“Avatar: Fire and Ash” opens in theaters on Friday around the world, though the highly anticipated sequel will play in early previews on Thursday. Fans of the “Avatar” saga will probably watch the film in theaters no matter what reviews say about the third installment. However, moviegoers who will watch a movie in a theater only after reading reviews and online reactions may want to consider waiting for this one to hit on-demand video and Disney Plus; rather than sit through the 3-hour-and-17-minute action-packed story in cinemas.
Some of the movie critics who attended the “Avatar: Fire and Ash” premiere were unhappy with the choices James Cameron made for the story. “Avatar 3” is too repetitive, according to some, even though the sprawling world of Pandora continues to dazzle. The story isn’t strong enough, and the dialogue can be underwhelming. As someone who has watched the first two movies in theaters, I can understand why reviews may be less forgiving with James Cameron’s newest “Avatar” episode. We’re way past the first “Avatar” film, which premiered in 2009, delivering a feast for the senses.
Launched as a 3D movie, which was still a rather new concept, “Avatar” stunned audiences with the incredibly detailed world Cameron imagined. Pandora was beaming with colorful life, with strange creatures populating every corner, and the Na’vi conflict with the humans took a back seat to all of that. I could ignore the story to enjoy the sci-fi world and the special effects. Cameron continued the exploration of Pandora in “Avatar: The Way of Water” in 2022. Audiences were still stunned at the beauty of Pandora, while they explored the story of Jake (Sam Worthington), Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), and the ongoing fight with familiar foes.
What critics say about Avatar: Fire and Ash
“Avatar” and “Avatar: The Way of Water” performed similarly at the box office, earning $2.92 billion and $2.34 billion, respectively. They scored similarly on Rotten Tomatoes (81% vs. 76%) and IMDb (7.9/10 and 7.5/10). It may be too early to discuss the box office performance for “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” but the first ratings are out. While the Rotten Tomatoes rating sits at 69% as of this writing, the IMDb score is better, at 7.6/10. The numbers aren’t enough to understand what critics didn’t like about the sequel, but the quotes that follow seem to illustrate their dissatisfaction.
“Avatar: Fire and Ash” is “easily the most repetitious entry in the big-screen series, with a been-there, bought-the-T-shirt fatigue that’s hard to ignore,” The Hollywood Reporter writes.
“The repetitiveness to which ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ subjects us cannot be condoned, especially when it chooses to keep spectators seated in front of the big screen for three hours and twenty minutes,” NSS Magazine’s review starts, warning that we may have bigger problems at hand in the future. “With ‘Avatar 4’ scheduled for 2029 and Avatar 5 for 2031, not only does the third title re-propose visual and entertainment solutions already tested and therefore not unprecedented, but one wonders what else there would be to say given the emotional and spectacular weight of ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ … What is there to see that hasn’t been shown yet?”
The repetitiveness doesn’t just concern the story. Variety cautions that the movie “doesn’t feel as visually unprecedented as the last one did,” though it labels it as a better film than its predecessor.
You should still see Avatar: Fire and Ash in a theater
The previous movies did not win Best Picture at the Oscars, but they were both nominated. “Avatar: Fire and Ash” may not fare any better: Den of Geek says that the third story “frustratingly maintains the thematic depth and complexity of a children’s fairytale picture.” The L.A. Times also warns viewers that “plot-wise, the story is the same as ever” in the sequel. These quotes may be enough to scare viewers away from watching a new movie in theaters, but even though the novelty isn’t there, “Avatar: Fire and Ash” isn’t just a regular movie.
The L.A. Times drives home the same point. “Avatar 3” can be a fun experience without requiring any real depth or higher stakes. “Instead of getting swept away by the narrative, I just settled in to enjoy the details: hammerhead sharks twisted into pickaxes, ships that scuttle like crabs, the drama of an underwater scream: ‘Guh-glurrgggh!’ I’m particularly fond of how the Na’vi express themselves in hisses and coyote yips and exhale the foreign name Jake Sully like a sneeze,” film critic Amy Nicholson wrote.
While three hours is a long time to spend glued to a theater seat, I’m of the same mind. Pandora’s novelty had already worn off by the time the second film premiered. Even so, I knew I wanted to watch the spectacle in a theater, rather than at home. I will also see “Avatar: Fire and Ash” in cinemas despite the complaints in these initial reviews. After all, the critics still generally praise the film. And, at the very least, we can hope that Cameron corrects course for the next two “Avatar” stories.
