Avatar: Fire and Ash is James Cameron’s worst movie from a story, dialogue and acting perspective

 Okay.

I just got out of Avatar: Fire and Ash. Before I went into the movie, I looked at Rotten Tomatoes because I wanted to kind of temper my expectations. And I saw a 69% critics’ average review for the movie. When I saw that, I was very disappointed. In fact, I almost didn’t go. But I said I’ll go anyway, because this is only the third movie since 2009.

I saw Avatar in 2009, opening night, in Clearwater, Florida. And if memory serves, when I visited my cousins in Columbia, Tennessee—which is just about three to four hours away from Nashville—I paid for about five other people to see it, to give them that experience. Because it was such a brand-new thing.

The delta from Avatar 2009 to the next spectacle blockbuster was very, very, very large. People hadn’t seen that before, where CG looked absolutely photoreal. We had never seen that before. And the delta between Way of Water and Fire and Ash is much smaller. So people are not going to be as blown away by the visual effects of the movie, which the whole thing is a massive visual effect. But it’s still impressive nonetheless.

However, the story is mediocre. The story is mediocre. There’s a lot of repetitive story tropes from Avatar and Avatar: Way of Water. But worse than that: very bad script, very bad dialogue, and even worse acting. I cannot believe that for dozens and dozens of scenes, James Cameron, in the volume, said, “All right, great. Moving on.” I cannot believe it.

The acting seemed like what fifth graders would do in a school play. Some of them were just downright awkward. Others were just unintentionally funny. It seemed like James Cameron, at his age, has already proven—he’s proven everything. He doesn’t need to prove anything anymore. And he spent most of his time doing the post-production. That’s what he’s saying. It seemed like the acting was taking the backseat. Because I cannot believe it. I cannot believe it.

And I’m talking about the voice acting, not the work that the visual effects people did. They did an excellent job.

Still, the movie held my attention. How would it not hold your attention? You’re seeing spectacle. Every single pixel is the best visual effects you’ve ever seen. How would it not hold your attention?

Four hours ago, Rotten Tomatoes said 69. Ten minutes ago, it said 68. So it’s going down. Makes sense. I’m with it. I am not surprised.

So I’m not going to say anything about story structure. I’m not going to say anything about the story. Because the story is just there to serve the function of moving the plot along and show you spectacle and try to recoup the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of production costs.

James Cameron has made both the most expensive movies ever made and, simultaneously, the highest-grossing movies either of the year or of all time multiple times. He has proven himself time and time again, over and over again. He doesn’t need to prove himself anymore. There’s the insert-how-old-he-is-here to say James Cameron is blank, blank years old. He should hand over Avatar 4 to Dan Trachtenberg, for God’s sakes, and just go do something else. He’s already a billionaire. He doesn’t need this.

I’m going to praise him and castigate him for one thing, which is the way he shoots his movies—the cinematography. He’s very, very classical. Meaning, he doesn’t show off with his cinematography. He doesn’t like to show off. He likes to just keep the camera… he doesn’t like to do crazy camera moves. He just keeps the camera classy and conservative. No weird, “oh my God” camera moves. 

And I think that’s to his detriment. I think he should show off a little bit. You’re in virtual production. You can do things that we cannot do. He places cameras—he uses the same physical limitations on his cinematography the way it would be if it was a live-action shoot. And that shows a lot of restraint. But I think he should show off a little bit more. Yeah. But that’s just me.

Anyway, that’s it. Yeah.

So if you see the movie, you’ll enjoy the spectacle. You’re not going to enjoy the dialogue. You’re not going to enjoy the script. It doesn’t need to be a three-hour epic at all. There’s no need for this to be over three hours. This is not Titanic. This is not the first Avatar or the second.

This is the worst movie he’s ever made. I’m going to say it right now. This is the worst movie James Cameron has ever made. This is it. This is worse than The Abyss. Yeah. I’m not talking about the spectacle. I’m talking about, from a story perspective, this is James Cameron’s worst movie. It’s worse than True Lies. True Lies is a freaking Oscar Best Picture–caliber movie compared to this one.

All right. Thanks for reading.

The World is Screwed Up

The world is screwed up. 

In the way we’ve designed money, work, housing, and the entire economy. Since we moved from barter into the idea of money, inequality has widened to a level that makes no sense. Today, buying a house can take 30–40 years to pay off, and a brand new luxury car can take a decade to pay off. These timelines are not normal.

In some African villages, a young adult gets a home built by the community—no debt, no lifelong payments. A simple, dignified foundation for life. 

We replaced that with systems that drain people for half their lives.

Humans are naturally willing to help each other, and we see it in the small, everyday moments—asking someone to hold a door, lift a box, or steady a ladder for a few seconds. People do it gladly. But we’ve built a world where favors become rare because time has been turned into pure survival. If I help you too often, I lose the income I need to live. We’ve made kindness expensive.

It leads to a simple point: we shouldn’t be talking about universal basic income—we should be talking about universal income. “Basic” signals minimum wage, the lowest acceptable standard. But the world has enough wealth for a proper starting point where nobody lives in poverty. And here’s the truth: corporations and billionaires have trillions. Even if they redistributed $100,000 to every adult, those billionaires would still remain billionaires. That’s how extreme the imbalance is.

This brings me back to AI and robotics. People fear that AI will take our jobs. But the reality is simple: AI was meant to take our jobs. Technology has always existed to reduce labor. It is not natural for a 20-year-old—or a 70-year-old—to work 50 hours a week until they can’t think straight. The brain was not designed for that level of nonstop pressure. Human beings were created to enjoy life—rest, food, laughter, connection, love—not endless strain.

AI and robotics unlock nearly unlimited labor. Machines don’t get sick, don’t need sleep, and can perform hundreds of tasks at once. There is no reason for the benefits of that productivity to be hoarded at the top. With universal income, people can live with dignity and peace while still contributing meaningfully—because humans naturally want purpose.

The world may be messed up, but AI gives us a rare chance to redesign it. A chance to build an economy where people can finally live well, instead of constantly trying to survive. We should get to a point where the word, “struggle” would be removed from the dictionary because it won’t be needed anymore.