Review: 'Avatar' impresses technically, disappoints emotionally

Courtesy of 20th Century FOX

Avatar is a mixed bag of epic proportions. Too well made to be a bad movie, but too hackneyed to be a good movie, it has a lot going for it and a lot going against it. But what else can be expected from a nearly $500 million movie that's been in development essentially for a full decade?

First of all, this movie could have only been made by James Cameron. It could only take someone with his kind of pull (and only Cameron swings that Titanic hammer) to make something so big and so epic without any outside interference. Avatar is a film of singular vision - it is definitely not the product of a roomful of marketing executives thinking about what would be cool and what would be commercial. Instead we have a movie about 10-foot tall blue cat-like people who speak a language made up by Cameron that is not unlike nerd-speak Klingon, living on a planet populated by colorful dinosaur-like creatures and floating mountains.

As you may have heard by now, Avatar is one of the most visually impressive films ever to be made. The digital composition and effects work is often stunning and it is just about impossible to determine where practical ends and digital fakery begins. The Na'Vi, the indigenous cat-people living on Pandora, are fully expressive digital creations, and the Uncanny Valley is avoided (for the most part). There is definitely something going on with the way the human brain translates information. The movie is full of things not seen on Earth, especially the intense and bright color palette of Pandora's flora and fauna. So when a bright blue and green rhino crossed with a hammer head shark makes an appearance, the eyes and brain struggle mightily with this information. The original instinct is to determine that what's being seen is a digital composite, as such crazy beasts do no exist. But closer inspection reveals a very textures and nuanced creation, one that the eyes alone can not determine whether or not it is fake or real. The simple fact that these creatures don't exist is keeping the brain from making that leap right away. Which is why the all-digital flora and several hundred-feet tall Hometree looks incredibly real, because our brains have reference points for these items. But not so with the Na'Vi or the numerous beasts that pop up throughout. The lack of visual references makes the brain work harder to judge the photo-realism on display.The story, however, presents the complete opposite problem. Avatar is so full of well-worn, conventional plot tropes that the technical originality gets all the attention, while the story gets the shaft. Every single aspect of the story has been seen before in other films, TV shows and books - there is not one thing that happens throughout the nearly three-hour runtime that will surprise you in any way whatsoever, and if something does surprise you, then you need to watch more movies. Simply put, the story itself is actually incredibly boring and filled with very thin and one-dimensional characters. And lead actor Sam Worthington continues to mystify me - in interviews he seems to be an incredibly charismatic and just flat out cool fellow, but so far he's Mr. Anti-Charisma on screen (at least in Terminator Salvation and this). It's kind of hard to tell whether this is due to his boring character, a real lack of on-screen drawing power, or because he is being forced to use an American accent (often an actor will perform 1000% better when allowed to use his or her natural speaking voice or language. See: Penelope Cruz). This lack of a compelling or original story has sparked some interesting debates and talking points in the past few days. There are plenty of people out there who have voiced the opinion that those looking for a strong and affecting story are looking for too much out of their science fiction fantasy films, and that Avatar should be loved unconditionally because of the technical achievement that the film represents. If that is so, then we should all consider modern film making and storytelling to be a dead, bloated corpse. After all, the purpose of a movie is to tell a story (no matter which genre) and a boring story is a boring story, no matter how it is dressed up. And people who hold out for good storytelling should not allow others to call them "jaded," "cynical" or "over-thinkers." Stick to your guns, folks, and demand that good stories be told. Also with the release of this film, there has been a growing sentiment, almost like excuse-making, that James Cameron films have never been that strong story-wise. To which I declare shenanigans; Terminator and Terminator 2 are both fascinating stories told very well and filled with great characters (there is not a single in all of Avatar that comes close to the awesomeness of Michael Biehn's Kyle Reese), and both The Abyss and True Lies, two very different films, draw their power from the emotional connections between the lead characters and the original, unpredictable nature of their stories. James Cameron did not build his career by simply making the most expensive films ever (The Abyss, Terminator 2, Titanic and Avatar all broke records for most expensive films ever made), he built a successful career and loyal following by telling interesting and unique stories in the best way possible. So when Avatar fails to connect with it's audience emotionally (which is becoming the consensus), one has to consider the movie to be something of a miss. I wanted to fall in love with the film and go back to the IMAX screens and see it again and again and again. But after seeing it once, I feel no need to go back and re-watch it anytime soon. As a matter of fact, I am now much more interested in the home-video DVD release of the movie - how will this story hold up once it doesn't have the world's most advanced 3D technology behind it? Will the world of Pandora still be just as immersive and beautiful 2D home television sets? How will history look back on Avatar?The fact is that Avatar is too well made to be considered a bad movie, and that is purely because of the directorial muscle of Cameron. The action is thrilling to watch (and easy to follow, thanks to a complete lack of bullsh*t shaky cam) and the movie is well paced. But when characters die in the movie during those thrilling action scenes, it is hard to care about them. And the pace of the movie is undercut by the familiarity of the story; you will know what's going to happen next and you will be waiting for the movie to hurry up and get to the next plot point. And as evidenced by the wealth of articles on the internet right now (articles about the plot conventions mashed together to make this story, about the science of the film and about the relationship between nature and religion), Avatar has given everyone something to talk about, which many movies don't do. A very mixed bag of good and bad, Avatar is a hell of a way to end the decade.