Monday, December 21, 2009

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

3 comments:

  1. I'm surprised with such a negative sounding review you still gave it so many stars.

    I'll be seeing the movie, but probably not for another month or so. I want to avoid being annoyed by Cameron fanboys.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Review wasn't all that negative to me, just seemed that way because of the contrast between what it was built up to be and what was deliverd.

    For example the build up implies a 50 mpg car, when I go to the dealer and realize it only get 30 mpg...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't see it as negative. The worst thing I can say about it is that it's average. It's more disappointed. I wouldn't tell anyone to not see because it's bad, but I wouldn't tell anyone that they have to go see it. I think they should enjoy it, but that they'll feel empty afterwards.

    ReplyDelete