D: James CameronW: James Cameron
C: Sam Worthington, Zoë Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel Moore, etc.
James Cameron returns to sci-fi after 18 years, a script brought to life that was penned 14 years ago, a film with an estimated budget of $280 million. The man who brought us the record holder Titanic 12 years ago (set to have a 3D relaunch in 2011), has broken his documentary combo of three films and returns as a technical innovator. Lot of big numbers, big names and therefore, massive expectations. 3D is the new craze, perhaps bringing us to a new era of cinema, although it's too early to tell if 3D is here to stay and weed out 2D films entirely. One thing's for sure, Cameron proves there's potential here and money to be made. Without a doubt, 3D remakes will be the new cash cow for movie studios, a contingency plan of sorts.
The general consensus has been that Avatar has got a weak story and sloppy dialogue. These fears came true to a degree, but Avatar is more about James Cameron playing it safe inside a really expensive tech demo. I don't refer to it as a tech demo in a derogatory way, definitely not, but this is what it essentially is. This is proof that 3D has got massive potential, not limited to cutesy animations, concert movies and documentaries. The list of live-action full 3D movies is a very short one: The Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Night of the Living Dead, The Adventures of Sharkboy & Lavagirl and Spy Kids 3D: Game Over (should be all). Avatar steps boldly into the uncanny valley, but not having an eerie effect as the last three films by Robert Zemeckis. Simply because, in this case, we aren't dealing with humans. The Na'vi are humanoid, but their slender, blue bodies look almost regal and certainly not off-putting. Cameron has created a believable world and showing impressive detail at that, all interwoven into a disappointingly straightforward storyline. The biggest problem Avatar has, from a story aspect, is that there's nothing here that will take you by surprise.
This being my very first 3D cinema experience, putting on glasses to watch a film, is weird to say the least. The glasses were surprisingly light, not weighing down on my nose to annoy me, but the immersion was easy to break when I had to adjust my glasses, quite a few times actually. I'm sure they have better glasses out there though. Whether it's a cost or a comfort issue, seeing the frames of the glasses is something they ought to avoid in future designs as well. After seeing Enter The Void by Gaspar Noé in the cinema (where it's meant to be viewed), which is more or less the same in length, the visuals actually gave me a headache. Hearing people getting headaches from watching Avatar in 3D wasn't reassuring, but those fears didn't come true, thankfully. Both films are a trip like no other, the latter one is just easier on the eyes, provided you keep your focus, literally. It'll take some time getting used to yellow subtitles dragging along with the focus though. Overall, 3D in Avatar pulls you in and after awhile you already take it for granted. If you haven't seen it yet, 3D is the only way to go.
After the initial amazement at the visuals had passed, the viewers expedition and discovery of Pandora concluded, the story almost came to a complete halt. Sloppy dialogue was an indication that this boat would run out of steam at one point and the only way it could pick up again, was through a glorious war sequence supported by an epic score and short-lived dramatic scenes. The story takes it's natural, predictable, logical and straight path to it's conclusion. A lot was riding on this, so it's not surprising that Cameron plays it more on the safe side. Perhaps Battle Angel is where he'll spread his wings a little more. How much the script changed during those 14 years, I have no idea, but what's left is a straightforward story with predictable plot twists. On the other hand, lot of work went into creating the Na'vi culture. The beautiful, not too outlandish language, the design of all creatures on Pandora, the social undertone and subtle political message that never felt in your face or forced. It felt superficial, for sure, with such simple presentation, but overall I think it's commendable what Cameron has done here. With that said, when it comes to more satisfying sci-fi in 2009, both District 9 and Moon stand ahead of Avatar, when it comes to the message.
I can not help and make comparisons to both The Emerald Forest and Dances With Wolves. It's more or less the same plot, with themes of imperialism and biodiversity. All is connected and those not in tune with nature, will work against it. The charm and essence of the entire Na'vi race is unfortunately carried mostly by Neytiri's character. Zoë Saldaña gives the best performance from the lot and pretty much saves the whole movie from any further embarrassments. Sam Worthington is at close second and it's good to hear that Worthington has improved his American English, with no signs of his Australian accent left, unlike in Terminator Salvation. It's a shame that most of these characters are unable to get under your skin and stay in your thoughts long after you're done with the film. Neytiri and Jake Sully are the only ones worth mentioning, but I can't help feeling that Sam Worthington is holding himself back or not able to push his character more than what the script "allows". There's more to this Aussie.
The visual appeal of Avatar is obviously the main attraction here, that goes without saying, but I didn't expect it to look and feel that good. The depth of field, the CGI and the amount of detail that is presented here is a feat unmatched by anyone. Avatar will be taking home most of the technical Oscars coming March 2010. Even though the Na'vi look CGI, the scene where Jake jumps off the cliff, into the waterfall and followed by the most realistic looking wet clothes I've ever had the privilege to see in CGI, I was sold from that point forward. It's not on the same level throughout the entire film, but a few moments like that really make up for it. In my case, the appeal lies more in their design than anywhere else. The 3D effect is obviously a massive bonus, taking the gorgeous visuals to mesmerizing lengths.
James Horner's score for Avatar really shines in some parts, but most of it is either too subtle to notice or too cheesy, epic to enjoy. Once again, this is where Avatar doesn't take necessary risks in order to stand out and stay with you after it's over. When it comes to casting, Sigourney Weaver (very) slowly grows on you as Dr. Grace Augustine, but she never really arrives, so to speak. Stephen Lang as Colonel Miles Quaritch is pretty badass overall, for his appearance alone, but once again, what comes out of the mouth of a character (as with most of them), is not as impressive. Most of the cast underperforms due to the script, with Zoë Saldaña managing to carry most of the drama on her own, with the assistance of Sam Worthington of course. No matter how well it does financially, this was a venture worth pursuing. Avatar, along with Star Trek, District 9 and Moon, is one of the more successful attempts at sci-fi this year, even though all four have their pros and cons. Without a shadow of a doubt, Cameron's return to sci-fi has been a glorious one, but with more emphasis on the aesthetic value and technical achievements than storytelling.
8/10
