Movie Review – Avatar
It took me a long time to see Avatar, longer than I had planned. I didn’t want to get caught up in the hype, but I knew I had to experience it on the big screen in 3-D to fully appreciate it, so I finally made the time.
Yes, it’s true that it’s not a very original story. Pocahontas, Fern Gully, Dances With Wolves. The story of the man who gets to know the natives, and them helps them fight against his own people has been told before. But that’s never reason enough alone to knock a film. Everyone thought Vanilla Sky was original, but we all know it wasn’t. Most stories have been told before, but if it is well executed, with an original twist, then there’s nothing wrong with that.
That is exactly what Avatar is. The original twist is the amazing visuals of the film. Pandora is a uniquely beautiful planet with creatures and landscapes one can barely dream of – strange animals, floating land with waterfalls, and a scientific explanation for the connectedness of all the living creatures (dealt with more deftly than the midichlorian attempt). Sure Captain Obvious delivered every line of politically charged dialogue, but it didn’t bother me. I knew I was getting into a tried and true storyline, and so long as I enjoyed the ride, I didn’t care that I knew where the ups, downs, and curves were.
The cool visuals, of course, are what made this movie an experience. I’ve been adamantly opposed to the use of 3-D. It’s a gimmick and it doesn’t bring anything of value to the movie-going experience. It’s like adding extra whipped cream on top of the cherry – after so much, you forget that what you really wanted to enjoy was the ice cream at the bottom. I will admit that the 3-D made the digital characters look and feel more real. I did like the effect of small bugs flying around off the screen. But I hated every swing or move directed at the camera that was a “hey, look at the cool stuff 3-D can do!” moment. It would pull me out of the movie I was enjoying. In summary, atmospheric use of 3-D: good, blatant gimmick use: bad.
As much as I enjoyed this movie, I will be a little disappointed if it wins best picture at the Oscars. To quote Roger Ebert, while listing potential nominees, “Yes, it’s a phenomenon and I loved the experience. But the best film? Not compared to those other titles it isn’t.” More than anything, it’s an experience. It’s a breakthrough in technology in movies and for that it should be applauded. But a well told rehashed story should not be valued over richer stories such as “The Hurt Locker” or “Up In the Air”. No matter how much money it makes.