• I agree with most of the review with one glaring omission -- a big fat heaping helping of steaming crow. After so many posts about how Cameron had misjudged the market and how Avatar was going to be a financial black hole of epic proportions, four number 1 weekends and $400 million+ domestic should warrant at least a "my bad." Suck it up and take yer medicine, man. (Also, before you write off all of the humans as baddies, there's Joel Moore, Sigourney Weaver and (most importantly as an Avatar-free ass-kicker) Michelle Rodriguez. Give the girl her props for stepping up when it counted.)

• also rob doesn't just like anime and doctor who OKAY! he likes zombies and he-man and atari and monkeys and star wars and badly written erotica. and goddammit so do i!

• i haven't seen it yet, and everyone who has has told me they loved it. look we've all had a few movies in our lives that we defend because we had some sort of connection with them. but when you think about the amount of money involved with avatar and how much was spent on FX, you gotta wonder....was it worth it. that's what i'll try and figure out. but my gut is telling me that i'll perfer dances with wolves. also i heard that the evil marines were actually mercenaries.

• what a bunch of nerds

• My future "Avatar" defnition submission to UrbanDictionary: Avatar is the layman's term for James Cameron's epic "Dances with Wolves.....IN SPAAAAAACE!!!!!!" "Dances with Wolves....IN SPAAAAAACE!!!!!!" serves a tech demo reel of the future of visual effects to smart people, and as the best thing since sliced bread to not so smart people. It also shows that chicks can act as GC characters.

• Indeed Mitchell, and that sequence was only part of a terribly ludicrous Deus Ex Machina.

• My two cents on Avatar: 1. Midway through Jake Sully's romp in the forest of the tall blue cat people, I went to the men's room (something I rarely do as I can usually manage to hold it in at the movies). When I came back, I found I hadn't missed anything. 2. When the Yankee soldiers got attacked by the hammerhead rhinoceri, I found myself flashing back to those Saturday afternoons sitting in front of the TV when Tarzan would call the elephants in to stomp the evil white hunters. Just sayin', thass all.

• Saw the movie last night and here´s my two cents: The film was, indeed, breathtakingly beautiful technically speaking. Mr. Cameron made this movie exactly when it had to be made. The characters, the scenery, the effect, everything is top notch. Plotwise, it was merely OK. It was entertaining and I never got bored, but the plot twists were as predictable as I thought, the message was REALLY heavyhanded and the whole story was developed in the cheesiest way possible. the score was top notch, but Leona´s credit song was just harmless, forgettable pop. Overall, an entertaining movie, but not special or with any lasting appeal whatsoever.

• I apologize, I pressed enter too soon, the last sentence is meant to say: "The person who slandered the other, by definition, is the simpleton for being ignorant and foolish to think that other opinions on subjective matter is incorrect but theirs is not.

• I believe what needs to happen is that some of the people here need to look at the definition of opinion. I will kindly post it here for all to see: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. NOBODY'S opinion is fact, trying to push it as that on others is ridiculous and pointless. If your opinion lines up with a fact, such as Earth rotating around the Sun, something known to be true, then it is an objective opinion, and thus a factual statement. If you believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, that would be an opinion. Sharing an opinion is fine, encouraged even, but telling someone their opinion is wrong is outrageous when the topic at hand is subjective, not objective: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." To one person, the story can be atrocious and horrible, not worth watching for even one minute; to another it can be wonderful and amazing, worth watching multiple times. Most stories have been done hundreds of times, if not thousands. To enjoy it one movie/book/etc in a particular setting and not another is ones right, but to say that another is wrong for doing the same is illogical. If you can only enjoy a particular story one time, OK, if not, OK. Do not tell the other that he or she is wrong for doing so. To say someone is a simpleton for enjoying a similar plot is ridiculous, it does not mean they are a simpleton, it means they enjoy the plot. The person who slandered the other, by definition, is the simpleton for being ignorant and foolish to think that others opinions on subjective matter is incorrect but theirs is.

• Who's Joss Whedon?

• Terminator and Terminator 2 are still awesome so GTFO.

• First of all: Who uses Bookmarks, anymore? Secondofly: Rob's review basically starts by saying that everyone SHOULD see the movie. That's where he comes down in the end, it's a movie worth seeing (even if for only one reason). Isn't that where you come down, in the end, that people SHOULD see the movie? If so, then, in essence, you're angrily leaving in agreement with the blogger you think you disagree with. Three: If you're leaving the site because you disagree with Rob saying people SHOULD see the movie, then you're ignoring all the thoughtful criticisms he has of the thing. The kind of criticisms some people would take as reason enough to ignore Rob's final summation that the film is worth seeing. And, so, again, you're angrily excising yourself because you actually agree with Rob! Either way, you're just being reactionary because Rob didn't agree with you COMPLETELY. That, sir or madame, is some of the finest dichotomy work I've seen in ages. Kudos! Seriously. Kudos. I heart dichotomies.

• "So the hapless dialogue polisher tries to change clunkers like "unobtanium" and "save" but eventually gives up in impotent frustration. Cameron gets the cheap victory he paid for and the movie's script stays dumb as Hell." If that's true, I wouldn't be surprised. If that isn't true, well, it's still pretty fun to imagine. Also, aren't we all, at some point in time, impotent dialogue polishers?

• What does Joss Whedon or Doctor Who have to do with Avatar? Also, try being courteous enough to spell his (Joss') damn name right. It isn't hard. Only four letters. Two of them are even the same!

• That's exactly how I feel. And all of my friends feel the same, and we're all, every single one of us, film nerds. Most of us either majored in film, or took film classes. We all have Netflix, abuse the View Instantly, and still buy movies we just love, even if we don't have to. But, so far, none of us can force each other to go to the damn theater to see it. So, this is like the Jazz Singer? Well, I can probably live without seeing Avatar, then. I've never seen the Jazz Singer, either.

• My cousin (and this one's provisional on him not messing with me) informed me that the mineral is acutally a room temp superconductor with a hideously long name, and so the trope of unobtanium was shorthand that the company director was simply using it to disparage all that stupid science stuff. Take that as you will. Think of the Na'Vi as a geneticly engineered race and the hair as USB slots and it works out much better. Trust me. Also you missed that Weaver possibly carried the entire film by simply outacting the rest of the cast. Who knew she was still good?

• Once again, Rob proves TR can't outgrow it's fanboy immaturity. /sad!

• I think in the end what many are trying to say is a movie is suppossed to be a story in motion. Bottom line. So if we go and see a movie that has just amazing visual effects and is lacking in story, I call it a video game. At least in a game I have some control of the outcome and feel as if I am part of the experience.Take Modern Warfare 2 for example, great fx and gameplay but a cliched story that's been done before. Now take Batman Arkhum Asylum, great story great fx and awesome gameplay, a truly satisfactory gaming experience. Any other argument for seeing a movie based on the visual fx it has is sad. Why? Because I would rather wait for a year or two to go see a movie that has the same fx as Avatar and a gripping story, because cameron sold his tech to anyone who was buying and we know more movies will come out with the halucinating on LSD fx that Avatar has but with the gripping story to accompany and compliment.

• why would they notice or care? Its not like they really needed her ammo.

• I see the point of watching something just because of its visual merits. What bothers me is that hollywood acts as though that is enough. If they give you an amazing effect it negates the need for dialog. I know there are firefly bashers out there (or maybe its the other projects they dont like). But can you imagine if serenity was done with that kind of budget... In 3D? What if you could take toy story (or which ever pixar was your favorite) and reduce the animation to hand drawn. Nothing different than the movies that disney put out for decades. The story would still captivate. I just simply hate lowering my standards to where it seems you get either story or effects. It seems sadly fitting that south park reaired the china episode last night. When they show the stormtrooper at the end getting raped i finally felt as though revenge for jar jar had been taken

• After a skim through of these comments, I'm glad to see that a great deal of the nerd race does not rate Avatar in terms of its poor storytelling. However, I'm surprised that no-one picked up on this (taken from my full avatar rant): The helicopter/plane thingy pilot. Now, we are led to believe that the humans (both the coporate lot and the military) are both firmly under the impressions that the Na'vi are savages, no better than animals, and therefore relatively unimportant (well, important enough to create avatars to co-operate with them, but you get my point). All the humans are under this impression, apart from the sciency lot who feel compassion with the Na'vi because well, they become them from time to time. The pilot has fuck all to do with them; she just takes them place to place. But as if their opinions are fucking contagious, our woman on the inside develops a conscience, just as they're blowing up the sacred tree. She has absolutely no reason to cease her assualt and all reason dictates that she should be in the same mindset as the rest of the blood-thirsty humans. Then, when she does fuck off, no-one seems to notice, not even her own gun crew! There were five of those plane things firing at the tree; we're led to believe that either a) no-one noticed or b) punishment for disobiedience in the military just doesn't happen in the future. We see her later serving hot drinks and light refreshments to a guard and, judging by his response, this is a regular occurance...for a FUCKING PILOT. I couldn't have been happier when she blew the fuck up.

• Too late.. Transformer 2 have already been made

• You might not want to read too much into Avatar as a turn from quality cinematic storytelling. I'm pretty sure that's also what some people said when color first came to B&W cinema. Avatar brings something new to the table, and people are just psyched at seeing something they've never seen before, that's all.

• Is it ever addressed WHY the guy is in a wheelchair? I mean, seems to me if they can blend human and Pandora DNA and grow giant smurf elf catpeople, I would think fixing his injury would be fairly simple, yes? no? Oh, wait, it's an EVIL CORPORATION, they'd NEVER use their science to do something obvious that could make them easy money like that.

• I think any decent geek would shit his pants at Avatar's special effects, and those that bash the movie on the merit of its story just doesn't see the point.

• @everyone who talks about the HYPE , think about this : we waited 10 years for Freddy vs Jason 13 years for Aliens versus Predator 21 years for GIjoe and 11 years for TF two of them ended up being cheaply made (fvj, avp) ; under 2 hrs with the worst writing imaginable . TF was legos on steroids JOE was a flat chested girl playing a hotty and complaining that she had to wear prostetics *look it up* but both of them were worth the wait (to the general public), giving u more bang for your buck and living up to the hype (2h 30m with no potty break ) so what if u say it was 30 minz to long , compared to normal films that have 1H45 and plot holes galore and then said film beats a movie the REAL PUBLIC fell in love with in awards , really says something about class and taste in Cinema . JAMES SHOULD HAVE HAD THE FORESIGHT TO TOSS IN AN INTERMISSION for us who were holding out for damn near 3hrs .

• Pretty much summed up my feelings about the movie there.

• That is an excellent point, but voting at least is free. ;-) I'll probably see it tonight.

• I caught the torch thing too! If Rob doesn't commit to making an Avatar FAQ (a la the Transformers: RoTF FAQ), we should do it for him!

• I compare seeing this movie to voting. If nothing else, see it so you have a right to complain.

• "Unobtanium?" SERIOUSLY? My friends and I have been using that name derisively for years for anything fictional that's supposed to be indestructible. It's like adamantium, only lamer. I haven't seen this yet, and I think now I don't really want to. Argh the moral dilemma of rewarding twaddle so I can see eye-candy. Crap.

• I will admit to not having seen avatar yet so everyone can bash my opinion as they see fit but i have always been consistant in what i look for in a movie. Without stepping into the theater i gather everyone here agrees that it is mostly for the visuals that you should see this for. Should i plan on bringing a "book on tape" on my ipod and "watch". The movie and enjoy a real story at the same time? I also. Cant get past the preachy part that everyone seems to be talking about. In the past 10 years i cant think of a movie that pissed me off more than happy feet. I did not expect an ultra left wing capitolism is bad ooooooh watch out the penguin plight is the fault of the evil global companies when i took my kids to see it. Not only did it piss me off that it was global warming crqp and anti industry stuff in a kids movie (i dont think they belong together) but at the end the happy penguin it dancing along with a fucking tracking device packpak surgically implanted on him. Wtf?! My 11 yr old son wanted to see avatar so i let him go with friends. He said it was ok, not as stupid as crystal skull but cooler to look at. All i can think as i read these comments is, whata a sad day we live in where story really doesnt matter anymore. Up was visually beautiful and the story was even better. Wall-e had no dialog for part of the film and was enchanting. Inglorious basterds had me laughing my ass off. There are still great storytellers...and great stories to be told. But, in this day of reality shows where scripts and acting are no longer a worthwile commodity we accept shit and find ways to make it palatable. Stock up on the ketchup people because as long as you accept salsbury steak and treat it like filet, thats all youre going to get. Remember, 2001 changed sci fi movies forever and there were no computer effects at all. BTW i will apologize for typos etc in advance before the vultures decend. This was from my blackberry as i sit in traffic

• I like Avatar, but I can't argue that, without it's special effects, it would be a very substandard movie. I guess I disagree with you, Rob Bricken. I'm a little new to this...am I supposed to tell you to screw off because we have different opinions? Or should I try to come up with some more personal insults? I think I'm supposed to stop coming to this site now that we don't see eye to eye on something, but...I dunno, I kinda WANT to keep coming here. Is that OK?

• Must be hard to keep friends, seeing as how you cut all ties over one disagreement. I like Avatar, but I can't argue with the logic that without the special effects, it'd be a very substandard movie.

• I think people are disappointed that Avatar doesn't measure up to the standards of his previous efforts. I am only a little disappointed, because it sure doesn't. Cameron certainly is not as strong a writer as he is a director. But the only wheel he was trying to reinvent was movie technology, and he certainly succeeded there. Christ, everyone acts as if they never enjoyed a mindless summer blockbuster before.

• Unobtanium is also a MacGuffin. Who knows what's so important about the Maltese Falcon? What's in the silver briefcase in Ronin? Rob, all true on Avatar. And also beside the point. Avatar is a proof of concept. Terminator was stunning cinema in its day. Now, it's hokey, we realize Ahnuld can't act, the special effects suck, and the plot has so many holes and loopholes... In the end, Avatar will earn more money than God, and will not stand the test of time. What James Cameron movie has (besides Aliens perhaps)?

• "The planet is called "Pandora" and the valuable mineral -- whose worth is never explained -- is called "unobtanium." There is no way James Cameron didn't write this shit in the fourth grade". Rob, you still reek of Cameron hate. This is directly from the Wikipedia entry for Unobtainium, a word that has existed since the 50's. Also the link is below: Unobtainium is a humorous name for any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application, usually in fiction or thought experiments. The properties of any particular unobtainium depend on the intended use. For example, a pulley made of unobtainium might be massless and frictionless. However, if used in a nuclear rocket, unobtainium would be light, strong at high temperatures, and resistant to radiation damage. The word unobtainium is a portmanteau derived from unobtainable + -ium (the suffix for a number of chemical elements). Other variations include unobtanium and unattainium with the same meaning. Another largely synonymous term is wishalloy,[1] although the sense is often subtly different in that a wishalloy usually doesn't exist at all, whereas unobtainium may merely be unavailable. The term handwavium can also be used to indicate a material that probably cannot even in principle be real. The name unobtainium also closely resembles the systematic element name for undiscovered elements that have an atomic number of 100–199. Like unobtainium, these all have 5 syllable names beginning with "un" and ending in "ium". The term was, however, in use long before the IUPAC systematic names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

• LOL you guys only know it's a matter of time...

• You are absolutely right. That is why I am so confused as to why multiple people complain about the movie not implicitly stating the exact uses of unobtanium. It is so obvious, I don't see why most people are so hesitant to infer certain things from e movie, especially details that would have no effect on the plot whatsoever.

• shhh! you're supposed to be so wowed by the effects that you don't pay attention to such minor details like that! I mean it's not like Cameron spent that much time working the script!

• I agree with you. Sometimes as a parent you want to be able to take your kids and wife to a movie that they enjoy. They enjoyed the movie, thus the money was well spent. Was there flaws in the movie? Yeah. But in the end I blew the loot, and my family was happy. This wasn't Transformers where the huge plot holes aggravated me to no end. The story in Avatar was simple, too simple maybe, but you know, when you have kids and you go to the theater, simple is fine. You can always watch the more 'thoughtful' movies in the confines of your house.

• Given that, I look forward to the Avatar remake starring Neil Diamond.

• No. They said they can't breathe, and considering they can survive the atmosphere fine with a face mask, and in the villain's case, holding his breath, the only explanation for why they can't breathe is lack of oxygen. Not to mention the method of suffocation seen throughout the film is standard with O2 deprivation, and not with something like too much CO2 in the air or too much N2. The line about this says that if you lose your mask, you're unconscious in 20 seconds, you're dead in 4 minutes. This is also a standard approximation for O2 deprivation. Also I just remembered something else. What the hell happened to Norm? His avatar is shot, and he climbs out of his pod, supposedly in pain but alive, and then we don't see him til the end when the bad guys are escorted out. But when the Col. cracks open the pod room, he's not there (otherwise he would have suffocated). Where did he go? And in that final scene he's standing there in human form and you can see his avatar there as well escorting the humans. How is that possible?

• I'm surprised at how controversial this movie has turned out to be. People either love it or hate it, no in between. I saw it in IMAX 3D and I have to agree that, while it was absolutely beautiful, the plot was a bit tiresome. It had a lot of cool elements though, enough to keep me entertained --- although not for the entire 2 hours and 42 minutes of the film. I wish there had been a better look at the Na'Vi. I thought it was kind of interesting that they plug into a network that has somehow evolved into a planet but it leaves a lot unanswered and untold. I'm not sure what Cameron was going for other than trying to make another HUGE! EPIC! MOVIE!

• Forewarning, I forgo reading the 100+ comments left before me due to time constraints this morning... Thereby, I am just going to leave my two cents worth and make a hasty retreat. The 3D visuals were spectacular (especially in IMAX). Cameron put tons of thought into his angles and colors used for the use of this tech. My only gripe is that for the love scene that the background was in 3D... Not Zoe's and Sam's characters. I only say this due to the many under 10 kids that I saw in the theater. Storyline actually had the same overall <i>"moral"</i> as Ferngully... Take care of our planet before it dies off. Only this time it had a hint of capitalism in it as well. But, presented in a more futuristic fashion with really bad voice acting by Sam Worthington. The running time... Meh. In agreement with Rob, it could have been cut back by at least 20 minutes. I had to sit through it several times with my husband. I would like my life back after the 2nd time due to seeing it in IMAX and the full frontal view of furry crotches. Soundtrack, I hate the end theme. Love the actual score for the movie. Rob, if it hasn't been said previously... The worth of the ore that the company was going after was mentioned. It was when the corp guy was holding it up to Weaver's character in human form. I think it was something in the 1k's mark.

• COBRA!!!!! When your brains have turned into mush from watching terrible movies with giant robots we'll be waiting to drive our H.I.S.S. tanks in. And don't think we'll be setting up some stupid weather dominator either. NO, it's drive by H.I.S.S. tank gang warfare this time.

• great. Thanks for the nightmare fuel.

• Someone asked my how Transformers 2 was after I saw it I said.. It was like sitting behind a garbage truck on recycling day.

• I just figured out why I hate (That's right, HATE) this movie. It is because they actually thought they were making a really good, well thought out movie. If Cameron had embraced the badness of this script and how bad his actors were it could have been fun. But no. He thought this movie would make people really think about themselves. IMO.

• What movies do I like? Paths of Glory Full Metal Jacket A Clockwork Orange Taxi Driver Star Wars IV, V Jaws You know, good movies with plot and characters I care about, not to mention awesome stories.

• I had that thought while I was in the theater as well, but then I remembered that they never specifically said there was no oxygen, just that the atmosphere was toxic. It could be that there's plenty of O2 available, but the atmosphere may also be saturated in some other toxic chemical.

• agreed with you 100%. I said as soon as we left the theater that seeing that movie is as close as I'll ever get to be being a kid and seeing Star Wars at the movies.

• In the original Star Wars (which I think is a comparable movie, with its water-thin plot but mind blowing special effects) Vader was a cliche bad guy. In the later movies there was conflict and redemption, but episode 4 was pretty black and white. Whose to say that later Avatar movies won't be more complex a la 'Empire'

• Wow. Did Cameron offer you as much money as he paid the producers of the 'Bones' episode 'King of Kong' for you to run an advert for his new movie?

• Also, why were the photographs and bulldozer security cam feeds in 3D?

• I guess you won't see this, but isn't this blog (and every other blog) all about one person's opinion? I don't see why you'd stop reading it, just because the writer disagreed with you on a film. Besides, it's not like he was being unfair in his review.

• In regards to everything you've said in your review, you are probably right. But I'll share my little observations: I brought my girlfriend whos never wants to see sci-fi because english is her second language, and she loved it and was moved by it, saying it was like a fairy-tale to her. She got it, and could appreciate it. Saw it again with my family because they were interested. They are still talking about how much they enjoyed it emotionally and how immersive it was. For once, I didnt have to spend an hour trying to explain the plot of the movie in a futile attempt to justify why they should enjoy it and why I brought them at all... and with more "interesting" sci-fi movies, I almost always end up doing that without fail. I got some people who are normally biased against sci-fi and fantasy to go see it and they enjoyed it. What if the movie gets them to have a new appreciation for sci-fi? I wont argue with that. To us nerds who can enjoy the pleasures of some really deep and interesting sci-fi, this movie is boring no doubt. But, in a way, I've lived vicariously through those Ive seen it with. I knew what was going to happen, I knew what the characters would do; but I still was drawn into the movie and cared for the characters in it. Maybe I'm not as 'cultured' as the others reading this, but I enjoyed the hell out of it along with apparently most other people in the theater. Do you have to be elitist to have a valid opinion about it? Not at all. It's not always about getting all the mental gears turning: its about getting the right gears turning. The characters are likable, you get drawn into their beautiful world, you empathize the shock, sorrow, and determination of the Navi in face of the enemy which are necessarily exaggerated (honestly, it would detract from the purpose of where the movie is directing your emotions if you had a more ambiguous enemy). Its a simple forumla, and doesnt require alot of analysis (someone said "turn your brain off") but its palpable and if you drink what its offering you can actually feel with the movie and enjoy it. And on last thing: so what if it is Pocahontas? Ive never watched Pocahontas. I know plenty of people who wouldn't go randomly watch a Disney movie. I know the story of course but seriously... Its not like its a plot Ive sat to watch time and time again. Can't speak for anyone else though.

• Of course they do. Would you regularly visit a site that posted about things you didn't like? Or one that has completely opposite opinions to yours? On the internet, like seeks out like.

• Bookmark to Topless Robot removed.

• If this movie had the story-equivalent of its FX- holy-fuckin-shit-wow, it would have been awesome. It reminded me of American History- how people came to this country and killed all the natives for their land, except throw in some sci-fi elements and a happy-ending. Voila! They've probably just won themselves an oscar! Sure, it'll make money. It'll probably make more money than I can even cleverly describe in words. How truly groundbreaking is a movie who's special effects only required to have obscene amounts of money thrown at it to produce? Sure we have the computers to do it, fine. Sure, it set the bar for visual effects. But am I impressed that all they had to do was keep pouring money into a hole until something came out? No. To me, money does not equal success. I'm probably in the minority here, and that's okay. I've said my peace about this movie. Sorry, didn't mean to have a nerdrage Hulk moment. =)

• I think Rob is cool too dude. I'm just pointing out that everyone on this site tends to always side with him on matters of film and...well everything. Lets be honest though he is always posting ridiculous Japanese movie trailers that are far worse than AVATAR. I have no problems with Rob it's just the community can never be critical of him when they need be.

• i dont knw about trilogy , but eps3 pretty much made me think of the Dark Lord in a heroic light , remember Frank" Punisher " Castle did the same thing [ took vengeance / tried to save / tried to avenge his loved ones] Damn that is right up there with wolvie and the cause of his eternal (and rightly so) Grudge with ole silversamurai . so you guys better get ur facts straight , Anakin CANT BE EVIL someone who does all that to save their beloved IS NOT A BADDIE . if they were then you would have to toss old Chromedome Silver Surfer as a VILLAN forever as well . BTW : TR i have to say this is the biggest backlash i have ever seen since i have been on this site O_o

• Great job with trying to base your thoughts on the subject of Avatar by citing someone else's opinion of "shitty Doctor Who!" Superb logic, my friend!! Oh. Hey. In fact, I got a good one that you'll like: *ahem* Fire Hydrants are great, because Ed Asner likes waffles!! See? Get it? My logic is just as good as yours now! Because I just based my opinion on fire hydrants on something completely unrelated, about how much Ed Asner likes waffles!! Isn't it fun to pretend that two completely different fucking thins are somehow related in order to prove a trolling, worthless opinion that doesn't even make any goddamn sense? Whee! P.S: You're fucking stupid, by the way.

• Yes, but isn't that like saying that the 9/11 attacks were better than the Holocaust? Because I know that if it came down to the choice between the two, I'd still kindly ask for neither.

• Of course. Welcome to Stupidtown. Where any movie is instantly good because one should instantly just shut up and drop LSD to enjoy it. Y'know, Despite the movie in question still being fucking terrible in reality. I wish I could end all of my arguments like that. Don't agree with me? Go drop LSD. Have a differing opinion on something? Go drop LSD. Great to know that absolutely every problem on earth can be easily rectified with a little convenient slice of possible permanent brain damage and years of flashbacks that'll end with the stabbing of ones own self to death with a fork someday.

• Yes. How dare he not have made his own major theatrical release before he has an honest opinion about a movie. Great logic. And if you havn't detected the obvious sarcasm already, please note that i'm mocking your stupidity. But maybe I should try and see this from your reasoning. So, let's see if I've got this straight. YOU don't seem to have made a movie yourself. Does that mean YOU'RE not qualified to call it "awesome", either? After all, if your logic applies to one direction of the swinging opinion door, then it has to apply to the other. So, hey. I guess that means that you're opinion is equally as valid as his, therefore. Go figure. But hey. Don't blame me. These are YOUR rules for critique, apparently. Haven't made a CGI film = no qualified to have an opinion, right? But oh wait, also according to you, your opinion is supposed to be more valid than his, when you haven't made a film either, but.... you're still passing off your opinion as superior to his, anyway, and..... *head explodes from trying to figure out your broken fanboy logic*

• I don't think he was nitpicking the film quite so much as grandly deconstructing it's entire plot as being an utter piece of shit with one, broad, well stated stroke. But hey. Keep fishing for better butthurt responses towards honest reviews. I' sure you'll think of a better point, and then try to save face by changing your gears, backpedaling and trying another tactic. It's called outraged fanboy 101. Brush up on your lessons.

• Or, maybe he's just honest about what a transparent mess the film is and that you're gut reaction in response to his review is a simple, butthurt one. Point made. G'bye.

• "but likeing that doesn't make someone a simpleton." Yes. It does. Evidenced perfectly by the fact that you cannot even spell the word "liking".

• Movies that are worth a shit. Obviously none of them have come anywhere close to this discussion.

• As One Who Has Not (And May Not) see the film- in response to the "turn off your brain" argument: There is a difference between 'Suspension of Disbelief' and not bothering to think about anything but the shiny stuff in front of your face. As One Who Works In The Film Industry (as an actor, production manager, sfx artist, makeup artist, propmaster etc.) In A Variety Of Roles- in response to the Plot v. Pretty To Look at argument: The visual element will be the only reason I see this film (if at all). Sometimes, we need to look at the pretty pictures and recognize the innovation required to create them. Especially if we are inclined to make pretty pictures of our own. Even when the story is not worthy of the pictures. But, goddammit sometimes it is beyond frustrating to observe incredible visual creations that are made less stunning, are bogged down, etc; by a lack of regard for storytelling. Especially when there is clearly no lack of funding. Really? You spend a godzillion dollars to make a film that may or may not (the point is that the possibility exists because you have the cash) revolutionize the way films are made... and you can't throw down a few more bones to make the story worth hearing?

• you've hit the nail right on the head and i give you mad kudos for telling it like it is and not sucking james cameron's cock like all the critics out there. i'm shocked you say one bad thing about avatar and you have 20+ fanboys trying to tell you that you are not human. this film is nothing but a giant visual masterpiece and nothing else, i've seen it twice and i still don't see why people are saying its the next real big thing when it doesn't tell a real story, it's like the new star wars films, all style and no substance

• Wuh? Rob's cool in my books, man. We just disagree on a movie. Take a breath. It's all good. Really.

• It's because everyone here kisses Rob's ass and Rob tends to like only shitty over the top Japanese films or cartoons involving buff men wearing S&M gear.

• No, nobody's saying he did, they're just saying it's a word with a definition that makes it a VERY stupid choice to use.

• From the previews this "veiled" criticism is about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the nuts!

• I dunno if the plot or characters were bad per se. It's just that we'd seen them a billion times before. They're just dressed up and set in space. Then again, someone somewhere said that the same thing could be said of the original Star Wars films when they came out. Plus Sigorney interestingly was reprising not Ripley, but Jane Goodall with cat people refugees. Meanwhile, despite the cliche plot and characters, I really enjoyed the flora and fauna of the alien planet. It was almost as if Cameron was still doing nature documentaries, which honestly I kinda enjoy anyway. To me the story of scientists studying the alien ecosystem was interesting enough by itself.

• Any surprise that I read a Rolling Stone article where Cameron talked about dropping acid in college? Though at least he said it was a waste of time in that one could not be outwardly productive locking oneself in a mental trip.

• I'd agree with you on every point. Spot on. It truly IS a must-see, for the visual spectacle/3-D breakthroughs, but as all other movies advance to this level of cinematography, Avatar will be just a mediocre flick. Great review, Bricken! I like being in agreement with others -- makes the world smooth.

• Star Wars was a remake of Hidden Fortress, yes, but that doesn't make it cliched. You can still do innovative things with ye olde hero myth. Cameron did not. And Tolkien stitched LOTR out of a grab bag of motifs, none of which are so tired as to be unwelcome. Compare Saruman as a villain to the simplistic bullies in Avatar. THAT'S what Rob is rightly objecting to.

• not the magical mystery goo! :wail of despondency:

• I don't think there's anything wrong with a stereotypical plot, as long as that story is told well. The fact that one knows how a story will end does not necessarily mean it's unenjoyable. For example, everyone knows that Shrek and Fiona will end up living happily ever after, but no one resents the movie for it.

• Think of it this way. If the horns are amazing but the woodwinds and the drums suck, you're probably not going to be enjoying the music quite so much. That's the case with Avatar. Three fourths of the orchestra is playing Beethoven's fifth and the other fourth is playing a very bad Row, Row Your Boat. If you can enjoy that, then good for you.

• Yes that reaction happens because the reaction creates oxygen from the water. And if we could assume that he has some magic thermite or whatever match, you can't explain why he dips his torch in random mystery goo.

• Well, thanks for making an attempt at a balanced review. However, I do think you are grading it a little harshly in some areas. The plot was definitely disappointingly familiar. It bothered me throughout the movie. But I think it was executed smoothly. I still found myself caring about the characters and what happened to them. It did manage to reach me on an emotional level (at least a little -- I certainly wasn't all choked up like I was during the first 20 mins of Up). Sam Worthington's acting wasn't remarkable, but I think you are being unfair to call it terrible. My other issue is that I feel you and many others are under-selling it visually. It isn't just a leap forward in the behind-the scenes tech, it was remarkable executed from a design standpoint. That world was incredibly immersive, despite the problems with biology, physics, etc. It displayed true artistry in its construction and it deserves respect in that regard. A couple final thoughts about the movie's reception here. First, how many people were surprised by the plot of the original Star Wars trilogy? Why do you overlook the significant problems with the plot, characters, and science of those movies, but not here? Second, how many people think District 9 wasn't also a very familiar plot with a masterful presentation? Why are the Prawns more acceptable from a design perspective than the Na'vi? Now, I'm not trying to claim Avatar is better than Star Wars or District 9. I could watch those movies again and again (and have), while I'm not sure how many times I'll be able to sit down for Avatar in the years to come. I'm just thinking there's been a lot of loss of perspective in the rush to dislike this movie, and and I'm not sure why. Anyway, TL;DR, I'm sure, but those are my thoughts.

• also, you don't need flame to produce light; but I guess that's a moot point considering what was shown on screen. anyway, let's not spend too much time pondering the workings of a movie that could have been written by a ten year old :(

• well, when you take an alkalai metal and splash water on it, you get fire too. there are a lot of other reactions, beyond combustion, that also yeild flames.

• Rule #1 of Navi Sex: You never go rhino's ass to tentacle!

• I'm gonna start my comment by eating some much-deserved crow. There were a few "Avatar" discussions on this site prior to the flick's release in which I said that there was no way in Hell that the picture would turn a profit sufficient to justify further Cameron craziness down the line. I may even have said it would lose money. I was wrong. Colossally wrong. This movie is raking it in hand over fist. Crow eaten. Now hopefully Cameron can make that "Battle Angel Alita" film he's been wanting to do for years. That said, I have to agree with Rob's review on both fronts. It's a bad movie with a hackneyed story and a piss-poor script. But the 3-D spectacle. Oh God the 3-D spectacle. This is quite possibly the "Birth of a Nation" of mainstream digital 3-D. Of course, Griffith's love letter to the KKK still sort of holds up as a film if you can get over its reactionary politics and use of Wagner in an overtly racist context prior to the rise of Nazism. Time likely won't be so kind to "Avatar." Despite seeing this bitch in IMAX 3-D, the script kept breaking the immersion for me. Every time someone said "unobtainium" I wanted to throw my arms up and say "oh what the fuck?!" And I actually lost my moviegoing composure when the Na'Vi priestess talked about "saving" Sigourney Weaver's consciousness in her avatar body. The use of the term "save" was so glaringly terrible coming from the mouth of a stone-age character referring to the transfer of information to an organic storage medium that the history of the line was instantly obvious: Cameron hires a hack to write a script based on the original idea the former probably stole from a book he read as a kid. The hack puts that shit off until his deadline was deadly close. He writes the line thinking "I'll go back and fix the wording on the next draft." Oops, he forgets and the line ends up in the near final draft. Cameron hands the screenplay to a script doctor and says "do your thing, pencilneck." Now here's where things get stupid. Cameron is notoriously contrary, confrontational, and hard to work with. He obviously doesn't give a shit about the script, but I bet he pretends to when some nobody tries to change something in it. He probably hires script doctors just to have people to drag into arguments. So the hapless dialogue polisher tries to change clunkers like "unobtanium" and "save" but eventually gives up in impotent frustration. Cameron gets the cheap victory he paid for and the movie's script stays dumb as Hell.

• But the thing about the couples you mention is that they are not as plain as you may think: Luke and Vader: True, light and dark. But also temptation and redemption. Luke and vader were tempted by the dark side and eventually got out of it. So they are both light AND dark. Holmes and Moriarty: They were the most complex characters you mentioned. Holmes was not only a great detective, but he had tons of negative attributes, like an addiction to opium, and he was a sever OC. On the other hand Moriarty was an ideal of a bad guy, the only one that could outsmart Holmes and he was fascinated by him. He was also a mathematician. But Conan Doyle only introduced Moriarty when he wanted to kill Sherlock Holmes as he was tired of the character. So it was more an escape route for the author than a true arch-nemesis. And as for the third couple: Simba ad Mufasa were father and son and they were both good. I think you meant Scar, and these really are plain good and bad. Unless you count running away from the scene of a crime to avoid being blamed for your father's death... That was kinda wrong. I think is nice to know which side you are on, but I also believe is better if you have to think about it for a second. I should know, I'm usually rooting for the bad guys since my MOTU days :)

• <a href="http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html">This</a> is a pretty good explanation of, well every problem everyone has with this movie. Except for why it took ten years to trim it down from an incredible epic to a shitty pocahontas remake.

• Hmm, about the only thing I really agree with is about Avatar's length. The movie's too damn long. In the beginning, I found it enthralling as the sci-fi technology was introduced, but after the marines destroyed the big tree, I thought it dragged. Had the movie ended <i>immediately</i> after the tribe had booted Sully out (about forty or fifty minutes before the actual end), I would have viewed Avatar as a great film. But James Cameron had to drag things out and have a giant, protracted showdown and so I merely thought it was a good movie. That the movie is formulaic doesn't bother me; virtually all movies are, to some extent, ripping off some other movie/ story. What matters to me is how the movie pulls off the formula, and I thought Avatar handled its natives versus colonist story fairly well. I was entertained, which is what really counts. It's no Star Wars, but it was fun.

• So what metric are you judging its failure by then? It has made shitloads of money and is getting a warm critical reception. Are you going to declare it a failure because a bunch of posters on Topless Robot don't like it?

• As per his twitter, I am glad to see one yo mama comment from rob. I agree with the review. It's pretty. but only if you see it in IMAX with 3d, otherwise, the dances with wolves plot is unbearable. Also, i hope the natives have some kind of tentacle condom. they be sticking that shit in animals and plants and the ground and apparently each other in the deleted dvd scene. Historically Europe got syphilis from the Caribbean, is all i'm sayin.

• Yeah, theatres reusing 3D glasses like that pisses me off. I wish I could forgo the $3 charge for them and just use the ones I already have from other 3D films.

• I really liked Avatar, I think it's a visual masterpiece. But I do agree with most of what you said. My biggest peeve was anti-human/American/military/Capitalist/technology message. I mean, seriously? I have to believe that we as a species will not behave that way by the time we make it to space (and have been continually shocked by how many people disagree with me). The whole story would have been improved by a huge margin had he simply evened out the good and evil on both sides. But I haven't been surprised by a story for quite some time. I think the trend today with movies is style over substance. World-building overshadows everything else. That's fortunate for me, because I personally like big worlds (like, I really enjoy all the Star Wars movies because I like that universe, not because I have any illusions about the brilliance of Jar Jar Binks), so I went to be transported and was. I think Avatar will be remembered for the era it helped usher in, more than for its story, but I did enjoy it, and think that what Cameron did well, he did damn well.

• Um, no O2, no fire.

• At least Whedon can write some witty dialogue.

• ...Mufasa was a good guy, SCAR was the evil lion, dumbass. Also, if you think "Luke and Vader" is black and white, you need to actually pay attention at all next time you watch the Empire Strikes Back and/or Return of the Jedi!!!

TotalComments: 100