The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

I saw this in Imax and 3-D at a superb theater.

Is it possible to really like a film and yet be disappointed?

First things first, yes James Cameron the tech wizard director is let down by James Cameron the middling screenwriter. All but the panting fanboys will admit that. Still, all but the purists who feel films are simply an extension of theater have to say AVATAR works as cinema. It has an epic scale, the central plot works on its own simplistic level and the technology serves the story in a way that many high tech films fail to do.

Before getting into SPOILER Territory, I will address the claim that AVATAR is a "game changer". Yes and no. Yes, it definately moves the ball forward as far as motion capture, but I don't think it fundamentally alters special effects the way STAR WARS/CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, 2001 or JURASSIC PARK did. The movements and textures of the aliens have markedly improved since POLAR EXPRESS, but they are still a bit weightless and jerky. Cutting back and forth between Pandora's people and the Humans only accentuates the gap between the real and the artificial (kind of a neat trick in some ways I must admit, as it echoes one of the major themes). But, AVATAR still isn't the final step in Motion Control. And, as much as the studios continue to hype 3-D as the future of movies, I still don't envision there being more than a handful of $300M spectaculars each year. For every AVATAR there will still be, thankfully, many more HURT LOCKERS and IN THE LOOPS.

SPOILERS:




As much as I enjoyed much of AVATAR, the plot really is a predictable mix of ALIENS and DANCES WITH WOLVES. In many ways, this could be read as just ALIENS inside out. WE are the oily slimy aliens to be destroyed for mining the planet. You have Michelle Rodriguez in the 'Jenette Goldstein' role, Giovanni Ribisi in the 'Paul Reiser' role and Sigourney Weaver is now an updated Dian Fossey (GORILLAS IN THE MIST). And, the human controlled Rock 'em Rockets - again? Come on, Cameron! Sure, they move better than they did in 1986, but is that the most original notion that can be come up with 23 years to think about it?

If you can't see where the film is going plotwise with a full hour to go (it is also way too long), then you haven't seen too many hit movies the last couple of decades. As a consequence, the ending battle is a bit of an anti-climax even if it's the best of its kind since LORD OF THE RINGS (and, in turn, runs rings around the CGI battles in the recent STAR WARS trilogy). So, who woulda thought that it would be so uncomfortably similar to the Ewoks' victory in RETURN OF THE JEDI - complete with a song!!?

Like Iamjacks noted, there are some character motivation problems and the chain of command is never totally clear. Are we really supposed to believe that Rodriguez' disobeyal of orders in the field of battle wouldn't be reported by ANYONE on the mission???!! She would have been the one being served in the plexi-cell.


END OF SPOILERS:

AVATAR is a good SF film and a fun popcorn experience. But, I'll still take a 2001, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS or a COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT over it in the long run of SF Film history.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

I think I'm in the extremely small minority of people who were truly let down by the film. I won't say I hated it, but I came really close.

Outside of the $300 million in VFX, there's NOTHING NEW THERE. Epic fail on writing, directing, and (for the most part) acting (though when you've got a script as flat and 2-dimensional as this one, it's hard to rise above.)

For weeks I'd been hearing how, "The story is lame, but the effects are so good you won't care." I saw it once in 2D, then labored through it a second time in 3D.

I cared. All style, no substance. Avatar's positively craptacular and I'm not ashamed to say it.

But yeah, groundbreaking effects, visual masterpiece, blah, blah, whatever. Go see it so you can say you've seen what $300 million and a crack WETA/ILM effects team can do. That's the only reason I could find.

_________________
David A. Zecchini; Creature of the Wheel, Lord of the Infernal Engines
"Damnati Im Ludum" (VitruvianZeke@att.net)

I just realized that I neglected to post any of my thoughts here, but here is my quick assessment from that "other" board:

This film is an absolutely stunning acheivement in visual artistry. As such, it is a must-see, especially in it's native format, the incredibly smooth IMAX 3D.

However, the thing for me that kept this from being a classic for me was the absolute lack of motivation for any of the characters. Nobody, especially the evil humans, was given any reason to act the way they did or feel the way they feel other than the script dictating it. There was no "hero's journey," it was simply part I and part II. There was not enough exposition except for that asinine throwaway speech by the Giovani Ribisi character near the beginning. The story also surprisingly failed on a lot of dramatics beats, especially involving the deaths or near-deaths of major characters or beings.

The visuals, for me, were enough to overcome the shortcomings of the story. I just wish I had felt a little more "awwwww..." to go along with my "wow..."

I pretty much agree (stop the presses! ) with all the nitpicky things that LAConnection has gripes about, and I am somewhat surprised he was able to overcome them much in the same way I was.

And Zeke, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but I understand why. You won't get any argument from me.

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"

I really WANTED to enjoy it, does that count?

Admittedly, the eye candy is outstanding, and a definitely step up from anything we've seen on screen before. (Of course, we've been saying that with every CGI movie since since, what, "Tron?")

I also agree that it's a technical "must see", and absolutely must be seen on the big screen. Though I also admit that the 3D is better than anything I've seen before, I'm still not convinced that 3D really adds to the feeling of being drawn into a film past its "gimmick" use. ("3D House of Beef," anyone?)

Honestly, it didn't help me in Avatar's case, so I'm less emphatic that it's a necessity. But it IS a definite cut above, so if you enjoy these things from a technical standpoint it's a no-brainer.

_________________
David A. Zecchini; Creature of the Wheel, Lord of the Infernal Engines
"Damnati Im Ludum" (VitruvianZeke@att.net)

Over on the Boston board, I posted, thanking L.A. for articulating my thoughts on the film so that I wouldn't have to.

Allow me to make an addendum: thanks to L.A. AND Zeke for articulating my exact thoughts on the film so that I don't have to.

Avatar was a decient flick. I've seen better. The story was flat tiresome. I did see the movie at 9:40 am the day after Christmas in IMAX 3D. It looks great in 3D that is it.