Avatar

Has any movie been hyped as much in recent memory as Avatar has? Not likely. Film industry people raving about it being the future of film. Critics seem to be equally eager to hail it as a masterpiece. And the special effects are outstanding. And when you read about the innovations director James Cameron made in motion capture technology, they sound pretty fantastic...for filmmakers. The results on screen don't appear to be any different than anything else that's been released before. That really doesn't do anything for those of us who likely won't ever make a movie with digital characters or digital settings.

And, unfortunately, great special effects do not a great movie make. A great movie also requires a great story and great characters (it does not require great special effects). And, well, Avatar is missing those two aspects. The story is so extremely basic, it might as well be a paint-by-numbers drawing. (Insert evil corporation) seeks resource found only in (insert exotic location) inhabited by the peaceful (insert natives) who sends in (insert hero) to work from inside but falls in love with (insert native love interest) and turns against company and (insert battle). The story is unoriginal. James Cameron spent a decade on this film, apparently most of it was spent on the technology and not the story. Too bad.

And the characters are likewise uninspired. The corporate guy just sees everything as dollars, 'they're just trees!' The military man just wants to destroy everything and achieve his mission. The Na'vi are just innocent and good, though distrustful for good reasons. Nothing is really developed regarding any of the characters. The main character, Jake Sully, is a crippled former Marine, who is taking over the spot on the mission for his dead scientist brother. We never find out how he became crippled, how his brother died, and neither of these two facets of his character add anything to him or the story. He could just as well not be crippled and never have had a brother, it wouldn't change anything. These characters are pure walking, talking stereotypes. Characters with no depth work when they're robots (Cameron's Terminator) or malicious aliens (Cameron's Aliens), but people and humanoid aliens don't work so well without it.

And here is where you start to get into the argument that it's just escapist entertainment. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, that is never an excuse to not put any effort into creating a more original story or interesting characters. An original story and good characters will always make a film better, it doesn't have to be deep or thoughtful and make the audience think, but the filmmakers should put thought into it. And while there really are no truly original stories, there are new and interesting ways to tell them. And simply moving the story to an alien planet doesn't cut it.

The special effects are some of the best ever seen, no doubt. There's incredible amounts of detail. The alien planet, Pandora, looks amazing. But the characters still don't look quite as real as they want us to believe. The motion-capture work is great, their movements and facial expressions are excellent. But to me the eyes give it away, they look incredibly false still. And there's still just not enough details in the skin – there's millions of imperfections on our faces with pores, wrinkles, creases, etc, and they still haven't been able to re-create that. But these are nit-picky things.

Don't get me wrong, it's enjoyable and fun and the technical skill behind the making of it is almost unparalleled. But there are a lot of technically well-made, enjoyable, fun movies out there. I wanted something more from the story and characters (not in the sense that I want a sequel, but in the sense that it just wasn't good enough). And so there's really nothing setting this film apart from your average popcorn flick, when you get right down to it.

3 stars out of 5

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

No, I will not go with the obvious and use the word “fantastic” to describe Wes Anderson’s adaptation of Roald Dahl’s book The Fantastic Mr. Fox. But I will say that it’s fun, enjoyable, and excellent.

I have to say that I loved the look of the film – from the character design to the setting to the animation style. The look is very much in keeping with Wes Anderson’s other films and the rather rough animation (in contrast to the smoother, more polished look of Coraline, another stop-motion animated film from earlier this year) gives the film a certain charm. It gave the film the feel that this was something done for fun and helped bring the audience in to just really enjoy it and have fun as well.

Anderson does a good job of keeping the film friendly for kids but also enjoyable for the adults. It’s cute and fun, good for the kids. There’re a few dark moments – Mr. Fox getting his tail shot off and the villain wearing it as a tie – but I don’t think that it’s anything that can’t be handled by a kid, though of course, I only have hypothetical kids.

And I think Anderson and co-writer Noah Baumbach find a rather elegant way of dealing with the language, making it natural but safe for children. Instead of swear words, the characters say “cuss” as in “are you cussing me?” or “this is a cluster cuss.” It’s safe and gives a little chuckle for the adults who get the meaning. At first it’s a little confusing, you think to yourself ‘did they just say “cuss”?’ but then you get it.

I’ve seen some criticism of the way the film is shot – mostly using static, wide shots. Quite frankly, I didn’t even notice. I didn’t even realize until afterwards when I saw some comments regarding it and thought about it. I was too busy enjoying the movie to notice. And when you start reading into some of Anderson’s influences, it’s understandable why he’d shoot it this way – reminiscent of the old stop-motion animation specials of Rankin-Bass. It’s his way of paying homage to his influences. It’s not always necessary to use moving cameras and tracking shots and things of that nature all the time. There’s something nice about the simplicity. And as a friend of mine said, and I’ll steal it because it’s more elegant than anything I could think of – it gives it the feel of a diorama, which, in essence, it is. It’s a rapid series of dioramas.

The film is dry and witty, which is to be expected from Anderson who has made his career in that style. If you like that sort of humor, then you should enjoy this film. If not, then you should probably skip it because you’ll probably just be annoyed at the dryness and wit and not try to enjoy anything else the film has to offer. And kids shouldn’t and, from what I’ve seen and heard, been bothered by it. And, oh, ok…the film is pretty fantastic.

4 out of 5