Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

When I first heard of the movie Avatar about half a year ago, I immediately assumed that it was a film adaptation of the show Avatar: The Last Airbender. That, needless to say, shifted my interest into "I couldn't give less of a s**t" gear. Whenever I saw or heard idle chatter about it, my eyes just sort of glazed over, and I went about my way elsewhere.

However, once the hype-machine started, looking into it became inescapable. Everyone, on just about every message board I read and posted on became a ******** of discussion about this god-damned movie. It was within this time I found out that it was a new Sci-fi movie by one of my favorite directors, James Cameron (no, not because of Titanic, you boobs.) I was almost shocked that I hadn't heard of it sooner, then I realized I did but just didn't give a s**t, and, yeah.

You're probably wondering where I'm going with this, but bear with me, I have a point to make. The vast majority of responses that I read about the movie were negative, initially, and that was for two reasons:
1. The trailer was just about as shitty as they could have made it.
2. FURRIES.
Furries? Holy ******** I hate furries. This is a bad sign. GOD DAMN IT JAMES CAMERON IS A FURRY. ******** MY LIFE. THE VERY FABRIC OF MY BEING IS BECOMING UNDONE. ******** THIS MOVIE, ******** IT HARD, I HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN SEEING THIS EVER I HATE YOU JAMES CAMERON was sorta what went through my mind upon hearing the rationale for the bad rap the movie was receiving.

After some time, however, I realized that the boards I do read from are primarily dominated by trolls and really argumentative stupid people. Both of whom s**t on everything that is good and obsess over everything that is shitty (like anime.) Jess and I, seemingly simultaneously, came to the conclusion that we ought to start listening to more reputable opinions; those less swayed by much less bias (so basically, we stopped listening to virgins and fatguys and started listening to comrades, if you catch my meaning.) The opinions we then started getting were much more reasonable, and positive. It was during this point that I began to learn more about the movie.

After some careful consideration, Jess and I decided we wanted to go see the 3D version in theatres. We went yesterday, and a few hours shy of a day of mulling it over after post-theatre euphoria, here's my opinion of it:

It's a really, really ******** good movie.

I know you're probably all thinking "Holy s**t, I didn't know it was possible for you to like anything, all you do is HATE you GRINCH," and hey, I'm equally surprised myself. I'm one hell of a snob when it comes to the quality of media I enjoy, but this movie meets or surpasses almost every one of those standards that I have. Almost, mind you, but like I said to Jessica last night "Whatever short-comings it has, to me, seem to be more then made up for in other areas."

What areas were great, and what others fell short, you ask? WELL I'M GETTING TO THAT PART a*****e jeez you guys i can't even write a review without you asking me questions

seriously.

ANYWAYS, I'll tidy my thoughts up neatly into a "positive, negative" list. It'll probably make it easier for you knuckle-heads to read. Lord knows you've all got the attention span of flies on cow s**t.

THE GOOD:

•The movie looked spectacular, and 3D made it way better. There were moments of visual bliss during which I sat staring at the screen, mesmerized. Truth be told too, I'm really not a huge fan of movies that are primarily CGI, but god damn this movie looked good. The 3D wasn't gimmicky, but just added a depth that made it feel as if you were right there as everything was happening. There were times that I forgot that what I was seeing was CGI because of it. You're really not getting the whole experience unless you're seeing it in 3D. Sure it costs about 3-4 dollars more per ticket, but who gives a s**t, right? Cough it up you stingy ********.

•The thought put into the setting and the environments is staggering. The sheer believability of certain elements just blew me out of the water. The dude really thought some of this s**t out.

•Characters were believable and very easy to sympathize with. This seems to be a common trait in James Cameron flicks. He always tends to make dialogue uncomplicated and his characters very human. This also tends to cause some short-comings, but I'll explain that later.

•The antagonist wasn't some embodiment of pure evil. Sure he was an a*****e, but he seemed a bit more thought out then most bad guys I've seen in recent movies. just figured that was worth a plug.

THE BAD:

•The story was pretty weak. I found myself calling certain things before they happened. The back story and opening parts were also a little dull, and did very little to grasp the attention of the viewer. Sure, many other things made up for it, but that still doesn't excuse it.

•The underlying philosophy was very obvious, not very well thought out, and to be quite honest, really ******** overdone. Yes, Mr. Cameron, we get it: Commercialism/Colonialism/Militarism/Capitalism/Pollution/Deforestation is bad. We all feel shitty about the industrialized world ******** up the lives of natives and such, we all feel shitty that Capitalism and Commercialism are political ideologies motivated by greed, we all feel shitty that we're ruining our planet (however this is one such thing from this list that can be fixed) but can we PLEAAAASE stop making movies about it? Please? Really, if you're going to do it anyways, please try to make it less obvious and more clever then, say, Fern Gully or some s**t. Jesus Christ.

•I have other issues that most of you probably won't give much of a s**t about, but if you care enough, go ahead and read my "boring scientific digression" section.

MY BORING SCIENTIFIC DIGRESSION:
As many of you are probably already aware, I'm a huge science geek. I look at science fiction, having really no say in the matter, through the goggles of naturalistic probability. I also have one hell of a penchant for speculative perspectives on extraterrestrial life and the differences that we must have from them. Avatar, being the most multifaceted piece of science fiction on this topic I've seen in a good long while, that put me in one heck of a love/hate juxtaposition about the creativity and believability of the movie. The likes should be pretty obvious I assume: There's aliens and they aren't just green guys with big heads and eyes, there is a distinct and solacing lack of flying saucers and KLAATU BARADA NIKTO. However, I figure the negatives won't be too obvious. Here's a few of them:

•The Na'vi are bipedal, mammalian humanoids with a spoken language, binocular vision, humanoid reproductive organs, opposable thumbs and phalangeal finger bone structure, omnivorous tendencies, tribal and shamanistic customs, humanoid weaponry, etc, etc. The main alien species in this movie are really just blue, 10 foot tall humans with cat ears and a tail. What, are we in Star Trek all of a sudden? Sure, sure, I know exactly why Cameron chose to do this. This is a visual media, and as such, people would have a much harder time sympathizing or becoming attached something that looks and acts much too different then what we're used to seeing or experiencing. Imagine if the focus race of extraterrestrials in this movie were 10 foot tall land dwelling emotionless mollusks? "A bunch of ******** creepy looking squids? Who gives a s**t if we kill them?"

It still is quite a subtracting factor in my eyes. He could have been a lot more creative with the design of the Na'vi, and it's disappointing that he wasn't. Hell, very small changes would probably be enough to satiate me. Like, say, different limb placement, a third eye, an esophageal opening on their chest instead of it being in their throat. I dunno, just something!

•Everything on Pandora was Bio-luminescent. Seriously, ******** everything. Even the goddamn ground was luminescent when they walked on it! Sure, this made for some admittedly awesome scenery, but goddamn, don't you think you got enough? Furthermore, I fail to see the evolutionary mechanism that makes bioluminescence necessary in flora and fauna on the surface of a tropical planet. The majority of life on earth that is bioluminescent live below the ocean's Aphotic zone. It serves a purpose there, but what the hell purpose does it serve on the surface of a planetary version of the amazon?

•There was a lot of "Oh that's just the alien version of this animal" going on. Not that I really blame him but, meh, you could only take so many "space horses" or "space hyenas" before you start being a bit bothered by it.

•The neurological link between the person and the Avatar was never really explained. I guess this is more of an issue with the writing than anything, but however the hell it works, it doesn't seem to make much sense.

•Trees that hold memories, synaptic connections that come out of pony-tails and a sentient forest god/goddess. Yeah, I thought those were pretty weak plot devices too.

STILL UP IN THE AIR:

Is James Cameron a furry? I still can't ******** tell.

So yeah, there's my review. I'm getting bored of typing so, excuse me for my brief outro. Hope you enjoyed not reading any of this.