Reviews
Avatar
December 18 2009
James Cameron
Starring Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver
Related reviews and interviews
How apt that the last major release of the noughties, the decade that saw the dominance of the digital age and the collapse of rentals and DVD sales, seemingly has the entire industry resting on its shoulders as the film that will bring the masses back into the cinema. And as the credits roll over a typically drippy theme song by Leona Lewis, it may just work as Avatar is the sort of film that must be seen in the cinema (or better yet, IMAX) to appreciate its stunning visuals and eye-popping battle sequences.
Set in the year 2154, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a paraplegic former marine brought in to replace his murdered twin brother in the avatar programme which sends humans disguised as the indigenous Na’vi people to Pandora, a moon of the distant Centauri star system, with the aim of bringing back supplies of “unobtainium”, an energy-rich mineral that can solve Earth’s energy crisis.
The rumours, the hype and Avatar’s anticipated impact on the future of cinema had reached fever pitch by the time the trailer hit the world. And then, disappointment.
After accidentally losing his colleagues on Pandora, Jake is left to fend for himself overnight. Here he gets into a sticky situation with the planet’s wildlife and is saved by Neytiri, the daughter of the clan’s leader who reluctantly agrees to teach him the native’s ways and become one of them, all the while with the intention of getting them to leave their land. Naturally, Jake grows to love Pandora and the people and begins to lose sight of which side he is ultimately fighting for.
Conceived 14 years ago in the mind of James Cameron, Avatar’s release was delayed as Cameron was forced to wait until technology had caught up with his vision. The rumours, the hype and Avatar’s anticipated impact on the future of cinema had reached fever pitch by the time the trailer hit the world. And then, disappointment. The trailer and the worldwide “Avatar Day” which screened a 16-minute clip reel of the finished film was met with derision and had Cameron’s epic dubbed “Pocahontas in Space”, “Dances with Smurfs” and “Captain Planet with Cats” amongst other equally witty titles. Stories of investors sweating nervously at what could be the biggest bomb ever filled blogs and newspapers whilst everyone questioned if Cameron, still the man behind the most successful film ever, had gone one step too far and let his obsessive illusions of grandeur get the best of him.
With such painstakingly intricate detail, it will no doubt take a few viewings to catch everything.
So is Avatar a very overlong and very expensive ($300 million, apparently) mistake? No, not at all. After a brief introduction to the characters and world, the film quickly changes location to Pandora, where it becomes clear where the money has been spent. Pandora looks, in a word, spectacular. With cascading waterfalls, lively plant life and numerous freaky looking animals roaming through the jungle, it is impossible not to be completely immersed in the stunning visuals. With such painstakingly intricate detail, it will no doubt take a few viewings to catch everything.
Although at first sight the protagonists in their avatar bodies seem slightly odd and off-putting (weirdly, Sigourney Weaver resembles Cheetara from Thundercats), it quickly subsides. It’s hard not to admire the work that has gone into this. Not only has the world, the Na’vi people and a new language been created, but the detail in each plant, animal and entire landscape is meticulous. Much like the first sighting of the avatars, the 3D is subtle yet effective, but also slightly disorientating, which may leave some cinema-goers with sore eyes and the faintest hint of nausea. It’ll take a brave soul to sit anywhere near the front.
Avatar simultaneously has something to say about global warming, war, foreign invasion and the annihilation of a race for Western financial gain.
Such attention has been paid to these advances in technology that it’s easy to forget about the story and actors involved. It should come as no surprise that the story is where the weaknesses lie and as beautiful as it looks it takes a bit more than impressive landscapes to hold the attention for two hours and 40 minutes. In the 12 years since Titanic, Cameron’s feel for a core love story hasn’t dimmed as it’s clear from the outset that Jake and Neytiri will go the way of so many rom-com couples before them and fall in love despite their differences – although, thankfully, it never results in an awkward steamy-windowed love scene.
It gets far more muddled when the preachy ethics get involved. Avatar simultaneously has something to say about global warming, war, foreign invasion and the annihilation of a race for Western financial gain. Yes, we get it – the blue, tree hugging ones with the bows and arrows are good and the khaki wearing, golf playing, money hungry ones with American accents are bad. But in a way, the un-original story somehow adds to the film’s epic nature. Classic good-versus-evil battles that culminate with bloody destruction with a core love story are what spectacle cinema is all about, and it’s intriguing to wonder whether Cameron intended to collide a classic story with newly invented technology on quite such an elementary level.
Weak narrative or not, Avatar is no disappointment. It has to be asked, however, whether this is a film that will stand the test of time. Even with 3D home entertainment on its way, the film’s sole merits lie in the technology harnessed to bring it to life – graphics that are simply better suited to IMAX-sized screens. As soon as another film with stunning visuals rocks up, Avatar may soon be forgotten. For now the question remains: is this a sign of the future? Only time will tell.
Anticipation:
Enjoyment:
In Retrospect:
For what it's worth; I'd pay to see "Captain Planet with Cats”.
Written by Liam Brazier on December 17th, 2009 at 11:48
Smurf Cats.
Written by Tobias Czarny on December 17th, 2009 at 11:53
I saw this last night and it's the first time, in a very long while, i've sat with a silly grin on my face for the duration of a film. It's simply a joyous cinema experience. Sure, some people will get all pretentious and moan about the dialogue and story, but this is a year where JJ Abrams (a glorified TV director in my opinion) was spoken about as the new Spielberg. Put into that worrying context 'Avatar' is a work of genius.
Written by @fortunesfool73 on December 17th, 2009 at 16:13
I agree with Lim that the conventional nature of the story is part and parcel of this film's bid to be a classic – or to borrow a metaphor from the film itself, it is an old plot genetically implanted in a new body, and that is what (arguably) gives all those cliches legs. Not quite sure, though, how discussing – even criticising – dialogue and story constitutes 'getting all pretentious'. Or is joyous cinema really reducible to effects, spectacle and blowing things up?
Written by Anton Bitel on December 17th, 2009 at 16:36
Surprise. More a comment on how the vast majority of US critics have treated it kindly, warts and all, whereas, here in the UK, we cant just enjoy one of the most engaging and joyous films of the decade without having a dig at it. There are certain UK critics who couldn't possibly be seen to be enjoying such 'lowbrow' nonsense and just have to point out all of its short-comings to show how superior they are. As mentioned, much of the pleasure of Avatar is in it's simple, old fashioned story done in such a breath-taking new way.
It bothers me that Avatar is getting attacked for certain 'failings' while, in my opinion, the stupid and barely competent 'Star Trek' gets a near universal pass for being 'fun'.
Written by @fortunesfool73 on December 17th, 2009 at 16:56
I loved it! I felt it hit all the right buttons, have seen it twice now. Very strong 2nd time around still. I agree with the narrative and script criticism's though, Cameron has never written great dialogue!
Written by Sam on December 17th, 2009 at 17:53
In saying that though, is it really any worse than the 'point at and say where we're going next' dialogue in Lord of the Rings? Not really. The difference? No one wanted Pete Jackson to fail so they could point and laugh at him. I think a lot of critics are a bit miffed that Avatar is rather good. It's not an excuse by any stretch but give credit where it's due. I've spoken to people who have been put off seeing it because some of the reviews basically place it alongside tat like Terminator:Salvation and Transformers 2, which is spectacularly unfair.
Written by @fortunesfool73 on December 17th, 2009 at 18:05
Is it any worse than some of the dodgy-to-bad dialogue in LOTR? Probably not – but that is one hell of an unconvincing defence. Personally, I thought some of the dialogue in both LOTR and Avatar was good – but certainly not all of it in either case.
Overall, I enjoyed Avatar, and look forward to seeing it with my children (who I suspect will like it even more); but to suggest that those who do not like it – or who criticise some aspects of it (which is what critics are supposed to do) – are somehow being dishonest, being pretentious, or not playing fair, seems to disregard the fact that not everybody thinks alike, be it on Avatar or on any other title. Not everyone (yourself included, apparently) thought the LOTR trilogy was perfect either. Which is not to deny it its many good points. Likewise with Avatar.
Here's a question, though, and it's a serious one, concerning the floating mountain with the waterfall gushing spectacularly out of its side: where did all that water come from?
Written by Anton Bitel on December 17th, 2009 at 20:06
Very true. Perhaps it rained heavily the day before. Maybe it's all explained in the sequel. Perhaps it's poetic license. It might actually be Terry Pratchett's 'Discworld' :)
Written by @fortunesfool73 on December 18th, 2009 at 08:40
Ant, that's really keeping you up at night isn't it?
Written by Lim Salt on December 18th, 2009 at 10:52
Personally, i was left wanting more by the film, in a good way, especially by the 3D. The opening half hour's 3D was simply astonishing, and this to a man who has been highly critical of 3D as a new way forward. I still believe i'm right on that, but this form of 3D genuinely pushed forward the aesthetics and immersion(at least for the first half hour). Add to that a pretty interesting plot and excellent organisation by Cameron and i think he can be proud of it. I'm just sad the 3D didnt seem as immersive throughout!
The one standout flaw for me was that, despite Sam Worthington's excellently understated performance, i thought the film jumped him from downbeat to swinging from the trees like Mowgli way too quickly and unsubtly. Once he's there, yeah i think we do see the tension within him but for me that plot strand was way more interesting than much else that went on.
Happy Xmas
Written by @lloydgriffiths on December 18th, 2009 at 11:09
Actually, it's the cold (and a series of rolling deadlines) that is currently keeping me up at night – but that waterfall is the one detail of Avatar that I found most intriguing, in a film from which intrigue is otherwise largely absent, and whose physics, however otherworldly, are for the most part plausible (even the mystico-religious aspects of Na'vi culture are presented within something like a rationalist framework).
The waterfall is one of the very few moments in the film where logic (even internal logic) is sacrificed entirely to aesthetic considerations. Not even torrential rain (and it is not in fact raining at all when we see the waterfall) could produce so violent an onrush of water from a floating mass of rock no bigger than a skyscraper.
None of this bothers me especially – the cascade is indeed breathtaking, no matter what its origins. But given the painstaking work that has been put into the film's conception and design over many years, it is hard to believe that the waterfall is a mere 'oversight', and I'm curious if anyone else regards it as having a symbolic or metaphorical value. To me, it is as though Cameron is signifying with that waterfall: just go with the flow. That, it seems to me, relects aptly upon the film itself. After all, the 'stream' of ideas that constitutes the narrative of Avatar may be largely derivative, but Cameron's aim is to send that stream over the edge and to the next level so spectacularly that his audience will (hopefully) be prepared to overlook the many sources informing it. Forget about where that water (or indeed the film) is coming from, and you might just find yourself truly amazed at where it takes you…
Written by Anton Bitel on December 18th, 2009 at 11:49
I guess it's just me, but I have no desire to watch this at all. And I'm not a fan of CGI unless it's used in a way like say MOON used it, or maybe better still WTWTA. I just think it never looks very real and in this instance overly cartoonish.
Written by delarge on December 18th, 2009 at 17:03
delarge, you haven't seen cgi like this. They're living breathing things and the performance capture is quite extraordinary. The first appearance of the Sigourney Weaver avatar is a wonderful moment. It's Sigourney Weaver, but 10ft tall and blue.
Written by @fortunesfool73 on December 18th, 2009 at 17:18
So I just watched the film, was awesome. I found it quite funny how they just used an old story glorified it and it’s awesome. The closest I could relate it was the invasion of the west to the Native Americans, the way the Na’vi also acted reminded me of native americans having a shaman, clan leader and how they are one with the land, only killing what they eat and thanking them after hunting the animal.
Written by Akshin Jakare on December 18th, 2009 at 19:42
Though it’s truly a detail, I have to agree that the “waterfall issue” screwed with my suspension of disbelief. I’m overall too critical, and have an automatic gut reaction to lack of consistency in story telling, but I truly enjoyed Avatar. Unlike many fantasy-based movies which just leave me wishing I were 12 years old (I’m 44), this one kept me interested and amused and most of all fascinated by the extraordinary quality of the visuals. The story-line is pretty standard, but as the real world keeps reminding us, we’re not very good at figuring out new & improved ways to live with others anyway. But yes…where did all that water come from? The grown-up in me wanted to know…
Written by jerome curchod on December 18th, 2009 at 20:14
Avatar is a unique work of genious! The work paid to every single visual detail is stunning. The design of plants, trees animals and landscape is something never seen before. While this film may have some story weaknesses, one should take it for that but simply enjoy the amazing experience that is watching it on the big screen in 3D. I was so amazed by the visuals that thanked the epic good vs evil and love story that is Avatar and reinforces the whole sense experience. This film will stand alone for some time to come…
Written by marcokvk on December 19th, 2009 at 09:39
I can’t see films in 3D thanks to, what unkind people would call, crazy ol’ eyes. So I must confess to not really caring about Avatar. Has anyone who didn’t see it in 3D love it as much of some of the people that did?
Written by Patrick on December 19th, 2009 at 09:56
I'm sure others will disagree, but I thought that the 3D was the least impressive aspect of the film's visuals. It is not that there was anything wrong with it as such, but I suspect that, apart from a few sequences, its implementation was so subtle that its absence would have affected very little the film's overall impact (on me, at least). Nothing, however, will take away from the film's lavish and detailed spectacle, whether it is viewed stereoscopically or monoscopically, so I'd say that if the 3D is all that is putting you off going, just give it a go. On the other hand, perhaps I didn't quite love the film as much as others here anyway…
Written by Anton Bitel on December 19th, 2009 at 17:43
Like others above, I thought that the 3D didn't contribute greatly to the overall viewing experience, but this may be because I was unexpectedly blown away by how great the visuals were. Despite my reservations before seeing the film, I thought the CGI effects (the Na'vi in particular) were amazing, which more than outweighed the daft & derivative screenplay. I was actually glad that James Cameron didn't seem to be trying too hard to create characters with depth and 'believeable' dialogue (although I did laugh at Giovanni Ribisi's management style). But please James Cameron, drop the terrible music, it really stinks. Overall, a big stupid mix of Starship Troopers, The Smurfs, Ferngully, Emerald Forest, Aliens and that Yma Sumac Magnum ice cream ad, in that order. Did anyone really expect anything else?
Written by DRoiD on December 19th, 2009 at 18:02
Can I just second the fact that the music STINKS. It really really grates, and at points seems like it's going to turn into the Titanic theme (which it very nearly does at the end with Leona worbling over the credits).
That said the visuals are indeed mind-boggling. Worth a trip to the cinema for that alone.
Written by John D on December 20th, 2009 at 19:48
As soon as the audience heard Leona, the room emptied very quickly!
There were a few Titanic panpipe moments, which were worrying, but not as much as those weird key changes FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER!
I can't help thinking that the music was a lazy afterthought, a missed opportunity to use something interesting or, dare I say it, game changing?
Written by DRoiD on December 20th, 2009 at 21:43
great effects, the 3d was great but not perfect it did have some jaring stuff that came out to close and stayed in soft focus which made your eyes go really strange. it was like your eyes were being punished if you looked at the wrong part of the screen! when everyone has made 3d films of this caliber for a decade, the novelty will wear off and people will come around to the fact that a 2d singular viewing plane is more suited to comfortably viewing fast paced modern cinema, at least your eyes arent pulled around inside their sockets. i loved the mild 3d from the screen back though. beautiful. hard to say its the best film of a decade when its one of the last to be made… see if it still stands up in 2019…. i doubt it.
Written by toby A on December 24th, 2009 at 01:31
This is NOT the best film of the decade, by a LONG way. We can't forget every other film of the decade just because of some (admittedly damn fine) special FX. Even if such a decision were to be based on just that factor, I would put forward Benjamin Button over this. Spending a lot of money can guarantee access to the equipment for rendering photorealistic images but, it seems, to ensure a decent return on such a HUGE investment means sacrificing narrative originality.
As for visual effects standards it seems, to me, that the best visual effects almost pass by completely unregistered. By that I mean, the best visual effects are so perfect and sublte that the simulacra can appear to have come from somewhere (which is a slightly absurd prospect). The times I most notice visual effects for what they are is when they don't reach the mark of absolute realism; when the colours don't quite sit right together, or the exposure is just off between the 'reality' and the 'fiction'. When watching Avatar I felt like, due to the narrative being so reductive and cliched, I did have some time to really take in the visuals and appreciate the subtler lighting effects, such as blooming behind hair, and the diffuse glow through ears, etc. Still, the overall effect is more of momentary awe than of having seen 'groundbreaking cinema'. For all that the hype machine is claiming this will get people back into the cinema, I can't help but feel that it'll only be for the one film (especially when it costs more to see 3D films, or even 2D in some cases) after all, not every film costs $300m (or whatever it is), and that can show, and if I'm honest (which I am), I would choose to watch a Pi, Primer, or Repo Man (mentioned for the sci-fi aspects) over anything that came from Hollywood.
Written by Harris Thomas on December 24th, 2009 at 11:54
halfway through avatar i was expecting the blue girl to start singing "the colors of the wind" from pocahontas, there's even a grandma tree
Written by margaux on December 28th, 2009 at 08:39
i went to see it in 3d and i had a horrible headache afterwards because my eyesight isn't perfect, as soon as i put on the glasses it felt kinda uncomfortable, like wearing someone's glasses. i wonder if 3d only truly works for people with perfect eyesight.
Written by margaux on December 28th, 2009 at 08:44
i usually hate cgi, in fact it ruins films for me. i was disapointed by the imaginarium of doctor parnassus for that reason. i agree that it never looks real. but this is different, and it's the first time i'm impressed by cgi, give it a go.
Written by margaux on December 28th, 2009 at 08:47
Haha, m'self and fellow LWL contributor Neon rated this exactly the same as you after seeing it last week. Much better than expected, but a game changer? Don't think so.
Written by Dan Stewart on December 30th, 2009 at 16:07
I'm no geologist but I remember once being astonished by seeing a large stream coming out of an outcropping of rocks. This is called a spring. We have many places here on Earth where waterfalls occur naturally where there is no obvious runoff gathered from many little streams. Think of Paradise Falls which was depicted in the movie UP, based on a real place in South America. Springs can be fed by volcanic activity too. So in Avatar you see huge rocks suspended in the sky, presumably because of magnetic and gravitational effects of adjacent planets. Anything that could get rocks floating like that could surely get water up there as well. Use your imagination, folks!
Written by Ben Jones on January 5th, 2010 at 12:23
Well, I'm no geologist either, but none of the terrestrial examples that you cite strikes me as in any way analogous to what we see in Avatar. There's the world of difference between a spring- or stream-fed waterfall whose source is not immediately apparent (but is ultimately discoverable), and a waterfall on a floating rock that could not possibly conceal within itself a large enough source ('volcanic' or otherwise). A powerful magnetic field (and it is a magnetic field we're dealing with here – remember all the equipment going bananas) might be able to raise a rock, even a large one, but it's not clear to me how it could raise water.
The waterfall certainly 'looks cool', and perhaps that is justification enough – but the waterfall also represents one of the few junctures where Avatar shifts from science fiction to pure fantasy. It is hard to escape the suspicion that here Cameron was inspired more by certain prog rock album covers than by speculative physics. I am more than happy to run with the idea that Cameron has, over the many years of his film's gestation, carefully thought through every detail of Pandora's presentation – hence my curiosity about what motivated him to include the (to my mind) overt anomaly of the waterfalls. No doubt imagination is required to answer this question…
Written by Anton Bitel on January 5th, 2010 at 13:18
I saw the movie with two children and loved it. We are white and of course when we left it felt like…wow…another social comment of how bad purpose driven "white people are" but it really astonished me to read about the reviews of people thinking it was another "white savior movie". Wow, that is interesting! Seeing that Mexican TV makes fun of indians "indios" and their ways amonst the progressive people. (which is very funny seeing that Mexicans demanding Spanish in America since the Spainards raped and killed all the South American people. I mean, If Spain killed all the men and raped and screwed the women and those women bore the offspring of those rapes…are the half breed Mexicans truely justiefied in their anger towards the white anglo saxon
Written by Guest on January 14th, 2010 at 07:36
I was very impressed by the film and enjoyed it immensely which is perhaps the most important thing. I allowed myself to be swung by the reviews as I had no intention of going to see it. Even sources I regard as slightly sniffy about Hollywood blockbusters ended their dialogue and plot-mocking reviews with the admission that you should still go and see it for the pure spectacle.
I'm surprised though, that no-one has yet mentioned the extremely controversial (well, to moronic neocons anyway) fact that this is such a basic metaphor for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the point one character said "It's like they're preparing some sort of Shock and Awe campaign" I had to restrain myself from slapping my forehead and exclaiming "ALRIGHT, we get it !!!!". The fact that this culminates in scenes of US marines getting slaughtered to the sound of cinema audiences Oohing and Aahing left me eagerly awaiting the stinking backlash of over-sensitive right-wing types, yet…..nothing.
Oh, and calling the mineral 'unobtanium' was fairly ridiculous too.
Written by Dave Payne on January 15th, 2010 at 17:45