Do I even need to tell you that there are spoilers here?
Avatar Thoughts:
1. Did you know that “imperialism” is bad? I had no idea until I saw this film!
2. A few little ironies I picked up on:
a.) Ultimately, I get the sense that this film toyed with the theme of “technology vs. nature,” with nature winning out. So, nature is the ideal. Kind of ironic coming from the most technologically advanced and expensive film in all of cinematic history.
b.) The film portrayed the Na’vi people as in the right. Again, they were in touch with their environment and nature. The bad guys in the film were the humans who moved in on their territory and wanted to trash things, with their technology, for their own purposes. So, if the Na’vi are so inherently good and in tune with their planet, and the humans are bad, and the theme of this film (well, one of them) is that imperialism is a force of evil, then what is the film trying to say by having a HUMAN infiltrate the natives, thus becoming their savior?
3. I was never entirely sure of Jake Sully’s intentions, at least not until he found “love.” He agreed to play “mole” for the intense military dude (who I just found out is named “Colonel Miles Quaritch” – thanks IMDb!) before Col. Quaritch even offered to get him his legs back. Was it due to some misplaced sense of loyalty? This is the only reason I can think of to explain his allegiance to Quaritch.
Once he is promised new legs, I still can’t understand why he is willing to play double agent. At the beginning of the film, when they offer Jake his brother’s position (and avatar), they also make it very clear that they will pay him handsomely. This is seemingly why he decides to do it (any other reasons I could infer would be mere speculation about a supposed sense of loyalty or family or redemption that Jake might have, and that was never explicitly – or even implicitly – stated).
Towards the beginning, in the supremely annoying voice-over narration, Jake mentions that surgery to correct his paralysis (or new legs) is very expensive, and he can’t afford it on his veteran’s pay. But, if he’s getting paid a handsome sum to join the team as his brother’s replacement, couldn’t he then pay for his surgery? And then wouldn’t it be unnecessary for him to rely on Quaritch to get the surgery for him? So, maybe at first he’s a double agent because he used to be a Marine himself, and Quaritch pandered to him, and he didn’t really want to align himself with the icky icky scientists.
But how does that explain his continued two-facedness after he’s infiltrated the Na’vi, made friends with Dr. Grace and Norm and the rest, and fallen in love, or at least intense friendship, with Neytiri? I could literally think of no better reason than, “He does it because if he didn’t, then we couldn’t move the plot forward, so just shut up and deal.”
4. Far, far too many of these characters are mere caricatures. Colonel Quaritch is every other overbearing, stubborn, narrow-minded, conquering, macho military villain who has ever appeared in any narrative throughout the history of the world. He’s beefy, he doesn’t like them tree-huggin’ softies, he feels a sense of entitlement (think “The White Man’s Burden”), and he likes to down a cold beer with his studly colleagues. Yeah, that’s never been done before.
You can just tell he eats testosterone for breakfast. Look at them scars.
Then there’s Michelle Rodriguez’s character, Trudy, who seemed to only exist to throw out little sound-bites. She reminded me of this bit on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, where Jimmy will pretend to be filming a commercial for something, and the entire skit will be him in costume, saying these increasingly obtuse one-liners. More specifically, he once did it for the newest Call of Duty game, and so he cast himself as a soldier in the game, and he’d just say things like, “You gotta watch out for flying rocks,” or “A man never knows when he’ll be called upon to eat an ice cream sandwich.” Complete non sequitars that still kind of made sense, because it was for a video game and who cares? That’s basically what Trudy was put in the movie for.
Then, there was the nerdy guy, the ball-busting lady boss with a heart of gold, the greasy, greedy civilian businessman, the eccentric native seer, the warrior princess… all are present. All have been seen before. None were developed any further than these surface descriptions.
Xena, Warrior Princess, during her “Blue Period.”
5. For a good majority of Avatar, I felt like I was watching an older animated film from my childhood. It’s pretty mind-boggling that people are drooling all over a film whose closest relatives in narrative would be the sub-tier Twentieth Century Fox cartoon FernGully: The Last Rainforest, and the minor Disney animated “classic,” Pocahontas.
Think about it. A cocky young man and his fleet of equally cocky white, male humans touchdown in someone else’s territory, ready to conquer. There’s a young lady, probably the daughter of the leader of their tribe of natives. She’s confident, but a bit of a dreamer, a troublemaker, and more open-minded. Something happens that leaves the cocky young man in the care of the natives, and he finds an ally in this spitfire of a girl. Eventually, he will learn that these people aren’t so bad, in fact, their way of life and respect for nature (they always respect Mother Nature) is admirable, the ideal.
But, his old colleagues are closing in, and his allegiance will be tested. Will he return to his homies and fulfill his original plans and obligations? Or will he follow a new, enlightened path with this manic pixie dreamgirl who he has probably fallen in love with? Your guess is as good as mine.
Alternate Title for Avatar – FernGully 2: FernGullier
Picture this, but blue. And 10 feet tall. And on a different planet. And fewer raccoons.
6. I found a very strange, slightly disturbing rape parallel in the scene where Jake and the other young Na’vi go to bond with the Ikrans. There was a whole, “pin ‘er down! Put ‘er in submission!” thing going on, and then he sticks his “ponytail” into the hole in the antenna thing on the Ikran. There was also the aspect of, “You’ll have a connection with the Ikran that’s yours, and you’ll know because it’ll try to fight you off, but that just means that you’re meant to be!” thing, which could be read as a parallel to that excuse tons of rapists use, “But her eyes said yes!” or whatever. So basically it was a positive view, and I was in a state of shocked horror the entire time I was watching it.
I was also irritated by the abandonment of Jake’s original Ikran when he went and conquered the giant dragon. I fully expected it to come out and save Jake’s butt or something during the final battle, at least. Instead, this animal that he had this deep (somewhat inappropriate) bond with was completely forgotten. He traded her in for a new model. Of course, it was supposedly “necessary” to do this so that he could get back in good standings with the Na’vi. I get that. But that doesn’t stop me from wishing that they’d given his original Ikran some kind of conclusion, wrapped up its story and all that.
7. I am completely surprised by how few people (particularly people who are in the business of critiquing films) are remarking on just how awful the script for Avatar is. It features some of the clunkiest, wooden dialogue I have heard on screen since Anakin waxed idiotic about his sand problem in Attack of the Clones. Seriously. I mean, in the trailer alone we hear, “You’re not in Kansas anymore.” Hmm… that’s completely original, right? I bet it means that they’re in a new place! A place that’s different than the places they’re used to! Whodda thunkit?!
8. Aged, predictable plot, clunky dialogue, flat characters with convoluted motivations, and lengthiness aside, I’d say that people should go see Avatar. James Cameron gives the film an energy that makes it fairly easy to get from the beginning to the end, and still maintain interest. It’s also a very beautiful film, and there’s a lot I saw in it that I’ve never seen on film. It’s the most expensive film ever made, and that is made abundantly clear on screen. At times, the lines between CGI and reality were blurry. If you have even a passing interest in the technology of film and the future of cinema, you’ll want to see Avatar. But, if you’re like me and you prefer films with complex characters, real emotionally genuine moments, and thought-provoking themes, then I doubt that Avatar will be one of your new favorite films.
My grade: C


18 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 25, 2009 at 5:13 AM
nurulash
i think u just said whats on my mind about this movie…THANK YOU! lol
December 26, 2009 at 6:18 AM
leeraloo
You’re welcome! Good to see that someone agrees, because 99% of people are peeing their pants over this film, and I do NOT understand why. It’s like I watched a different movie than everyone else did.
January 10, 2010 at 4:21 AM
frikn
one important question .. did you see the film in IMAX 3d????
January 10, 2010 at 4:42 AM
leeraloo
No, it wasn’t available in my area in IMAX and 3D. No amount of awesome visuals would make the characters more rounded, the dialogue less cheesy, or the plot more original, though.
January 10, 2010 at 5:43 AM
damian
first off:
if you really break it down, everything is cheesy … life is cheesy … what matters is do you feel the characters or not … and the IMAX 3d technology in combination with Cameron’s glorious Pandora world created an environment that enables the viewer to connect more strongly to characters that would be normally regarded as ‘cheesy’
some of your thoughts make sense … you’re dislike for typical characters is obvious and warranted … some of your thoughts however are completely absurd … like the fact that you connected the Ikran scene to a rape … there is absolutely nothing sexual in this scene … the ‘ponytale’ is simply a means of understanding one another … and through this understanding unfolds a ‘bond’ … it’s like training any animal, they need to know who the ‘alpha’ is … by alpha i mean ‘leader’ .. and with a ‘flying raptor-esq’ animal, i’m afraid you’re going to have to use some force.
another note, if they would have brought back jake’s origonal ikran in the end, as you suggested, that would have been the cheesiest part in the whole movie … so there ya go, you would have ruined the film … you are assuming of course that the bond with the original ikran is dissolved … well who is to say that?? the ‘trade in’ theory is simply your own assumption and therefor doesn’t work
2a- also, there is nothing ‘ironic’ about an expensive and technical film portraying nature in the ideal … the technology simply enhances it’s intentions as a film …
2b- makes absolutely no sense at all … all you did was identify the good guys and the bad guys …
this film was actually very thought provoking … it took a major stab and the troops, george bush, and America’s intentions in general … lets face it, not understanding each other is the number one problem in the world today …
it seems that whoever wrote this review was (a) raped and (b) just some random joe (or sally) who is unable to tie their observations together to one main point … the critique really never went anywhere … seemed like a bunch of random observations … you can talk all day about where the film ‘should have gone’ but bottom line, the film works … and i think garbage movies like transformers II and Terminator Salvation helped this movie to shine …
January 10, 2010 at 7:04 AM
leeraloo
First off, no I’ve never been raped. It just hit me half-way through that scene that I could draw some parallels between what was happening on screen and how I think a rape may play out (although, quite honestly, it’s degrading to rape victims to imply that there’s anything stereotypical about their experiences, so I apologize if I suggested that). I did hear one or two other people mention that they drew the same comparison during that scene. It was an interpretation, it’s how I saw the scene, and that’s an opinion (and opinions can’t be wrong – though they can be absurd).
Secondly, there was absolutely nothing thought-provoking about this film, at least not by my definition. Perhaps you’ve never sat down and thought about America’s experience under Bush’s rule, or the implications of our presence in Iraq, but I have, as have most Americans (to a certain extent). To be “thought-provoking,” it would have to make me question my own beliefs and opinions, or make me consider something I’d not previously thought about. “Avatar” did none of those things.
Third, Cameron’s “glorious Pandora world” did not enhance my connection with the characters. At all. There was nothing particularly complex, deep, or interesting about those characters. Absolutely nothing that I felt a connection to, that I could identify with. This is the opposite of what I look for in films. I realize that’s not the case with everyone, but that’s why I’m personally not blowing a load over this film. And no, life isn’t cheesy. I use “cheesy” to mean “opposite of realistic.” It’s contrived. In certain spots throughout “Avatar,” the dialogue made me gag. That’s what I mean when I saw “cheesy.”
Finally, yes, this review was a bunch of random observations. In no way do I consider my reviews to be anything less than, “Oh, I just saw this film and I have a few ideas I want to write down.” I like putting things into lists to help me organize my thoughts. My film reviews rarely garner many views, and I mostly considered this “Avatar” write-up to be a means to suss out my own opinions. But I would disagree that I don’t have a main point. I think my main point was that this film is overrated. I won’t deny that it “works,” whatever that vague descriptor means, because it’s a story, and it looks good, and it was entertaining for most of the colossal two hour and 40 minute running time. But I don’t find it to be particularly engaging, thought-provoking, or complex beyond the technology it employs. If the only thing that makes a film “shine” is that it looks good in comparison to other crap, then something’s wrong. Held up against “Transformers 2,” I’m sure even “The Love Guru” would look like a good movie (and it sure as hell isn’t). So I don’t think that’s a valid criticism. At all.
January 10, 2010 at 5:58 AM
frikn
actually leeraloo, it is going to be hard to convince you of this … but … if you haven’t seen the imax 3d you really can’t know what i’m talking about … and you’re first impression has already been made so i’m afraid even if you did see the imax 3d i believe it really wouldn’t change your mind … i can only say that for me, the opening scenes ‘coming out of chrio’ had me instantly drawn in like no other movie had done before … this enabled me to drop my ‘movie guard’ … it is always on, very strong and hard to remove … i felt like i was inside the movie and could feel the characters much more … after this experience i don’t think i could even enjoy the movie on a regular 3d screen, regular 2d screen or dvd for that matter …. i would probably feel the same as you if i saw it regular 3d …
i’m a 27 year old male, very critical of most movies, and this was hands down the best movie experience i’ve ever had
January 10, 2010 at 6:43 AM
leeraloo
I don’t doubt that it was a good movie experience. I had enough fun with it. But I simply couldn’t engage with the characters or the story, and the dialogue left me cringing, and I just don’t see myself being able to get over that, no matter how neat it looked. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s how it is.
I do think that a lot of people had their mind made up about what they were going to think about this film before they even saw it. That’s what happens with these huge “event” films. I’ll grant you that I probably had my mind made up, however subconsciously, that I wasn’t going to find this film good unless it impressed me on the basics, or what I perceive to be good storytelling. It didn’t do that. I wasn’t a fan. I wouldn’t mind seeing it in IMAX 3D, but it requires much more effort that I am willing to put into it.
January 10, 2010 at 9:09 AM
frikn
naw you’re not wrong … just didn’t do it for ya … its all good … nothing can please everyone …
that’s interesting tho cause i had zero expectations … just wanted to experience some 3d for the first time … big disappointment for movies this year although i thought star trak was pretty tite
January 11, 2010 at 5:17 AM
leeraloo
Star Trek was one of the better ones this year, I think.
And though it’s not as good on a television screen, I suggest renting Coraline and watching it in 3D if you can. It was very interesting looking, and had at least a handful of really cool 3D sequences.
January 18, 2010 at 3:03 AM
The Perfect and Devine Embodiment of Dumb: Avatar » Toadsoup
[...] when the big bulldozers rolled up, my wife apparently wasn’t the only one who immediately thought of Fern Gully Posted by Toad, in Animated, [...]
January 18, 2010 at 3:08 AM
Todd
I liked your review of the movie. I agree with you all over the board. The flat cookie cutter characters bothered me a lot. I was also wanting some conclusion on the origional Ikran.
January 24, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Jessia
I dont really want to step on anyones toes but for Avatar not to have been a GREAT movie experience you would have to be nuts. I agree that seeing it in 3D enhances the connection to the characters but I would enjoy it completely on DVD.
Leeraloo i think you protest too much. Obviously if the movie has pushed you to write a blog about the movie, then it was enjoyable to a degree and it seems to have stuck with you in a way no other movie has this year. You have strong opinions and although I think your comparison with the Ikran and rape are sooooooooooo freaking off base that when I read that I had to punch my jaw back into place due to it hitting the floor.
I am female and what I saw on screen left me with absolutely no impressions of that whatsoever. Nothing sexual or any undertones at all were present. I know force sometimes turns people off, but be realistic people. Force is needed and used daily. Most people dont get all huffy about that.
The dialogue may not be totally stellar and incredibly witty…but Na`vi are a very basic community…you think they would be talking like that. what do they need of our language. This movie, to me, is about the experience the whole way. The movie wasnt created to keep fill your head with complicate garble and make you learn something new…..This was all about feeling.
You would have to be an unemotional twit not to have felt something when watching the movie unless you wanted to be different and tried not to connect with the movie…. Sounds like you wanted to not like this movie…and a part of me thinks Leeraloo that you enjoyed the whole experience….if you liked Star Trek and didnt find that dialogue absolutely stupid….then I dont think you should critigue Avatar.
Its all about expectations…that can make or break a movie when it comes to critigue. I think you went into the movie thinking it was stupid and the story was nothing new, and the creatures were dumb, thus you did not even open yourself enough to EXPERIENCE the movie the way it was meant to be.
My main thought on this film was: It was completely enjoyable, fantasic visual experience that left me thinking WOW! and that you felt Neytiri`s pain when her father died. (Everyone has lost someone close to them…and I havent seen acting that portraid sorrow so realistically….admit it, it touched you in some way.) I went in to keep an open mind and just soak it all in. Thus I belive you are right and I saw a very different movie then you because I went in to feel not to judge for a blog.
January 25, 2010 at 6:28 AM
leeraloo
I had not intention of writing a blog on “Avatar,” simply because I expected this kind of response. And you’re correct in saying that it stuck with me, but what stuck with me wasn’t the quality of the film. What stuck with me was how overrated it was. I think I saw it fairly early in its run, so I don’t think you could qualify this as “backlash.” What we need to realize here, and what many rabid fans of “Avatar” seem unable to accept, is that some people have different movie tastes. Some people put precedence on things like story, acting, characterization, plot, realism, attempts at establishing a theme or multiple themes, originality, etc., and we find it hard to ignore when a film doesn’t contain these attributes. But it’s not that I hate these type of popcorn flicks. I enjoyed “Titanic” enough (let’s use this as an example because it’s another Cameron film, another “stop thinking and enjoy it” blockbuster) because there was just enough characterization and originality and intriguing plot to keep me engaged. “Avatar” was not the same. I appreciated it as a milestone in the history of cinematic technology, but not even jaw-dropping images make a good film.
As for the “rape” comparison, I’m not changing my mind. I’ve heard people make this connection on their own, and I’ve had people agree with my assessment of the scene, so I know I’m not alone in thinking it. That’s the fun thing about interpretation and opinions – they differ from person to person; occasionally someone will agree with you, and oftentimes no one will.
As I think I’ve said previously on here, there’s no reason to not go see “Avatar.” In my review, I told people to go see it. It’s enjoyable enough, and I think it will prove to be historic. Do I like the direction I think its success will send the movie industry in? Countless over-expensive blockbusters in 3D, fewer human roles and even more CGI are not my bag. This is no secret. But I appreciate that we live in an age where these kinds of amazing technical feats can be achieved.
I just don’t think that it’s too much to ask that a film be multi-faceted. I’m not going to call a big budget blockbuster like this “good” unless it really brings it. It looked pretty and it was kind of fun, but the same can be said for a bag of M&Ms. I enjoy eating them, but they have no nutritional value, and eating too many of them could give me a big butt and cavities. Just like watching too many mindless – but OMG so pretty! – films can make you have low standards and undiscerning taste. It seems that people aren’t holding “Avatar” to lofty standards at all. There’s really nothing that irritates me more than the argument from casual filmgoers that says, “It’s just a movie, turn your brain off and enjoy.” Okay, I’ll enjoy it on a sensory level, but when I’m out of the theater and thinking back on what I just saw, I’m going to turn my brain back on and not give the film raving reviews unless it truly impressed me, on more than a “it looked pretty and that ONE SCENE was touching.”
As for “Star Trek,” I never said the dialogue was wonderful. But it certainly didn’t stink to high heavens like it did here in “Avatar.” “I see you” is the worst line of dialogue I’ve heard in a film in a LOOOOOONG time. Besides, “Star Trek” had more to offer than that – it looked good, sure, and it had good action scenes, but I was also impressed with the acting, the storyline, which was intricate but not confusing (and that’s a feat), and originality of the whole thing (it worked very well as an origins story, and it certainly wasn’t a stale rehashing of “Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas in Fern Gully”). True, if I had it to do again, I probably wouldn’t rate “Star Trek” so high. But I stand by my position that it’s a good film. Besides, it was a harmless summer film; it’s extremely unlikely it will garner the kind of serious awards attention that “Avatar” is having lauded on it in ridiculous amounts.
I feel sad for you that you’ve never seen acting that “portraid (sic) sorrow so realistically,” as in the scene when Neytiri’s father died. It was a CGI creature, so strike for realism. Besides that, I barely even recall that scene, so no, I won’t admit that it touched me in any way. I’ve lost people close to me, sure, but as far as movies go, that scene was nothing new. Perhaps if you truly want to see sorrow portrayed realistically (not necessarily in a death scene), you should see one of the following, if you haven’t:
-”Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” – Joel’s endless sorrow, and the lengths he goes to so that he can rid himself of it, were far more touching than any moment in “Avatar”
-”All the Real Girls” – When Noel tells Paul that she cheated on him, his reaction is gutting.
-”Harold and Maude” – Harold’s reaction to Maude’s death is both touching and inspiring.
-”Schindler’s List” – The entire film. Fairly undeniable that the Holocaust is going to trump “Avatar” in the sorrow department every time.
-”Up” – The first ten minutes alone packs more of an emotional punch than the whole of “Avatar’s” almost 3 hour running time.
See also: “Pan’s Labyrinth,” “Into the Wild,” “West Side Story,” “Dead Poets Society,” “E.T.,” “Dancer in the Dark,” to name a few. Seriously, watch “Dancer in the Dark” and whatever sorrow you perceived in “Avatar” will seem a complete joke. These are well-acted, mostly complex films that put “Avatar’s” half-hearted attempt at depth and real human emotion to shame. Argue that “Avatar” is good based on visuals and “wow” factor all you want, that’s fine. I understand that some people prefer that from the films they watch. But any argument that “Avatar” is exceptionally acted or written, or actually a touching emotional experience, just falls flat to me.
Once the technology that Cameron has pioneered here becomes de riguer, and more films are using it like it’s second-nature, and thus they become more legitimate, multi-layered works of art, people won’t pay “Avatar” any more regard than is afforded it due to its position as the forerunner of said technology. What I mean by this is that time won’t be kind to all these perceived notions of “Avatar” as a truly good film outside of its visuals. Until then, I suppose I should just get used to “Avatar” fanboys and girls ripping me a new one because I supposedly am a soulless person who had my mind made up that I was going to hate the film before I even saw it (even though I had absolutely nothing to gain by my hatred).
June 1, 2010 at 8:07 PM
rem
you are all crazy, the movie AVATAR was amazing, they created an entire world, one where they arent destrying their home. in the movie jake had said to aywa toward the end that the humans had destroyed their “mother”, and there was no green left. its a lesson. i dont know why everyone feels the need to ridicule this movie. and Neytiri isnt some trouble causing princess, she was going to kill jake when she fist saw him, but recieved a sighn from aywa, and when she asighned to teach him the way of their people, she wasnt thrilled about it. people need to get a grip, this movie was great, it was thrilling and i have never seen anything like it.
June 2, 2010 at 2:13 AM
leeraloo
Well, I had no idea that James Cameron visits my blog. Hey, Jim!
June 25, 2010 at 12:07 AM
changewinds
Hey, found your site, after listening to a podcast called “Speaking of Animation.” I am proud to be part of the apparent minority that did not feel the film was at peak of movie wonderfulness and had no desire to see it a second time. Yes, the animation and technology are amazing; having heard one of the animators speak, they obviously spent a lot of time on the details. I’d also recommend seeing it as a “turn your brain off and enjoy” movie (Who doesn’t indulge in guilty pleasures? Spiderman is another movie in the same vein. :p) But the story was forgettable, nearly laughable, and very cliche. I found a lot more emotional impact with “How to Train Your Dragon” and certainly “Up” wrenched you emotionally dry with their brief but powerful first 10 minutes. Your thoughts are quite insightful and you certainly bring up some points that I’d have to think on more. Just wanted to comment so that you know everyone’s not bashing you to pieces for criticising Avatar.
June 26, 2010 at 10:08 PM
leeraloo
Thank you very much. I think that it is reasonable to compare “Avatar” to films that are 100% animated, and it’s certainly telling that both “How to Train Your Dragon” and “Up” were a million times more original, emotional, competent, and enjoyable. I will admit that it’s a beautiful looking film, and I’m sure it opened up a lot of doors in terms of animation – particularly motion capture. It just really struck me that a film that was so innovative in the technical department was so stale in the story department.