What is one to think when a non-sequel scores single digits on RottenTomatoes (and a 20 out of 100 on Metacritic) but still kills at the box office? Transformers 2 I understand; people seemed to like the first one, which scored in the 40-50 range on RT, a gray area of quality. By all critical accounts, The Last Airbender is an atrocious movie, yet people still went and made it successful. What gives?
Some clarity came from a friend with young nephews, all of whom are fans of the source material, Avatar: The Last Airbender. My friend repeatedly proclaimed it to be a good movie and hard material to adapt. It appears that fans can tolerate awfulness that critics cannot. The cartoon must have millions more fans than I could have imagined.
But with which side would I eventually agree?
The Last Airbender is a fantasy kung fu movie. In this world there are 4 nations, each with their own special power to manipulate one of four elements: Fire, Water, Air, and Earth. Throughout history, the nations were held in balance by the existence of the Avatar, one soul reincarnated throughout time, who can control all four elements. One hundred years before the film is set, the Avatar vanished, leaving a power vacuum. The Fire nation has since taken over the world by force. One day a young Water bender and her brother find a young boy frozen in ice, who turns out to be the Avatar. They all set out to liberate the world from the control of the Fire nation.
The first movie is just one part of that story. We are introduced to Aang, the Avatar, and find out he ran from his responsibility and has trouble accepting his fate, a life with no family. Additionally, he's not fully trained, so he can only bend Air. The first movie's plot is Aang and friends' journey to the Northern Water Nation so he can learn from their master benders. Meanwhile, the group is being chased by the Fire nation, culminating in a battle between Fire and Water benders.
I don't have a problem with the world and understand there's a good bit of exposition necessary. That said, it's a terribly written movie. Almost as bad as a Michael Bay project. Lots and lots and lots of exposition. Not only the characters explaining things to each other, repeatedly, but also the narrator, our young female Water bender, who mostly describes events as we watch them. Just letting the audience watch would be too difficult, apparently. It's the complete lack of subtlety or respect for the audience's intelligence that dooms the movie. The acting isn't that good either, except for Slumdog Millionaire and the dude playing his uncle. They weren't awful.
It's not surprising I side with the critics on this one. Part of me thinks the criticism is a little too harsh. The movie looks really nice, but it's doomed by it's potential. I can feel a good movie in this concept, but I didn't watch one. In more skilled hands, this could have been another Fellowship or Star Wars. I'm sure they'll reboot in 2 or 3 years, so maybe we'll get it then.
First Viewing: 3+1+1+2+1 = 8