Ebert's review of Avatar | Hacker News Reader

Ebert's review of Avatar

rogerebert.suntimes.com

23 pointsfigital14 comments

The plot seems so. damn. bland.

Humans take natural resources! Evilly!

How about throwing some depth on there, eh? Make it so that the humans will literally be wiped out if they don't get the go juice or whatever. Put the blue guys in the same position.

I hope I am proven wrong.

Lots of people make the mistake of assuming that James Cameron's movies will be undone by their threadbare plots. Then they see the movies.

Cameron is among the best action filmmakers ever. The thing about action is not so much that it has no plot -- one heck of a lot happens in a James Cameron movie, and it tends to be quite logical and internally consistent too, because the guy keeps obsessive track of every damn thing. The problem is that a good action movie's plot can't be described in words. You sort of have to be there. The individual events -- guns jamming, doors sliding, lights flashing -- just don't add up to much by themselves. It's like trying to describe the Taj Mahal by talking about one brick at a time.

James Cameron can do a lot with three apparent cliches. Provided he also has several hundred million dollars. ;)

it tends to be quite logical and internally consistent too, because the guy keeps obsessive track of every damn thing

Hmm, one rather glaring oversight was that Michelle Rodriguez mutinies during the attack on Hometree and doesn't end up in the brig with the other traitors. The plot hinges on this, and no explanation was given.

Another is that Jake Sully is only there because his brother's Avatar was so expensive that it's still worth taking 5 years to ship it to Pandora even without a trained operator, yet 3 months later the same company says "fuck it, let's just shoot them".

Which is not to say it isn't beautiful to look at, but the script is really inconsistent.

What are some other James Cameron movies that you think would fit your description above?

The Terminator, Terminator 2 and Aliens are his best in my opinion. The Abyss is also quite good but not as much of an action movie.

Aliens, that's a classic.

Nearly every story told today has been told a thousand times before it all the way into prerecorded history. Like startups, a movie is IMHO about execution - it is very much not about what the story is, but rather who tells it, and how it is told.

I'm personally excited - there were a lot of detractors and doubters, and I was one of them. I'm glad Cameron has defeated all the nay-sayers and made something grand; I for one will be sure to see it.

There's no way you can turn a sinking boat into a 3 hour movie! #twitter1997

The plot description still sounds like "Dances with Smurfs," as South Park put it, but Ebert's endorsement sounds like it could be a really, really well-executed "Dances with Smurfs."

Ebert endorsing Avatar is a real surprise , he is quite anti-3d , this must be executed real well.

With regards to the - bland storyline -, as Ebert himself says elsewhere - "its never about what it is , it is how it is about what it is" and as others have mentioned James Cameron is an absolute Master Action Filmmaker.

I saw 20 minutes of Avatar back in August at Avatar Day. Its incredible, from the 3d to the storyline. I'm really excited.

I've seen some clips on YouTube, and there seemed to be some Uncanny Valley stuff going on there, but maybe the half-assed resolution was mucking up the overall effect.

Just how real did the footage look?

it still sounds like dune for simpletons.

so basically it's Smurfs The Movie?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com