[Spoiler Alert] My movie review: Avatar offers more than meets the eye


Status
Not open for further replies.

germ_boi

New Member
There's hardly a movie which everyone can truly enjoy together. But what's even harder to find is a movie with a vast array of subliminal separate plots reflecting society's multitude of problems yet interwoven seamlessly into one complete story so seemingly far away. Avatar, beyond a film with spectacular CGI, is one such movie.

The film starts off with an introduction of the corporation, RDA which is mining Pandora for its unobtanium, a mineral valued at $20million per kg. As the movie progresses, it becomes crystal clear that Parker Selfridge contains no respect either for the indigenous people nor the rich biodiversity on the planet, referring to the Na'vi as "blue monkeys". He tries to find out what they desire, by offering them medicine, food, education, teaching them English.

Isn't this such an imperialistic concept, yet still so apparent? Even in today's context, there're many instances of corporations, wanting to mine the rich oil in the Amazon, or the diamonds in Africa try to convert the local population by tempting them with many products of our civilized culture. The more nefarious taint the donated food, then offer them medicine in exchange for negotiations or religious conversions.

However, Parker is quickly stumped. He realizes the Na'vi are perfectly happy the way they are and have no desire to leave their Hometree. He then sends in Jake Sully and Dr Grace Augustine to try to infiltrate and understand them, possibly to convert the Na'vi. Eventually, Jake and Grace, having gained a complete understanding of the Na'vi's culture and appreciation of the rich biodiversity of the planet, tries to convince Parker to stop his plans.

What is amazing is that this actually happens in real life. Daniel Everett, who went to the Maici river in the Amazon to convert the locals to Christianity, came back losing his faith and gaining respect for the indigenous people. He says "One of the saddest things I've seen in Amazonian cultures is people who were self-sufficient and happy that now think of themselves as poor and become dissatisfied with their lives." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/10/daniel-everett-amazon)

Parker upon realizing that diplomacy, in the simplest sense, is not working prepares to send in the ex-Marines, mercenaries hired by the corporation, but not before replying characteristically of most administrators (& CEOs) "There's nothing more embarrassing as bad press, but more importantly, a bad quarterly statement is worse than a bad press." (exact words hard to remember)

Again, this very lack of respect for the locals underlines the attitude our world leaders take towards other less well-off countries. Let's us recall that Iraq was invaded because of the weapons of mass destruction which were never found. Iraq is now a unhealthy, unstable democracy but is producing a stable oil supply for the US economy, unlike under Saddam Hussein who was among the first of the oil-producing countries to not sell oil in US Dollars. Timbre, oil, diamonds, gold are just a short list of commodities we wage wars over under the cloak of self-righteousness.

Parker engages the help of Colonel Miles Quaritch to command the troops. Using intel previously gathered by Jake, Colonel Miles takes a preemptive strike using smoke bombs, then high powered missiles against a defenseless group of natives who only count the bow and arrow as their weapons. The Na'vi, realizing the danger they're in, quickly calls upon the help of other clans, thereby exploding the population of the Na'vis in the area from hundreds to the range of thousands.

The Colonel then give a speech (don't all officers like to give speeches) about the "fact" that the natives are trying to terrorize them, if they do not win then death would be upon them and terror should be fought be terror. Obviously to the audience, Colonel Miles is being hypocritical since he was the one who started the war first.

Yet, doesn't it sound so familiar? Extremism on one side, begets extremism on the other, a fact civilization has never managed to understand. Our current "war on terror" began with the same roots, a huge misunderstanding amongst the radicals and a few war hawks leading to a full blown war in Afghanistan, then Iraq with the deaths of many innocent parties like Tsu-tey and Dr Grace in the movie.

Thankfully, the Na'vi eventually won the battle and the humans are evicted, a happy ending for the film. Sadly, the future does not bode well for our own human race. As you have enjoyed the movie, I hope you think about what it means for our race to be conflicted by so many problems, yet unable to find a single and solidarity , defining and deafening reply to all of them.
 

please put "SPOILER ALERT" on your title yeah?
 

EH? i dont understand this post la my friend. are you a critic?
 

please put "SPOILER ALERT" on your title yeah?

Tried editing, can't add it in, sad, sorry for those who I've spoilt, but it's quite a old movie already, so I reckon most people would have seen it.

EH? i dont understand this post la my friend. are you a critic?

Urm I'm not really sure what I am, but I see so many themes in the movie that I can relate to, so I cannot help but pen down some thoughts and share with everyone.

you need a blog, period.

Haha, that's all you say, but blog attract a lot of spambots leh.
 

the shows look very eco / environmental-themed to me...that's my first impression.
 



TS: well thought out review, but perhaps another forum?
 

Last edited:
agree with agentxq49. You need to put a Spoiler Alert somewhere in the title. And your review fits right in IMDB as well, you probably get a solid rebuttal/fan base there with your comments :))
 

wat wif all the thingy abt avatar???

3 threads abt this avatar lor..

haven't watch yet but watched the cartoon b4 and nothing fantastic thou..:think:
 

wat wif all the thingy abt avatar???

3 threads abt this avatar lor..

haven't watch yet but watched the cartoon b4 and nothing fantastic thou..:think:

James Cameron's Avatar and the anime Avatar (airbender) are 2 different shows.
 

James Cameron's Avatar and the anime Avatar (airbender) are 2 different shows.

Did not link it till I saw your post :bsmilie::bsmilie:
 

hahaha, just random. I liked the movie a lot, so just sharing my thoughts with everyone else

Edit: I really can't seem to edit my first post!!!
 

Last edited:
Really? While praising the technical quality of the movie, most reviewers said it was basically Dances with Wolves all over again... with blue cat-like aliens.

I personally think it's a rehash of The Last Samurai and The Last of the Mohicans.

My views:

1. Don't over-romanticise indigenous cultures. While not everybody wants Macdonalds, life in the jungle is extremely hard, dangerous and unenjoyable-- unlike what's portrayed.

2. Don't overly demonise corporates, America, white man, etc. True, they all seek to advance their self-interests, but who doesn't? Even indigenous cultures fight for their tribes and their families, ie their self-interests. Is that really so different?

3. Don't oversimplify the "war-on-terror" to the point of portraying America as the aggressor and the others as victims. That's how the terrorists indoctrinate their followers to kill innocent westerners. I believe that, while America has done many wrongs, so too have those "terrorists". They have so much hatred it cannot be believed. And they believe they are righteous in their struggle-- that's the worst part of it.

There's hardly a movie which everyone can truly enjoy together. But what's even harder to find is a movie with a vast array of subliminal separate plots reflecting society's multitude of problems yet interwoven seamlessly into one complete story so seemingly far away. Avatar, beyond a film with spectacular CGI, is one such movie.

The film starts off with an introduction of the corporation, RDA which is mining Pandora for its unobtanium, a mineral valued at $20million per kg. As the movie progresses, it becomes crystal clear that Parker Selfridge contains no respect either for the indigenous people nor the rich biodiversity on the planet, referring to the Na'vi as "blue monkeys". He tries to find out what they desire, by offering them medicine, food, education, teaching them English.

Isn't this such an imperialistic concept, yet still so apparent? Even in today's context, there're many instances of corporations, wanting to mine the rich oil in the Amazon, or the diamonds in Africa try to convert the local population by tempting them with many products of our civilized culture. The more nefarious taint the donated food, then offer them medicine in exchange for negotiations or religious conversions.

However, Parker is quickly stumped. He realizes the Na'vi are perfectly happy the way they are and have no desire to leave their Hometree. He then sends in Jake Sully and Dr Grace Augustine to try to infiltrate and understand them, possibly to convert the Na'vi. Eventually, Jake and Grace, having gained a complete understanding of the Na'vi's culture and appreciation of the rich biodiversity of the planet, tries to convince Parker to stop his plans.

What is amazing is that this actually happens in real life. Daniel Everett, who went to the Maici river in the Amazon to convert the locals to Christianity, came back losing his faith and gaining respect for the indigenous people. He says "One of the saddest things I've seen in Amazonian cultures is people who were self-sufficient and happy that now think of themselves as poor and become dissatisfied with their lives." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/10/daniel-everett-amazon)

Parker upon realizing that diplomacy, in the simplest sense, is not working prepares to send in the ex-Marines, mercenaries hired by the corporation, but not before replying characteristically of most administrators (& CEOs) "There's nothing more embarrassing as bad press, but more importantly, a bad quarterly statement is worse than a bad press." (exact words hard to remember)

Again, this very lack of respect for the locals underlines the attitude our world leaders take towards other less well-off countries. Let's us recall that Iraq was invaded because of the weapons of mass destruction which were never found. Iraq is now a unhealthy, unstable democracy but is producing a stable oil supply for the US economy, unlike under Saddam Hussein who was among the first of the oil-producing countries to not sell oil in US Dollars. Timbre, oil, diamonds, gold are just a short list of commodities we wage wars over under the cloak of self-righteousness.

Parker engages the help of Colonel Miles Quaritch to command the troops. Using intel previously gathered by Jake, Colonel Miles takes a preemptive strike using smoke bombs, then high powered missiles against a defenseless group of natives who only count the bow and arrow as their weapons. The Na'vi, realizing the danger they're in, quickly calls upon the help of other clans, thereby exploding the population of the Na'vis in the area from hundreds to the range of thousands.

The Colonel then give a speech (don't all officers like to give speeches) about the "fact" that the natives are trying to terrorize them, if they do not win then death would be upon them and terror should be fought be terror. Obviously to the audience, Colonel Miles is being hypocritical since he was the one who started the war first.

Yet, doesn't it sound so familiar? Extremism on one side, begets extremism on the other, a fact civilization has never managed to understand. Our current "war on terror" began with the same roots, a huge misunderstanding amongst the radicals and a few war hawks leading to a full blown war in Afghanistan, then Iraq with the deaths of many innocent parties like Tsu-tey and Dr Grace in the movie.

Thankfully, the Na'vi eventually won the battle and the humans are evicted, a happy ending for the film. Sadly, the future does not bode well for our own human race. As you have enjoyed the movie, I hope you think about what it means for our race to be conflicted by so many problems, yet unable to find a single and solidarity , defining and deafening reply to all of them.
 

Really? While praising the technical quality of the movie, most reviewers said it was basically Dances with Wolves all over again... with blue cat-like aliens.

I personally think it's a rehash of The Last Samurai and The Last of the Mohicans.

My views:

1. Don't over-romanticise indigenous cultures. While not everybody wants Macdonalds, life in the jungle is extremely hard, dangerous and unenjoyable-- unlike what's portrayed.

2. Don't overly demonise corporates, America, white man, etc. True, they all seek to advance their self-interests, but who doesn't? Even indigenous cultures fight for their tribes and their families, ie their self-interests. Is that really so different?

3. Don't oversimplify the "war-on-terror" to the point of portraying America as the aggressor and the others as victims. That's how the terrorists indoctrinate their followers to kill innocent westerners. I believe that, while America has done many wrongs, so too have those "terrorists". They have so much hatred it cannot be believed. And they believe they are righteous in their struggle-- that's the worst part of it.

Hey, thanks for sharing your views, it's a breath of fresh air. I, being a young 21, have not watched dances with wolves or the mohicans but I definitely will catch them now.

I personally take offense with people who like to compare current movies with past movies, stating they're a rehash or have a similar concept/plot to older movies. To me, nothing is original in this world and the simple idea of someone who assimilates into another culture and thereby losing his former one and helping his new culture is not rocket science. It is just packaged in a way for modern audiences to understand and appreciate(and for the director to earn his cash). Dances with Wolves is produced in 1990, that's 2 years after I was born, and if you had not brought it up today, I wouldn't have watched it too!

1. Life in the jungle is hard, but I feel the people there are fine just the way they are. Many times, modern men go into these forests not to really help the indigenous people, but to bribe them to leave their land under the cloak of "help". At the same time, different cultures develop at their own pace, and it is not certainly not helpful for us to meddle in their affairs, just look at what happened to the Akha people when the missionaries went in.

2. Everyone works to further their self-interest but is it an attitude we should celebrate? I mean, that's how we got the financial crisis. Isn't it better to champion the all-inclusive community spirit demonstrated by the Na'vi?

3. So too the Americans, who believe they have God on their side in this war on terror, isn't it another form of self-righteousness. For the war on terror, right now it's just extremism on both sides, and I support neither.
 

Last edited:
Really? While praising the technical quality of the movie, most reviewers said it was basically Dances with Wolves all over again... with blue cat-like aliens.

I personally think it's a rehash of The Last Samurai and The Last of the Mohicans.

My views:

1. Don't over-romanticise indigenous cultures. While not everybody wants Macdonalds, life in the jungle is extremely hard, dangerous and unenjoyable-- unlike what's portrayed.

2. Don't overly demonise corporates, America, white man, etc. True, they all seek to advance their self-interests, but who doesn't? Even indigenous cultures fight for their tribes and their families, ie their self-interests. Is that really so different?

3. Don't oversimplify the "war-on-terror" to the point of portraying America as the aggressor and the others as victims. That's how the terrorists indoctrinate their followers to kill innocent westerners. I believe that, while America has done many wrongs, so too have those "terrorists". They have so much hatred it cannot be believed. And they believe they are righteous in their struggle-- that's the worst part of it.

2. Of course, it is very different. The Na'vi are reacting to the attacks. They are the victims.

If someone wants to burn down my home, I put up a defence, of course, my act of defence is very different from the attacker who wants to burn down my home.
 

1. Life in the jungle is hard, but I feel the people there are fine just the way they are. Many times, modern men go into these forests not to really help the indigenous people, but to bribe them to leave their land under the cloak of "help". At the same time, different cultures develop at their own pace, and it is not certainly not helpful for us to meddle in their affairs, just look at what happened to the Akha people when the missionaries went in.
How would you know they're doing fine? Did you ever interview any indigenous peoples? Did you ever see the suffering from malnutrition, disease, famine, etc? The point is that, given a choice, I think it's highly unlikely anyone will want to remain in the jungle.

Nobody says white men came to help anybody. As I said, it's all about self-interest.

2. Everyone works to further their self-interest but is it an attitude we should celebrate? I mean, that's how we got the financial crisis. Isn't it better to champion the all-inclusive community spirit demonstrated by the Na'vi?

Na'vi is fiction. Fiction only tells what the author wants to say.

Reality is a lot different. Ever heard of the tribal massacres in Africa? One tribe killing another? That's reality-- it's all about self-interest.

3. So too the Americans, who believe they have God on their side in this war on terror, isn't it another form of self-righteousness. For the war on terror, right now it's just extremism on both sides, and I support neither.

I think you need to understand American better. They can't even say prayers in school now. And frankly, most Americans see the war on terror as an unwelcome burden rather than a crusade. That's what the terrorists want to portray it as-- a Christian plot against the Muslims. But most Americans don't see it that way. They feel they have no choice in this, and they don't see anything to gain from it even if they win, which they doubt they ever will.

Get this-- most Americans would rather have no war on terror. But they don't feel they have a choice.

They don't feel righteous at all. Not like Pearl Harbour. They just feel sick and tired, fighting an invisible enemy for no reason and palpable gain.
 

Last edited:
2. Of course, it is very different. The Na'vi are reacting to the attacks. They are the victims.

If someone wants to burn down my home, I put up a defence, of course, my act of defence is very different from the attacker who wants to burn down my home.

And so you want to debate about who cast the first stone?
 

And so you want to debate about who cast the first stone?

If someone comes and burn down my house, what should I do? I just sit there and let them come and burn?
 

If someone comes and burn down my house, what should I do? I just sit there and let them come and burn?

Are you asking metaphorically? Or are you asking about the "war on terror"?

At first glance, the answer seems simple, pure black and white. Then you realise in the real world, it's so complicated.

What if the person who is burning your house claims your govt is racist and a supporter of someone who burned his house? Or that you insulted his religion by publishing cartoons of his prophet? Etc.

See how rapidly a black and white situation turns muddy?
 

Last edited:
economics and capitalism . before voicing individual beliefs on a subject , do a study. Open the mind . Dont be too quick to pass judgment.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top