Shortly after getting gut-shot, one of the characters in James Cameron's "Avatar" wisecracks: "This could ruin my whole day." I know the feeling. The line, like so many others, lands with a hollow thud.
To my eyes (and ears), "Avatar" is the first Cameron feature that's a near-total failure. Obviously, I'm not talking about ticket sales, since the movie just opened today, or the early reviews, most of which were ecstatic. I emphasize "my eyes" because: 1) the golden-saucer eyes of the lovely, elongated blue protagonists, the Na'vi, are their most entrancing features; 2) the movie is explicitly about the act of seeing ("I see you" is one of its catch phrases, and the title of the Celine Dion-ish end-credits theme song that goes on and on); 3) the central problem with the movie is not its less-than-impressive technology but the triteness of its artistic vision; and 4) the 3D process -- at least for me, with my particular prescription lenses behind those Polarized glasses -- is continually distracting. And yet, "Avatar" strikes my retinas as an achievement that amounts to something considerably less than meets the eye.
(NOTE: I did not see the movie in a true IMAX theater; I saw it in regular-old, $14-a-ticket Digital 3D, which is probably good because I imagine the larger format would only magnify the eyestrain and mild nausea I suffered for 2.5 hours. I think the picture will play better in 2D for people like me. I removed the glasses occasionally, during the many uninspired passages, and anything that's in focus with the glasses on is still in focus with the glasses off.)
Let's dispense with the story, the characters and the dialog. Cameron certainly does, as even the most euphoric critical raves have taken pains to acknowledge. So, what else is there? Nothing, regrettably, as gripping as, say, the forklift battle between Ripley and the alien in "Aliens" (which "Avatar" re-stages unsuccessfully), as compelling as the relentless "Terminator", or as emotionally intense as the harrowing efforts by Ed Harris to revive his drowned ex-wife (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) in my favorite non-"Terminator" Cameron movie, "The Abyss" (though that, too, is half-heartedly reprised here). Even Michelle Rodriguez's (minor) tough-chick stock-character is a mere shadow of Jennette Goldstein's in "Aliens."
As much as I take delight in the appearance of the Na'vi characters themselves, the biggest disappointment of "Avatar" for me is the visual design -- a kitschy melange of 1970s Roger Dean album covers by day, and Thomas Kinkade "Painter of Light" Christmas-twinkle scenes by night. (The nighttime forest on the planet Plankton -- re, Pandora -- also seems to be based on the neon-glow alien life forms from "The Abyss," which at least made some kind of National Geographic sense in the earlier film because they lived in a world of perpetual darkness deep in the ocean.)
In the past, Cameron has pushed the envelope of cinema technology and brought to life images we'd never encountered before: the water tentacle in "The Abyss," the liquid metal T-1000 in "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," the Titanic in "Titanic"... His imagination has failed him across the board here. The CGI canvas is larger, but there's little you haven't already seen in better Cameron movies. Hammerhead dinosaurs sporting peacock feathers? OK, that's a new one -- but the creatures look silly and random (not to mention that they make no evolutionary sense). Ten-foot-tall blue salamanders riding day-glo psychedelic-patterned winged serpents? Sadly, they just look like forgotten old black light posters from some '60s head shop. (One good thing: Their organic breathing orifices. Very cool, and they are mimicked in the eternal ducts of the Earth-military's aeronautical ships.) I say this as someone who has been enthusiastic about Cameron's work from the B-movie "Terminator" to the sinking of the "Titanic" to "Aquaman" on "Entourage." This is the first time I've really felt let down by what I saw on the screen. (At least "True Lies" was funnier.)
The imagery dive-bombs into the Uncanny Valley in the very first shot and never climbs back out of it: An aerial representation of a rain-forest is impressively full of detail but looks utterly artificial, the CGI equivalent of Astroturf. Later, the oversized bioluminescent plants glow in the dark like fiber-optic fake flora you often see as decoration in Thai restaurants. Is there an Uncanny Valley for actual valleys? It's not so much that it looks like we're on another planet (the one where Rainbow Brite resides?), it's that it looks so very much like a computer simulation of another planet. Everything is just close enough to "realistic" that it appears unmistakably phony -- even the human beings when they're just sitting around talking. Military villain Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), for example, has whole scenes in which he appears to have had digital work done on his face and head. We've seen this actor for years, but he doesn't look real anymore. The movie is set in a nearly photorealistic universe; it also includes actual photography, and inserts humans into the fantastical world of Pandora. Consequently, I had the feeling I was alternately being pulled one way and then the other, but was never fully immersed in either stylistic realm. The most successful fusing of photography and CGI in the entire movie for me is when Jake's avatar wakes up in the human world and wiggles his toes.
There's a shot drawing of a space station near the beginning that is almost shockingly flat and chintzy -- as phony in its way as the infamous Lego-people "helicopter" shot in "Titanic." But what was a lapse in "Titanic" is par for the course in "Avatar." (And so is cliché-riddled dialog that sounds like that last sentence.) If nothing else, "Avatar" serves as a reminder of how visionary, dimensional and realistic the visuals in Stanley Kubrick's 40-year-old "2001: A Space Odyssey" still are. Think of how the initial dinosaur stampede looked in "Jurassic Park"; much of "Avatar" looks now the way that did then: not quite there. They still haven't figured out how to give CGI figures in motion the proper bulk and volume.
Cameron has reportedly said he wants to make two "Avatar" sequels -- perhaps because he hasn't managed to finish, or flesh-out, this one. Big chunks of character dynamics and exposition appear to be missing, and maybe the movie would seem shorter if some of these things were restored for the inevitable DVD Director's Cut. (I'm also betting "Avatar" will look more convincing on DVD than on Blu-ray, where the pristine rendering of the CGI will only highlight to its patent artificiality.)
The movie begins with Our Hero, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), getting an opportunity to "live" inside a new body. The experience of entering that body, the exhilaration and awkwardness Jake must have felt using his lower extremities again, is virtually thrown away. After the aforementioned toe-wiggling and a preliminary stumble-and-lunge out the door, it's all over. (What must it have felt like for a human in an alien body to enter that body's native atmosphere for the first time? How does a man so long accustomed to a wheelchair that his own legs have atrophied feel to be not only suddenly ambulatory but ten feet tall? What's it like to learn to use a four-foot tail that he never had before? What does the world look like to him?) This process of exploring his new body could have, and should have, been the emotional highlight of the movie's first act, but we aren't allowed to feel it along with him. It's the first sign that Cameron has no interest in these characters, or in getting us interested in them, either.
Lots of other, comparatively minor, things bugged me while I was staring at the screen, waiting for something to captivate my imagination: The forest-dwelling hunter-gatherer Na'vi have not developed much in the way of technology or even agriculture (they hunt and wage war with bows and arrows), but they wear walkie-talkie devices around their necks that enable voice communication while they're flying on their psychedelic pterodactyl creatures (to whom they develop an unspoken telekinetic bond, except that Jake almost always orders his around, out loud, in English). And if Na'vi warriors are supposed to bond with one, and only one, flying reptile-horse creater for life, how does Jake manage to bond with two of them, including the biggest and baddest one? The Na'vi wear loincloths, but their genitals don't appear to be located in their "crotchal regions," so what's the point? And where's Tinkerbell?
It is repeatedly stated that the Sky People (the bad guys, from Earth) have navigation instruments that won't work in a certain part of Pandora, and that they will have to rely solely on visuals. But when the Big Battle comes, their instruments unaccountably work anyway, on the ground and in the air, showing the numbers of the advancing enemy forces and their locations.
One of the avatar guys, who knew Jake's brother, apparently gets peeved with him in between scenes for reasons we never quite understand, until Jake tells us in voiceover that the guy has come back around again. And, sure enough, he does. This guy is also supposed to be around when Jake is Avatar-ing, but Jake has no relationship with him on Pandora. A lot of the movie is like that: Things are explained (like the DNA-like inner structure of the all-important Main Tree) that are not actually shown, leaving us to wonder: 1) how do the characters know that?; and 2) why didn't we see it, because it sounds like it may have been important at one time? I could go on. [NOTE: Some of these quibbles are explained by readers in the comments below. You can decide for yourself if the movie handles them adequately.]
What remains is this: A story that's pure formula (even a nifty third-act twist is basically the same as the one in M. Night Shyamalan's "The Happening"), dialog that seldom rises above the risible, characters who are simply fill-in-the-blank types (or, if you prefer, avatars), and visual effects that never let you forget they're visual effects. There's not much left to look at for 162 minutes. (A mere 18 minutes more and you could watch "Barry Lyndon" -- now there's an immersion in another world of space and time!) But, seriously, if you want to see story and dialog stripped down to their bare essentials; fantastic atmospheric landscapes (Spain -- rendered in-camera by Christopher Doyle); and impressive faces (Isaach De Bankolé, Tilda Swinton, John Hurd, Bill Murray), take a look at Jim Jarmusch's "The Limits of Control." It contains an implicit critique of movies like "Avatar," and I find it much more fascinating to watch, much more rewarding to look at.
Finally, let me say a few words about why "3D" does not work in movies any better than it does on tacky postcards of tourist landmarks, waterfalls, or Jesus. The technology has not developed significantly since the creation in 1939 of the ViewMaster -- a plastic binocular-like toy I loved to play with, but quickly tired of, when I visited my grandparents. The Polarized double-lens process does not render images in three dimensions, it simply separates them into multiple planes. The effect is not much different than the early Disney animated features, filmed through layers of glass on which backgrounds, foregrounds and characters were painted for a more dimensional effect.
But your eyes and your brain do not interpret these different layers the way they do actual space. Instead (to my eyes, anyway), each layer looks flat, stacked in front of or behind some other layer. So, people for example look like cardboard cutouts rather than rounded figures. What's worse, if the camera's depth of field holds something out of focus in the foreground or background, you can't do anything about it. If you look at something that's closer or farther away, your eyes have a natural tendency to bring it into focus. 3D camerawork frustrates that instinct. Regular old 2D imagery, on the other hand, does not trick your eyes into trying to focus on something they can't, because both eyes are always looking at the same plane. All around, fewer headaches.
I hung in there for the whole thing, but I'd had enough and wanted to leave after 45 minutes and the feeling never left me.
(Paintings by Roger Dean: "Floating Islands," "Dragon's Dream" "Pathways" (used on the 1973 "Yessongs" album cover).
UPDATE (12/19/09): Now that I've filed my own take on the movie, I'm beginning to read what others have said and I have a point I'd like to make: Can we get rid of the idiotic phrase "wheelchair-bound"? I thought we had, back in the 1970s, but it's still bandied about without any thought. I'm not being PC, it's just that it doesn't make sense. A disabled person is not "bound" to a wheelchair. The wheelchair is a tool that provides a freedom of movement that would otherwise be unavailable. Do we say people are "bound" to their cars when they rely upon them to travel long distances in relatively short periods of time? Stop with the "wheelchair-bound." Unless you're using it properly, as in, perhaps: "She went off down the sidewalk in her wheelchair, bound for the bargain matinee."
* * * *
OK, if you've seen "Avatar," what did you think? Be specific, please. There was an obligatory-sounding smattering (yes, but a smattering) of applause when the title appeared at the end of the screening I attended (6:30 p.m. Friday, December 18, 2009; brand new Royal Thornton Place Cinemas, Seattle). But the ten-year-old kid seated next to me kept asking his parent or guardian how much longer the movie would be, and checked the time on his cell phone regularly. You?
UPDATE (12/20/09): If you're not familiar with the way things work here, please take a moment to familiarize yourself with non-arguments that won't be published because they not valid, rational forms of discourse. They include ad hominem attributions about someone's motives and anything that doesn't add information to the discussion by citing evidence that's actually in the movie. That rules out such phony rhetorical tricks as:
1) "You just don't like it because..." (Irrelevant speculationg. Speak for yourself, and base it on specifics from the movie.)
2) "You don't know how to have a good time." (Absurd. You can't define what a "good time" is for anybody else. Stick to the movie.)
3) "You suck." Or "The movie sucks." Or "You rock." Or "The movie rocks." Those are not criticisms. They are ejaculations.
4) Straw man arguments (deliberately exaggerated or otherwise inaccurate paraphrases of arguments nobody has actually made).
5) Anything having to do with the movie's popularity or unpopularity among some segment of the population. As I said in the second paragraph, I'm not talking about ticket sales or TomatoMeter-like estimates of the movie's critical reception. I find the terms "fanboy" and "hater" offensive, because they assume that attitude is all you need to have an opinion. Only opinions based on observation and evidence are valid; anything else is just a whim.
So, let's have fun by actually talking about something of substance. Thanks.
138 Comments
Totally disagree with you, Jim. While I'm not a huge fan of 3D (and would like to see the movie in regular 2D sometime), the 3D here was not bad at all. And I really liked the special effects work. And no way did I find the movie boring. I was even moved at times. Plus the crowd I saw the film with seemed to really like it.
Groaned at the script (structure, themes, dialogue), but marvelled at the visuals.
To my eyes the 3d worked well. My theory is that CG humans – or humanoids, whatever – seem somehow less artificial in a 3d movie. Hard to say why.
As for the uncanny valley effect: Maybe it didn't bother me as much as I would've thought (re: Beowulf, A Christmas Carol) cos most of the time there were no actual, photographed humans around to emphasize the differences. Also the facial capture thingiewiggly seemed to work fine, better than with previous CG people.
So on the whole Avatar was a marvel of techological geewhiz and a severe disappointment story and scriptwise.
As is usual in our cases of agreement, you're able to go far deeper in detail and explanation than I find myself capable of. Big Cameron fan here, major disappointment, although I want to see it again during its run, this time in 2-D. I fear the overbearing qualities of the IMAX might have drown out whatever joy I might've found in the storyline. Still, I'm hardly pleased. This is the first time I've seen Cameron's broad-sweeping storytelling and techno-obsession work against him.
Uh oh ... Jim's picking another fight with fanboys! It's gonna get wild around here!
Jim, I also have to say that I just love reading you and Ebert in tandem. It's a banquet of ideas and opinions.
It's hard to diss Cameron movies because one tends to come across as a jealous whiner, but I'm soo glad I held firm to my certainty that Titanic was a load of twaddle I wouldn't like and so I never saw it. A couple of years after the last of the marketing money was but a distant memory it seemed the world began to acknowledge (whispering quietly at first) that, well, ...it wasn't very good was it?
I'm happy to put my faith in a director or writer or musician or playwright whom I've come to know -not personally of course, but through their work.
Likewise there are certain "creatives" who shout louder outside their work than in. I think James Cameron is one of the better directors I'd place in this group... it's possible he will make a movie I'll like one day -maybe when he's reduced to 'slumming it' with a budget such as he had with the original Terminator.
Since that is unlikely for now I'd rather miss a good one than suffer another. Something tells me I'm not missing anything this time around either though.
We must have a similar prescription in our glasses, because my experience with movies projected in 3-D is similar to yours. It makes my eyes feel sore. I felt like I could focus better, see and appreciate more in "Avatar" when I removed the 3-D glasses during scenes where the 3-D effect was minimal. I would have preferred viewing the movie in a regular 2-D projection. The 3-D effect is a distraction, not an enhancement.
The Celine Dion-ish end-credits theme song is horrible. Agreed.
I'm not familiar enough with Roger Dean album covers from the 1970s to be disappointed in the visual design of "Avatar." Even if Cameron does borrow heavily from other sources, he succeeds in bringing it all to life in a manner that no one has before. It's impressive. The CGI isn’t photo-realistic, but didn't feel synthetic to me, just other-worldly. At times, objects move in a way that seem not entirely natural, but it’s happening on a planet (or moon) that doesn’t have full Earth-gravity, so it kind of makes sense that objects would seem to float a little more. The CGI characters are expressive. Their eyes, their facial expressions -- it’s all there. They don’t feel like creepy "Polar Express" people or cartoonish "Star Wars" characters. It's still other-worldy and odd, but I bought into it.
I agree with you that "Avatar" recycles all the best bits from Cameron's previous movies, which have nuts & bolts story lines, but at least he knew how to make them compelling and fun. This time around, he seems to have focused more on the spectacle than story or characters, and I was able to enjoy it on that sort of dumb-down level. I wasn't blown away by the action or moved by the drama, but from time to time I admit I got a little caught up it. Nothing compared to the adrenaline rush of some of Cameron's previous movies though.
So I wouldn't go as far to say "Avatar" is a near-complete failure. I was able to enjoy it mostly as a spectacle. I mean, it's not like it's "The Phantom Menace."
Gawd, was the second act long? This is a wonderful review Mr. Emerson. What a failure of a movie!
They could have restored the economies of two nations instead of making such cheesy liberal statements.
This is exactly the antithesis to Jarmusch's and Tarantino's cinema, as you fittingly point out. Avatar is the cinema of conformism. This is the cinema of ethnic and gender stereotyping and this is pretentious cinema. Transformers 2 is Taxi Driver in comparison to this one.
Jim, I always appreciate your divergent and often wise takes on everything from The Dark Knight (which I love) to Inglourious Basterds (which I hate), but here, I must say you sound a little grumpy-old-mannish.
Yes, the story is Dances With Wolves in space, but I think the visual show warrants some recognition. Cameron said he would do three things: 1.) break into a new frontier of 3D, 2.) achieve an unparalleled pinnacle of C.G.I., and 3.) create a universe as epic as your Star Wars, LOTR, HP, etc. And well, he pretty much delivered on all accounts. I wouldn't say I was 'blown away,' but I was impressed, and I think he really has "changed" cinema and in a very big way. He didn't drop the ball.
I'm not sure I can support your argument against the imagery. You implied that you made up your mind that you didn't find the imagery believable immediately, and then held it against the movie for the entire running time. You may not like the visual style, but once that style has been established, doesn't the filmgoer have some responsibility to meet the film halfway and try to enjoy it for what it is? You can count your dislike for the imagery as an overall fault of the movie, but to dismiss it scene by scene seems unfair.
Allow me to re-phrase your visual argument in a different context:
"The imagery of "Good Night and Good Luck" dive-bombs into the Uncanny Valley in the very first shot and never climbs back out of it: The stark contrast of the black and white is impressively full of detail but looks utterly artificial. It's not so much that it looks like we're in a different time, it's that it looks so very much like an artificial representation of another time. Regular old color imagery, on the other hand, does not trick your pupils into trying to correctly and adjust when they can't, because there is a spectrum of brightness as opposed to a more dichotomous contrast between light and dark. All around, fewer headaches."
No I'm not trying to argue that your argument is tantamount to categorically hating black and white films. I just wanted to frame the argument in such a way that it would attack a film style we love, just as yours would sound to someone who loves 3D CGI. Any thoughts?
Jim:
Thank you, THANK YOU for your comments on 3D. Jeremy Mathews and I over at The Same Dame have been complaining about this inexplicable trend for the last year, and you hit the nail on the hit. We've written about it, we've podcasted about it, we've appealed to the higher reasoning of those we talk to.
Both of us are sort of in awe at how people (and studios, and directors) have somehow convinced themselves that modern 3D is drastically different from the crap I saw at the local science center when I was 6 years old. But it's not. In fact, I find it difficult to even refer to it as 3D - because the process actually draws MORE attention to the fact that's it's TWO-dimensional. It's like looking at a glorified pop-up book - none of the images have any actual dimensionality or physicality. And the way we look at these moving "3D" images in NO WAY replicates the way we view actual reality. I hear people insisting that it "enhances the depth of field" - and it simply does not. That claim just baffles me -- good shot composition can do that all by itself! In 3D, we're still looking at FLAT IMAGES - and it's their very flatness that gets enhanced.
Not only that, but 3D also dilutes colors, disrupts the basic psychology of shot compositions (Hey look, it's a basic over-the-shoulder shot! And yet the blurry shoulder in the foreground is popping out at me! Aaaaah!), images are regularly blurry, and movement within the frame is unnatural, distorted and, again, blurry. I've honestly given 3D a fair shake - seeing four movies in the format this year - but it's just a weak, distracting and unnecessary nuisance.
So that's my rant - just wanted to express my appreciation that someone else is saying what I've been saying ever since this recent 3D trend began.
For a film that is, on one level, supposed to be about the thrill of exploring an alien world, none of Avatar's extraterrestrial landscapes ever feel quite alien enough. The very first image of Pandora in Avatar's opening shot is of a tree that looks exactly like an Umbrella Thorn Acacia from the Serengeti. And all through the film it's clear Cameron is basing his images of this alien environment on exaggerated versions of Earth-bound counterparts. I know, I know, what fantasy images in science-fiction films of this type aren't based on familiar reference points? And yes, the Na'Vi fly dragon creatures. But they also ride around on quadrupeds that are essentially horses. Their hunting rituals are clearly based on the customs of various Native American cultures. And the Na'Vi themselves are designed to be attractive based on our own ideal of slender, graceful beauty. How much more exotic--and alien--it would have been if the intelligent species on Pandora had not been humanoid bipeds. Ah, but then, it would have been more difficult to craft a romance between Sam Worthington and a sentient invertebrate, wouldn't it? Still, I would rather have seen Cameron attempt something as unorthodox as that instead of merely recapitulating hypothetical extraterrestrial images that merely flatter the human ego.
As I watched Avatar, I did get the feeling I wasn't being immersed as much as I should have, but pushed though feelings aside and willingly loved the movie.
It's a day later, and given time to think about it, I realize I love it much in the same way I love Titanic: I love the idea, but not the movie itself. My mistake was given more credit to the films than they deserved. (And to think: I thought my lack of sympathy for these characters was due to my selfishness.)
I think you're right for the most part, Jim; this is definitely a formula film, and I can usually tolerate formula if it's done extraordinarily well (cut back fourteen years to Toy Story, which is pretty much a buddy film, but a damn good one with revolutionary technology). I guess James Cameron wanted Avatar to be the same way, but he failed.
Hopefully the success of Avatar will inspire much better films of the same kind, but that's just wishful thing.
Thank you Jim! I thought I was alone in not loving this.
I saw it last night and had the identical reaction. I also wrote that 45 minutes in, I was checking my watch regularly.
And as for the 3-D, I keep reading how revolutionary it was. But, it was barely used. Yes, they used it for depth, but that wasn't enough to justify the increased ticket price.
It was giving me a headache at times and I would take off the glasses, only to also find the picture looking the same. For what has been called a revolutionary advance in moviemaking, Cameron barely used the 3-D.
I mean, the makers of JAWS-3D used 3-D better than Cameron did.
Jim, I'm relieved to agree, although I did have a more favorable impression of the 3D than you. The problem is, though, Cameron takes the shot that best utilizes the technology--the zero-gravity barracks--and throws it away within the first three minutes of the movie. I spent the ensuing 150 minutes waiting for a composition that dazzled me that much, and never got one. The effect is fun, yes, and even striking at times (I'm thinking specifically of a scene involving raindrops, or something similar), but, for the most part, I felt an air of "okay, I get it. Now show me what else you've got."
The story and the dialogue are stultifying. I say this as a guy who happily expected the usual mix of A-B-C Cameron storytelling, too. As Roger said in his review of Titanic, a movie with so large a budget can't "reinvent the wheel," but good gracious, there wasn't a single damn character worth caring about. The acting is wooden across the board; Weaver sounds like she's reading cue cards, in between hamfisted cigarette breaks. (The friend with whom I saw the film joked afterwards, channeling Sigourney during filming, "what? Well, I haven't smoked in fifteen years, but--I think this is what it looked like. Yeah, sure, that works.") The whole thing just ended up...well, damn boring. And if there's anything a Cameron movie shouldn't be, it's that.
Jim,
I respectfully disagree with you here. I'm by no means a "fanboy" and have been skeptical of this lavish, expensive sci-fi movie when I first heard about it last year. It has its flaws, many of which you adroitly point out in your piece, but I really enjoyed it. I thought Cameron successfully created another world; one that immersed me into its characters and landscape. I was immensely entertained.
Its by no means a perfect film (your reference to the wonders still invoked when watching "2001" are spot on), but comparing it to Kubrick masterpieces just isn't fair; few films can meet those lofty standards.
I find it hard to believe that I find myself defending a $250M+ blockbuster, as I prefer smaller, more intimate films ("Goodbye Solo" being a masterpiece, in my mind). I don't think you are wrong (how can an opinion about a movie be wrong?) I just disagree with your assertions.
Cheers!
Chris
The opening 3D "wow" shot, when everyone is coming out of hyper-sleep, and you get to see the whole long row of people waking up, was amazing to me. And then, the dialogue got lazier and lazier until I couldn't stand it anymore. The 3D, no matter how impressive, can't make up for a lack of originality on the part of the story or the characters. My least favorite line: "I didn't sign up for this." Hey, me neither, but I didn't feel like expressing myself in cliche.
In my opinion, any movie critics who criticizing Avatar are ignorant and simply not qualified to be a good movie critic.
Avatar opens a new era to movie industry by creating an superb experience and bringing it to the next level. It's a revolution, although not everyone would fall in love with it at the beginning. I can't understand why people would complain about the 3D glasses, I too needed to wear 2 glasses, and it felt a bit uncomfortable however it was truly worth to do. If I need to watch every movie with it, so be it.
If comparing with other big Sci-Fi movies in 2009 such as 2012 or Transformers 2, Avatar is absolutely 10 times better. Watching intense scene from 2012 or Terminator 4 has no difference between watching a big fancy commercial at home on TV. my mind was very hard to concentrate into the movie for the entire time. When other movies has failed to do so, Avatar has done it all. People in the cinema were applauded their hands when the movie was finished.
This is simply one of the best movies. Can't wait to see it again!
Do you just dislike every single movie that gets massive hype before it's released? Or do you honestly go into films that receive such hype with an open mind? Because it seems to me, especially based on your attack on Precious before ever seeing the movie, that you make judgments before you've seen the film, which really leads me to believe that your opinions on such films just can't be trusted. Although I understand that opinions can form before seeing a movie, so I cannot fully fault you for that. But at the same time, it goes beyond a skepticism (as you saw with Roger Ebert) to the point of your opinion being made up in advance. That's just sad, Jim.
JE: What's sad is that you've made all this up in your own head and attributed it to me. Show me an attack I made on "Precious" before seeing the film -- because there isn't one. I posted a video parody/criticism and then added a short disclaimer to explain that it wasn't MY opinion, because I hadn't seen the film yet, although I wasn't looking forward to it. Then I did a post (written after I'd seen the film) explaining why I had been resistant to seeing it. As for "Avatar," I ignored nearly everything that appeared in the media before it was screened because I remember so clearly how reporters and critics predicted that "Titanic" would be a huge, expensive disaster for so many months before it was released. Same thing happened with "The Abyss" back in 1989. Cameron has a history of making expensive, technically complicated films, and journalists love to hammer him for it -- before the movies are even completed. I had no reason to expect that he would deliver once again -- and I got to the theater on the very first day. I notice you don't take issue with anything I actually said about the movie, just the fact that you didn't like my opinion. That's the problem with so many discussions about movies these days: they're not really about anything other than somebody's pre-formed opinion, and their suppositions about somebody else's motives.
I have not yet seen "Avatar" (don't know when I'll get around to it), but a word on 3D: I recently watched "Disney's A Christmas Carol" in 3D, the first of these supposedly new-fangled 3D movies I've seen, and I hated it. The movie itself (at least as much as I could focus on it) was pretty good, but the 3D nearly ruined it. The dark lenses made it feel like I was watching it with sunglasses on, and like you describe in your piece here, my eyes were strained through much of the movie trying to "focus" on things I couldn't actually focus on. The feeling was like looking at one of those 3D "magic picture" artworks for 90 minutes. The thought of having to sit through that experience for 160 minutes does not appeal to me...
Nor does much of the movie as you describe it here, which seems to confirm a lot of what it looked like in trailers and TV commercials: Lame characters, lame story ("The Last Samurai"/"Dances with Wolves" in space?), and lame creature designs with the throwaway randomness of a "Spore" creation.
And yet, why do I still feel obligated to see it? Damn you, the wizard James Cameron!
I pretty much agree with you on everything you say about the story and characters, which are undoubtedly the weakest aspect of the film. Even Avatar's most ardent defenders seem to acknowledge this.
What really grated on me were how utterly flat every single character was, from Neytiri (who inexplicably goes from hating the "moron" outsider to completely falling for him in the span of less than three months) to Parker Selfridge (whose painfully expository dialogue seemed to only serve as James Cameron's way of telling the audience, "So, in case you didn't figure it out, this guy is EVIL."). Even the incredibly charismatic Stephen Lang can't do much with his cliché "psycho military commander" stock role.
And speaking of Norm "warming up" to Jake, why was he such a dick to him in the first place? He may not have the "training" (which apparently isn't THAT important, considering how quickly the untrained Jake becomes proficient in his avatar), but what kind of insensitive putz would treat a disabled war veteran like that?
And did anyone else find the preachiness of the film's environmental message annoying? Once again technology and industry are bad, while nature and "being one with the great spirit of life" are good. Oh, the horrors of civilization, if only we could live like the Na'Vi and live in trees and say prayers for the animals we kill. All presented using the most cutting-edge technology ever invented, of course.
However, I do disagree with you on the visual effects, and found much of the film's imagery quite stunning to look at, as well as some individual shots that were almost flawlessly rendered (the first shot of Neytiri's face on the tree branch, for example). I also was quite taken by the final battle, which is one of the best I think I've ever seen, especially in this day and age where most action sequences are atrociously edited and choreographed.
So it's a mixed bag for me. I admire the scope and visual splendor, as well as the incredible technological dedication James Cameron brought to this project. I was astounded by many of the epic scenes and gorgeous scenery of the film. And, while I would agree that it still has a long way to go, this movie is the first that convinced me that 3D may have a future. Avatar is inarguably a landmark in visual effects not unlike The Lord of the Rings trilogy or The Matrix were. I just wish he had used it to tell a better story.
I guess what bothers me is how commonly the term Uncanny Valley is misused.. especially strange from you, since you went ahead and linked to the Wikipedia article. UV is where behavior, movement, and appearance create an eerie feeling in the viewer. It's about falling short of human or living. It doesn't even have to involve SFX. Avatar may fall short of photorealistic, (and what movie doesn't?) but it just doesn't apply.
Ah well, if certain theories floating around are true, within the next 5-10 years, they will have reached complete photorealism.
JE: Maybe the pun didn't work, but I was trying to extend the concept of the "Uncanny Valley" to the shot of the actual valley.
Thank god. I was beginning to think there'd be nowhere to hide as Avatar lumbered its way to multiple Oscars early next year.
I liked it better than Jim, but I'm giving Cameron a lot of slack for making something expensive that isn't a sequel, toy, comic book, TV show, novel or remake. Granted, it's put together from better ideas in all those sources, but it's still not a brand. That took balls.
What's frustrating to me is that Cameron is playing with toys that give him the power to render anything his imagination can come up with and all he's got is a patchwork of plants and animals cobbled together from stuff on earth.
As I was writing about Avatar, I started thinking about Guillermo del Toro and the pure creativity that guy taps into. I had some big problems with Hellboy II, but del Toro's vision and imaganation on display there embarrass any moment you want to pick from Avatar. I'd rather watch the Tree Elemental scene over and over for 3 hours than sit through Avatar again.
I laughed out loud at Emerson's Painter of Light quip. Not one of those cheesy internet LOL's either. Literally. Laughing out loud.
I also have the exact same problem with 3D in terms of planes of focus. If something is sticking out in the foreground in 3D, I WANT to look at it, but if it's photographed blurry, it stays blurry and I can't make it focus. If filmmakers are going to stick with this 3D gimmick (it's supposed to be immersive, but it never fails to draw me out of the experience and make me aware I'm watching a movie) they need to film with an infinite depth of field and come up with new ways to guide the viewer's attention.
I watched most of The Abyss last night and it made me miss the old pre-Titanic Cameron. A lot. For all its flaws, Abyss had a soul. It lived and breathed. Corny dialogue? Yeah, but it worked. Avatar never comes to life.
Thank you for articulating exactly why I found the 3D effects in Avatar to be underwhelming.
I appreciated the movie for what it was, but to call it "revolutionary" is a bit of a stretch. I share many of your views, particularly the use of 3-D. I am dumbfounded that some people believe that it is the future of the movies. 3-D is distracting in ways that even the most visually annoying 2-D films are not. Like you, I was ready to leave before the end of the first hour.
In regards to the story/character development, I have resigned myself to the fact that Cameron is a great spectacle-maker, not a great filmmaker (excepting, of course, the wonderful "Aliens" and "Terminator 2").
Even the critics who seem to love "Avatar" admit that the visuals are the best part. When people say a film is "well-made" visually, I think the word they're looking for is "expensive." I mean you wouldn't call the special effects in "Transformers 2" cheap, but by no means is it a "well-made" movie. (God, no...) Expensive. That's the right word.
Just my take on it:
"Shortly after getting gut-shot one of the characters in James Cameron's "Avatar" wisecracks: "This could ruin my whole day." I know the feeling. The line, like so many others, lands with a hollow thud."
Gallows humor? And wasn't Cameron always about this lighthearted action style?
"The CGI canvas is larger, but there's little you haven't already seen in better movies."
I think the whole point of the movie is not so much the substance or originality, but just that it's the first movie of this kind and spirit that is fully realized to near perfection. Even if it's ultimately dime novel quality, the point is that it's captured to near perfection, visually and structurally.
So, no, I have no idea, what "better movies" are referenced here, unless they are of a completely different "realist" direction.
"The imagery dive-bombs into the Uncanny Valley in the very first shot and never climbs back out of it"
Yes, that was obivous in the trailers already. The movie looks artificial, but wonderful and inspiring at it. Uncanny valley is still something different, I think.
Yes, yes, yes! I can't describe all the ways I had trouble with this movie!
Poor James Cameron has fallen in the same trap that ensnared George Lucas. Given the tools and unlimited money to create whatever he wants, he's forgotten everything else. These two have proven the old saying that "Creativity is problem solving." They found themselves in a situation where no problems could occur because all could be fixed with computers, and so, where was the creativity?
Look, I was very impressed with the visuals and the technology. It looked good. But I was always aware they were phony, and I don't go to movies for that. I go to see something new, something REAL, even if they are models like in "2001." I don't give a damn about something conjured up by a thousand multi-core processors at some server farm in New Zealand. I want to see something startling like an army laying siege on Aqaba, or a steamboat being hauled up a mountain. Where is the labor, the agony of hauling a camera in the middle of the night so you can capture that particular valley just as the sun comes up?
And did you Jim (or anyone else) have a problem with plot? I found SO MANY.
1) It is terribly formulaic (guy studies natives, joins natives, inadvertantly betrays natives, winds up being their savior)
2) It makes deeply troublesome assumptions and demands on the viewer. We are supposed to side with the Na'avi, against the marines there to move them off their land. But I didn't know how I was supposed to feel-
[Spoilers Ahead]!
-as I watched all those soldiers get slaughtered in the third act. That, on top of all the blatant, lazy references to Vietnam, Iraq and the War on Terror made me wonder, "Just what the hell is he asking of us?" I'm no SUV driving "Support our Troops" guy, but I was sickened watching these guys, most of whom were probably grunts like Jake drawn to Pandora with promises of good health benefits and a pension, getting brutally killed for their troubles.
3) The story, and Cameron, are very hypocritical. The Na'avi are introduced as peace loving people who even pray over the animals they kill. Yet they sure do KILL those Marines REAL GOOD...almost as good as we humans do. Makes me wonder if the Na'avi are really so advanced, or if they aren't like the rest of us: all too willing to conveniently set aside all their principles and values to defend their property and their religious values.
And isn't Cameron undercutting his message just a WEE bit, by using 300 million dollars and the most cutting edge technology in the world to make a New Age anti-techno statement? It rings just a might bit hollow...
4. Camerons depiction of the Na'avi (clearly modeled after Native American and tribal cultures of South America and Africa) is very tiresome. Cameron, like others before him, fundamentally misunderstands these complex by reducing them to simple, nature loving, tree hugging (literally!) people. Like the Magic Black Man, the Na'avi are more plot devices, tools to teach white Western culture.
5. Dear, sweet Lord, Cameron actually actually resolves his plot with a LITERAL Deus Ex Machina. Bold, arrogant, lazy, stupid. Pick your adjective.
There is no end of the problems in this film for me. This movie for me is such a colossal waste. It is a 300 hundred million dollar affirmation of just how good the effects of Star Wars and 2001 really are. Just imagine all the films that could have been made for that amount? There are many filmmakers who I bet could get their pictures made for a million dollars, even less. That's 300 pictures. Let's bump it up to 10 million. That's 30 pictures. 30 chances to produce a masterpiece. Those are good odds. Instead, we have one film which has merit only as a technological stepping stone, and even that achievement will become less and less as new films emerge that better the technology.
Avatar is "The Jazz Singer" for the 21st century. An important technological advancement, but one that beyond the technique has little artistic merit and deeply flawed themes.
Despite my misgivings, I think there is merit in the technology that Cameron has helped to pioneer. But it still needs a brilliant mind to wield it. What we need now is another Lang or Welles, to see this technology for what it is, and have the vision to see what it COULD be.
Thanks Jim, for having the courage to speak your mind.
BR
I saw the movie in good, old fashioned 2D, since, as you yourself noted, I hate having to wear 3D glasses over my regular ones. Sometimes I think that I wouldn't dislike 3D in film quite so much if I only had 20/20 vision.
Like you, I was largely unimpressed. The visuals were nice, I suppose, but they weren't in service of anything worthwhile. I don't necessarily have anything wrong with a predictable story (boy will get girl, something terrible will happen that will briefly drive boy and girl apart, boy and girl are reunited, good guys win in the end), but when in addition the movie is nearly three hours long, I just spend the whole time wondering when it will get around to the next beat. Furthermore for a film that managed to be so damn long, a surprising amount of the development of character relationships managed to happen off screen.
I think my most nagging problem though was, while the film was trying incredibly hard to be Very Serious, I just found to be tremendously silly. I doubt Cameron intended the reaction to some of the scenes to be surprised laughter. The example that sticks out in my mind is (slight spoiler up ahead, I guess), in the final fight scene between Sully and the Evil Soldier Guy (I have completely forgotten most of the characters' names already) when ESG's giant-mech-suit pulled out an appropriately giant-mech-suit sized knife. It was the sort of thing I would expect to see in a parody of this kind of movie. I half expected him to shout out, "And they laughed at me when I said I wanted my mech to have a knife!"
That's a small nitpick, but I think it's indicative of a larger problem with the film. Avatar tries so hard to convince the viewer how serious and important it is, without any sense of humor or history about itself, that in the end I found it almost impossible to take it seriously.
Wow i couldn't disagree more with everything you said. To your eyes indeed.. I think there may be something wrong with them. You might want to get them checked. I think you should just stop watching movies all together and only read books, moving images and moving on screen characters obviously aren't compatible with your DNA.
JE: While I appreciate the personal insults as always, for the sake of a discussion of the movie it would be helpful if you could pick at least one thing you disagree with and explain why. Ad hominem counter-arguments really don't cut it.
This is actually the most honest review I have read for Avatar yet. It is also the one I most agree with. I was looking forward to the movie due to the hugeness of it all and the fact that Mr. Cameron was behind it. I haven't seen Piranha Part Two: The Spawning, but Avatar is easily the weakest movie he has made that I have seen, and probably the only one that I wouldn't recommend.
I won't write another review repeating all of the points that you made that I agreed with simply because it would take too long. I will however say that the great sci-fi movie of the year was Star Trek, and I know QT would agree with me. I thought it was just okay when it first came out, but after rewatching it a few weeks ago, I am convinced that it is one of the great entertainments of the decade. No other movie had that much of a change for me between first and second viewings this year. It is an in incredibly emotional experience on top of being a really fun movie. Not a great screenplay at all, and no great acting, but Abrams somehow brings everything together magnificently. Not the best movie of the year, but one of them for sure, just behind the likes of Inglourious Basterds and Summer Hours for me.
I haven't seen "Avatar" yet, so bear that in mind, but I do want to comment on the "uncanny valley" experience.
In the 2-D trailers that I've seen for "Avatar", I can tell that the images are CGI, easily. I can do this for three reasons. 1.) I know that Cameron is making a CGI movie. 2.) The things up on the screen do not bear much resemblance to anything I've seen in my own life aside from fantasy illustrations or other conceptual artwork. 3.) The images themselves lack the weight of physicality. Now, in 3-D my ability to suspend my disbelief may change, but I doubt it.
But is Cameron really trying to be photorealistic? Can CGI ever accomplish that? CGI, like matte paintings, are essentially drawings. And like matte paintings, CGI will probably always struggle to replicate reality, no matter how close it comes. I've never seen a Na'vi in real life, so I feel that I'm bound to disbelieve one when I see it (him/her...I'm sorry, the Na'vi aren't "other", or are they? I mean, they're not real, so maybe I should think of them as "other". Or is that bad?) on the big screen.
Do we really want CGI to replicate reality? If computer images distance me from the information they present by making them look too real, older forms of special effects - matte painting, process shots, day for night - distance me by looking so obviously fake. I can't tell you how that process shot of the Hollywood bowl in "Double Indemnity" takes me out of the movie even just for a little bit. And yet, I find that if I willfully adjust my mindset quickly, I can keep from being too bothered by it.
"Avatar" and other special effects driven movies usually aren't my thing, but when I do go see one, I don't find it difficult to reorient myself to the visual rules of the worlds that they present. I don't know how I'll respond to "Avatar" when I see it, but my scales of judgment were tipped with the line, "Ladies and gentlemen, you're not in Kansas anymore: you're in Pandora." Ugh.
I hope this isn't a double; my computer is acting funky right now.
I saw it last night in 2D, and I disagree wholeheartedly about the visuals. I will concede that the script is absolutely terrible, but I think seeing it in 3D may have been the reason why the visuals didn't work for you. I felt an almost exhilarating sense of scope and depth in the environments of Pandora, everything seemed to be teeming with life, there was a tangible sense of energy to the landscape. Before seeing the film, I was almost certain that I would react to the visuals in the same way that you have, but the film totally upended my expectations. Perhaps the make or break period was in the open 20 minutes of the film, and if the visuals haven't enchanted you by then, they never will.
I felt that the Na'vi were almost tangibly there, and that they're as close as CGI characters will ever come to feeling "real" on screen. They obviously don't quite get there, because as you said there's no real sense of bulk, weight, or dimension. But I was so caught up in how beautiful everything looked that I was willing to go along with the illusion. When Jake began walking for the first time as a Na'vi, I definitely felt the joy and the energy because of the way his big blue face lit up so expressively. He stumbled around, and once he began running fluidly, feeling the dirt between his toes I got sort of giddy. Speaking of feeling giddy, that's the impression I got from the whole aesthetic. It was like Cameron took Pop Rocks, Coca Cola, and LSD before coming up with the designs, and there's a sort of delirious, goofy, ridiculous verve to it all that I found incredibly charming. Yes, the creature designs were silly and nonsensical, but I found that to be pretty charming as well.
Wonderful review though, very incisive and well thought out. The movie certainly isn't the Second Coming that the fanboys are making it out to be; the script is horrible and the acting rarely rises above passable, but I'll go to bat for the visuals any day of the week.
Why does a 10-year-old have a cell phone?
JE: I don't know. Maybe it belonged to his accompanying parent or guardian. But he was checking that screen, instead of the larger one in front of him, too often for (my) comfort.
I totally agree with you respect to the forced planes of focus, and I myself had a hard time for the first 15-20 minutes or so of Avatar. But I would argue that the upside to 3D -- which is a increased sense of verisimilitude on the CGI/live-action mix that has been foisted upon us so much this decade -- is worth it. What I mean is: I found myself buying the reality of the alien life and of the world much more than I ever bought into anything I saw in the Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Star Wars prequels, where I felt like I was watching something more akin to Roger Rabbit. What 3D technology does for me is to blend them together seamlessly, to the extent that I now which that the Lord of the Rings trilogy was made a decade later (although I have other issues with that trilogy that I shouldn't get into here).
I was hoping that Avatar would've resolved the outstanding issues with 3D w/r/t comfort, and it didn't -- 3D directors, I think, need to stop relying on the closest plane of focus too much, which I think is what makes me the dizziest. But the scenes where the plane of focus were in the middle or farther into the screen I think worked best. Remember, this is still a fairly young technology when it comes to its use as a medium and less as a gimmick. I for one am still invested in its success, and I'm not yet convinced that its limitations aren't surmountable.
I also dug the story/characters/dialogue more than I expected, but that for some reason isn't as interesting to talk about.
It embarrasses me to say this (and sorry to revisit a movie that really does not require revisiting), but I enjoyed Transformers 2 far more than Avatar. At least the former was more honest about it was - Avatar seems to what me to think that it has deeper means beyond it's visual palette. The giant robots in transformers had weight, philosophies and personalities (though not necessarily deep ones) while everyone one in Avatar seemed to be so bland and lifeless. Cameron has made some amazing movies, but for some reason the ultimate impression I got with this one was Cameron trying to prove he is a cinematic visionary, instead of telling a rousing story instead.
Because someone brought it up before, I believe Phantom Menace is a far bigger success on almost every level. The Star Wars prequel had characters who were individuals, a plot, themes and established relationships between people. Whether you like it or not, it certainly wasn't a cookie-cutter film, while Avatar certainly is.
Finally, because you mentioned Jim, there was applause at the end of the screening of Avatar I went to, though not as big as the one at TF2. Yet there was none at the screening of Where the Wild Things are, which is my favorite movie of the year, and that was certainly a movie where a fantasy environment and characters came to life.
Hey Jim, I'd like to see you write an entry on "The Limits of Control," as it's been paid precious little attention and I think there's a lot there to be discussed. I've watched the movie three times now and I think I'm onto it...it has something to do with the three miniatures of the same building that pop up in Mr. Murray's office at the end.
Bows and arrows, warpaint... Check.
Warriors riding (alien) horses... Check.
Wes Studi (Geronimo: An American Legend) as an Indian chief... Check.
You are now one of us! Check.
Dances with Smurfs, indeed.
Jim, curious if you caught Coraline earlier this year. The reason I ask is that it remains the most successful use of 3D I've seen for a couple of reasons: first, the fact that it's a stop-motion film allows the artificiality of the 3D experience to work in some perverse way, as if our senses recognize how 'constructed' the environment is, and find the layering more acceptable. Second, as Bordwell argued on his blog, the creators had a really savvy understanding about how visual depth works, and designed the sets with an eye toward subtle visual illusions that allowed the 3D experience to be part of the overall design rather than as a sporadic gimmick/extra layer pasted on top.
Here's Bordwell: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=3789
There's exactly one 'in your face' 3D gag in the movie, but its use is so perfect that I couldn't imagine it any other way. For my money this was the most underrated film of the year.
Hey, I don't know what critics have been smoking, but either there is something seriously wrong with some of them or they are insincere (which is even worse). 3D was stunning indeed, like never before. That's too different things, to see a good 3D picture in front of you, and to think you are inside with everything around looking real and 3D. Cameron did manage to drag me inside of his world. The world was beautiful, diverse, and naturally looking. Acting of the main characters was very good. As for the plot, guys, come on, try to imagine that your mind and memory are blank when you go see a movie, and you'll get much more out of it. Do you compare pictures in museum? I doubt. For me plot was original and involving, some ideas - simply brilliant and engaging. There were two basic desires after the movie: visit Pandora again and tell everybody you know "You must see it!"(in 3D)
True story. Two people walked up and looked at the Mona Lisa. One said 'Its brilliant.' The other said 'I really don't like it.'
I think the same can basically be applied here. The art style is not going to be for everybody. Just as some will find nothing interesting about deep sea footage of the fluorescent plants, others will look at the rocky mountains and see dullness.
What bothers me about your review is how emotionally charged it is. You seem, upset, by an artist painting a picture that was not how you would wish it painted.
You say the scenery looked too perfect. I say the same everytime I drive through Colorado. It looks fake. Always does. If you drive 75 mph, ever notice how fake everything 'looks'? I thought this movie did an excellent job with lighting and what I call 'dirt' (basically a combination of the randomness that occurs in nature and the details of nature that so many people forget exist when designing landscapes) to create a convincing world. To my eyes it was not only beautiful but plausible.
I will agree that too often there was poor use of dialog. I wonder why that occurred. Who pressured who for certain lines.
But damn, I enjoyed this movie experience. As I've posted elsewhere, Dances with Wolves was one of the most amazing movie experiences I had as a kid. Avatar is one of the most amazing movie experiences I've had as an adult.
I wasn't bugged by the world Cameron created and spends oodles of time introducing to the audience (the equivalent in many ways of the obligatory origin-story first two acts of any superhero film) but I do agree that beyond the visual splendor and some impressive acting from Zoe Saldana, this film has some major flaws. Remove the CGI wonder of it all and this is an incredibly flat, incredibly predictable, incredibly corny movie. Cameron may have fucked my eyeballs, but he neglected to engage my brain or heart in the process.
I generally agree with your review. The film was interesting to watch, the 3D was a complete waste of time, and this movie is very overrated.
When will everyone learn to just sit back and enjoy the ride. The "Movie Critic" realm is full of people that love to hear themselves talk and impress their friends and colleagues with their attempts at stringing together big words to sound as if they think on some higher plane of intelligence and analyzation.
The 3d enhances the view of the picture. An argument of "This doesn't look exactly like eyes see in real life" is irrelevant. It's a step in the right direction. New medicines and developments have taken great strides towards curing cancer, are we just going to not use them because it's not the exact cure? No, we work with what we have because it's taking us in the right direction and we are better off with than without.
And the story, while filled with cheesy one liners, did it's job. It had a decent love story and the angle of them being connected to everything in the planet was well done.
I go into a movie hoping it's good, and if something is not done well then I notice and comment on it. This reviewer sounds like the type that goes into the movie determined to find whatever angle he can to impress his friends at the "flaws" he's uncovered.
JE: So, anyone who goes to the movie hoping it's good (because Cameron has consistently delivered in the past), sits back, and doesn't enjoy the ride is lying about it to impress his friends? And actual movie criticism (which is, by definition, about analyzing the experience and exploring how and why something did or did not work for the individual viewer) is therefore irrelevant? You're at the wrong blog, Jason! Better to simply go to the movies and not think or talk or read about them lest you encounter something you haven't already decided upon when you bought your ticket.
I liked the world much better than you did, Jim, even as silly as it was (that photo of the fake bouquet nails it...I was trying to think of the name for those things the entire time I was in the theater).
I actually found myself wishing the movie had just been a tour through the world, hosted by David Attenborough, rather than such a tired and lame story.
JE: I heard Cameron on NPR talking about the detailed world they created, with botanists and zoologists helping to come up with names and ideas for the flora and fauna of Pandora. I think "Avatar" (as its title suggests) will make for a more "immersive" experience as a video game than it does as a movie -- something you can wander around in and discover without the afterthought story and characters cluttering the foreground -- perhaps guided by a virtual David Attenborough! (I thought of him in one scene with a gigantic "flower" that looked like it might be a carnivorous pitcher plant, but wasn't.) It's apparent that much more care, time and energy went into the creation of the world than into the narrative that provided the excuse for entering it.
I am happy to see this view expressed. I posted my review today and though I gave it a 3/5, I was leaning more towards 2.5/5. Visually it deserves credit, but as a movie it falls so short on plot and acting it is laughable.
Jim: I agree with you completely. On the subject of Stephen Lang, I think it would be instructive to compare this performance with his smarter, subtler one in Public Enemies. (Or Sigourney Weaver's performance here and in Aliens II.) And nobody has mentioned Giovanni Ribisi. I started laughing when I realized that Cameron was actually trying to sell him as the baddie. And, then in the end, after all the destruction he's wreaked, he's just another guy in the line? What a bad script. It really is Cameron's Phantom Menace (and the Avatars are slightly upscale cousins of Jar Jar Binks.) About a third of the way through the movie, I realized that I couldn't remember where Pandora was, or its relation to Earth, or why humans had to pretend to look like Avatars, other than the size thing, and what Ribisi wanted to do with the unobtanium and why the earlier accords broke down and why Weaver's school failed. What an awful movie. I halfway wonder if I should be offended at the waste of $200 million on this twaddle. Really, is this what movie technology should be spent on? To see who can come up with the coolest looking floral wallpaper, which is all the Pandora designs struck me as. Star Trek is looking better and better to me.
Also, the destruction of the tree and its clear visual references to 9/11: That sort of irritated me, too.
I have not seen it yet either but I want to thank you for using the Thomas Kinkaid reference as I have long thought most CGI has the "Painting with Light" look to it.
And Larry, you rock as always.
The pun DID work and was pretty funny, which is pretty unusual for a pun.
Ah! Damn good review (ain't they always when they resonate your own thoughts?!). I suffered from an headache hours after I finished seeing the movie. That might have to do with the 3D more so than the movie itself. I experienced the same in having to remove my glasses and just have a normal viewing. But in either case it didn't help the movie from being absolutely sucky.
The plot development is so mechanical without (as you put it) any emotional impact. You can easily sense the movie is in a mess. I am sure the filmmakers themselves felt this at the editing board. They didn't have a strong storyline. The characters are complete cliches when it comes to this particular sub-genre. As you clearly point out, some things happen and the narrator would make convenient explanations.
A note about the visuals. They are stunning and even more so on 3D. But I don't think there is anything to be in awe of. Miyazaki has this area covered and by a long way. I found lot of the visuals similar to the ones we have seen in movies like Princess Mononoke, Nausiccaa, Castle in the Sky and what not.
A complete disappointment for me. And GOD I get annoyed by people claiming this to be an achievement and "movie of the year" shit.
I don't know, I kind of agree with Robbie B., on this one. Whether conscious of it or not, you seem to be antagonistic towards films that build up a lot of hype during their pre-release period, regardless of the acclaim - or lack thereof - that they garner elsewhere. This film, "Precious," "The Dark Knight," "Where the Wild Things Are," and so on, are the films that most quickly come to mind, in this regard.
Maybe it's not intentional, I don't know - but, it's certainly a trend that I've noticed with a lot of your writing, of late.
JE: Oh, you mean like "Brokeback Mountain," "No Country for Old Men," "Borat," "Pan's Labyrinth" -- movies that were winning prizes and/or press hype from being shown at film festivals for months before they were released? As I said in the piece, I remember all the doomsaying speculation about "The Abyss" and "Titanic," so I paid no attention to them. But, again, ascribing made-up motives to a criticism is a way of avoiding engaging with the criticism itself. Let's just talk about "Avatar," not about you or me. It's about the movie.
Saw it in IMAX 3D this afternoon.
Anyone who knows me understands I wasn't particularly looking forward to it, despite Aliens being the first movie I can even remember seeing and loving. I've enjoyed it since childhood and will continue to have respect for Cameron, if for no other reason.
The moments when Avatar was somewhat entertaining (Sully treating the chief as if he's asking his daughter on a date) I wanted the 3D to just go the hell away, because it was so distracting. I agree that it makes it all feel like layers of cardboard cutouts. But when the movie was at it's worst, I admit I was thankful that there was at least some kind of gimmick on screen to draw my attention. The glasses hurt my eyes like a lot of people and I seemed to struggle with the edges of the frame flickering and blurring. At times I think the 3D is all some giant prank to distract us into thinking the effects are better than they really are. I'm positive that if I were to watch this at home I wouldn't buy into a second of it.
I didn't particularly like the design of the Na'vi, but I was more distracted that (child-Na'vi aside), they all seemed to be almost the exact same size and weight, male or female. Something so simple as makings some fat, muscular, short, or pale could have made things so much more interesting. But then again that would have gotten in the way of making them all perfect and saintly ciphers for Cameron's white liberal guilt. Their sameness in the final battle reminded me of the robots in iRobot and how uninteresting it was watching robot after robot jump on Will Smith's car.
Even the negative reviews concede the last battle being outstanding, but I was mostly bored. There was little invention in the action, just lots of winged-creatures grabbing and tossing helicopters or soldiers, then something blows up. Nothing as inspired as when the T-1000 drives the motorcycle through the helicopter in T2, before turning to liquid and pouring into the cockpit. When Sully jumps on the ship, drops in some grenades, and jumps off, all I could think about was the giant beetle scene in Starship Troopers and at least Verhooven gave us some tits and ass to kill time between explosions in that one.
The much ballyhooed Pandora was a letdown as well. Is it just me, or did it seem like there were only 6 or 7 species on the whole planet? When Pandora sicks all of her wrath on the humans at the end, I kept waiting for all sorts of crazy creatures to crawl out of the woodwork and attack. But it was just the same handful of species we'd already been introduced to. Everything seemed mammalian. Where are the insects? Where are the crazy barracuda-like sea monsters? I suppose I would have thought they were all corny looking too, so maybe Cameron was wise to cut his losses.
You make a good point about how Cameron has already done this all before, and better. After the film I was discussing how in Aliens, when the marine's drop-ship crashes in the famous "game-over man!" scene, as the ship tumbles and explodes and breaks apart it all feels real. The characters duck for cover because some serious stuff just went down. In Avatar's climax, when Quaritch's ship goes down, it just sort of plops as he jumps out and scampers off in his equally weightless walking-machine.
Ugh.
I'm reminded of a great Dave Attell line from Dr. Katz: Professional Therapist. He's talking about how he wishes he could enjoy the opera, but every time he goes he just looks out at the stage and thinks:
"Look how much effort it takes to bore me"
You know, it's fine to not like 'Avatar', and a lot of your problems are valid... but, really, if you're going to criticize a film for being too simplistic in the story, you should try to get more of your plot points right.
"How does a man so long accustomed to a wheelchair that his own legs have atrophied feel to be not only suddenly ambulatory but ten feet tall?"
There's a five minute sequence of him running around outside, purely about his loving the fact that he has legs again.
"Why doesn't anybody acknowledge that he now has a four-foot tail that he never had before?"
This is acknowledged repeatedly in that scene, and in another scene when he lies down to try to sleep and tries to find a comfortable spot for his tail.
"but they wear walkie-talkie devices around their necks that enable voice communication while they're flying on their psychedelic pterodactyl creatures"
They don't wear them for the whole movie. They start wearing them immediately after the scene where the helicopter flies the good guys up to where the Na'Vi are. It doesn't take much to assume that the technology was stolen from the humans. I agree it's not explicitly spelled out, but how much more heavily implied could it be?
"(to whom they develop an unspoken telekinetic bond, except that Jake almost always orders his around, out loud, in English)"
Granted this is a "we've got to make it a movie, so they have to say things out loud they wouldn't say" thing, but it is at least explained within the movie (this time explicitly, yes) that the bond is so fresh that he should enunciate the commands. It makes sense that somebody not used to communicating telepathically would need a bridge to do it.
"And if Na'vi warriors are supposed to bond with one, and only one, flying reptile-horse creater for life, how does Jake manage to bond with two of them, including the biggest and baddest one?"
No, you misunderstood; the let's just call them dragons bond with only one Na'Vi for their life. What you're saying wouldn't really make sense -- if you were hunting and your dragon was killed, you'd never get another one? You'd just stop hunting? Doesn't make much sense.
But, also, within what the movie says, they're two completely different species, so even if you hadn't misinterpreted that way, you'd still be wrong that he bonds with two of the same kind of dragon.
"But when the Big Battle comes, their instruments unaccountably work anyway, on the ground and in the air."
I'm not sure what you mean; the navigation instruments don't work, and the aiming on the weapons doesn't work. The stuff has to be done manually, and is always shown being done manually.
"One of the avatar guys, who knew Jake's brother, apparently gets peeved with him in between scenes for reasons we never quite understand"
Another thing that is not entirely explicit but makes perfect sense; let's see, the guy who is the expert on the Na'Vi, who studied for three years to get this assignment, and has made fun of how Jake doesn't know anything, he suddenly gets petulant towards Jake immediately after Jake is embraced by the Na'Vi society and taken among them to train as one of their own. You really had trouble filling in the blanks there? If so, that kind of makes it sound like the movie's storytelling was too subtle for you.
"He's also supposed to be around when Jake is Avatar-ing, but Jake has no relationship with him on Pandora."
... because they won't let that guy into their village, thus he can't be around Jake any more. You do a good job of making these sound like plot holes, as long as somebody hasn't seen the movie itself, in which a large portion of them are explicitly explained.
"A lot of the movie is like that: Things are explained (like the DNA-like inner structure of the all-important Main Tree) that are not actually shown, leaving us to wonder: 1) how do the characters know that?"
They show two botanists using future technology to examine a tree, and then explain what they've found from the scan. What exactly do you want? A lengthy explanation about how future botany technology scans trees? Jesus, that sounds boring.
JE: They show or explain some of these things in dialog (Jake running, the structure of the tree), but that's not what I was complaining about. They don't register emotionally or cinematically.
Hi Jim,
I agree with your assessment of so-called 3D (it really is just shifting various pieces of an image into different planes), but unlike you I didn't find it nauseating or distracting here. I loved the visuals in this movie.
...But that was the only thing I loved in this movie. Horrible, horrible, hackneyed script that pulls out every goddamn cliche in the book. As I told my friends after we watched Avatar tonight, this is really just an update of the early '90s cartoon "Ferngully," with a little "Dances with Wolves" and "The Last Samurai" thrown in. Nothing original about the story or characters whatsoever. We've all seen it a hundred times before.
I've been reading some reviews of the film since getting home tonight, and I must now retract a statement I made in a previous comment on an unrelated post. I cannot take the opinion of critic James Berardinelli seriously anymore, as he has named Avatar the best film of 2009. Really. The best film of 2009. I am at a loss. No way can I support the film criticisms of a man who believes that. No way.
And for that matter, what in the hell is with all the four-star reviews for this film? Were these "critics" not paying attention? Are they so caught up in the visuals of it that paltry matters such as plot, dialogue, and originality are no longer important?
I'm looking at you, Ebert.
Okay, a little thought experiment to illustrate how a film's content can't really be separated from the context in which it's delivered to us. Pretend for a moment, I mean just pretend that James Cameron didn't direct Avatar. In fact, let's pretend that Avatar didn't even come out of the United States. Suppose it were directed by a fellow named Hizo Miyatoza from Japan and all the actors were Japanese. Same dialog, same effects, same everything else. For the sake of argument let's lose the 3D as well since I know it was an impediment for you. Now suppose this was not an event picture. In fact, suppose you discovered it yourself at some hole in the wall film festival. Same exact film basically but for the Japanese cast, and subtitles of course which will allow us to feel worldly and open-minded. I submit to you that Hizo Miyatoza's Avatar would make your top ten list for sure. I don't seem to recall any U.S. critics ripping Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon's obvious dialog and simple story. Why do you suppose that is? To not understand such things is to experience film with a negative bias and not even realize it.
Saw avatar this weekend and was distinctly underwhelmed :p
Went in with mixed expectations - having seen a trailer in 3d earlier, wasn't convinced it was a real tech leap compared with say, Coraline or Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs - but enough reviewers had expressed reservations and come out converted to make me think it was going to surprise me too, but...
- the 3d: some effective depth of field shots, but it seemed like an improvement rather than a game changer from any of the recent 3d movies.
- the motion-capture: a bit more subtle maybe, but the aliens still looked CG. Some (like Roger Ebert) have argued its conquered the Uncanny Valley but that seems fundamentally misguided: that Valley refers to things CG humans looking odd, since we're so attuned to seeing real humans - the Navi are humanoid aliens, so were never going to face an uncanny valley problem in the first place, any more than Jarjar binks.
- the green message: strange that a movie that idealises primitive-connected-to-nature cultures should be made using cutting edge technology. I've no idea what the suggested solution to human encroachment is either, esp for actual indigenous tribes facing extinction from loggers etc - pray to the trees and expect animals to help you fight them off? Miyazaki's "pom poko" dealt with a similar theme in a much wiser way...
ultimately it felt like everyone's been caught up in the hype - the industry has invested so much into it and is so keen to see 3d accepted as the way forward that everyone seems willing to get on the ride. Maybe on Imax 3d it might have been visually more impressive - but i saw Dark Knight without Imax and was still blown away - ultimately story and characters make a movie great, not whether its 3d, or in colour or dobly surround sound (Or if it is about the 3D experience then it needs to be better realised than Avatar was).
The "walkie-talkie devices" used by the Na'vi were human technology, probably brought along by Jake and the scientist team when they escape from their prison.
Just saw it yesterday in 3d, and i'm probably going to go see with some friends in traditional 2d.
Gotta say, i agree with some major points you make. The 3d effect for sure, feels like my eyes are constantly straining to adapt and make up for the view. Kindof jarring to any sort of suspension of disbelief.
As to the story....i was quite dissapointed. every time they revealed a cultural tidbit, or significant event, you could already see where they were going. Kindof ruins the shock value when you've known for 45 minutes that he's gonna jump on the big orange bird.
That said, i actually did enjoy the world. True, its rendered and not particularly real looking. But i think it was best in scenes where it was just there with other events occuring. I actually bought into it at that point.
(And seriously, why is EVERYTHING bioluminescent? Is it the 80s again?)
Jim, your experience with this movie mostly mirrors my own (which actually may be a first - our tastes in movies are clearly fairly different), so I'll stick to a few comments.
Jake's coworker does have a reason for resenting him - he's been training for this mission for years, and Jake just blunders past him into a real relationship with the Smurfcatpeople. So he's sulking until their mutual concern for what's about to happen to them brings them together. Just like Fierce Warrior Guy resents Jake mating with Catwoman but then warms to him later. Both are utterly boilerplate, of course.
I also felt that Jake's discovery of his new working lower anatomy was horribly mishandled. They did show a few consequences of him having a tail though - for a few seconds as he blundered around inside. And never mind the new legs, if I suddenly found myself with a tail I'd be playing with it for hours. A day.
The scene where the mech pulls out a huge Bowie knife was pretty awful, but I was already rolling my eyes. We'd just been shown dozens of those metal suits torn apart by the blue rhinos, but apparently if the guy wearing the mech is macho enough, he can jump out of a plane and land it on its feet without any damage.
The biggie is that I love 3D movies, especially the all CGI ones. Some people have wondered if the problem some people have with it is a matter of having bad eyesight and needing glasses, but I don't think it's that simple. I'm deep in Coke-bottle-lens territory and it works fine for me. It makes me wonder if the way our brains learn to process visual information leaves us actually experiencing very different realities from each other.
I have to admit that as the end credits rolled, I was disappointed that they didn't have someone record a Pandora-ized cover of the Village People's "In The Na'vi".
I feel that Avatar is like a modern Star Wars. It looks very pretty and people might be impressed with the special effects, but it follows the Hero's Journey model too closely without any depth. And like Star Wars, the fans will flesh out the universe, rather than the creator (who should be doing that job instead).
Once I saw that Roger had wet his pants over it, I knew it would be nothing more than a leftist revisionist circle jerk which climaxed in the symbolic murder of Western civilization. I'm surprised you left out any discussion of the film's obvious and dull political dimension, Jim.
Avatar is very like Titanic--it is an utterly unsubtle and hackneyed story enlivened by great visuals. However, in Avatar there is much more to the great visuals than there was in Titanic because it extends not merely to doing what a thousand other films have done and recreating a time gone by, but creates an entirely new time and place out of whole cloth.
Here's the thing: I don't think a film needs to be good at everything a film *can* be good at to be a good film. Avatar's story-telling flaws may be flaws, but they don't affect the things it does well: fantastic production design, fantastic action choreography, fantastic world-building, fantastic effects, etc. Going to this film and expecting anything particularly interesting on a storytelling level would be like going to see a Michael Moore movie expecting him to impartially evaluate a subject. That's just really, really not the point, so why criticize them for it?
I am usually hard to impress, but I really liked the movie. Cameron kept the film tight and entertaing without just loading on action like so many other blockbusters. Ten again I left the theater thinking that if my mood had been different I would have hated the film. Oh, and I kind of like the look of the film, it made me think of Barbarella and Flash Gordon without taking me out of the movie.
Why do some seem so confused as to why Norm was confrontational with the marine? He was warm to Jake at first, but got snippy when the latter was able to go places within the tribe that had previously been denied to the other avatars - as someone who'd logged 540 hours in Avatar mode and had a scientific background to study the aliens, it makes sense that he got sulky when a noob comes along and surpasses him almost fresh out of the gate. Then as Jake is able to share with him information that feeds his scientific curiosity he sees Jake as less of a threat and comes 'round. It made perfect sense to me.
Further, the instrumentation didn't 'suddenly work' - as promised, they couldn't guide their missiles and had to rely on line of sight; which is why it took far longer for then to hit their targets, and why they couldn't simply take down threats with over-the-horizon shooting.
JE: The situation with Norm was indicated but, in my view, not effectively dramatized or developed. As for the instruments: screens aboard the ships and on the ground gave readings (orange blobs) showing the advancing masses of Pandoran resistance fighters and their locations. We'd been told several times those instruments wouldn't be able to provide such maps, and the Sky People would have to eyeball any navigation they did in the area.
James Cameron and the studio backing this film invested huge dollar signs on the visuals of this film, so why so surprised (or disappointed) that they've gambled it on a script that is formulaic and unoriginal, but perfectly adequate for the mainstream? Look at it this way, had they invested in anything as intelligent/dull & divisive as 2001, ticket sales will surely tank by the 2nd week.
Sigh.
Jim, must you take one beloved super-popular, critically acclaimed movie a year, and play contrarian with it?
I will be avoiding all (and I expect many, if Dark Knight was any indication) future Avatar posts on your blog. And I'm not a fan, I haven't seen it yet. But it seems kind of obvious what this is. It's an annual thing with you, but it's only one movie a year, so we forgive you.
JE: The comment above was supposed to be in Sarcastica, right? You can't talk about the movie (because you haven't seen it and therefore can't address anything I wrote about it) so you project your own "obvious" feelings onto me? 'Cause, oh yeah, I forgot: I'm not supposed to use my own eyes and brain and write what I really see and think. The proper way to practice movie criticism is to check out what others are saying first and then regurgitate that. D'oh! And you wonder why people think movie criticism is irrelevant except for the quote whores...
Anyone who knocks the FX in Avatar needs to check the doctor recommended dosage on their meds because something's out of whack here. I take that back actually. The digital creation of the Na'vi impressed you so much that it garnered a small part of a much longer sentence from you. Where's the balance, Jim, or are you just digitally spoiled?
I'm reminded of an old mass-media concept called Cheat the Prophet. Cheat the Prophet is where you tell a bunch of people that something involving them is inevitable, which unconsciously awakens the need to not be predictable, so they do the opposite in order to cheat the prophet.
I was willing to view Avatar as a benignly stupid story driven by a new kind of visual experience. But I became so sad and angry at the casual use of the 9/11 metaphor that I wanted to walk out and if I was a better man I would have. There is no way to bring an emotional redemption once you go there and it failed so, so miserably.
I appreciate your honest review. Thanks for the forum.
I don't think there was a single sentence in this review that I didn't agree with, or that didn't reflect my own thoughts. You hit upon pretty much every problem I had with this movie, including its inferiority to every other Cameron movie. I'm also a big fan of The Abyss (the long version of that film is, to my mind, just about the perfect sci-fi-action-romance movie), and watching this movie just made me want to revisit that one, so I could remember a time when Cameron knew how to write and direct a movie.
And yeah, the 3D is distracting and annoying, and entirely useless. I really wish I had seen it in 2D. I think I would have liked it more, or at least disliked it less.
Um... I was trying to figure out why I liked the visuals so much and you answered my question! Roger Dean... of course! I wonder if he even worked on the film in some way.
Personally I don't see the need for 3-D it was an effect I didn't notice while watching the film so it wasn't obtrusive but when I removed my glasses I didn't feel any more or less emotional power without it.
As for the story... well it's Al Gore's version of Star Wars. The film did exactly what I expected it to do. Set up the problem and then pay it off with an improbable fight scene and all while having over-the-top acting. Mand that general of whatever reminded of every villian from a bad 80s action film, it was so great! I just kept thinking of the Ewoks defeating the Empire. And a few other films and films lines came into my head watching the film, but sadly I can't remember them. I mention it only because it had thinking of these other better films.
So in the end I think I liked it as junk food it is bad for you but tastes oh so good. However, in the long run of my life I'll probably be rewatching Star Wars more than Avatar.
Spoilers follow. I am writing this on the West Coast after just having come back from a screening. I, while watching the film, did notice the stock characters and the unbelievably cliched dialogue. Yet I don't think any of it was an accident or a failure on Cameron's part. I think he deliberately made the script generic and made the characters into types. Just like he did with Titanic. Not that old Hollywood was banal, but I think the guy is purposely harking back to the old fashioned spectacle. He doesn't put subversion or wit into his movies and I think he really couldn't do irony. What he's good at is the grand, emotional, broad moment.
Yes, we have seen these dominant invaders go native stories a million times before, but I was still moved by the destruction and by hundreds of stop motion blue people swaying and chanting to their god. I think Cameron is a technological humanist, a romantic of metal and hardware. He goes for the big emotional jugular. Titanic had lines straight out of the writer's cliche handbook, but damned if I didn't cry at the end. With Avatar, (spoiler ahead) I was glad to see the destructive aliens leave(by the way, the whole thing read as an allegory about the Iraq war to me) and I was glad that old fashioned Hollywood escapism that does have a heart, no matter how worn out it may be, is still around in the theatres.
Hi Jim,
Enjoy your posts. Been reading for a few years now. Would like to respond quickly.
Forgive me for inferring a little bit, but I think that your experience with fumbling with the 3D glasses and also not processing the 3D image as seemingly intended ruined your overall moviegoing experience right from the beginning.
I agree that 3D in general does seem to look cardboard-y (for lack of a better word) but I felt Avatar used the 3D effect in ways that hid its major weaknesses. There were few foreground 3D shots that would enhance the cardboard effect (I can only think of two, the drop of sweat and some fronds). There was also zero shots of objects flying at your eyes. By shying away from these overt shots, in my experience, the movie became ultra-immersive to the point that I had forgotten I was watching a 3D movie.
But to go back to my point. I've read there are some people that cannot process 3D effects. Perhaps you are one of them. I feel like you were handling and thinking about the glasses so much you were unable to give yourself to the story and the world.
As evidence, it seems you missed some key points in the movie that have been pointed out by previous comments:
1. Walkie-Talkie - took from humans
2. Flying the dragons - only verbal at first
3. Other dude angry at Jake - jealous but began to appreciate his scientific importance
The walkie-talkie complaint was easy to miss, and I would have not pointed it out if you didn't make a point of it in your article. However, the learning to fly sequence (the most amazing section of the movie) had 15-20 minutes dedicated to it (to the point where it felt documentary-like). To miss this crucial point shows me that you were not willing to pay attention.
Also, to add to the one flyer per dragon lifetime concept. This is just me inferring, but I took that more as a ceremonial, culturally traditional narratives that society's make. It is not technically true but makes the rituals and ceremonies richer.
Finally, reading the other comments. You say, in response to another commenter that it was clear that much more care was taken to create the world (to the point that you thought of Attenborough narrating a documentary) and you wished it was a video game so you can walk around and explore. I agree! But this comment does not seem consistent with your main review in which you called the creatures silly, random and not making evolutionary sense.
As you can see. Loved the movie. The story was not original by any means. But it was told well and with more imagination and visual splendour than ever before.
Would love to hear your response.
JE: They show or explain some of these things in dialog (Jake running, the structure of the tree), but that's not what I was complaining about. They don't register emotionally or cinematically.
Kit: I disagree, and I'll try to be very specific: when Sully runs outside for the first time as an avatar, there's a shot of him "embracing" and feeling the ground with his new feet. It's poignant, it's efficient, and to me, it definitely registers both emotionally and cinematically.
JE: How does a man so long accustomed to a wheelchair that his own legs have atrophied feel to be not only suddenly ambulatory but ten feet tall?
Kit: It almost feels like we've been watching to different movies. To me, this is present in pretty much every scene, though never specifically adressed. While I was underwhelmed with Worthington in Terminator, I think his acting here is pretty brilliant, obviously helped by a director who has a purpose and thought with every actor's performance (even though they sometimes are deliberately hammy). Consider the contrast between real life-Sully and avatar-Sully. The avatar is so much more vibrant, alive, curious and expressive than the real life counterpart. What more could you need to know exactly how it feels "to be not only suddenly ambulatory but ten feet tall"?
Cameron is hardly the subtlest of directors, but that doesn't mean he's entirely incapable of it.
Merry Christmas!
Tremendous critique of "Avatar", Jim- though I admit that I couldn't read the whole thing because, speaking as a fan of the film, I didn't want to adopt those complicated quibbles you had with it. Since my experience was enormously pleasing, I'd rather keep it pure. Especially if I end up seeing the film again... and I'm tempted to!
I don't really think the fanboys are doing "Avatar" any justice, however, by claiming that you're not supposed to care about the film's story. I think Cameron is fully aware that he's being conventional here; I said this on Ebert's blog as well, but this is basically his retelling of the Pocohontas story. Speaking of which, I could compare "Avatar" to Malick's "The New World". I don't remember the last time a modern film made me love a foreign culture so much.
But back to the plot. Remember back when Jonathan Rosenbaum reviewed "Titanic" and wrote about how "the lack of cynicism in the film is refreshing"? I feel the same way about "Avatar". Cameron lets his imagination run loose here. He's telling the truth about himself as a classical John Ford-type filmmaker with big, fluffy dreams. By the end, I knew that I was buying into his whole technique because I was actually beginning to care about those Na'vi people.
What I also admire about the film is that Cameron combines his craft with an original screenplay written by himself. John Huston and Samuel Fuller used to do that, too- they had wonderous visions, but they were also bold enough to write their own scripts no matter how ludicrous they may have looked on paper. That's why I'm so fond of writer/directors. They love their job. Oliver Stone did that a lot as well, although he seems to have given up on writing. I suppose that's why I'm glad we have Cameron around.
Hi just wanted to comment on a few things that you referred to as minor annoyances here.
1. Have you seen the movie in 2d yet to compare it to the 3D version? I ask this because I went to see the 3d and I thought the world itself and the blue fur race looked quite believable in comparison to some other 3D movies I've seen. I'm not a huge fan of 3D in reference to some of your own opinions about 3D which i agree with, but it came as advertised so I tried it out myself.
2. Walkie Talkies, used by humans throughout the movie and it showed in the scenes that the mobile site as well helicopters in the movie would have those in supply. As far as the aliens go, they had 3 of them between Worthington, the Son of the tribe chief and Jake's girlfriend/mate. I think that in itself is sufficient proof or at least enough to make us acknowledge that those aren't alien made items.
3. Reference to bonding with different birds, I'd assume is the same as when the hunters can bond with both the alien horses as well as other animals it would seem. Simply because the giant red bird in itself is another species, that it wouldn't break the code of having only one flying bird. I also recall the movie (alien girl) saying that it was the bird that bonded with one hunter through its life, not the other way around. The ability of the aliens to bond with other animals should support this conclusion.
4. Genitals, well nobody said they were humans so it is very likely (and presumed I'd imagine to keep it a good general audience viewing rating) that they have different types of genitalia than us. Remember that they are an alien race and much of their bodies show different biological properties to that of a human. We need got to see an xray scan of an entire alien body so I think it should be acceptable to assume that they figured out how to mate without having to show us why their genitals did not stick out in their lioncloths.
5. Navigational Instruments and Human Weapons. I loved the tribute that Cameron made to his famous motion trackers from aliens including how the radar wave moved outwards to create a blob effect. That being said, in today's technology military weapons are not completely reliant on computers. Missiles that target using heat signatures and lasers would logically be immune to the electromagnetic flux that causes problems in their radar but not affecting other parts of the helicopters (obviously as seen in the movie). Both of these would make sense as to why they could still operate their missiles as well as fly through the area. If you need further explanation you should refer to how heat seeking missiles and laser guided missiles/bombs work as I can't give you that kind of in-depth explanation here.
5. Jake in a wheelchair. You mentioned how he was able to walk and run with relatively little ease after having his legs decay from little use. You should also recall then that in the movie they mention early on that its only been 2 months since he lost the use of his legs. I believe it was the colonel whom said that in fact. 2 months, would be amazingly long to not have legs but I do believe it is suffice to say that his reaction wouldn't be like that of someone that grew an extra pair of legs over night. It would also be assumed that it was like "riding a bike after X years" type theory. Something like walking which he did for most of his life would not likely be forgotten within 2 months.
6. Tails. Also to the effect of above, the tails of the aliens are quite small and lithe, not something that an animal would use to balance themselves with. See an animal like the kangaroo or even dinosaurs and geckos whom have large and long tails in proportion to their bodies to use for balancing. As I believe it would've been something of a useless scene to watch him play with his tail, I think its better off left that way and go along with the movie's assumption that it is in fact just a minor part to their biology that perhaps isn't used much anymore (like our wisdom teeth).
I would like to hear your responses to my comments :D
Thanks for your time.
I had had the same problems with this movie.
Pandora is supposed to be a planet full of life, a vast living organism, yet the movie doesn't show almost anything of it. Apart from the billions of uninteresting trees there are some other lifeforms, yes, but we see maybe ten for the whole ecosystem. I know that you can't show everything but I never had the feeling that there is more. And when they show us something, they make a big spectacle out of it, you don't see it, you know, just live. Ironically that makes Avatar more of a theme park experience then Jurassic Park for me. There the world just worked.
And the animals are just silly and you can always see that this is just hybrid of this and that real animal/sea creature...where is the fantasy? Cameron has a technology that allows you to create virtually anything and he creates Earth jungle spun 10% towards the glossy direction. That was the biggest problem for me- I was just bored, there was nothing new and interresting for me. Take ten minutes of any decent nature documentary and you get more thrill of exploration and amazement of how wonderful world/nature can be then from whole Avatar.
Other things:
Yes, the Avatar technology is the most interesting and amazing thing in Avatar/ on Pandora and I'd like to see a hard sci-fi prequel dealing with that (how does being in a body of a different species affects your personality/thinking/perception and what if it's a REALLY different species etc.).
Avatar has a really unsatisfying opened ending- the threat is only postponed and increased (if humans realy need unobtainium, the next logical step would be their return and orbital bombardment of Pandora) and there was no real lasting impact of any of the evil deeds either so what was all the fuss about?
It takes a promise of interesting inter-species love relationship and makes it a silly unromantic romance. And it doesn't add complexity that Na'vi are just these sexy blue (cat?)humans.
The gaia/Eywa concept is made so literal that it hurts. How do we show that everything is connected? Oh yes, we make things literally connect. Well I guess that first graders will find it more comprehensible but I'll rather enjoy the wonder of how everything is conneceted on Earth eventhough it's not directly connected at all.
Everything in Avatar is primitive so it's accessible to anyone but unlike for example Wall-E it takes itself so damn seriously that it's unbearable.
And last thing- if someone wants to make us feel for someone it would be a good thing to make them interesting and complex enough, Avatar ironically made me very glad that I am part of our civilization and would prefer destroyed Earth over Pandora any time.
Can anyone say Fern Gully the Last Rain Forest. If you haven't seen it, watch it, Avatar nailed that movie down to the tee. Weak story and characters. I really didn't feel a connection towards this movie. There's no substance like I would've like to have. You can call it Avatar: The Last Rain Forest.
The comment above was supposed to be in Sarcastica, right? You can't talk about the movie (because you haven't seen it and therefore can't address anything I wrote about it) so you project your own "obvious" feelings onto me? 'Cause, oh yeah, I forgot: I'm not supposed to use my own eyes and brain and write what I really see and think. The proper way to practice movie criticism is to check out what others are saying first and then regurgitate that. D'oh! And you wonder why people think movie criticism is irrelevant except for the quote whores...
It's not so much a complaint about your writing what you really see and think (and I apologize for implying it is, which constituted a shot at your integrity as a critic), as about the amount of writing you end up doing about certain films. Now in the cases of certain films you LOVE and write about an awful lot, we can say that your writing so much about them has nothing to do with what anyone else is writing about them. You think they're great movies, and you need not explain why you write about them so much - they're great, that's why.
But a movie like Avatar (and I confess I am making a prediction here, I foresee more posts about it) or The Dark Knight, you post about it a lot, and are highly critical of it. You do not like it, you do not think it is great. But you also almost certainly don't think it is one of the worst films of the year, or so bad as to be notable for its badness.
So what's going on there?
You're responding to other people's reactions to the film, rather than to the film itself. And I say again, this doesn't mean what you write isn't sincere or true, just that, in how MUCH of it you write, you show what I suspect are your real reasons for writing it. Why not give such attention to any other movie you feel isn't a success? It just seems disingenuous to go on attacking these movies endlessly and defending it by saying you're just being honest. You are, but you're being dishonest in that you're expending so much energy on these few movies. It's peculiar. Who CARES what the culture and the critics say? As a critic, that oughtn't to let that sweep you up (and again just to clarify for the third time, I am not claiming it affects your OPINION of the film, just the number of times and ways you state the opinion), you should simply criticize films apart from their box office or cultural success, so far as possible. When you do otherwise, as in such cases, you end up falling prey, in your own weird way, to the same blockbuster mentality as everyone else. If you don't like it, say it, say it thoroughly, but don't say it any more than you'd say you didn't like any other film you didn't like as much as you didn't like this film. Don't feel you have to respond endlessly to meet the assault of a popular and critical success.
This is our concern, Dude.
JE: It was the "contrarian" insult that pissed me off -- as if everything I had written was simply an attempt to find things to say that were in opposition to whatever the more popular sentiments were. I devoted a whole week of posts ("Contrarian Week") and a blog-a-thon to demonstrating the differences between Armond White and real criticism that solidly represents a minority view. But don't worry about more "Avatar" posts, because I said just about everything I have to say about it in the 2,700 words I published in the original post. I will say this about "TDK" -- part of what drove me to write about that movie was its enormous popularity and the lack of critical attention being brought to it. For some reason (maybe having to do with Heath Ledger's tragic death), many critics gave that movie a free pass, regurgitating its thematic dialog in their reviews without taking a closer look at what the movie was actually doing, moment by moment. But, no, I don't think "TDK" or "Avatar" are anywhere close to being the "worst" films around. There's much to admire in both. For the reasons I outlined, I also don't find them (personally) very satisfying, and I'd like to hear from those who do about why they think so. I'm particularly disappointed in "Avatar" because I've thought highly of other Cameron movies -- particularly the "Terminator" movies, "Aliens" and "The Abyss."
I liked your review, it was pretty well thought out and accurate in a lot of ways but...
This movie came across as having an INTENTIONALLY one dimensional plotline. Sure, the setting and situation we were given in this movie could easily have supported some pretty deep themes but the movie's refusal to do so was blatantly obvious and upfront from the get go. After just a few minutes of familiar pacing and characters it was easy for me to suspend any literary criticism inclinations I might have had and proceed to just enjoy the predictable movie that unfolded.
The story was one we've all seen a million times but this time it was done well enough that I left the theatre entertained and feeling a pleasant mix of familiar emotions. Was this movie forgettable, yes. Was this a bad movie, NO, in fact it was as good a movie as it could be without being great.
If you look at this movie through a positive lens its not hard to say "I liked the movie because, even though it was a familiar 'feel bad, feel good, feel bad, then feel good' plot formula that asked no questions, it was the BEST and MOST predictably trite movie I've seen all year."
What I say is that its ok to stick with something paper thin that we've all seen before as long its done well.
While I suppose your criticisms of the visuals are fair enough, they're just the same problems people have had with CGI for twenty years. And after twenty years...well, I think you owe it to yourself as a viewer to either get over it or just stop bothering with effects-heavy movies. CGI produces a certain unreality. So does every other effect around, they all have their own signature hokinesses. You either accept the jerkiness of stop-motion as part of its charm, or you don't bother with Harryhausen movies.
I don't know about you, but as a filmgoer, unreality is part of what I pay for.
(haven't seen this movie yet, by the way; I may yet come away from it with an opinion much like yours)
I saw it in 2D and found it generally watchable despite the hamfisted allegory. The forest and the floating rocks were worth seeing. Looking back, one thing I found annoying was how closely the core conflict reflected the sort of naive environmentalist religion we teach third-graders in public school - the notion that environmental conflicts are all-or-nothing wars between pristine untouched nature (favored by "good" people) and strip-mined wasteland (favored by "bad" people) with no opportunity for any sort of intermediate compromise and no legitimate argument to be made for making careful use of available resources.
It might have helped had a better case been made as to why hometree needed to be brought down. That there are resources *under* the tree doesn't answer to this. In real life here on earth when some area is oil-rich but also, say, a nesting grounds for some rare species, we slant-drill. Come in from the side underground, avoiding the need to disturb the surface. It seems unlikely the movie's equivalent of the Army Core of Engineers couldn't drill a small subway tunnel through there sufficient to get a fair fraction of the unobtanium out safely.
I may have to come to the defense of TheFilmist here. We certainly need to keep discussion about motive to a minimum, and attack by ad hominem is never OK, but it can still be part of a rational discourse to politely point out trends in a person's conclusions. Even die-hard rationalits usually start with our conclusion then craft our arguments to fit it. We all need to occasionally examine our motives to keep from losing our edge.
JE: OK, so forget the 2,700 words I wrote about the movie. I'm just Armond White and don't know it, I guess.
"JE: They show or explain some of these things in dialog (Jake running, the structure of the tree), but that's not what I was complaining about. They don't register emotionally or cinematically."
You wanted it to register emotionally that the NaVi were using stolen technology from the humans? That the dragons were two different species? I'm confused, because virtually every thing that I responded to, you were criticizing the movie on a factual basis -- it doesn't include this information / this scene -- not an opinion basis -- I didn't enjoy the way those things were handled.
JE: Again, I said I thought this was was minor stuff (compared to the emotional short-shrift I think the movie gives to Jake's experience in his new body). Still don't understand how Jake was able to "bond" with another species of flying dragon creature -- when his own was still alive. Would he have been able to "bond" with those hammerhead peacock dinosaurs, too? (Never mind -- rhetorical question and I'm sure it's all explained in the manual for how everything works on Pandora.) Again, thank you for the things you were able to explain -- some of them I was also able to intuit, but didn't actually see worked out in the movie.
In fact, you literally say something happens "for reasons we don't understand", but I just explained the reason and now you're trying to fall back on "Oh, no, I just meant it didn't register cinematically."
I repeat, your nitpicking makes it sound as if the movie has plotholes, as long as you haven't seen the movie to see how obviously every point you're saying isn't there is made.
JE: I don't want to get into a nitpicking contest (but those supposedly non-working instruments DO show where the advancing Na'vi forces are, and there's no explanation of how/why Jake should be able to "bond" with that big flying dragon -- especially if it is of another species). As I said, these were "relatively minor" details I was thinking about during the movie because I wasn't finding it very engaging. Thank you for your explanations of some of them.
JE: OK, so forget the 2,700 words I wrote about the movie. I'm just Armond White and don't know it, I guess.
I'm not forgetting them, I think you make a very strong argument. I'm not even saying I agree with TheFilmist. I'm just saying that pointing out a high degree of correlation between hype and negative opinion in your reviews need not be rejected out of hand as a personal attack.
And I don't recall calling anyone Armond White Mr. Straw Man Argument :)
JE: OK, I guess I shouldn't take it personally when my arguments are called "contrarian." Ahem. But I don't accept the "hype" argument simply because it's anecdotal and incomplete. As I posted earlier, I also loved widely popular movies that received lots of hype (and some even wound up winning Oscars -- how much more mainstream hype can a movie get?): "NCFOM," "The Hurt Locker," "Brokeback Mountain," "Inglourious Basterds," "Pineapple Express," "Superbad," "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," "Watchmen," "Pan's Labyrinth"... not to mention the positive reviews I've given to Cameron from the start of his career: "Terminator," "Aliens," "Terminator 2," "The Abyss"... Anybody who really thinks I dislike a movie because it's popular has a very limited frame of reference for the last two, 10, 20, 30 years...
I just wanted to comment on the walkie-talkies you mentioned. When watching the movie, these walkie-talkies were never introduced, until they brought the link station thing up into the floating mountains.
I thought that the humans had some of the walkie-talkies left over and gave them to the most important Na'vi (his girlfriend, her brother, ect.). The army guys are seen talking on the same walkie-talkies. If I'm wrong I'll gladly correct myself here, but I'm thinking those walkie-talkies came from the humans and the Na'vi didn't have them all along. If that's right your article should probably be updated to reflect that.
JE: I'm sure you're correct -- it just struck me as incongruous that they were flying on dragons and using bows and arrows while suddenly using walkie-talkies. Was there any other human technology the Na'vi were taught to use? I don't recall.
Jim, your arguments remind me a bit of the old "vinyl-vs-CD" or "analog-vs-digital" arguments of the 80s. I understand where you're coming from but the river is rushing past you and there is no sense in hanging onto the branch for too long.
Yes, 'Avatar' has a recycled story and many, many scenes will be eerily familiar to those who watched earlier Cameron movies, especially Aliens, but that is not the point of this movie. It is, quite objectively, a major breakthrough in the areas of 3D and CGI.
I had no problems whatsoever with eye strain, watching this movie in IMAX 3D. I quickly adjusted to the focus issue as well and my eyes would then simply follow the focused screen area.
The imagery of this movie (at least in IMAX 3D) was absolutely unbelievable. It's simply a major achievement. Do you truly understand what it takes to create any of the various imaginary animals in this movie with this level of texturing and fluid animation?
Give credit where credit is due.
JE: I'm saying the technology is not there yet -- for all the reasons I describe. It may be a leap forward, but the 3D isn't any better than what you can see through a 1939 View Master. More important, the technology hasn't been applied to a compelling narrative film (even the movie's biggest fans don't see much going on at the level of story, character or script), and I find the world of Pandora to be pure kitsch -- not an original conception but a tacky re-hash of (as I said) Roger Dean, Thomas Kincaid, Rainbow Brite and effects Cameron has already developed more persuasively in "The Abyss." I know a lot of technology has been developed for "Avatar" (because we've all been hearing about it for years), but I don't think it's resulted in a very impressive piece of moviemaking. Still, as I said, I really like the design of the Na'vi, even though they still don't have the proper feeling of weight and bulk when in motion. That's another CGI problem that still hasn't been licked.
Paul: "The comment above was supposed to be in Sarcastica, right? You can't talk about the movie (because you haven't seen it and therefore can't address anything I wrote about it) so you project your own "obvious" feelings onto me? 'Cause, oh yeah, I forgot: I'm not supposed to use my own eyes and brain and write what I really see and think. The proper way to practice movie criticism is to check out what others are saying first and then regurgitate that. D'oh! And you wonder why people think movie criticism is irrelevant except for the quote whores..."
Hey Paulie, Ah dur! I've seen the movie that's why I'm commenting. Why comment on something before you even see it, its pretty obvious. I've read the entire forum. I didn't think I needed to quote anyone because everything I agree with has already been said. It was a small addition to whats already posted. If you want to sit here and be a little nit picky pompous let me quote you:
"Jim, must you take one beloved super-popular, critically acclaimed movie a year, and play contrarian with it? I will be avoiding all (and I expect many, if Dark Knight was any indication) future Avatar posts on your blog."
So Paulie tell me why are you still on this forum posting?
On the bonding with the flying thing:
The rule was one pteranadon, one rider--not necessarily one rider, one pteranadon. They certainly picked a single one to use, in general, out of loyalty, but they made a point that the creature "mated" for life. Clearly the Na'vi could still use horses, so why not another species of flying thing?
I had no problem with the IMAX 3D, and I also have a glasses prescription that scares people. I thought the SFX was great, but the real problem was that there really was no compelling story to tie it all together. I thought that there were a couple of sequences that really took off in IMAX 3D, particularly the sequence where 'Our Hero' captures the flying lizard (the first one!) but the 3D effect was really pretty distracting in other scenes like the military control bunker.
The overwhelming problem for me was that the film was emotionally flat. I compare it to Cameron's earlier pictures like his Terminator movies or "Aliens", and this picture just didn't draw me in like Cameron's earlier films did. Worse yet, elements from Cameron's earlier pictures seemed to crop up in "Lite" versions in "Avatar". The Commanding Officer in "Avatar" could very easily be swapped with Michael Biehn's identical character in The Abyss, and Giovanni Ribisi was playing the same character Paul Reiser was in "Aliens" just with a lot less lines and charisma.
So I feel a bit stand-offish, when everybody else is raving about the new girl in town. Nothing about the film pulled me in enough to recommend it. I can't blame that on the animation, because I can still remember being totally knocked off my feet by Disney's "Beauty and The Beast", so I would have to say it's Avatar's script. With nearly three hours, it's unconscionable that Cameron couldn't make me care about these characters.
Will this have a great impact on filmmaking? I would guess so; I think (god help us all) the next Transformers movie will probably be in IMAX 3D. But I really can't say this is one of the best movies I've ever seen, or even better than once of the best James Cameron movies.
I saw Avatar today and although it is pretty and has some cool tech (I dig that AMP suit) I agree with much of your assessment Jim. One thing that sticks in my mind is something you wrote about The Dark Knight, it doesn't linger on anything long enough. I was entertained but sometimes that isn't enough. I liked the Jake Sully character but I wished the villains and their motivations were fleshed out more, Col. Quaritch should and could have more screen time. Giovanni Ribisi's character should have too. I also think establishing why the humans need the Unobtainium would have added more edge to the conflict. I don't know if I'm right but I think these things are important details when making these kinds of complex fantasy/sci-fi epics.
Re: Genitals and Loincloths
If the genitals aren't in that location, then why wear loincloths? Why did the females have obvious breasts? Are they mammals? Why the humanoid appearance at all? Why didn't they all look like bugs or slugs? (Remember when the "female" alien reveals her true, squidlike form to Tony Shalhoub in "Galaxy Quest"? He still likes her enough to "do her", but I'm sure the genitalia wasn't a perfect match...)
The more I analyze this movie in my mind, the more disappointed I am.
JE: James Cameron addressed some of this in a Playboy interview: "Right from the beginning I said, ‘She's got to have tits,' even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals." http://j.mp/8EaKw2
I'm all for experiencing this world in the third dimension if the characters and plot are not stuck in the first. That was not the case with "Avatar".
The first paragraphs of your column have "bias" written all over it, which made reading the rest of it unnecessary.
You announce that this Cameron film is a near "total failure" - right...and that's based on...what? your credentials as a movie director? writer?
Obviously he gave more weight to the technical aspect in this project than the story, but he did so in "Titanic" But what he did in Titanic and what he's attempting to do here is create something audiences haven't seen before - like The Terminator, the creature in The Abyss or the T-1000. Are you telling me that you would rather sit through another "Transformers" clunker (cash for clunkers, anyone...?) than "Avatar?"
Movies that successfully merge great visuals with great stories are indeed rare, but to label a film as a "failure" just because it doesn't match YOUR vision makes no sense, to me at least.
Alien life on Pandora: On the one hand, I was disappointed with the numerous earth-referencing aliens: the alien horses, alien lemurs, alien rhinoceroses, dogs, panthers, and such. On the other hand, I appreciated the alien twists on these species: nostrils on their chests, four forearms, and the bioluminescence of the plant life. The closer we look at Pandora's life, the more alien it becomes in the details. We can clearly see a distinct evolutionary history in Pandora's life forms' shared traits.
Uncanny Valley: Doesn't apply to this movie at all, which was one of my disappointments with it. I wanted to see human beings move seamlessly between CGI and live action, but Cameron wisely avoided attempting this. The Navi are aliens, like LOTR's Gollumn, they are sufficiently non-human to avoid creeping us out. Failing to attempt CGI humans makes the film significantly less revolutionary to my mind.
Clichéd Storyline: Yes, the movie is "Dances With Wolves in space," but that's a good thing. It would have been foolishness to try out some experimental storyline with a $250 million budget. George Lucas demonstrated that with The Phantom Menace, a film that avoided all conventional plot devices in a sophomoric attempt at innovative storytelling to become the all-time epic fail of moviemaking.
Deux ex Machina: I believe this is a reference to the "Earth Mother" joining the fight at the film's climax, as if the hand of god were coming down to thwart the antagonists; however, as a good bit of science fiction, we know that the planet is a living network, with all of its species connected through hubs, similar to several plant species on Earth. Yes, it's a type of god, but a god with a scientific explanation. "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial civilization is indistinguishable from god." If there's a scientific explanation, then it's not the hand of god coming down at the end.
Environmentalist Philosophy: I am bothered by the film's hypocrisy of communicating a message of environmentalism and romanticizing a return to a more primitive time through a $250 million dollar artificial medium produced by a farm of energy-ravenous networked computer systems. I am also disappointed with the film's resolution, where the primitives win and the technologically-advanced civilization is sent back to its planet to die. Environmentalism is not a zero-sum game, and a more thoughtful story would have come up with a more sophisticated solution where both sides could have won. This film has an important environmental message; however, it is a useless message for our modern world. If all 6.9 billion of us on Earth gave up our technology and tried to live off the land, we would destroy our planet even more quickly and mostly starve away as a result. In this respect, Avatar is pure pseudo-environmentalist escapism, while the true environmentalists are out building solar, geothermal, and wind power stations to transition our civilization to a less environmentally-impactful lifestyle.
"Yes, the movie is "Dances With Wolves in space," but that's a good thing. It would have been foolishness to try out some experimental storyline with a $250 million budget. George Lucas demonstrated that with The Phantom Menace, a film that avoided all conventional plot devices in a sophomoric attempt at innovative storytelling to become the all-time epic fail of moviemaking."
So Avatar is a good movie because it's familiar and conventional, while The Phantom Menace is a bad movie because it's new and unconventional? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. When did writing a new story become "experimental"?
JE: I'd like somebody to develop that argument, though, just to see where it leads... It's a shame some people are reviewing the budget rather than just looking at what's on the screen (or not). But I can't really blame anybody for doing so: Cameron and the studio promoted "Avatar" as a revolutionary breakthrough, so it's being received on those terms: Does it live up to the promises or not?
I'm a bit taken aback by some of the support for Avatar here. With Dark Knight, I could see it, since some people have been fans of Batman for their whole lives and might see criticism of a Batman movie as a personal attack on them (the Batman movies that are socially acceptable to like, I mean, not the one with George Clooney or Val Kilmer, which are the worst things ever created).
But what has Avatar done to inspire people to lash out at anyone who criticizes it? Very weird.
So Avatar is a good movie because it's familiar and conventional, while The Phantom Menace is a bad movie because it's new and unconventional? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. When did writing a new story become "experimental"?
I'll bite. TPM is a bad movie exactly for being unconventional. By unconventional, I mean George Lucas' story included three to four protagonists competing for the spotlight, characters so formal and regal only a fanboy could love them, a plot the requires a political wonk to decipher it, and an overly-dazzling ending that tried to tie together four different action plot lines. These are all unconventional in the context of your average American action-theater fare, and they all detracted from what should have been an otherwise enjoyable film. Most people cared less about these failings because the film drowned us in, at the time, revolutionary special effects, but now, with those effects no longer being dazzling, people can see how truly awful TPM was.
Mind you, many of these same attributes have added up to some great filmmaking. Consider David Lynch's Dune, a sci-fi epic both politically-heavy and filled with formal, regal characters. I and many of my friends consider Dune a fantastic film, but in cinematic history it is considered a spectacular flop. It was unconventional, it was awesome, but it had no mass appeal. What if Cameron had spent his revolutionary CGI effects on remaking such a film?
Now consider Star Wars, which was out and out space opera, knights and maidens in space. Was its story new? Innovative? No. It was a standard, cut-and-paste plotline--but also one with a proven track record. It's movie making history because it had revolutionary special effects and a soundtrack to present that canned plot in a superiorly entertaining fashion.
Mind you, I'm not saying that it's a good thing that directors can't make awesomely-budgeted experimental films, but it's naive to pretend they have a non-professional-harakiri choice in the matter. James Cameron made a wise choice in hijacking Dances With Wolves, a plotline with proven mass-appeal, as the vehicle for showcasing his special effects innovations. Avatar may not survive and be revered by fanboys the way Star Wars has over the decades, but by playing it safe in his storytelling, Cameron gives his film much better odds towards that end.
On the Avatar v. Phantom Menace argument...
I can see an argument that says Avatar's conventional story is a good thing *if* you accept that the purpose of the film is not to tell a story, per se, but to introduce us to the world the film-makers have created. That is to say, if our focus is really intended to be on the visuals and the (extremely detailed and largely well-thought-out) speculative scientific details, then a less conventional storyline might've distracted us from that. Of course, one could then argue the *explosions* do the same thing...
The better, but related, argument might be that the story is really only a small part of the point of this movie--behind visuals and world-building and ideas and explosions--and so it's a much better risk to go with a conventional story that will stay out of the way than to go for a unconventional story that might elevate the film further, but also might just flop and totally undercut all the wonderful things you're doing in the other areas.
Either way, I wish the film had had a better story--I just don't think the mediocrity of the story makes it a mediocre film.
If Lawrence of Arabia is the gold standard of the storyline where a colonialist 'goes native' then certainly a side by side comparison of these two films highlights all that is so woefully bad about Avatar. Not the least of which is the heavy-handed, cliche-ridden musical score which even plays along with Cameron's simplistic anti-Iraq War message via a sort of Islamic prayer call sequence.
The film's biggest shortcoming is that it doesn't give us any reason to care. The Navi aren't real. They are politically correct, hyper-idealized beings who were living in lotusland, Garden of Eden until the humans came along. By comparison, the Arabs that Lawrence deals with are real, believeable, and flawed. And so in them we can see ourselves and identify with them. Lawrence too is flawed and torn between two worlds, not just in the early part of the film but all the way through.
Avatar's villain on the other hand is so totally flawed he can't be believed either, more a caricature of a villain than an actual one. Give him at least an ounce of humanity, or the sense of humor of a Bond villain. Or the existentialist philosophical musings of the Joker in the Dark Knight.
My problem watching Avatar was that in the conflict between the Navi and the Marines, I wasn't rooting for either side. And so the battle was just a bunch of moving objects.
Bob K --
Here's the thing, think about the millions of hours that went into Avatar, all the different convolving collaborations, the endless discussions and planning, the dizzying manipulation of technology, and it's all basically a gift to you. Now you may like it, you may not, but it's still a gift, no? Jim's article, in my opinion, is not grounded in a respect for cinema and the artists who create it for us. Thomas Kincaid, Thai fiber optic flora, Rainbow Brite? Cheap shots I feel. Jim would rather make amusing, self-congratulatory connections (a real disservice to the aspirations of the filmmakers) than treat the material professionally. I believe Frank Lloyd Wright said it best -- "We all see as we are, and every time we express an idea we give ourselves away." Yes, Rainbow Brite, indeed.
I think Jim and others are overreacting because the film is being so highly touted. I saw it tonight, didn't love it, but liked it a lot and was satisfied with that. Frankly I don't care if some people are too zealous and want to overrate it, as with the LOTR films, time has the way of rendering the correct verdict.
I think the film's entire purpose was to leave the viewer with a feeling. A story to match the technique, about entering a different plane of existence. David Edelstein pointed out that it compliments the Matrix of the last decade neatly.
Complaining about the story and characters I'd agree, makes as much sense as lodging similar complaints against Toy Story. As Ryan pointed out, the Dances With Wolves formula is an effective one. It works, no apology necessary. And as Spielberg said about the making of Minority Report: in order to make the audience pay attention to a complicated plot in a science fiction film, you have to make the viewer take the sci-fi setting for granted. Obviously that's not what Cameron wanted, so the reverse principle applied.
@Bob K
I think it has to do with Avatar being this year's event film. Everyone will see it, and most will think it's the best thing since sliced bread, because everybody saw it. It becomes a mixture of circular logic and group-think homogeny. And if there's one thing people engaged in group-think don't tolerate, it's dissenters. They need to beat down the objector so they can be secure again that they're right because everyone agrees with them.
@Brad's response to Bob K
Too ridiculous for a detailed rebuttal. Avatar is not a gift, it is $10.50 a seat.
@everyone
I'm finally going to the IMAX this afternoon. Afraid this thread did not dissuade me. I'm in it for the pretty pictures. Hope it's worth it.
Ryan: "By unconventional, I mean George Lucas' story included three to four protagonists competing for the spotlight, characters so formal and regal only a fanboy could love them, a plot the requires a political wonk to decipher it, and an overly-dazzling ending that tried to tie together four different action plot lines."
I don't think that makes it unconventional (and may I point out that the ending of Return of the Jedi had the same structure? And I'm wondering how anyone can think the plot is difficult to decipher). Sloppily written, maybe, but there's nothing unconventional about that.
As for Avatar, I can see your point (although I see Stephen's point better), but I still don't think the familiar plot is doing the movie any favors, at least from an artistic standpoint (from a financial standpoint? Who knows?).
Brad: generally, you don't have to pay $15 to receive a "gift." And I would hope that anyone who would give me such a gift would have better taste.
Robert Fuller, Brian K --
Art has gift status. To not understand this is to fail to grasp it's essence, which exists independent of whatever capitalist trappings it emerged from. Are Rothko's color fields and Pollock's drip work gifts? I think so too, but you will have to pay a fee to view them.
Brad:
Well, if you're saying that all art is a gift, then yeah, sure, whatever. But then why even make that point about this particular movie, when you can make the same claim about any creative achievement? You make it sound like we should be thankful it was made simply because a lot of money and effort were put into it, regardless of whether it's any good or not. That, to me, sounds like a lack of respect for artists.
Robert --
Art is subjective. It has gift status when the artist offers it in that spirit or when the viewer experiences it in that spirit. I don't know, do you think James Cameron spent the last five years of his life trying to separate you from your fifteen bucks, or do you think he wanted to share something with you? And Jim stated that Cameron has a proven track record with him, so I think he owed him better. Have you ever heard Ebert say that a film isn't just what it's about, it's how it's about it? The same holds true for film reviews in my opinion. I just thought Jim was needlessly flippant. Could you imagine him giving a similar treatment to one of Altman's lesser films? And if you're rolling your eyes at the Altman/Cameron comparison you might want to scroll up to Jim's Kubrick mention.
Hey, just wanted to mention that there are two of us commenting under the name Brad here: I'm the one who talked about Coraline's 3D effects above, not the one who thinks that Avatar is a gift.
Other Brad: I'm sorry, but I had to laugh out loud at your critique of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon's "obvious dialog and simple story". Since most of the movie concerns an unspoken set of alliances and rivalries that the viewer has to intuit from body language and dialogue filtered through some severe repression, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Which part of that is obvious? The central relationship exists in some uncomfortable and unresolved grey area between mother-daughter love and romantic rivalry. Which part of that is simple? Did we watch the same movie?
I love Star Wars, but it has killed us as far as smart sci-fi. Easy stories of good and evil constantly trying to reference its own kitsch. This film, Avatar, was particularly egregious because a thoughtless, didactic message was so tossed onto exactly the same formula as if to say, “I’ve got some social conscience, too! Look mommy, look!”
I believe that genre fiction has an important place in our society in that it allows us frameworks within which we can talk about things that A) Are uncomfortable to us, or B) Need a fresh perspective. This is why the original Star Trek is really magnificent. From our 21st century lens its takes on racism and religion and war seem almost trite, but back then that was hard stuff to get into a prime time viewing slot. It was serious. People were dying and non-whites were being beaten and denied a living. This is why the new Star Trek movie is fun, but sad. It just references its own franchise and nothing greater.
But now, to make a film, with no new insight, about the persecution... Ok, let's call it a holocaust because it certainly out kills the capital "H" Holocaust... of this country's Native Americans is not changing anyone's thoughts on anything. If you can FIND someone who thinks that the massacre that took us all the way to the Pacific Ocean is a good thing, I'd like to meet them. I'd punch them in the mouth. But I doubt you can.
Also, if you can find anyone that thinks that putting them in the Twin Towers is an insight, I'd punch them in the throat, too. Because that's shameful.
So then we're left at, was it fun?
No. It really wasn't It was dull, dull, dull. The air fight at the end was kind of cool and started to resemble the pre-T2 Cameron, but even it couldn't be ended without a Deus-Ex-Elephant.
What an insane waste of time, money, talent and energy.
And by talent, I don’t mean James Cameron.
Brad --
You're pulling on an open drawer. I agree with much of what you say. I think you're kinda making my point for me. Just as meaty dialog can be rooted in simple ideas,( many of Woody Allen's characters come to mind )obvious dialog can be rooted in more complex ones. I'm suggesting something similar is at work in Avatar, where a sort of utilitarian approach to dialog keeps with the genre's demands, while at the same time nicely offsetting the big ideas (issues of personal identity, spiritual awakening, global consciousness, etc.) at work.
If another guy named Brad chimed in, that would be pretty cool . . .
Oh, my. There's so much here already. So I'm going to focus on two really minor insignificant moments in the film one that really spoke to me as being exceptional writing and one that I couldn't have cared less about, but because you brought it up as a minor problem, Jim, I'll address it.
First the minor gripe I could care less about. You mention evolution and that the film takes no pains to deal with that concept in the film. I chuckled at that because it's fantasy, so I didn't really care. Then I noticed something. The dragon like things they fly on. Notice how they blend into their environment. The ones that hang on the cliff sides, blend in perfectly to their surroundings, the creatures they ride in the grass plains, blend in perfectly to their surroundings. The only flying creature that doesn't blend in is the big bad ass red one who has no natural predators. A bit of evolution for you mixed into the whole shabang. So, there was some thought put into this. (Also, the story the Princess tells about the only other person who managed to grapple with one of those big ass red ones addresses the idea that you can only have one dragon and still fly the big ass red one...and when they bring this up initially they are only referring to that specific type of dragon they can only meld with...not the big ass red one which has a completely different name.)
Now, to all you who think this was just hackneyed writing and there was no thought put into it. I point to a moment near the end of the film after Jake has just mated with his Princess (of Mars, da-dum!). She wakes up and is being confronted by a big menacing yellow construction thingie. She tries to wake Jake up, but he won't move. The first thing that popped into my head as a writer was, oh, great, how's Cameron going to get Jake back into his Avatar in time without it seeming really forced and retarded. We cut to Jake quickly eating his breakfast, NOT because he's aware that the big yellow construction thingie is moving ever closer, but because he wants to be with his hot Princess as soon as possible because the night before was probably one of the most brilliant experiences he's ever felt. It was a really grounded and human moment among all of the running around and falling trees. There were a lot of those moments for me throughout the film. All of which say to me, Cameron could have sat down and created a nice introspective, intense, gritty, deliberately paced hardcore action film like "Aliens", in which the drama was so overwhelmingly potent etc etc.... He said in Entertainment Weekly I think (whether he's right or wrong in assuming this) he wanted to create a story that everyone could enjoy, because he wants it to live beyond just this film. So, he opened it up to be available to everyone. There are missteps in the film - none which bothered me. For me it was like watching a puppy play with a bulldog. A little awkward, surprisingly entertaining, with very tender moments and includes a healthy dose of wonder towards the unknown as it discovers itself. I guess he felt like you have to sell a puppy before you can bring the bulldog.
JE: Sure, it's fantasy -- and offers a meticulously detailed fantasy world, created with the help of biologists, botanists, even ethnomusicologists. The plants and animals have common and Latin names. Because, after all, it's largely about scientists studying a fantasy world (Pandora), and the movie (first of a projected trilogy) is supplemented by a 224-page "Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora" (available from Amazon and elsewhere). If it works for you, great. As for me, I was underwhelmed. I think it shows a lot of work, a lot of attention to detail, a lot of technological accomplishment, and not as much imagination as I expect from Cameron -- from the look/feel/design of the world itself, to the CGI, to the use of 3D (and the damn glasses). Worst, though, was his reliance on things he'd already done before in "T2," "Aliens," "The Abyss." But, heck, just because I was bummed by the experience, that shouldn't spoil anybody else's fun!
I agree with the analysis in your article, Jim (especially your comments about 3D), and I'd even go one further. "Avatar," to me, violates the most important rule of cinema, which is honesty. Nothing about it - neither the blandly "exotic" visuals, nor the obvious allegorical message it forcefeeds us - struck me as the product of a sincere and honest artist. The message in particular (as Ryan Somma has astutely noted) is so one-dimensional, so utterly un-Socratic in the way it extols mindless environmentalism and vilifies the military... I was revolted.
And Sigourney Weaver's talk about the "network of life" centered around the trees or Eywa or whatever... that has to be the worst bit of pseudo-technical/spiritual dialogue since Liam Neeson explained midi-chlorians in "The Phantom Menace."
I've been kind of disappointed with the "pro-Avatar" comments so far. Visuals aside, can somebody explain to me how the script is not a derivative (at best) piece of crap?
I guess what I'm saying is, now that this one is a hit, Cameron has the opportunity to break away from the recognizable even more. To make the bulldog like movie! Like the "Harry Potter" films. The first two I thought were just bad films; enjoyable to a point, but they were puppies. They were made really well, but weren't exciting, probably the same sort of thing that you're reacting to with "Avatar" (and many others are), but once they realized the brand was going to stay (and in this case, the 3D technology actually makes money) they brought on directors and tweaked stories to make them a little more daring. I think this success will allow Cameron to do what you were hoping for with this first film. Try new and different things as far as story goes. Not just rely on the known, which he obviously was doing, which "Star Wars" did and many other big budget potential series tend to do. "The Matrix" is the big budget film in recent years that had the guts to step away from the what was known as far as story, but was still in many ways a well known story that it made reference to, "Alice in Wonderland".
In all honesty, I'd love to see the book "A Voyage to Arcturus" by David Lindsay done with this technology. If you haven't read that, take a gander. Incredibly written sci-fi that not a lot of people know about. Difficult to get a hold of, but there should be copies on-line somewhere.
Heh, though it does sound like you're getting tired of the conversation. I wanted to take a little time to work through my thoughts before posting some specifics as requested.
Have a Good New Year! Keep up the good work!
I had just came back from watching "Avatar" in IMAX 3D, having had the opportunity to watch it with convenience on vacation in Florida.
I enjoyed it, but it hit every note the same way. Writing this, the first thing that came into my mind is that "Avatar" was like a cover of a song you know well by another individual--a competent one, that you could listen to again and again, but one that doesn't really improve or detract from the original piece.
So while I enjoyed the colors and CGI/motion-capture of this world James Cameron created, I knew every note and crescendo, and was hardly--indeed, I don't think ever--surprised. Even the so-called "money shots", wide shots showing off the lush and rich world of Pandora, weren't entirely exciting because of their familiarity. At least Cameron could put out a movie that is competently made, for the most part, in spite of how stale its ingredients were.
@Phillip Kelly: I certainly hope Cameron shoots for the moon in the future. The momentum of these movies will surely fade fast, and I will no longer want to watch them anymore, no matter how beautiful or competently made they are.
It's not a very imaginative script, but there's some things this reviewer simply won't give a chance. The tech's temper with Jake is obvious, he's disgusted that an unexperienced marine is meeting with more success and privilege than the highly-trained scientists. And the joy of entering the Avatar body is implicit with the scene of running and making joyous use of his legs. If this movie spelled out half of the things this reviewer complains about there'd be nothing left to the imagination.
Boy, have I enjoyed reading this review and these posts. My fiancee and I just saw "Avatar" yesterday, and while she loved it on every level, I felt the same as Jim: big spectacle let down by small story and characters. To me, good science fiction has to be more about ideas than spectacle, and "Avatar" was simply devoid of ideas. And much of it was just stupid: every time someone mentioned "The Flux Vortex," I laughed to myself and thought, "Why not just call it 'The Place Where Everything Gets F***ked Up?'" In the end, I have to wonder if James Cameron was as hooked on the early sixties TV series "The Outer Limits" as I was, because he was successfully sued over "The Terminator" for its similarities to the Outer Limits episode "Soldier," and, strangely, "Avatar" has some uncanny similarities to the Outer Limits episode "Chameleon."
Warning: minor spoilers, but Jim's request means I must refute with specifics. :)
Jim, I wear prescription glasses (am VERY nearsighted) and had no issue with either wearing the glasses (I think ours were called "Real 3D"? area north of Memphis, TN) or with the visuals. James Cameron did not overuse the 3-D in my opinion, if I noticed something it added to the story or my sense of wonder (I especially liked the little dandelion-like spirits that attached to Jake, which are what spared him an early death).
You say to dispense with the characters, dialogue, and plot, but why? As has been pointed out I'm sure both here and definitely on Ebert's blog, the plot is very universal and, once going, probably not too hard to anticipate (though I felt the destruction of the Home Tree was painful enough for all involved that it might have been the movie's end). I concede that the supporting character who was peeved with Jake, was not developed well enough; I think it's purely that he was jealous that he had done years of study of the language, etc., but Jake was the "chosen one". However, many points in the movie had true emotion for me, whether the destruction of the tree, fear at Jake's initial encounter in the woods and almost being devoured, and the attempted "resurrection" of Grace.
The visuals were outstanding to me, and it's too bad your 3D hurt or something, because to me the images (especially in the air) had such DEPTH, so many little details that I look forward to a repeat viewing. The battles were enhanced with the 3D, not hurt by it, and the initiation of choosing his own "steed" had some amazing flight sequences. Was the "every step you take, things light up" a bit cheesy? Sure, but it makes sense if you believe the whole "the planet is a network and tied together" theory.
Overall, I was swept up in the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. I am glad at least you did not attack the Nav'i themselves in terms of visual design or the whole "Uncanny Valley" premise, because I certainly saw emotion and feeling in them as in any human character.
JE: Thanks for that. I'm glad the movie -- and the 3D -- worked for you. My point about story and character was, as I said, that not even the film's biggest boosters thought it had much to offer in those departments. I've read some who say they think Cameron was trying to strip them down and make them as universal as possible, because the film was really intended as a showcase for technology and he didn't want anything else to get in the way. Personally, I think Cameron is smarter than that. The more engaging the story and characters, the more you are drawn into the film's world, and the more willing you will be to forgive any technical lapses. I just found the world of Pandora itself alienating because it was so close to "realistic" that the gap between fantasy and reality became distracting for met. Obviously, many others had no problem with it. I thought the Na'vi (and their big eyeballs) were the most compelling sights of all, though. I wish I could have found the rest of their world as convincing.
Film makers can't wait for the technology to be perfect. Many of the complaints about CGI realism are so constraining when talking about essentially visual tricks. Let's take the painter Velazquez, whose paintings MAKE realism from obviously abstract brush strokes. The tricks of visual perception are paramount in understanding the paintings. The abstractness of the material, oil paint and how beautifully it is applied to the flat surface to suggest, and the word suggest is important, become an essential part of the appeal of the work. Phenomenology of film should be beyond talk about realism that is almost universally constraining. Once CGI realism has been mastered, what's the point? Already, nearly every film you see is so narrow from every point of view it prevents ANY movement forward.
I partially agree with Jim. I saw the digital 3D version of Avatar yesterday. Although I liked it more than Jim, I felt watching Avatar on digital 3D was a painful process. I had to remove my 3D glasses a few times during the course of the movie as well. But at the same time, I had caught a 20 minute IMAX 3D version of the movie in Los Angeles as part of Avatar's marketing. I enjoyed every minute of it. To cite an example
The Thanator chase scene in the begining was:-
edge of the seat, Jaw dropping stuff on IMAX 3D,
a good chase scene on regular 2D (I saw the clip on the internet)
difficult to watch and decipher (despite watching it twice before) on digital 3D.
Though many of your points are completely valid (I have a long long list of issues I have with the film, though I did love it in spite of these issues), I think you may benefit from seeing it in IMAX 3D. The first time I saw the film, I found the effects flat and listless at points. Specifically, I'm very interested in the paragraph you wrote about the shot of the CGI space ship early on. The first time I saw the film, I was thinking, "Oh, another standard space ship shot. That doesn't look real." Upon seeing it in IMAX 3D, the size and power of the ship overwhelmed me. I think many of the folks who hate the movie may not have seen it in IMAX, as with those who downloaded Paranormal Activity and then complained it was no good (though I disliked that movie as well, despite seeing it the way it was "meant to be seen" in theaters).
Great review though. The issues with character and story are completely valid in my eyes (I share most of your views), yet somehow the film reached me on an emotional level that allows me to forgive it of it's flaws. It's also very pretty (mostly when seen in IMAX).
Okay, now I've seen it. And I have to say Jim, the one sentence from your article that stuck with me during my viewing:
"Even Michelle Rodriguez's (minor) tough-chick stock-character is a mere shadow of Jennette Goldstein's in "Aliens.""
I couldn't help but notice this, because this is the first movie I've seen with Michelle Rodriguez where she isn't scowling all the way through. Actually, she's smiling for most of her screen time - there might not be much to her character, but she seems cheerful, like she loves flying, and that somewhere in there she has a moral centre. (just how she manages to avoid getting into a world of trouble for her dereliction of duty in the big scene at the big tree, who knows) I don't know much about her by the end of the movie, but she seems like a pleasant person.
Jennette Goldstein's Vasquez was herself a full-time scowler, with a couple of gruff macho one-liners and a completely unsmiling sense of humour about her own androgyny, but she has such a brutal demeanour that I can't imagine anybody other than the few men as hardened as she is enjoying her company.
I really don't see how the two are similar at all. They are *nothing* alike.
Unless, of course, all Latina military chicks look the same to you or something.
JE: The extent of my comparison was entirely in my description of their roles as "tough-chick stock-character." I wasn't aware Goldstein had any Latina background! I kind of liked Rodriguez in the movie, too (got sick of her fast on "LOST"), but she didn't have much of a part to play.
I adored the movie... and was not at all distracted by the 3D, in fact, I never wanted to leave it all.
Most of the "incorrect" pieces of observations you've mentioned have been addressed already, such as walkie talkies, dragons, etc, etc.
But I'm really tired of the whole Dances with Wolves plot-stealing theory. The scenario is the same, basically, but playing with scenarios is simply human. People go through the same situations in different times and places. If AVATAR was stolen from Dances With Wolves, then Dances With Wolves was stolen from Pocahontas, and Pocahontas from Romeo and Juliet.
And how many times has the vampire fallen for the human? Lestat, Angel, Edward... I mean, come on.
Themes, scenarios, and situations can and should be played with.
People don't ask me my opinion on movies any more because I'm almost universally disappointed that Hollywood can't follow through on their big ideas and promises. And I'm harsh. Real harsh. I see action and sci-fi films for the escapism and I admit to having a bad attitude about movies because the magic of moviegoing is mostly gone for me. There's almost always something that violates the fourth wall (if it was ever established to begin with). In other words: no escaping for me.
These days I just go and watch and do my best to enjoy the story/visuals. And that is really hard with movies that advertise groundbreaking CG stuff like LOTR and the Star Wars prequels - my reviews of those movies were 10 to the 12th times harsher than Mr. Emerson's above exceptionally harsh review of Avatar. LOTR was a particular disappointment and I curse Peter Jackson's name every morning when I wake up for ruining Tolkien's Middle Earth with those horribly transparent cgi flyovers. Okay, maybe I did that for a week after seeing LOTR.
However, for some reason Avatar struck a chord with me. I hadn't seen much in the way of hype because I just don't follow Cameron's career or much movie news, so I went in without many preconceived notions. I did, however, hear warnings of Dances with Smurfs. And who has been able to bridge the Uncanny Valley? Nobody so far. But after seeing Neytiri's face before she almost skewers Jake with an arrow, I was in a bit of shock. Was that done on a computer? I asked under my breath. The rest of the movie zipped by in a heartbeat, cornball dialogue and utterly tird and predictable plot noticed but ignored for the most part. I don't care what anybody else says, Cameron nailed the mo-cap in the main characters' Na'vi faces. Some of the other characters, maybe not perfect. But pretty good. Good enough that I was able to maintain my suspension of disbelief throughout almost the entire movie. And the love story carried everything else, weak as it was. I lament Hollywood's inability to tell a story in a new way, but that's what non-corporate indie films are for, right?
Like I said, I went in with an empty cup and came out going "holy s**t." Imagine seeing this movie as a 7 year old like I was when I saw the original Star Wars in 1977. Plenty of cornball dialogue and classic plot in a George Lucas joint, too. But pure magic and a defining moment in movie history, Star Wars.
Whether a person hates Avatar or loves it, Cameron's new mo-cap technology will change movies for the better (imagine the Matrix sequels redone with it). It's the new benchmark. He's really spanned the Uncanny Valley in my opinion.
I didn't love Jim's review of it, however. But to each their own. Clever pop culture references notwithstanding, I found it overly harsh and therefore hard to read. I was googling discussions about the movie and the uncanny valley when I found this. I typically dismiss such universally negative critiques as much as I do completely gushing reviews that praise every aspect of it so it wouldn't have kept me away from the theater.
Besides, it's just a movie, made by people, watched by other people. We're not splitting atoms here.
Go in expecting to be disappointed (and who can blame a person for that these days) and it will happen. Leave the preconceived notions at home and just enjoy the ride. It really is a movie event, flaws aside, and worth seeing either in 2D or 3D (I've seen it in both and didn't see much difference for most of the movie – ashes and embers and tree seeds were the highlights).
I think my biggest issue with the film was knowing I was watching a live action/animation film along the lines of Song Of the South and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. This made it difficult for me to get emotional when Cameron wanted me to. If somehow the technology of effects, had made the Na'vi look like they were even in the same dimension as the humans, (maybe same film?) I think I could have suspended disbelief enough.
In Dances With Wolves, a white guy is accepted by Native Americans; people different in race and culture. Here we have a white guy accepted by cartoons. Yes he becomes a cartoon himself, but showing the "real" actors with the Nabi seemed like something Cameron was doing his best to avoid. When the two do merge at the end, I just could not think anything other than "well look at the animation with that live actor."
Now I know it’s NOT exactly animation. But it sure looks like it. As much as I was impressed with many of the visuals, I was half expecting Bob Hoskins to show up and yell at a rabbit.
In retrospect, a lot of the dialogue was quite kitsch-y, it's almost as if the plot was arbritarily thrown together, in order to make a semi-plausible vehicle for the 3D technology. I know this, when in the middle of the movie, i'm rewriting and re-editing the plot and dialogue in my head. it's a little distracting to say the least. but as for the visuals, while the Roger Dean paintings you posted, bear an uncanny resemblance, and while one can not rule them out as being the inspiration behind the movie's visuals... one can not deny the fact, that the movie is for most, at least, a novel visual experience. no movie in IMAX 3D prior to this had prepared me for the onslaught i was about to face. I held my breath when the first floating mountains came into view, and only when poked by my wife sitting next to me, did i remember to breathe again. And it gets me thinking... has cinema really progressed so much, that it's no longer enjoyable to be enthralled by the fantastic and visually captivating? do we not long to be enchanted by fantasy, and the unreal. I for one, go to the cinema for a brief escape from reality, sitting in the dark, for 120 minutes..or more. That is my den, my safe haven. The last thing i want in there is stark realism and to be fair, with the imagination explosion in the last 100 years, i don't expect anyone to come up with absolutely unadulterated original visions. Everything is, understandably, based on or inspired by something else. remakes are abundant, revamps are indiscriminate, comics have become the new ready-made storyboards, and in that vein, Avatar, while not the ultimate in movie escapism, does more than a pretty decent job. It reminds me of the Lumiere Brothers' "L'arrivée d'un train à La Ciotat" (1896), a one shot film of a train, which caused a panic in the audience when first premiered, as they thought the train was ACTUALLY coming towards them at full steam, as they stumbled over each other to head for the nearest theatre exit. Now that's what i go to the movies for, to feel the thrill... not exactly the fear of a sudden impending doom, that's going too far, but a thrill. James Cameron thrilled me for a little over 2 hours, and it was well worth the admission ticket.
Just a few issues with your article. 1. I thought it was quite obvious Jake had given the communications tech to the Na'vi and showed them how to use it. 2. When Jake was learning how to fly, Neytiri said that if he would give instructions out loud at first, it would help him get the hang of communicating telepathically. He did stop it by the end of the film. 3. Couldn't you tell Jake's colleague Norm Spellman (Joel Moore) was jealous the Na'vi had chosen Jarhead Jake over him? A little respect for the actors please. 4. Everyone knows the story is an oldie but a goodie. Don't you think it's a story that each generation needs to be re-told? 5. Sorry you got sick from the 3D but don't ticket sales tell you that it's a bit more interesting than a postcard? Some people I know who saw it got sick or totally missed the effect, but I love the fact that it's getting people back into the cinema. I did agree with some of your points but overall I was pretty surprised by your reaction. I myself have seen Avatar twice, and paid for both experiences though I didn't have to. I think my only advice to you would be to see it in 2D and pay attention this time.
My disappointment with the 3D and the way Cameron was using it were indeed distracting, so that could well have been part of my confusion. As for the other details, as I said I thought the were minor indications of chopped footage and/or sloppy storytelling. I could guess what might have happened, but the movie didn't include the information. 1) When do we first see these neckband communicators, or the bow-and-arrow-wielding Na'vi being introduced to them? 2) My impression was that he was telling his flying dragon what do do, out loud, even the last time we see them together. Perhaps I misremembered. 3) Yes, I could tell how Norm was feeling -- but not why. He barely exists as a character (particularly as an avatar on Pandora), so I wondered why the movie was even bothering with him. 4) Nothing wrong with re-interpreting myths, but I don't think "Avatar" integrates mythological elements thoroughly enough to re-tell or re-interpret them with any depth or respect. 5) I said the flat-plane look we're familiar with from stereoscopic technologies like ViewMasters and 3D postcards is basically the same as what we get from these old polarized-lens glasses that were a fad in the 1980s (nobody remembers 1983's "Jaws 3-D"? 1981's "Comin' at Ya"?). I don't find the new system a significant aesthetic advance.
Hey thanks for the reply. I know you get a lot of comments so I'm grateful you thought what I said was worth replying to. Here I go, be gentle with me. 1) The communicators are used in the first scene when the human avatars enter Pandora's wilderness. Jake Sully brought that communication to the Na'vi in order to give them an advantage over the humans during the final battle. 2) He did sometimes and he didn't. Neytiri definitely explains it though, when he's learning with the horse-creature. 3) I agree that Norm was an under-used character but I think Cameron was just trying to round-out the team. I agree he and Rodriguez's character were significantly(and sadly) weaker than they should have been. Perhaps he didn't want to just copy the character from Aliens but did it the wrong way. 4) Agree to disagree. 5) See 4. I don't think everyone had to love Avatar, I just think you were a tad harsh, but that's just my opinion. I think with Avatar you need a strong sense of child-like wonder to appreciate it. The ability to revert. I'm not saying you don't have that, but it's stronger in some than others. Again, thanks for replying.
If I see the movie again, I'll look for those things. Thanks. Again, I can't speak for Atkinson (who was obviously fed-up with the hype about "Avatar"), but "infantile" and "childlike" are not necessarily synonymous. I think what he's saying is that "Avatar" fails to offer a sense of child-like wonder -- just bright colors. Read his piece on "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" and you'll see that he appreciates child-like wonder when he sees it. We're just not all transported (or reverted) by the same things. I find that childlike sense of awe and delight in "CE3K" and "Excalibur" and "The Abyss," for example, but not in "The Phantom Menace" or "Avatar" -- in "E.T." but not in "Mac and Me."
Hi Jim. Here is my thoughts.
Avatar had me from the opening shot, and I have rarely been more awed by a movie. My primary pleasure in movies is the visual aspect, and my jaw was hanging on the ground all the way to the end.
While agreeing with you that the characterization needed work, this was not an issue while watching the movie, but rather something I realised after the fact. I was just too caught up with it all to start analysing.
The only similiar experience I have had was when I went to see Jurassic Park all those years ago (The first time I ever visited a cinema, in fact). Avatar made me feel like that little boy again, not sure how I can possibly be seeing this. No movie has done that to mein a long time.
To me, the special effects did not look fake at all, except for a moment's shock whenever humans and na'vi appear together on the screen (I was completely jarred by the size difference). In fact, I had an argument with my girlfriend over this. She insisted the na'vi was human actors with make-up, and the size difference was due to camera trickery, the way they made the hobbits small in LOTR. i had to show her
As for the 3d, I really, really loved it. I think seeing it in 2d will be such a waste. The irony here is, I have avoided 3d movies completely until Avatar, simply because you and Roger Ebert had scared me off them.
I had even wanted to see Avatar in 2d, and was mildly miffed when the cinema only had a 3d screen. But what a revelation! Maybe this has more to do with the fact that it was the first 3d film I saw, or maybe just Cameron's skill in utilising the new tech. I can totally see your point though, and I am prepared to be disappointed with future 3d attempts.
Another irony. I never thought The Dark Knight was good, and I admit: I took great pleasure in seeing the fanboys froth at the mouth when you dissed that film. So imagine my suprise when I find you didn't like Avatar. My first gut reaction was to fire off a furious tirade in which I would tell you exactly how you suck, and why. How DARE you have a different opinion about something I loved?
Luckily the Xmas holidays intervened, and I am much cooled off now, thank you.
In closing, while respecting your take on the film, and even agreeing with some of your statements, I am sad that you did not experience the movie the same way I did. You would've been blown away.
Holey!
I understand not liking the movie, but you make it sound terrible! As box office numbers indicate, (and the golden globes winner of best picture)you seem to be the minority.
I have to admit being a bit shell shocked the first time around (IMAX may have been sensory overload), upon a second viewing (and a third, by the way)I picked up plot details that I missed the first viewing (nudge. nudge. Such as where the comm. collars came from, the details on creature bonding, etc.)that really turned the story around for me.
As for your opinion on the effects and 3D - C'MON!!!! I don't know what you were looking for, and I hate to preach to a skeptic, but you are looking at the future of cinematic storytelling! FAN-FREAKING-TASTIC is my take.
The 3D was AMAZING! You cannot compare this 3D to anything that has come before - definitely not Viewmasters!!You should - maybe get your eyes checked?(seriously)
Anyways - while not perfect, you cannot deny the direction that the technology is headed - the 3D is getting better all the time, and you have to admit that the motion capture is the best money can buy. Someday, maybe you will be satisfied with modern special effects - or would you rather prefer stop-motion?
Thanks for treading my rant.
*but you are looking at the future of cinematic storytelling! *
C'mon 2012! Please wipe us all out!
One of those paintings was also used for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_and_Them:_Symphonic_Pink_Floyd
In general I would say the FX of Avatar failed to stun me for many of the same reasons you gave in your analysis. The thing that stood out for me was the movement of all the animated creatures and how much motion capture produces exactly the same weightless floaty effect that early animators struggled with when applying rotoscoping their animations. A problem solved almost a century ago by the Disney team and other great animators, exactly because they realized that motion and body language is what telling a story is all about. It seems to my eye that the art of animation has effectively devolved right back to it's origins and is trying to hide this fact by impressing us with all the details they drape on everything.
I like to see movies in 3D, I am feel cool with 3D actually. 2D is also good. but I prefer to 3D more.
So I'm a little behind the ball on seeing this movie, and I saw it in 2D so I have no true opinion on the 3D, but I will comment on the story, visual design, special effects and everything else.
Firstly I thought the movie did a good job drawing you into its world and introducing some of the key details that would play into the exciting climax. With that said though, most of those details were silly, and the movie took far too long to get to that climax. Of one of the many silly details that I could just not get over was the name of the "element x" the "sky people" were after. Unobtanium? Really? A name that silly is just consistent with the tone of the movie.
Mostly I found the Pandora a creatively designed and relatively interesting world to look at, although at times things looked fake and cartoonish.
I found the movie's story to be engrossing. Doing just enough to draw me into the action and make me care about the final battle. Although I didn't care when Grace died, so the movie wasn't completely successful here. What bothered me most about the story was the morally shortsighted premise. Earth is referred to as a dying planet(which to me sounds like its running out of resources), and presumably this 'element X' has such great value because it is a powerful natural resource that could help save the dying earth. Yet were supposed to accept this movies black and white morality tale, where the humans are the bad guys because they are trying to steal this element despite exhausting diplomatic solutions to peacefully obtain this element(through humanitarian work), that has the power to help billions of humans back home. I understand Pandora's population to be about 20,000 warrior class Na'vi so maybe 80,000 total. I'm expected to believe the shortsighted stubbornness of one clan's(about 8,000 Na'vi?) refusal pf relocation trumps the well being of well over 6 billion humans back home?
Right here is where you contradict yourself. If you think that both the CGI and the live-action appear "phony," then the film maker has succeeded. You can no longer tell the difference between the real and the artificial, and Cameron is out of the valley.
Not when it varies from shot to shot. If the CGI and live action were on the same plane of "digital-ness," I'd make the same argument -- that it was a consistent form of stylization, even if I didn't like the look. Alas, it's not.
These paintings in the article have more substance and originality than anything in Avatar.
Leave a comment