Like many others, I was deeply skeptical of Avatar, James Cameron’s first fictional endeavor since Titanic. I watched the trailers online and cynically said the movie looks like a cross between Dances with Wolves and The Smurfs, except with fancier guns. And in a year when Terminator and Transformers disappointed audiences, it’s easy to be skeptical of blockbusters, particularly one that purports to revolutionize movies. That being said, my expectations were wildly exceeded. I’ve never seen anything quite like Avatar. It’s an unrivaled theater-going experience. You must see it in a theater, and only in 3D.
Our hero is Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a disabled marine who unexpectedly finds himself en route to planet Pandora. The human’s presence there is twofold. Firstly, scientist Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) wants to study the planet and its inhabitants, while businessman Parker (Giovanni Ribisi) seeks to mine Pandora of a precious mineral. The planet’s humanoid race, the Na’vi, live on the richest deposit the resource. In order to relocate the Na’Vi, the Colonel (Stephen Lang) advocates an aggressive invasion. For the time being, Parker and Grace and her team try a diplomatic approach. Jake, Grace, and others enter coffin-like machines to control flesh-and-blood Na’vi avatars. The idea is that once the Na’Vi accept the avatars into the community, the humans can convince them to move. After a disastrous first outing, Jake forms a tenuous bond with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a native who is told to teach Jake the ways of her people. It goes without saying Jake begins to love Neytiri and his avatar body, so much so he must fight alongside the Na’Vi against the Colonel and his gunships.
Such a summary does not do Avatar justice. The movie is worth seeing for its visuals alone. Pandora is realized with exquisite beauty. Unlike most 3D movies which resemble simply-drawn cartoons, the landscapes and creatures of Pandora are impeccably designed. I don’t know how the production team did it, but the Na’Vi in particular look flesh- like and real. It’s easy to doubt Cameron’s achievement because from what the trailers would have you believe, the Na’Vi are stuck in the uncanny valley. Many think that precisely because the big screen is the only place one can properly appreciate the richness of Cameron’s vision. A crummy laptop is simply too small for his imagination. 3D has been a popular gimmick for decades. Cameron eschews its novelty, and instead uses 3D to make Avatar a more immersive experience. Watching the movie, it’s almost as if Pandora surrounded me, and I didn’t dare look away from the screen.
Immediately after the movie, I was disappointed with the story. There are no big leaps in the narrative, and regular moviegoers will guess every plot point. Now I’ve come to think the familiar storyline is an asset. All the major characters embody classic archetypes, so it’s easy to identify with them, which is necessary for such a daring setting. Spectacle overshadows the uniformly effective acting. With an understated delivery, Worthington is a believable grunt – his transformation into a Na’Vi warrior is even a little heartwarming. Lang makes a great scenery-chewing villain, one who is easy to despise. Special attention, however, should be given to Zoe Saldana as Neytiri. Along with Andy Serkis, she’s the only actor to turn a CGI humanoid into a developed, sympathetic creature. The accomplishment is even more noteworthy because unlike the grotesque Gollum, Neytiri is actually kind of hot, blue tail and all.
First and foremost, James Cameron is an action director. Aliens and the first couple Terminators are classics. Avatar has its share of action, but Cameron takes his time to arrive at the Na’Vi/human battle. Cameron deftly draws the lines, so once all hell breaks loose, it’s easy for audience to comprehend the violence. So much action fills the frame that the climax overwhelms and thrills. It’s a masterful sequence, one that will be remembered for years to come. We have been conditioned to doubt Hollywood’s ability to produce such an imaginative blockbuster. Avatar is an example of a first-class director at the top of his form – within moments of its eye-popping first shot, naysayers will be silenced by visual wonder that’ll take their breath away.
I’m still on the fence AZ. Still on the fence. I guess I’ll try it. Do I have to bring my own 3-D glasses? Do I have to pay extra if I don’t? Is there a showing anywhere at, say, 4 am or maybe 7 am so that I can get the last row center seat?
December 18, 2009 at 12:40 pmTo answer your questions, Michael:
- They provide glasses for you.
- Yes, all 3D costs extra.
- The earliest it seems to be playing is at 11:30. Given the snowstorm, I’m sure theaters tomorrow won’t be crowded.
December 18, 2009 at 1:38 pmI was just talking in a high school class about creating characters and told them about utilizing archetypes as a jumping off point to get story ideas across quickly.
Well this sure sounds like it will be very pretty.
Alan – why does 3D cost extra? Does the extra amount you pay go to the theater to offset the cost of the equipment to show the 3D version? Or does the same percentage of ticket sales still go back to the studio?
Serious.
December 18, 2009 at 2:08 pmwell now you’ve made me wanna see it. damn!
December 18, 2009 at 2:12 pmWell, maybe Eddie has something to do with it.
December 18, 2009 at 2:42 pmErnest, I believe the time has come to retire whatever old- man-from-american-beauty feud you had with Eddie. Since he no longer comments on the site it’s just a waste of time and nobody cares or knows what you’re talking about anymore. Not that they ever did to begin with, but even less so now.
December 18, 2009 at 3:02 pmwhat an absolutely shitty thing to say, Cale. I was just answering Micheal’s question, okay? Jeez.
December 18, 2009 at 3:16 pm@cale looks like you’ve made a new friend, cale.
@alan – you’ve convinced me to see this now.
December 18, 2009 at 3:54 pmit’s okay, Seps. no harm done. I even preparing myself to forgive him.
December 18, 2009 at 5:02 pmAnd before “Avatar” and “Star Trek” there was Bill Shatner speaking Esperanto, in the horror film called “Incubus”.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F77k6SQX7iQ&feature=related
As an Esperanto speaker I found it terrifying! His Esperanto pronunciation that is, not the film.
Your readers may be interested in http://www.lernu.net :)
December 18, 2009 at 7:24 pmAlan I am calling your journalistic credibility into question for failing to take this into account in your review:
http://www.queerty.com/um-is-james-camerons-avatar-offensive-to-transgender-humans-20091216/
December 19, 2009 at 6:12 pmwill there be a sequil?
December 19, 2009 at 10:17 pmthe best movie i have ever seen in my life time of 35 years
December 19, 2009 at 10:18 pmI’m dumbfounded by the positive reviews. this is even worse than “crash”. absolutely terrible. did cameron write this when he was 13? the dialog sucked, the plot is played-out, it’s boring and trite, the music is beyond terrible, and there was ZERO imagination that went into creating this mega million piece of s***. for lack of a better word, this move is RETARDED. please don’t spend your money in support of this tripe.
December 21, 2009 at 2:20 pmSteve,
I can’t let your comment be the last. There’s a point where difference of opinion becomes error of fact. You are objectively wrong about Avatar.
I’m just glad I’m still capable of experiencing awe.
December 21, 2009 at 2:36 pmNERDFIGHT
December 21, 2009 at 2:38 pmAlan, I’d love to hear how my comment is wrong. Honestly, I am awestruck at how anyone over 15 could like this movie and I want so badly to understand my fellow humans.
December 22, 2009 at 9:46 amSteve, you’re wrong about the lack of imagination involved. In any number of interviews, Cameron made clear the amount of detail and thought that went into his project.
For further reading:
http://uscnews.usc.edu/arts/hollywood_calls_usc_linguist_for_help.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/227737/page/1
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6947527.ece
December 22, 2009 at 10:10 amOh, and here’s an astrophysics professor discussing the movie’s science. Interesting read.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440
Relevant quote:
I don’t mind if the ships in Star Trek can go faster than the speed of light – otherwise the story would be pretty boring. And I know there’s no sound in space, but I want Star Destroyers to rumble, and the Millennium Falcon to have that iconic whine. But if a director casually gets science wrong for no real reason other than that he is stupid or lazy (see ARMAGEDDON, THE CORE, and THE DAY AFTER
TOMORROW, to name a few), then to hell with him. If the filmmakers don’t respect the intelligence of the audience, I’m not going to respect the movie.
Fortunately, James Cameron has a knack for science that rivals his moviemaking skills.
December 22, 2009 at 10:20 amAlan’s droppin science like Galileo dropped and orange.
December 22, 2009 at 10:30 aman orange goddamnit.
December 22, 2009 at 10:30 amI was reading an article about the research that went into Avatar and I was surprised by the level of effort Cameron put into this. I don’t have the source but basically everyone from linguistics professors to botanists were hired to make the world of the Na’Vi appear as real as possible. He could have just snapped his fingers and had some lowly PA figure it out if he didn’t care that much. Outside of using ‘Papyrus’ as the font for the title and subtitles, I would say that Cameron used his imagination in most other aspects of the film.
December 22, 2009 at 10:48 amI appreciate that you read about this, but linking to reviews doesn’t mean anything to me. just because he hired an “ethnomusicologist” to come up with what is essentially yoga culture mixed with world music doesn’t qualify as being imaginative. c’mon, man, that scene where everyone is under the glowing tree singing kumbaya? jesus christ.
Also unimaginative:
• creating creatures that are more similar to humans than monkeys… complete with beautiful faces, lips which they kiss with, little panty-thongs for the ladies, the exact same means of communication and facial expressions. and how awesome that intelligent life evolved on another planet who also use plug earrings to decorate themselves and have dreadlocks! this shouldn’t even qualify as sci-fi.
• creating characters that are ridiculously thinly veiled as native americans and then admitting that the story is basically the same as Dances With Wolves.
• the difference between our planets being the atmosphere alone—light, days, foliage, gravity (uh, if it were less, why weren’t the newly-arrived humans able to jump higher??), and the list goes on.
• creating a planet/moon that rotates around a jupiter-like planet would mean there was an extended period of darkness on that planet… one that would not support the exact replica of amazonian life depicted in that movie.
• the planet’s life. it was exactly like life on earth, only bigger and with extra phosphorescence. oooh, glowy. the animals (dog, rhino, bird/pterodactyl, jungle cat, horse) were terrestrial animals, only they didn’t have fur or feathers… which is interesting since the na’vi used feathers in their arrows and hair yet no animals had them. seriously, cameron is an idiot.
also lame:
The cliché tough chick chopper pilot; GI Joe and those lame-ass transformer bots that actually hold their weapons; the rhinos that charge at the end because the guy is so spiritually in tune with them (barf).
all that said, I could forgive almost everything else if it weren’t for cameron shoving his ridiculously simplistic spirituality down our throats like we’re a bunch of 5 year olds. I’m sorry, but the movie was sad and it truly makes me sick to think of what could have been done for the world with the obscene amount of money spent on this thing.
p.s. “unobtainium”????? completely laughable without so much as a hint that it was meant to be tongue in cheek.
December 22, 2009 at 11:41 ambobby, with 12 years and $300 mil, I think almost anybody could come up with something better than this.
December 22, 2009 at 11:58 amDefine irony: disgruntled commenter criticizes unsophisticated political message with equally unsophisticated political message.
December 22, 2009 at 12:01 pmDude. Wow.
So I guess I would suggest one of two things:
1. Go to Malibu, find James Cameron, and request your $10 back.
2. Publish your manifesto in the New York Times and start sending crude bombs in the mail to movie directors who piss you off.
You are entitled to your own opinion but seriously you need to chill out.
December 22, 2009 at 12:07 pm1. does disliking a movie qualify someone as being disgruntled? or is it that I have an opinion opposite of yours?
2. what is my political message?
you’re a very confusing, man, alan.
December 22, 2009 at 12:14 pmis this the closest imax theatre showing this flick in 3d?
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=206+Swamp+Fox+Rd
i want to see it just to join this opinion war. look, cale, i commented.
December 22, 2009 at 12:33 pmactually my friend told me to see it in digital but not in 3d digital cause it was just too much and annoying. he was on mushrooms tho so I dunno.
December 22, 2009 at 12:39 pmEdward Ignatius, I think that Mike and I are seeing it in 3d at Gallery Place at 7 tonight. Or I’ll see it on Christmas since I’m not doing shit else.
December 22, 2009 at 12:41 pm@cale – i don’t trust mushroom guy
@michael – IMAX 3d, not just flat-screen 3d
@alan – nice review, son
December 22, 2009 at 12:55 pmWe all need to loudly disagree with the people loudly disagreeing with us about how they disagree so loudly with our loud disagreements. MUST NEVER STOP
December 22, 2009 at 2:32 pmNo forreals though I stopped by for the bitchy commentator fight but was sorely disappointed. Maybe it is because I was rooting for this movie to fail epically (like ‘Waterworld’ epically) simply for the fact that anything that costs this much would be a giant pyre of flaming wreckage should it not succeed, but I thought Steve did a good non-bitchy job of confirming for me that I don’t want to see this. Unfortunately, raking in $77 milli opening weekend seems to mean that no epic fails will be coming…too bad. Guess I will file it with ‘Titanic’ in the ‘James Cameron Blockbusters Reilly Has Never Seen’ file.
PS Zilb I sincerely hope to whichever pagan deity you believe in that you were being tongue in cheek when you uttered the phrase ‘objectively wrong’. If not I will stab you, and it will be objectively bloody, but subjectively enjoyable.
December 22, 2009 at 6:12 pmWill stab anyone who says Waterworld wasn’t one of the best movies ever made, because clearly it was, and clearly I’d only be stabbing an inanimate object with no soul so I couldn’t be prosecuted. It would be like stabbing a rock. A very soft rock.
December 22, 2009 at 7:01 pmI like Steve’s rage against the herd. Check out David Cox (the Guardian’s cine-nasty snob):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/dec/21/avatar-shows-cinemas-weakness
He compares and contrasts District 9 (special effects used to illustrate uncomfortable truths about humanity) from Avatar (special effects used to hide a plot cribbed from the back of a video game box).
I haven’t seen it yet, and am debating whether or not to save my money – Reilly makes some good points. I am honestly surprised at how trite the plot sounds. Are there wookies and ewoks in the final battle scene? Isn’t this the same guy who did Aliens and the Abyss? Sure, sure, special effects, but don’t acting and plot count? Otherwise, isn’t this just the Arrival of the Train at La Ciotat for the technologically jaded?
December 22, 2009 at 10:02 pmOn Avatar:
Plot: very, very simple.
Visual Effects: Worth ever penny of $11 (and 2+ hours) I spent watching this movie.
Honestly, it’s Cameron so why are people expecting anything approaching profundity?
Go, enjoy the spectacle and fer chrissakes lighten up. It’s the holidays after all.
December 23, 2009 at 8:59 amSo if reilly stabs alan are we all witnesses, or how does that work
December 23, 2009 at 9:27 am
after this review i no longer think this will be a flop
im still convinced it is terrible star trek garbage tho
December 18, 2009 at 12:36 pmso yeh