showcasing many breeds in the film. My bad.
Sam
Dear Sam,
You do really need to learn how to properly critique a film before you post your inexperienced ‘judgements’ online. I can see that you have good intentions and you are trying to be original with your points of view, but having read other reviews by you, I can’t help but wholly un-trust your opinions on film. As Tom says, you need to have a better awareness of film before you can write a proper review. Plus, your heavy use of sarcasm just makes everything you’re trying to say even more unclear.
Thanks,
E
[...] Avatar | Durham21 [...]
It’s such a shame that reviews like these make it onto durham21. I’ve been reading on and off for my whole four years here, through all the site’s ups and downs – the past term has felt like such an improvement with well-written, well-researched articles and (almost always) intelligent comments (and even the occasional argument – great entertainment!!) Please don’t start letting the side down with this sort of slackly written slap-dashery.
Otherwise – big fan!!
Sam xx
Sorry to be a pedant Sam, but it’s my understanding that sarcasm is the humour that is derived from an employ of irony. Given that your ironic (now that we’ve established an intent that wasn’t actually clear in the original piece) comments weren’t funny, surely it’s just irony.
Other Sam (Sam V): I completely agree with your comments that D21 has vastly improved over the last term. It’s probably due to all the sponsorship money they seem to be getting from Pool on Facebook.
To those posting comments,
If you feel so enraged by Sam’s writing style please give him advice to avoid future abuses. Remember that we are all still students thus we are always willing to learn! My advice would be to make your reviews less informal and read up on other reviews of the same film to help you with structure.
James
Are there any other film reviewers? Sam seems to be the only one. I think the comments haven’t been unfair… and helpful criticism has been made like emily’s. D21 shouldn’t be putting stuff like this up, not when there must be other, more knowledgeable people who can review films.
Are there any other film reviewers? Sam seems to be the only one. I think the comments haven’t been unfair… and helpful criticism has been made like emily’s. D21 shouldn’t be putting stuff like this up, not when there must be other, more knowledgeable people who can review films for the site.
Heya – its seems I’m getting ridiculously burned here (and re-reading the second paragraph prehaps deservedly so), so I will leave with this –
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/?critic=creamcrop#contentReviews.
My opinion is not entirely out of line with the majority of reviewers, as they agree that avatar is good, but flawed and thus not quite the second coming of jesus on film. That was my point, as the plot is in no way originial, despite it visually being good fun and well acted. Anyways – thanks James for the constructive criticism.
Does ‘hyperbole’ even work in your first sentence?
I think you just mean hype…
Anyway, as has been said before, this review is an effort to read, and things like this really should be proof-read before being published.
I would say keep up the good work, but this is appalling.
Harsh, but true.
xx
Just be happy people have commented on yours Sam, no one has on mine that I wrote before christmas!
J
I think this has got a little out of hand! Aggressive commenting will just make everyone less likely to contribute articles and we don’t want that – what would we do without hilarious pull-quotes like:
“Giovanni Ribisi, however, appears to have a lot less to work with…”
Jeeezzzsss it’s over the top, abusive and unnecessary comments like most of the above that make you wonder why Sam dosen’t just extend the middle finger and say ‘fuck ya, you write something then you miserable shits’..
RB:
If that is in any way directed at me, I’ll have you know that I’ve written a fair amount of critically acclaimed material in my time, so such an answer would be both immature and totally unproductive.
Criticism is always helpful on some level, constructive or not. The former is, of course, more valuable, but this doesn’t negate the latter. Most of the comments here are constructive, and Sam should, and most likely will, take them on board so that he’s not destroyed on here yet again.
If he doesn’t improve, I’m sure he’ll realise that not everyone was meant to write reviews.
You have the voice of an angel. I also agree with this, I think if students want to write then they should learn to take a beating and here’s to Sam’s next review! May it be well informed and good!
Ho Ho. Haven’t seen the film, but enjoyed the review. “3D glasses, 2D plot” was a rather nice summing-up. Other nice moments included the description of the 3D in practice and the “Smurfahontas” line, which raised an appreciative nasal exhalation.
Glad to see the comments heating up again. The new header is jolly nice too!
Leave your response!