Avatar

When I saw how many people were going to see “Avatar” and how many times people had been to see it, I knew it had to be revolutionary. The film is revolutionary but I’m sorry to disappoint in saying that it doesn’t deserve all the hype it got. My 3D glasses were my ticket to a whole new world of the possibilities in visual effects and 3D films. I was so amazed with how it looked in 3D and James Cameron did a good thing in waiting until the technology had caught up to his vision. When going to see it though for the first time, I was expecting an original story with a lot of excitement and action. I got action and some excitement but the story was lacking. I believe that “Avatar” has changed 3D and visual effects forever but I feel that if it took 15 years for Avatar to go from idea to projector, Cameron should have had a better story being the creative person that he is. He let me down and could have made an immortal film instead of just a revolutionary film if he had been more original. Also upon seeing the film in 2D, it is just not the same.

The opening shots were very well done in that they showed to the world that this was not going to be like other 3D movies we have seen. The interior of the Venture Star seemed to go back for a full mile. That particular shot may become historical significant in motion picture history as is the scene in “King Kong” on top of the Empire State Building and the opening shot in “Star Wars” with the cruiser and the Star Destroyer. Another scene in “Avatar” that is significant for me is the scene with the Mountain Banshees. The scuffle between Jake and his Ikran is exciting and then with James Horner’s score to help, we go for a ride. I liken it unto the scene in “Superman” when he takes Lois Lane for a flight or the famous “flying” scene from “Titanic”. Once again, the 3D and special effects are superb. Sam Worthington’s acting should be recognized in this scene because that is what makes me believe that he is really riding that animal. I can relate to Jake because I also had to learn a culture and a language. Just as I have come to love the Philippines, he falls in love with the Pandora. The flora seems so real, especially when a Samson is landing in the forest because they react so realistically to the wind created. The colorful glow of the flora is unique and awe inspiring. The motion capture work is also very noteworthy. Despite these great visuals, I can see why the story has problems because Cameron spent most of his time on the visuals.

In order to better illustrate my problems with the story, I must compare “Avatar” with other films. That is easily done because Cameron borrowed from a lot of well-known movies. One magazine gave “Avatar” the subtitle “Dances with Aliens” and after seeing “Avatar”, I agree. As a fan of the Kevin Costner film that won Best Picture back in 1990, I felt that Cameron fell short by writing a similar story. Sam Worthington even narrates just as Kevin Costner did. Cameron has imagined aliens or fictional beings before and did well (such as in “Alien” and “The Abyss”). You would think that he could have imagined a culture/religion that was relatable but truly alien. The Na’vi relate too much to Native Americans for me. Cameron has publically admited that he began to write "Avatar" after seeing Disney's "Pocahontas". Because that movie featured a people that had a religious connection with the forest and the earth, Cameron should have taken a more science-fiction approach in creating the beliefs of the Na'vi. If George Lucas could come up with the Force, Cameron could have easily created something more unique with all the time he had. As a sidenote, the Oscar-winning song “Colors of the Wind” from "Pocahontas" illustrates respect for nature better than James Cameron’s screenplay. The climax of “Avatar” had problems in that it was not any more intense then the destruction of Hometree. With the build-up of Jake’s big speech and with the “gathering of the clans” montage, I was expecting a battle with a bit more excitement. In addition, the fight with Quaritch at the end was less exciting than the main battle. I also can’t believe that Cameron had Neytiri kill Quaritch. They hadn’t met until that scene. I bet that Neytiri didn’t even know that the man she killed was the leader of the enemy. It doesn’t matter whether the hero himself kills the villain (in “The Lord of the Rings”, Frodo falls to the temptations of the Ring); what matters is that there is subtext or surprise behind the villain’s demise. While watching the film for the first time, I thought that Spellman might show up to kill Quaritch. The moment when Neytiri is trying to save Jake’s life could have been extended for the sake of drama. “WALL-E” did that with flying colors and even Cameron’s “The Abyss” had the very dramatic scene with Lindsay’s drowning. The relationship between Jake and Neytiri works but not as well as Jack and Rose’s on “Titanic”. Just because “Avatar” is a boy’s movie, that doesn’t mean that Cameron couldn’t mix in a little bit of “chick flick”. My final piece of evidence is that “Avatar” was not nominated for Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars. With all of this, I am not saying that Cameron is a bad storyteller. I am saying that with the time that he had and with the imaginative talent that he clearly has, he could have done better. The film's story also resembles "Fern Gully" and "Atlantis: The Lost Empire".

I am sick and tired of hearing people say: “It took James Cameron 15 years to create ‘Avatar’”. To set the record straight, during 11 of those years he made “Titanic”, worked on technological advancements and waited. Upon seeing characters like Gollum and King Kong, he began production on “Avatar” in 2005. This film was produced in the same amount of time as other blockbusters. I am happy that Cameron worked on technology and waited until the time was right. What I am unhappy about is that the man is made out to be more than he is because of the confusion of facts. Lucas waited over 10 years to return to the “galaxy far, far away” so Cameron's waiting period isn't so unique when you think about it. Speaking of that, when Lucas wrote "Star Wars", he knew that 1970's technology couldn't fully portray what he had written. As a result, he made do with what he had, held back in some places and made advancements where he could. Cameron on the other hand as mentioned was focused on the special effects and waited until his vision could be achieved. It is both fitting but unfortunate that fans are relating their experiences of seeing “Avatar” with “Star Wars”. In terms of special effects, “Avatar” is truly the next “Star Wars”. We have seen this happen before where a big special effects movie sets a new standard. “2001: A Space Odyssey” was followed by “Star Wars” and “The Lord of the Rings” paved a similar road for “Avatar” itself. My problem with the comparison is that “Star Wars” was also a milestone in storytelling. Lucas has two Oscar nominations for his screenplays while Cameron has none. Yes, Cameron has his Oscars he won on “Titanic” and rightfully so but I am talking about screenwriting, not editing or directing. I further understand that Lucas also borrowed from other stories in the creation of “Star Wars” but he didn’t borrow from a Best Picture winning film. Rather, Lucas applied classic story motifs and looked to Japanese films for inspiration. Another movie I wish to bring up to illustrate my point was also released in 2009: "Inception". It also took Christopher Nolan more than a decade to go from initial idea to finished film so why did this fact create so much more hype for “Avatar”? It is because Cameron was highly publicizing that fact so as to make the film better than it actually was. Cameron came up with the script in the late 90's and shelved it where as Nolan spent his decade re-writing and refining his script for “Inception”. He also wanted to wait until he was a better filmmaker before making his movie.

“Avatar” more than deserved all the Oscars it won but when you compare the 82nd Annual and the 70th Annual Academy Awards, you see why “Avatar” doesn’t deserve all the hype it has gotten. “Titanic” received a record-tying 14 nominations and won 11 Oscars including Best Picture and Director while “Avatar” was nominated for 9 awards (such as Best Picture, Director, Editing, Musical Score, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing) and won only three for Art Direction, Cinematography and Visual Effects. The Best Picture winner of 2009, “The Hurt Locker”, also received 9 nominations and won 6 Oscars. "Avatar" to me should be recognized for its visual breakthroughs and not for anything else. I like Avatar. I had a wonderful time seeing it. I just can’t understand why it gets so much hype. The story is only so-so and now that it is on Blu-ray, most people can’t watch it in 3D anymore. That is where the true magic of “Avatar” can be found. For clarification, it is still great in 2D and the DVD version looks great. I can’t imagine how good it looks on Blu ray 3D so for the most part, I am no longer amazed at the film. I agree and disagree with Roger Ebert’s article about 3D in 2010. It can be a distraction and you don’t need it in order to make a good movie. Classic movies weren’t in 3D. I do like 3D though because in the right hands, it can add awe and spectacle to the film. Such was the case with “Up” which beat "Avatar" in the Best Musical Score catagory. Films that rely on the 3D more than the story will fail in my book. Instead, filmmakers should make their movie and when it is being completed, then they can ask themselves “3D or not 3D?” With “Avatar”, it was supposed to be seen in 3D. Now that it is out of theaters, I think it will continue to lose its popularity (at least until the inevitable sequel comes out). But unfortunately, the sequel will probably be a let down and show to the world that “Avatar” is a special effects movie, nothing more.

4 Stars