‘Avatar 2: The Way Of Water’ Review: A Major Disappointment, Bro

The nearest IMAX to where I live is at the Grand Canyon, and they don't show this kind of movie on that screen. While I am willing to drive to Phoenix to see a movie in IMAX, it is a long way to go for a movie.

I decided to make a deal with myself. If I liked Way Of Water enough on a smaller screen, I would take the kids down to the Valley over Christmas Break and watch it again on the best screen we could find.

Don't bother with those plans. I don't think I'll watch the movie again unless James Cameron pays my travel expenses, buys me tickets and takes me out to dinner. It would take three hours and twelve minutes to drag me back to the theater to see this cartoon again. There are a few things to think about.

• Yes, this is a cartoon. It’s almost entirely CGI. When live-action characters (humans) enter the picture, which isn’t often, you’re reminded that you’re watching an expensive cartoon and it’s honestly a little jarring. There’s some uncanny valley stuff here, but mainly the Navi just look super fake compared to the humans, and the humans feel super out-of-place surrounded by Navi. Who Framed Roger Rabbit did it better.
• Sure, the graphics in this video game are great but the story? Eh. Not so much.
• 48fps 3D is awful. I hate it. It’s too clear, too sharp and too fake-looking. You know the TruMotion “smoothing” you can do on your TV at home? That’s what it’s like. I read that you get used to it after a few minutes but this is a bald-faced lie. It’s nice 3D and all, but it just doesn’t look right. The ‘soap opera effect’ drives me crazy.
• The movie is too long! It’s an hour too long. If I were making the decisions at 20th Century and Disney, I would have made them cut an hour of this wildly indulgent film.
• That’s the best way I can describe Way Of Water. James Cameron is being indulgent here to excess. There’s an arrogance on display that I just find very off-putting. And he’s being indulged by the studio with this massive SFX budget, the 3D, the IMAX format, the runtime. All of it. It’s arrogant and self-indulgent and I think the novelty that made that okay in the first film has worn off for audiences, or at least it has for me. The ‘wow’ factor is gone and all I see is an expensive cartoon.

More for you.

That's right.

The Forbes Snowman has been found.

There are some great moments in the movie. The tulkun is a whale that can communicate with one another. I think they did some really neat stuff with all the ocean and aquatic bits, which is no surprise since James Cameron loves the ocean so much in his work.

The fights were action packed and had cool effects. There were some touching scenes. I enjoyed myself when I wasn't bored. Graphics in video games will be high-definition.

PLAY Forbes Innovation 1/1 Skip Ad Continue watching after the ad Visit Advertiser websiteGO TO PAGE

The story isn't good. The first film was a retread. The villains are after the resources of the island. There is a golden whale that stops human aging. The last one was called Unobtanium. The plot is the same as the new resource. Bigger tales who can swim underwater are now available. We now have underwater scenery. The bad guys have guns, bombs, and bombs.

The last film was more interesting than the one before it, but the Navi is still less interesting now. The White Savior, Jake Sully, has been fully integrated into their community, but whatever interesting stuff defined them prior to his arrival, it's all taken a back seat now to him and his family We are reminded. It was more than once.

The scenery in Way of Water is beautiful, but it is broken up by weird editing and even more shocking zooms. There are a lot of digital zooms in the film that make you feel like you are not in the film. My kids talked about this on our drive home and it wasn't just the narrator who was off-putting.

The dialogue between Jake and his children was worse. For some reason, all the kids say the same thing to one another. I think it is because of the way the young people talk these days. It doesn't make sense on an alien planet if kids in the US talk like that. Jake often uses military jargon which makes more sense and it makes sense when the kids are using it. The kids might have picked this up from the humans.

It is so cringey and strange. The bad dialogue in the new series reminded me of it. "I got you!" Let's go, bro! Let's do this!

Don't speak. There is an upward movement. Shut up. The people raised in a traditional tribe are not talking like this. It's terrible. Absolutely terrible. The writing is worse in the first movie than it is in the second one.

In the end, we have a film that follows many of the same beats as its predecessor, is overly reliant on special effects instead of a good script, and has much too much going on at all times to really help establish this as a meaningful sequel that sets up a compelling franchise that we

The conflict with the humans is boring and uninspired. I don't like cartoon villains and Noble Savages. I want more of the good character stuff, more of the spiritual and intimate stuff, and more swimming with intelligent whales. If it were an adventure movie, Jake and his family would head out into the wide, wild world and face struggles that had nothing to do with the humans. The water scenes in this film are much, much better and less unintentionally hilarious than the fight scenes in the film, but they still remind me of the battle in the film.

The way of water is not all that exciting. It's predictable and shallow. The movie is dressed in the trappings of a high-brow sci-fi movie. The illusion is shattered when you remove the glasses.

I don't think it's a bad idea to see the sequel in theaters. I'm sure it's a wild ride in IMAX 3D, but it's still a crazy example of how technology has changed over time. Don't go in with a lot of expectations. I would have taken a nap if the seats in my theater had been nicer. I would have had to watch it a second time to write this review.

My video review can be watched below.

rating is 3 out of 6 The neutral man is on the Little Man scale.

The above Little Man scale from the San Francisco Chronicle is Roger Ebert's favorite and he discussed it in his discussion on rating movies using star or number scales. This design is not the same as the original one. The fourth image of the man sitting up with a smile in his face was replaced by the man sitting back in his chair expressionless. I put them all together for a six-point scale because I think they represent different things.

• The man jumping up and clapping (6) is a movie you absolutely love;
• The man clapping in his chair (5) is one you really enjoy and recommend;
• The man sitting up with the content smile (4) is a good movie, but nothing special;
• The man sitting back expressionless (3) doesn’t hate it but it’s not really something you’d encourage others to spend money on.
• The sleeping man (2) is bored but doesn’t hate the picture enough to leave;
• The missing man (1) well, you get the idea.

The scale 6 is pulled in-line with the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down binaries from the show. If you dislike it or don't like it, you won't recommend people go see it, but if you like it, you'll get a thumbs up.

I enjoy this system. I will probably redesign the design since it isn't mine entirely. It should be a seven-point scale with a man standing and clapping for rare films.

Is there a movie you haven't seen yet? Let me know what you think on social media.