DeniReview: The Last Airbender - M. Night Cuts The Cheese!
July 8th 2010 13:08
Rating: * out of 5 (1/5)
It's heartbreaking when a director you admire delivers a stinker and that's exactly what M. Night Shyamalan did in his latest
epic, The Last Airbender.
I honestly don't even know where to start. This movie was just wrong on so many levels. There's an angry protest against the film because Shyamalan chose to cast non-Asian actors for the lead roles and that's fair enough but I'm more upset that three leads he did chose were just bad actors to
begin with. But then again, who is talented enough to give a convincing performance reciting hokey-pokey medieval paint-by-numbers dialogue? That's a challenge even for someone as great as Meryl Streep. It seemed as if these actors were threatened with bodily harm if they didn't perform the lines they were skeptical about.
The special effects and action sequences were "odd".
When one character was always getting splashed with water he never actually got wet, the fire never burned anything and the fight scenes did not evoke any sense of danger or excitement. It's like they were all dancing in a chorus line in an off Broadway show. The evil soldiers of the Fire Nation had long blades and after each fight, the blades were as clean as ever. All they did was wave them around to look menacing.
I watched this movie without any knowledge of the original TV series (Nickelodian 2005 debut) and immediately after, I felt I needed to see the source material. So I managed to hunt down the first episode of the first series and while the movie pretty much followed the episode, which is done in Anime, BTW, I
discovered why I felt such a strange sense of detachment. The movie just wasn't translated properly to the screen as live action. It still played like a cartoon.
Anyhow, the story takes place in the future, the earth has been ravaged and now man or a select few exists with magical powers to manipulate the four elements - fire, water, earth, and air. Of course there is disharmony between the factions and only the chosen one, the Avatar, is able to manipulate all four elements thus bringing peace and balance. When the film opens, the Fire nation is blazing an angry trail of discord and keeping all other elements at bay to maintain control.
One day, Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and his sister Katara (Nicola Peltz) of the Water Nation are out on a hunting expedition for food and they stumble across a small boy, Aang (Noah Ringer) encased in ice. They come to realize that he is the Avatar or The Last Airbender. However when Aang is released from the ice, this attracts the attention of Prince Zuko (Dav Patel), a Prince of the Fire Nation who was banished by his father. In order to regain his honor he can only return to his Kingdom when he captures the Avatar.
The plot is hard to follow at times and there are some parts of the script that's inundated with exposition. While I didn't see this movie in 3D, from what I hear it's practically unnoticeable which makes sense since they decided to added as an afterthought, I guess.
I would love to end this review with something positive to say but I'm afraid and just a little bit disappointed that there isn't anything I can really add. For everyone who's complaining that the movie was cast with non-Asians, perhaps just maybe the Asian community of actors out there who felt they were ignored are better off not being associated with this film after all.
It's heartbreaking when a director you admire delivers a stinker and that's exactly what M. Night Shyamalan did in his latest
I honestly don't even know where to start. This movie was just wrong on so many levels. There's an angry protest against the film because Shyamalan chose to cast non-Asian actors for the lead roles and that's fair enough but I'm more upset that three leads he did chose were just bad actors to
Noah Ringer as Aang
The special effects and action sequences were "odd".
Nicola Pelz as Katara
I watched this movie without any knowledge of the original TV series (Nickelodian 2005 debut) and immediately after, I felt I needed to see the source material. So I managed to hunt down the first episode of the first series and while the movie pretty much followed the episode, which is done in Anime, BTW, I
Jackson Rathbone as Sokka
Anyhow, the story takes place in the future, the earth has been ravaged and now man or a select few exists with magical powers to manipulate the four elements - fire, water, earth, and air. Of course there is disharmony between the factions and only the chosen one, the Avatar, is able to manipulate all four elements thus bringing peace and balance. When the film opens, the Fire nation is blazing an angry trail of discord and keeping all other elements at bay to maintain control.
One day, Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and his sister Katara (Nicola Peltz) of the Water Nation are out on a hunting expedition for food and they stumble across a small boy, Aang (Noah Ringer) encased in ice. They come to realize that he is the Avatar or The Last Airbender. However when Aang is released from the ice, this attracts the attention of Prince Zuko (Dav Patel), a Prince of the Fire Nation who was banished by his father. In order to regain his honor he can only return to his Kingdom when he captures the Avatar.
Dev Patel as Prince Zuko
The plot is hard to follow at times and there are some parts of the script that's inundated with exposition. While I didn't see this movie in 3D, from what I hear it's practically unnoticeable which makes sense since they decided to added as an afterthought, I guess.
I would love to end this review with something positive to say but I'm afraid and just a little bit disappointed that there isn't anything I can really add. For everyone who's complaining that the movie was cast with non-Asians, perhaps just maybe the Asian community of actors out there who felt they were ignored are better off not being associated with this film after all.
| 173 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
Anyway, it was supposed to be released in Australia this week but seems to have been pulled by Paramount at the last minute, and has now been delayed 2 months. Considering the other reviews I've read have labelled this one of the most embarrassingly bad films of recent times, I get a strong feeling this might eventually end up going straight-to-DVD here! Now that would be quite an indignity if it did happen!
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Comment by Deni
Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald
Shaun, I actually like M. Night's movies, with the exception of two, I think they were all pretty decent.
I like M. Night. I think he's in a category all by himself - and that's not saying that I think he's brilliant. His movies, to me, are like sitting around the campfire and weaving tales. He's a story teller but in this day and age where movie-goers are a bit more cynical, he needs to up the ante - simple story telling doesn't always translate well on screen. I'm one of those cynical movie goers but there's a lot about his work that I appreciate. I would actually compare him to Spielberg in some ways. At a certain point even Spielberg's films started to get edgy. When Spielberg paints a dark picture, it can be disturbing...with films like Schindler's List, Munich, and Saving Private Ryan.
Anyhow, I was cheering for him with Airbender BUT, I'm just not so bias towards his movies where I can make excuses. It was really bad and I was sooooo disappointed.
It was like watching a live-action cartoon. Just didn't work.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Sounds like Airbender was the same for you as most.
As for Shymalan, Unbreakable is the only film I rank in his cannon. The rest i have watched for examples of what not to do from structure and illicting performance to wasting a great idea.
The Happening was hilariously bad (Marky Marks performance was a great example of a doe eyed lack of continuity. How many times can he be astonished at the exact same thing happening over and over again)...but the opening was fun.
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Comment by Deni
Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald
Unbreakable is tops for me also.
However, I disagree with you both on The Happening and his other movies. I think I and others who do like his work probably see his films from a completely different perspective.
Cheers and thanks for stopping by.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
I like what Shymalan aspires too, in fact the type of films he makes are amongst my favourite genres. I just don't think he does them well and in the end is very predictable in plotting and clumsy with his characters.
Giving it a little bit of thought, what really frustrates me about his work is that the concepts are interesting but rather than either taking it to an extreme or parring it back to minimalism he walks the pedestrian middle road, The result is invariably a could have been better feeling at the end of each film that seems a wasted opportunity that lacks depth, daring or resonance.
Naturally we agree to disagree on it, and I must admit to seeing way to many films that his are derivatives of.
Comment by Deni
Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald
I don't know what you mean exactly, when you say this:
Because I see the opposite. I just know it's refreshing to see movies that veer off from the normal and usual structure - if that's how you see it and I give him credit for doing so.
Cheers,
D.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
For me his structure is very "typical" and without any "veering" from tradition Watch any episode of the 1950's Twilight Zone for instance to see what I mean.. or better still watch Jacob's Ladder and then The Sixth Sense. essentially the same idea, where Jacob's Ladder is original and fresh, the Sixth Sense follows a much more well worn path in plotting.making it generic and with little surprise.
As I said I have seen far to may films of this type and he follows the rule book to the letter...I would love if he dared to be different.
Comment by Deni
Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald
In my initial comment I was basing it on your view of structure, which is why I asked the question to make absolutely sure I know what you mean. I try not to assume these things.
Personally, I don't look that deep into movies and pick them apart. At the end of the day, I just want to be entertained.
I'm guessing you don't like moderation and that's fine. I think Shyamalan's style is restrained and that's what I like about his work. I like minimalism, I think that's more thought provoking. I think restrained does give more depth to characters and definitely more resonance - Unbreakable was a good example of that.
Shyamalan's work doesn't spell out everything and I LOVE movies like that. I like movies that are NOT like that.
When I watched The Happening, I wasn't necessarily focusing on the plot and to be honest, I didn't think that movie was about plotting. It was about extracting a feeling from the audience...the unknown, why?, why does anyone do in the situation? Where does one go? how would this realistically play out? It left me feeling very uncomfortable to know that something beyond our control could happen and what would we do if it did. Wahlberg's performance was dead on because he "didn't know", everything was a guess that could be wrong...at the end of the day there was nothing to do but sit down and wait for it play out.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Don't we all watch films to be entertained?
If by moderation, you mean shockingly average then I will have to admit a low tolerance to by the numbers film making in the science fiction or thriller genre.
Thing is Shymalan's work is designed to make you think and so the cracks appear very quickly. I agree with your summation of his intentions, but heartily disagree with your verdict that he succeeds.
Act 1 of his stories are nicely restrained but by act 2 he shows his hand. For me he spells everything out and is very obvious leaving little to the imagination.
He is heavy handed after about 20 minutes in and by the final scenes he feels the need to treat the audience like morons. Spelling it all out and giving you nothing to ponder as the final credits roll.
I adore understated and restrained cinema, Picnic at Hanging Rock is a great example of it done right. I thrive on ambiguity but he feeds me none.
As i said earlier the thing that frustrates is that he holds back early but becomes obvious and lazy far to quickly. No restraint or control.
I don't know why I am replying because I feel like this is just bickering, but i am amazed that someone truly thinks his storytelling contains ambiguity or a sense of mystery after the halfway point.
As always, we agree to disagree
Comment by Deni
Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald
Don't we all watch films to be entertained?
If by moderation, you mean shockingly average then I will have to admit a low tolerance to by the numbers film making in the science fiction or thriller genre.
Structure wise, ACT II, is supposed to gradually lead up to the finale in ACT III.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
The only part that really needs addressing in your reply is the spelling out part.
To clarify in some films spelling it out is needed. In Shymalan's films, as with all good "Tales of the unexpected" they are much better if they give you food for thought after the final credits have rolled. I hate a neat bow at the end of this type of film. (See Donnie Darko for example) ... Shymalan always has to over play his hand....just my opinion.
Fun chatting on this one
Comment by Deni
Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald
You said:
Okay...well just know that I never take anything personal and I respect your opinions. I do like discussing with people I disagree with but I also understand that for some people (not you but others in general, it can get frustrating). I am opinionated but I try not be overbearing with it.
Donnie Darko is in a class all by itself, I think. Donnie Darko was actually a science fiction movie where as, say Shyamalan's Signs was not. He used the alien story line as background. Many people expected an "alien" attack. The entire build-up of the story was pointing in that direction but at the end - that's now what he wanted to convey at all. That would have been obvious. When I saw Signs, everyone in the audience was disappointed. They were looking for an all out attack, without realizing that Act II was all about a build up of fear.
One think I loved about Signs and even Unbreakable, is the use of silence. I get so annoyed when directors use the score to build up fear, silence is so much more effective.
I'll try and check out that other movie you mentioned in your previous post.