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)
  • ...and i wonder what miyazaki could do with such technology,,,,,,,im sure he would be a little offended at the blatent americanisation of what is essentially his idea........watch nausica of the valley or castle in the sky.......mmmm

    christian Sat Jan 2 2010
    Report
  • I agree with everyone.......the people who gave 1 star make perfectly valid points.....the story is flimsy and flat.............but the 4/5 star people are correct in that it is a ride of a movie and beautifully produced.....I got an inkling of emotion towards the end but no more.....the level of detail is stunning and ground breaking.......but the stereotyped weak nature of all the characters (bar the brilliant damsel navi....she was cool and I guess acted by a very good actress) was appalling and left me feeling id left having had a non alcohlic beer ....tastes nice but does very little........

    Christian Sat Jan 2 2010
    Rated as: 3/5
    Report
  • ''including when I sat through the credits to give all the non-acting professionals their proper respect'' with your bottom lip quivering and tears welling up behind your 3D specs? the reviewer is correct - awful script, needlessly long, waste of time and money.

    dogbolls Sat Jan 2 2010
    Report
  • Whatever happened to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, people? Yes, the script was a little thin compared to the recent crop of movies based on SciFi/Fantasy novels. It could've been tightened up by focusing on a specific indigenous group like the Iroquois or the Masai. That would have given the writers a more specific world view to portray. I do appreciate that they borrowed from African tribes the classical power-sharing relationship between women and men. Perhaps a clear omniscience wasn't the goal. Maybe the audience wasn't supposed to know everything about The People all at once. It looks like they tried to make a people from scratch, which is commendable. And they did it with originality. I don't know any other movie or story about a world in which the creatures, both animal and vegetable, physically link up to each other and exchange information. Furthermore the visuals were great. It didn't feel like 2-1/2 hours-- including when I sat through the credits to give all the non-acting professionals their proper respect. Respect for others was a definitely message in the movie that everyone could take away with them.

    Reggie Sat Jan 2 2010
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • Well, I thought it was great. Yes, the story isn't mind-boggling but the effects were, and it left me wishing I could get to Pandora even with all the nasty beasties. Compared to the normal crap from Hollywood this is a thoughtful and beautifully produced film. I'm not certain about Avatar 2 and 3 though.

    seafire Fri Jan 1 2010
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • A superb film, one of the best sci-fi films I have seen, couldn't stop talking about it.

    John Fri Jan 1 2010
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • Hmmm...all the comments seem to be separated by around 2 to 10 hours and all seem to be 4-5 stars. Then suddenly seven 1-2 star reviews appear in the space of half an hour, most of them 1 or 2 minutes after one another. Suspicious. Johnir, Ivan, Uighur, nerve, katarina, podboy, actionfreak, you are all the same desperately sad individual. Case closed. Get a life. Film was great.

    jeremykyle Fri Jan 1 2010
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • ...and I hate cowboy and indian movies, so I would disagree, Mr Barcode.

    DV Fri Jan 1 2010
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • I have a theory that perhaps the vast chasm between views about this film has more to do with audio/visual oriented brains vs scientific/maths oriented examples. People are different, not necessarily stupid. (Also, maybe a cup of coffee would help some people get through a 2 and a 1/2 hr film (unless there actually is a 3 hr version doing the rounds, which I find hard to believe.) We did however have half an hour of ads. Sheesh kebabs!)

    DV Fri Jan 1 2010
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • If you like cowboys and indians then this is the film for you.

    BarcodeUK Fri Jan 1 2010
    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