 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 26, 2009 - 1:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Greg Bryant
(Member)
|
After an otherwise lackadaisical year at the movies, along comes a white knight to rescue us from Hollywood’s excess exercise in banality. Yes, James Cameron’s Avatar is a brightly shining light among the wasteland of overdone big budget garbage.
What makes Avatar the brilliant piece of work that it is falls into three categories. The first is the technical brilliance of digital special effects that Cameron brings to this film. Years ago, George Lucas apparently claimed that he wanted to do away with all actors, and replace them with digital special effects characters. In that case, the result was the frequently reviled Jar Jar Binks. To George Lucas, one can only say thank god for Peter Jackson and Gollum! It was in seeing the work of Jackson’s digital effects house that convinced Cameron that the state of digital effects were ready to realize his vision of the Na’Vi.
And what a vision they are. Incredible ten-foot tall and blue skinned. But Cameron took the state of digital effects a step further and gave the Na’Vi facial expressions and emotions…something that has been sorely lacking in nearly all digital characters in film over the last decade and a half. This work brings the Na’Vi to life and gives Cameron’s film one layer of depth missing in nearly all of its big budget predecessors. When loss happens, you see it in the faces of the Na’Vi. When joy happens, you see it in their faces. Love, terror, laughter, inquisitiveness…it’s all there.
The second category is how Cameron has raised the bar on 3-D film. In the past, 3-D film has been perfectly satisfied with throwing things at the audience – something that was the staple of the original 3-D movies of the 50’s; also in the 1980’s resurgence of 3-D and in recent 3-D movies. Cameron’s film does occasionally throw something at the audience. But mainly, he uses it to show depth and detail, adding another incredible layer to his film.
The third category is one that we (well, I do at least) expect from all of Cameron’s movies – and that’s a layer of story, character (especially strong female characters), and a central relationship in the film. I have gotten annoyed and turned off on most big budget films because they lack these simple things – these are writing things, not special effects or set design or action sequences or anything else – they are things that are set up in the writing stage of a film. And they also highlight the essential emptiness of big budget films through their absence.
Cameron’s characters have depth and motivations – even the jingoistic Colonel Quaritch. We see characters grow and change in this film. Main character Jake Sully wants the use of his legs back – promised to him if he will infiltrate the Na’Vi for the mining company that wants Pandora’s riches. But Sully gets something more than he bargained for.
Some critics will condemn Cameron’s movies, saying that Cameron is remaking other movies. I’ll counter that by saying that most movie stories (and not just the current trend of remakes, sequels and franchises) have been told somewhere before. It’s in the execution of the new story that makes or breaks the movie. And Cameron has executed this story in a way that few have ever done before. Oh yes, Cameron borrows heavily from Dances With Wolves. I don’t know if Cameron realizes it, but I also noticed strong similarities in this film to John Boorman’s 1985 The Emerald Forest. But it doesn't bother me, because Cameron takes those stories to a new level not before seen.
Avatar has an incredible sense of beauty that I have not often seen in a film. A movie wins in my book if it creates an entirely new and imaginative world into which I can sink. Avatar creates an immersive experience, where two hours and forty minutes fly by without you noticing. Avatar succeeds by enveloping the audience in a sense of wonder and exploration, both of the universe and of your self and your soul.
Adam Cohen in the New York Times writes about the movie – his column in the Opinion section on Avatar is well worth reading for additional thoughts on the movie:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/opinion/26sat4.html
If anything, Hollywood should take a page from the James Cameron filmmaking manual. If they are intent on continuing this trend of making grossly over-budgeted movies, then this is the way to make them. Barring that, I would only appeal to Mr. Cameron to make more movies. Twelve years is a long time to wait between his movies. But whatever he was doing in the intervening twelve years, Avatar was certainly worth the wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 28, 2009 - 1:00 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
I can't disagree with anything you said above, either, Greg. We saw it last night, and above all I thought it was a stunningly beautiful film, from the brutal functionality of the transport at the start, through to the creatures and landscape of the Navi environment.
The 3D was amazing - to my shame, it was the first 3D film I'd ever seen in the cinema, and shot after shot made subtle use of it, often (as you mentioned) in the background rather than in your face.
Looking back and trying to decide my favourite cinema experience of 2010 will be difficult; in a year when new Bond and new Potter films were released that I desperately wanted to love (although both suffered in comparison with their respective previous outings), the only other films I've seen have been Star Trek and Watchmen... it's a toss up between Avatar and the last of these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
