There hasn't been a movie as hyped as Avatar in years, especially when it comes to its alleged technological achievements. We've choked down months and months of increasingly grandiose statements expounding this movie's awesomeness from both the filmmakers and random movie industry shmoes. Of course, promoting a movie is part of their jobs. But there comes a point when hyperbole-based marketing becomes abject absurdity... unless the movie actually does lives up to the hype. So I thought that the best way to review Avatar is to compare and contrast this hype (featuring the actual statements) with my experience in the theater. Let's start with the "King of the World" himself, James Cameron! Take it away, Jimmy!
"...It's not really like any other film, and I think that's its greatest asset—and its greatest deficit. You can't compare it to something else."
-James Cameron, writer/producer/director. 12/08/09
I'm not exactly sure what James meant here, but he certainly couldn't be talking about the plot. To illustrate, let's start with a plot synopsis:
In the future, a really valuable substance is found in plentiful quantities on the extra-solar planet, Pandora. There's lots of this junk under a village occupied by the Na'vi, a pre-industrial race of blue cat-people, and the evil corporation mining the planet wants to evict them. Turns out the blue cat-people don't take kindly to strangers, so the corporation tries to create diplomatic ties via Avatars, remote-controlled human-Na'vi genetic hybrids. Enter Jake Sulley, a paraplegic Marine vet, who comes to the planet with the promise of getting spinal surgery for his cooperation. Operating through his Avatar, Jake finds himself in the midst of the Na'vi. A blue cat-woman takes Jake under her wing to show him the ropes. Of course, he falls in love with her, realizes the evil of the corporation, and fights with the Na'vi to ensure the integrity not only of their race, but also of Pandora itself.
If the basic premise sounds familiar (an outsider who becomes part of the tribe and turns against the evils of his own people), that's because it is. Many have compared the plot of this movie to Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai. I haven't seen either so I don't know, but I do know that I feel like I've seen this premise countless times before. I bet there's even a Captain Planet episode based on this. It's not a particularly bad plot... it's just a little too similar to what you've already seen.
"I believe 'Avatar' will be to 3D what 'The Wizard of Oz' was to color. It was a seminal moment. If you go back and look, not only did 'The Wizard of Oz' use color it used it in such an exciting and compelling way, that's where the floodgates opened."
-Jeffrey Katzenberg, after the 3D Entertainment Summit. 9/17/2009
Sorry Jeff, Avatar's 3D was a wash for me. The 3D effects were effective at best (like the deep-space ship interior), distractingly disfunctional at worst (pretty much whenever something was really "close" to the camera, like those floating spores), and never particularly impressive. I saw nothing to justify my additional $3 expenditure. Maybe my local theater isn't optimal for the movie; it doesn't have stadium seating, which might work better with 3D movies. But if that's the case, then the 3D technology is so conditional that it's effectively worthless. If this is the best they can muster for a 3D movie, then I'll save my money and catch a normal viewing.
The digital elements of 'Avatar'... are so believable that, even when they exist alongside human actors, the audience will lose track of what is real and what is not.
-James Cameron, writer/producer/director. 10/26/2009
I'll give you this one, Jim. The effects were fantastic and there were a few shots in which the Na'vi characters really did look real. That's because the characters emoted almost perfectly, and the blend between the real and the CGI was seamless.
That said, the creature designs left much to be desired. While the facial features of the Na'vi were spot-on, the rest of their bodies were just the same spindly aliens we've seen countless times before. And the monsters of Pandora were a mixed bag. The six-limbed land animals looked like rejects from the Star Wars Prequels. And despite their drastically different 6-limbed body plan, they moved just as a quadruped on Earth moves, except with the two sets of legs in the front moving in unison. That seems like lazy character animation to me.
That's not to say that all the creatures sucked. The flying reptiles (which had four wings instead of two) not only looked awesome, but the extra wings had a purpose, namely steering. The utility of the additional feature justified its existence, which was not the case with the extra limbs of the land animals.
Speaking of CGI, I have to address the Pandoran environment. The forest had so much bioluminescence that it's like Thomas Kinkade barfed on the Amazonian jungle. And what's the deal with the floating mountains? Why and how do they float? Why don't the Na'vi float when they're standing on the mountains? Maybe I'm thinking too much about the biology and the physics of the movie, but isn't science fiction supposed to be based on science?
Jim Gianopoulos said there are about six scenes that just blow him away every time he sees them.
-Jim Gianopoulos, 20th Century Fox co-chairman. 11/12/2009
I'm not so sure about six scenes, but there are a few that are undeniably sweet. Without giving too much away, I'll say that the attack on the Na'vi village was cool. And the final battle was crazy awesome, with lots of explosions and creature mauling. There was also a scene with a pack of attacking predators that was legitimately scary. Other than that? Hm... I'm drawing a blank.
Let's not forget that the movie was waaaay too long. Come on, people, edit this thing together into something cohesive. And the dialog, especially that of the evil Marine bad guy, was so bad that it seemed like Trey Parker and Matt Stone wrote the screenplay as a goof.
Overall:

I admit I was digging Avatar while I was watching it. But the more I thought about it the less I liked it. I was planning on giving it a 3-score before I wrote the review, but I realized afterwards that I really don't have much to say about it that's particularly good. However, I seem to be in the minority here; Avatar currently has a pretty good rating of 84% over at Rotten Tomatoes. It's movies like Avatar that show just how distant my movie preferences are with the film critics and average movie goers.












5 out of 5 - Simply incredible!
4 out of 5 - Pretty awesome!
3 out of 5 - Cool enough, I suppose.
2 out of 5 - Not quite good enough.
1 out of 5 - Pretty horrific!
0 out of 5 - No redeeming quality at all.


























11 comments:
I agree. Too long and too familiar. I can't figure out why it's "Glorious" and can't seem to find the "like nothing else" thing. Everything I saw in "Avatar", I've seen in other movies and cartoons.
In your defense, I do not consider the scores at Rotten Tomatoes as being very reflective of the "average movie goers."
I consider myself the average guy, as I don't expect too much from movies that don't ask for it. I enjoyed G.I. Joe, I liked Transformers 2, I can laugh at a romantic comedy although I know the story before going to see it, but Avatar does not look very good at all. I'll still see it, because my wife and I already decided to shell out the extra cash and see it in 3-D (never been to a 3d movie), but I don't intend to like the movie all that much, I'm just going to be wowed by the visual effects.
"There hasn't been a movie as hyped as Avatar in years." Seriously? Last year's Dark Knight and I Want to Believe come to mind.
I haven't seen it so I can't agree or disagree with your review. That sentence just caught my attention.
Clark: You're right that Rotten Tomatoes doesn't reflect the preferences of the average movie goer, but I'd say that box office returns do. I also didn't like Transformers 2, which ended up making $800 million worldwide. And it looks like Avatar is following suit. It already has $330 million, so whatever it's doing, people are digging it.
Lee: Yeah, I thought about that when I wrote it, but I'd consider Avatar to be more hyped than even Dark Knight. That's totally a subjective call, as I'm not sure how we could quantify "hype", so I think you could make a good case that Dark Knight was more hyped than Avatar. But I'd say that the last time that a movie was as hyped as Avatar, especially for its technological achievements, was Star Wars Episode I (I edited the introduction to be clearer in this regard). But again, that's a subjective call.
Avatar has been hands down the most hyped movie to come along in a while, even considering those others. Adverts were absolutely everywhere for it.
Good review. I have not seen it yet, but your comments seem to confirm my fears. I too thought the alien creatures looked like SW rejects. :(
And all the talk of the forests that "pulsed with energy" had me fearing that the special effects would be over kill. Trying to "enhance" nature just screams of hubris. At the very least, film in high def and be done with it.
Thanks for the informative review.
I completely agree with you on everything you said. I said most of the same stuff in my review. The plot was really the weakness of the movie as the story was way to predictable in what was going to happen. Though CGI was just plain amazing.
Great review.
"I Want to Believe" ??? it took me a few minutes to have any idea at all what you were talking about.
Not only is "hype" diffrent to quantify I think you and Nathan are using two diffrent definitions. I read it, in its clarified form, as more event movies. Like the aforementioned SW ep. 1 or Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow.
I would say that the difference between the hype of Avatar versus The Dark Knight is that we've been hearing about Avatar for a few years now, especially for several months. All of the rave about The Dark Knight really hit after the movie was released and people who saw it built it up. Avatar had quotes like that from Mr. Cameron himself before anyone had even seen it.
I saw Avatar in in 3D this weekend. For me, the best way to describe the movie is to say it was simply fun. It was a fun, enjoyable experience.
The 3D was absolutely amazing, right from the opening sequence. The characters were in zero G and were floating around... what seemed to be directly in front of me! It was bizarre and wonderful.
I still think the aliens were too weird looking... but I was happy to see that the 6 legs thingy was consistent with all the creatures. In the long run though, the look of the animals ended up being a minor detail.
Also, the glowing forest wasn't so bad after I actually saw it. It was only at night and only certain trees and plants. I had been thinking that everything glowed... even regular trees and stuff.
I am a plot guy. I love complicated plots. For instance, I loved, absolutely loved the movie Syriana. However, after watching Avatar, I don't think I could have handled a complicated plot. My wind was working so hard to take in what I was seeing that thinking about a complex plot for 2 hours 40 minutes would have been exhausting.
Speaking of which, though there was never a dull or pointless moment, it was too long. Just too long.
Anyhow, great movie, and I highly recommend seeing it in 3D. I'm curious how I would have felt about the movie had I not seen it in 3D...
~Soups
To clarify: By weird aliens, I don't mean the Navi people. They looked great. And I agree with Roger Ebert that the special effects people did an amazing job of making the female Navi protagonist actually look attractive. :o
Anyhow, it was only the non-Navi aliens that I thought looked weird, and specifically the animals. I loved all the insects and plants.
~Soups
I have to disagree bro. I just got done watching this, and I have to say, Awesome!
Great movie. !
Post a Comment
Having trouble using the comment form below? Try the Full Page Form.