Posted on 12/13/2009 6:52:26 AM PST by Borges
Watching "Avatar," I felt sort of the same as when I saw "Star Wars" in 1977. That was another movie I walked into with uncertain expectations. James Cameron's film has been the subject of relentlessly dubious advance buzz, just as his "Titanic" was. Once again, he has silenced the doubters by simply delivering an extraordinary film. There is still at least one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million, or was it $300 million, wisely.
"Avatar" is not simply a sensational entertainment, although it is that. It's a technical breakthrough. It has a flat-out Green and anti-war message. It is predestined to launch a cult. It contains such visual detailing that it would reward repeating viewings. It invents a new language, Na'vi, as "Lord of the Rings" did, although mercifully I doubt this one can be spoken by humans, even teenage humans. It creates new movie stars. It is an Event, one of those films you feel you must see to keep up with the conversation.
The story, set in the year 2154, involves a mission by U. S. Armed Forces to an earth-sized moon in orbit around a massive star. This new world, Pandora, is a rich source of a mineral Earth desperately needs. Pandora represents not even a remote threat to Earth, but we nevertheless send in the military to attack and conquer them. Gung-ho Marines employ machine guns and pilot armored hover ships on bombing runs. You are free to find this an allegory about contemporary politics. Cameron obviously does.
Pandora harbors a planetary forest inhabited peacefully by the Na'vi, a blue-skinned, golden-eyed race of slender giants, each one perhaps 12 feet tall. The atmosphere is not breathable by humans, and the landscape makes us pygmies. To venture out of our landing craft, we use avatars--Na'vi lookalikes grown organically and mind-controlled by humans who remain wired up in a trance-like state on the ship. While acting as avatars, they see, fear, taste and feel like Na'vi, and have all the same physical adeptness.
This last quality is liberating for the hero, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), who is a paraplegic. He's been recruited because he's a genetic match for a dead identical twin, who an expensive avatar was created for. In avatar state he can walk again, and as his payment for this duty he will be given a very expensive operation to restore movement to his legs. In theory he's in no danger, because if his avatar in destroyed, his human form remains untouched. In theory.
On Pandora, Jake begins as a good soldier and then goes native after his life is saved by the lithe and brave Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). He finds it is indeed true, as the aggressive Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) briefed them, that nearly every species of life here wants him for lunch. (Avatars are not be made of Na'vi flesh, but try explaining that to charging 30-ton rhino with a snout like a bullet head shark).
The Na'vi survive on this planet by knowing it well, living in harmony with nature, and being wise about the creatures they share with. In this and countless other ways they resemble Native Americans. Like them, they tame another species to carry them around--not horses, but graceful flying dragon-like creatures. The scene involving Jake capturing and taming one of these great beasts is one of the film's greats sequences.
Like "Star Wars" and "LOTR," "Avatar" employs a new generation of special effects. Cameron said it would, and many doubted him. It does. Pandora is bevy largely CGI. The Na'vi are embodied through motion capture techniques, convincingly. They look like specific, persuasive individuals, yet sidestep the eerie Uncanny Valley effect. And Cameron and his artists succeed at the difficult challenge of making Neytiri a blue-skinned giantess with golden eyes and a long, supple tail, and yet--I'll be damned. Sexy.
At 163 minutes, the film doesn't feel too long. It contains so much. The human stories. The Na'vi stories, for the Na'vi are also developed as individuals. The complexity of the planet, which harbors a global secret. The ultimate warfare, with Jake joining the resistance against his former comrades. Small graceful details like a floating creature that looks like a cross between a blowing dandelion seed and a drifting jellyfish, and embodies goodness. Or astonishing floating cloud-islands.
I've complained that many recent films abandon story telling in their third acts and go for wall-to-wall action. Cameron essentially does that here, but has invested well in establishing his characters so that it matters what they do in battle and how they do it. There are issues at stake greater than simply which side wins.
Cameron promised he'd unveil the next generation of 3-D in "Avatar." I'm a notorious skeptic about this process, a needless distraction from the perfect realism of movies in 2-D. Cameron's iteration is the best I've seen -- and more importantly, one of the most carefully-employed. The film never uses 3-D simply because it has it, and doesn't promiscuously violate the fourth wall. He also seems quite aware of 3-D's weakness for dimming the picture, and even with a film set largely in interiors and a rain forest, there's sufficient light. I saw the film in 3-D on a good screen at the AMC River East and was impressed. I might be awesome in True IMAX. Good luck in getting a ticket before February.
It takes a hell of a lot of nerve for a man to stand up at the Oscarcast and proclaim himself King of the World. James Cameron just got re-elected.
The Left have turned the American Indian into a utopian mythology; leaving out the grim reality of the Indian's existence. They were a Stone-Age culture, literally, and as such, lived short, harsh lives. Modern Leftists relaxing in their homes with central heating, plenty of food in the pantry, and indoor plumbing, fail to think how miserable they would be actually living without all these "luxuries". They should stand outside their house on a Winter night, wearing only a bath towel, having not eaten all day, for a sample of actual Stone-age living.
This might sound cruel but if Ebert actually tried to “live in harmony” with nature he would be dead. I wish all the “harmony” people would actually try it for an extended period of time.
Ebert would have loved Ishtar if it would have had a flat out Green and anti-war message......... and some Bush bashing.
Don’t give Hollyweird any more ideas. ;)
>>I’m actually looking forward to this.<<
I have mixed emotions about this.
I just saw “The Nutcracker” at the Seattle Opera house Friday night. The PC-ness of it ruined me. Imagine watching a play written by an American indian about American indians, but to be PC, the childrens parts were played by all races.
In this one, the lead female character as a child is played by a black girl. And her “brother” was Asian. It completely ruined it for me. The people around us left at the intermission.
I told my friends that the basic theme of “The Nutcracker” is that a little black girl has a dream that she is a grown up white girl.
I almost commented to the usher when we left and decided, what’s the point. I’m moving to Kentucky next summer to get out of this cultural cesspool.
But I digress. My point is that I firmly believe the theme will ruin it for me. I learned with the last star wars movies that special effects will not do it for me any more.
I know it was over a decade because my wife and I have been married almost 12 years and it was about the time we first met.
I used to enjoy “siskel and Ebert” and the two thumbs up was a good thing. Then again, I’ve matured since then. I will confess that when he likes a movie I want to know WHY he likes it. Sometimes we agree, but it is about the “why”. Honestly we rarely do nowadays though.
You were upset just because of the race of the kids in the cast? That’s been common practice for a long time. Did you think they should exclude kids from auditions based on race? They’d get sued pretty quickly.
And he uses graceful big-eyed sparky blue cat people to rope the young girls in I guess. I would look past that if it had a fresh story... I wonder how audiences would take it if the natives were disgusting blob-beasts whose speech sounded like passing gas.
Freegards
Ebert says 3D tends to result in darkened images. I especially dislike movies with a lot of dark scenes because it’s sometimes is a way of getting by with cheaply constructed backgrounds. There obviously will be a 2D Blu-ray version of Avator which surely will be spectacular. We seldom go to the theater because watching the Blu-ray movies on our 65” set is such a great experience.
With all the electronic stuff now available it may not be that much more expensive to produce 3D but is it worth the hassle for viewers (glasses, and how do we view 3D at home) and, according to Ebert, degradation in brightness?
The scripts the thing.... Tolkein wrote an unabashed Christian story that worked cinematically because of terrific tech and a faithful pursuit of the book.
This is merely more fascist pap paraded as wonderful by a crowd that does not understand true wonder.
Let the blind lead the blind and the dead bury the dead.
>>Did you think they should exclude kids from auditions based on race? <<
Yes, I do. Imagine a White driver in Driving Miss Daisy.
Imagine A world War II movie with a Black Hitler or a White Yamamoto.
Race very much matters.
The singular exception would be if you are in a place where there is only one race to choose from. Then you go with what you have.
And yes, I think they would be sued. Another reason I am leaving this cesspool. Heck, read my tagline...
If the race of the character is part of the story then yes it matters. If its irrelevant than its really not too hard to ignore it.
Cameron is one of the few these days who can conjure up a sense of wonder. And he’s a much better film storyteller than Peter JAckson.
I'll stick to Tolkien, thank you very much!
It is tempting to use such a broad brush in the face of so much evidence of liberal godlessness, but Hollywood really is not monolithic. Witness The Blind Side, which winsomely tells an inspiring true story of a Christian living out her faith. Your damning of Hollywood suggests that ought to matter to you.
Apparently, the “flat-out green and anti-war” messages strongly resonate with Roger, either that or he took Ecstasy before viewing this flick. It’s hard to otherwise account for his glowing, enraptured review. Possibly he’s just happy at being alive, having recently been at death’s doorstep for so many years.
I’m sure he must also have gotten a tingle up his leg, apparently the most common visceral reaction among those acolytes of the Church of Progression when they are enraptured by their Church’s latest priestly ventures. At any rate, at least Roger is being honest. Cinema reviewers almost always offer up their hosannas without disclosing their conflicts of interest. After reading enough of their reviews and then attending the recommended movies, one begins to wonder if you’re seeing the same flick. But then you realize what the game is. These are not reviews of merit but political reviews, and the standard is the degree of politial correctness. Almost all movie reviewers are hard-core leftists, so keep that factoid in the back of your head the next time you read a movie review.
I for one decided long ago that I would quit funding the propaganda efforts of the leftist by paying my hard-earned shekels to view their pathetic dreck. Once the blinders fell from my eyes, the leftist propaganda embedded in most Hollywood “entertainment” leaped off the screen and throttled me by the neck. This constant stream of “progressive” propaganda overly sensitized my leftist BS detector, and the big screen progressive de jure “hits” were no longer fun for me. I guess I finally simply grew up, and was no longer a child watching Toby Tyler run away to join the circus.
Plus the irony was just too poignant that law-abiding conservatives were mindlessly feeding the leftist Hollywood beast, using their own rope to hang themselves, much as predicted by good ‘ol Vladimir (may his Madame Trousseau corpse rest in peace). I always ended up walking out anyway, which reminded me of Groucho Marx’s complaint that the food was terrible and the portions were too small also.
I urge you not to feed the beast. Besides, watching this flick sounds like the conservative equivalent of sucking on a cavity for a perverse thrill. If you must see this thing, wait until you can rent it from Redbox for a buck in a few months. Remember, another milepost towards adulthood is accepting and even enjoying the virtues of delayed gratification.
“Now that I am more sophisticated, I can look at the Heinlein novels that I loved so much as a youngster, and recognize the overt “progressive” message in them. But, I cued in on the honor, courage, and adventure, and ended up shedding the “progressive” messages.”
I know what you are saying about Heinlein,his later novels were rather “hippy-dippy”. However,the main theme of all of his novels is freedom from government,free thought and the possibilities of humanity when not oppressed by fascist states. Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress should be required reading in school,imho.
Wow that’s some self importance you have there. All Art is propaganda to some degree or another. All of it. One has to learn to enjoy what’s good and shrug off what one doesn’t like.
You’re right about Ebert declining as a film critic. I surmise that he lost his healthy skepticism along the way, and began to worship his new popularity. My guess: he grew up chubby and was not in the popular cliques, this made him a shrewd observer. When he became a celebrity, he lost his edge while striving for new friends among the left coast elite.
This also happens to Republican politicians who seek acceptance in Washington DC. They lose their spine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.