Avatar 3D 👎👍
$230 million to make this movie but nothing allocated for writing. I'll start this review by discussing the 3D aspect of it. This is not the first "good" 3D movie I've seen, but it is the first major motion picture film I've seen in 3D. So I felt that that aspect deserved its own review.
The 3D Experience
My 3D glasses were cheap. They were shiny black frames with clear plastic lenses. They came in a new package wrapped in plastic, and were "recycled" after the film with the tagline "new glasses next time". So the idea is that you never have 3D glasses that anyone else had and you don't use a pair for more than one movie. That being said, I'll be happy to never seen those glasses again.
The shiny, reflective black frames bounced light into my eyes
creating artifacts in the corners of the film. Now, I'm a videophile. I care a great deal about the quality of the image - so much so that I detest going to films at theaters without digital projectors. It's the reason it took me a year to shop for my television set and that I made a trip to Las Vegas just to see it in person. Artifacts in the corners of my eyes during a film that's supposed to be visually stunning is irritating to say the least - but the effect was not noticeable to anyone else I was with in the theater, so I chalk it up to me just being ultra-sensitive to imagery. None of my friends (who sat in the same place in the theater and used the same glasses) noticed the artifacts, but I'm confident that I would have in their place.
The 3D experience narrows the screen. This is again due to the glasses. They did not wrap around my head so I was unable to use my peripheral vision during the film - which is something that I normally rely on. This had the effect of making me feel like I was watching a smaller movie - not a desirable effect for a movie that is attempting to wow me with the epic size of its imagery.
The 3D experience narrows the screen... again. Because 3D pops out of the screen, something appears to be lost in terms of size. The closer the object gets to you, the smaller it seemed to be. To make sure I wasn't seeing things, I removed my glasses during part of the movie to compare the size of the actors on the screen with and without the glasses. They were definitely smaller with the glasses on. I'll note that I noticed this effect BEFORE I made the comparison, the people looked small to me. Again, nobody in my group noticed this but me.
The 3D experience was largely wasted by the film. I'm not sure if its a feature of 3D or simply the way this movie was shot, but I felt that the narrow depth of field contributed many times to a wasted 3D effect. Often the thing in the foreground was out of focus or the thing in the background was out of focus. I'm aware that this is done in 2D, but for some reason it was far more irritating when I was trying to focus on a drop of water in the foreground and simply could not focus on it until the camera did. When they do this in 2D it doesn't bother me.
That being said, the 3D contributed roughly zero to the grand forest or mountain views. Sweeping landscapes were laregly 2D. Small creatures, drops of water, sparks, etc. were the types of things that popped in 3D - but it didn't seem to contribute much to the film.
Overall, I was unimpressed with the 3D viewing of this film and am very interested to see it in 2D to compare. It seems like an excellent film with which to make that comparison. Something tells me that when the movie is unnarrowed I'll enjoy the sweeping landscapes quite a bit more. At the moment, I am still assuming that the new 3D craze is a temporary way to boost theater ticket sales and will eventually pass.
The Movie
I don't remember a film that I've had so many extreme thoughts about before. The writing was terrible... absolutely unapologetically terrible... in just about every respect. Now, don't get me wrong, it wasn't as bad as Episode II, but it did what it could to live up to that standard. However, the terrible writing was juxtapositioned with some very creative concepts and very impressive imagery. So part of me is left wanting to see more, and part of me wanted to turn it off. Perhaps the movie would have been better without sound.
The premise of the movie is weak. Even if you don't understand what the title means, I can tell you that the title of the movie is a fundamental concept in the film - and that the justification of the "Avatar" in the film doesn't work. Given that the most fundamental plot instrument is pointless, you can imagine how completely this movie unravels.
The themes of the movie are bad. Many movies fall into the trap of drawing an arbitrary line in technology and condemning all technology that comes after that line to be evil, and all technology that comes before that line to be good. This sort of hypocritical view of technology combined with an absolute refusal to illustrate the benefits of technology leaves the moral message of the film completely flawed. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how Hollywood liberals can idealize the lives of a people that refuse to acknowledge free will among women as well.
The storyline is paper thin. You can see right through it. You'll know the ending about 3/4 of the way through the film for sure, if not earlier - and I'm not talking about the general nature of the ending, you know that now. I'm talking about the specific details of the ending. You you know who's going to die from the moment they're introduced. It takes about a millisecond to distinguish an important character from an ancillary character. The motives of just about all of the characters absurd - especially the bad guys, who seem to be out for blood the whole time. They're all caricatures - not one of them is interesting in the slightest.
The acting generally isn't noticeable. I didn't see anything that I was particularly impressed with, and only once did I notice some terribly unconvincing acting. Unfortunately that happened to coincide with a very important scene in the movie. There is a moment in the movie commonly referred to as "the low point" in screen writing. This usually happens about 3/4 of the way through the film. You'll recognize it when everything seems to go the bad guy's way and all hope appears to be lost. Often there is some relationship drama sprinkled in for good measure around that time. When Avatar hits its low point, lots of CG characters get very sad - and their sadness is not convincing. Other than that, the acting was acceptable.
The movie was very creative. I noticed a lot of inspiration for this film. Pitch Black definitely had some influence. Princess Mononoke was also featured in a big way. The Matrix had some influence. I spotted plenty of Dances with Wolves, Medicine Man - and just about every other movie made about native populations interacting with technologically advanced foreigners. But despite the borrowed themes, there were some unique elements to the film and the overall result was done in a cohesive and interesting way. I was pleasantly surprised by a great deal of the Pandora environment. I wish that they'd gone into a more detailed justification of some of the creative biological elements that they rolled out - but it was still creative, even without justification.
Lots of visual appeal. Pandora was definitely a fun place to look at. Some of the visuals were added at the cost of realism, but the plot was so far gone that I didn't mind. The mountains, trees, waterfalls, and natives were all tons of fun to look at. Neytiri (the main alien chick) was also pretty friggin sexy, and they absolutely refused to cover her up throughout the film - which I have to say was an excellent decision. The battle scenes also had provocative imagery that was lots of fun. Overall I think the visual appeal saved this movie from being just about worthless. Without the visuals, it's a bit of a joke.
Conclusion
I didn't want to see this film in the theater. I reluctantly went because others wanted to see it. Once it was decided that we were going, it was a no-brainer to see it in 3D. I wanted to know whether it was pure hype or whether there was some substance to it. My 3D experience wasn't great, and I won't be excited to try it again. The movie itself is worth watching for the visuals, but you have to hold your nose through the dialog.
About the Reviewer
I'm a 29 year old engineer and have a strong bent toward the technical and science fiction content. I like a lot of clever dialog (eg: House M.D.), enjoy action movies, and am of capable of shutting my brain off for a fun movie that shouldn't be analyzed. I am generally not capable of ignoring gaping plot holes and nonsensical explanations for plot points.
I loved it, too. One of the best comedy adventure flicks I can think of. I consider Jeff Bridges an pretty amazing actor. He has that range like Christopher Walken, or Alec Baldwin. And just to support Diego's case, a lot of people I know LOVE that movie as well. But even with such popular film, there will always be some who won't like it. Plus, it's really not for everybody with Big Lebowski.
