Avatar: El camino del agua
Avatar: The Way of Water
Director:
James CameronCámara:
Russell CarpenterMúsica:
Simon FranglenReparto:
Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Kate Winslet, Cliff Curtis, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Edie Falco, Brendan Cowell (más)Streaming (3)
Sinopsis(1)
Ambientada más de una década después de los acontecimientos de la primera película, Avatar: El sentido del agua empieza contando la historia de la familia Sully (Jake, Neytiri y sus hijos), los problemas que los persiguen, lo que tienen que hacer para mantenerse a salvo, las batallas que libran para seguir con vida y las tragedias que sufren. (20th Century Studios España)
(más)Reseñas (12)
El guion de una serie de televisión mediocre que no tiene prisa por ningún lado. No solo se puede resumir la historia de nuevo en una oración corta, sino que es igual que la última vez y parece que la próxima vez no será diferente. El movimiento artificial de las lagartijas azules en tierra no ha cambiado desde «Pilot», por lo que la primera mitad de la película parece una demostración de un videojuego. Sin embargo, cuando nos sumergimos bajo el agua, eso ya es otra cosa. Las lagartijas nadan con mucha más elegancia que cuando caminan y saltan, y James Cameron da una vida sin precedentes a los animales y la flora submarinos ficticios. Es hermoso y mágico. Luc Besson quedará encantado. También se da espacio a los personajes humanos en el agua, dando a un sujeto digital artificial la mayor energía física. Todos esos submarinos, cangrejos mecánicos y escenas generalmente malvadas de caza de “ballenas" son geniales. Le recordarán al espectador su alegría de las tonterías de acción en Waterworld. En general, sin embargo, el fenómeno Avatar se convierte más en una atracción de un parque de diversiones (con la promesa de un futuro de realidad virtual) que en una obra maestra cinematográfica en el verdadero sentido de la palabra. Es como la versión de Cameron de una película de Marvel, pero con un pobre desarrollo de los personajes, lo cual es una pena.
()
I like how every plot shift is tied to familial relationships (as family comprises the whole ecosystem of Pandora in this case), how the film works superbly with parallels (between the characters’ relationships and the past and present – the villain goes through the same initiation as Jake in the first film, but with a different result) and how divine the water and underwater CGI looks, and I’m not offended by the simple eco-friendly plot about finding a home and saving one’s family through a connection to an ancestral heritage, but Cameron is far too enamoured with his moon/planet and his singing whales, and he revels in both of these aspects far more than is necessary for the narrative. You can imagine the middle part of the film, which is followed by the comparatively interminable final act, as a sequel to My Octopus Teacher, with big fish instead of octopuses (which I don't mean as a compliment). Whereas the first Avatar flew by quickly and, due to its focus on building a fictional world and evoking fear for its fate, you weren’t bothered by the two-dimensional characters communicating through poorly written dialogue, here I felt every minute passing by, missing the mark emotionally by several nautical miles, because when the going gets tough, you will probably have trouble even remembering the name of the character whose life is at stake. At least the protagonist’s sons are similar to each other and interchangeable in terms of character. An unbearably long three hours. P.S. Some of the action scenes in 3D and 48fps look like cut scenes from a highly advanced video game (which is not a compliment either) and the non-action scenes are reminiscent of a soap opera. 60%
()
James Cameron once again shows Hollywood who is the king of blockbuster movies. Despite its three-hour running time, Avatar 2 is entertaining from beginning to end, with breathtaking audiovisual and personal stories of old and new heroes at the ideal pace. Pandora is perhaps even more beautiful than last time, the newcomers are likeable, and Cameron keeps the pace from start to finish without a single flinch. And after thirteen years, he shows that he's still a long way ahead of most Hollywood filmmakers.
()
Less water, man, less water! I’m still a big fan of the first Avatar, which worked like a euphoric trip through another world thanks to its simple narrative structure involving a hero/outsider savior of the noble savages. The second one is essentially a drawn-out and shaky soap opera about a family run by a militant father who moves to a new ’hood and can’t get used to it. Let’s leave aside that Cameron paid significantly less attention to dramatic motivations than he did to the last fish below the surface. The whole film thus seems irrational and the dialogue, which was never Avatar’s strength, is even more ear-scratchingly pedantic. As an epic tech reel, however, the film is breathtaking and I truly, royally enjoyed the underwater National Geographic in HFR. There is something truly intoxicating in the smoothness and fluidity. Unfortunately, the film’s 192 minutes are emotionally stolen by a crippled humpback whale, which has the significant advantage that it doesn’t talk (and even its retrospective is not told smoothly). Yes, Cameron is a great craftsman and illusionist, but as a storyteller, he fails here significantly in my opinion. There is no development of the mythology to speak of, as everything is just a variation, the metaphor of nature as a loving entity is becoming more and more naïve and, honestly, I would like to spend less time waiting for the third one and the fire people after this aquatherapy. During the screening, I found it difficult to push away the thought that I would have preferred to enjoy some top-quality sci-fi, which Avatar decidedly isn’t!
()
What is the recipe for the success of Cameron’s films? As in the case of Pixar’s top projects and all of Hayao Miyazaki’s movies, there is no secret to it; on the contrary, it is banally uncomplicated, though not simple or obvious. Cameron creates fantasy worlds with the ambition to maximise the viewers’ immersion in them and he achieves this by being absolutely demanding and making no comprises. Cameron’s essential asset as a master director is his complete understanding of the technological possibilities of the medium and his ability to push those possibilities in a visionary way. But what receives little emphasis is the fact that Cameron subordinates to this immersion not only the demands of executing the special effects, but primarily his formalistic signature. He doesn’t create money shots, fool around with the camerawork or editing, show off with flashy long shots or otherwise let the film exhibit itself to the audience. When he goes for a slow-motion shot, he does so in the interest of working with the dynamics and build-up of the whole sequence, not with the aim of making a cool picture. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t set challenges for himself. His films contain a lot of difficult shots and each of his projects is actually a major campaign with the objective of conquering new territory for cinema as a medium of illusion. But, again, all efforts remain subordinate to the audience’s immersion in the given world he has created. This maxim also guarantees that the narrative isn’t cluttered with anything that would break the fourth wall, whether references nodding at fans or characters and artefacts that serve only as intrusive advertisements for associated merch. Unlike Star Wars and the Marvel movies, Cameron’s films don’t offer corporate-calculated webs of stories that would lend themselves to fandom fetishisation. Instead, Cameron simply creates fictional worlds that entice viewers with their fantastical nature and the promise of their settings and characters. Cameron himself says that his screenwriting process comes from two directions. On the one hand, there are the characters and their relationships. On the other hand, there are the specific scenes and settings that Cameron would like to see. Writing the screenplay then involves coming up with motivations and peripeteias that connect these two pillars causally and logically. Then, of course, there is Cameron’s own imagination, which shapes the particular worlds. And that’s all; there is nothing else behind his success (well, except for effective PR, which in turn relies on the potential that Cameron creates). It then invites further reflection on what it says about the state of blockbusters and Hollywood as a whole when the above is not the norm but a celebrated anomaly. ______ In light of the above, the only weakness of Cameron’s films is his screenplays. Or perhaps it’s only the perspective of viewers who aren’t completely captivated by them. Compared to the first Avatar, the narrative shifts in the sequel may not sit well with some viewers. Conversely, some will be irritated by the excessive similarity between the two films and the repetition of motifs. Still others will have an issue with the apparent lapses in logic (even if they are transgressions against the opinions of the respective viewers and not against the rules of fiction). Other people won’t be able to get past the wall of their own cynicism and accept the new-age environmental ethos, naïve mythmaking, post-colonial romanticism or Cameron’s characteristic melodrama. Personally, I was saddened mainly by the evoked impression that I had already seen several times. For one thing, Cameron again builds on the first film’s love story with the story of a family on the run and a coming-of-age motif, just as he did with Terminator 2. The story of parental love that turns into anxious criticalness and the necessity of giving adolescents their freedom regardless of what mistakes they make as a result because they can grow only by making those mistakes fortunately remains universal and fundamental enough not to seem derivative. Furthermore, its likable in that it irritates the parents in the audience and appeals greatly to younger viewers. Apart from that, however, memories of key sequences in Titanic and The Abyss inevitably creep into one’s mind at particular moments in the film. On the other hand, the idea that Cameron is merely ripping himself off can be quickly dispelled by recalling the work of George Miller, who also works with variations on certain motifs in the Mad Max films. Cameron also uses similar situations simply because he likes them, knows their dramatic potential and enjoys recreating them. ______ After all, personal passion and imprinting one’s signature on a film are essential attributes of a director’s work. Cameron most clearly projects into his films his often mentioned fascination with strong women and warrior mothers, as well as his fascination with the undersea world. With respect to the latter, the second Avatar is perhaps his most inward-looking project since The Abyss. In multiple storylines, he expresses the desire to merge with that alien world which is so close, actually within reach, but the limits of the human body constantly make its strangeness and unattainability felt.
()
(menos)
(más)
I felt a bit as if I was watching the second episode of a series. The beginning feels somewhat rushed and hurried, and the human dimension disappears from the whole Water Journey, as all the important protagonists are already blue (and they call humans Ape). Everyone is family with everyone, and humans are a threat symbolized only by technology destroying Pandora's natural resources. Cameron keeps the pace and narrates with clarity, but the characters often behave illogically, which I rationalised by the fact that they are aliens and when they are not they are assholes. The digressions into nowhere stretch out the runtime, and while it's clear that is Kira script-armoured to support future episodes, it takes away from the main point, which is fooling around with the Pandora equivalent of Willy and diving and exploring the water world and stuff. Each Sully kid has a story to tell at the expense of Sully and Mrs. Sully. Ironically the most interesting character is the Colonel exploring new physical possibilities. There are some scenes that are breathtaking, like crushing one's own skull, the spearmen, even making friends with a whale, but overall it's terribly long and I see more naive nerds than cunning heroes in the leads. Let's hope they wise up and that it will be back to a full rating in the third one. P.S: Horner is very much missed, RIP. There’s no nice new musical theme, just a variation of the old one.
()
The power of the family bond, the harmony between man and nature, the destruction of ecosystems for the purpose of monetisation. Cameron sends some important messages and quite clear appeals out into the world with Avatar 2, and he succeeds again, of course, and not only that. The new blues represent the visual benchmark of the modern blockbuster, and Cameron once again throws down the gauntlet to other filmmakers, blowing them out of the water for the umpteenth time in his spectacular King of the World career. Compared to the first one, the sequel is a technical evolution. It tweaks little details, upgrades the story setting, adds more imaginary "levels" and works with Stephen Lang's character in an interesting way. The second third is quite slow and the least entertaining, but the lavish and spectacular finale, like in the first, makes up for it. Apart from the technical aspects, there's nothing really groundbreaking or unique, but Cameron, as a lover of the planet, animals and especially the underwater depths, is passionate about his dream project and you can feel that he loves what he's doing and gives it his all, and that can't be said of every hitmaker in Hollywood.
()
The technical execution is of course perfect, if not more, but I think the first film had a better story because the ecological message suits Avatar a bit better than family values. It's possible that it will work the second time around, because I had a similar experience with the first film, but now it really took me a while to get my bearings on the new characters after the initial rushed "It Happened", and before I accepted, for example, the somewhat B-movie way in which the villain Quaritch and co. return. It’s a shame. Still, Avatar: The Way of Water is definitely a proper big movie that deserves to be seen in the cinema. “Only” that it isn’t perfect.
()
There were a few sequences that reminded me of an expensive video game, and I can't decide how much I actually liked the 3D – on the one hand it's immersive, but on the other it leads your attention too much by refocusing and prevents you from enjoying large units with many action layers. Otherwise, no complaints. The first had more action, the second has more well-knit relationships between the characters and deepens the transcendent connection to a fictional world that blossoms before your eyes in splendour beyond the highest expectations. This is how you tell a story and dazzle with an image. I enjoy Pandora and its exploration tied to innocent childhood curiosity, I enjoy the altered eco-message and the technological megalomania that ensures a truly unprecedented immersion. This is where the future of cinema is being shaped, without forgetting the story, which I personally found quite different and more intimate than last time. And I can't wait to see where Quaritch's (again, the best character) blind conquest syndrome and personal vendetta will turn next.
()
Me dije que, si hubiera pirañas voladoras, estaría satisfecho. Había truchas voladoras, así que una satisfacción parcial. Inmediatamente después de la proyección, se me ocurrieron comentarios sarcásticos en cuanto a la película, por ejemplo, «el protector de pantalla más caro de todos los tiempos», pero sería una falta de respeto a Cameron. Este segundo Avatar es realmente un espectáculo visual, increíblemente hermoso y muy bien hecho desde el punto de vista de diseño y que hay que ver en el cine. El 3D funciona. En resumen, la parte técnica de la película estuvo a la altura de las expectativas acumuladas durante 13 años. Lo que no estuvo a la altura de las expectativas es el guion, que es la parte más débil de la película, es predecible, simple y literal y figurativamente construido sobre el agua. Depende constantemente de que los personajes se comporten de manera irresponsable de vez en cuando para que la trama pueda avanzar hacia alguna parte. A veces llega a puntos de lo más absurdos. Algunos personajes son secuestrados y liberados tantas veces seguidas que el guion obliga a una de ellas a comentarlo. Y tonterías mucho peores están sucediendo allí. En otras palabras, el segundo Avatar funciona bien como «experiencia», pero funciona peor como «película». Esta vez estoy dispuesto a perdonárselo a Cameron, pero si el guion de su próxima película no es mejor, si no prepara algunas sorpresas, será difícil que le perdone tantas cosas como esta vez.
()
James Cameron made us wait for thirteen long years for a sequel to one of the most spectacular films of the 21st century, and so the question is posed at the outset: was that wait really worth it? I confess to having a considerable fondness for both Cameron's films and Avatar, so I'm willing to overlook certain facts that are addressed in the reviews here. Yes, The Way of Water, like the first film, doesn't offer a very layered story, and at many points throws in glaring references to the first film – whether it be some very similar scenes or musical themes taken from the unfortunately departed James Horner. I understand that many will take this as an unoriginal rip-off of what they've already seen, but I saw it as a pleasantly nostalgic nod and reminder of the revolutionary first film, thirteen(!) years since its premiere. Of course, if Cameron's plan of plying us with more films every two or three years in the future comes to fruition, the plot will need to be fleshed out and deepened, not just interspersed with borrowed references. Speaking of referencing, connoisseurs and especially die-hard fans of the director's work will not escape the many scenes that recall Cameron's previous iconic films – from Terminator 2, to The Abyss, to Aliens and Titanic (ft. Poseidon). In this respect, as a die-hard fan, I thoroughly enjoyed the screening! In terms of building the Pandoran mythology, I welcomed that the plot moved from the forests and rocks to the water world where Cameron feels at home – and makes it clear. The years of post-production really show, and we can immerse ourselves for three hours in a wonderful world full of old and familiar creatures, but also brand new and equally amazing ones. It probably won't surprise anyone that in terms of visuals The Way of Water is like a film from another dimension – as if you were watching an alien documentary from the BBC, in which our Earth appears as a shabby little sibling of Pandora. Cameron's unwavering penchant for artisanal perfectionism and depictions of the previously unseen thus takes on further spectacular dimensions in the second Avatar. In addition to new locations and creatures, new characters have entered the storyline, and while they suffer from flatter characterisation in keeping with the genre, they still have potential for future sequels – especially Kiri, but also Quaritch, who sets his unbloody face. Kiri, in fact, was at the centre of two scenes (out of four) during which, as I say, there was an excessive onion presence in the cinema. It was good to hear and even see Sigourney Weaver, whose Grace I really liked in the first film. I was equally happy for the casting of my much-loved Kate Winslet, who once gloated about never ever again working with Cameron after Titanic. In the cinema, the 190 minutes flew by, even though the second film is in some ways more intimate and less sweeping than the first. The ecological and action-adventure levels remained, but instead of the romantic one, the family one came to the forefront, but it certainly has more to offer in the sequels. So the answer: yes, the wait was worth it! BUT: In any future films, there will need to be more storytelling, development and depth in addition to showing and audiovisual candy for the eyes and ears.
()
(menos)
(más)
La película es visualmente hermosa, sobre eso no hay dudas, y obviamente es una experiencia agradable en el cine. Pero para alguien como yo, que ama la trama, la historia y las intrigas, se pasa las tres horas sufriendo. Dado que es tonta, estúpida, repetitiva, absolutamente carente de innovación o creatividad. Sería mejor acortarla a la mitad, reducir algunas escenas del mundo submarino y crear una historia al menos un poco interesante. No puedo contar cuántas veces se me cayó la cabeza del cansancio.
()