InTylerWeTrust82 Reviews Avatar (Spoiler-Free)

InTylerWeTrust82 Reviews Avatar (Spoiler-Free)

My thoughts on one of the most hyped movies of the decade. Does it succeed as a groundbreaking film, or does it disappoint? Find out inside...

By InTylerWeTrust - Dec 19, 2009 02:12 PM EST
Filed Under: Sci-Fi

So, let's get right down to business. Were the skeptics (including myself) justified about Avatar?

Unfortunately, for the most part, yes.

The biggest flaw with Avatar is it's lackluster plot.

One of the biggest criticisms this film has received since the plot was released was how unoriginal it sounded. Well, it is unoriginal. Very unoriginal. It truly is Dances With Wolves/Pocahontas meets the Matrix. Not only is it unoriginal, but it is so formulaic and predictable, you know everything that will happen.

Honestly, if you've seen Pocahontas, you know everything that happens in this movie. In short, invaders bad, natives good, one of the invaders turns good, etc. etc. It's nothing you haven't seen before, there are no surprises, twists, turns, none. It's a direct plot-line, and easy to follow and predict what's coming next.

The characters (most of them, at least) are also disappointing. They're your average characters in this type of movie. Typical archetypes of the film genre.

This leads me to my next point, the cliched nature of the story. There are a Smurf-load of cliches in Avatar. You've got the sniveling corporate representative who wants only money (you could pretty much replace all his dialogue with "Nyah! We need money! Nyah! Nyah!"), the boyfriend to the tribe princess who at first hates the newcomer but comes to accept him later on, and the buff, war-hungry military dude who just wants to shoot something all the time.

It's unfortunate that Cameron seems to have put the special effects of Avatar as his primary concern while leaving plot, characters, and dialogue as afterthoughts.

Now, what about the acting?

The performances are actually one of the saving graces to Avatar. The most important is obviously that of the protagonist, Jake Sully, played by Sam Worthington. Now, you have heard me criticize Worthington countless times, especially during the Captain America debates. I frequently said that he was unproven and was mediocre. But, after Avatar, this guy certainly can act. He was charismatic, funny, compelling, and just all-around like-able. You really do come to connect with Jake and understand him as a character.

Zoe Saldana, who plays the Na'Vi love interest to Jake Neytiri, was also excellent in this role. You never got to see the beautiful Saldana in person, but she made up for it by giving one great performance. She was fierce, elegant, and strong-willed, and Saldana embodied the character.

The rest of the supporting cast is pretty good, for the most part. Sigourney Weaver is delightful as always, and she and Worthington play fantastically off of each other. Joel David Moore, who plays Jake's friend Norm, was decent, if a bit annoying at times. Michelle Rodrigeuz is sub-par, which didn't surprise me. I never liked her as an actress, and this is no different. Giovanni Ribisi is a walking cliche as the corporate representative on Pandora, who fulfilled his role I suppose, since you're supposed to hate the character. Last, but not least, we have Stephen Lang as the antagonist Colonel Quaritch. Yet another cliche on legs, Lang was hammy, and just gave a bad performance.

The last criticism I'll lob at Avatar is it's lacking dialogue. Specifically, the dialogue is especially bad with Quaritch. Lang had some serious dialogue issues to work with. "You're not in Kansas anymore", "Shut your piehole", and "Let's boogie" to name a few.

Now, with all that said, you should go see Avatar. Why? Not because it's a great movie, but because it is a fantastic EXPERIENCE.

The most talked-about aspect of Avatar is it's "revolutionary" effects. While I don't think that they will exactly change movies forever, they might change the way special effects are done from now on. The special effects that make up the majority of this film are phenomenal. Screen-caps do not do them justice. Once you see the plants and creatures move around on Pandora, you'll be star-struck. Things move like you're watching them right in front of you. Environments look breath-taking and realistic, and made me think they were really in front of me a couple times. The 3D does work very well. I wanted to stick my hand out and try to touch objects, the only reason I didn't because it would be embarrassing. Pandora really comes to life once you watch the movie, trust me.

The last thing I will talk about is the action. It's awesome. All of it. No one directs action quite like James Cameron, and it is totally apparent in Avatar. The fights are intense, thrilling, and heart-pumping. The last battle alone redefines the word epic. From now on, dictionaries need to put "Avatar's Final Battle" under the definition of "epic." Believe me, it's that good.

So, is Avatar really the sci-fi epic of the decade? No. Is Avatar that great a movie? No.

Is it an amazing experience like no other? Absolutely.

If for nothing else, just see Avatar for the experience alone. It's worth the cash. Should it win awards for being a quality movie? No, and it is disappointing in quality considering what we got with the amazing District 9, but it truly is a movie-going experience no one has ever seen before. And for that reason, you should shell out the money and see it.

This is Tyler, signing out.

MEGALOPOLIS' CinemaScore Is WORSE Than Any Superhero Movie Ever Released In Theaters
Related:

MEGALOPOLIS' CinemaScore Is WORSE Than Any Superhero Movie Ever Released In Theaters

Francis Ford Coppola's (Who Called Marvel Despicable) MEGALOPOLIS Will Flop This Weekend With $5 Million
Recommended For You:

Francis Ford Coppola's (Who Called Marvel "Despicable") MEGALOPOLIS Will Flop This Weekend With $5 Million

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
ecksmanfan
ecksmanfan - 12/19/2009, 2:53 PM
Great, honest review! Just about every review I have read has said the same thing. Good to read something a bit more down to earth.

Going to see it tonight and yes...there will be yet another review for the film. =)
InTylerWeTrust
InTylerWeTrust - 12/19/2009, 2:55 PM
Ozy: Nah, Lang was bad. The heavy accent didn't help matters much either.

ecks: Thanks. It would seem a lot of reviews (that I have read) say the same or similar thing: the effects are phenomenal but the story isn't anything to write home about.
InTylerWeTrust
InTylerWeTrust - 12/19/2009, 3:00 PM
Ozy: I didn't want to rate it out of 5 stars, out of ten, etc. mainly because I had no idea what to give it. I didn't know whether to rate it as a movie or as an experience, so I just didn't give one.
ThisFan
ThisFan - 12/19/2009, 3:11 PM
@Tyler this is one of the best reviews i have read, it did help me to want to see the movie
InTylerWeTrust
InTylerWeTrust - 12/19/2009, 3:22 PM
tyko: Thanks. You should go see the movie. Like I said, the experience is worth it.
lordofthewang
lordofthewang - 12/19/2009, 4:04 PM
Nice to see that you changed your ways about Sam Worthington. Theres a reason that James Cameron amongst others in the film industry rate this guy highly. It might be an idea to actually look at some of the work an actor has done before forming a strong opinion. As for the film i have to agree that if you were to take out the special effects and replace it with animation you would wind up with a stand Disney movie
StrangerX
StrangerX - 12/19/2009, 4:17 PM
I have to say yes it was a plot that many have seen before, Yea the CGI was nothing really new of Jurassic Park. Sure many of the character's seemed unoriginal, but damn I still couldn't take my eyes off the screen. It was overall a pretty good movie.
mounted88
mounted88 - 12/19/2009, 4:23 PM
Tyler@ good review ill be seeing it soon.

Strangemann@ nice avatar.
DogsOfWar
DogsOfWar - 12/19/2009, 4:33 PM
Good review Tyler. Yours & Ror's seem the most balanced

@lordofthewang-Not trying to speak for Tyler but as one who does not want him for Cap, nobody has questioned his acting (much). Its seeing him for the role of Cap and that he doesn't fit it.

StrangerX
StrangerX - 12/19/2009, 5:11 PM
@mounted88 Thnx urs has some sweet guns though
JoshWilding
JoshWilding - 12/19/2009, 5:13 PM
TYLER: Great review man! Check mine out a little lower down in "News"! :)
mounted88
mounted88 - 12/19/2009, 5:34 PM
strangeman@ I know i can't wait to see war machine on the big screen
jazzman
jazzman - 12/19/2009, 8:09 PM
nice review
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 12/19/2009, 8:11 PM
Just seen your PLUG everywhere @ TYLER!!! ; P

Just seen it [frick]ING A 1 plus MOVIE!!!

[frick]ing loved it!!!

SCI-FI movie of THE DECADE!!!

The future of movies is here!
InTylerWeTrust
InTylerWeTrust - 12/19/2009, 8:13 PM
As a movie alone, Avatar kind of sucked.

Sorry, but it's going to take more than fancy effects and good action to distract me from massive plot flaws like Avatar.

District 9, Watchmen, and Star Trek are all better films than it.
Phinehas
Phinehas - 12/19/2009, 8:23 PM
Good review, Tyler!
Exceptions:
Stephen Lang. He did a fine job portraying a very shallow character. I think the role poorly reflected on him as an actor. Not the other way around.
Sam Worthington
I still heard his accent slip.
Giovanni Ribisi. Same with Lang. His character was so shallow that it reflected pooly on the performance.


Otherwise, right on!

Favorite quote of yours?
"you could pretty much replace all his dialogue with "Nyah! We need money! Nyah! Nyah!""
Very true. LOL
InTylerWeTrust
InTylerWeTrust - 12/19/2009, 8:30 PM
Phinehas: With Lang and Ribisi, I do credit the extremely poor writing of those characters to their performances, but they were still bad performances, even though Ribisi did fill his job requirements to make his character annoying as hell. Lang, he was just too much of a cartoon, especially his thick accent. But, you're right, the writing of Quaritch was really poor.

I did notice Worthington's Aussie accent a lot in the film, but he did give a really good performance regardless IMO. I still don't like the thought of him as Cap at all, but I didn't mind that his accent slipped through, because I thoroughly enjoyed his acting in the movie.
superdog
superdog - 12/19/2009, 9:05 PM
Ribisi's character looks like a carbon copy ofthe one from camerons aliens. The guy from my two dads who works for the corporation and wants to screw everyone over just to get an alien embryo for his company. It ls classic Cameron character cliche.

Tyler@ great review man. I haven't seen it yet but I imagine my review would be a carbon copy of yours.

Lee77@ of the decade? Seriously? C'mon man, the decades a long time. I highly doubt that. Next you'll be saying gijoe is the best war movie of the decade. You really gotta work on your taste man :)
thwhtGuardian
thwhtGuardian - 12/19/2009, 10:13 PM
I agree tyler, it was a beautiful spectacle, real bread and circus kind of stuff. And you know what, I'm okay with that, I mean I love thought provoking movies but there is room for movies like Avatar too. Was it a great movie? No, but it was a beautiful one. With that said though, I doubt I'll be buying this when it comes out on dvd... I just don't see it having the same visual punch on the small screen as it did o the big one.
lordofthewang
lordofthewang - 12/20/2009, 3:55 AM
No offense ppl but maybe the reason they cant get an american actor to play Captain America is because most of them are metrosexual..brad pitt...zac effron..etc etc its no surprise that all the lead roles are going to guys like Gerard Butler, Hugh Jackman and now Sam Worthington. Better get used to the accents guys!! If you want to see Worthington rock in an earlier role try to get a hold of an Australian film called Gettin Square :)
lordofthewang
lordofthewang - 12/20/2009, 3:59 AM
I also read on the Marvel website today that there was debate on whether they were going to allow the movie studio to make him officially the first gay superhero in a film as they are concerned of the backlash
prince803
prince803 - 12/20/2009, 8:25 AM
one of the most common mistakes made in reviews is the argument focusing around a "lackluster plot" or its "very unoriginal" storyline. your review is no different. in fact, one could question how original your review is - let's try substituting "Avatar" with another movie title and see if there are any substantial changes. this review is lackluster and very unoriginal. it gives me no insight into the quality of the movie.

i would consider rewriting your review with specific details about what you enjoyed and what you didn't. consider the themes explored in the movie: (1) the role of privately owned military organizations; (2) pre-emptive strikes; (3) colonization of native people; (4) the shifting role of identity in a disabled veteran entering a new world; (5) etc., etc. there are a lot of things to talk about. for example, a statement like "i thought Jake Sully's shift in identity from human to navi happened too quickly, and could have been explored more extensively" is a statement that has some meaning, criticism and can create a thoughtful discussion from your readers. simply saying something is unoriginal or lackluster is meaningless.
CRITIC17
CRITIC17 - 12/20/2009, 8:49 AM
Good review @Tyler!!! I don't see why everyone has to give you a thumbs down, but at least you were honest.
NoobMike
NoobMike - 12/20/2009, 9:58 AM
I have to agree with most things on Tyler's review, I'll just disagree on one thing. It will win awards for special FX and technical achievments, the level of detail they managed to pull of is exceptional, the jungle has got so many things going on that... even if it wasn't as realistic they desserve to win awards. But awards for best movie or acting won't happen.

@prince803, you really think they developed any of those themes you mention in the movie? they were just there, none of them actually mattered or had a profound impact on anything, and there are huge plotholes, how do the na'vi talk english? What are the physical effects it would have on a body if it spent so much time inside that machine and lying awake for three months? (his mind had practically no rest, and they just show him sleepy once or twice), what are the implications of breaking tradition when a marriage that was supposed to happen to maintain a culture doesn't? What would the efect be on the environment after all the explotions, gas, burning elements, death toll of thousands of species, etc?

It is a very shallow and lazy approach, they just grace a lot of issues but don't develop any of them, and it has every single cliche you can think of. So I do think that Tyler's description of it being lackluster and unoriginal is quite right.
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 12/20/2009, 10:05 AM
Id have to disagree!!

Sorry @ TYLER!

The movies [frick]ing EPIC!! An its the future of movies, deal wiv it lol! ; D

prince803
prince803 - 12/20/2009, 10:26 AM
@NoobMike - i actually don't think they developed the themes i mentioned. the point i was trying to make to tyler (which you seem to have missed as well) was that saying a movie has a "lackluster plot" or is "very unoriginal" is a poor way to go about reviewing it. even if he said "the movie was the most original ever," that would be a poor way to review it. for someone to make a review meaningful, one has to talk about the topics and themes that arise from it.

also, the natives speak english because of the school that dr. grace augustine built for them. this was brought up twice in the movie. the first time was at the beginning when the characters talk about the school getting shut down. the second time is after jake scully gains the natives' trust and the school is reopened.
InTylerWeTrust
InTylerWeTrust - 12/20/2009, 10:40 AM
prince: How is it a poor way to go about reviewing a movie? A movie having a lackluster plot and unoriginal plot doesn't say anything about it's quality? Are you serious?

I did give specific examples of what I did and didn't like. Did you read like the first paragraph or something?

I said I didn't like the cliches (and gave several examples), some of the characters (and gave several examples), and dialogue (also giving several examples)

So, after listing the bad cliches, characters, and dialogue, you have no idea what the quality of the movie is?

Lee: It is epic, but so was Transformers 2.
BJD
BJD - 12/20/2009, 10:57 AM
What has been done will be done what will be done has been done, for there is nothing new under the sun....and that includes avatar! You know its one thing to make a movie that spares no cliche and is nakedly predictable, but its a completely different thing to preach your enviromental green dogma at me while you do it. Come down off your eco-friendly high horse that doesn't fart and throw methane gas in to the atmosphere Mr. Cameron and ENTERTAIN ME!
prince803
prince803 - 12/20/2009, 11:00 AM
@tyler - yes, saying a movie has a lackluster plot or isn't original says absolutely nothing about its quality. i think most people would say that star wars was an amazing movie. but it was unoriginal - its themes were derived from kurosawa films. same thing with fistfull of dollars, for a few dollars more and the good the bad an the ugly. these were all _unoriginal_ movies, according to your definition, as they all derived their themes from older movies. but they were all great films.

yes, i will give you that you gave some examples, but they were all trite and not particularly helpful. for example, sam worthington and sigourney weaver acting well together? why is that important? what does that have to do with the quality of the film, especially since most of the film has little to do with their relationship?

also, what does "bad cliche" mean? are there things known as "good cliches"? just curious. good first attempt at a review, but you have it in you to write a lot more.
InTylerWeTrust
InTylerWeTrust - 12/20/2009, 11:10 AM
prince: But it does say something when every single aspect about your movie is taken from other films.

Pocahontas - Love Story about invader and native

Matrix - mind transfer idea

Ferngully - save the forests and nature is everything concept, humans bad

There really were no original concepts or imaginative ones in Avatar. That does say something about it's quality. Maybe not everything, but it does say something. If a movie has nothing you haven't seen before, that says a little bit about it's quality.

A bad cliche is a cliche at which you roll your eyes or laugh at. I either rolled my eyes or laughed at every cliche in Avatar.

Your example of Worthington/Weaver is irrelevant. I was specifically speaking of the performances when I mentioned that, and Worthington and Weaver's performances both blended very well together. It's relevant in the context of the performances, but irrelevant in the context you're using. And they did share a fair amount of screen-time together.
thwhtGuardian
thwhtGuardian - 12/20/2009, 11:18 AM
There are good cliches, when they're done well they're called archetypes. Aragorn and Luke Skywalker are archetypal heroes...because even though they are heroes pulled from specific and repeated molds they are well done, they have depth and emotional resonance. Characters like Colonel Quaritch however are just cliches, they are one dimensional and offer the audience nothing but predictable one liners.
Minotauro
Minotauro - 12/20/2009, 12:41 PM
Tyler@ I'm gonna go a limb here, and say pretty good review. But, It ain't going to save ya..

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Nice attempt tho... Just seen a lot of the same thing with Rors Review.. But, I guess that's just how its got to be..
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 12/20/2009, 2:09 PM
Great review Tyler. I actually thought lang was pretty awesome though, even though he was a total cliche he pulled it off. And I would still say it was a great movie..just not the game changer that some folks think it is.
superdog
superdog - 12/20/2009, 9:09 PM
And by some folks you mean lee77?
InTylerWeTrust
InTylerWeTrust - 12/20/2009, 11:32 PM
Keven: There is a huge difference between being a great experience and being a quality movie. The action and effects are what make Avatar a great experience. The bad script is what makes it a sub-par movie.

You calling anyone who disagrees with your opinion a douche yet ridiculing their close-mindedness is more conflicting than my review.

I used the Transformers 2 reference because people
seem to think that epic = quality. TF 2 was epic, but it was a really bad movie. Same thing with The Phantom Menace.

Your comments about me being a tard don't surprise me. They're yor usual trollish comments, you should try to sound more intelligent in your comments. It would help me to take them more seriously.
1 2
View Recorder