Michael Kenmore

Given the accolades this film received, the claim that mentions the word "satire" is nowhere to be found, because there is neither black comedy nor satire to be found anywhere within this film, with the outcome of watching to the end leaving the viewer scratching his or her head as confounded, if he or she had not been put to sleep by this film's lethargic pace in the third act.

It is the fatalistic plodding pacing that truly kills the momentum of the non-existent story under vestige of class criticism complete with a discordant political rumination debating capitalism, Marxism and even an odd conspiracy theory about America in the middle. Not to mention nauseatingly (pun intended) distasteful that reminds me of the infamous campfire story in Stand By Me, which was certainly satirical, unlike this film.

The fact that this film somehow won the prestigious Palme d'Or and many top European awards, despite its questionable quality and lack of a definitive point, is proof that the European doesn't have the good taste, for lack of a better phrase, only that the European cineaste type prefer the plodding pace to the point of dullness, strange pretentiousness that pretends to be timely and important, and infuriating pointlessness lacking the substance of the overall story with rambling dialogues spoken by one-dimensional characters who we could not care less about.

Only two good things about this film are sometimes decent cinematography and European aesthetics, but everything else is awful.

The Black film critic for National Review, Armond White, while often a contrarian, was correct about how awful this film is, with him outright calling the Swedish director-trying to emulate Kubrick, but he's no Kubrick, not even by a distance-"a misanthrope and a fraud." Mr. White gave this film good enough thrashing that those who dislike or loathe this film will enjoy his review, while knowing that, like me, we are sorrowful for wasting time and money seeing this bizarre (especially the political rant in the middle; if that's trying to be satirical, it fails miserably), meandering and ultimately pointless and unfunny pseudo-intellectual rubbish.

If you value your time while seeking a clever satirical film, do not waste time seeing this film. True satire is rare, and this film ain't it.

I saw this film in its proper presentation in 3D with HFR, and it helps that open caption is provided so I follow the story.

While I liked the first movie, especially the amazing beginning that makes very effective use of 3D in IMAX 70mm I saw on the opening night (unforgettable), that first movie's story is merely serviceable as world-building inspired by Pocahontas story. The first Avatar movie was called "Dances with Thundercats"; pronouncing that faux title makes me laugh every time.

Faux title is certainly true, but never doubt James Cameron; even if the story he tells is fairly derivative. All the stories we read and watch in movies is always derived from obscure materials, so why complain about how derivative the story is, if it can be well-told with compelling visual-aural presentation and dialogue to hold our attention?

The sequel The Way of Water improves upon the first movie in almost every way. It already establishes the world of Pandora. At first when the movie opens, I wasn't "impressed".

But when the humans "arrive" in ascent from the sky to depict space, it made my jaw drop in amazement, through the clever use of 3D and HFR effects. This is James' vision as announcing his return to film-making after 13 years of absence.

James even employs the use of "reverse POV" reminiscent of GoPro in at least two scenes that are just as immersive and also emotionally invested in the characters.

While it's true the dialogue is sometimes trite, what more do you want from the sequel that tries its hardest to expand the story to go further where we would least expect?

This particular movie sort of suffers from the 'sequel syndrome,' that can't be helped, as repeating the story (even that James had to discard the script, which may be Avatar 1.5, after one long year of work, because it doesn't meet his strict expectation since it was more of the same story as deja vu). What lends this movie its ultimate strength is the astonishing and occasionally surrealistic visual effects, better seen with 3D (with or without HFR).

One minor quibble I have with the movie, despite its amplified visual presentation as the director intended, is that HFR (high frame rate) is not effective for fast-paced action scenes -- especially in the third act -- that suffers "fast forward syndrome" as distracting and therefore confusing. James would be wise to try scaling down to about 30 frames per second for action scenes, or otherwise 48 HFR in some scenes look fast forwarded like on the state of the art VCR playing the videocassette.

That complaint aside, the newly expansive story -- even if it repeats itself in some way through the clever yet almost contrived character "retcon" -- lends to ample emotional investment in the characters, which is stronger than the first movie. Towards the ending, it leads to the payoff that is rather moving (in particular the new character Kiri with astonishing preternatural power).

This fresh "retcon" twist belies James Cameron's genius, as not only the master of visual optimization but also experiential (trying as hard as the five credited storytellers could to keep the sequel syndrome at bay) storytelling with appropriate emotional heft, without the risk of contrived manipulation.

Go see Avatar: The Way of Water in the best presentation you could, even drive tens of miles farther to see it, whether in 3D regular or IMAX with or without HFR (I suggest without HFR because of fast forward effect during some quick-moving combat scenes), whether in HDR (Dolby Cinema 2D or 3D), whether in 4D, DBOX and ScreenX.

These particular presentation choices amplify the moviegoing experience, what it truly means to experience cinema as the filmmakers intend that the streaming and home video technology (even state of the art projector) cannot hold the candle to, with audience participation in their varied reactions such as sound of awe, cheers and even audible cry, that makes it even better.

Don't take a compromise like skipping to wait for video to rent (especially since 3D blu-ray video is petering out with the manufacturers officially phasing out 3-D capable Ultra HD TV, which is why I keep my 2015 Sony UHD TV with 3D feature to hold longer) for less.

Because Avatar The Way of Water improves upon the original that lends to engrossing story with well-fleshed out characters, even if writing feels a little episodic and a little standard (hence sequel syndrome), with astounding visual effects (like the aforementioned descent from space), in the best presentation such as 3D, it feels like cinema is alive and well, in the era of tiresome "murky" VFX-laden superhero movie sludge called capes---.

**** out of 4.

I finally got around to watching Heaven's Gate on Criterion Collection blu-ray edition to the end, albeit with long pauses in-between.

This movie is truly awful as endlessly interminable with the blandest characters, which makes it the most uninvolving "drama" film in history. I've tried to watch this "film" with the attempted full attention, but it bored me crapless, that led to the pauses between viewings that stretched over one month and two weeks, while on interlibrary loan. I could only watch 15 minute average interval between pauses after I struggled to stay awake to watch at one hour mark.

While the movie is almost "well written," ultimately it's a pointless exercise in pure directorial self-indulgence that lends to tedium that alienates the audience. I imagine this movie bored the audience so sufficiently with its snail-pace slowness that barely tells the story as it unfolds over the absurd length of 3 hours and a half that by the time the first intermission hits, most of the audience vacated never to return.

That's how uninvolving the movie is that failed to engage the audience, thanks no less to the director's megalomania. His ego was the reason this "film" suffered severe budget overruns that ballooned from the initial agreed upon $14 million budget to the mind-boggling $44 million in 1981 dollars (adjusted for inflation, $44 million equals $138 million).

The story itself is "meh" and grossly exaggerated when the Johnson County war event was but a very minor point with way fewer causalities than this movie depicted. Story based on the true event is nothing but pure fable.

Indeed, the director's final cut with the painfully long length -- and cinematographer's awful sepia tone filter, one of the common complaints, removed -- looks like it actually could be made for just $15 million (equivalent of $47 million as inflation-adjusted) or less, and could even make a meager profit if the two hour cut could be coherent as restructured.

United Artists studio executive made the mistake when they offered the director -- whose name shall not be spoken because, due to his megalomania, this cinematic disaster ended "New Hollywood" in terms of auteur directors and big budgets with rare final cut privilege -- the carte blanche, and the result is shocking waste of money and talent that could even be called outright fraud intended to serve the director's ego.

Heaven's Gate movie's infamy as a true box office bomb, adjusted for inflation (perhaps #1 bomb of all time in terms of losses), changed Hollywood to be more cautious, and Hollywood ultimately turned on some directors to deny final cut privilege. Only a few directors post-Heaven's Gate could afford to have full final cut privilege provided that they are reputed to deliver the films on budget, or even under budget. (One of them is Stanley Kubrick.)

Heaven's Gate underestimates its audience to bore to death with the excruciatingly lethargic pace, therefore very demanding to devote almost four hours to watch this maddeningly pointless and self-indulgent thing -- complete with a very depressing flash forward ending that is very confounding and yet again pointless -- that should be rightly called a turkey.

The late Roger Ebert was correct to call it the worst cinematic waste he ever saw. My sentiment exactly.

Shame on the talented (for directing Deer Hunter at least) but total hack filmmaker whose name cannot be spoken. He should have been banned from making any more movies by Hollywood and producers everywhere based on reputation alone (megalomania that led to unprecedented budget overrun, and even caused scenes of animal cruelty).

0 star.