Avatar: How Does It Hold Up 14 Years Later?

You know what? I'm going to say it. The movie that first made me fall in love with film was James Cameron's 2009 sci-fi epic "Avatar." There. I said it. And I know how that must sound to you. Pretty corny, huh? Well, it's true, and if I ever get famous one day, I'm not going to be able to say that I got into film because I was inspired to by "The Dark Knight" or by "Star Wars" or by "The Lord of the Rings." Nope. I was inspired to enter the world of film and filmmaking by Pocahontas in Space. But, jokes aside, and in all honesty, when I first watched this film, I didn't understand the nuances of how to critique one. So, I was free to take in all the spectacular worldbuilding and scenery unencumbered by the unbearable weight of knowledge as it pertained to how to deduce the quality of a film. And to be entirely fair, "Avatar" is not without its merits. So, even if it may be the second-string punching bag of internet jokesters when they get tired of railing on the MCU, how does "Avatar" really hold up? What does it do well, and what does it do poorly?

As a small recap not unlike the "Previously on Avatar" message that played before "The Way of Water" in theaters that you may have missed, "Avatar" follows a Paraplegic Ex-Marine as he is shipped out to the distant moon of Pandora in the year 2154 to act as the "driver," so to speak, of remotely-controlled bodies called "avatars," which are designed to look more or less exactly like the Na'vi, a tribe native to the moon. However, the more time Jake spends with the natives, the more and more he begins to question the motives and morality of the people who tasked him with his mission. In short, "Avatar" is pretty much "Dances With Wolves" if the natives were 11 feet tall and blue.

Let's kick this article off by stating the obvious: visually and atmospherically, "Avatar" might be the most detailed film I have ever seen. Ever. I love how James Cameron and the team that worked on this specified everything about this world down to the tiniest details. The Avatar Fandom Wiki has exactly 123 entries for the flora of Pandora, 101 entries on creatures native to the moon, several different entries based around fully-fleshed out and detailed locations, and 51 entries for surprisingly believable and plausible military assets employed by the RDA, that is, the Resources Development Administration, that is, the bad guys. Not even "Star Wars" can touch this level of detail that makes "Avatar" feel, to be frank, genuine. It also doesn't hurt that the visuals for all of these guns and bioluminescent roses (see what I did there) are absolutely stunning and still hold up almost 15 years later, even though a good amount of it has, inevitably, fallen into what we call "uncanny valley," where something looks almost real, but isn't quite there, leaving us feeling uncomfortable. However, that's not to detract from what the film accomplished with its visuals because, in all honesty, the only thing that may be able to top "Avatar" pound-for-pound visually is its own sequel. And, on top of the amazing visuals, an equally amazing soundtrack by the late James Horner only added to the spectacle in superb fashion. The OST of "Avatar" is impeccable and easy to listen to, but also incredibly immersive and intentionally representative of the world it's supposed to represent. In short, it sounds like something that's supposed to exist in the world of "Avatar," seamlessly blending a pounding, cadence-like military mood with an otherworldly, alien, primitive, and beautiful feel.

However, despite all the things it does well, "Avatar" isn't purely a thing of beauty. There are some very bad things about this film, the most notable of them being a derivative story. "Avatar" is pretty much just Pocahontas in space, and this does distract from the otherwise pristine atmosphere. White guy meets Native girl, falls in love, and turns on his own kind. It's a story we've seen play out many times before in many different movies, and even with an impressive set of visuals, "Avatar" doesn't really manage to fool anyone as to what it's doing: prioritizing visuals over narrative originality to a ridiculous degree, which ultimately makes the movie not only derivative but also kind of predictable. Too many times, I found myself taken out of the story by a plot point and even some of the names of some of the creatures that were, at best, eerily similar to, and at worst, blatant rip-offs of elements from other stories. To be fair, if you look into it enough, you'll find that almost every movie made today borrows a surprising amount of material from existing IPs, some more than others and some way more than others. I'm looking at you, "Avatar."

But, despite the unoriginality of its story, within the confines of its own universe, the narrative flow of "Avatar" is actually pretty solid. The film executes set-up and payoff quite well, taking time to meticulously build to a loud, proud, and epic conclusion. This movie is in no hurry to get to where to wants to be, and in a world where movies rush forward at breakneck speed without slowing down to give you time to catch a breath, I respect that. The film establishes its stakes well, giving us enough time to care about this world and the people that inhabit it. Every time a character died, I felt the hole they left in the plot, and every time a particular landmark of the moon was turned to cinders, I found myself missing it, wishing I could have it back. The film doesn't tend to overcomplicate things, and while that hurts it in other areas, that actually helps it in the area of its narrative, which is a pretty sleek, well-paced, and effective one, in all honesty.

However, while the narrative may be sleek (if unoriginal), the same can't really be said for the characters. They're likable enough, but a lot of that has to do with the acting jobs, some of which were far better than others, and they're often very one-dimensional, tending to rely on stereotypes rather than on sincere characterization. Out-of-the-game veteran? Check. Gung-ho and aggressive military guy? Check. Constantly annoyed supervisor? Check. Constantly annoying assistant? Check. Greedy corporate type? Check. Native princess? Check. Smack-talking pilot? Check. And, of course, that "yeah, baby, get some!" guy. Do you see where I'm going with this? The characters in the plot often feel flat because they tend to be representations of various ideas rather than actual people and pretty unimpressive representations at that. Having a few supporting characters be a representation of a larger idea isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it can actually elevate your story if done correctly, but "Avatar" missed the memorandum that you shouldn't make every single one of your characters a stereotype.

Ultimately, "Avatar" is a product of its time, but by no means a horrible one. It's a solid film that also happens to have some serious design flaws. The worldbuilding is beautiful, the originality horrendous. The characterization is fun, but nevertheless flat. And I frankly don't have many complaints in regard to its technical achievements. It's a fun flick, and if it's a film you haven't watched in a while, I'd even say it's worth picking up to watch again, if just to pass the time. You know, probably only to pass the time.

Avatar - 6/10 + extra credit for worldbuilding

Psalm 8:3-5