I have no reason for watching and listening to a random guy who's opinion I don't care about rip apart on the level of nitty gritty itty bitty aspects of a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed.

sorry, avatar never got any razzies nominations so far, which the phantom menace was miserably presented with, and nine oscar nominations has proved enough....even the great Steven Spielberg praised the movie as 'the most evocative film he's ever seen'...so if you guys have problems with the storyline just make the oscar voters your punching bags!!!! any bad comments here will gain you nothing but terrible embarassment....

I can overlook Avatar's Ferngully/Dances with Wolves/Pocohontas storyline because while watching it, I never once looked at my watch...for a 2hr40 minute film, the visuals and basic story kept me engaged. That speaks volumes.
I was taken out of the movie twice by avoidable sloppiness which I consider to be this movies only negatives, and I'm going by memory here, so please correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you won't hesitate to do)

1. Unobtanium - stupid name, replace it with something believable.

2. The CEO guy (forget his name) says that the Na'vi are located on the richest deposit of said mineral WITHIN 200 MILES!!! This is a company that has travelled intergalactically to get to the planet...surely they can go the 200 extra miles to get a deposit that doesn't displace the Na'vi. All it would have taken was to say that it is the LAST deposit on the planet. Sloppy.

Is Avatar a perfect movie, no...but it is impressive.

I'm surprised how many people care what this clown thinks.

That's too bad. His Phantom Menace review was so good, and this one was just kinda terrible. He needs to tackle actually bad movies. I'm a little disappointed you guys even posted this one.

Everyone who has commented that this review isn't as good as the Phantom Menace review because his arguments for the films weaknesses are missing the point. The points he is making in the review are all logical and well thought out and the reason they seem weaker arguments for criticizing the movie is because Avatar was not as bad as the Phantom Menace. HE EVEN SAYS THAT THE MOVIE ISN'T TERRIBLE. Therefore he can't make as harsh criticisms as he did for episode I.

And for people saying that Avatar is this generation's Star Wars, you are crazy. Star Wars was achieved with a relatively low budget, a cast of unknowns and people working hard for something they thought was revolutionary. Cameron took the stories of Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves, changed some names, came up with Unobtanium, a ridiculous name that should take everyone with a science background out of the movie, and threw in some relatively big name actors (Sigourney Weaver, Sam Worthington, Giovanni Ribisi). For good measure he threw in 3D, a technology that has been around in movies since the 70s and should remain only in cheesy horror movies like Jaws 3D and Piranha. Cameron did all of this while producing the most expensive movie ever made. All of these facts contribute to the reason that Avatar is definitely NOT this generation's Star Wars.

Give this man a show and air instead of "At the Movies."

I would watch it religiously.

My review of the review.

That was a pretty funny review, some interesting and informative points, the Disney eyes, interesting, the fact that Avatar opened one day after the Titanic did in it's year, didn't know that. The reviewer as in his review of The Phantom Menace is comical and entertaining. Unfortunately most of the elements critiqued aren't nearly as bad as the ones of The Phantom Menace...taking away most of the validity of the review. I agree with others here. The reviewer should stick to reviewing actual shitty movies! Either that or be honest where parts of a movie succeed instead of try and spin it as a bad movie for irrelevant reasons.

Avatar IS the star wars of our generation, it takes us to a large, unimaginable new world in a new way with believable alien creatures that you care about. Sure, there is a certain charm and cockiness to early Lucas films that Avatar lacks, namely "HARRISON FORD". But Avatar didn't need to just create a likable rogue character just for the sake of it. Avatar is a DIFFERENT movie. I actually cared MORE about what was going on in Avatar than I did with what was going on in Star Wars:A New Hope. However, Star Wars was more funny and had more diverse characters. Two totally different elements of two totally different movies.

I'll agree Star Wars created a larger universe, more removed from our own with less boundaries. But just because the reviewer is trying to imply we should, no one is going to hate Avatar because Cameron tried to make the movie as touching and successful at the box-office as possible. Every movie does that.

Dances With Wolves. Sure, Avatar follows the story of the white messiah fable as a grounding to the story. Even Star Wars follows the heroes journey TO A T and the Star Wars saga over all is grounded from Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress. These things happen in film making. It's not a big surprise.

About the comparison of how native people being capable of doing terrible things to each other. And so we shouldn't really care about what these humans are doing to these natives? That's the point of this movie. The humans think of them as just some primitive beings (like what you're referring to). But the Na'vi are proven to be much much more than that. Much more at peace and connected to their world. Much more civilized and much less likely to DESTROY THEIR HOME PLANET as the humans did in this movie.

This review comes off sorta like someone saying "everyone in the world likes Avatar but they shouldn't and here's why" and then there is no good reason not to. Also, people's response to that will ALWAYS be "well, I liked it so I don't care what you think". Next time, please critique the shitty movies.. it's more fun!

This reviewer has ZERO credibility, I knew within the first 30 seconds that his tone is just to rile an audience and not to seriously review or discuss the film.

FAIL, and /Film is retarded for posting this garbage on their otherwise excellent website.

Sorry, but I think a great deal of people missed the train on Avatar. It happens.

The video was pretty entertaining. It's definitely not as good as The Phantom Menace review. The humor this time felt more recycled. I've heard most of what was in his review before. I don't think Avatar was bad enough a movie to make a review like that for it,because Avatar was pretty good. Too many people say it was the worst film of all time and too many say it was the best. Both are wrong.
The "Disney Eyes" argument was great, my favorite part of the video. However, the prawns from District 9 also have huge Disney eyes. I felt pity for the prawns the moment I saw that close-up of the prawn's eyes in the District 9 trailer. Had the prawns had tiny eyes or no children, it'd be impossible to feel sympathy for them.
Also, Star Wars featured a pretty basic villain too(yes he had much more development through the series, but I'm talking about just the first film). Darth Vader wears all black, has some apparent deformity that keeps him in a breathing suit, and has the deepest voice in the galaxy. His lightsaber is red as hell. He chokes people to death, including people who work for his own side. He killed Obi-Wan!
Avatar has flaws, but James Cameron can still fix them through a sequel. The first film was mainly a way of introducing Pandora, its inhabitants, etc. The plot was simplistic and so that it'd be easier for an audience to connect to and also so that more time could be used to explain the technology and mythology of the film's future. A sequel can be used to further develop characters, plot, etc. like Empire Strikes Back did.

and remember, with James Cameron's track record for sequels, Aliens, Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

I think we could be in for a great surprise.

Folk who don't follow blog comments or film opinion trends will find this video insightful. Apart from that, it was at least entertaining to sit through.

unobtanium.

good day.

The Wolfman looks awesome! I bet it will be a whole lot better than Avatar. It won't make as much but it will be definitely better than Crapatar!

AVATAR SUCKS!!! Plain and simple. Boring, cliché, predicable, cheesy, overdone, stupid, bland, waste of 500 million dollars and unoriginal. The CG was great! But that is not enough for a movie to be great.

Avatar is like candy... it's colorful and taste good at first, but after a while you get a headache, toothache, and a stomachache. Then you realize you shouldn't had so much and then you vomit.

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS GUY. HE SPEAKS NOTHING BUT TRUTH.

the movie suck big time I fell as sleep for 35min. when they enter pandora it was torture awful film and people that say this is the best film that they have ever seen I dont know what to say about that but to me I didnt like It at all who are we kidding here the movie is bad the dialog awful the characters stupid he used every single trick to make a blockbuster film... everything
I dont know what else to say I dont understand what people see about this film the movie suckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk I didnt mean the suckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk being racial

the review had good points but the experience was still mind blowing. so I think what we are witnessing is someone honing their craft. hes the best film maker of our time. just look at the money he pulls in from his films. theres not a lot of argument room. he does the work and it shows.

LOUD NOISES

This guy is a shit head. All he does is kick a movie once it's already down using all of the same fucked out arguments brought about by other nitpicky Che countercultural types. The thing about those types is that they love to hear their unoriginal opinions echoed to oblivion, so that's where this guy thinks he's some sort of messiah. How much satisfaction can he get from preaching to the choir?

Why can't this dude praise a movie that he actually enjoyed or find a new and interesting interpretation that others may have missed or recommend a movie that really emotionally impacted him instead, or at very least try making even a 5 minute movie "eviscerating" Shawshank or Pulp Fiction (you know, movies ACTUALLY well regarded)?

This guy is from Milwaukee, so who gives a shit what he thinks?

Wait, aren't you always at your computer or someplace where you can write non-stop comments on virtually everything this website posts...? And you mock people who live in Milwaukee?

lol

Non sequitur.

You're self-aware.

Meh, just soso.

I'd probably think the review was funnier if he didn't compare it to Titanic.

He even mentions how in Titanic you don't "feel" like the movie was running long....Seriously!? Titanic felt endless.

This guy has the world most ANNOYING voice ever.

I saw it three times actually, so that makes me a bigger retard than you. Only for the great visuals of course. I had an orgasm every time I saw some good CGI.

I am really angry with myself right now for having seen the movie twice! fool!

Avatar wasn't a masterpiece by any means. I don't think anyone will argue that here. But the constant attempts to bring the film down are somewhat amusing. Why compare a film that cost $500m to make to an art-house film? The former has to appeal to a much wider audience to make its money back and has to be simpler just by the nature of its production. I understand why some people, who like artsy kind of movies, will not like this film. Yet to trash it, to say all it has is good visuals, is quite baffling honestly. Suddenly, I read people saying that Avatar has a trashy plot, 2-D characters, shitty dialogue etc etc. I mean come on guys. Do you take the general movie goer to be a retard?

I'd argue that it's a masterpiece. IMO it's found its place in the small pantheon of massively popular cultural films with Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings.

But really, I don't want to argue, I'm just saying, there are people who consider it a masterpiece, I'm one of them.

I saw it 3 times too, and will be buying it on DVD.

Only 3 times? I'm up to 6 and can't get enough. The theater is only two blocks away also, which is equivalent to having a crack dealer as your next door neighbor if you happen to be an addict.

Haha, it's funny you should comment on this freemachine. I almost responded saying "don't say no one will argue whether it's a masterpiece, ask freemachine about his opinion on it."

I'm poor, 3 times is enough for me, twice in 3D and once in 2D on a discounted student ticket. It's actually still very good looking in 2D, but 3D does add a great layer to the visuals, I'd still advise anyone to see it in 3D first. I did have the opportunity to notice more CGI in 2D, like did you know Jake's whole body in the beginning while he's floating outside his cryo chamber is CG? It makes sense, but it's impossible for me to see it while in 3D.

People are just bitter and cynical. They feel the need to make themselves seem better than all the other peons in society. The success of others, even if it is warranted, and it is entirely warranted in this case, brings out the biterness like you wouldn't believe.

Whats funny is that in my experience, the majority of these people with superiority complexes are the types of people with no social skills, unable to relate to other, real, people. So they just take their bitterness and cynicism out on others online.

Its pathetic. So many people poured so much time from their lives to make this amazing movie, and the pains of their labour have paid off and been acknowledged worldwide, despite all the negativity prior to its release, and yet you still have people constantly belittling the film and the people who worked on it.

I don't really understand why people are getting a rise out of this. I understand why blogger-critics would sometimes be very negative towards a mainstream movie. Criticizing a main release for them is sometimes simply a matter of establishing their credentials as good critics. Criticize a blockbuster, and you suddenly have some "standards" that are not being met by the movie, which therefore makes you a better movie reviewer than an average movie-goer, who is just a simpleton, a cretinous idiot.

Agreed. People like to have a reason to complain, especially if it's complaining about something that's doing well, probably better than anything they'll ever do. That's what the internet is for.

You make a good point. Avatar could not have paid for the visuals if it had a script that wasn't immediately accessible to the broader audience. It probably could've had deeper characters though.

i actually thought the ending to tdk was much more complex and unexpected than any moment in avatar. The film itself was deeper than other movies of its genre, and the prime example would have to be the joker character. The Nicholson version was all about killing as many people as possible, but the ledger version always felt like it had something more to it thanks to both performance and excellent writing by the nolan brothers. Throughout the movie, it is not enough for the character to do evil things himself, he forces and tricks others into exposing their chaotic nature. Nearly ever joker scene, if you check carefully, involves him offering potential victims a choice to save their own skins. By the end of the film, he has manipulated the people of Gotham to do violent, selfish actions to save themselves. As he says in the interrogation room, 'when the chips are down, these people will eat each other.' Also, if you think its still simple, i'd check out the harvey dent hospital scene again. Ultimately, the film is less about the hero and villain and boils down to a struggle for the soul of dent, who the joker hopes to bring down in order to prove his point about the true nature of humanity.

I admit the ferry scene is less subtle, but in keeping with these themes. The battle between batman and the joker feels less physical and more ideological. Also, for a superhero genre in which things rarely change from beginning to end, tdk had twists and more of an emotional resonance while no plot development of avatar held any surprise or suspense. You feel more for characters and their fates, and the ending was much more unique and profound than anything in its genre.

Compare the writing effort on batman and robin (chalk full of endless puns and cheap films) to tdk. There is a significant difference in quality of writing, character, and plot design.

This guys is fucking idiot. All the points he made on the Phantom Menace in his review dont apply to Avatar. And ALL the shit he talks about the movie people all ready knew about it and STILL went and saw it.
BUT since people like his review and Avatar became the biggest grossing movie in hollywood he figure he would try to rip apart Avatar so he could have a nice following on You tube.
What a Jackass.

hard to compare as one is more fantasy than sci-fi. What was amazing about the lotr trilogy was the epicness of it, the consistency in quality, and the shear ballziness of new line for investing so much in a genre that had yet to make a big impact (harry potter didn't come out until the same year).

getting back to the article at hand, another apt contrast was with district 9 in the sense that the nav'i seemed too perfect. Would jake sully defect as quickly or as easily if natiri was a distict 9 creature as opposed to a fan-boy's wet dream. I think not. As they clearly are meant to symbolize the native american tribes of the past, i'd like to point out that indians, while greatly reverent of their environments, were far from the ideal race. Scalping and sacrifices to ewa, however, would be far too profound and controversial for such a film to touch. Consider Inglorious Basterds, which actually does deal with scalping and makes you uncomfortable at times routing for such savage protagonists.

I'm not saying every film shouldn't tell the audience what to feel, but avatar seemed too forceful at time. The tree-chopping scene in particular felt over-indulgent, especially the moment with the corporate guy surrounded by the horrified scientists with overly sentimental music in the background.

Another great review. I still like Avatar though.

Some of these commenters really need to learn a little about humour. It all begins with removing a large stick from your rectum. Give it a shot y'all.

does that apply to "Mike from Milwaukee?" These commenters are taking two minutes to write something. This guy made a 15 minute video. What's in his rectum?

This guy makes some very compelling arguments about the flaws in Avatar. And I actually agree with most of them, if not all of them. And this critical analysis would have been very interesting and insightful if it wasn’t so blatantly obvious.

Before the film was released I read several reviews (including one on /film) that discussed or alluded the same critiques. And once the film was released, everyone could see that it had bad dialogue, rudimentary storyline, 2D characters, Dances with wolves meets Fern Gully etc... I even read a review describing the psychology of how giving characters big cute eyes (and other lovable features) makes them seem more sympathetic to the audience.

I very much enjoyed this guys dissection of “The Phantom Menace.” I was hoping for something like it for Avatar. But this guys critiques are NOT insightful in anyway.

Now I had problems with Avatar and those problems were about the same as the ones he had. But I also knew going into the film that this was not going to be "Cinéma vérité." This was a $500 million CGI groundbreaking sci-fi epic. NOT "La Dolce Vita" It was directed by James Cameron, not Lars Von Trier. What the fuck did this guy expect?

Also what is with all the assumptions and personal attacks he makes about Cameron? He claims Avatar was just a narcissistic venture on Cameron's part. Perhaps he forgot or is unaware that Cameron has been working on this film (3D fusion conception – film production) for most of the last decade. This was no doubt a passion project. And every filmmaker (i am one myself) looks back on their previous film and sees flaws or things they wished they'd done differently. Cameron was no doubt trying to one-up himself. But that's not ego, it's perfectionism. When Cameron made Aliens, he achieved what any hollywood filmmaker dreams of. Yet just about every film he’s done (and he's only made 8 features) have taken it to the next level. If Cameron is such a narcissist, he would have made a lot more films in his 30 year career. But no, he wants them to be special, for the audience and himself. Now if he fails at that, fine, but to suggest he put in all that hard work to please his ego is just absurd.
This "Mike from Milwaukee" makes too many claims that seem to be coming out his ass at an unstoppable rate. In fact everything he says about Cameron seems to apply more to himself. Mike from Milwaukee is condescending as he toots his own horn while making critiques that I made about films just like this when I was stoned in high school.

It’s funny actually. He claims that Avatar was ultimately an attempt for Cameron to recreate the success of Titanic, despite the fact that Avatar was written 14 years ago and since the technology wasn’t available he made Titanic instead. Nonetheless, here’s my theory:

“Mike from Milwaukee” made a very successful youtube video tearing apart “Phantom Menace.” It seems as though this avatar criticism was an attempt to recreate that same internet success. Perhaps so he can meet woman online and lure them back to his creepy basement in Milwaukee. By the way wasn’t Jeffery Dahmer from Milwaukee? I can't help but associate that with Mike, considering all the sarcastically creepy remarks he makes about himself that seem too apparent throughout, possibly suggesting them to be more of a Freudian slip than sarcasm.

You should post this on the actual videos--oh wait, Youtube has a character limit. Well, he should be reading this. Spot on.

whoa

I agree to pretty much everything this guy said about the film and it angers me how this film is receiving such accolades; celebrating mediocrity. Also, Cameron claims he has been working on this story for a decade or whatever, which is most likely hyperbolic, attempting to further solidify his grandiose, single-minded vision. He makes interesting connection with Titanic, which I have never heard a critic claim about the film, which helps back his claim of Cameron's egoism. Matt, your ignorant attack his also flawed and only reveals how dumb you are. *applauds*

All the flaws he pointed out were things that anyone could see. But he acts as though everyone is foolish and he's the only one who is smart enough to notice bad storytelling.
Then his claims about cameron are so presumptuous. Claiming Avatar was just an elaborate ego trip. I think I made a pretty good case about how Mike's "Avatar Review" was far more of an ego trip.
Also Cameron had in fact been working on Avatar for several years as i had read about in a 2003 trade article.
I think you misunderstood my "attack" on his review. i agree with all the critiques he made. But I was expecting something more interesting from him, much like his TPM review. But this one was a huge disappointment.

This guy is kind of stupid. He says a bunch of really obvious stuff, a bunch of really bad jokes, and then tries to sound really critical and sarcastic. So he's an internet user. Aces.

I'm pretty sure the instant box-office gold is high production value, marketing, and good film-making, minus writing. Writing doesn't matter. Writing has never mattered. Why is everyone caring about this so much? Blockbuster movies normally have terrible to mediocre writing. The public doesn't generally like brilliant writing. Get over it.

And what's...so nonsensical about "Pandora"...? Did he just criticize allusion in writing? Wow.

And then he talks about marketing strategy as if it's...what, stupid?

If you don't want to keep feeding the sh*t train, you hope others will jump off too. Just because you make money doesn't make it good, or the best way. I made money selling crack yesterday - BOX OFFICE GOLD BABY!!!