‘Avatar: The Sense of Water’ is a spectacular ‘immersive experience’ but its story falters depending on the criticisms

After thirteen long years of waiting, ‘Avatar: The Sense of Water’ arrives in the cinemas of our country this Friday 16th December. American critics have already formed on the matter and, despite having their divisions, they all point out that the great wonder of the sequel to ‘Avatar’ is the experience it provides to the viewer, highlighting in particular the excellence in the 3D technique which earned him much of his success in 2009 and still continues to amaze audiences.

“‘Avatar: The Shape of Water’ is immediately impressive”Collider says. “During its three-hour duration, the wonder of visual effects never ceases to amaze”. Time Out defines it as “unlike any other modern blockbuster”. Many were concerned that the technology used was obsolete after so many years of production, but general critics couldn’t disagree more. The same medium writes as “As for 3D, it’s addictive to the nth degree, even a little too much”emphasizing that each particle, too “every floating bright tentacle” It is made up of a universe of pixels. Games Radar also praises the technology, stating so “Regarding computer-generated imagery, ‘The Shape of Water’ It definitely has the WOW factor.. Glowing skin and hair, flames and perplexing specks of dust: 13 years later, the spectacle of the film ‘Avatar’ has passed.”.

The big question since the film’s production was announced was whether the sequel would be able to surpass the unprecedented success of ‘Avatar’. The New York Post puts it on the same level: “It is as visually stimulating and narratively compelling as the previous one. The storyline is more emotionally charged and once again you will walk away in awe and disbelief at what you have just seen”. While it’s virtually impossible for it to reach the same numbers at the box office, for NME the film is “definitely better than the original” and urges him “you have to see it on the biggest screen possible with uncomfortable 3D glasses”.

However, not all that glitters (and floats) is gold. For some critics, the film’s big problem is the insubstantial plot that not even technology can cover. “And what do we find besides the high-tech visual superstructure? The plot, fluctuating and insipid, is like a humorless children’s storya youth story without the emotional wound, an action thriller without the hard edge of real emotion”, claims The Guardian. It is not the only medium that underlines this, as the BBC writes “it’s a loud, frenetic work, a grand 192-minute work that only rarely stops for a moment of stillness”. It is precisely this that has led media such as the Arizona Republic to define the work as “a show, more than a film”.

For other journalists, the balance is still favorable: concludes Screen Rant “It’s too long and its story is sparse, but the sequel to Avatar is beautifulwith lush world-building and characters that add depth”. Along this line, Collider agrees that the characters seem to deepen (not for nothing that many more films are planned within the saga): “Cameron has almost presented ‘The Shape of Water’ as a reissue, a reintroduction of these characters that does everything possible to engage the audience in this family”.

One sequel of many

It is clear that technology will continue to evolve and, as the great attraction of the saga, Cameron will always have where to innovate and expand. But as some critics have pointed out, the script should live up to it. All in all, the sequel seems to have achieved its goal: to be the bridge between one of the greatest blockbusters in cinematic history and its prolific future. “Many things are left open for another sequel, which has already been filmed”says Vanity Fair. “That infinity whets our appetite enough enough to drown out the slight frustration of having looked at something for so long only for the narrator to close the book and tell us that the rest of the story is left for another night.”.