This past holiday season, movie theaters were graced with another “Avatar” film by director James Cameron. Though they have their weak points, it is no question that the series brings an unique, exciting kind of storytelling to mainstream movie-going audiences.

Not to be confused with the 2000’s children animated series, Cameron’s “Avatar” follows the Na’vi, an alien race inhabiting a resource-rich world threatened by high-tech human colonizers. 

The first “Avatar” film came out in 2009, and after many years of development and shooting, “Avatar: Way of Water” premiered in 2022. The sequel followed the main character, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), 16 years after his initial integration into the world of the Na’vi, where he now has a family of five children. The movie, which took more than a decade awaiting necessary advancements in film technology, was met with praise similar to that of its predecessor. 

“Avatar: Fire and Ash,” the third out of five planned movies, centers around Jake and his family, who are once again at odds with the human effort to appropriate the resources of Pandora, and total war that unites separate clans of the Na’vi to protect their world. 

Across all the films, the world building speaks for itself. The intense detail is breathtaking, from the advances in human science to the religion of the Na’vi to the natural ecosystems of their planet. It is a completely original fantasy fiction world, and it is so refreshing to watch and absorb.

The first “Avatar” film was revolutionary for its use of motion capture technology and the clean, hyperrealistic animation that resulted from it. “Avatar: Fire and Ash” only continues to reinforce the groundbreaking nature of this animation. Each movie has been a stunning testament to the hard work of the technicians and animators that made it happen. You just can’t help but believe everything you see. 

But, despite their commercial success, Cameron’s films are far from perfect. “Avatar: Fire and Ash” has long surpassed $1 billion worldwide at the box office, a feat achieved by only about 60 movies in history. If you look past the witty characters and enchanting fantasy world, it is easy to poke holes.

One of the weakest points of “Avatar: Fire and Ash” was the writing. These movies explore the ideas of loyalty, family and love, and there are plenty of intimate scenes placed carefully between the epic battles. More often than not, though, these crucial scenes were tainted by basic, uninteresting screenwriting meant to convey that. The characters and their relationships were compelling, but the dialogue and characterization never seemed to hit the mark.

For once, it was the male characters that lacked depth and interesting motives. The parenting of Jake Sully was infuriatingly unempathetic. Instead of an emotionally unavailable warrior, he seemed more insensitive egotist with a power complex. His adoptive son, Spider (Jack Champion), had a similar flatness. As two main players in the film, their performances weighed down otherwise great scenes.

Moral issues like cloning and incest brought unnecessary baggage to what would otherwise be nice relationships, impeding any meaningful connection with mild discomfort and confusion. The movie asks viewers to suspend their disbelief a little too much and a little too often.

Additionally, Sigourney Weaver appears as herself and also voices the Na’vi daughter or clone of her character. A young teenager with the voice of a 76-year-old was at best off-putting and at worst completely ridiculous.

Beyond critiques of performance and writing, the “Avatar” films have a fundamental flaw that seeps into every aspect of the story: It is obvious they are made by a white guy with limited cultural depth. 

Cameron can get all the credit in the world for his incredibly detailed, fascinating universe. Unfortunately, it isn’t a movie about a cool sci-fi ecosystem, but rather it is a story centering colonialism and a brutal fight for survival. On that front, Cameron fumbles more than a few times.

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” specifically explored the idea of belonging to the Na’vi race. There were many lines such as “You are one of the people now,” “It doesn’t matter what color I am” and “You’re seeing through new eyes,” that felt hollow and almost unaware of their racial implications. 

Another critique is about the general portrayal of the Na’vi. The race’s religious and cultural practices are at times very beautiful and moving on screen. However, they are reminiscent of real world Indigenous belief systems, and can feel like an appropriative generalization.

At times, it feels like the movie can’t decide whether it respects the Na’vi’s connection to nature or scoffs at it. Regardless, just like the themes of belonging and group acceptance, it seems like a topic that Cameron is not well equipped to tackle.

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” also introduces a new, fire-based Na’vi clan. At first glance, they seem like a clear caricature of a “savage” Indigenous people, perpetuating the same harmful stereotypes utilized by colonizers. 

I was relieved that Cameron did some exploring of their motives and culture, but, despite being the titular characters, the Ash People remain largely unexplained and flat. They are simply the evil Na’vi, coated in red and white warpaint, adorned with bones and feathers, communicating through clicks and shouts, moving animalistically and hungry for violence. No matter how cool or beautiful these people were on screen, or how epic the performance of Oona Chaplin was as Varang, it was hard to get over the obviously racist stereotypes the design drew from.

Finally, the film seems devoted to redeeming a character who is the literal representation of colonial interests. Though Stephen Lang was very entertaining as Quaritch, the emotional weight of his character felt artificial, like audiences were being begged to care about him. The movie insisted on asking, “Is this white guy really so bad?” 

For a movie about a revolutionary uprising against an exploitative operation, it has a lot of sympathy for the military men who might find a soft-spot for an attractive Na’vi woman. 

All in all, the bones of these movies are compelling, but it’s not far-fetched to say moviegoers are returning for the spectacle more than the storytelling, which falls into the same patterns. 

The “Avatar” films could draw audiences simply by virtue of their quality and uniqueness within the market. There really is nothing like it: A huge, unbelievably vibrant, new world sprawling out in front of you, an epic score blaring from all directions and a theater full of people equally as invested as you are. It’s what the theatrical experience is all about. 

There’s no doubt the “Avatar” movies will find an audience as long as Cameron is producing them, but it’s important to recognize their pitfalls and insensitivities nonetheless.