Avatar's success: All politics
James Cameron, I apologize on behalf of critics, the Academy and audiences worldwide. We have done you a great disservice. Through ticket sales, nominations and glowing reviews, we have led you to believe that you're actually a good director.
Heading into March and the Oscars, Cameron's self-proclaimed sci-fi epic Avatar has easily gathered the most steam and generated the most positive buzz of all of this year's feature films. The 3-D tale, lovingly dubbed by honest viewers as "Dancing With Wolves in Space," is about to hit the $600 million mark - and that's just domestically. Box office success, however, is not indicative of good quality. If that was the case, Michael Bay would be more successful than Fellini.
What's so surprising is that critics bought Cameron's movie as legitimately great. Phrases like "epic" and "never seen anything like it" grace the pages of newspapers and Web sites. Film buffs are already heralding the director as one of the greats, a man who possesses the rare ability to both please critics and gain widespread appeal.
This is, of course, a monumental pile of garbage. While Avatar's special effects were not unimpressive, they were nothing we haven't seen before - as recently as Star Trek, which debuted earlier last year. The planet of Pandora is pretty, but anyone with a big enough paycheck can pay for impressive visuals. As Megan Fox herself admits, really cool robots couldn't make Transformers 2 a quality film.
Even if one concedes that Avatar's special effects were awesome, the film is otherwise devoid of any interesting or even passable content. The performances are not great, and Stephan Lang's Colonel Quaritch is embarrassingly overacted. The plot becomes tiresome and repetitive very quickly, and at almost three hours, these problems become exponentially worse.
The biggest and most glaring flaw, though, is Avatar's story  - or should I say lack thereof. Anyone who has had even the most peripheral exposure to Pocahontas will be able to predict how this film plays out after 10 minutes of screen time. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington)'s journey from human spy to Na'vi defender was obvious the moment we saw him in a wheelchair. Such a reductive, retreaded story cannot be the work of a great director. The heart and meaning of a film can't be derived from its special effects or visual splendor. Any good movie must possess, at the very least, a script with some degree of ingenuity and acting that makes that script believable. Avatar is a trick, the gorgeous woman who can't put two words together. It looks great, but it's hollow, shallow and ultimately worthless.
Heading into March and the Oscars, Cameron's self-proclaimed sci-fi epic Avatar has easily gathered the most steam and generated the most positive buzz of all of this year's feature films. The 3-D tale, lovingly dubbed by honest viewers as "Dancing With Wolves in Space," is about to hit the $600 million mark - and that's just domestically. Box office success, however, is not indicative of good quality. If that was the case, Michael Bay would be more successful than Fellini.
What's so surprising is that critics bought Cameron's movie as legitimately great. Phrases like "epic" and "never seen anything like it" grace the pages of newspapers and Web sites. Film buffs are already heralding the director as one of the greats, a man who possesses the rare ability to both please critics and gain widespread appeal.
This is, of course, a monumental pile of garbage. While Avatar's special effects were not unimpressive, they were nothing we haven't seen before - as recently as Star Trek, which debuted earlier last year. The planet of Pandora is pretty, but anyone with a big enough paycheck can pay for impressive visuals. As Megan Fox herself admits, really cool robots couldn't make Transformers 2 a quality film.
Even if one concedes that Avatar's special effects were awesome, the film is otherwise devoid of any interesting or even passable content. The performances are not great, and Stephan Lang's Colonel Quaritch is embarrassingly overacted. The plot becomes tiresome and repetitive very quickly, and at almost three hours, these problems become exponentially worse.
The biggest and most glaring flaw, though, is Avatar's story  - or should I say lack thereof. Anyone who has had even the most peripheral exposure to Pocahontas will be able to predict how this film plays out after 10 minutes of screen time. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington)'s journey from human spy to Na'vi defender was obvious the moment we saw him in a wheelchair. Such a reductive, retreaded story cannot be the work of a great director. The heart and meaning of a film can't be derived from its special effects or visual splendor. Any good movie must possess, at the very least, a script with some degree of ingenuity and acting that makes that script believable. Avatar is a trick, the gorgeous woman who can't put two words together. It looks great, but it's hollow, shallow and ultimately worthless.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 17
Michael McK in LA
posted 2/05/10 @ 2:06 AM EST
Greg Sgammato, you're full of it. When was the last time you actually enjoyed going to a movie? Have you ever directed a commercial film? What are your credits and qualifications?
All I see here is screaming envy. (Continued…)
Aihwa
posted 2/05/10 @ 2:38 AM EST
After reading that review, all I can say to you sir is,
"troll much?"
Seriously, I can tell when somebody's posting real criticism and just blatant hatred. (Continued…)
Spock
posted 2/05/10 @ 3:35 AM EST
You belligerent tone severely reduces the relevence of your critique.
Ugh, troll much, as the person above has also stated.
Prometheus
posted 2/05/10 @ 3:54 AM EST
Notice the word above this piece of puerile dribbling excuse for a review.
Opinion...they're usually worth a dime a dozen and yours isn't even worth giving away. (Continued…)
critic police
posted 2/05/10 @ 4:37 AM EST
Critics? What do they know? I sure would love to go and see on average 6 movies a week, write an article and get paid for the pleasure. You do not know how lucky you are. (Continued…)
Doe
posted 2/05/10 @ 7:02 AM EST
How exactly money can buy effects? You buy a computer and type MAKE CG? No creativity? No imagination? No intelligence? Wow! And what's with the hatred for beautiful women? Small smtng? Low salary? Ugly?
It seems that (almost) entire planet disagrees with you. (Continued…)
Cody
posted 2/05/10 @ 7:27 AM EST
God forbid that he uses a recycled storyline. I enjoyed the movie, thank you very much. I never before in my life saw a movie twice in theaters because for any reason because of cost. (Continued…)
Philip
posted 2/05/10 @ 10:11 AM EST
Greg Sgammato, I apologize on behalf of writers, and readers worldwide. We have done you a great disservice. Through post hits, tweets and review attention, we have led you to believe that you're actually a good movie critic. (Continued…)
TheANIMAL
posted 2/05/10 @ 11:48 AM EST
Who ever wrote that review is a total numpty and wouldn't recognise a good film if it danced naked in front of him.
It's one thing to critisise and another to vomit contempt. (Continued…)
JH
posted 2/07/10 @ 11:52 PM EST
This review is a joke.
You can't take this guy seriously!
Post a Comment