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)
  • There is nothing new, original or "groundbreaking" here. Basically a bunch of 3D models stuck in a poorly constructed and unimaginative, generic world engulfed in a plot for 5 year old children. If you want to see a masterpiece on this same subject see Princess Mononoke. Now thats groundbreaking.

    Valentin Sat Dec 19 2009
    Report
  • I always get the idea that James Cameron thinks he's a far better director than he actually is. Sure, "Avatar" is not a stinker, but all the time I was watching the film I was aware of the very generic plot curve and the cloying, somwhow insincere eco message. Any film that is so sharply divided between good guys and bad guys really doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. What a David Lean or a Terrence Mallick could have done with this tech and this story.

    Howard Sat Dec 19 2009
    Rated as: 2/5
    Report
  • This film for me is not as good as all of the hype. The special effects do look great and you can tell a lot of money was spent on this film. I didnt enjoy the film and it seemed to go on too long. It may be that I was expecting too much from this film.

    bob Sat Dec 19 2009
    Rated as: 3/5
    Report
  • great film brilinat in 3d

    kenny Sat Dec 19 2009
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • It's 2154 and humanity has turned earth into a dusty rock, so they need to exploit other worlds, it's what we are good at, but a bunch of blue man band groupies are spoiling the fun. The humans tried being nice, that didn't work - we didn't send in the Jesuit sky pilots I guess that'll come later, we taught them English but they are too stupid to trade with us, we want their minerals but they don't want our iPods - we clearly lost the trading skills that opened up the West whisky and trinkets should have been given a bigger push, it would have worked for sure. I'm certain there's an allegory breaking out of this film somewhere - but its too nimble to pin down.

    on the bias Sat Dec 19 2009
    Rated as: 3/5
    Report
  • After seeing this movie in 3D I now have a cool pair of 1950's sunglasses for whenever the English weather turns warm again. But we've got to admit this isn't really 3D, some aspects of the shot scenes, jungle leaves mainly and a few midges, pop out from the main screen layer into the auditorium - they are flat without depth and seem to exist on a series of clear plastic sheets. The 3D technology didn't live up to the whole new experience promised - as a comparator it lacked the sense of being in the movie created by Disney World with Honey I Shrunk the Audience. An enjoyable 4 star escape from reality - but a warning to the Na'vi the humans will be back don't think a few deaths will deter our greed.

    Violetta Sat Dec 19 2009
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • this film was fantastic a must c feel?for a film tht is so ,long nt 1nc was i bored

    steve Sat Dec 19 2009
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • I cannot remember the last time I enjoyed going to the movies as much as I did seeing Avatar. The story was not so original, of course, but the world of Pandora was so spectacular and immersive, that even the cliched story was adequate. And the story was not as bad as this review says. While the portrayal of the Navi may have set off this reviewer's hatred of hippies or something, I think if anything the portrayal of humans was worse, as I came away from the film feeling an acute misanthropy. I really didn't think the script was so bad that it detracted (whereas some of the dialogue in the star wars prequels really made me cringe), and the acting was... well, good enough. But you have to be a truly joyless bastard to watch this movie and not be incredibly entertained. It was immersive, epic, and just awesome. You think this movie was worse than 2012? That movie was garbage. It should have been called 'a bunch of vehicles narrowly escaping a bunch of natural disasters, plus john cusack making dumb faces'. I honestly hated it. It's clear that this reviewer is horribly out of touch, just like the poster who claimed that if you enjoyed this movie, "your a moron". How sad.

    benji Sat Dec 19 2009
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • somone seriously must have crapped in this critics cereal to give it two stars. not the best storyline ever but the effects without a doubt made up for it.

    Nick Sat Dec 19 2009
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • The storyline may not be stunning but the visuals and the overall feel of the movie are. An absolute must watch.

    Bownes Sat Dec 19 2009
    Rated as: 5/5
    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