(no subject)

[green_queen]

Tonight I saw Avatar

Otherwise known as James Cameron's very expensive, very pretty, but ultimately redundant remake of Ferngully. I have several points I'd like to make about the movie, and I'm going to do a dot-point format because it's late and I'm too tired to write it review-style.

I have read articles comparing 3D to the advent of sound in cinema. It really isn't. It make a film slightly more immersive, but it doesn't help the writing, or the engagement level, or do much more than make things look a little bit cooler. Also, until they upgrade the tech, I'm unlikely to see many more movies in 3D: the glasses are infuriating if you already wear glasses, and the horrible green things I wore tonight dulled out the colours, which seems stupid and pointless.

While we're on the topic of visuals: while this film is unique and beautiful, I've seen much more visually stunning films that were not made with 3D and had minimal special effects (like the criminally underrated The Fall). Also, some things just seemed silly (why does everything on that planet glow in the dark? Pandora at night looks like an 80's dance party puked on it.) The film was also quite derivative: aside from the aformentioned Ferngully, I saw shades of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and dozens of other sci-fi and fantasy movies that are better.

Even if the visuals were the best ever, it wouldn't make up for a weak environmental, humans-are-bad, romantic love is all important, religion/spirituality > science and technology message that is rehashed from both Cameron's previous work and the aforementioned Ferngully (which had the good sense with the bulldozers and not go on for another half-hour - the indulgent length of his films is something else I've had a problem with in the past.) If there's no story or heart to a film, all the interesting visuals in the world can't make it work. Cameron suffers from a bit of Lucasitis in his writing; it can be painfully cheesy and obvious sometimes, like he's trying to ram the message down our throats.

I don't love Sam Worthington. I think he's attractive enough, and has that something on screen that makes him a natural presence, but I don't actually think his acting's that good and he's a bit too bogan for me. I thought Zoe Saldana had the most impressive performance of the film - you never see her in human form but she creates a powerful and intriguing character in Neytiri, a primal, emotive and strong hunter. I thought the women in general were better than the cardboard cut-out black & white male characters (Jake is ultimately Good and Brave and Kind-Hearted! The company man is Evil! The scientist is a Soft-Hearted Nerd! The head marine is a Bad Man who won't stop killing until he's dead!) Sigourney Weaver got the best lines and maybe the best characters as scientist and bad-ass Dr. Grace Ausgustine. Anyone who doesn't love her is a moron. Even Michelle Rodriguez acuqitted herself nicely (I'm one of the people who doesn't hate her.) I would've preferred a movie all about them, and it was them and the unique and beautiful planet that ultimately saved the movie for me.

Now we come to the most interesting part of the movie, a concept which, in spite of lending the movie its name, is not explored in nearly enough depth: interacting with the world through avatars. Nearly everyone does it in this movie: there's the Na'vi avatars, of course, but then the humans are interacting with this world via military exoskeleton weapons (like the ones in District 9 but kinda less cool), and the Na'vi 'bond' with horse-like creatures and flying creatures, not the way we ride horses but on a deeper level so that they are connected and feel what the animal feels. When the animal is killed, the humanoid feels it deeply. Also, the way the film winds up leaves you wondering about the message James Cameron is sending about being ourselves. I felt as though this concept could have been explored in more depth.

When I'm questioning the science of a movie? It's dodgy.

3 out of 5

Green Queen

Comments

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

It is a unique visual experience, though.

[sandelwood]

Many of the things you point out are exactly the things that put me off this movie entirely without even having to see it. How heavily derivative it is, gah, I could count the stories it pulls from on two hands just from seeing the trailer. And yes, I think 3D is NOT the next big thing in movies. It wasn't the next big thing when they tried it in the 80s either. You would think someone in Cameron's position would have figured that out, but no. Now all he needs is his own John Conner Ranch compound where he can play king of the world like Lucas does. I'm really not interested in making up some of his ridiculously over the top budget.

[shrixer78.livejournal.com]

Everything you say is exactly what I feared from just viewing the trailers. Preachy, pretty, bloated film. Thanks for solidifying that I don't need to see it.

[phorie.livejournal.com]

If 3D is the next big thing in movies then I'm screwed! All I ever see is the wiggly double picture, which isn't uncommon. I love me some movies, but I have to steer away from 3D to just avoid the headaches.
It's just the latest thing people are gonna use to try and distract us from lame script writing.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Coraline was in 3D and that had a wonderful script. I think it's just a toy for the boys to play with.

[phorie.livejournal.com]

of course there's always exceptions, movies with cool effects that are actually good story-wise...

but mostly these days big effect movies don't have brilliant scripts *cough2010cough* =)

i'd love to see Coraline.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Eh, I'm not convinced that that's a new thing, though. The big action movies of the 80's have awful scripts too. It's all for people who don't want to think when they see a movie.

It's good! You should see it.

[truffle-shuffle.livejournal.com]

Not sure why I read this before I saw the movie, though even if you'd hated it I would still be super psyched to see it. I wish you liked Sam more, lol. Granted, the only thing I've seen him in so far is Terminator, but I thought he was the best thing about that movie, so my hopes are high for him. We'll see how I feel after I see the movie this weekend.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's one of those movies you just HAVE to see. I don't like Sam or Russell Crowe because they remind me of the kinds of Aussie guys I don't like. I agree that Sam was the best thing about Terminator: Salvation (apart from the gritty visual style and awesome trailer) but that's not saying much.

[truffle-shuffle.livejournal.com]

Now that I've seen the movie I can comment on a couple things. I see your points, understand them and think they're valid. It's not that I disagree with you on any of them. I just wasn't bothered by them. Especially the way Pandora was luminescent. I loved the way it reacted to touch. I just thought that was a cool detail. I think the connection with the animals was inspired, though it was the one time I was taken out of the movie and wondered how they managed to insure that the avatars weren't missing that crucial piece of biology. With movies like this, I try not to question the science of it, though, because it's not like it's real science. I did think the marine in charge (Colonel? I don't remember his rank) was way too over the top, and it took way too long to get to the inevitable fight between the humans and the Na'vi. Though, I wasn't complaining because I was still interested in what was happening on screen in the meantime. Jason loved the movie, but was quick to point out how it was like Lord of the Rings here and Star Wars there, which I also noticed but I guess sometimes that sort of obvious use of a specific fantasy or sci-fi trope doesn't bother me.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

I know it's not real science, but I was taken out of it a lot more than I was by the silly 'red matter' science in Star Trek. Then again, I was a lot more into Star Trek from when it started, and I didn't warm to Avatar the same way.

HIS EXOSKELETON HAD ITS OWN KNIFE. I think I laughed out loud at that point. He was interesting at first when I thought there might be more to him, but it turned out he was just a one-dimensional jerk. Same with Giovanni Ribisi, actually. And the LotR and Star Wars stuff bothered me less than the Ferngully retread plot.

Did you see the link I posted yesterday? It had some good points about the fight scenes and stuff, it singled out a lot of the things I liked and disliked about the movie.

[girlandetc.livejournal.com]

i have yet to see it, but i'm curious of other people's thoughts. it looks ... weird to me. but i just had to chime in and say: THE FALL!! lee pace is a hottie @____@ see icon.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

I love Lee Pace, he's another underrated actor. The Fall is criminally underrated as a movie - I really don't understand how it didn't do better. It's one of the most visually beautiful films I've ever seen.