Movie review: Avatar (Round 2)

1/25/2010
By Dan PIckles
Staff Writer

Well everyone, it’s been four weeks (or so), and I’m back. I spent my vacation recuperating after my horrendous journey into Avatar country. Physically speaking, I’ve healed - but only time will salve my lingering mental wounds. 

Time, and further vengeance, that is.

That’s right, folks - my score with Avatar and its supporters is nowhere near finished. Behold the sequel to my Avatar review.

In this sequel, I won’t delve back into why I think Avatar is terrible, but will instead examine some of the astounding logic I’ve seen employed lately to explain why Avatar is good. Join me, won’t you? 

Astounding Logic #1: Avatar’s plot doesn’t matter. It’s important because it’s revolutionary new technology.
Okay, fine. Let’s say for the sake of argument that there is something new about Avatar. I’ll overlook the lack of plot and acting talent and view the film as just a technical exercise.

Wouldn’t we, as a movie-going public, have been better served if this technical demonstration had been carried out in a more reasonable fashion? Say, for example, a fifteen minute demo-video, rather than a three-hour abomination.

Ron Popeil may have changed the face of jerky-making when he designed his food dehydrator, but he didn’t need half a million dollars and three hours of our time to bring his ingenuity to the world. 


Astounding Logic #2: Sure, Avatar’s plot has been done before, but why should that matter? It’s a good plot!
Well, yes, it’s a good plot in those other movies, but not here. Those other movies had qualities that put the plot to good use, whether it was solid acting, interesting characters, or a new twist on an old story.

To put it in other terms, let’s say that I purchase the canvas on which the Mona Lisa is painted, strip the painting off, and re-cover it with lewd drawings of stick figures. Have I just created great art? No. I’ve just taken something that was once put to good use and smeared weird doodles all over it. 

Astounding Logic #3: Hey, at least James Cameron meant well...
This is a common one. Many people see James Cameron’s movie as an indictment of industrialism and capitalist greed. (I’ll withhold pointing out what an ironic gesture a half a billion dollar anti-capitalism movie would be.)

Additionally, I’ve read many reviews where the writer felt the need to support the movie because of it’s depiction of the earthy people triumphing over the menace of industry.

Unfortunately, I didn’t see it that way. The movie I saw was about an indigenous population that required a white man to rescue them from destruction at the hands of other white men. Ever wonder why the indigenous population couldn’t save themselves? Me too. 

Astounding Logic #3: Avatar is too big for a plot. It’s a visual experience.
Okay, I’ll bite, Koyaanisqatsi did this in the early 80’s. But why, oh lovers of fine visual experiences, did James Cameron decide to put a half-baked plot behind his work of visual art? Ponder, my friends. Ponder. 

Okay, I’m done. I feel as though I’ve abused Avatar enough. Next week, I’ll write a review about a completely new movie - I promise. Perhaps by then, these blue devils will have worked their way out of the theaters, and I can view a movie in peace.

Until, then....