I know I'm not the only one who, rather baselessly, declared that Avatar would disappoint us. I thought Cameron's Avatar would fall completely on its $300 mil ass. But I'm pleased to say that I left the theater this morning swelling with emotion; it is truly a film experience like nothing you've seen before.
Cameron's Avatar pulls you into the mysterious world of his own creation, Pandora. The only production that slightly compares is Peter Jackson's Middle Earth from The Lord of the Rings (which was designed by WETA, who also worked on Avatar's visuals and miniatures). Really, I haven't felt the same magic in watching film since Lord of the Rings; Avatar shares that same innovation.
The film, rather surprisingly, offers some great acting amid all the production and visual effects. This is an accomplishment on any film that employs a heavy amount of CGI or green screen, because it's hard for actors to connect with technology in the same way that they do other human beings. Sure, Sam Worthington's Australian accent peeks through on occasion and Sigourney Weaver's dialogue delivery is at times cringe-worthy, but overall they held it together in a way that is ordinarily not possible in such a heavily produced film.
The criticism towards Avatar is mostly fixated on the story, and while I won't make a case for James Cameron's writing here (was he ever really on anyone's list for a Screenplay nomination?), I will say that his story has extraordinary imagination. I agree that the dialogue was, at times, like watching an episode of Lois and Clark, but it didn't hurt the experience for me (I also don't want to rehash the same things you've already read). My complaints mostly have to do with the last act, and I don't want to spoil it here, so we'll just let that go.
I can't remember the last time I felt that Best Picture was so tight, and Avatar is very much in the running at this point. As we're moving towards the guild recognition part of the season, we may get some more insight. But really, I hope it stays this unpredictable.
Posts
Egads, you're kidding about the "extraordinary imagination," right? The film is so derivative of other people's extraordinary imagination that it is sickening:
ReplyDeleteFirst, let's get the good things about this film out of the way:
1) the imagined world of Pandora is pretty
2) the aerial choreography of the climatic battle scene is spectacular
3) you probably won't get bored watching it even though it's 2-1/2 hours long
And now, the bad:
1) story is formulaic, predictable, unchallenging in it's form and content. We saw this in Dancing With Wolves, a movie that made me gag. Do read the plot outline for that movie -- the similarity, even down to the lost legs and use of a native language -- is uncanny.
2) derivative to the point of no shame (or attribution). Besides a story ripped straight from DWW, all of its key concepts and designs are mere tweaks -- at best -- of what others have already done. Some reviewers have mentioned DWW and The Matrix, but could have added any number of the following (list not exhaustive):
William Gibson's classic cyberpunk novel, Neuromancer (1984), wherein via a "simstim" a person can experience virtually the bodily sensations of another.
Neal Stephanson's Snow Crash (1992), which also makes use of virtual experience via an avatar in an advanced computer model (not live world). In fact, this novel popularized this use of the term "avatar."
Oshii Mamoru's mecha designs for gunships and armor suits (such as those in Patlabor)
Several Miyazaki Hayao films: Princess Mononoke and Nausicaa being the most obvious for the human rapaciousness versus the spirit of the forest/nature as well as for particular visuals such as glowing plant life, weird creatures, and glowing footprints. But add to those, Castle in the Sky (floating island with roots hanging out; big spirit tree) and My Neighbor Totoro (big spirit tree).
Jurassic Park (the whole scenario of humans venturing into deep forest jungle full of threatening creatures from another world)
Anno Hideaki's Neon Genesis Evangelion, for the notion of syncing on a genetic level with another body/machine.
Etc.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with being inspired or influenced by preceding works, but when EVERY MAJOR IDEA of a film is shamelessly "borrowed" and you spend $500 million on the visuals and technical details and gimmicky 3D spectacle rather than investing in storytelling and dialogue and an honest filmic vision, I can't call that a great film, or even a very good film. It's a good film (stretching the term "film" to mean digital artistry and computer wizardry), worthy of three and a half stars out of five. That's about it.
Hi Gerald,
ReplyDeleteYou are spot on with your assessment of the film, and I agree with you that the "man vs. nature" thing has been done before.
When I champion Cameron's imagination, I'm referring to the world he created, and the creatures that live within that world. If you strip away the details, you are correct in asserting that its story is pretty formulaic and packs unoriginal themes. But the only other time I can say I've been pulled into a fictional world like Pandora is when I read, and then saw Tolkein/Jackson's creation of Middle Earth.
So really, what we have in Avatar is a formulaic, unoriginal, and quite politically manipulative story that is shrouded in imaginative details. I didn't go into all of that in my review, because I know it's been said before, and my film experience outweighed the flaws.
But again, that is a very good assessment of Cameron's work.