So 20th Century Fox’s “Avatar” embargo broke yesterday and its because post-press screening buzz last night (almost all of LA and NY saw it last night, including us) was positive and loud. Fox’s plan was to sit on reviews until day of — they were nervous for sure — but some breathless thoughts last night — especially from Variety (who along with The Hollywood Reporter apparently strong armed Fox into lifting the embargo), changed their minds quick.
But is James Cameron’s long-gestating epic a game changer? Did the 3D make you feel like your eyes were getting fucked by our lord Jesus? Not quite, however the film was undeniably visually impressive. If geek bloggers, who always put a major premium on effects and spectacle aren’t jizzing all over their computers this very second, you know they soon will be. “Avatar” is a geek bloggers wet dream, and as per usual many of them are likely going to be dazzled by the effects and scope, yet completely blind to how broad, pedestrian and juvenile much of the story, characterization and dialogue is.
Most characters are written as cartoons. Great actors like Giovanni Ribisi can’t help but come off as a one-note worm in his underwritten role (an exact replica of the avarice and slimy Paul Reiser character in “Aliens”) and Stephen Lang as the tough-as-nails hilariously black-and-white military villain of the affair is pretty unintentionally comical. But there’s not a lot either of them can do with the material, so they both just go for broke, which is amusing, but still largely entertaining.
But Cameron’s “Avatar” no matter how dated (it feels very ’90s rather than contemporary) or silly or adolescent — it’s “Dances With Wolves” in outer space, make no mistake — is still massive in scope, ambitious and grandly operatic. Where Cameron mostly fails (or fails to truly convince) with story (not terrible, but pretty formulaic and banal in spots), he succeeds with action, thrill rides and visual spectacle. Story though? Basic as all get out: again, Sam Worthington is Kevin Costner, who meets an indigenous people, falls in love with them (yes, it’s part love story) and their nature-spiritual ways, and realizes his own people are greedy and “bad.” Time to fight back! But the character arc is also a bit convoluted, wanting to be a Anakin-Skywalker hero, but a set-up reveals absolutely nothing remarkable about him. A jar-head meathead ex-solider who becomes the chosen one, he is played out like a grunt and what makes him special is never ever explained (other than being one of the few humans with a conscience, maybe that’s enough these days).
“Ferngully”-like concerns were had by all when the trailer came along obviously, but once you’re acclimated to how goofy the characters look, its not a problem or dealbreaker and the 3D and visuals are pretty incredible at times. Some vistas can even be stunning, but it’s also not a painting to admire, it’s a movie and visuals of course can only take you so far.
That said, this is probably the film George Lucas desperately wished he made with the “Star Wars” prequels: a saga-like space opera with grandiosity, one that will appeal broadly to all sci-fi, fantasy, action/adventure fans and mostly doesn’t embarrass (though some of the love-making and spiritual scenes are so overdramatic and hammy they will make you chuckle).
But those with eyes and ears will be able to discern that Cameron’s film has about just as much story or character sophistication as “Phantom Menace” (though yes, Cameron is wise enough to not include a JarJar like character). The first act is painfully expository and dialogue leaden, and many key moments that are meant to be shown and felt are inexplicably glossed over in voice-over. Would “Star Wars” have worked if you heard Luke Skywalker talk about how powerful and moving Obi Wan’s “The-Force” speeches are in voice-over instead of actually hearing them and being impressed by Alec Guinness? Creative decisions like this are puzzling and poor. Another egregious example is when the passable Sam Worthington character tames the most significant beast of the planet offscreen — essentially it’s his crucial, how-he-becomes-“the chosen one” moment but Cameron doesn’t show it and instead rushes off to get the massive war started (which is probably just easier and more fun to do for him). These are storytelling 101 no-nos, but somehow they do not ruin “Avatar” and that’s probably to its credit.
The actors? No one is exceptional, but how can you deliver such wooden dialogue any other way? Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez are all adequate and fine, but it’s not like this film is about acting (Joel Moore however, is just too bug-eyed and obvious at all times).
The highest compliment one can pay to Cameron’s effects is that there is some weight, drama and emotion to the aliens. Sure, much of it is incredibly melodramatic and breathlessly over-the-top (like James Horner’s score that tries to make a “Titanic” moment out of everything, including breakfast), but there is emotion nonetheless which is more than most were expecting (and watch many mistake exaggerated melodrama for heart and soul, there’s a lot of Anakin-isms here, people).
Cameron’s writing is broad and simplistic and predictable — there’s even a nature-strikes back deus ex machina which is pretty funny — and in many ways this is why the film will be successful: it’s easy to digest. The thematic pull is a save-the-environment heart and tolerance to other races (again, all pretty much gleaned from “Dances With Wolves”) while the villain is greed, the military (several on-the-nose allusions to the Bush Administration) and imperialism (though Cameron might have to look that up).
But the artlessness of “Avatar” should not hurt the bottom dollar at all. It’s entertaining, mostly engaging (especially for an almost 3 hour movie) and thrilling enough. No one’s going to hand over major awards or call “Jurrassic Park” genius, but similarly, “Avatar’ should connect with the same audiences that made that picture a hit.
Bottom line: “Avatar” is nowhere near the embarrassment or disaster that some worried about, nor is it the life-changing, “I can never see a movie again,” posit that geek bloggers are likely bonering about, but if it eeks into the Oscars outside of technical awards (and it surely has a lock on all effects awards, and possibly other tech categories, it is a major achievement in that sense), this will be a fairly embarrassing maneuver. Then again, the simplistic nature of “Dances With Wolves” took Best Picture too so anything is possible. Conversely, “Avatar” might be unsophisticated from a narrative viewpoint, so it’s also not something worth hating on. It succeeds with what its trying to be: a simple heroic space battle with massive technical and visual aspirations. [B-]
"Did the 3D make you feel like your eyes were getting fucked by our lord Jesus? "
LOVE. THIS.
I think it speaks highly of the heavy pessimism regarding this movie that the entire review consists of alternative phrasing of the words "not sucking". Still, the review makes it seem as you guys were disappointed that it WASN'T a disaster.
Not at all. I was just surprised that so many critics that I talked to afterwards, many of them who I respect were pretty bowled over. And "i was like, huh, really? Interesting…'
But as always, read into it how you like.
Sam Worthington was pretty good in Somersault.
In other words, it's consistent with Cameron's other output – just mediocre enough to be a huge success.
I suppose. It will be a huge success cause it's so broad, but I dunno I think Cameron's Aliens is great and the Terminator movies, while i haven't seen them since I was a kid, they were always good entertainment… kinda like how i feel about Guns N' Roses: not music i would ever intentionally put on myself, but music I'd probably enjoy if someone put on at a party.
Thank goodness Cameron didn't try to tell a sophisticated story. That's not his forte. He makes great action movies with some decent character touches (The Terminator learning to be human, Ripley's motherhood angle). The "not sophisticated" argument was the exact same argument against "Titanic". One could argue that his weakest film are the ones with the strongest stories (or attempt at story).
IMO complaining that a Cameron film is all visuals and basic story is like faulting a Raimi film for being campy or a Capra film for being overly sentimental. Cameron makes films for the masses and those are almost always going to be simplistic or adolescent.
Interesting review. The thing that strikes as a little odd, in this review and many other reactions, is that most of the criticisms (with regard to story, sophistication, ect.)would seem to me to be things that you would more or less take as a given in a James Cameron movie. The throwback to the nineties is a something I'm kind've looking foreward to in Avatar, because if you look at the eighties/nineties period in Hollywood, I think directors like Spielberg, John Carpenter, and Cameron could do really silly blockbuster hokum in a way that was sincere and irresistably entertaining. The ability to do escapist hokum really well is something I think Hollywood has lost completely, and I'm hoping (fingers crossed) Avatar will restore something of that goofy magic to the blockbuster.
What an utterly condescending review–which, I guess, shouldn't surprised me, coming from someone who chose Che as the best movie of 2008.
Oooh, burrrrrrn!
Actually, this review sure doesn't read like a B minus. Despite all the protests to the contrary, Avatar in fact does sound like a disaster, based on this review. If the main (only?) thing to recommend sitting through the movie is its visuals, which have utterly failed to awe or stun in any of the trillions of commercials or trailers bombarding America, I've got better things to do with my ten bucks and two hours.
I have to wonder if the huge amount of cash and resources sucked up by the production of Avatar (and, presumably, by its two sequels, which will require SCADS more eye-fucking), will create conditions that breed more small mammalian life forms like District 9 and Paranormal Activity. After all, Neill Blomkamp couldn't even book Weta for his film, because they were all tied up on Avatar, so he actually had to produce something cheap and original, and at least in some ways, more sophisticated than Avatar.
Boring story, one dimensional characters, wooden and silly dialogue, great special effects? Sounds like Titanic.
" . . . kinda like how i feel about Guns N' Roses: not music i would ever intentionally put on myself, but music I'd probably enjoy if someone put on at a party."
unlike, say, danzig, who is so sophisticated and adult. but, oh, no one plays danzig at parties. poop! but back to avatar and its voodoo magick: kris tapley at in contention has almost completely lost me as a reader when he proclaimed avatar to be the best movie-going experience of his life or whatever. really? you *really* want to go on record saying that?
God, what more needs to be said about Tapley then that? He's the worst.