AVATAR (2009)
I was thinking of a witty introduction to this re-review of James Cameron's monolithic money making machine. But it brings me no joy to be so sarcastic in this instance. When it comes down to it the guy released some of my favourite movies of all time between 1984 and 1991 and then promptly lost the magic touch. Yes there are plenty of True Lies fans around these days, and it's a fun movie. But it's a very basic Schwarzenegger vehicle at its core without having much else going on. Yes there are plenty of Titanic fans around these days, but it's not for me. The central drama comes from an insipid romance without nuance or depth, via characters than are so poorly drawn that it's often irritating instead of engaging. Both films feel like imitations of previously told stories and a series of recycled tropes. Which brings us back around to Avatar...
At the time it was released the film of course ushered in a new technological age. One filled with poorly thought out 3D post conversions and other short lived gimmicks. Wearing glasses that darken the projected image and suffering through high frame rates in an attempt to increase the 'immersion' of a movie? That's the kind of nonsense William Castle was known for decades prior, so it's unclear why the likes of Peter Jackson wanted to get involved suddenly. The increased ticket prices were certainly not worth paying, and the smaller IMAX screens that popped up were not worth visiting. Avatar itself was not really any kind gold standard from what I can remember despite all the positive press. 3D slowly faded away just like it had in the 1950s and 1980s. The best way to watch it was at home with the extended edition that came later.
Does it hold up today? I'd say in terms of visual effects it has at least all aged pretty well. The parts that looked good are still good enough, the parts that looked odd are still the same. Certain night time scenes have a strange neon glow that makes things like plants and skin textures feel fake. Things like characters wearing war paint and splashing in water still look great. But it's always been strange that the standard untouched or 'dry' skin of the creatures lacks the same sort of detail. The jungles of Pandora don't ever feel like a truly overgrown world teeming with menace. A lot of the time it doesn't even feel that alien. The cool interiors of the human habitation fare better, but have the metallic sheen of digital photography. Which means that the live action actors sometimes feel like they're inhabiting a much cheaper movie.
Do these actors play fully developed characters? No, that was never the case. Like the one dimensional romance in Cameron's previous iceberg adventure, there's a perfunctory relationship. Things aren't helped by the beats lifted (minus the texture and nuance) from Dune, the simplistic love rival elements, or Sam Worthington's accent. His blank slate Jake Sully is just a basic archetype and so is Zoe Saldana's Neytiri. They never stop and talk about being warriors from different worlds. He never has a real existential crisis his new waking dream life piloting an alien clone. The corporate culture of Earth and the native rituals are never explored. The most superficial ingredients are set up, after a lot of very dry narration, just to move the story along so he can betray 'the company' and his colleagues.
His colleagues include Stephen Lang and Sigourney Weaver, and their combined acting chops should have elevated this entire experience. However this is only true during their limited scenes. Lang as Colonel Quaritch is also one dimensional, but at least his screen presence is always enjoyable to watch. Why isn't his perspective explored so that the threat to Weaver's scientist Grace can be the focus? Even simple moments such as Grace's tragic experience in a local school were cut from the theatrical release. It's hard to sympathize with the rest of the ensemble when only these two show any kind of grit or intelligence. Nobody has depth, but they could at least have charisma. It's a big case of what could have been, but of course with expensive blockbusters of this kind the wide audience net has to be cast out.
In some ways this kind of thinking leads to other questions. Why are they even using clones when better mining machines would solve so many problems? A lot of the colony operations feel nonsensical when they have so much technology but are limited to quarries and logging vehicles that exist today. Without the threat of a brewing conflict there is no story of course, but it's odd to rely on so many visual references our current world. It's not meant to be thought about beyond the cute cat people and the mean Earth vehicles. Yellow heavy plant equipment and crew-cut military men are easy to understand, but this lack of complexity hurts the overall message. The struggling Earth economy and the brutal nature of tribal life is never touched on.
Beyond two veteran actors the main joy of the film in the final thirty minutes of spectacle. It's total shlock as alien dinosaurs and space marines clash, but it's still pretty glorious. The editing and framing of this battle sequence, along with James Horner's score, makes it a highlight. In the years since it was released many films have devolved into using third acts that are muddy and unfocused. Here the action is brightly lit and each set piece is well designed. It's never mindless or headache inducing in terms of destruction, each scene is properly framed. Which again is perhaps pivotal to the film's success, the wider audience were wowed in the end and walked out feeling excited to see it again. Will part two develop any of these dramatic deficiencies and deliver an even bigger spectacle? It's very unlikely but you'll have to watch this space.
3/5
