I'm sure the majority, if not all of us, have seen Avatar by now. It was great, I make no attempt to deny that because I enjoyed it myself, but is it certainly not perfect. This was my review and criticism of it:
The computer animation was as fantastic as everyone raves it to be. It was beautiful, Pandora looked incredible, and the Na'vi people looked real. There's not much more to say on that, other than it is the single strongest reason to see the movie.
The story was "Dances With Wolves" with the Blue man group. Hero learns the ways of a tribe, becomes one of them, then helps them fight the white man. With all the strides they took with 3D animation in film, they took none with the story at all. It was cliche-ridden, but that isn't necessarily an insult to it either. It is obviously a tried-and-true formula, and it worked effectively.
My primary criticism of the movie, however, was the characters.
The main character, whose name I forget (which I feel kinda says something right there,) he was pretty bland. He's a crippled ex-marine, who is brave and dumb (ignorant.) These qualities were vocally stated by other characters along the beginning of the movie, and he displays these attributes in spades. He's severely one-dimensional, as there is absolutely nothing else notable about him. He doesn't smoke, doesn't tell jokes, nothing.
The Na'vi people, and all the characters in there, were generic spiritual aboriginals. The main Na'vi girl/love interest was a strong-willed girl, but that's really all I can say to define her.
The bad guys, were just.. generic bad guys. The Colonel was a military guy who liked to fight and kill things. The leader of the whole operation was the epitome of corporate evil, uncaringly doing whatever it takes to get money. I wish there was more to these guys, but it was totally black and white.
The closest thing to an interesting character was Sigourney Weaver's character, but she became more bland as the story progressed. I was a bit disappointed that she didn't kill a few aliens, because that's what Ripley would have done.
You know what? I don't remember any of their names! That's not a good thing by my standard, it means I don't care about any of them. In Star Wars, Luke Skywalker was pretty bland, but he had to adjust to all the wacky unpredictable characters surrounding him, and that forced him to stand out. In District 9, the aliens managed to draw sympathy even though they were totally butt-ugly - that's effective writing. Avatar was hardly about the characters themselves, so that minimizes the criticism for sure. I don't believe "everything's perfect just the way it is", so it's still no excuse.
Ultimately, it's a damn good movie. After watching the first half, the rest of the movie is going to happen exactly how you think it's going to happen, but the exciting visuals definitely keep you.
8/10 - I'm just a harsh critic.
Character
Did you like the theme of how an arrogant, ignorant American can swoop into an unfamiliar culture, rapidly become the greatest Na'vi there ever was, then lead them to glorious victory in battle against an unbeatable foe? USA! USA! USA!
His name was Jake Sully, for the record.
Also, I disagree with your assessment of Weaver's character got bland. I thought her character and her performance was a gem amongst the stock characters that made up the rest of the film.
But, character and story progression are not the right metrics on which to evaluate this movie. That would be missing the point. The movie was really quite wonderful at creating a compelling fantasy world, and drawing you into some spectacular action sequences.
-Dan
That's why I still gave it
That's why I still gave it 8/10. But story and character are vital and do weigh down on the rest regardless.
As awesome as the action scenes were, they didn't give me that spine-tingling feeling. They very well warranted it, but the characters didn't deliver. I wasn't worried about them enough, and I wasn't cheering for them enough. The good-guy chopper girl was probably the closest to getting that into me. When Jake tamed Mothra and motivated an army, that shoulda been a "f*ck yeah!" moment, but I didn't get that. Jake just wasn't F*ck yeah material, I guess.
Avatar = no surprises
I actually forgot that i was planning to review this movie...
the visuals were, as Hiemdal stated, stunning. we watching in 3D (that might be the only format available for theatre viewing, not sure) and we felt suitably awed. i particularly liked the ashes. i wouldn't watch another 3D movie, at least not in the theatre. i came out of there with a massive headache. whatever. that aside, definitely a thrill to watch.
that only other positive thing i have to say was that the three strongest characters were female. too bad none of them was the hero, but they provided some interest to an otherwise cliched and boring script so that was nice.
yeah, that script. just as women are seldom cast as the leading character in an action flick, Indigenous heroes are also so difficult for us to contemplate that we have to cloth a 'white man' as the saviour. why, why, why couldn't the hero have been Na'vi? and i cannot take consolation in that fact that Sully was a paraplegic. in order to take on the heroic persona, he had to eschew the damaged body, an act symbolic of laying aside his damaged past as a colonist.
not once did Cameron manage to pull above the expectations i had of this movie. i knew the visuals would rock and i knew the story before going in.
4/10
undercurrents
Wow that's a pretty harsh rating. Couple things in there made me feel the need to comment.
Indigenous heroes are also so difficult for us to contemplate that we have to cloth a 'white man' as the saviour
I don't think that was the point. The movie would not have made a lick of sense if it wasn't a human who became the hero. He became a hero because he was a perfectly normal every-day dude who happen to fall in love with a culture he was sent to study, and in the event of disaster, he was perfectly suited to become a hero simply because he had knowledge that the locals didn't. It wasn't a statement for or against anyone in that regard, it was simply a statement that really normal people can become heroes - that the conditions for heroism are not about the person who actually assumes the role. That heroism is really just a construct that we build to make people more than what they actually are. The whole movie, to me, spoke not of who the hero was, but who he wasn't.
Further, it seemed to me that the entire premise of the movie was to force us to realize the damage that our culture and our attitudes have on living systems. It revered the local alien species, and was in awe of culture that respects its relationship to the rest of life. It was a damnation of our own culture.
A Na'vi hero would have provided the following undercurrent instead: humans are inherently destructive and there's nothing we can ever do to change this. If we ever want to save our own planet here in real life, then we have to eschew modern society and return to barbaric tribalism, or wait for aliens to come show us our wrongful ways. That would be a much shittier message and Avatar would've been a worse movie for it.
in order to take on the heroic persona, he had to eschew the damaged body, an act symbolic of laying aside his damaged past as a colonist
Yes... and that's a good thing! He represented the fact that humans can love life itself! - that given the opportunity and the impetus, we can shed our broken ways and learn to have the best of both.
hmm
I concur with Lipset's criticisms of the script. The premise behind the movie, the damnation of our own culture, is so cliche I can't justify it being a benefit to the movie on it's own. That idea is everywhere in storytelling already. Maybe it's a good moral to get out there, but morals do not a good story make.
I'm not saying it's bad to use that cliche, but there ought to be a fresh take on it. Avatar didn't spice it up in any way. It dumbed it down and jammed it in your face completely. It was like copy-paste Dances With Wolves, with a bunch of edits to make it sci-fi and more blatant.
The movie would not have made a lick of sense if it wasn't a human who became the hero. He became a hero because he was a perfectly normal every-day dude who happen to fall in love with a culture he was sent to study, and in the event of disaster, he was perfectly suited to become a hero simply because he had knowledge that the locals didn't.
If you took him out and replaced him with a real Na'vi, it would only damage the movie if the writers couldn't cope. Obviously much of it would be written differently to accomidate, and a good writer could take this new character angle and still drive home the same message. It might be trickier, but that's what writers are supposed to be good at, right? And even if they wound up abandoning the message in that, a beautiful movie with better writing is worth ditching a cliche.
It wasn't a statement for or against anyone in that regard, it was simply a statement that really normal people can become heroes - that the conditions for heroism are not about the person who actually assumes the role.
Unfortunately, Lispet and HP point out how it can easily be interpreted that only a white man can be the hero. In fact, it's been so intentional in most action movies that it might be easier to assume that instead.
Regardless, been done before. The script obviously worked for you, so it isn't bad. It is still the weakest link.
weakest
Yes I think we definitely agree there that it was the weakest link, but I still can't see how having the hero Na'vi would do anything but hurt the story. The entire point of the movie would be lost, because it would become an external critique of the dominant human cultural patterns as opposed to an internal reflection. That we need to wait for help, we can't help ourselves. That's really just a bad message and there's no way around that having the hero an alien.
the story could still have
the story could still have been told from the human point of view with essentially the same characters but instead of Sully as the main heroic force, his love interest could've served that role. after all, Weaver's character fell in love with the culture as well and was certainly heroic without stepping into a cultural role hitherto reserved for Na'vi.
actually, i think that's what irked me most. it wasn't that Sully was a hero. that in itself wasn't a problem. my issue stems from Pandora's recognition of Sully as special even as he was willing to contemplate destroying the home tree. i dislike how he was set up as saviour before even making that transition himself.
also, i would argue that as long as humans are behind the making of the movie, the criticisms of dominant human cultural patterns still come from within regardless of the cultural background of the main characters. and even if not, i'm sure First Nations people would argue that their criticism of European colonialism, despite coming from outside that culture, is still a valuable and perhaps accurate assessment.
Blago
but I still can't see how having the hero Na'vi would do anything but hurt the story.
A good challenge for any writer is to blow that worry out of the water, instead of taking the safe route. Lispet's idea is one effective route, and there are definitely others.
I think the message had plenty of flaws anyways. Apparently after all the scientific advancement, and space travel, our cultural understanding is still stuck in colonialist times. The message right there is "We suck, we may get better, but in all likelihood we won't. Not unless we stop being human."
The movies guilt message is targeted towards environmentalist white men. I am curious what other cultures think of the message in this movie.
good point
A good challenge for any writer is to blow that worry out of the water, instead of taking the safe route
this is what makes for challenging, interesting entertainment. we let the pop film genre off too easy when we suppose that the way things have always been done is the only way to do things. especially since that risks our own ability to see alternatives and become artists ourselves.
Risks
Okay, but movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. There's plenty of screenplays that have risky writing. No body wants to make them into movies, though. When writers want to take risks, they can write novels. If the novel is successful, THEN you can attempt to market the story as a movie. Novels are to movies what windtunnel tests of model bridges are to real bridges.
-Dan
not about to dispute this
maybe the main issue isn't that big budget movies need to push boundaries, but that big budget movies need to make money to recoup their expenses so we just shouldn't go into movies like Avatar with any expectation of excellence beyond the visual.
Movie excellence
If you go into anything expecting it to be excellent, you will probably disappoint yourself.
Just expect it to be a movie. Movies are not about pushing boundaries, but about entertaining using tried and true techniques. If you don't believe excellence can occur in that structure, then I suppose you aren't the blockbuster movie target demographic.
-Dan
Artistic
Movie making is an artistic medium. Your point is essentially describing it's failure as such. This is why I critique it harshly, rather than let the artistry of it fall away.
Novels as test run is a more recent concept. You could even say the same about comics, video games, etc.. damn near anything could become a movie now. But any worthy critic knows cinema has all it's roots as an art form, and will judge it thusly.
Of course, we did say it was an enjoyable movie too, same as everyone else says. But we have a need to dig down further... most people don't care. Just like art in galleries.
Apparently Cameron fought to have the Na'vi look weirder than they do now. Regardless of how that might have turned out, it's a bit disturbing that money has more control than he does.
Deeper meaning
In the first paragraph, it sounds a bit like you are saying "I'm critical of movie making because movies are an artistic medium, and movies are not good at being an artistic medium." If I got that right, you created a category of concepts, declared something to be a part of that category even though it doesn't fit well, then dismissed it for not fitting into the category you created and put it in.
I suppose you are free to do that if you enjoy it.
James Cameron was the director of the film, but that does not mean he has full creative control. Its traditional to think of the director as the film's auteur, but really film making is a collaborative process with creative input coming from a great number of people involved at all levels of making the film. So to dismiss the sum of all the creative collaborators who work on a film but aren't its director as "money" is not a very elegant way to view the situation.
This 70 minute review of The Phantom Menace slowly and aptly paints a picture that the quality difference between A New Hope and Phantom Menace is a product of George Lucas gaining too much control of the project. During A New Hope, Lucas was accountable to a great number of investors and wasn't so arrogant as to ignore advice from his collaborators and the movie was better for it.
It actually is worth watching, despite its length.
-Dan
In the first paragraph, it
In the first paragraph, it sounds a bit like you are saying "I'm critical of movie making because movies are an artistic medium, and movies are not good at being an artistic medium." If I got that right, you created a category of concepts, declared something to be a part of that category even though it doesn't fit well, then dismissed it for not fitting into the category you created and put it in.
?
I thought I was stating 'matter-of-fact' that film is an artistic medium? ..Because it is. I didn't create this category. It's history is coloured as an artistic medium, it has always been judged consciously and unconsciously under standard artistic criteria. I was stating that some movies don't fit well as art; criticizing them on that isn't a fault of my own understanding, because even those film-makers know it's art. Plenty of movies go specifically for entertainment above artistic qualities, but that doesn't make it not art, it's just (probably) weak art.
Film and movie making has always been about pushing boundaries. Every movie that the industry itself looks to has pushed story boundaries, camera style boundaries, acting boundaries, tech boundaries, etc. Good movies don't crutch on 'tried-and-true' techniques, they build off them as they push something new, or deliver them in new ways. Too much reliance and dumbing down of those techniques make for a very contrived movie. Considering you know what happens in Avatar by the trailer alone, it's writing was absolutely contrived.
Point taken about director control though.
Art
I didn't mean to imply that you created the concept of "artistic media" from a vacuum.
You have that concept in your head, and it is based on your experiences of working with art, and dealing with artists. It is a useful concept because the meaning can be understood by a community of people who also use the term, and have a similar concept in their heads.
But wherever the concept came from, you have it in your brain and you use it for categorizing things in the world around you. That's what I meant by created (i.e. created in your own brain during the course of your life based on your experiences). You are saying that movies, despite their history, do not fit well into this category, so you are critical of them.
I think maybe if you started thinking of movies as their own thing, independent of the ideals of other forms of artistic media, you might find more to enjoy in them.
Lots of excellent movies are excellent due to a skillful use of tried-and-true techniques. That is, unless you overemphasize boundary-pushing in your definition of movie goodness.
-Dan
of artistic mediums
I don't want to reiterate all of what Dan said in Deeper Meaning above because I think he nailed it right on the head in every regard. I'm just going to try to expand upon his first point a bit:
You said, Movie making is an artistic medium. Well... it's not. Not really. Maybe it started that way, and certainly there is a lot of "art" involved, but it is no more an artistic medium than the nightly newscast or the blathering DJs on the radio.
Movie making is a business. As such, it has to sell a product in order to survive. This means that it is not allowed to do the types of things that more pure forms of art are allowed to do. This is what HP was referring to earlier when speaking of risk.
If you make a film that pushes the line or that people just don't get, it doesn't matter how flashy the graphics are, people won't like and it won't make money. This is especially risky if you did invest a lot in the graphics. A mistake on that scale can cost the reputations and careers of many people. It can bankrupt companies and send people onto the unemployment lines. These are things movie makers need to worry about. These are not things an artist needs to worry about.
But you know all this, which is the point. If you know all this, then don't fool yourself by thinking that movie making can emulate painting or the Opera. This does nothing except set yourself up for disappointment again and again, because the expectations you hold in your head simply don't - and can never - reflect reality.
Novels as test run is a more recent concept
This is false. Look at the history of movies. Their entire history is one of taking stories from print and turning them into something visual. The industry of movie making was born from books and written stories. You will have to put together a mighty tight case to convince people that the old classic movies like Frankenstein were somehow unrelated to the stories they were based on.
Many artists live by selling
Many artists live by selling their work. Paintings are sold. Film is more popular, and more easily spread around and reproduced in it's identical format.
Does mainstream success and money determine whether something is "art" or not? It may be a business, but nearly every person involved in production is employing artistic creativity, researching and referencing other art, and requires a background in related artistic fields. Besides, what are amateur filmmakers even doing if they clearly aren't making much money and you wouldn't even consider it art? You should ask a filmmaker whether or not it's an art form, and why.
Consider the first Matrix movie. That pushed a lot of lines, and was skirting ideas that people might have trouble getting. It had flashy graphics too. Massive success. The sequels were good, but not nearly as well received because they didn't push boundaries like the first one.
You should know that it goes both ways. A movie that brings nothing new to the table, and takes no risk, is even way more likely to fall flat. Not only would it do all those bankrupt/reputation things you mention, but it contributes nothing to the art form either. Waste of space.
I would like to note that my criticisms do not imply a filmmaker needs to use real unicorns, graphic technology that doesn't exist, and writing inspiration beyond human capacity. My expectations do reflect reality because they have been achieved before.
Their entire history is one of taking stories from print and turning them into something visual. The industry of movie making was born from books and written stories.
It was born from photography, and took many years before even simple scripts were brought to use. The popular industry of movie making wasn't even born from written stories either. Dada and German Expressionism were famous forerunners in film, Dada destroyed preconceived ideas and G.E. was almost entirely visual tricks (very angular and jarring). The act of turning a book into a movie is to re-imagine and create something totally new, albeit with clear references; there is no 'test run' as a novel, movies are just completely different. Jagged and angular objects on screen subconsciously create tension to the viewer, lighting angles can subconsciously present things positively or negatively... none of that stuff's written in the stories, and is more effective than even what the characters say or do. Almost every story that's been made into a movie was already more popular than the movie could be. People always say to read the book, because it's better than the movie. Comic books are the nearest print to film, and... not even close.
Attachment
If you go into anything expecting it to be excellent, you will probably disappoint yourself.
That was basically the message I gave to Heimdal after the movie too. It's not that reality disappoints, it's that our expectations can create room for disappointment.
confusion and some other things
The message right there is "We suck, we may get better, but in all likelihood we won't. Not unless we stop being human."
Exactly... this is precisely why the hero had to be human - to demonstrate that our situation in the real world is NOT desperately hopeless, because this (the culture of the humans in the movie) is where we are headed right now in real life.
People (real people) are not going to accept the line "You have to end your culture". That's just not going to fly... someone of some other culture swooping in and telling us we are all living our lives wrong? - they'd be laughed out of the room. The movie had to reflect that reality, and the only way it could do so and still carry a message that we need to change our habits is if the carrier of that message was of the dominant culture, in this case the humans. Your quote there couldn't have illustrated the need for a human hero any better... it basically proves my point.
The movies guilt message is targeted towards environmentalist white men.
Um... no. Quite the opposite. The movie is hoping to raise some awareness in people who are NOT of an environmentalist mindset.
As far as your query of other cultures' reception of the movie and its message, the movie was very well received around the world. So well received, in fact, that a kid even killed himself because the world in the movie was so foreign and so beautiful compared to what they lived in. Obviously an extreme reaction, but clearly it demonstrates that the message is hitting home in other cultures as well.
Your quote there couldn't
Your quote there couldn't have illustrated the need for a human hero any better... it basically proves my point.
Lispet's idea to keep the main character, but make the Na'vi girl the hero of her people, effectively keeps the message the same and solves some of the criticism. The idea is simple, effective, and brilliant. Good thinking, Lispet!
Your point that the hero had to be human is busted!
The movie is hoping to raise some awareness in people who are NOT of an environmentalist mindset.
Micheal Moore does the same, but very few people agree with him or watch his stuff that don't already agree with him going into it. While he seeks to get his point to anyone who turns there heads, Avatar is literally targeted towards environmentalist white men. From a business perspective, that is their built-in audience and they would never target people who are of opposing opinion or iffy on the subject in question. It's certainly a bonus to raise awareness to the previously uninterested, but it doesn't make any sense at all that they would focus such a high-budget movie to that.
I've heard people getting suicidal or depressed from beautiful Pandora, but I'm curious on a more technical perspective of the movie's anti-colonialization message from an other culture. Is a first nations person gonna view it and see the point as humans being bad, or white men being bad?
step by step
okay... there's 8 responses on here so i gotta go through bit by bit here.
Lispet said: it wasn't that Sully was a hero. that in itself wasn't a problem. my issue stems from Pandora's recognition of Sully as special
Pandora didn't recognize this at all. Pandora was just the planet. I thought that was one of the most well done parts of the movie... how they so carefully showed how we give meaning to mere coincidence - how the hero is not made from anything in reality, the hero is made from mythos. That the Na'vi had a superstitious belief that the floaty seeds were somehow special makes perfect sense when considering what superstitions human cultures have come up with about entirely natural phenomenon. There was nothing special at all about it, but the movie showed how a culture can make something special out of nothing, and how that cultural meaning can shape the course of social action. Sully wasn't special, but the Na'vi believed him to be.
For all we know, he might have just had some static build up on his clothes.
i would argue that as long as humans are behind the making of the movie, the criticisms of dominant human cultural patterns still come from within regardless of the cultural background of the main characters
I find that a really weird statement. Yes of course they do come within because - presumably - aliens were not behind the making of the film. The message is completely different though.
and even if not, i'm sure First Nations people would argue that their criticism of European colonialism, despite coming from outside that culture, is still a valuable and perhaps accurate assessment.
Of course they would and they would be right. But the Europeans most certainly did not at the time, and still largely don't. Which is exactly my point. The message alters fundamentally because someone else is saying it.
Pandora didn't recognize this
Pandora didn't recognize this at all. Pandora was just the planet. I thought that was one of the most well done parts of the movie... how they so carefully showed how we give meaning to mere coincidence - how the hero is not made from anything in reality, the hero is made from mythos. That the Na'vi had a superstitious belief that the floaty seeds were somehow special makes perfect sense when considering what superstitions human cultures have come up with about entirely natural phenomenon.
I have to agree with Lispet, because it is based on as much as we know.
It is a safe assumption to make that filmmakers put everything in their movies on purpose. Jake was chosen by the planet because the Na'vi girl said he was, and nothing in the movie had ever mentioned coincidence being involved. Later on in the movie, Jake became completely covered in those same floaty seed things, to further emphasizing that there was no coincidence.
It's not superstition if it's correct. And it's not coincidence if it always happens like that. And our only exposure to these things in the movie were as always being correct, and always happening in that way.
Note that Pandora was an entity itself. Weaver's character mentioned all the plant life was physically connected and communicating, and we know all the animal life had those thingies that let them connect to each other and the plants too. Eywa wasn't just the jedi force kind of thing where all things are presumed connected, it was all of nature physically connected.
Pandora definitely a personification
yes, there is plenty of evidence in the film to suggest that Pandora was an entity capable of response. two major examples:
Pandora/Eywa steps in to protect Jake from Neytiri by covering him in her seed pods. she attaches meaning to this which means as viewers we must attach meaning to this. this happens more than once, indicating that the planet itself has determined something significant about Jake.
Eywa also responds to the prayers/requests Jake makes for her/it to step in and act against the human destroyers.
one could say that we, as viewers, have indulged in superstition by connecting these actions with the planet and not with coincidence, but that's not how the interpretation of film and literature works. if the characters ask for things and then get them, if weird seed thingies cover someone at a particularly convenient moment, there is always something more to it unless the artist provides evidence to the contrary. this isn't real life, after all. in art, there is no such thing as coincidence. actions and occurences are born out of a actual creator's head.
when the other denizens step into the battle, we can only interpret that one way--Eywa choose to step in. the balance was threatened; therefore, the Na'vi needed help in whatever form the planet could provide. no one could communicate with the other animals due to language barriers, so Eywa sent out the signal. they are connected. they are all part of Pandora. they are Pandora. they are Eywa.
suggest
Pandora/Eywa steps in to protect Jake from Neytiri by covering him in her seed pods.
One might conclude that this is the case if one is superstitious. This is of course how many religions got started in all likelihood. A little spot of well-timed coincidence and *poof* there's a mythos. I interpreted this entirely differently as I laid out earlier, the point was to illustrate exactly how easily we do create myths. There isn't a shred of evidence that this was an action of pandora. As I said, it could have easily been, for example, static electricity on his clothing which attracted the fluffy seed pods, but if they were to explain that, it would steal from the wonder of the story - but that doesn't change what it was or wasn't. That it happened more than once is not particularly significant either, except again it shows just how easily people come to believe things in the absence of evidence.
Eywa also responds to the prayers/requests Jake makes for her/it to step in and act against the human destroyers
Again, we really have no evidence of that at all. Animals here on earth regularly attack machinery, vehicles, hunters, and other things that rumble through the woods. Does that prove God is answering the prayers of religious environmentalists? No, or course not. Other animals act to defend their land the same as humans do, and they couldn't very well ignore that reality in the movie especially when it is so relevant both from the perspective of a battle and the perspective of the Hero Myth that is the story being retold. But again, going with the theme of the movie, this is the whole point... we build myths and legends out of very ordinary things that we don't understand. It doesn't make our interpretations true.
there is always something more to it unless the artist provides evidence to the contrary
There IS something more to it... the entire point of the movie is the Hero Story - that we build legends of heroes out of ordinary folks with ordinary abilities in an extraordinary circumstance. The entire movie is a replication of that same story that has been reiterated hundreds of times in many cultures around the world. It doesn't make the movie's mythos true in the movie's world, it simply makes it a mythos in the movie's world.
when the other denizens step into the battle, we can only interpret that one way
That's nonsense. "We" can only interpret this one way? I've just interpreted it another way entirely - and in a way that is entirely consistent with the Hero Story, which is thousands of years old. Perhaps you mean you can only interpret it that way, but that says nothing of anyone else's interpretations. You really think that the producers of the movie were trying to stray so dramatically from this ancient story? I thought the whole argument here from your side was that the writers were not inventive... but such a deviation from the standard story line would indeed be rather unique.
Myths are meant to fill us with wonder. The myth in the movie is meant to fill us with wonder. It doesn't mean our real myths are true just because they are filled with wonder, nor does it make the myth in the movie true (to the movie-world) just because it is a wonderful story. Again, that's the whole point of the Hero Story. Cripes, this retelling is even complete with the rebirth and a few other characteristics even more closely aligning itself with early versions than most other recent movie revisions.
It occurs to me that maybe you are unfamiliar with what i'm talking about, and maybe that's why you have both missed the whole reference in the movie. Here's the wiki article on the book that describes the Hero Myth. This is the story that forms the foundations of most western religions and has elements in a few eastern ones as well.
harsh?
8/10 is harsh? heheh...
No, I think that's a really fair critique on almost all points. The visuals are amazing, and as you and HP both pointed out, that's the real reason anyone goes to see this movie. Anything else is icing.
That said, I do think that they could've spiced up the characters considerably without jeopardizing their purpose or invalidating some of the intentional undercurrents of the film. It wouldn't have cost them a lot of time - not to make them more heroic, just to... unflatten them a little. People like to watch movies where they can relate to a particular character. That wasn't really possible here at all because everyone was particularly generic.
I actually think we saw the most character development in the corporate dude. They used facial expressions to show that he had issues with what he was doing. There was almost a complete lack of this sort of facial portrayal of internal turmoil in any other character. The pilot did the verbal substitute which was equally appropriate for a secondary role, but it needed to happen for all of the characters.
I'm going to be a bit more generous and give it a 9/10. Most of that is justified the same as you for your 8/10, but I give it a half-point bonus for the political undercurrent - the warning of impending ecological disaster that looms before humanity here on earth; and a further half-point bonus because they invented an incredible world that was surprisingly believable. That last said another way, they didn't bother to try and explain the science behind things, which is not Hollywood's speciality and invariably leaves portions of the public cringing in pain.