Avatar (12A)

Film

Fantasy films

Avatar 2.jpg

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong>2/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong>3/5
Rate this  

Time Out says

Tue Dec 15 2009

There’s a line from ‘Jurassic Park’ that echoed hauntingly through this critic’s head as ‘Avatar’ unfolded: ‘Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.’ James Cameron is one of those scientists: so in love with the technology, with the possibilities, that he never pauses to reflect upon the practicalities of cinema, of storytelling, of connecting with an audience.

That quote is doubly relevant when one considers the cultural similarities between these two blockbusters, both of which justified massive expense by promising a quantum leap forward in visual effects. But where Spielberg utilised technology in the service of a tight, witty script, Cameron is simply out to astound. There are moments when you almost expect Sam Worthington’s moody, ever-present voiceover to be replaced by the self-styled king of the world yelling at his audience: ‘Are you awestruck now? How about now? Now?’

When his scientist brother is killed a week before shipping out to the distant planet Pandora, wheelchair-bound US Marine Jake Sully (Worthington) is offered the chance to go in his place. On Pandora, Jake meets his avatar, a remote-controlled host body generated from his brother’s DNA and designed to blend in among the native Na’vi, a race of nine-foot blue hunter-gatherers living in peaceful harmony with their homeworld, Native American style.

Or rather, Native Californian: Na’vi civilisation is a mishmash of half-formed Hollywood ideas about the supposed superiority of ‘primitive’ cultures, tossing around buzzwords like ‘spirit’ and ‘energy’ without ever approaching a cohesive set of beliefs. But ‘all this tree-hugging shit’, as Jake describes it, is only the most obvious defect in Cameron’s dire, cliché-ridden script. From the bluntly expositional nature of the early scenes to the gung-ho, sub-‘Aliens’ banter of Jake’s fellow soldiers, this is screenwriting on autopilot, cobbling together unripe ideas without a scrap of originality or emotional resonance.

It’s hard to fault ‘Avatar’ as an immersive visual experience. Pandora and its luridly coloured inhabitants are beautifully designed, though none of this ever feels remotely real. But this was supposed to be the movie that changed the face of filmmaking forever. Ultimately, Cameron’s signature achievement may have been to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the oldest of all Hollywood maxims: all the money in the world is no subsitute for fresh ideas and a solid script.
99+

Comments

Add +

Release details

Rated:

12A

UK release:

Thu Dec 17 2009

Duration:

161 mins

Share your thoughts
  1. * mandatory fields

Comments & ratings

Rated as: 3/5 (355 ratings)
  • They slag off these films because they're Film Buffs, and their idea of a good movie is a four hour number by an Iranian director featuring sheep sleeping in snow. there's also usually a hint of anti-Americanism, too. Spot the pretentious language and pompous lack of insight. Tell tale signs are the word "oeuvre" and "auteur". The truly perceptice critic has the ability to spot quality in popular art forms. These critics are incapable of that. And TH is prime in this pseud mode. The trick is to see what he condemns and then rush to see it!

    Bara Evans Thu Dec 24 2009
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • Two whole stars?! Are you insane, man? For this rubbish? This is a movie for morons. Mr. Huddleston, you have obviously drunk the BLUE koolaid.

    frank Thu Dec 24 2009
    Report
  • AAAHH!!!!! thank you Julian...another like minded sou. Ifpeople can not give a film like this more than 1 star then there lap tops and keyboards sholud be confiscated by the " WE DO NOT WANT YOUR SILLY GRADINGS FOR ACTUALLY REALLY GREAT VISUAL MOVIES,POLICE!" or something...5 stars all the way... i mean wtf do these silly comedies and kids annimations get if AVATER is only 5 star!! I agree that they should just stay at home!!!

    jockcelt Thu Dec 24 2009
    Report
  • why do people slag these films off???? and why call yourself the cinnergist if you want to be taken seriously?? This movie was 5 atr and stunning and here is why dopey. avatar ( like 2012 before it )is a vision fest,nothing more.An Eye widening jaw droping pleasure ride for the retina! dont compare a sprinter with a footballer or a cyclist with a racing driver.. all top sports stars are great.. It follows that lots of different styles of movies are also allowed to be great... A brilliant mind was a stunning film.but could one destroy its integretty because paul bettany did not explose midway through in a CGI eye popper? or Ed harris' spaceship was not big enough? and wher was russle crow's laser gun????????????? you get my point here,cinnergy being??? this was pushed as a visually stunning piece of movie art,just accept as such,I mean, even katie liked this ione!!

    jockcelt Thu Dec 24 2009
    Report
  • There is no there there if you look to film, movies if you will, if the only dimension of value is the visual. The disappointment is so much worse when so much goes into creating something so vapid in story and substance. Sad to say the least.

    DaveE Wed Dec 23 2009
    Rated as: 2/5
    Report
  • this film is so good how can anyone think its rubbish its the best film in the world i would pay more to see it again its 5 star for me. its brilliant absoloutly briliant .!!!!!!

    meg Wed Dec 23 2009
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • 1 of the best films ive ever watched, maybe in the best of its catagory (other than starwars)

    Adam Newby Wed Dec 23 2009
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • Re The Cynnergist..............................I rest my case, and I'll now go and have another beer!

    Richard Wed Dec 23 2009
    Report
  • Agree completely with Josh. You expect brain-at-the-door movies with Roland Emmerich (2012, Day After Tomorrow, Independence Day), not so much with James Cameron (Titanic, T2, Aliens, Abyss, do you see where I'm going?...). As I said on Twitter: 'Avatar: the best Emmerich film that only Cameron could make.' Bottom line: this movie is not a gamechanger as Cameron and Spielberg have suggested, and all those here who agree with or appreciate the reviewer's comments will continue to be vocal. Else just start playing 'Modern Warfare 3D' (ETA: 2012). :p

    The Cynnergist Wed Dec 23 2009
    Report
  • I agree with the reviewer. You can't fault the special effects and the film is actually very visually imaginative but the story is slow, cliched and boring. Would have been better if they cut out the middle bit and cut to the chase. The last bit was more fun to watch but take away the films massive budget and all you'd be left with is a third rate saturday morning cartoon. I'd put in on par with 2012 actually because they are both films where you need to leave your brain at the door and just enjoy the spectacle of it but you knew 2012 was going to be rubbish, Avatar was just disapointing.

    Josh Wed Dec 23 2009
    Rated as: 2/5
    Report
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23
  24. 24
  25. 25
  26. 26
  27. 27
  28. 28
  29. 29
  30. 30
  31. 31
  32. 32
  33. 33
  34. 34
  35. 35
  36. 36
  37. 37
  38. 38
  39. 39
  40. 40
  41. 41
  42. 42
  43. 43
  44. 44
  45. 45
  46. 46
  47. 47
  48. 48
  49. 49
  50. 50
  • Hotwise
  • Cool brands
  • Star