Avatar: The Way of the Water
Courtesy of Disney Co.
James Cameron’s long-awaited sequel to 2009’s “Avatar” hits theaters this weekend and it has captivated and infuriated critics.
by Disney “Avatar: The Way of Water,” which is over three hours long, is hailed as a stunning piece of cinema, earning a “Fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes. But, its narrative is thin and, like the original, doesn’t stand up to Cameron’s lofty technical ambitions, several critics said.
“The Way of Water” follows Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) who are now the parents of four Na’vi children. The family is driven from their native forest when humans return to recolonize parts of Pandora.
Read more: ‘Avatar: The Way of the Water’ Could Be Headed for a $175 Million Opening Weekend
Critics are adamant that audiences should watch “The Way of Water” on the biggest screen possible, praising the film for its computer-generated visuals and explosive sound design.
But the film’s long running time was a point of fault for many, who found Cameron’s script too thin to justify three hours in a theater.
Here’s what critics thought of “Avatar: The Way of Water” before its release on Friday.
Eric Francisco, Reverse
“Cameron’s sequel to 2009’s box office hit ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ is simply bigger and better than its predecessor in every way,” wrote reviewer Eric Francisco.
“It demands the biggest screen you can find so that its most powerful elements – from its impossible scale and deft spectacle to its fuller range of emotion and thematic romance – can be fully absorbed,” he said. -he declares.
Francisco noted that there were some hiccups in the film’s plot and Cameron’s “inability to resist” the teasing elements of the franchise’s next installment. Apparently, there are several unresolved storylines that audiences will have to wait to see in future Avatar movies.
“As with most of Cameron’s films, what elevates his work is the bravado of his execution, allowing magnificent beasts and settings to trump on-screen real estate, while large-scale battles have a tight spatial and rhythmic coherence,” he wrote. “Both never fail to inspire awe. The bioluminescent creatures and caverns aren’t just a dazzling visual to distract us, they work in tandem with the storytelling to create an eye-opening experience.”
Avatar: The Way of the Water
Courtesy of Disney Co.
Charlotte O’Sullivan, Evening Standard
“‘Avatar 2’ is definitely a showcase for visual effects company Weta FX (the faces of Pandora’s Na’vi heroes have become even more expressive),” Charlotte O’Sullivan wrote in her review.
“But I never thought Cameron was God’s gift to the movies,” she added. “For most of ‘Titanic’s runtime, my gut feeling was, ‘Just sinking already’ and some of the 68-year-old director’s worst tendencies are on display in ‘Avatar 2’: all-too-familiar beats, an overworked score and shots without end of the obscenely slender and timidly sexualized bodies of the Na’vi.”
Despite this, “The Way of Water” is “breathtaking,” O’Sullivan wrote, noting that after leaving the theater, she “felt like she had experienced something special.”
Like many, O’Sullivan indicated that the story of “The Way of Water” leaves much to be desired.
“Plot-wise, this film treads water,” she wrote. “But it’s okay, because the water is beautiful.”
Wenlei Ma, News.com.au
For those who found themselves returning to the theater again and again to see “Avatar” on the big screen a decade ago, “The Way of Water” is “crisp and thrilling.”
For those who found the first movie too long and thin on the story, “The Way of Water” won’t do much to get you loving the world of Pandora.
“This sequel will repeat your experience from the premiere,” Wenlei Ma wrote in his review of the film for News.com.au.
Avatar: The Way of the Water
Courtesy of Disney Co.
Ma noted that “The Way of Water” is “breathtakingly beautiful”, comparing it to watching a David Attenborough documentary rather than a CGI feature film. However, she says the visuals aren’t enough to make up for the lackluster story.
“The story is a simple chase plot, merely a template for doing what Cameron seems more determined to achieve, which is how far he can push the technological and visual aspects of filmmaking,” she wrote.
“The 3D visuals are definitely cool, but that shouldn’t be the only reason to see this movie,” she added. “It’s all about shine and spectacle, so for a film about the emotional depths between the Na’vi and their surroundings, it’s frustrating all the way.”
Justin Chang, Los Angeles Times
“In ‘Avatar: The Waterway,’ director James Cameron takes you so deep and lets you drift so gently that sometimes you don’t feel like you’re watching a movie but you’re floating in it,” said writes critic Justin Chang.
“While you might wish Cameron would keep us there – to give us, in effect, the most expensive and elaborate underwater movie ever made – he can’t or won’t back up this whole Jacques dream. -Cousteau-sur- the wonder of mushrooms for over three hours,” he wrote. “This is James Cameron, after all, and he’s got an old-fashioned soulful story to tell, shitty dialogue to skip through and, in time, one hell of an action movie to unleash, complete with fiery wreckage, deadly arrows and a whale-sized whale, turtle-skinned creature known as Tulkun.”
Chang said it was “wonderful” to have Cameron’s presence back on the big screen. He notes that the acclaimed director has long been questioned about his choice of film projects – people thought he was crazy to produce ‘Titanic’ – but “his latest and most ambitious film will stun most naysayers into silence. “.
Avatar: The Way of the Water
Courtesy of Disney Co.
Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle
Not everyone was won over by Cameron’s attention to detail and expansive lore building.
“‘Avatar: The Way of the Water’ is an hour-long story that takes place in a 192-minute bag,” Mick LaSalle wrote in his review of the film. “There was potential here for something lovely, a sweet and moving environmental parable lasting 90 minutes, tops.”
“No, James Cameron can’t do anything that modest,” he wrote.
LaSalle said “The Way of Water” feels bloated with too many ideas competing for space in its already lofty three-hour runtime.
“‘The Way of Water’ begins where the first left off and ends with the promise of sequels,” he wrote. “Long, long sequels. It’s not a promise. It’s a threat.”