Review: Avatar

Avatar (2009)
starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Sigourney Weaver, Michele Rodriguez, 3D, Motion Capture CGI
dir. James Cameron


Not much to add to the debate, but I would like to breakdown this thing into the two separate elements that everyone is talking about/fighting over. Technical vs. Story.

Is this the best example of 3D that has come along? Yes, but what does that mean? At first I was so entranced by the depth and levels that Cameron and his team have created that I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the story. It was more of a "Wow!" distraction then anything else. As my eyes grew accustomed to it, the 3D simply goes away and I'm left watching a 2D movie. What's the point of that? It just becomes a massive piece of escapism that makes my nose itch from uncomfortable glasses. There are some amazing moments, but as a viewer, it made me lose sight of the story, which Cameron claims is the most important part.

Is this the best example of motion capture CGI? Yes, hands down. There is weight and a naturalism to the movement, the eyes seem to live and the power of the closeup retains its importance. The world is amazing, at first, but starts to ware thing over time and when the plot should be really ratcheting up, Cameron gives us more tribal rites that are meant to expand the depth of our alien race, but kept reminding me of a "spiritual" version of the "Tonight we dance" scene from The Matrix: Reloaded. Not a high point.

So what about the plot? This is a movie that wears all intentions on its sleeve. That is, for me, where the film really starts to feel thin. People can quote different sources from where Cameron got his inspiration, but it all boils down to something that is mildly derivative and doesn't add anything new to the debate. These types of wars over territory have existed since the first monkey beat up the second monkey. There is nothing new here. The symbols may change, but the theme remains the same. There is always an exploiter and an exploited.

Here is a test. Take the movie and imagine it on earth. For ease, turn it into a western. The industrialists attempting to take land from a peaceful Indian tribe. How does that play out in your mind? Does it have the same impact without Cameron's imaginative world to back it up?

The characters are caricatures, or drawn thin to the point of nonexistence. There is no reason fro Michele Rodriguez to be in this movie and her motivations are never backed up. She says, "I never signed up for this!" which is a lie. Yes you did, that is the purpose of the humans being on Pandora. You fly a gun ship, what did you think you signed up for?

(SPOILER)
My big problem is that this superior sensitive species that are the Na'vi are supposed to hold all life sacred. Yet they ship off the humans to die. They are allowing for the death of an entire planet. That feels like a false beat and an unearned victory on their behalf.
(END SPOLIER)

Avatar is an excellent technical achievement and Cameron still has the stuff of greatness. He just has a mediocre story that is relevant because of eternal relevance. A proven universality in which to hang the latest and greatest of technology on. Without all of the tech, this would be laughed at by critics as sub-par Oscar bait. But the genius of the film is in the execution and that is the one thing that fires on all cylinders.

Is this a game changer? No. There is no such thing. The Wizard of Oz didn't change the game, The Matrix didn't change the game, Avatar won't change the game. It's a great piece of bubblegum that will lose its flavor and be tossed aside for the next piece. But it's a flavorful piece right now.

7 out of 10