"Avatar: Fire and Ash" debuts in theaters later today (Dec. 18). But for a select few, like myself, we've been treated to the opportunity to see the movie before its wide release around the globe. As someone who covers new movies, I had an obligation to take advantage of such an opportunity, but there was just one problem ...
I hadn't actually seen any of the Avatar films.
Malcolm has been with the Tom's Guide streaming team since 2023, watching dozens of movies each year so you don't have to watch the bad ones. This is not the first time he's watched an entire movie franchise in one sitting.
If you didn't like 'Avatar,' you still might like 'Avatar: Fire and Ash'
OK, so remember how I said I didn't like "Avatar"? Well, after watching it again, I still don't. It drags on far too long and has basically zero compelling performances. I think Giovanni Ribisi was my favorite, which is probably why he's utilized far less in the subsequent movies. Also, the CGI/motion capture is uncanny valley level and hasn't aged well. I feel like I'm watching cut scenes from a video game.
That said, "Avatar: The Way of Water" was notably better. It's still far too long and undercuts any momentum it builds, but the digital effects take a notable leap forward. The storytelling is better, too. There were multiple moments where I stopped taking notes and just sat up and watched. Again, these moments would promptly be undercut by largely forgettable sequences, and the movie still felt like a video game, but still, I felt this was a big step forward for the franchise.
"Avatar: Fire and Ash" though? That's a movie I actually liked. Did I love it? No. Did I almost fall asleep in the middle of it? Absolutely. But, thankfully, the storytelling finally achieves a passing grade in this film. There's still plenty of fluff and poor dialogue, but there are multiple battle sequences that fully engage you. I even felt emotionally drawn in at times, in a way that I hadn't been in the previous two films.
Most importantly, though, this is also the first Avatar movie with a villain that hooked me. Across the three films, the main villain is Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who starts as Jake Sully's (Sam Worthington) commanding officer in "Avatar" but then becomes Jake's true nemesis when he's reborn as a recombinant Na'vi. Quaritch does get more fleshed out and compelling in each movie, but he never feels fresh. You feel like you've seen the better version of his sort of villain in other movies.
But in "Fire and Ash" we meet Varang (Oona Chaplin), the tsahìk for the volcano-dwelling Mangkwan clan. It's clear that a past trauma in her life has broken something inside her, and it transforms her into a delightfully unhinged antagonist that her clan worships unconditionally. When she cuts loose, it's the best part of the movie, and I could have done with a lot more of her if I'm being completely honest.
If you don't want to see 'Avatar: Fire and Ash' in theaters, it's OK to wait for Disney Plus
Now, while I was surprised that I ultimately liked "Avatar: Fire and Ash," I was equally surprised by the fact that visually, I wasn't totally blown away. Having watched "Avatar" and "Avatar: The Way of Water" on my 55-inch TCL QM6K and Sonos Arc Ultra, I knew I had a decent setup, but that the theatrical experience should blow it away.
Except it didn't.
I saw "Fire and Ash" in Dolby Cinema 3D. That's a large-format theater with a booming sound system. It should have blown me away compared to watching at home, but it simply didn't. Was it better? Sure. The larger screen alone makes it a better viewing experience. But I found the 3D to be underwhelming, possibly even detracting from the experience.
Which brings me to this shocking conclusion: you can wait to watch "Avatar: Fire and Ash" at home on Disney Plus. While it's a visually impressive movie, I think you'll like it at home as much as you will at your local cinema, which is the exact opposite of what I expected to say before I started this three-movie marathon. Plus, at home you'll have the option to pause after an hour, when you're merely one third of the way through this 197-minute-long movie.
Follow Tom's Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!
More from Tom's Guide
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
