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.
Huh.
I would have thought all that sedentary movie watching and transfat-covered popcorn would have killed him off ages ago. But what do I know. I can't believe Michael Moore lived to adulthood.
Anyway:
It has a flat-out Green and anti-war message
Bittorrent will be my ticket to this masterpiece.
Too bad about the anti-American bent. We'll have to boycott what otherwise would have been an outstanding movie.
Of course, it's destined to be a blockbuster internationally and will contribute to the "fortress America" we are now destined for.
In another 20yrs, they'll be making movies about the good-guy Americans...and wistfully lamenting our absence.
I always knew that Ebert's tastes were a bit . . . odd.
He hated Wolf Creek and, in the paper, explained exactly why he hated it. I agreed with his analysis completely, and was encouraged that someone in the media shared my sentiments about the gratuitous evil in much Hollywood product today. It was like discovering Rush on the radio twenty years ago. He's a typical Gold Coast limousine liberal, but as with the work of any newspaper columnist, I'm free to take what I can use and leave the rest. He watches a lot of crap so I don't have to waste my time and money.
He’s been fighting Cancer for years.
‘Wolf Creek’ was an Australian film.
However the story line on this one is so internally inconsistent that even with the spaceships I believe I will pass.
None moreso than 'Rollerball'.
I watched the 1975 original ‘RollerBall’ fairly recently. What a stiff piece of self important drivel.
What’s more, the sound quality was terrible and most of the film was (literally) too dark.
Terrible production.
Other than that, the movie plodded and was tedious in too many places, but is somewhat redeemed by a stand-up-and-cheer ending. I guess that’s why this otherwise forgettable ‘B’ movie still hangs around after all these years.
I found all three to be contrived and boring.
The Naiv'e
The disease or the astrological sign?
...Pandora is bevy largely CGI.
...I might be awesome in True IMAX.
Forget the film. I think his writing skills are other-worldly.
The Godfather was ‘contrived and boring’? :)
ping
It looks badly transcribed online. He’s an excellent writer.
What about those paved streets the Aztecs had?
I believe he was referring to the nomadic tribes of North America, not the Aztecs. If Hollywood wants to trot out an example of a harmless folk -- except when it comes to those darned colonizing Europeans! -- at peace with Mother Earth, it's usually the Plains Indians.
Here's an honest question, Borges -- can you name a Hollywood film that portrays the Aztecs in a positive light? I'm honestly curious.
drudge has a review other than ebert and they liked it too
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.