So, we are now in the last month of the degree, final deadlines are starting to shift from 'in the distance' to 'looming', and there's still alot of work to do. Locks getting changed, rooms being renovated, houses being searched for, and oh, it's that bastard month again isn't it?
As I have said before and will do so in brief again, April is the month when alot of strange shit happens in the personal lives of human beings. People get together, break up, relationships change in their dynamic, and lots of other weird stuff, all because it's April.
Before we press on, special mention to Tina, who was awesome on the pin-up photoshoot. Really good sport when she was otherwise busy, so thank you for that! Also, the poster design so far is looking pretty good.
...SO...
Avatar.
Now this one will be by no means an easy review. It's surprisingly hard to stay impartial when a film holds a great deal of personal resonance, so I will do my best, because I have been fervently against this film and although my reasons I believe are valid, not all would agree. So here we go.
So, basic plot, a crippled marine takes his dead brothers place in a science mission on a resource-rich planet far from Earth. His mission is to remove an indigenous tribe from their home so that humanity can claim a precious resource from beneath it to save Earth. He joins the indigenous in an Avatar body, and eventually comes to join their cause and fight for their way of life.
Ok, now the first thing that will strike anyone when they hear of, speak about or watch Avatar is the budget. $237m. One of the largest ever budgets for a film. Now as the vast majority of this film is CGI, you'd think that nearly all of that budget was spent on making the film. Highly unlikely. More feasible would be to assume that a good portion of that money went on the advertising/marketing campaign. This film was plugged to high heaven when it was on the way. The interest generated was massive. This was also one of the major factors in its success, snatching over $2bn by the end of January 2010. Now yes, this makes it the most successful MODERN film of all time (accounting for Inflation, Gone with the Wind still takes the crown) but it doesn't necessarily make it one of the best. IMDb rates it at #161 in its top 250 of all time. No mean feat, but again, is this the be all and end all. Does this mean it's a good film, or just that people were persuaded by the massive marketing campaign behind it to go and pay their money to make it as successful as it was? I think only time can tell on that one, harking back to the longevity of films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather.
Okay, the next thing you notice is fairly obvious - it's Sci-Fi. Now Sci-Fi is firmly back in the public focus of late. Films like this and District 9 have proven to the modern audience that Sci-Fi isn't just a genre for quirky stories and actors who have passed their sell-by date (step forward Scott Bakula - my annoyance of this guy will be explained next time). Sci-Fi sells.
Now with regards to the film itself, I will admit there are a couple of aspects that make it an enjoyable experience. For starters, those visual effects. Everything is seamlessly put together in the CGI, everything seems to move naturally and it's all quite subtle. It can be easily forgotten that its not just all the odd animals with six legs that are animated, but also everything around them. Hat's off to the CG artists on this.
Next up for the plaudits are Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver. At the start of this film, Weaver plays the perfect role - Ripley had she taken a Biology GCSE instead of one in Ass-Kicking. She fits the role of hard taskmaster really well. Ribisi? This guy is a wanker throughout the whole film, and it suits him. He needs to play more high profile, strong and flamboyant villains in his films, he's good enough to do it.
Now I normally go a bit mad with fandom when awesome actors turn up in films, no matter the quality, and Avatar is no exception. Step forward CCH Pounder and Dileep Rao. Okay, Rao may not have proven himself as awesome just yet, but he was in Inception and that'll do. But CCH "The Female Morgan Freeman" Pounder? Oh yeah. She had a fairly small role in this, which is a shame because she's so talented. But we can't have everything can we?
Finally, special mention must, must go to Stephen Lang. He's awesome. He should have been in Battle: LA, playing the same character he does in this. Hard-ass. Marine. Bastard. With scars down his face. I can't say much more, except whenever he was on screen it was fun.
So, now that I am done with the positive stuff.
My hatred of this film is justified. I do not like Avatar. It will remain so. Here is why.
For starters, the film opens with narration. Narration is a lazy tool of telling a story however you slice it. When the film starts we can see that the planet the story is set on is not Earth. We know that, we don't need telling. We know that this is a science fiction universe - there's a spacecraft floating about that looks nothing like any existing spacecraft. We can guess that the marine has been in stasis - there's a guy shouting at him and the others what to do after being in stasis - we don't need Sam Worthington sitting there with a big sign saying "I am going to read you this story". Worthington periodically talks to camera throughout the whole movie. I now despise the mans face.
Now I am well aware (working in a cinema as I do) that Avatar's marketing campaign was extensive and very well thought out. but christ, this is a motion picture that was advertised as brilliant, powerful and revolutionary. It's CGI. If it's revolutionary, the audience isn't going to see that revolution taking place. It's not powerful. It's a story that has been done 1001 times with different characters, different actors and different directors. The Last Samurai was the last version I saw before this. The point is, the marketing campaign seriously plugged the CGI, and CGI should never be the point of a film. The story should always come first. bad form Cameron.
FROM NOW ON THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.
There is a sodding tree in this film that can transfer the essence of characters from one body to another. That is crap.
Specifically, it can transfer the essence of humans into empty Na'vi bodies. Nifty, huh?
No. Not really.
Now I understand how James Cameron worked this out. The nature on Pandora is all linked, much like a computer, and the Na'vi can access that network. It's perfect to make the tree credible. The problem is, that's all it's for. There is no other feasible explanation for the presence of this network, other than to make Cameron sound smart.
WHY ARE THEY BLUE!? Surely he saw the Smurf references coming?
Now did anyone spot me mentioning Sigourney Weaver being good at the start of this film?
Yes, the START. In the rest she was rubbish. Her character was meant to hold the main protagonist with a kind of quiet malice, whilst at the same time helping him along. After ten minutes of wonderfully acidic barbs, she is practically licking his scrotum with helpful character advancements. In truth I'd much rather there be a Galaxy Quest sequel than seeing Weaver act in this crap.
Sam Worthington deserves dishonourable mention again. He's bloody awful in this. Wooden, monotonous and...well shit. The fact that he spends a great deal of this film opening his mouth and speaking only adds to the trauma.
One thing about modern Hollywood cinema that is becoming really tiresome right now, is the over-and-mis-use of Michelle Rodriguez. I recently saw Battle LA and she is actually ok in that (not to mention SHE LIVES!!!) but for the love of god, enough with the bullheaded attempts to re-stereotype Latin Americans by martyring her in every goddamn film. You can't do it. The only thing this is doing is making any role Rodriguez takes on incredibly predictable. It has the potential to ruin the movies she stars in.
Going back to the CGI for a moment, another real problem with this film is one of the 'locations' on the planet. Floating mountains. What are these floating 'mountains'? Boulders. In mid-air. No reason for it, they're just there, hanging around waiting for a set piece to happen. Hell, I use the program used to create those things, and so much more can be done with it than just having floating boulders. It's unimaginative. Just like the bloody story. The story should be the heart of every film, and the story in this film is really good. It's a tried and tested story, and if I'm honest I have no problem with the story in this film. It's about overcoming adversity, finding ones true self. But it's been deeply undermined by having such a mound of crap sitting atop it. In addition, I'm kinda tired of the whole "I will find myself by joining a tribal clan" angle. The Last Samurai did it, Dances with Wolves did it, now this has done it. The whole slant is getting a little old.
In retrospect, I am glad I bought this film. It gave me the chance to completely analyse it and see it without outside influence, and gleam some perspective off the back of it. I still despise Avatar with a passion. I can't watch it without it either boring me or annoying me because of its irritating flaws. But this films marketing was superior in so many ways to many movies. It made good use of the vast resources available, and ended up making a shedload of money. Unfortunately that vast resource wasn't also used to make a meaningful film. Good for sticking on in the background while you clean or write is Avatar, but watching it is not a pleasant experience.
Right, the review of doom is over. I am now going on writing mode until May 6th, so there will probably not be any more posts until then. I'll watch a film in due course, and the next review will be up when it's up. Until then.
