A feast for the eyes. As the first 3D movie I have seen since Captain EO at Disneyland 10 years ago, I was impressed with the restraint. This film was more about color than about 3D, and I love good use of color in film (see Speedracer). Instead of relying on cheap, things-jump-out-at-you 3D effects, Cameron instead utilizes the depth of 3D to his advantage, able to emphasize depth of field that a focus change can't do in 2D. And then he paints in the bioluminescence of nature to make a fabulous treat. I may watch it in 2D just to see how different it feels, but I found the 3D a bonus, not the main event. That said, the main event was definitely not the storyline. I saw the same story in The Battle for Terra (the blogosphere will argue for years who stole from whom). In fact, it is quite stereotypical. Protagonist beset by hardship, chooses a new life challenge. Protagonist goes in to new life and becomes sympathetic with something that was previously anathema. Protagonist becomes hero by saving newly sympathetic way of life. At this point, my critique of Avatar is basically the critique of all storytelling in film. Show me a new way to achieve societal change besides overcoming shock-and-awe with SHOCK-AND-AWE. So while the visual affects are great, they are (and should be) secondary to the story of the film. And the story in this case, is pleasant but not groundbreaking.
3 stars (out of 5)
1 comment:
yep, pretty much how i felt. it was pocahontas / ferngully except disney made use of songs more efficiently. i feel like for that much money, effort and hype put into that, i would have at least expected an original storyline. or better dialogue. but i definitely want to live in pandora now.
you might like this http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/01/avatar.php
it's a neuroscientists take on the film :D
Post a Comment