Avatar The Way of Water: Muddled, But Competent Enough

If nothing else, James Cameron's science fiction epic "Avatar: The Way of Water" is a follow-up film that's a refreshing departure from the run-of-the-mill, half-baked, and unimaginative franchise films that we've grown far too accustomed to in a world that has become enamored with the concept of the comfortable, familiar sequel. I've got to give it credit for that, and so while it may not be the most groundbreaking or narratively airtight film out there, it doesn't get everything wrong. However, the film's worst tendencies also tend to rise to the surface of the water here, along with its merits. "The Way of Water" is thirty minutes too long, narratively shallow, and for a movie that was thirteen years in the making, not even close to as good as it could have or should have been. But hey, for all the jokes about Pocahontas in space, at least it wasn't as derivative as its predecessor, which I will admit is the first movie that actually made me want to make movies.

"Avatar: The Way of Water" picks up thirteen years (shocker) after the events of the previous film and follows the titular avatar Jake Sully as he and his family seek refuge among the Metkayina, a sea-faring tribe of the native Na'vi, as they are hunted by returning human colonists, among them a no-longer-dead and incredibly vengeful Colonel Miles Quaritch, Jake's no-longer-late nemesis from the original film.

So, let's start off with the good things about this film. Obviously, I have to give credit to the visuals of this movie because...wow. Computer-generated imagery has gotten something of a bad rap in movies as of late, and this is completely understandable. Far too many films, namely superhero movies, tend to sell themselves out to the idea of quantity over quality. This mindset inevitably leads to computer graphics that look, at worst, tacky and, at best, uncanny. However, even though "The Way of Water" doesn't quite achieve photorealism with its CGI, it comes closer than any movie I've ever seen, except for maybe "Gravity." It's obvious that a lot of care was taken when it came down to the visual aspects of this movie, and understandably so. The visuals are ultimately the selling point of "The Way of Water," for better or worse, so we knew that James Cameron and company would go all-out, and go all-out they did, even creating 3-D cameras designed to shoot motion capture underwater. It's a long but very interesting story with some truly groundbreaking stuff going on.

On a more conventional level, this movie also understands its priorities, and it is nice to see a movie that knows what it wants to do. "The Way of Water" is a movie about family, and everything does seem to go back to one fundamental question. "How far are you willing to go to make sure that your loved ones stay safe?" This wasn't an especially groundbreaking question, but it is a universal theme that is easy to get behind, and the movie played it safe by picking it, scoring some points in this category. It's also refreshing to see that this movie didn't try to fall back on divisive political tropes. For as much buzz as those produce, they do alienate 50% of your prospective audience, and for a movie whose predecessor is known for its political statements, this movie didn't really try to fit what some might refer to as "the message" into its movie. Whatever your political beliefs may be, we don't go to the movies to have a belief we either love or hate preached to us. We go to see something we've never seen before with undercurrents of familiar ideas packed into it, and "The Way of Water" largely understands that a movie should be escapism, not familiarism. Of course, the environmental themes of the first film linger, but they are old news by this point, and so people aren't going to be getting up and leaving the theater because of them.

As for the less-than-stellar aspects of the movie, there were more of those than I would have liked to see. First off, I would like to address the 30-minute elephant parade in the room, that weird gap of time in the middle of the film where literally nothing that was of any consequence to the plot happened. Yes, I am talking about the plot thread where the Sully children learn the ways of the Metkayina, or the reef-dwelling Na'vi tribe. It was visually stunning, but it brought the plot of the film to a screeching halt. For a movie that's already over three hours long, this time could have very easily been cut from the plot altogether or relegated to a more efficient role like, you know, doing anything at all. Fortunately, the first and third acts of the film respectively lay down an effective groundwork and close the film in an emotionally satisfying manner, but this middle act was very weak, and either should have been given a role or cut altogether. As for a more minor complaint, I do have to bring up Spider. I get that Jack Champion may have had a reason for overacting the way he did, given that he had lived among the Na'vi his entire life, and so may have learned to interact in more animated ways, but it was ultimately really annoying to watch, and I wish the film had given him a more grounded and realistic personality. I could shoot small holes in the plot all day, but ultimately, all my complaints do come back to the issue of this film having too much time on its hands and not enough stuff to fill the time with. This makes the film feel a tad bit muddled, and cutting thirty minutes of runtime would have solved almost every issue the film had. However, three-hour movies make audiences (and critics) go "woah," and I get that James Cameron and company probably just weren't able to resist the allure of having that runtime.

On top of all these complaints, I do need to bring up, once again, this franchise's lack of subtlety. When you're writing a villain for a movie, said villain needs to either have a factor that makes them understandable (like Koba from "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes") or a belief that makes you question the morality of the heroes (like Joker from "The Dark Knight"). No one is ever evil for no reason, and villains, as villainous as they may be, have reasons for doing the things they do, whether that be a relatable struggle or knowledge and understanding of a very real flaw with the worldview of the protagonists. I wish the RDA (the humans) had more subtlety to them. It gets more than tiring to watch a film portray one-dimensional bad guys wreck an ecosystem without ever exploring why they're doing it to a satisfying degree. What if these men are looking out for families back on Earth, just doing what they need to so that their families can put food on the table? It's not hard at all to add layers to villains, and the villains in "Avatar" could really use some layers. But hey, I have to commend the movie for resurrecting a dead villain in a smart way I actually didn't hate, which isn't something I can say too often about resurrecting characters for sequels.

All in all, "Avatar: The Way of Water" is a satisfying-enough sequel to a film that was, for all its problems, satisfying enough. I'd totally be down to go see a third film in theaters because even if it doesn't turn out perfectly, "The Way of Water" did turn the "Avatar" franchise from a collection of Native-American-themed space operas into its own beast, setting up theoretical future films for success by distancing itself from some of the flaws of the first movie. I can't help but feel disappointed by the film, though. James Cameron had thirteen years to make this movie, and it would have been nice if something other than the movie's visuals had reflected that. But you know what? While it isn't a movie I'm dying to re-watch over and over again, it's a movie I can say I'm glad I went to see. And sometimes that's enough.

Avatar: The Way of Water - 6/10

Psalm 19:1-4