How about this for starters: $2.7 billion. Is this enough money for James Cameron? no. it was released in Imax 3D AGAIN before it's quickly approaching release on DVD. Is this enough money for James Cameron? no. Shortly after releasing it on DVD, he plans on releasing it on DVD AGAIN, this time in 3D. Is this enough money for James Cameron? no. This summer, the extended edition of Avatar will be released in 3D AGAIN in select theaters. Does this movie deserve all the hype, money, and acclaim that it's getting? don't be silly. of course it doesn't.
Now, I don't mean to bash this movie, it really was very good, but I have some serious problems. Here's 10 reasons why Avatar isn't all it's cracked up to be:
Number one, what's up with "unobtainium" the super-rock that Cameron's obviously corrupt version of humans are trying so hard to get? what's so special about it? "This is the reason we're hear. because this little rock sells for so-and-so billion dollars." Why? Why would somebody pay so-and-so billion dollars for the rock? what does it do? This lack of motivation makes the human side seem very weak and trivial. sure, they're powerful, but nobody really knows why they would use their power against the Avatars. too much vague subject matter makes for a weak story.
Number two, what was the significance of Jake Sully's brother? Sure, he was the one that signed up for the mission and trained to be an Avatar, but why not just have Jake be the one signing up? His whole character was based around a crippled marine that works himself to death because he's convinced that he can pass any test a man can pass. If he's so hearty and self-motivated, doesn't the fact that he didn't actually sign up weaken his character? I understand that Cameron wanted Sully to be in a position where he knew nothing about the culture or the Avatar, but character should always take precedence over story. Story can be tweaked to fit the characters, but characters can never be tweaked. No matter how strong the story is, weak characters will always make for a weak movie. don't believe me? Pirates of the Caribbean. Enough said.
Number three, this movie was way way way to colorful near the end. I'll admit, it had two or three super-dark spots, but the cinematography didn't flow with the story. Luscious green, piercing blue, vibrant orange.. these are happy colors. The movie was 70% happy, and 30% despair, where was the despairing colors?
Number four, Cameron's version of humanity was obviously corrupt and untrue. I refuse to believe that even in 1254 (although never said out loud in the movie, the date is on Sully's video log) humans will be so far gone that they will forcibly kill an entire culture to get a really nice rock. A lot of hype has been going around that this is supposed to parallel the colonists treatments of the Native Americans, but we certainly never went as far as to obliterate an entire culture, destroy an entire religion, and desecrate natural marvels to get at a rock. While humans are innately sinful, that doesn't mean that all humans except for a rare 4 or 5 are completely evil, greedy, selfish, and destructive.
Number five, what was up with the Na'vi's religion? Although Cameron may have intended it as a parallel religion to Christianity, there were some serious problems with it. First of all, Eiwa, their god, "only fought for the balance of life" and "didn't take sides." For one thing, in order to protect the balance of life, Eiwa would NEED to take a side, and for another thing, this is completely contrary to Christianity. Also, supposedly they could only communicate to their god by connecting their hair to the "holy tree", but when Sully prays for Eiwa to take a side, he is certainly not connected to Eiwa. In addition to this, the god is presented as not only a belief, but a real fact. When Grace (played by Sigourney Weaver) dies, her last words are, in essence, that their god is real, and that she is with their god. Not good.
Number six, the whole "I see you" thing was way way overplayed. After he learned it's meaning from Norm (played by Joel Moore) it could have possibly been brought up once, or MAYBE twice in the movie, but was referenced at least 5 more times in the movie. by the time he says it to Neytiri the last time, it has completely lost it's effect. Cameron could have done better than that, agreed?
Number seven, can the Avatars survive without their human counterparts?? This seemed to be apparent since their consciousness seems to oscillate back and forth, and when Sully begins to die, his Avatar follows suit, but when Norm's Avatar is killed, he seems to live on. What? how did that happen?
Number eight, everybody insists that this movie was 13 years in the making. not exactly true. While this movie took a titanic effort (no pun intended) to create, it was actually shelved for nearly 10 years while Cameron waited for technology to catch up. In other words, this movie took 3 years to make, and 10 years to wait. oops, nobody seems to have noticed. Maybe it's just easier to assume that this movie is more spectacular than it really is.
Number nine, what about the characters? so many opportunities to build strong characters were passed up in order to make a story. I'll say it again: A strong story with weak characters is a weak story. Emotions turned on a dime, and most of them were completely unfounded.
Number ten, the dialogue was lamentable to say the least. One character ONLY says "Come get some!" the entire movie. I was happy when he died, because I cringed every time he said it. Moods in the movie turn on a dime, especially Colonel Miles (Stephen Lang) who goes from loving to hating Sully in the space of about 3 seconds when Sully says he has a way to fix Miles' problems. What? why does this make him so angry? All the army characters said nothing but "army-esque" lines, none of the Na'vi said anything but Native American sounding lines, and, in short, if you were to watch the movie without dialogue, you would be able to guess every line spoken. No surprises, no clever one-liners, no character-building dialogue, nothing. I am disappointed.
So, with these 10 reasons why Avatar was not-so-great of a movie, why should you see it? in short, it was beautifully directed. If you're looking for pure spectacle, either see Avatar, or 2012. Cameron is a talented individual, he just apparently payed no attention to any other production elements other than graphics and direction. To summarize, this is an ugly movie standing on a weak foundation, covered by a oh-so-beautiful mask.
Did you intentionally skip #9?
ReplyDeleteooops sorry thanks
ReplyDelete