Dec
14
Released: 17 December 2009
Director: James Cameron
Screenwriter: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver
Certificate: 12A
More has been made of Avatar in the niche and mainstream press than any other film this year, eclipsing the coverage that even Star Trek received. Some of the buzzwords thrown around on a regular basis by publicists, the filmmakers and others include ‘revolutionary’, ‘game changing’, ‘phenomenal’, but as with most things, there must be a separation of hyperbole from fact. The fact of the matter is, then, that while there are aspects of Avatar that are indeed exquisite, namely the visual wizardry at work through Weta’s efforts, Avatar isn’t the cinematic tour de force that some would have you believe.
Jake Sully is a paraplegic ex-Marine who is offered the chance to take his murdered brother’s place on Pandora, a lush forest moon that contains the ultimate source of energy – the woefully named Unobtainium. Assigned to give intelligence about the native Na’vi, he becomes integrated into their society, falls for a princess and… well, you get the rest.
Avatar’s plot is dreadfully predictable. Scene to scene, it has an unrelenting sense of inevitability about it, even at moments where Cameron has clearly attempted to go against audience expectations, only for the audience to expect him to do this. It’s a portmanteau of various classic plots, and while the story itself isn’t bad per se, it’s one of the least challenging that we’ve seen in a film all year. That being said, the fact that you gain a certain prescience about events is tempered by some excellent performances in voice work and the occasional non-CGI sequence. Stephen Lang shines as a ridiculously over-the-top, almost camp Colonel Quaritch, while Worthington’s Sully is likeable. Even Michelle Rodriguez, while descending into forced cliché towards the end (that is, to be fair, the fault of the horribly cheesy dialogue present all through the film) puts in a good turn at points. Sigourney Weaver is always a class act on screen, and watching her character’s personality change and warm through the film towards Sully, and the paradigm shift from her human persona to her Na’vi one, is a pleasure to see.
Also present are some overwrought political allegories. One scene is reminiscent of 9/11, almost undeniably so (although the director does claim that wasn’t his intention), and the Earth Mother/environmentalist angle is so heavily pushed into the audience’s faces that it comes off as saccharine and juvenile. Adding in commonly dropped phrases such as ‘shock and awe’, ‘fighting terror with terror’ and other neo-conservative ideological shorthand makes the film’s already light allegorical content more laughable than anything, but as this isn’t the main drive of the film, we can let it go.
Now that discussions of performances and story are out of the way, we know that what you really want to hear about is the 3D. It’s mixed, with some parts of the film seeming excellent (one scene will have embers looking as if they are falling around you, mixed in with ash and falling leaves), and others distinctly average (the battle scene in the final act, for one). Curiously, the 3D effect seems better when photographic footage of real actors is used, rather than pure CG scenes, but overall it’s hard to escape a certain feeling of apathy towards it. We highly recommend that you see the film on a 3D screen, as it’s meant to be viewed that way, but don’t expect the feeling of complete immersion that some reviewers have waxed lyrical about.
It’s also worth mentioning the physical issues that can be associated with the 3D effect. We found that our eyes struggled to focus for at least the first 45 minutes of the film, with fast camera pans making everything on screen blur until we could refocus. We also found that the consequent struggle to keep up did threaten a headache at various points, but your eyes do eventually adjust to the extra dimension. It’s likely that if you had trouble during Cloverfield you may have issues here, as the blur will unsettle you, and there are some scenes where you can almost feel genuine vertigo.
One of the film’s greatest successes, however, is certainly the world of Pandora and the visual effects. Everything is vibrant with colour, oversized and otherworldly. Cameron had clearly been influenced by his deep-sea diving expeditions when designing the look of the moon, and often you do feel as if you are underwater when being taken through it. Bioluminescence marks the ground where feet fall, the vertical dimension is as much a factor as the horizontal, and although many of the creatures are clearly alien, it’s not too hard to imagine them existing several hundred feet beneath the ocean’s surface. It is, put simply, quite beautiful, and existing in that world for two-and-a-half hours is an experience unlike any other in cinema. This, more than anything else, is the film’s true victory.
Avatar isn’t the cinematic game changer that it has been claimed to be, and it has major flaws. It is, however, a decent science-fiction epic, one that people should go and see.
[...] This post was Twitted by SciFiNow [...]
Many reviewers have been giving this film four or five stars, so a three seems a bit too low – I wasn’t expecting the storyline to be earth-shattering, but you make it sound like it’s terrible. It’s certainly not that bad is it?
Going to see it at the VUE cinema at London Road in Edinburgh (hope they have the 3D capabilities), so I’ll report back once I’ve seen it to let you know how it was!
As I said, the storyline isn’t bad as such, but it is incredibly derivative and predictable. Think Dances With Wolves meets Braveheart.
With regards other reviewers, I’m not particularly interested in what they give a film, and I can’t be. If the story was better than it is, it might have edged a four star, but I couldn’t in all good conscience give that grade to a film that I personally think is only worth three.
As much as I enjoyed this, I do agree with most of the review. However, I think you have chosen to emphasize negativity to justify the three star rating. Avatar doesn’t live up to hype but who really believes in the claims attached to the advertising of any major film? I know I don’t. Unobtainium is a terrible name but I’m assuming the point is that it has been given such a title by a corporate society who evaluate, and hence label, everything on the basis of monetary value, usefulness, scarcity etc. The story is predictable but narrative conventions compel this to be so. Afterall, Worthington’s character could not have been killed off halfway through just to shake things up. Once the human-Na’vi confrontational relationship is established, a logical, albeit simplistic, chain of events unfolds. History is littered with examples of equally straightforward rivalries with such a nature – Rome and Carthage, Imperial Germany and the British Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to name three. As you say, the Earth Mother/environmentalist stuff is juvenile and the neo-conservative ideological shorthand is laughable, but Cameron presents it in such a fashion to work on two levels. One, modern movie audiences have come to expect, if not necessarily want, this type of simplicity, and two, the humans and the Na’vi have come to view the other in this way. I’m not even sure about it being allegorical in nature, afterall Pandora is shown as having evolved as a biologically linked system, and Lang’s gung-ho Colonel is a voice largely ignored by his civilian commander because they possess fundamentally different political perspectives. It does however, push the idea of society being seperated by a spirituality/technology divide and it is this that creates much of Avatar’s story predictability. Would I be wrong to suggest that Cameron perhaps should have simply purchased the rights to Frank Herbert’s Dune? Thematically, and at some points in the narrative, this movie and that book are extraordinarily similar. As a final point I’ll say this, maybe Avatar hasn’t met expectations but at least it isn’t a Transformers 2 or Revenge of the Sith.
I found it pretty dull; I think the story was so devoid of originality by the time the action kicked off at the end I didn’t really care about anyone involved.
But yes couldn’t agree more that’s its nothing like as bad as Transformers 2 and its worth seeing at the cinema just for the visuals, lets hope someone now picks up effects gauntlet and does something which includes a entertaining story next time.
I saw this on Monday at the Imax and frankly once you got past the shiny shiny graphics which were undeniably lush, visually rich and lavish you realise the story is so generic its hold no surprise or innovation at all.
Every major plot point is clumsily signposted from so far off that you find yourself practically counting the seconds until the “surprise plot event” happens….
The worst moment was….
[SPOILERS START]
Sam Worthingtons character being given the history of a great leader who tamed a flying raptor beast and united the clans in a time of sorrow… Which had me rolling my eyes heavenward so fast they almost span in to the back of my head to stare at my spine…. It came as little shock to discover what Worthingtons character would be doing for his redemption moment.
[SPOILERS END]
The moment above typified the dull storywriting and lazy plotting. I thought I was going mental when I came out the theatre and found everyone had drunk the kool aid on how brilliant this film is.
Sure its a visual feast but there was sweet FA with the plot to back it up.
Its interesting really because what Avatar does is nullify a lot of critics and their opinions now… After all if the story really matters so little compared to the visuals then theoretically Lucas was right to go back and try and glitz up the original trilogy. If only he had spent a bit more on it and the Prequels these critics that poo pooed Star Wars would have given it a pass if it was suitably impressive on the eye.
Anyway in closing I think that Avatar is this years King Kong, amazing to look at but overblown, over indulgent, over long and once the hype has died down a bit it’ll occupy the same position as Jacksons film. One that is a significant milestone in VFX but not a film that people will return to in years to come…
Interesting. I had the same feelings on seeing the new Trek.
How do you think “Avatar” would stand up in 2D, which is, it could be argued, how it should be judged?
I think that the current perception of the film would drop dramatically.
Shame. Guess scifi needs to be dumb to appeal to the masses.
It says a lot about how much I respect Sci Fi Now as an SF magazine that the first website I went onto to read reviews of James Cameron’s Avatar that I came here…
Although I haven’t seen Avatar yet (hopefully at the IMAX Glasgow in 3D this weekend), I haven’t been “blown away” by the hype at all and some of the design work ie the gigantic robo-suit the Earth soldiers use looks as unimaginative as the rip-off Power Loaders the Wachowski Brothers appropriated from um, Aliens and so on…
BTW, lads and lasses – I’m working on a Blog on how Hollywood generally can’t do comic book Superheroes right. I’ll post the link on the forums here soon and I may even be including Avatar in my summing up, too!
*Stu said:
Interesting. I had the same feelings on seeing the new Trek.
How do you think “Avatar” would stand up in 2D, which is, it could be argued, how it should be judged?*
The thing with Trek (regardless of your feelings towards it) is that it failed or succeeded without the need for a gimmick. Avatar is, as a friend of mine mentioned on our podcast, one big tech demo. Its getting the plaudits but most reviews mention the imagery first and then, almost as a footnote, mention that the story isn’t all that.
However you perceive Trek (and personally I loved the sh*t out of it) you can’t say that it was as dumb and generic as Avatar is. See Avatars wow factor is winning people over, but as Jim points out once you take away the 3D depth gloss you will probably be, if not underwhelmed, certainly more tempered in your approach to it.
I think Avatar is a VFX achievement, but its no looker when it comes to the story. Which in the end means its got a limited shelf life re: its untouchable status it seems to be commanding now.
A 3D VFX achievement, Lee?
Have to say I wasn’t overly impressed with the 2D trailers. Sure, it looks nice, but wasn’t left with the feeling there’s anything there I hadn’t seen many times before.
It’s a shame Cameron allowed the 3D to simply be seen as a gimmick – bit more effort on the script and perhaps he could’ve had the whole kit and kaboodle? But this is where blockbuster scifi usually fails for me, with the likes of Avatar, Star Trek, 2012, Transformers and the like. Eye-popping fx appears to excuse the dumb, contrived and generic. They succeed. And while they’re lapped up by the masses, there’s the danger that that’s the best we’re gonna get.
We were extremely lucky this year to get features like “Moon” and “District 9″. These to me, are 2009′s scifi standouts; and while I’m not opposed to the fun that can be had from the popcorn blockbuster, I’m becoming increasingly turned-off by lame eye-rolling scripts that have either been written by a clueless hack, or really do credit the viewer with all the intelligence of the paper they’re printed on.
See the next “Trek” is in 3D – both exciting and worrying…
I haven’t seen Avatar yet, but that isn’t what I’m commenting on. Why is everyone saying that Trek and Transformers 2 were bad films? In m opinion, Trek is a very good film and as for Transformers 2, it is one of my favoruites and judging by the avatar trailers, I would say that it is more gripping and exctiing than avatar.
(I’m writing via my Playstation 3 so please don’t pick out spelling mistakes.)
Not “everyone” thought “Trek” was bad, Dec. In fact, it’s probably just me that thought the script was full of holes, contrivances, and poorly-judged comedy moments! Also wasn’t too keen on Chris Pine playing the entire movie with just two strings – smug and anger. I am in the extreme minority, mind! Which is always fun. You can find the whole argument over on the forum!
Whaddaya expect when “Trek” is written by the same guys who write “Transformers”?
We all appreciate different things tho, Dec. There really is no one opinion that suits all.
Is it worth pointing out that I thought Chris Pine was the best thing about “Smokin’ Aces”? Pretty much stole the show for me.
[...] can read SciFiNow’s review of Avatar here. Share and [...]
[...] The review scores might have fluctuated but there is something of a common consensus regarding James Cameron’s Avatar, winner of the Golden Globe for Best Picture (Drama) and member of the $1 billion club. Irrespective of ratings, critics more or less conceded that there were six simple truths about the film: firstly, that the special effects were incredible; secondly, that 3D was exciting; thirdly, that the action scenes were ambitious; fourthly, that the film is, for the most part, poorly acted; fifthly, that the story is derivate, safe and predictable; and finally, that the dialogue is some of the worst to grace a script in a number of years. How much the film was enjoyed depended entirely on how much emphasis anyone placed on each of these indisputable qualities and flaws. [...]
I really enjoyed Avatar, and I admit that part of that was probably due to the fact I saw it in Imax 3D.
Yes, it was flawed – And the fact that it’s as much fantasy as it is sci fi probably turned it into a bit more of a “Family friendly” movie than many of us were hoping for. I know I’m not the only one longing for something as good as Aliens to come along again, and sadly this wasn’t it.
But taken as a family action film with a nice ecological message, it’s a good ‘un.
Let’s see where Jim goes with the sequel…
[...] isn’t the greatest fan of James Cameron’s Avatar has been well-documented, from a lukewarm review to a recent opinion column. It is, however, impossible to underestimate how popular it has been [...]
Please leave your comments below