Avatar 3-D:Film Review
Every couple of years or so a film comes along capable of turning the most ardent arm-chair viewer into a temp cinema-goer. Avatar is one such film. Scores of people continue to brave the harsh winter in a bid to catch a glimpse of this year’s ‘Event’ movie.
“If you haven’t already seen it, you’ve got to” – at least that seems to be the general consensus of the movie-going public.
And the numbers don’t lie. Since storming into cinemas late last year, James Cameron’s sci-fi epic has become the largest grossing film of all time – sinking the director’s own world-box office record set by Titanic.
Things can’t be bad for the self-proclaimed “king of the world”.
Is it worth a watch…?
In a nutshell: definitely. Like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, Cameron manages to usher in a new age of special effects. As with its predecessors, it’s hard not to be blown away by the detail and depth of imagery on display. To this extent, Cameron surpasses the dubious post-film buzz, and delivers above and beyond expectations.
The plot and characterisation, on the other hand, is a whole different story.
We are thrown into the world of Pandora through the eyes of Jake Sully, a former Marine restricted to a wheelchair. The planet, which rests light years from Earth, is consumed by an atmosphere toxic to humans. This is where the Avatar Program comes in. Our reluctant hero, Sully, plugs into a machine that links his consciousness to an avatar – a remotely-controlled biological body blending human DNA with DNA from Pandora’s indigenous, the Na’vi.
Given the complexities of convincingly rendering such imagery on the screen, it’s no surprise Cameron waited 15 years before executing his pet-project.
And watching Avatar, 3-D glasses glued to my face, I can say the results – for the most part – were worth the wait.
The photorealistic CGI technology seamlessly brings the Na’vi to life in a world so full of texture that at times it threatens to drip off the screen straight into your popcorn. And while I remain sceptical about the ability of 3-D to “save” cinema, Cameron’s rendering of the technology is a delight. Rather than promiscuously splashing it all over the screen, the director opts for the ‘less is more’ approach – a move allowing the fourth wall to remain intact.
Style over substance…?
The ‘style over substance’ question is one that I found myself asking about halfway through its 162 minute runtime. Once the initial shock and awe of the visuals had subsided, I felt sort of the same way as when I watched 2012 earlier in the year. The creaking screenplay and thinly drawn characters quickly floated to the surface.
Now I’ve long been a believer that special effects should first and foremost serve the progression of plot and character. Even the granddaddy of CGI George Lucas agrees with this thesis – which fails to explain why he embraced style over substance in the most recent instalments of the Star Wars saga.
But Avatar is a rare cinematic case that should be viewed as an experiment in the visual. Cameron’s attention is clearly focused first and foremost on furthering the technological tools of the cinematic and producing a visual opera of epic proportions.
To put it in the same cannon as Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey would be remiss. The two movies are worlds apart in terms of their mastery, Kubrick’s magnum opus operating gracefully on both a visual and intellectual level. But where Avatar lacks 2001’s mind-bending pretence, it successfully creates a world which in itself is filled with profundity. The attention to detail is such that it all but renders the clunky and repetitive dialogue irrelevant.
And despite a lack of originality in the storyline and the tired reluctant hero device, Cameron displays brains as well as brawn. He subtly builds in a strong Green and anti-war message, as well as inventing a new language, Na’vi, adding to the film’s authenticity.
A cultural milestone…?
Say what you will about Avatar, but Cameron’s brainchild unquestionably raises the bar five-fold for any CGI/3-D films that follow. Avatar has planted its hefty feet in the cinematic landscape and will surely be looked back on as a turning point in the filmic revolution. Talk is already sounding round the back-lots of Hollywood studios concerning the ability of this new motion capture techonology in bringing, for example, James Dean back to the screen or making Alec Baldwin look thin again.
Flawed, but fantastic in all its grandeur, Avatar invites you to step into the world of Pandora; the only question is: will you want to leave?
Ross Wheatley
5:56 pm, January 30, 2010
I’ve been to see Avatar roughly around a week ago now, and i thought the 3D brought it to life! Cameron has outdone himself with another fantastic film, which tends to dazzle the eyes of most its viewers.
I think what you have wrote about this blockbuster meets my opinion about the film dead in the middle – not the best of stories, maybe a little predictable, but it works; and works well at that. As a viewer I can see why the film has broke the record for the largest grossing film of all time in box office history.
James Cameron – brilliant once again, welldone.
Anthony (Designbit)
6:14 pm, March 30, 2010
This was a visual feast, at the cinema with 3d glasses I was blown away, immersed in a alien world that was so pretty it was unbelievable, a film that will kick start the 3d revolution; i just wnder if such beauty can be re-captured.
Aidan
1:42 pm, August 2, 2010
I just re-watched this film in 2D and i thought it really held up. Although it was mind blowing in 3D at the cinema.