I found myself very much in disagreement with Matty and Adam's reviews of "Avatar." Yet, I understand their criticisms, though I believe they are far too harsh. I've seen it twice, in both 3D and regular. Experiencing "Avatar" on the big screen in all of its grandeur was the experience I kept waiting for with the Star Wars prequels. I saw "Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" over 8 times in the theater, and the second and third films both underwhelmed and disappointed me, the second in particular. They are not movies I want to watch again and again. It was crushing to see George Lucas take my childhood as well as worlds of wonder/beauty (Hoth, Cloud City, Tatooine, Endor), and crush the spirit out of it.
Where those prequel Star Wars movies were disappointing, cloying, and ultimately a failure in terms of integrating mind-blowing effects and telling a politically relevant or just plain interesting story, "Avatar" exceeded all of my expectations, brilliantly set up a compelling frame to the story (much like Cameron did in "Titanic"), integrates the amazing special effects in a close to seamless way, as well as making a powerful statement about the War on Terror/War on Iraq/genocide/turning "the other" into the enemy.
Who would have thought that James Cameron would have made a $250,000,000 film that addresses militarism, our response to the other, winning "the hearts and minds," as well as what we ruin in our quest for the MacGuffin of "unobtanium" (insert gold, oil, metals, etc...)? Cameron confidently spirits his camera through swooping tracking shots in the jungle-Endor-like planet of Pandora, focusing lovingly on beautiful, amazing, glow-in-the-dark creatures, terrifying animals, and the Na'avi tribe who live in harmony with nature, not in opposition to it.
I feel that the review oversteps in a couple of places. Yes, the Stephen Lang character is far too much of a caricature blowhard warmonger; however, is he that much of a stretch from a circa 2004 Vice-President Cheney-esque or Secretary Rumsfeldian outlook on the world? I too wonder how much different the film would be if the conflict wasn't set up with such an easy target (Lang, Ribisi, gung-ho Blackwater troops)? I do believe that Lang's character, much like President George W. Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld makes the overtures of peace and negotiation (UN inspectors, sanctions), while planning with certainty the subsequent invasion (making the plans for war farther in advance than the country knew). The money put into the avatar-program was similar to a State Department program, working to win the "hearts and minds," while simultaneously preparing for war. Also, I believe that the invasion was planned from the beginning (the assault on home-tree); the military just needed time to get the bulldozers, equipment in place. The 3-month deadline was imposed by the military in terms of prep-work.
There were moments in this film that made me want to cheer. It appealed to me on a very childish level, as well as an adult level. As a child, I cheered when the battle scenes combined everything I loved in "Return of the Jedi's" final X-and-Y-wing attack sequences on the Death Star with the brutally violent effects of "Starship Troopers" best alien attack scenes. As an adult, I cheered when Sigourney Weaver showed up as eco-warrior, fighting for understanding the Na'avi, not obliterating them. I cheered for the complexity of the Matrix-like pods the characters used to link-in to their avatars. I cheered when Cameron allowed his camera to linger on incredible, unique creatures and landscapes, not just whizzing past them, like Lucas on his way to telling his story. Cameron is not afraid to spend time to play in this world. The play is what defines this film as much as the action.
I liked the way Cameron referenced his previous works--hearing elements of the "Aliens" pounding score, the vague references to "The Company" who I believe sent Ellen Ripley back to bring back an alien, the ship crashing like the boat in "Titanic," and having a protagonist hang off of a missile ala "True Lies"--in tiny, revealing ways, as well I liked Cameron's belief that we the audience can draw our own conclusions about what to make of the plot, (i.e. What is the statement being made about America and its incursions into other parts of the world? ) though a few of the "we fight terror with terror" lines were more explicitly drawn than I needed them to be.
The score is moving; the Na'avi creatures are wonderful to look at. The riding scenes are some of my favorites, as well as scenes where characters balance precariously on logs, hopping through this incredible, eye-popping world. The visuals of this film are so colorful in surprising ways, and I love how Cameron hides things in the background and shows the intricacy of this world through a delicate, floating jellyfish style dandelion seed pod that floats through certain scenes.
In conclusion, Cameron's eye for visual effects and for crafting a story that uses those effects in a compelling way worked in a way I haven't seen in a film in a long, long time, maybe since "Titanic" and "Return of the Jedi." If I was a ten-year old kid, this movie would have completely blown my mind. As a 31-year old kid, this movie filled me with wonder and amazement. With its flaws, it still makes my best of the year list.
And Adam and Matty, I understand and appreciate your criticism of the film. Anyone who stops listening to Filmspotting because of a disagreement with your thoughtful, well-crafted criticism is an idiot.
Keep up the great work, guys.