Although I was not too bothered about seeing Avatar as a film, I felt it was a bit foolish to let this milestone of cinema go past me – particularly when the thing it is hyped for are the effects and being the first "big" film to utilise 3D technology to this degree. It just seemed that watching it on my TV in about 9 months on DVD with a basic stereo system would be missing the point. Unsurprisingly I was right because Avatar is technically a brilliant film that deserves to sweep the Oscars in terms of awards for visual effects and other such categories.
If we ignore the 3D for a minute, the actual effects look great and I imagine that it will still be impressive in 2D. The landscapes and world of Pandora are imaginative (ironic since how dumb the name of it is) and very vividly created to the point where you forget that they are effects when you step back from them. Likewise it is so easy to forget that the Na'vi are not actors in quite brilliant outfits and makeup because they look so real and move so naturally – it is a million miles from the films such as Spiderman or Indy 4 where you can see where the real person ends and the jumping/swinging special effect begin. There were points in the film where I found myself wondering how on earth they managed to get a particular shot and where the camera was, only for my brain to kick in a second later to remind me that what I'm seeing is entirely virtual. OK the fantastical visual aspects are clearly creations but I was startled by how accepting of it all was and, in 2D I thought that the effects were pretty seamless.
In 3D it doesn't quite hit the same mark for me. The "look it's in 3D" shots are not as obvious as some of the other films (where stuff comes out of the screen for no reason) but it is still a little distracting when the 3D forces your focus or has stuff where it doesn't aid the scene. Of course the world of Pandora looks great with things moving around in front of you and the final battle sequences are great – the money is all there to be seen. Thing is, the reason I was able to think about "how did they do that shot" while watching the film is because the technical aspects of the film is really all there is to engage with. The plot is basic and obvious – others have talked at length about the rights and wrongs of a story where the white man comes to the aid of the indigenous people, so I'll not add to that debate. The problem for me is simpler than that, it is simply that the plot is weak and the script is just as weak. My girlfriend laughed out loud when the name of the mineral on Pandora was named as "Unobtainium" and there were plenty of things like this. The dialogue between the characters is full of needless plot exposition and thus doesn't ring true. Of course all this is helped by the action and the effects but the narrative and writing weaknesses are all I can think of when I have to listen to people tell me how Avatar is the best film ever.
The cast manage to do solid jobs considering how easy it is for them to get lost in the effects (see the modern Star Wars films to see this happen). Worthington is stuck with some awful dialogue but he is a good presence even in his Avatar. Saldana's performance is good, again despite some of her expressions and dialogue. Weaver is "so-so", Moore is pointless, Ribisi is miscast in a character that is so clichéd that it needed a decent casting to make it be more than it was. I liked Lang a lot and his OTT badass character worked well. Rodriguez seems like she is there because someone important likes her and her character doesn't add a terrible lot. Voice work from Studi, Pounder and others is good.
Overall Avatar deserves to be seen for its technical importance and how impressive it is but the degree of praise for it needs to be put in context by considering how it plays as more than just a special effects milestone. In these terms it is not as good due to a poor plot and script that hurts the actors more than the effects do by handing them some awful dialogue. That it works is testament to how impressive the effects are but there is not a terrible lot to gush about beyond these.
If we ignore the 3D for a minute, the actual effects look great and I imagine that it will still be impressive in 2D. The landscapes and world of Pandora are imaginative (ironic since how dumb the name of it is) and very vividly created to the point where you forget that they are effects when you step back from them. Likewise it is so easy to forget that the Na'vi are not actors in quite brilliant outfits and makeup because they look so real and move so naturally – it is a million miles from the films such as Spiderman or Indy 4 where you can see where the real person ends and the jumping/swinging special effect begin. There were points in the film where I found myself wondering how on earth they managed to get a particular shot and where the camera was, only for my brain to kick in a second later to remind me that what I'm seeing is entirely virtual. OK the fantastical visual aspects are clearly creations but I was startled by how accepting of it all was and, in 2D I thought that the effects were pretty seamless.
In 3D it doesn't quite hit the same mark for me. The "look it's in 3D" shots are not as obvious as some of the other films (where stuff comes out of the screen for no reason) but it is still a little distracting when the 3D forces your focus or has stuff where it doesn't aid the scene. Of course the world of Pandora looks great with things moving around in front of you and the final battle sequences are great – the money is all there to be seen. Thing is, the reason I was able to think about "how did they do that shot" while watching the film is because the technical aspects of the film is really all there is to engage with. The plot is basic and obvious – others have talked at length about the rights and wrongs of a story where the white man comes to the aid of the indigenous people, so I'll not add to that debate. The problem for me is simpler than that, it is simply that the plot is weak and the script is just as weak. My girlfriend laughed out loud when the name of the mineral on Pandora was named as "Unobtainium" and there were plenty of things like this. The dialogue between the characters is full of needless plot exposition and thus doesn't ring true. Of course all this is helped by the action and the effects but the narrative and writing weaknesses are all I can think of when I have to listen to people tell me how Avatar is the best film ever.
The cast manage to do solid jobs considering how easy it is for them to get lost in the effects (see the modern Star Wars films to see this happen). Worthington is stuck with some awful dialogue but he is a good presence even in his Avatar. Saldana's performance is good, again despite some of her expressions and dialogue. Weaver is "so-so", Moore is pointless, Ribisi is miscast in a character that is so clichéd that it needed a decent casting to make it be more than it was. I liked Lang a lot and his OTT badass character worked well. Rodriguez seems like she is there because someone important likes her and her character doesn't add a terrible lot. Voice work from Studi, Pounder and others is good.
Overall Avatar deserves to be seen for its technical importance and how impressive it is but the degree of praise for it needs to be put in context by considering how it plays as more than just a special effects milestone. In these terms it is not as good due to a poor plot and script that hurts the actors more than the effects do by handing them some awful dialogue. That it works is testament to how impressive the effects are but there is not a terrible lot to gush about beyond these.