Before posting this, I re-read Robert Ebert’s review of the film last December:
"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 … It creates new movie stars. It is an Event, one of those films you feel you must see to keep up with the conversation.”Ah, yes. Now I remember. This was the "event" that would CHANGE EVERYTHING. The New York Times called it, “A New Eden, Both Cosmic and Cinematic.”
My reaction? Not bad. Way kewl computer-generated imagery, imaginative Blue People (the Na’vi), overwrought acting, goofy/adolescent dialogue and predictable storyline (as in I could see it coming 10 miles off). But not bad. The underlying pro-green/anti-war message, while nice, was as subtle as one of those touchy hammerhead rhinoceros things. The Times’ verdict on Avatar, a “glorious and goofy and blissfully deranged” movie sounds about right. Still, it wasn’t un-enjoyable, and there are worse ways to spend 2 hours and 46 minutes of life I’ll never get back.
As you can gather, I was kinda underwhelmed by Avatar. Would seeing it in 3D have helped? No. To get my socks rolling up and down, a film has to offer a fabulous story, whip smart dialogue/writing, fully drawn characters and great actors to pull it all off. Avatar mostly failed in those areas, for me at least. CGI (2D or 3D) is merely a film tool, a way to add exposition or realism. It is secondary to the story. Cameron’s last movie, Titanic, accomplished these things (to my surprise), and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
So, I’ll bide my time for the next movie that really does contain that elusive “unobtanium” I seek in great films.
No comments:
Post a Comment