Sunday, December 27, 2009

Avatar (2009)

Avatar is a technical masterpiece for sure. Just the other night I was watching A Charlie Brown Christmas, noticing how they used squiggly lines on the characters' faces to express different emotions, a stark contrast from the computer generated characters in Avatar, some of which show a fuller range of emotions and lifelike qualities than their co-starring human counterparts (animated Neytiri is in my opinion the strongest character in the film). The digital imagery and effects are stunningly beautiful, for many years to follow this will truly be the benchmark that others desperately strive and thrive to work towards.

But, the movie itself didn't have much of an impact on me. I wondered afterwards, sitting in my seat in the formerly crowded theater, did I miss something? On the drive home, and now, a day later, I still feel as although the assumed impact I'd expected the film to carry was sadly not there. I tried to chalk it up to different factors, I've been watching a lot of critically acclaimed, quieter films about real, everyday people lately. Maybe since this was so larger than life it didn't engage me in the way a personal documentary might? But that reasoning, among similar trains of thought, are ultimately all excuses. I just didn't find Avatar all that special.

James Cameron is a masterful storyteller, but Avatar never reached the emotional depth of Titanic, the suspense of Aliens, or the adrenaline boost I received when seeing Terminator 2: Judgment Day for the first time. The casting of the supporting cast was somewhat troubling, I couldn't take Joel Moore seriously, I kept thinking back to his role as J.P. in Grandma's Boy, and then there's Michelle Rodriguez, reprising a role she's been typecast in, the street smart, tougher than nails girl that can hang with the big boys, developed in her portrayal of Letty in The Fast and the Furious, and continued here as a rebellious fighter pilot. Even Giovanni Ribisi, whom I usually like, seemed to only ever hit one note in his role as greedy, profiteering Parker Selfridge.

The film lacked an emotional punch. Yes, there was death, love, and so on, but I didn't get emotionally invested. Being that it's so new, and still being seen by so many, I'll refrain from divulging much in terms of plot. Although, even if this film were several years old, I doubt I'd have much interest in exploring the story in any great detail. Is it this generation's Star Wars? Time will tell. I'll give it a second viewing down the road and reexamine my initial feelings. For now, I'll say it's a beautiful film to stare at, but features a rather generic, stock plot and fails to meet its immense potential.

3 comments:

  1. Unfortunately we still haven't gotten to the point where we can really balance out computer generated effects with substance. Provided you have your gems here and there but To me cgi is still in it's infancy. Due to the fact that they tend to be used in excess. I'll be catching this on dvd.

    Dspang.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian,

    Did you get to watch this in 3D?

    I thought the effects were freaking great, and it was probably the best looking 3D movie I've ever seen. But, I think the story is a very generic story. I liked the movie, but the story didn't live up to the hype.

    If you want a great "Avatar", watch the nickelodeon animated series, "Avatar".

    -Greg

    ReplyDelete
  3. Greg,

    I did see it in 3D. It did look pretty amazing for the most part, although, to be fair, The Final Destination 3D looked pretty wicked, too. I did start watching the Nickelodeon series in preparation for the forthcoming live-action film and have enjoyed it thus far.

    ReplyDelete