Friday, December 18, 2009
11 years since his last feature film, James Cameron returns to provide shock and awe to movie goers this holiday season.
There has been a lot of hype and cynicism building up for this film. Some have called it a 'game changer", "revolutionary", and the "next step." Other see it as an over blown and over produced piece of work from a self obsessed ego maniac.
There are parts that are true for each side of the fences. But one thing is true, hyperbole is being thrown around by everyone.
I saw the footage at Comic Con, and it did not blow me away. It looked great and there was a lot of detail in every frame. But it did not cause me to change my pants like others in the room.
Which worked out great for me, my expectations were lowered and I went about my day waiting to see the full motion picture. I went to Avatar day in Aug. Which showed close to the same footage they showed at Comic Con, nothing too different.
So Cameron and Fox won me over and I was going to pay to see their movie, mostly due to the ballsy marketing campaign. So the months came and went, and buzz continued to build and build. But still, I maintain my optimism in check.
I saw Avatar last night at midnight on a proper IMAX 3D screen. The film, for lack of a better or more original word, is awesome. In the true definition of the word:
awe·some (ôsm)
adj.
1. Inspiring awe: an awesome thunderstorm.
2. Expressing awe: stood in awesome silence before the ancient ruins.
Every frame of the movie, from Jake Sulley waking up from his cryogenic slumber in the space ship, to the Na'vi bonding with the creatures of Pandora. Every frame of the film is filled with awe-inspiring images and creativity. The story is an original idea from Cameron, but the concepts have been done before where an outsider becomes part of a group and changes sides (i.e. Dances with Wolves or Last Samurai).
But no other movie before has shown so much technical proficiency and perfection than Cameron does in Avatar. Cameron's cognizance of the camera and the technology he helped create is phenomenal. After the first five minutes of the film, you forget it’s in 3D and you are completely immersed in Pandora and the humans who are disturbing the peace.
For as many stunning visuals that the film has, the story is where it struggles the most. The outline of the film is fine, it makes sense and provides an enthralling enough narrative. It is structured in a very traditional and Hollywood way. It even has the whole white people fantasy, where ‘savages’ can’t help themselves and have to have a white person save them. But that’s another post by another more eloquent writer, Annalee Newitz (http://io9.com/5422666/). Yet these problems do not hinder the film. Avatar is straight forward in it’s story layout, there is an establishing first act (filled with quite a bit of exposition), a second act ending that is tragic and beautiful at the same time, and the third ties everything up and have one of the best action sequences I have ever seen. But the dialogue, oh goodness, the dialogue. Other than Stephan Lang’s perfect Colonel Miles Quaritich, everyone’s dialogue seemed clichéd, which stands out so much more in such an original piece of film.
The rest of the cast doesn’t have much to work with in regards to dialogue but they all make it work. Sam Worthington erases the memory of his Terminator Salvation performance within the first act of the film. He is engaging and you go with him on his journey gleefully. His leading lady, Zoe Saaldana, embodiment of Neytiri, is astounding, other than Andy Serkis, no other actor or actress has been able to emote as perfectly through FX as Zoe. Her performance is Oscar worthy, but the dilemma there is, would you nominate the actress or the FX team? Think about that and get back to me.
The rest of the supporting cast is great, Sigourney Weaver is as wonderful as ever, also it’s fun to see Undeclared’s Joel Moore getting work, and Michelle Rodriguez, who I have never found attractive, was incredibly sexy in the movie.
This review may be repetitive and almost cookie cutter compared with others floating around, but this movie delivers. It isn’t just a film for film snobs to like and judge you for not watching, it’s a MOVIE. It is fun, engaging, and most importantly entertaining throughout it’s 2 ½ plus running time. Which I did not feel at all.
But the film’s visual’s and set pieces are the main event. They are outstanding/astonishing and any other hyperbole you want to through out. You must see this film in 3D and not wait for DVD. You will be doing yourself a huge disservice if you wait.
Now comparing to other Cameron films, is it my favorite? No, I still love Aliens above all. But if I were 10 – 16 years old, this movie would of changed my life. But I have a strong nostalgic connection to Aliens and T2. Not so much Abyss, since I just saw it for the first time a couple of weeks ago thanks to Tim Metz. It’s sad that the first movie with a fully realized CGI creature was such a bomb, it was a great movie that was underappreciated. But I digress, Avatar proves that James Cameron’s ego is much deserved, because he delivers. He is not a Michael Bay who wants to blow stuff up and make it look cool, so much that it hinders the story. James Cameron cares about “his” vision more so than what other people want. Yet with James Cameron, his vision is what people love and will eat up and await his next film. I’m willing to wait another 11 years if Cameron can deliver films like this every time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry to fact-check you on this buddy, but TITANIC was 12 years ago, actually. :)
ReplyDeleteI'd say that for the most part, I'd agree with your comments on AVATAR. Despite a tried and true story formula where you knew exactly where it was going, Cameron brought the goods once again, showing he still does "epic" like no one else working today, and created a world so rich in its details, that its near 3-hour running time actually felt too brief!
I'd absolutely argue in Saldana's favor as well for being deserving of an Oscar nomination. People still seem hesitant to nominate actors who are guiding the performance of CGI characters, but no one seems to bat an eyelash at dumping awards on actors buried beneath makeup (cases in point: Ledger's Joker or Charlize Theron in MONSTER). In my mind, there's no difference, as both makeup and CGI are just tools for enhancing the believability of a movie, and it's the actor's work that's still "selling" a performance.
While I don't think AVATAR quite touched Cameron's "big three" for me (TERMINATOR, ALIENS, and THE ABYSS), I think it was still another spectacular film from a director who's still 7 for 7 in my opinion (since he only really half-directed it, PIRANHA II doesn't count).