Scott Hardie: “It was ok.”
If I were to judge this movie solely on how good it looks, it would be the film of the year, hands down. An enormous amount of money has been lavished on making this fantasy look photo-realistic, with countless jaw-dropping images that could only have been created after a decade of work on the technology to make them possible. And on top of that, James Cameron has always possessed an exceptional visual flair for action scenes. The big action finale possesses so much dynamism, originality, and intensity that you are reminded just how generic other blockbusters have become.
Unfortunately, even if the visuals are worth the time and money it took to create them, the rest of the movie is not. The story fans out into several more subplots than the original Avatar but each of them feels just as formulaic. The dialogue was written with a tin ear and is far too burdened with exposition; the characters never once seem to have a conversation about anything other than the plot at hand or setup for future sequels. And worst of all, the villains are both intensely repellent and one-note; your heart sinks every time they appear because the movie is so clearly not interested in developing them beyond basic archetypes who do monstrously cruel things to get us to root against them. Thirteen years and a billion dollars, and this was the best that they could write? (Actually, the high budget may have made the story worse. This movie was so expensive to produce -- think on the order of inventing motion-capture again from scratch -- that it forced the development of additional sequels to recoup its cost. And those sequels mean that little of consequence can happen to the characters here, and that some of their subplots go unresolved.)
The villains aren't the only thing that Cameron seems to care little about. The opening and closing of the movie are rushed compared to the luxurious middle act, in which the characters learn to live underwater. Cameron has now spent so many movies going into the ocean (sometimes literally) that it's safe to call the subject his personal obsession, and it's in this superior passage that The Way of Water develops a kind of reverie. Some of it is far-fetched, like the quick friendship between a whale-like creature and one of the Na'vi, but all of it is breathtakingly beautiful and a joy to watch. I wish that the film had ditched the awful villains and their boring story and instead focused entirely on this material, but alas, it has a frustrating tendency to keep shooting itself in its very expensive foot.This review contains spoilers. Reveal it.
− January 18, 2023 more by Scott log in or create an account to reply
Want to join the discussion? Log in or create an account to reply.
Evie Totty: “It was ok.”
Best animated film of 2022!
In other words, the visual effects were absolutely mind-blowing. The story? Mmm. I can't decide. A couple of deus ex machina instances makes me land there.
DEM #1: When the dudes from Earth came to check on ... I don't even remember who and I saw it last week ... [insert Sully family member here] and landed RIGHT on the beach AT the village.
That's where I shook my head. Do you mean they noticed an airship that wasn't a part of their group on radar? YOU DON'T SAY.
But the weird cloning of the bad guy from Avatar had me side-eyeing the entire way. And they brought him and his team in to get Sully? Really? Weren't the natives total badasses before he joined up with them? (It's literally been since 2010 or whatever since I've seen Avatar).
That's a lot of money spent and lives lost for revenge. Because if he really was the leader of the armed forces for the forest folk, when he peaced out - that was the same as killing him. He was no longer leading. Could he become a threat with the water people? They seem pretty badass, too. Doubly so because THEIR mounts swim AND fly. PLUS they could all but breathe water themselves (especially with those butterfly wings - BTW, why didn't lil' bit bring more than one?).
But the fact that the whole final third of the movie was action - I really did enjoy that. I will say I kept pulling myself out of the story going "best cartoon I've ever seen" and "holy shit at this cgi" etc to myself.
I was disappointed that I did not cry at the two parts we were supposed to, but my meds are effed up, so I'm chalking it up to that because they were absolutely heartbreaking.
Go see it? Absolutely. See it again? I don't know - I really can't say due to my med situation. I would guess I'd say yes, just to marvel at the special effects. Superb.
Oh and DEM #2: Junior coming across clone daddy and saving him, setting us up for the third movie.This review contains spoilers. Reveal it.
− March 9, 2023 more by Evie log in or create an account to reply
Scott Hardie: Great point about this being an animated film. I guess the presence of a couple of non-CGI characters like Spider make it qualify as "live action" despite 99% of what's on screen being animated? The Academy's distinction is confusing, but then, so is society's.
And yeah, it's annoying watching the movie do illogical things in order to keep bringing back Stephen Lang's villain so that he can continue to be such an asshole. I don't get the choice to make that character such an important load-bearing pillar of the series. It doesn't make sense unless you work backwards to what caused all of this in the first place, which is Jim Cameron's desire to push filmmaking technology forward.
The villain is terrible, but they keep bringing him back because they need a consistent presence across all of the sequels rather than new antagonists. And they need that consistent presence because multiple sequels are filmed simultaneously and out of order and with scenes re-shot as arcs develop and so on. And the multiple sequels are being made because it's the only way to recoup the billion-dollar investment in technology necessary to produce one of them. And that technology is necessary because the challenge of inventing it is nearly the only thing attracting Jim Cameron to the project in the first place; there's no way that he would make this using conventional means (ordinary CGI or actors in blue body paint).
What I want to ask Cameron is, was it worth it? Making the first Avatar was an enormous technical challenge and financial risk, just like many of your movies, but you pulled it off and earned all of the critical accolades and box-office receipts. You could have stopped there and chosen a different project. You didn't know that this sequel project was going to balloon and consume this many years of your life, but you had to have known that there was not a compelling story or artistic raison d'être here. Was this project worth several thousand days of work and a decade and a half of your life?
(I know that I'm oversimplifying. Cameron did work on other projects in the interim, like co-writing and co-producing Alita: Battle Angel and Terminator: Dark Fate, and there were other things that must have appealed to him about making a sequel to Avatar, like getting to invent the oceanic side of Pandora's very detailed and exobiologically-plausible flora and fauna.) − March 10, 2023 more by Scott
Evie Totty: I 100% believe he'd say it was worth it because he got to populate his ocean with his own flora and fauna, making him a god. − March 10, 2023 more by Evie
Want to join the discussion? Log in or create an account to reply.
write your own review of Avatar: The Way of Water
Other Movies from 2022