by Sam Juliano
Ultimately, one visits movie theatres with the expectation of having their intellect challenged, their mind engaged and their emotions stirred. Few films pull off this nearly unattainable hat trick, as the brainy films are often models of frigidity, the poignant fare often leaves little to think about as its premise or main characters may be contrived or stereotyped, and the entertaining films are fun at the moment but forgettable after one leaves the theatre. James Cameron’s previous film, Titanic, released all the way back in 1997, succeeded on the last two counts, but failed miserably on the first, leaving cinema fans with a hollow shell of a movie that now makes people wince when they hear it’s title brought up. Earlier films like The Abyss, Terminator 2 and Aliens never explored the emotional possibilities of the characters, relying on some scattered humor and male bonding to fill in the gaps. It may have partially succeeded at the time, but few would make claim that any of these films are not primarily seen now for their technical prowess first and foremost.
Five years ago Cameron announced that his next film would be a technologically astute blend of live-action and computer-generated imagry that would alter the cinematic landscape. His story of humans invading the planet Pandora in the year 2154, begins as an exploratory tale involving a team of two scientists and a crippled ex-Marine named Jake Scully who replaces his late twin brother in a scientific experiment, by which he assists in roaming the planet with other remote-controlled bodies, which have been cloned from human and indigenous DNA (the avitars of the film’s title). This distant world is the source of a valuable and expensive mineral. The controlled beings are a close approximation of the of the planet’s native Na’Vi, a tall, blue and cat-like species. Jake begins his “sojourn” as an observer, and he soon discovers the beauty, enchantment and danger of Pandora.
But then the story takes a drastic turn when Colonel Miles Quaritch requests that Jake “spy” for the coroporate bosses, a request that Jake agrees to after he’s promised exorbitantly expensive surgery to repair his damaged spine. Predictably, but no less compellingly Jake learns the culture and mores of Na’Vi tribe from a beautiful warrior Neytiri, with whom he immediately develops a permanent bond with. Of course the immersion into the tribe allows Quaritch to gain the tactical intelligence he needs to enact complete obliteration of the indigenous population. A large part of this number is located directly above the planet’s biggest vein of the ultra-precious metal “unobtanium” and if the human leader of this mission, Parker Selfridge is unable to accomplish success by willing complicity, he’s prepared to employ lethal force. Sully at first agrees with the plan, but after he (in his ‘avatar’ form) falls in love with Neytiri, the story borrows the white-turned-Indian plot thrust of Dances With Wolves. But Cameron is no fool and he knows the emotional prospects of a storytelling device where an oppressed people can rise up with the help of one, smitten by true love, and shoot an arrow into the advanced barbarians that threaten their very existence.
The narrative device is hardly original but it serves as a potent underpinning to the awesome spectacle that plays out here, culminating in a final hour of action-packed intensity that has the thrills of an endless roller coaster, filled with all the genre conventions, like hanging from the end of a cliff, falling in a canyon into a cascading river, or an all-out CGI battle, a la Return of the King. But Cameron and his technical staff have succeeded with some nifty digital deception that has raised the bar for such technology. Hence Avatar pulsates, almost breathing a life of its own in it’s conversion from movie to immersive experience. A dominant percentage of the film’s locations are quite apparently CGI too, inducing one to wonder if they should called this an “animated film with live-action” or a “live-action film with some animated aspects and sequences.” Such is this seamless immersion of what is real and what is not to create an illuminative world of arresting images, swirling, incandescent colors and an awe-inspiring beauty that elevates one’s consciousness to a state of spirituality rarely aspired to, much less achieved in any film. There is an arresting naturalism that almost leaps off the screen which is populated by sumptuous images of day-glo vegetation and the exotic creatures controlled by the Na’Vi. The lengthy stretches of the movie that are sensory and wordless are as rapturous (very much in tone poem mode) as anything every seen on the screen, and this kind of visual cinema, where narrative is more of a hinderance than a benefit, is Avatar’s most extraordinary quality and it’s true selling point. It’s true that Cameron keeps insisting that the film needs to tie together plot strands, but this was unecessary, if not particularly harmful. In this sense, it’s to be noted here that some critics have taken issue with the pedestrian nature of a dialogue, a point I reject in the name of cinematic purity. Avatar is neither a satiric comedy nor a trenchant stage drama. Characters and words tell the story, but they are pawns to purvey cinematic expression. Those who are awed by and feel the film’s magic won’t feel the simplistic dialogue which seems to combine New Age expression and macho agression, is either abnormal or detrimental. That said, it’s abundantly clear that Cameron’s storytelling prowess widely trumps his talents as a writer of prose.
But it all comes down to the wonderment and astounding visual tapestries, accentuated by the metamorphosis of a character who sees the inherent beauty in a culture ravaged by war, internal strife and foreign invasion. This creates in the viewer an emotion so powerful that it defies description. It’s almost like you found some clues to the meaning of life. But short of those lofty aspersions, the film raises questions of mortality and existence (much in the style of Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain- a giant willow tree holding the meaning of life for all living things echoes the Tree of Life in Aronofsky’s film) and with a ruminative flow that recalls Terrence Malick) that turn a futuristic planetary action thriller into a far more profound philosophical experience. The blend of mysticism and environmentalism evident in Avatar also suggests Japanese filmmaker Hayao Miyazaki, whose influence might also be discerned in the scenes of awe and wonderment set in the centerpiece forest sequences.
The film’s veteran composer James Horner, borrows heavily on the themes he wrote for his Civil War epic, Glory (1989), especially the flying sequences in the middle, but he still gains some rapturous mileage from the most lyrical passages which are musically altered. It’s at times thunderously bombastic, but it always seems to provide the perfect aural accompaniment with the scenes it underlines. Horner was never a subtle composer, but for Avatar his strengths are magnified, and while its not a candidate for one of the great scores, its at least the best he’s done for Cameron.
Sigourney Weaver, whose death scene is one of the film’s most poignant moments, brings her experience with Cameron in a confident, take-charge portrayal as Dr. Grace Augustine that serves as a foil to the shamelessly bigoted role of Quaritch, played by an all-too-human Stephen Lang. Givanni Ribisi, perhaps the least impressive of the fully live-action leads is basically a symbol. As Skully and as Neytiri, Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana bring the vital contradictions to characters that must define so much more than just domestic conflicts but the fate of a race and of the world they inhabit. As such they give striking performances.
But in the end, it’s Cameron and his cinematographer, Mauro Fiore, that bring this phantasmogoric world of visual splendor to glorious fruition. The work is so consistently magnificent, so suggestive, so ruminative and simultaneously realistic and expressionistic that is raises the bar for what now can be created with technology, and makes Avatar a cinematic masterpiece.
Final Rating: ***** (highest rating)
Note: I saw ‘Avatar’ with Lucille and the kids on Sunday afternoon at the Edgewater multiplex in 2D. Everyone liked it, but to varying degrees. I plan to see the 3D version on Tuesday night at the same theatre with Dennis Polifroni.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Sam, this is such an enthusiastic and bubbling review. I can virtually feel the great time you would have had at the movie hall.
Alas, the joy of reading such an effervescent review is partially undone by my experience of the movie. But then, that’s OK. Just a bad day at the movies for me. I’m sure we will have many more instances to agree about.
You’re a prince JAFB, no doubt about that. But there is nothing to b eapologetic about, as I know well how it is to be on the other side. I find this a humbling experience, as many felt the magic with films I didn’t like INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, THE ROAD and UP IN THE AIR. You didn’t have any kind of a bad day; the film just was underwhelming for you, which is fair enough for sure. Thanks very much for the compliments as always.
I get the feeling you liked this film Sam (LOL). I always had reservations about Cameron, (IMO) more about special effects that effective storytelling, but my wife and I do plan to see it over the long holiday weekends along with “Sherlock Holmes”, “It’s Complicated”, “Nine” and whatever else we can squeeze in. I hope they did not ruin Sherlock Holmes, the coming attractions have me worried they have “modernized” it and not for the better. Alas, TCM will be showing many of the Rathbone “Holmes” movies along with “Sherlock Holmes Fatal Hour”, Billy Wilder’s “Private Life of Sherlock Holmes” and “A Study in Terror.” Robert Downey Jr. has a lot to live up to.
Good one John! Truthfully, this is really the very first time in my life that Mr. Cameron has given me a kind of ‘cinematic epiphany.’ While those earlier films were moderately good as entertainments, none came within hailing distance of ten-best lists. And then I really disliked TITANTIC quite a bit, and the name Cameron took on the moniker of mediocrity. This film may have some marks of the director, but it’s an entirely different experience, and one that has restored my faith in contemporary cinema.
In any case, I hope you get to see all those films over the holiday break, and like you I do greatly anticipate SHERLOCK HOLMES, and likewise have my fingers crossed. Not that it really means that much, but the advance reviews seem to be mostly solid, and at least with know with Robert Downey Jr. (and perhaps Jude Law) we have some talented actors to carry the day. (I hope). I look forward to your round-up! Thanks again.
It’s great to see someone so enthused about a film – this makes it all the more enjoyable to read your review.
I have been trying to bring together my thoughts on Avatar. In my opinion it’s within touching distance of greatness but not quite there. The plot is so predictable that I found myself marking time on occasions.
But then there are moments of sheer, mind-boggling delight (the walk through Pandora, glowing at night, especially).
Like I said, I’m glad there are films that can create such a reaction and your review really does it justice.
Stephen, I really appreciate that, and I must admit it’s the best kind of impetus there is. Naturally, one wishes that they could react to every film that way, but then it wouldn’t be so special. This year I’ve had such a reaction on only a very few occasions, but I’m sure that’s true with you as well. Tonight I’ll be taking the 3D plunge with the film. Thanks again.
hi sam & just another film buff,
Firstly; sam, you must watch again!! i saw it IMAX 3D Waterloo -It was so good I’m also going to see it again -booking better seats. Had to watch at 3.40am in the 2nd from front row -because it is so fully booked till around 26thJan. I really want to see it in the best screen and in the best spot! So will go again. Also “we must see this again,” was the first thing my girlfriend said when the film ended, to which I gravely nodded and said “yep!”
It reminds me of another great work:
‘Word for World is Forest’ -by Ursula K Le Guin
At the end of the film with my girlfriend and others crying and the entire audience clapping I thought that anyone who watched this film and could not ‘see’ it for what it was, needed to be ‘cured of their insanity’ (to quote from the film). Which brings me to buff..
So then.. secondly; buff, this is the antithesis of m. bay films.
It is the total opposite of what you write!!!
The plotline you missed:
– We are divorced from nature – the enemy of both nature and ourselves.
– Killed our own world after first killing those who lived within nature and had tried to protected it from themselves.
– Go to new world to do the same again..
But this time we’re finally taught a mean lesson in the folly of this fascistic-attitude of arrogance and hubris.
– Some of the us learn the value of living within nature and fight to protect nature and those who live within her.
– Those who live within also must fight to protect nature / tree / home.
– And nature here, is the nemesis of the artificial, of the machines and of the machine-mentality, in the end this Gaia must also fight, to save not only herself but also those that wish live within.
This is basic stuff?? How can you so willfully misread?
What does any of this have to do with the pro-militarist Transformers?
//The human encased in a killing machine (bad), fighting a woman riding an animal – given to her for this cause by the planet beneath her feet (good)!
This is a visually and emotionally stunningly simple metaphor..
The film is sublime in reaching out and being available to everyone. The script must conform to the ‘format’.
This is the most political important uber-mainstream Hollywood film I have ever seen and it must reach out to that ‘Transformers’ addled audience with the opposing view; period.
How? By completely cloaking itself in the popcorn movie format? By subverting a format that was established by semi-fascist propagandists to your own agenda? And taking the audience they have established to your own saner soapbox?
It employs a simple dialectic, using ‘easy to understand’ visual metaphor and dialogue, both sides putting points of views across as they are in actuality; the argument: one side is good, the other is evil; and to be truly good you must be on the right side, willing to change if not, and also willing to defend yourself, home and everything that you hold dear, else it will be stripped from you; this message is clear!!
And when it really mattered, the editing, scene composition and dialogue were all perfectly balanced – the climax points were deftly reached and were the most impressive I have ever seen. Knowing the final scenes way before they happened, just by knowing how these films generally go – just added to the enjoyment – because when they came; they delivered.
I say, it’s a little more subtle than you suppose -this film is the work a master filmmaker and it’s a rather more complex affair than you’d like to allow yourself to see.
It has a populist genre context to safely navigate and does so will brilliance and delicacy.
Hey Iain! Wow, what a treat to have you visit here, and submit this awesome thesis on the film. In all fairness to JAFB, he was humble and felt terrible that he didn’t have a better reaction, but he was just being honest.
You and I certainly did experience that ‘ephiphany’ which comes only too rarely these days in the theatres, but I appreciate all the enrichment in context here, which certainly brings up the volume several notches. Are you in London, Iain? Isn’t that where the IMAX Waterloo is located?
Iain, Thanks so much for your detailed feedback. This is really appreciated.
Yes, the metaphors are in-your-face, but they are something else too – tacked up. All this pseudo-liberal prop is today’s mantra for empathy. Right from the times of Bambi to Wall-E, we have been hypocritically criticizing man’s plundering of nature and all that stuff. It’s all fake.
My problem lies not within the move’s messages, but with how they are presented.. Some of my qualms about AVATAR are addressed here.
Let’s consider this. The humans in Avatar’s second half are ruthlessly slaughtered as if products on a conveyor belt. Don’t they have families, are they all one-note morons? Whereas even a single death in the Na’vi camp is given much slo-mo and soundtrack. I’m not even claiming that Cameron should have studied both sides. This is a simple evil-good story. I do not expect that.
But say, if Sully did not switch camps and the film was just all humans vs all Na’vi – the true man vs nature war. In that case
1. JC would have been in deep dirt, thanks to his anti-environmental messages – which is as scandalized as holocaust denial.
2. His imperialistic undertones (already clear in the movie) would have been more pronounced.
3. JC would have made Na’vi look like those mindless Charlies of Vietnam or the turbaned monsters of Iraq that Hollywood has presented us so far. While the humans would have had so many moral conflicts and emotional trauma. That would be plain explosive for JC.
4. Some commentators say that AVATAR has Marxist tones. Hell no. It’s far from that. One thing that would have been revolutionary to see is a Na’vi protagonist integrating all Na’vi clans to kick all the humans out. But then, that would be unpopular.
JC had to have this white-man-turning-over-a-new-leaf-to-save-the-oppressed act to somehow justify that the human (read: American?) army always stands for justice and fairness. Groundbreaking technology – yes? Honest film? No.
I’m really sorry that I’m playing the party-pooper at a point where everyone is celebrating. This post is perhaps not the right place to debate. Apologies to all supporters and let me join in, may be in the next really-good-movie celebration.
Thanks again very much, Iain, for the detailed feedback.
Sorry, here’s the link I mentioned:
http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar?skyline=true&s=x
Fascinating stuff, JAFB. As for that link, I could have done without the snarky, hand-wringing white liberal guilt which is really just part of the problem the author is supposedly condemning. Your own points seemed more rational and incisive.
The “answer” is for filmmaking to open up to as many people as possible, and than we can accept a filmmaker’s vision for what it is rather than fret over how many other visions its obscuring.
And I get faintly nauseous when I read a bunch of self-satisfied internet commentators marvel at the film’s “subversiveness” for celebrating U.S. soldiers getting blown up (I saw something similar on a site Filmdr linked up to the other day).
Whatever one thinks of America and its wars, don’t these people know anyone over there, even faintly? They decry the horrors of being sheltered, and then demonstrate emphatically just how sheltered they really are. (Their empathy with the “other” is so easy when the “other” is half a world away; but people closer to home who differ with them are generally met with intolerance – the PC mindset in a nutshell.)
This reminds me of something I overheard when I was walking out of the movie theater after seeing “Revenge of the Sith” for the third or fourth time. As I made my way to the parking-lot, some yuppie looking woman was complaining to her husband about how offended she was by the movie, specifically how the bad guys were wearing “American uniforms”. At first I didn’t know what she was talking about, and then remembered the scene where Yoda decapitates a couple of stormtroopers outfitted in camouflaged armor. Really, that says more about an American audience’s tendency to self-identify with more-or-less universal military conventions than anything else (after all, everyone wears camouflage depending upon the given terrain– even the Rebels wore a pattern that looked like US Woodland on Endor), but I thought it was cool just to see how the movie could get under peoples’ skins.
Anyway, the scenes that bothered me in “Avatar” weren’t where the RDA soldiers were being blasted– it was the scene before where Stephen Lang gives them a “hoo-ra” speech about how they’re going to basically commit genocide against the Na’vi, to which everyone responds with gung-ho enthusiasm. What bothers me is how Cameron steadfastly paints all these soldiers with the same broad, villainous brush– it’s one thing to show them being killed en masse, and quite another thing to make that killing justified by turning them all into war criminals beforehand. What’s worse is that this is all happening in the shade of a ventilating system that’s a dead ringer for the formation of the American flag– whether or not Lucas intended his camo-patterned stormtroopers to represent US soldiers is a matter of debate, but Cameron does just about everything to telegraph the target of his shallow metaphors.
Inside that kind of creative tunnel vision, you can’t not see the RDA troops as stand-ins for the US Army, and perhaps what bothers me the most is that, at the end of the day, that’s the last thing that they should be seen as. The troops there function as a corporate-financed private military company, the equivalent of security firms like Blackwater, yet in Cameron’s hands, they’re treated as the equivalent of the National Guard. It’s strange to see how in “Avatar” the military-commander is the big-bad of the bunch, with Giovanni Ribisi’s corporate weasel (the guy who’s causing all the genocidal rampage to begin with over his quest for MacGuffinite) gets to save face by aiding the good guys towards the end. It’s exactly the opposite moral-code that was present in “Aliens”, where Paul Reiser’s company-man was portrayed as a greedy little shit who’d sacrifice just about anybody for the sake of the bottom line, and recieved just comeuppence in the end. Why is it that Cameron, with all his blue-collar heroes, is suddenly turning the white-collar into a good guy, and the green-collars into monsters?
One of the things I’ve always liked about “Aliens” was the rowdy crew of space marines, and how all of them are endeared to the audience, even if they’re only painted in broad, somewhat flat stereotypes. A little while ago I actually had the pleasure of seeing a screening of the first two “Alien” movies around Halloween, and one of the things that struck me was just how much the audience responded to the Cameron’s marines– even if he only made each of them identifiable by a couple of actions or funny lines, he gave you enough to like the soldiers, and care about them when they died. It was disappointing to see the jarheads of “Avatar” being demonized so ruthlessly. He’s gone from rooting for grunts to cheering for suits, and while it would all make more sense if he made more of an effort to identify them as the mercenaries that they are, his willingness to have them all stand under the stars and stripes (so to speak) makes him sound like the protesters that spat on soldiers returning from Vietnam, the kind that Rambo was so pissed off about.
Eh. The more I think about the movie, the more I’m not really taht happy about it. But in the end, at least you can say one thing– it does get under my skin.
Hi MovieMan,
Thanks for the reply. Yes, the io9 article can potentially get on the nerves. And yes, the film is far from subversive. The only subversiveness it exhibits is that, unlike so many movies nowadays, it isn’t subversive at all. Yes, I’m all for that method of movie watching – take the movie for what it is.
The biggest problem I have with AVATAR and similar movies is that it widens the chasm between actual reality and perceived reality. On one hand, these movies present us impeccably moral residents of the third world (It is undeniable that the Na’vi are but a visually modified version of the Africans or the Asians) who are incapable of committing crimes against nature or humanity. On the other hand, the pop media – through its news items, keeps demonizing the same people. We have rarely seen a third world resident in Hollywood who steals or kills. And we rarely see the true life of that man in our news channels. So it is easy for one to be enraged when one sees these noble savages commit an immoral act (which is only human). We are forced to conclude that these people are really “uncivilized”.
I’m reminded of Godard’s quote which goes something like “Every piece of fiction is to be assessed by its documentary qualities and every piece of news, by its fictional value”
In my country, the same is true about the genders. The media here, like many other countries, hesitates to show women in any other role other than mother and whore. The ultra-noble “mother” is idolized here and gender equality professed to no end. But when one of these “mothers” commits a “moral” sin (that includes even smoking/alcohol!), which is treated indifferently if a man commits it, it goes against our definition of good woman and she is placed immediately in the other category. This hypocrisy seems irreversible over here. The worst part is that even women believe that this is the way it should be.
Bob, with all due repect for your always-cerebral, thought-provoking responses, you know I take no issue with the social and moral arguments you’ve injected here, as they can quite easily be applied to so many other action-adventure films we’ve both seen (and admired.) These issues are really not part of the equation here, at least not from my cinematic world view. As an immersive, all-enveloping emotional experience, told and shown in a visual prism never before sween on a movie screen, this experience is incomparable for all sorts of reasons.
…Such is this seamless immersion of what is real and what is not to create an illuminative world of arresting images, swirling, incandescent colors and an awe-inspiring beauty that elevates one’s consciousness to a state of spirituality rarely aspired to, much less achieved in any film…
Excitement is woven into nearly every line Sam, and it’s quite a review. Check for some typos, this is simply too great a piece of writing to be compromised in the slightest. I think the case you made here is titanic. (pun intended)
Thanks Frank, I’ve already made corrections. If I were younger, and had even a remore chance in this racket, I’d hire you as my campaign manager! Happy Holidays to the Gallo clan!
Essentially where I agree with you the most is when you suggest that a film that’s this auspicious deserves a free pass on minor flaws concerning the flow of the storytelling or the plain but uninspired dialogue. If you go to the theatre and watch a futuristic drama you wouldn’t look for special effects, which are there only to achieve some basic semblence to the setting. Avatar must be judged on its own terms, and you’ve done an amazing job in accomplishing that.
Fred: That is indeed the central argument here. There are some eho remin resistent, and that’s certainly their right. You simply can’t account for taste when evaluating any form of art, and it’s easy enough to defend either position.
Awesome and inspiring review. It’s heartening to see this kind of enthusiasm at the end of what seems to have been a lackluster movie season. Just when it appeared that there was no real eye opener, we have this Christmas gift.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing Joe earlier this week. There didn’t seem to to be that annual artistic blockbuster that would hit it out of the park. Lo and behold, AVATAR is precisely that ticket!
Extraordinary review of an extraordinary film. One that I am revisiting this week and will possibly do so a third time. This film must either be seen on 3-D or not at all. It would be a crime to see it any other way. Since DVDs are really not an option here the best way is to see it enough times in the theater and be satiated for a lifetime!
Kaleem, it’s funny you say that. Would you believe I reacted the way I did after seeing the non 3D version?!? With you now saying that 3D is the ONLY way to go (I haven’t been blown away by the 3D process to this point, though BEOWULF and CORALINE were among the betters entries in that department) I am thinking that the film will be even greater if that’s possible! But we are talking here more of technical enhancement, methinks, no?
Thanks for that overly-generous compliment.
Sam, I missed that note at the end. Can’t believe you saw this in 2-D!!! I am so glad you’re checking out 3-D. This is an entirely new 3-D technology here, nothing like you’ve ever seen before. Cameron had Sony develop special cameras for him for this film! I look forward to your comments once you see 3-D.
Kaleem, I saw the 3D version last night, and there are insufficient words available to me, even with my fondness for hyperbole. Yet, strictly in an emotional sense the two viewings were equal. But it was the most advanced technology we’ve ever seen on a movie screen.
Sam, the teachers at the Number 3 annex were talking about this movie yesterday, and I’ve heard nothing but good things. I see it’s that special time of the year when you really get animated. I’ll come back here after I see this in 3 D as Mr. Hasan wisely suggests.
Maria: That’s great that it inspired discussion, and we’ll have to share notes after the New Year on the 3D version. Have a great time in Orlando.
It’s one of your truly great ones Sam. It’s hard for me to fathom just how I’ll feel, but the odds are not good for the same kind of reaction. Still, I generally am warm to science-fiction, and I did like the early Cameron. Like you I had no use for ‘Titanic’. I’d like to hear about the 3D screening you are attending (this evening?)
I’ll let you know tomorrow, David. As always you are atough one to gage, one of the toughest in fact. I look for some general “consistency,” but you have fooled me too many time to make presumptions. If you liked teh early Cameron well-enough, then this marginally bodes well. Thanks for those super kind compliments.
I must confess that the plot/character comparison with Costner’s “Dances With Wolves” has me more than a little mortified. I’m not a Cameron promoter, but I’ll give this a shot based on this effusive post.
Joe: The DANCES WITH WOLVES plot parallel is hardly fatal, and it’s more of a standard device, that allows the storytelling to take on greater emotional resonance.
Sam, like Mr. Greco I am most interested in seeing Sherlock Holmes this weekend. As you know I am a big Robert Downey Jr. fan. Avatar is not normally my kind of thing, but boy you really make it sound desirable. I hope you like it even more with those glasses on.
Now let’s not be so hard on Titanic guys.
Karen, I am with you (and John) with Sherlock Holmes, which is an endless fascinating character, one of literature’s most popular. We’ll talk after Christmas. Have a wonderful holiday.
Congratulations Mr. Juliano. It’s great to see your work online, and you’ve sold me on this one.
And great to see you here Pat. Thanks for the very kind words.
*****The lengthy stretches of the movie that are sensory and wordless are as rapturous (very much in tone poem mode) as anything every seen on the screen, and this kind of visual cinema, where narrative is more of a hinderance than a benefit, is Avatar’s most extraordinary quality and it’s true selling point. *****
I would have to say that this is the issue that will determine who will rally behind the film, and who will dismiss it. A good number of movie goers want their movies with a strong plot, especially with futuristic thrillers, where that is basically the appeal. But there’s no denying that the ‘tone poem mode’ you speak of doesn’t have to be restricted to realistic situation like in ‘The Thin Red Line.’ Artistic expression comes in all forms.
Peter: This is basically the same stance Fred submitted (above). If the film doesn’t move, one plays ‘omponent hardball.’ If it does move, all bets are off.
Nice review. As you know I’m not as enthusiastic about the film as you are, but I do like it. I think you’ll enjoy it more in 3d, actually. The immersive quality of the world is certainly a thing of beauty, enough so that i’m seeing it again for the visual experience.
Ari, my deepest apologies for not attending to that awesome decade list you posted yesterday at The Aspect Ratio, but within the next 45 minutes I will have a FULL response. You’ve earned 100 such responses with all you and Bob have done at this site, and believe me, I REALLY REALLY REALLY appreciated it.
Yeah, that’s what I hear about the 3D. But you do say it perfectly there if I may say so.
I think the key word in this review is RAPTUROUS.
Thanks, Dennis. Now I’ve got Blondie stuck in my head. Then again, that’s not really so bad…
Sam has copyright on RAPTUROUS, Dennis. You now have to pay him one pizza. Any use of the the word again without his permission will result in having to purchase him a Criterion DVD. I thought you’d have learnt your lesson from putting STAGGERING and MASTERPIECE together in that order last August. That’s a court martial offence punishable by trying to get order into his basement. A futile task which I have performed twice, knowing on both occasions he’d do absolutely nothing to maintain the order – like sweeping up leaves in October or finding depth in a Judd Apatow movie. I am still in therapy.
Sam, maybe you should’ve warned readers about the SPOILER when you revealed Sigourney’s fate…I’m not usually one to care about these things…but….I would’ve skipped that section had you provided a warning.
That minor quibble aside…splendid review. Your accolades more so than any of the mainstream critics have heightened my willingness to rush out and see this. I will be taking in a showing tonight and hopefully have up my own review before Christmas. Thanks for sharing your experience and helping me to look forward to this instead of anticipating it to be a major chore to sit through. At the very least the 3D experience should be awesome.
David: My deepest apologies. You are 100% right. If I continue to include vital plot information in my reviews with a ***spoliers*** warning, few will even chance reading them, which of course is not what I would hope. I honestly don’t know what I was thinking there, and allowed myself to get carried away without some crucial hindsight. This is a major blunder.
David, I am looking forward to your review of AVATAR in a very big way. While we often agree, I hope I have not oversold the film with ou and others, as much as I was being perfectly honest. I am most flattered in that supreme confidence you show in me, though of course I expect and know you will be honest and uncompromising in your appraisal.
I got home late last night and was unable to get down to the PC (and I will also finally respond to your MMD submission) but I did see that 3D presentation, and as expected it was awe-inspiring, though in an emotional sense the 2D was just as powerful. Still, as Kaleem and Dennis rightly assert, the 3D must be negotiatd.
No worries about the spoiler, Sam…we’ve all done it unintentionally at one point or another.
Here’s my Spin: http://davethenovelist.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/the-great-escape-part-two/
I just got back from this movie about 15 minutes ago and I am, frankly, fumbling to find the right words for my admiration. Aside from some minor cliche’s that typically dot action/adventure films, this movie moved me in ways that I can honestly say no movie has ever moved me before. That James Cameron has used every technical trick in the book (the 3D is absolutely sensational)n is only a building block structure that allows the director to present a kind of spiritual oneness that not only the characters in the story feel, but that we as viewers feel to. This is emmersive film-making of the highest order. That said, I will agree FULLY with Sam that this film goes far beyond being just a mere romp through sci-fi. This is a deeply felt, emotionally stirring and visually dynamic cinematic experience. In my humble opinion: THE BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR!
Dennis, I fully agree with your assessment. AVATAR for me is one of the two best films of the year with Jane Campion’s BRIGHT STAR, though I am still pondering the order.
Also…. I have to be the first one out there to be brave enough to praise an element of this film that few have gone to bat on: the lead performance. Sam Worthington is NOT just another pretty boy action star. His deeply tender, often put-upon hero is a multui-layered performance of great complexity. His Jake Scully is a man pulled apart between his duty to his profession and his duty to his owen humanity. Not once did I feel as if the actor was straining to find motivation and his belief in the story and its message come across the screen like gang-busters. Like Cary Mulligen in AN EDUCATION, Mr. Worthington has succeeded in delivering one of the break-out star turns of the year and I feel rest-assured that we’ll be seeing more from this actor for years to come. He is one of the major ingredients that help to greatly flavor a film as rich and imaginative as AVATAR is.
Except that Carey Mulligan was already known in the UK before An Education, Dennis, for her roles in Bleak House, And When Did You Last See Your Father and Doctor Who. But I admit those in the US didn’t know her from Eve.
“But I admit those in the US didn’t know her from Eve.”
The general US masses, true, but the general UK masses didn’t know her either. Serious film lovers in the US, who are every bit as astute and knowledgeble as their UK counterparts (think the Big Apple) saw those BBC productions you mention. There is no monopoly on exposure, you can be sure of that.
while one could pick very many fine sequences in the film the last half hour is particularly a tour de force of movie-making.
Indeed Kaleem, it was an awesome spectacle on display there during that last segment.
Incidentally I am also a huge fan of the director’s Titanic. Also love the Abyss. The Terminator movies I don’t enjoy very much anymore.
Bickering aside, one question remains interesting. Will the success of AVATAR result in higher budget filmmaking? Will the scales of production keep going up? If so, working in Hollywood is going to be one risky business. Each movie will be a make or break career move.
JAFB: I must say that you make a superlative point there. I was just thinking about this myself the other day. A single film, when you are talking this kind of money, can end a career, if the return isn’t at the level expected. It’s really scary, and it reflects the spiraling out-of-control excess of the fragile economy, comparable to the salaries being given to professional athletes. Without a ceiling, we can only imagine what economic disaster lies ahead.
hi sam & just another film buff!
Thanks for your amazing responses! Yes! -This is London calling! Where are you based? Am now booked in to the Waterloo IMAX for 2 more viewings!!
Film Buff – I think I agree with everything you say -yet I think you want to much. To have all the humans regardless of their position on the unfolding events ‘trapped’ on one side would have been totally explosive. And of course if that was ‘done right’ it would have been deeply unpopular and the film might fail. re. Hulk, Ang Lee perhaps?
All of your points are completely valid – but I still don’t think the intent is fake.
When the marine shouts “Get Some” as the rockets stream into the heart of the Na’vi home, this to me is wonderfully anti-imperialistic; it profoundly denounces the Bush/T.Blair-era ethos with two words and a coup de grace visual metaphor.
At the very start Sully states that “The marines at home protect freedom, but out here they are hired guns”, and I’m not sure JC can go further than this.. Yet he does! He careful treads the edge of acceptability -illustrating the difficult truth of how US and UK and some many other armed forces have been hired guns for corporate interests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
But just because this is ‘old hat news’ to us, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be restated wherever poss’. Mixing this –with the urgency of the environmental situation and our sightless awareness and regard of nature, despite our critical fundamental relation with it, has just got to been good. As surely the ridiculous sad manner in which we treat each other is reflected in our matricidal relationship with nature.
But yes, JC could have done better. Perhaps we’ll see more depth and detail in an Avatar 2? And yes, usually you have the ‘bad apples’ syndrome that excuses all, in these types of movies –but here we have the ‘good apples’, not perfect but a step forward from the former?
Lastly! At least this is a film that lends to some good discussion, gets the issues out there –such a great change. And it’s a serene joy to watch or ‘enter’ which seems more fitting!
In London, Avatar is the Christmas Number 1 film, and Rage Against the Machine “Killing in the Name” is the Number 1 song.. Perfect!! Happy Christmas from a snowy London!!!!
A very merry Christmas to you too, Iain, and everyone at WitD…
Also Buff, I really must apologise, I somehow misread your post and thought you were arguing against the major themes of the film, rather than wanting; more and better, to which I say yes! But’ll perhaps have to wait for others to catch up with us. At least this’s something of a starting point. Wishes iain
Finally, these are simply great blogs/forums, fantastic comment to stumble across. Bookmarked!!
It’s even snowing in London! Now that’s unusual. IMAX is really the way to go if it can be managed.
JAFB, great response, and Bob, that’s an excellent comment above it, one which really sums up my skepticism about many of the political messages that come out of Hollywood. The comparison to Aliens is quite astute and thought-provoking.
Iain, I haven’t seen the film yet but what troubles me about your description is that Cameron seems to be having his cake and eating it too. Preaching a leftist message, exhibiting compassion and sensitivity towards a made-up race of people (however representative they’re supposed to be – which could of course be interpreted as offensive in and of itself), while scorning the characters who actually DO bear a resemblance to people in the real world. Keep in mind these are not criticisms of the film per se, as I don’t know how accurate descriptions have been, but a critique of the philosophy and approach which has been attributed to it.
Sometimes I get the sense that a strand of Hollywood “liberalism” is not liberalism at all but feel-good fascism, which allows its purveyors to maintain their elitism and snobbery while acting as if they’re furthering values of tolerance, compassion, and sensitivity. What’s the point of a left without humanism? Isn’t its redeeming value – whatever ideological or practical flaws it retains – its attempts to efface elitism and promote human dignity? I’m inherently suspicious of a mindset which proclaims its own compassion while extending no sympathy or understanding to those actually with close proximity. Misanthropy hypocritically disguised as idealism.
Anyway, merry Christmas Eve to all!
Sensational review. And the subject is completely deserving. I think this film will change the face of films permanently, and it’s the first time that the 3d process has yielded dynamic results. The tale is thought-provoking, the visuals beautiful and intoxicating.
Thanks for the Christmas Day input Ara! Believe it or not, AVATAR, which comes within a hair of the #1 spot of the year for me, works just as well in 2D. But that’s another story.
I think it’s significant to note that BOTH Manohla Dargis AND A.O. Scott, the New York Times’s two front-line film critics, picked AVATAR this week as one of the year’s best films on their year-end lists.
[…] Cinematography, Editing, Art Direction, Original Score, Sound Editing, Mixing, Visual Effects. Sam Juliano Joel Bocko Bob Clark […]
Thanks for bringing this review to my attention. Admittedly I’m not as big a fan of the film in terms of its narrative, but you’re right that the cinematic experience here is pretty overwhelming.
Sam this was a fine read and as others have mentioned here your enthusiasm for the film is palpable. Especially on the money is your para. concerning some of the points of cinematic influence here. I hadn’t considered Miyazaki but certainly see where you’re coming from.
G.F., thanks so much for the kind words my friend. I know AVATAR has some enraptured supporters, but as I’ve discovered in the blogosphere there are others like yourself, whose reaction is a bit more muted, although you note the visual design is spectacular. I hope to say I’ve feel the same way down the road, but I’ll have to wait. Thanks again!