The short, short review: Avatar is an experience, and there're many reasons to see it; most of those reasons are not because it's the best story ever. It's not. But it is very much worth seeing. Whether you do so in an IMAX theater, in 3D (or both), or on your own TV when it’s on DV
D someday, it doesn’t matter. But the larger and clearer your screen, the better.
The regular review: If you want your movies to have intricate, unpredictable plots and never-before-seen characters...well, you already know how hard it is to find that in movies today, so don't pick on James Cameron's Avatar if it's deficient on such criteria. The story is fairly solid, though hardly groundbreaking, and many of its plot points and character archtypes you've seen before.
But the fact is, this film compensates with visuals alone. That's not normally a redemptive trait. Eye candy is eye candy, not a piece of memorable cinematography. But Avatar is a bit more than that. The CGI effects and fluid visual landscapes almost feel like a story of their own, worth engaging quite apart from the one writer and director James Cameron is offering. In truth, I could have watched a fictional, plotless documentary about the lush moon of Pandora and all its flora and fauna for 3 hours instead and I might well have been just as impressed. It's that amazing to see.
Here's the spoiler-free set-up: In the year 2154, humans have long since burned up Earth and have moved on. In one corner of the galaxy, a corporation known as RDA ha
s decided to mine a verdant moon named Pandora for its most commercially valuable mineral called unobtainium (a clever name, perhaps, but used before). The only thing making this task hard is the presence of an indigenous population of humanoids called the Na'vi, who are defending their home from the destructive impulses of humanity. To deal with the Na’vi, RDA has employed a group of ex-marines,
Sound familiar? The story and themes in this film have been done before, but doesn’t make them less valid here. It works, though I personally wish the characters were more original. The hero was flawed, but he was also your typical bad boy turned to good. The romance scenario (let’s call it the princess factor) and “love triangle” of Avatar have been overused long before this movie, but at least the love interest herself is no shrinking violet. It’s gratifying to see that damsels-in-distress continue to follow the path of the dodo.
What I also found fairly refreshing was the angle that humans—called the Sky People by the Na’vi—are the invading aliens of this story. The expansionist-minded, resource-greedy race that this movie shows us to be immediately called to mind District 9. In fact, the “Religion and Rocketry” excerpt in my review of District 9 may be better illustrated in Avatar.
Beautiful as the world of Pandora is, the show-stealers in this film are the Na'vi themselves, which Weta Workship and motion capture technology have rendered almost seamlessly into the real world. The Na’vi are a tall, primitive-if-sapient people with catlike features and glittery blue skin. Willowy and light—likely due to the thin atmosphere and low gravity of Pandora—their culture centers around belief in their nature goddess, Eywa. It is this spiritualism and the biological wonders of their society that is threatened by human encroachment.
The avatars referenced by the film’s title are Na’vi hybrid bodies created by humans that can be genetically and remotely controlled by human operators much like in The Matrix. It’s in this way that humans—and we, the audience—can experience the beauty and danger of Pandora like one of the Na’vi. The Na'vi call them Dream-walkers.
The acting in this movie was decent, and was fluid between both real and CGI characters (which overlapped frequently). Sam Worthington portrayed protagonist Jake Sully with accessible heroism and stereotypical military nonchalance. He plays with the alien world of Pandora as any of us might, with natural curiosity and more than a little idiocy. Zoe Saldana is Neytiri, the fiery Na’vi clan princess, stealing as much audience attention as the landscape itself. The ever-cool Sigourney Weaver is no-nonsense scientist Dr. Grace Augustine, playing a role both callous and
endearing; she belongs in science fiction or at least among aliens. And in this movie, she gets to be an alien via a Na’vi avatar. Stephen Lang gives us Colonel Miles Quaritch, the cold-blooded but all-too-common “nuke ‘em all”-style military commander who casually drinks his coffee while giving genocidal orders. Michelle Rodriguez reprises her perpetual role as the token badass, tough-talking girl, which many of us may recall from Resident Evil or Lost. The list goes on, and no actor truly disappoints.
Whatever one might think of James Cameron, one has to admit he’s upped the ante once again. Titanic might have shown the scale of his efforts, but Avatar looks and feels more like a directorial evolution of the films that really showcased his visual storytelling. This is the guy who brought us Aliens, The Abyss, and the first two Terminator movies, so no matter what faults you find with Avatar, it’s bound to be chock-full of goodies, too.
For more complex science fiction, you’ll certainly want to mine a bookstore for the classics. For solid movie sci-fi, Avatar is a new classic.











Comments
Your review is spot on. I though the story and plot were solid, if a bit predictable, and quite enjoyable. Visually the movie was stunning and the acting was good to. I saw it in 3-D which was an added plus. Overall a very good movie and worth the price of admission.
I have yet to see it, but I am really looking forward to it. The consensus review, similar to your own, that the story is nothing special but not bad while the visuals make it worth seeing, is intriguing. I've never seen mainstream critics like Roger Ebert give a movie four stars while saying the story was nothing special.
So I guess Michelle Rodriguez takes the Vasquez role from Aliens. I'm wondering if any other parallels (besides the obvious presence of Aliens' main character) could be made, considering the Marines-in-deep-space-James-Cameron link. I guess I'll see
I agree that the story is very formulaic, but indeed, that doesn't do much to detract from the awesomeness of the movie, oddly enough. There really was an endless parade of comparisons that came to mind as I watched. Beyond the ones Jeff mentioned, there was also Dances With Wolves and any other movie where a westerner is immersed within an indigenous population.
To kaelcarp's musing about Aliens comparisons, there is yet another one. Paul Reiser's weasily character is played by the weasily Paul Reiser-like Giovanni Ribisi. And it is essentially the same character representing the same corporate interests.
I have to say, nothing disappoints me more than the fact that I have no desire to see this movie. I love science fiction and fantasty, especially when it is not coming from a previously published work like a novel or comic book. But the trailers have done so much to turn me off of this one that I have no intention of seeing it until, potentially, a Netflix rental is available.
What snippets of dialogue I have heard in trailers and late show interviews have really made my cheese alarm go off (aside from the "you're not in Kanas anymore" nonsense, the dialogue between the marine and the female Na'vi was so cliche), but more than anything the visuals really looked stilted and overindulgent. In my opinion the trailers should have focused on longer cuts where my eyes could actually focus on the details, instead of the half-second cuts where everything just seemed to be color barf.
I won't be adding to the box office gross, but then again, I rarely do for anything.
Fair enough, Jw. But I will say that the trailer doesn't do it justice. No trailer for this film looks half as realistic as the movie itself.
I fear you may be a victim of hype, and certain this movie is getting it. There is certainly a cheese factor. I imagine if James Cameron did create a documentary style film of Pandora and its denizens INSTEAD of a story of barely original conflict, you'd be much more into it.
I finally saw it yesterday. In all, I was very impressed. The story is nothing new but well done. The world is unlike anything I've seen in a movie, and it was one of the most completely immersive experiences I've had watching a movie. You can't even tell what's CGI, which is a big step forward, and what's more, it isn't thrown in your face as a cool special effect. It's just there. The acting is good, for the most part. I particularly liked the way Giovanni Ribisi handled the "Paul Reiser" role.
My biggest annoyance was the Colonel character. It brought the movie down a notch every time he was in it. He's a ridiculous and unrealistic character, a tired stereotype.
I agree with what Jeff said about the visuals. Before seeing the movie, the shots of the blue people looked pretty unimpressive. Even seeing the stills and clips now do look kind of cartoony and flat. But actually watching it on the screen (in IMAX 3D) it was a whole different experience.
There's loads of problems with the story, characters, and dialogue. They're actually not bad, considering. But they still pale in comparison to the world of Pandora and the CGI/cinematography. Now if Cameron were to team up with Disneynature and produce a documentary (presumably called Pandora), that would be AMAZING! But it probably wouldn't earn a billion bucks.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!