The apparent hype which surrounds "blockbuster" films, whilst not unexpected, has not ceased to astound me. The $300+ million price tag on this film was probably sufficient to generate such anticipation, let alone the extensive CGI, and if impressive special effects are what the viewer is after then she is in for a treat. Let me get this out of the way by saying that the film is quite stunning in terms of its visual aesthetic.
Now for the juicy stuff...
Cameron's characters are mostly one-dimensional reflections of contemporary stereotypes. They are written without any genuine attempt at emotional or intellectual depth, each one's motives becoming evident within the first act, or without being revealed with any sense of surprise or intrigue. A minor character, Ribisi gives a standout performance as your typical amoral corporate administrator. Worthington, playing the story's protagonist, however, provides a largely flat performance lacking any real emotional range outside of the heroic prototype. In addition to his own dry line delivery, we have Michelle Rodriguez playing... well... Michelle Rodriguez again, this time in the imaginary future. Yay.
There, is of course, a supposed pretext contained in the film's plot. The (anti-) imperialist theme present from the outset tires quickly, its parallels to the contemporary ecological debate all too overt. We are constantly reminded that the indigenous people of any land have their own beliefs too! (o rly?), but Cameron seems to, for the most part, suggest that we are to consider their values not because of any philosophical-ethical points, but because their lifestyle is simply so much more engaging for our protagonist than the mundane humankind equivalent. The decision to make the belief system of the Na'vi people more plausible by devoting 30 seconds to a questionable scientific hypothesis about its naturalistic underpinnings implies to the viewer that, had the indigenous people's beliefs been founded on less plausible assumptions (such as archaic, metaphysical contemplations), their way of life would have been of less considerable value to the team of scientists we're supposed to be spurring on.
Given the formulaic nature of the plot development, absence of subtlety in the presentation of themes, and a real lack of any character-relationship development, the movie simply failed to hold my interest on anything more than a superficial level. I really wanted to enjoy this movie -- it was my first 3D movie experience for many years -- but soon became restless following the introduction of the spectacular CGI planet Pandora in the first act.
In 30 years' time, Avatar might be viewed as a landmark feat of technical film making. Right now, however, it's already clear to me that it lacks much depth in almost all of the other aspects of film that most viewers are bound consider. Avatar is as formulaic as it is visually groundbreaking; the unfortunate thing is that, as a potentially groundbreaking film, it by no means had to be this undaring.
Hum-o-meter: 4.5/10
Now for the juicy stuff...
Cameron's characters are mostly one-dimensional reflections of contemporary stereotypes. They are written without any genuine attempt at emotional or intellectual depth, each one's motives becoming evident within the first act, or without being revealed with any sense of surprise or intrigue. A minor character, Ribisi gives a standout performance as your typical amoral corporate administrator. Worthington, playing the story's protagonist, however, provides a largely flat performance lacking any real emotional range outside of the heroic prototype. In addition to his own dry line delivery, we have Michelle Rodriguez playing... well... Michelle Rodriguez again, this time in the imaginary future. Yay.
There, is of course, a supposed pretext contained in the film's plot. The (anti-) imperialist theme present from the outset tires quickly, its parallels to the contemporary ecological debate all too overt. We are constantly reminded that the indigenous people of any land have their own beliefs too! (o rly?), but Cameron seems to, for the most part, suggest that we are to consider their values not because of any philosophical-ethical points, but because their lifestyle is simply so much more engaging for our protagonist than the mundane humankind equivalent. The decision to make the belief system of the Na'vi people more plausible by devoting 30 seconds to a questionable scientific hypothesis about its naturalistic underpinnings implies to the viewer that, had the indigenous people's beliefs been founded on less plausible assumptions (such as archaic, metaphysical contemplations), their way of life would have been of less considerable value to the team of scientists we're supposed to be spurring on.
Given the formulaic nature of the plot development, absence of subtlety in the presentation of themes, and a real lack of any character-relationship development, the movie simply failed to hold my interest on anything more than a superficial level. I really wanted to enjoy this movie -- it was my first 3D movie experience for many years -- but soon became restless following the introduction of the spectacular CGI planet Pandora in the first act.
In 30 years' time, Avatar might be viewed as a landmark feat of technical film making. Right now, however, it's already clear to me that it lacks much depth in almost all of the other aspects of film that most viewers are bound consider. Avatar is as formulaic as it is visually groundbreaking; the unfortunate thing is that, as a potentially groundbreaking film, it by no means had to be this undaring.
Hum-o-meter: 4.5/10
come hit this blog adds this blog with open arms ^_^
ReplyDelete