My curiosity finally got the better of me and I went to see Avatar.
First of all, that the Golden Globes saw fit to name it the best dramatic motion picture of 2009 is a bit much. Their objectivity must have clearly gotten swept away in all of the hype, and the the enormous and growing sea of box office dollars.
That being said, there's no denying that visually, the film is an almost transcendent, stunning technical achievement. I've been to 3D movies in the past; Avatar distinguished itself in that it succeeds where other 3D films have not--rather than the method being a gimmick or a novelty, in Avatar it actually immerses you in the world that the film has created, for the most part. No argument that the visuals are brilliant, breathtaking, beautiful, and unlike anything that has ever been done.
Nevertheless, someone else here on IMDb posed an excellent question. If not for those dazzling visuals, what would the film have that would distinguish it (in terms of plot, character development, acting, story)?
I won't hesitate to admit that I was swept up into that story, and was cheering and clapping at times (I won't spoil it for those of you who haven't seen the film yet). And to my surprise, unlike some of the reviewers here, I did develop a strong affinity for some of the characters, though others were no more than cardboard cutout caricatures, designed for the audience to hate, but to think nothing more of. There were also a number of fallacies in both the plot and the pretense of the story (which have been pointed out elsewhere), but they were no worse than those of many films that I've otherwise enjoyed.
I did have a heck of an enjoyable time watching the film, which I guess is the whole point.
But I also had a heck of an enjoyable time watching any number of other action films that were low tech or no tech, but were just as absorbing, and that set my heart racing just as fast and sitting just as erect in my seat.
Avatar and the genre of films to which it belongs (despite its unique technical features) are certainly not top-notch, absorbing and though-provoking drama, of the caliber of films like "Revolutionary Road," or "Sounder," and "A Face In the Crowd," the last two of which I watched again on TCM the other day, or the very low tech "Open Water," or the absolutely brilliant "Requiem for a Dream, that was also recently on cable (no 3D or high-tech visual effects in those!).
I don't think that Cameron makes any pretense of Avatar, or of any of his films, being in the latter category. I would imagine that that doesn't bother him in the least, given that this latest film of his will probably be the most financially successful in movie history.
IMHO, the best special effect, by FAR, is the human condition. That can only be rendered by a strong story, and top notch acting. Any fancy effects and bells and whistles are only gravy.
Avatar was a lot of bells and whistles and gravy; the story was, for the most part, extremely predictable. But I don't hold that against it in that Cameron told that familiar story in an innovative and different way. But the sole foundation of that innovation and difference is the 3D, the visuals, and the effects. About halfway through the movie though, I found that I had gotten used to them and the 3D, and was coming to take them for granted. It was not long after that that most of my ooohs and ahhhs were past me, and at times I had even nearly forgotten that I was watching a 3D film. By then, however, my interest was sustained in that the epic confrontation between the good and the evil sides (not much gray area there!) was gearing up, and I was definitely rooting for one of the sides--guess who?.
Will Avatar completely change movie making (other than pushing the boundaries of the state of the art of movie special effects)? Is it the greatest, or one of the greatest films ever made? I note the swooning of many or most of the reviewers here, who are convinced of that. I suppose that would be true if one feels that dazzling technical effects and 3D and gigantic box office receipts alone are in and of themselves what the art of the motion picture is all about. I take exception to that, and could not disagree more.
IMHO, Avatar was great fun, is a stunning technical achievement. But it's by no means the best movie that I've ever seen, or even one of the best--though it is indeed one of the best of its kind.
The bottom line for me? Avatar is well worth seeing; it was a great experience. I enjoyed it, and I'm glad I went. But one should take it for what it is.
First of all, that the Golden Globes saw fit to name it the best dramatic motion picture of 2009 is a bit much. Their objectivity must have clearly gotten swept away in all of the hype, and the the enormous and growing sea of box office dollars.
That being said, there's no denying that visually, the film is an almost transcendent, stunning technical achievement. I've been to 3D movies in the past; Avatar distinguished itself in that it succeeds where other 3D films have not--rather than the method being a gimmick or a novelty, in Avatar it actually immerses you in the world that the film has created, for the most part. No argument that the visuals are brilliant, breathtaking, beautiful, and unlike anything that has ever been done.
Nevertheless, someone else here on IMDb posed an excellent question. If not for those dazzling visuals, what would the film have that would distinguish it (in terms of plot, character development, acting, story)?
I won't hesitate to admit that I was swept up into that story, and was cheering and clapping at times (I won't spoil it for those of you who haven't seen the film yet). And to my surprise, unlike some of the reviewers here, I did develop a strong affinity for some of the characters, though others were no more than cardboard cutout caricatures, designed for the audience to hate, but to think nothing more of. There were also a number of fallacies in both the plot and the pretense of the story (which have been pointed out elsewhere), but they were no worse than those of many films that I've otherwise enjoyed.
I did have a heck of an enjoyable time watching the film, which I guess is the whole point.
But I also had a heck of an enjoyable time watching any number of other action films that were low tech or no tech, but were just as absorbing, and that set my heart racing just as fast and sitting just as erect in my seat.
Avatar and the genre of films to which it belongs (despite its unique technical features) are certainly not top-notch, absorbing and though-provoking drama, of the caliber of films like "Revolutionary Road," or "Sounder," and "A Face In the Crowd," the last two of which I watched again on TCM the other day, or the very low tech "Open Water," or the absolutely brilliant "Requiem for a Dream, that was also recently on cable (no 3D or high-tech visual effects in those!).
I don't think that Cameron makes any pretense of Avatar, or of any of his films, being in the latter category. I would imagine that that doesn't bother him in the least, given that this latest film of his will probably be the most financially successful in movie history.
IMHO, the best special effect, by FAR, is the human condition. That can only be rendered by a strong story, and top notch acting. Any fancy effects and bells and whistles are only gravy.
Avatar was a lot of bells and whistles and gravy; the story was, for the most part, extremely predictable. But I don't hold that against it in that Cameron told that familiar story in an innovative and different way. But the sole foundation of that innovation and difference is the 3D, the visuals, and the effects. About halfway through the movie though, I found that I had gotten used to them and the 3D, and was coming to take them for granted. It was not long after that that most of my ooohs and ahhhs were past me, and at times I had even nearly forgotten that I was watching a 3D film. By then, however, my interest was sustained in that the epic confrontation between the good and the evil sides (not much gray area there!) was gearing up, and I was definitely rooting for one of the sides--guess who?.
Will Avatar completely change movie making (other than pushing the boundaries of the state of the art of movie special effects)? Is it the greatest, or one of the greatest films ever made? I note the swooning of many or most of the reviewers here, who are convinced of that. I suppose that would be true if one feels that dazzling technical effects and 3D and gigantic box office receipts alone are in and of themselves what the art of the motion picture is all about. I take exception to that, and could not disagree more.
IMHO, Avatar was great fun, is a stunning technical achievement. But it's by no means the best movie that I've ever seen, or even one of the best--though it is indeed one of the best of its kind.
The bottom line for me? Avatar is well worth seeing; it was a great experience. I enjoyed it, and I'm glad I went. But one should take it for what it is.