Beyond the Hype

Rating: 1/10 (9 January 2010)

A movie is only as good as it's story. That being said, the story for Avatar is primarily a 'going native' movie such as Dances with the Wolves and Pocahontas, and more recently, Battle for Terra, Planet 51 and many others. The story provides nothing new or refreshing and I'd rate the movie 1/10 in terms of story for plagiarism and unoriginality.
The plot. Without deviating from any traditional 'going native' theme, Avatar showcased a lack of interest on the director's part in terms of plot. Completely predictable as there were no surprises, no twists, no turns, nothing different whatsoever giving it a rating of 1/10 in terms of plot.
Characters. The characters drawn up in Avatar primarily follow stereotypes. The gun nut army guy who wants to destroy everything in his path. The scientist who is not just passionate about his or her work, but willing to die for it. The hero white guy (notice he's always white) who happens to be loved by just about everyone except for the 'bad guys' and is so awesome a person that even some of those that hate him have grown to love him. A love interest for the hero, but it can't be a 'simple' love. Needs to be complex and take up a good 20 minutes in terms of plot line and relationship building. The techie geek who uses gadgets to play an active role in the events that unfold, thus satisfying that audience demographic. Of course, the corporate head honcho who puts returns ahead of everyone, including life itself and is therefore 'evil, just like all those big bad corporates out there'. There are so many more stereotypes in the movie itself, you're not surprised when anything eventful happens to them. Because there's nothing special about them and on top of that they act poorly, more time is spent showcasing the environment rather than building their characters, you find yourself devoid of much of an emotional connection with them and whether they live or die bears little consequence to you.
I somewhat covered acting above, however it does not matter who you've got acting in the movie. In this one, there were primarily B-grade actors with a couple headliners such as Sigourney Weaver and actually that's about it. She herself acted abysmally and it was almost a joy just to be rid of her character.
Script. This movie has one of the poorest scripts I have seen in a movie over the last decade, and this includes Evil Dead 13. If you just read the script alone, you would think it's a script for a F grade movie directed by kindergarten kids with a Paddington Bear video camera. Not a movie expected to shake things around the globe. You want a good script? Check out The Godfather series, Goodfellas, Shawshank Redemption, The Departed and so many more! James Cameron here has shown us he has the script writing genius of a middle school child. 0/10 is my verdict for script. Non-negotiable.
Emotionally evocative? With all of the above factors taken into consideration, it's almost impossible to emotionally identify with the various character elements in the movie. I can't say my heart was touched at all. It did make me talk and think about stuff like this, about how a movie can gross so much and be otherwise total and utter crap. I learned nothing new from this movie, I was not inspired and I was not provoked in any manner whatsoever.
Was the movie educative? No. The lesson it's preaching about 'Nature' is a lesson we've heard over and over again, from other movies to 'Save the world' activists. The masses are aware, the masses already know this repetitious message and now it's just getting annoying. If we're not interested in doing something about it, we're just not interested. Sure some might, but if nothing's changing, it's clear the majority has little or no interest in doing something about the 'precarious position nature is in'.
Does the movie accurately mirror society? Not at all. Not one of the characters portrayed a 'real' personality. They're all highly stereotyped according to green peace activists versions of scientists and evil corporate honchos. It lacks objectivity and therefore loses credibility.
The only possible saving grave for Avatar is the fact that they used some 'new technology' the effects of which I am not all that flabbergasted by and I honestly could not figure out what was so extra-special about the 3D technology used. The names of places seemed unrealistic and the environment lacked logical planning to it (The mountains floating in the sky had waterfalls but as they're floating, they lack any access to natural ground water and therefore springs or rivers to make the waterfalls work in the first place. Not to mention the waterfalls go nowhere but into the air and then just disappear). As far as special effects and animation goes, I'd rate the movie about a 6/10 in terms of that.
If you're wondering why it's done so well at the box office, it's quite simple really. Hype. A movie that spent around $250 million to make and then spent $150 million just to market it, produces enough hype to. Also thanks to the viral nature of the movie, everyone insists 'it's a must see' and since you 'must see it in 3D', you go watch it at the cinemas and you end up boosting it's box office returns.
Unfortunately at the end of this review, I will say go watch it and arrive at your own judgment, and unfortunately the only way to watch this poor movie is via 3D so you'd have to help boost it's box office revenue, further adding fuel to the hype surrounding this movie.
I personally wish I could get a refund for the ticket I purchased, but it's too late for that now.
Cheers!