Avatar 2-D: Film Re-Review
Avatar 2-D is flatter than a pancake. Given that I don’t like eggs, you’ll understand how I feel about pancakes.
I remember leaving the cinema one frosty night earlier this year having been wowed by James Cameron’s visual-effects epic. The film review which followed was, of course, more than favourable.
And I still stand by my initial assertion that Avatar ascends beyond the epitome of entertainment into the realm of ‘experience’.
Watching the movie at home, however, two crucial things were missing. Quite simply, the depth and texture of the 3-D and a 50 foot cinema screen.
Avatar 2-D versus Avatar 3-D
I can’t stand 3-D. Whilst I appreciate the purpose it serves in giving cinemas a unique selling point, it just doesn’t float my boat. Avatar is the only film thus far to make me question my misgivings about 3-D. Viewed at the cinema in this capacity, Avatar is visually mind-blowing.
It does indeed remain a sight to behold and a must for anyone interested in film and the visual arts.
The problem is, when you strip away the added dimension, it fast becomes apparent that Avatar is far from a masterpiece.
Will the real Avatar please stand up?
In my initial review I outlined concerns over the creaking script, clunky dialogue, poor characters and uninspired plot. Watching at home, these inconveniences became more transparent than the Invisible Man in a greenhouse.
That’s not to say the visuals still aren’t amazing. But having already seen them once through 3-D glasses, the ‘wow’ impact was somewhat nullified. In fact, I became seriously bored about 20 minutes in, my interest sinking faster than the Titanic. There was just way too much jungle for my liking.
Visual-effects: No Substitute for storytelling
As a general rule – Avatar 3-D being the exception – visual-effects shouldn’t act as a substitute for good story-telling. Take The Terminator as a case in point.
While Stan Winston’s special-effects were groundbreaking at the time, they are somewhat dated now. This became blatantly obvious when I re-watched the movie with a teenager who found some aspects of the effects amusing. Nonetheless, this did little to detract from the fantastic storyline and characters – they still hold up nearly 30 years on.
It’s a shame then that Cameron was unable to blend his flair for storytelling and mastery of visual-effects in Avatar.
Avatar: A Tale of Two Films
I’ll finish things off by reiterating that I stick by my original review. Viewing the movie in 3-D at the cinema was an amazing experience and nothing will change that.
Sat at home on the couch though, things look notably different. The smokescreen of the effects quickly dissipates leaving a movie with about as much depth as a dried up ravine.
Life’s full of contradictions right?
Rating: 
– available on Blu-ray and DVD
Ross Wheatley
2:57 pm, August 12, 2010
Totally agree with this review, Matt. I was blown away when i first saw Avatar in 3-D at the cinema, i was stunned for days by this experience.
However, re-watching the film on my 32-inch television in 2-D, i had to force myself to finish it. The effects we’re one of the only aspects of the 3-D version that made it a worth while experience, without them, the film isn’t much at all, as told in this review.
Cheers for the post.
Richard
3:07 pm, August 12, 2010
I agree with that Avatar is the only good film in 3D i have seen. Other films in 3D i have seen that dont need to be for example is the likes Toy Story and Tim Burtons Alice In Wonderland.
aidan
2:21 am, August 15, 2010
Personally I enjoyed Avatar both at the cinema and home only real probelm for me is that its way too long….
Al Fuller
4:27 pm, September 9, 2010
I think that Avatar in 2D is a good film, perfectly watchable, and worth watching. But once you have seen the 3D version going to 2D removes everything that the film had.
In 3D, Avatar is like a proper good chocolate cake. In 2D it is the same without the chocolate, eggs, and most of the ingredients that make a good cake. What you are left with is, flour, something pretty much indigestible!
Jasmine
12:48 pm, October 19, 2010
I did not like this film at all becuase the colours were too bright and they hurt my eyes. I think they should be less brighter.