And now for something completely different!
A few days ago, I came into the theatres with my dad and brother, during my visit to sunny Florida for the holidays, to look for a movie to watch. We heard about the new science fiction movie out, "Avatar," and we all decided to see that since it was the only movie that seemed... different.
After I got out, admittedly I was like a person who just saw "The Dark Knight" as it first came out, thinking this was the greatest film of the year by far. However, after cooling off and having a few days to sit on it, I still think it's pretty damn good. It's not the greatest movie ever (that would be reserved for either "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca", both of which often pop up on the top spot of many Top 100 lists), but it's easily one of the coolest films that I've seen in a long while. Unlike many special effects movies that have popped recently, though, this doesn't depend on just the wows of the pretty sights like many people claim. I saw "2012" last night, and it was almost as long as Avatar. Comparatively, the latter kept my interest the entire way through while the plot of the first mentioned seemed more like filler to pad the time between every city or house crumbling into oblivion.
Ooooooh, pretty coloooooors....
Anyway, before we begin with the review, let me give out a few disclaimers: my opinion was built not from what the critics said on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic. People who go "Oh, this movie's gunna suck- what's that? The critics say this is great? THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!" are not credible, primarily because it isn't their opinion speaking, it's the opinion of the critics. I came in with no expectations, and before I was told what James Cameron directed, I had no idea what his past achievements were. Therefore, I didn't have the preconceived idea that this was going to rule or suck, I just came into the movie with a clean slate. Also, don't expect a numbered score like I usually give at the end of this review, because even though I'd encourage you to give this movie a shot, I'm not going to tell you HOW good it is; that is something you'll have to see for yourself.
How credible is THIS guy, for instance?
-The Review-
1. Story
First and foremost, let's get this out of the way: Yes, the plot of this film is like "Pocahontas," "Dances With Wolves," etc. However, let me tell you this: it's extremely difficult to have a purely original idea nowadays without making something utterly ridiculous and flat-out stupid. Why do you think that many movies nowadays are either remakes, based on true stories, or adaptations. For those who think "The Dark Knight" is the greatest movie ever, for example, let's keep in mind that the film wouldn't have existed in its current form if the source comics (The Long Halloween) weren't written.
He wouldn't exist if movies were entirely original.
Besides, it's not about the story itself, but about how it's told. Case and point, The "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" vs. its remake. They were completely different experiences because the stories were told in different ways, and they have their certain appeals to different fans. One of the main points of discussion in reviews are the stories, because bad and good movies have stories that are told in different ways. Again, let's use TCM as an example. With the original Tobe Hooper movie, you are given something that is disturbing, macabre, and scary as hell. With its remake, it has a nearly-identical plot but it is much, much worse. But this review isn't about "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," it's about "Avatar".
While I'd like to blabber about this...
Avatar's story may be identical to "Dances with Wolves" or others, but the way this was told was in such a way that kept my attention; the story was simple enough to understand but didn't treat the audience like idiots, and the appeal actually reminded me of other James Cameron movies like "Terminator 2". This movie had a certain humor about it, but it also told its story in a fun and emotional way. For the first time in a while, I actually gave a crap about the characters who were presented to me, and the actors really helped give this movie a certain quality that one could hardly feel in most modern films like, to use as an example again, "2012". In "Avatar," you had a range of different personalities that added a charm to the movie, whereas in "2012," most or all of the characters are interchangeable with each other, and you could easily forget about any of them in an instant.
Even CG characters can be liked.
Now that we're on the subject of characters...
2. Characterization
What makes a good story great? Characters, and this film is full of actors who do a groovy job at portraying them. The characterization gave the film a whole new personality that is rarely seen in many modern films, and the cast is to thank for this.Take Sam Worthington, for instance. He was the main character, Jake Sully, an ex-marine who is taken to the planet Pandora for a second chance at life, and who is, rhetorically and literally, reborn as he is taught to live like the native Na'vi tribe through his 'avatar' body. The main story is already described in the first part of this review, so I won't go over it again. Provided that Worthington's first mainstream role was in "Terminator Salvation," where his accent was changing inconsistently and the overall film proved to be horrible, he proves to us that he is a competent actor who gave the film some of its wit, and gave a memorable performance that, to me, stood out from the rest of the films out right now.
Let's pretend this never happened.
The supporting cast also provided some memorable roles, including Stephen Lang as the antagonist Colonel Quaritch and Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine. Lang provided an over-the-top villain who can best be described as somewhat psychotic when he shows his true colors, fighting like a 'man' to the very end. I know I complained about cartoonishly cruel villains in my "Dexter Season Two" review, but with Quartich you can relate with him on some level before he turns into a villain and breaks all of those connections with the audience. That's what the case was in Scarface, and that's what the case was in "Avatar". Sigourney Weaver, returning from another Cameron film "Aliens", provides the movie with a clever sense of humor. However, aside from giving some snide remarks, Dr. Augustine is also a multi-dimensional character that the audience is able to care for, and that's something rare these days.
The very same!
Let's do a comparison with "2012" again: with the characters in "2012," as I said, they are interchangeable with each other. The movie tells you that you are supposed to care for them without providing any grounds for why we have to like them. There is no character development, and they remain the same awkward people throughout the entire thing. The deaths that occur in "2012" are also instant, and there is little to no reaction when main characters die, like the step-father. He gets crushed by a turbine, but he is never mentioned again despite the fact the children supposedly think the world of him. In "Avatar," when people die you know it, and you feel bad for them. I won't elaborate too much on what happens because I don't want to give anything away.
3. Special Effects
There's a reason why this has the most expensive special effects budget to date in any film, and it certainly shows! The alien environment is gorgeous, and it is probably the most vibrantly colorful world I've seen in a long while. Most of the other movies nowadays go for this drab, dreary look that presents nothing new to the table. With "Avatar," the CG atmosphere gives us luminous plants, bizarre aliens, and an overall beauty that, I believe, can't be beat so far. It reminds me of some of the science-fiction pictures of the past, like "Forbidden Planet," and that's a very good thing! I won't go on too long about the 3D atmosphere because a lot of people probably have talked about it already, but I give a massive two thumbs up to the CG nonetheless! This made the battle scenes also look amazing! The animated characters are also pretty realistic for what computer technology can achieve, and that can only show us how advanced cinema has become!
4. Technical Aspects
This part will be the shortest because there is not much to talk about here; the sound design was well done, the direction was great, and the camera shots were well-done without a problem! The lighting was also pretty realistic for a CG film, so that's also something that can be said for "Avatar".
-The Verdict-
All in all, I think this movie was pretty well-done, and it deserves praise. I'm not going to say that this movie is the greatest film of the entire decade, but it is certainly one of the best visual experiences of the 2000's so far. From what I have said in this review, I think you can say I think pretty highly of this movie. However, I'm not providing a score because I still want you guys to make your own opinions, and try to give this film a shot to see what you think. Hope you enjoy!
. I'm seeing the IMAX 3D one today, so could I do a supplement for what I thought of the additional experience?
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed