Review: Avatar [2009]

Posted on 20. Dec, 2009 by Wogan in featured

This post was copied from http://woganmay.com/?p=224 with full author’s permission.

So I just got back from Somerset, having watched Avatar. A lengthy epic, to be sure – it clocked in at nearly 2.5 hours on my watch. But was it worth it?

I’ll skip to the end, for those who don’t want spoilers or ranting: Not worth the price of the ticket. SPOILER WARNING.

Massive budget and CGI aside, the core story in Avatar is the transformation of Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) from a paraplegic marine to a Na’vi – the native race on Pandora, a distant, alien planet. This is done by means of a “link” – a device that connects a human operator to a cloned Na’vi body, allowing the human full control.

(Credit to Jared to finding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_Me_Joe <– A story penned in 1957 that explores the same premise)

Right then and there, I started having problems with the story. Mostly because there were no unique concepts here. Think – clone body, direct brain link … OMG, Matrix!

The only thing the actors didn’t have were plugs in the bases of their skulls, but otherwise, this was a clear graft from The Matrix. But it didn’t stop there, because the aliens actually had brain plugs – bundles of neuron fibers at the end of their incredibly long pigtails (sort of like a spinal umbilical cord), which conveniently let them interface with ground and flying beasts, as well as trees. We’re literally talking plug-and-play communication here.

So Jake, the paraplegic, gets shunted on board this program, and gets his very own Na’vi body. On his first trip out, big surprise, he gets seperated from his group. And then, equally big surprise, he gets into trouble, and is subsequently rescued by Neytiri, who is (triple-whammy surprise), the chief’s daughter, fated to marry the clan’s prime warrior, and ends up being Jake’s lover instead.

It feels like a children’s narrative. And, in fact, it is. The Na’vi are so obviously ripped from African legend, it’s embarrassing. The clans, the trees, deity worship, chief priestess women, chants and rituals, body paint, rites of passage – watching Avatar was like watching an artist’s impression of the Zulu meets Dutch, circa 1800′s.

Which is exactly what the other half of Avatar is about – the invasion of mankind. They’re after a rare mineral in Pandora’s soil, called (and I shit you not) “unobtanium”. I had to stifle my laugh. What made it worse was that unobtanium was mentioned twice in the whole story, and in neither case was any motivation given as to why this mineral was so desperately needed. Had it been an AIDS cure or something, sure, now the story gains another level, but the only motive here seems to be profit – booooring.

Then there’s the technology. The deep space transport that the movie opened with was an impressive ship, visually – borrowing from Clarke’s Discovery, and Boyle’s Icarus. There’s a healthy dose of big guns and bom… wait up. In the video log scenes (yes, they have those, and they serve no real purpose, either), the date is apparently 2154. 140 years into the future, and we still use guns, bombs and osprey aircraft?

Granted, the Dragon ship was quite impressive, but even that didn’t compare to UNIT’s Valiant. Once again, Cameron underwhelms on the innovation front.

Probably the most visually impressive thing in the movie were the computer interfaces. Something about advanced UIs just work for me, and I reckon what they did there is an accurate indication of the sort of technology we’re heading towards. But then there’s the Na’vi link chambers themselves – the least they could have done was make them look less like CAT scanners.

They could also have explained how these things actually work. We’re just told that man gets in, wakes up as alien. Nothing else. How is information sent and received? Implants, radio control, quantum particle entanglement? No idea.

Technology and story apart, there’s the issue of the characters themselves. The inclusion of Sigourney Weaver as the doctor in charge of communicating with the aliens – nice touch. The rest – never heard of them. Michelle Rodriguez I recognised from Resident Evil, and she was really the only welcome face in all of this.

Jake Sully – predictable character. Brother dies, he gets his legs back thanks to the Na’vi program, and decides to stay. Colonel Miles Quartich, what a copy-paste. Military man with a scar on his face and prejudice towards all alien life? Seriously?

On the alien front, Tsu’tey is just as predictable. He’s not unlike any African prince, with his honor and pride and snarl. Hell, I was almost expecting the blue makeup to come off at one point. That was between wondering when the movie was going to end – yes, it actually got to the point where I wanted to just get up and leave.

And on that point – the CGI, granted, was fantastic. The destruction of Hometree, the final battle – excellent effort, but that couldn’t save the rest of the movie. I saw it in 2D, but I doubt 3D would make up for the numerous other shortcomings.

And what, pray, is the final message in all of this? What massive victory does Avatar represent? The human invasion story was a carbon copy of the European colonolialisation efforts, complete with native uprisings – is this yet another story about how bad the military and big corporations are? As predictable as crap. Jake Sully becomes an alien – no surprise there, either – he gained the ability to walk and fly, found a home and a love, what’s the chance that he’d return to Earth?

On that point, it’s disappointing that the Na’vi seem to be OK with the whole possessed-body thing. So much so that they’re able to transfer Jake’s consciousness to his Na’vi body with no problem – how bloody convenient. I was expecting, at the very least, that the fusion process would happen when his real body in the link chamber was destroyed. That, at least, would make slightly more sense.

Granted, I may be a bit biased in all of this – I’m a writer. I’ve explored these topics, and I expect that anyone that does the same would at least push the boundaries a little. Try and introduce something new – try to make humans the true heroes in something like this for once.

Final score, 6/10. And that’s being generous.

Props to @kerry_anne on this apt synopsis: “@woganmay Ha, ‘children’s narrative’ – that’s exactly what I said to Paul: ‘It was like a Disney movie with awesome visual effects.’” [link]

Tags: avatar, avatar 3d review, avatar review, james cameron avatar, movie review, review, south african avatar review

Start the conversation on Facebook

18 Responses to “Review: Avatar [2009]”

Llewellyn 21 December 2009 at 11:09 am #

And I suppose you subscribe to Playboy for the articles. Jeff Dunham’s buddy Peanut does it best with the diaphanous green feather-duster on his head – a wave of the hand and “WHOOOOOOSH!”

Reply
- Wogan 21 December 2009 at 2:53 pm #
  
  I don’t subscribe to Playboy. Human porn’s not my thing.
Riaan 21 December 2009 at 11:14 am #

All fair points, but surely you did not go to see a James Cameron blockbuster hoping to be dazzled by the script?

The problem here, I’d say, is this: “I doubt 3D would make up for the numerous other shortcomings.”

In fact, it did. The 3D was the whole point of Avatar — and it was spectacular indeed.

Reply
- Wogan 21 December 2009 at 2:54 pm #
  
  Err … no? Plateau theory. In the last 10 years, CGI has gotten better and better, to the point where everyone has a CGI engine that’s capable of doing near-lifelike rendering.
  
  The technology might have been groundbreaking 4 years ago, but that ground’s been broken and sold since then. Cameron just failed to check with the rest of the world.
  
  And no, I wasn’t looking for dazzle – I was at least looking for some simple fucking cohesion. Is that too much to ask from a $500m movie?
Vernon 21 December 2009 at 2:15 pm #

I think both you and Barry Wronger have the same problem, Dont know when something is soo good that it will bite u on the ass….. This is the Best Movie Ever Made !!!

Reply
- Wogan 21 December 2009 at 2:55 pm #
  
  If Avatar manages to bite me on the ass, I’ll be impressed.
Bob 21 December 2009 at 11:02 pm #

Er, was your precis of The Matrix meant to be a joke or did you really not understand its story?

And Unobtainium is meant to be a smart-alecky joke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

I’m also pretty sure the film outlined that its value was as an energy source.

Those three points alone make this review a fail.

Reply
- Wogan 22 December 2009 at 11:09 am #
  
  Dearest Bob,
  
  Of course I understood the story, you dolt. The story was just about all I commented on in my “fail” review.
  
  I know Unobtanium is a smart alecky joke, but imposed on a movie as badly written as Avatar, it just looks terrible. It’s an attempt to be humorous in an otherwise “deeply serious” movie, and it hurts the plot.
  
  The film outlined that unobtanium sells for $20 million a kilogram on Earth. It says nothing about it being a power source.
  
  Those three points alone make your response a fail.
Jared 22 December 2009 at 5:19 am #

Wogan, the 3D makes up somewhat for the lack of solid plot. It was exciting as someone who works within the film world to finally see the genesis of what will be the future for us filmmakers.

However, it seems many people are missing the point since both of us are writers, and me and Wogan prefer our films with a bit of smarts.

Also, the best film of all time is *not* Avatar, it’s 2001: A Space Odyssey which at the time in 1968 was a visual effects breakthrough much in the same vein as Avatar, but unlike Avatar, 2001 also pushed the boundaries in terms of story.

Reply
- Vernon 22 December 2009 at 8:23 am #
  
  The only part I agree with is that the 2001 – Space Odyssey was the “Genesis” of Science and Technology been brought into the consciousness,
  
  Avatar is the same “genesis” for everybody to move into the higher consciousness and realise that selflessness/material greed get u no where….That why it was called unobtainium :}}}}
  
  U are too busy criting the flick for it’s Face Value…. P.S. Which is actually also impressive…
- Jared 22 December 2009 at 8:48 am #
  
  Face value may be shallow, but working enough in the actual film industry, face value is mostly what an audience walks away with. 2001 delivers an incredible amount of observations for the audience to assertain at face value. Avatar simply was a pretty supermodel, and what a gorgeous film it was.
  
  It still doesn’t change the fact that it didn’t really dare to say anything we haven’t seen in the past 10 years, or within the realms of sci-fi overall. Man has always been the bad guy since the beginning, and selflessness and material greed has been commented on even well before Aesop and his fables.
  
  “Genesis” in my case is what I know is the beginning of a 3D revolution, and I’m happy to see cinema technology progressing nicely along. Now if only we could get our TV’s to broadcast beyond that silly, outdated thing known as HD.
  
  Also, unobtainium was actually a reference to the same material used so often in sci-fi films and stories before Avatar. It’s an in-joke amongst writers and had me roll my eyes with a chuckle.
  
  Fun fact: Unobtanium was actually a phrased coined by engineers are Lockheed during the design of the SR-71 to describe the type of titanium they were building the airframes with.
- Wogan 22 December 2009 at 11:12 am #
  
  Vernon, are you Bob? Just checking.
  
  Avatar comments on man’s failure – just like just about every other movie like this since the 70s. Did you read up on Poul Anderson (Call me Joe’s author)? The concepts in Avatar have been discussed since *then*. And before that, there was the Bible.
  
  If this is all really that new to you, you should see a few more movies before trying to comment effectively.
  
  And the Face Value, while visually stunning, shouldn’t be allowed to bail the movie out. You can’t just critique a movie on its positive merits – by that logic, every movie ever made (Edward Scissorhands included) is totally awesome.
  
  ~ Wogan
Vernon 22 December 2009 at 1:51 pm #

This is a real review !!!

http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?Channel=Opinion_Home&ArticleId=1518-2387-2477_2565911&IsColumnistStory=False

Reply
- Wogan 22 December 2009 at 10:23 pm #
  
  That’s not a review, Mr. Gingham – that’s a muse piece about 3D movie making technology. You’ll notice that “Avatar” doesn’t even appear in the title.
  
  Just because you saw the words “Pandora”, “Na’vi” and “marine” in a block of text that was positively inclined doesn’t automatically make it a review.
  
  ~ Wogan
Phillip Gibb 23 December 2009 at 3:37 pm #

Is Avatar an example of how Story Telling is entering the realms of a greater media as Filmmakers step up to the plate in working towards making Story Telling more real.
Or is this just an example of how technology is superseding (and therefore watering down) Story Telling?

Reply
- Wogan 24 December 2009 at 1:29 am #
  
  Definitely the second – no question.