In a sentence: it's a good science fiction movie.
But really not a part of cinema history, not a masterpiece and
Cameron - If further evidence were needed - confirms as an honest
film maker, but nothing more.
The positive side of this movie is undoubtedly the great visual
impact. In short: special effects. Everything is very big, everything
is very beautiful, everything is very realistic, everything is
obviously well thought out and thorough (but with great creative
naivete, as we will see).
Na'Vis are beautiful (Neijtiri is VERY beautiful... but she is
because the actress who plays her is VERY beautiful) and are nicely
expressive, reaching the perfect credibility as "real people"
in some shots. But only in certain shots... but of this I will
The film has its emotional moments (but they are pretty easy,
in a pure "Hollywood Style"), and the created imaginary
The show is great, and you'll go through the lenght of the movie
-– which is remarkable, almost 2 hours and 45 minutes –
without any problems. Avatar – in a nutshell – deserves
to be seen, and this is not in discussion.
But despite the visual splendor, this movie honestly does not
deserve the masterpiece title (Avatar is not even the best film
of Cameron, in fact I think Abyss is better and more... "deep");
let alone if it deserves the alleged "historic" value.
The problem of Avatar is that it really lacks originality, in
The plot can be written before seeing the movie by anyone with
a minimum of familiarity with cinema or narrative in general,
and there are ANY plot twists throughout the script; no unexpected
events, nothing really surprising: the story has developed exactly
as I had expected, and indeed there are several "typically
blockbuster" script naivetes. A lot of the situations and
ALL the meanings and messages you'll see in Avatar, have already
been seen in other movies, comic books, novels and cartoons.
To cite only the titles that have come to my mind while watching
the movie (in no particular order): Matrix, Dances with the Wolves,
Pocahontas, Evangelion, The Lord of the Rings, Princess Mononoke,
Jurassic Park, Alien, Alien 2, Abyss (Cameron is a self-quoter!),
and so on.
Even visually, everything in Avatar is big and beautiful, but
only a few things surprised me. The whole Pandora planet is beautiful,
very beautiful ... even too much beautiful, I would say "glossy".
It's a somewhat fake nature that recalls in some ways the famous
Japanese Zen gardens: no chaos, no dirt, no "ugliness"
or the violent and terrifying side that is part of the actual
Nature (that with the capital N).
The aliens are all beautiful and righteous, their respect for
the creatures of the planet is total and also the creatures of
the planet have total respect for them and bla bla bla... In short,
the nature of Pandora is a magazine thing, not a native tribes
Also on the purely creative side, nothing shines. Pandora's florae
is in short a common tropical jungle land, "enhanced"
with assorted luminescences, "marine" items "marine"
like anemones and coral-like beings; animals are beautiful, but
for who knows a little of the actual Earth faunae like me, is
not difficult to recognize existing species which the "creatives"
were inspired to.
For goodness sake, they've done a great job and if we don't let
us go on anatomical/ethological considerations, everything it's
good and works (although – I repeat – not original).
But what in my opinion is hard to digest, are the Na'Vis themselves
that are completely and unequivocally out of context in Pandora
Beyond the choice of the humanoid form - well understandable for
reasons of identification, but little justificable in evolutive
terms - there are some "bad" creative naivetes in these
blue aliens, who in my opinion affects the credibility of that
1 - All the visible creatures on Pandora are hexapods (ie they
have 6 limbs). All except the Na'Vis... Now, on Earth all terrestrial
vertebrates are tetrapods (ie they have 4 limbs), with no exceptions.
Why on Pandora there's an exception to this Nature rule?
2 - All the visible creatures on Pandora have very primitive nostrils
positioned on the chest. All except Na'Vis, which have a complex
3 - All the visible creatures on Pandora are glabrous, they have
no hair or feathers. All except Na'Vis, who have hair (A LOT of
hair!) and a tuft of hair on the tip of the tail.
4 - All the visible creatures on Pandora have 4 eyes (maybe 6
eyes). All except Na'Vis, which have their two lovely feline eyes.
5 - All the visible creatures on Pandora have two "organs
of connection" (who has seen the movie will understand).
All except Na'Vis, who have only one.
The question arises for anyone who understands a minimum of biology:
what on hell Na'Vis have evolved from?
Why don't they make 'em hexapods and with nostrils in a strange
Well I've listed the defects of the movie not to say that this
is a bad movie: it's a very good job, as already mentioned. But...
Masterpiece? Cinema History? Please, let alone.
Ultimately, Avatar is one of the most classic "Hollywood
Blockbusters" as there are many; it is a beautiful and funny
movie but honestly (fans of Avatar, get a hand on your heart and
admit that I'm right) can not earn more than 7.5 in a report card.
Too lacking in originality in any field (screenplay, music, directing,
everything) to earn more.