SCRIPT/STRUCTURE
You’ll hear it described as Dances with Wolves in space. Or maybe even Fern Gully Redux. But it’s probably closer to Dances with Wolves meets The Last Samurai in space. There’s nothing original about this story. Everything you see is familiar and for every scene, you’ll probably be able to pick out 2-3 movies with similar imagery. Which necessarily isn’t a bad thing. I read an article (amidst the flurry of Avatar-related articles) over the past 2 weeks where James Cameron mentioned – and I’m paraphrasing – that technological advances in film production (the 3D and highly advanced character animation) are more palatable when you can place it in the context of very familiar stories.

The script is structurally sound – all major events happen when they’re supposed to and Jake Sully hits and overcomes every obstacle the way he should. Again, since it’s a familiar story, it’s predictable and you know what will should happen in the next scene. It’s almost 3 hours but never really felt that way. Scenes never felt like they dragged even if you knew what was coming next.

The dialogue was probably the weakest element of the script, but I knew what I was getting into and really didn’t expect much of it. The film does explore some timely themes – like terrorism, corporate greed, and environmentalism – and with a heavy hand at times.

CHARACTER
The characters are archetypal and they play the roles they’re supposed to play for this type of story. You may contend that they seemed pretty flat, but for a sci-fi/action/fantasy film, this deficiency easily overlooked when you’re caught up in the story. In a movie like this, you’re not so much concerned with how the character changes throughout the story, but how he reacts to the obstacles that present themselves in the plot.

I will commend the artists who animated the Na’vi. I was trying VERY hard to look for any flaws in the animation, especially during close-ups when you see their faces. I’m happy to say I couldn’t really find any. In the past, CGI facial animation always left something to be desired. It never seemed real enough. When one of the Na’vi was angry or sad or happy, it really looked that way. The realism in how emotions were captured and then displayed is one of the biggest reasons I was able to immerse myself in this movie.

DIRECTION
It’s clear that Cameron still understands how important storytelling is to the cinematic experience. Are you listening Michael Bay? If there’s one thing you get from James Cameron, it’s a good time. I look back at all his films and I’ve enjoyed watching every one of them – even Titanic. As much as that film is the butt of jokes these days, I remember being completely engrossed with what was on screen. It was a spectacle, and so is Avatar. Cameron just knows how to “wow” the audience – despite the cheesy Simba and Nala-esque love scene, stilted dialogue, AND corny theme song.

STYLE
There’s really not much I can say about the actual cinematic elements of the film. Perhaps I was too engrossed with the storytelling that I missed some things. I do know that the film employed the Firefly/BSG-esque CGI verite shots – in which a “camera” would zoom in or out on a subject. I guess this makes sense since that style is kind of hip these days. It didn’t seem distracting in any way, but then again, my eye is already used to that technique.

The 3D was cool, but a few weeks removed from my viewing, I wouldn’t say it’s “game-changing.” It was cool seeing the imagery pop out from the screen a little bit, but it never felt like it was a gimmick – like having various objects fly at your face or whatever. After a while, you forgot the movie was 3D and it just looked normal.

THOUGHTS/GRIPES
Avatar won’t change the way you see the world, but it’s definitely a spectacle to experience. As someone who probably looks at movies a bit TOO critically sometimes, it’s refreshing get fully immersed in a story. When people talk about movies that take you away to that special place and if you stare to long, you’d probably break down and cry to another world for a few hours, this is it. The criticisms I have don’t prevent me from recommending it. But I’m sure with all the publicity for this film, your mind is already made up.

I do wonder how well the film would hold up in multiple viewings though. I’ve always loved the films that offer a little more during the second viewing – Fight Club, Memento, and Brick come to mind. Will the script’s flaws be more prevalent the second time around? What would I think of it after a 2D viewing, or even on Blu-ray? Doesn’t matter. James Cameron has my money and I’m happy it was money well spent.

Tags: filmmaking, movies

RSS 2.0 | comment | trackback