AVATAR REVIEW

This is my new (and first) blog which I'm going to start reviewing stuff. All sorts of stuff. And to begin with, here's a review of quite possibly what is the biggest stuff of the last twelve month. Avatar.

A hateful film. One with very VERY few redeeming qualities. Oh, yes, it does have some very few infrequent ‘ooh, pretty’ moments, but it does not warrant a tenth of the love and hoopla that’s currently being bestowed upon it.

Our viewing experience was one of gross disappointment; this was our first foray into the world of 3D, and quite frankly, it fell a bit (excuse the pun) flat. Initially I was quite doubtful but I did go in with an open mind, being fully aware of the huge investment (time, passion and money) Cameron and the studio have invested in this venture. In respect of 3D being a spectacle for pleasurable means, I was initially very quickly won over. Not by the film, I might add, but by the very effective Cadbury’s advert that preceded the turgid viewing displeasure to come; you know, the big floaty Fairtrade head that comes toward you and spins a bit.

Then the film started. One moment, the awakening from hypersleep in space was incredibly and beautifully filmed and realised, and had a realness I was deeply impressed with. The sense of weightlessness, and the depth of the environment won me over big time; I was hooked and ready for great things to come. “Whoo” I thought, “This is going to be awesomely amazing!”. I misguidedly believed in the films promise from the opening scenes.

To be fair, there were other scenes that aesthetically-speaking were equally striking; the extinguishing the flame onna stick and seeing all the pretty glowing neon stuff and floaty dandelion wossnames was very lovely. But then, one of the characters spoke and just ruined it. Floaty things stick to big blue bloke; why? We’re told because he’s strong of heart, or some other such twaddle. I mean, really? That’s the best they could come up with?

Right. I’ll get the obvious stuff out of the way. I mean obvious, because these are all quotes from some Amazon 5 star reviews that even they acknowledge:

“the plot is a little predictable and recycled, and the character development is a little bit wooden” (not that it matters, obviously)

“pays homage to classics such as Dances with Wolves and you can see the direct comparison” (that’s plagiarism, isn’t it?)

“There wasn't as much characterisation as I thought there would be”

“Unobtanium?” (well, indeed)

“This film's story is a mix of Pocahontas and the Smurfs”

“And the grossly stereotypical characters in it”

“The dialogue is functional, sometimes a little clunky…The plot is highly manipulative…this is not a subtle story and the message is rammed home hard” (and that earns it five stars. Really?)

My main issue was the film is the thing it’s most being applauded for; the 3D ‘wizardry’ and the look of the thing. 3D first. Making things blurry in the background and in focus in the foreground (also known as depth of field) does not an immersive experience make. That isn’t 3D, it’s just a good use of cinematography.

And it still feels like you’re watching CGI; or a very expensive video game. There’s no solidness, realness or tangibility to it. My suspension of disbelief is totally grounded. Compare it with something like Coraline. This is a very beautiful film rich in colour, detail and solidity. I haven’t seen it in 3D, just plain old 2D on a Blu Ray at home. But it still has a depth and realisation of a fantasy world that Avatar couldn't hope to match.

I’m not dismissing CGI as a whole; sometimes it’s superbly discreet and works wonders. Star Trek for example comprised of a lot of a CG stuff; but it was much better realised and hardly as cartoonish or video game like in appearance as Avatar. Compare it also with the other two truly great Sci Fi films of 2009; District 9 which well deserved it’s best film Oscar nomination (and should have won it) and Moon, which was disgracefully overlooked by the same people. CGI complemented the former in a very unobtrusive but effective way, and old-style models used in a slightly retro beautifully crafted, but joyful manner in the latter. Both were convincing and lovely, sucked you in, subtle (comparatively) in message, brilliantly directed, deftly acted and so much more rewarding.

Though Avatar is obviously bigger in scale, I can’t help but think we’ve been here before. Does anyone remember Final Fantasy the movie (“oooh, moving hair!”)? General consensus from reviewers (at least on Amazon) eight years ago was that it was visually striking and yet plot wise bit of a clanger. History repeating?

Right, next. Sam (better not be the next James Bond) Worthington. Nevermind that he looks like a bloke that should be driving round Bexleyheath in a Vauxhall Corsa with three Max Power stickers on the back, the chap was obviously totally out of his depth here. Well, to be fair, it’s a fairly two-dimensional role (ironically) but his voice acting just drones on something terrible. Shoving him in a wheel chair certainly sent conflicting messages to me; is he fighting to save the forest critters for good, or just an excuse to reside in his Avatar and having access to more WC facilities? And seriously, why is he so enamoured with that whiney blue tart? Sorry Zoe Saldana; you’ve won my nomination for being lumbered with the most annoying character in a film history.

There was one character I felt worth investing in. The marvellous, charismatic, cinematic and ever reliable Michelle Rodriguez (she from Lost) was both engaging and made her character (clichés notwithstanding) reasonably believable. But she was underused and could have added so much more.

The portrayal of the misguided, naïve, enthusiastic, yet somehow flawed scientists is basically as copybook as you can get it. Also, with the exception of a couple of essential plot devices, the mercenaries are universally, cheaply and feebly portrayed as meat headed, gun loving, rascist / speciest thugs without a conscientious thought in their bodies. Note: having them described as mercenaries is a feeble way of getting out of upsetting everyone with the somewhat negative and blasé portrayal of the armed services; come on Cameron, actually try to stand by you political leanings with some cahones. And anyway, even the occasional mercenaries have a mum and some sort of moral code.

And why name the bloody place Pandora. Bloody plot spoiler with a name like that.

Oh, and those folks who are obsessively excited about the promise of an additional six minutes (ooh, an extra 3.7%), comprising no doubt extra titbits such as “No, I see you” [blink] “NO! I see YOU” [blink blink] “Actually, I think you’ll find, it IS me seeing YOU…” ad nauseum; does six minutes really warrant another £9 a head at the cinema? Plus the extra pop corn (you need something to stuff your ears with to avoid the dialogue). Really?

I’m resigned to appreciating that I’m in the minority here. It’s not snobbery; I’m inclined to enjoy a well-crafted blockbuster as much as the next chap. With an astonishingly high rating of 8.4 on IMDB, it’s certainly shown to be a force to be reckoned with and despite it’s failings even some of its hardcore fans are identifying, it’s clearly still a well-loved piece of film making. I just don’t get it. I saw as a clichéd, predictable, badly acted, lazily directed, non-engaging, pretty but shallow attempt at making heaps of cash.

1/10