Cameron's big blue ego trip
Eric Shapiro
Issue date: 2/5/10 Section: Arts & Entertainment
On a visual level, "Avatar", James Cameron's latest epic, is close to perfection. He and his crew have taken computer animation to the next level, crafting a world more realistic, distinctive and downright gorgeous than any other animated film, period. This world will suck viewers in the moment it jumps out of the screen (for once, shelling out a few extra dollars for 3-D glasses is worth it, even essential). For this reason alone, "Avatar" deserves most of the flattering adjectives lobbed its way by critics; it is indeed a groundbreaking.
But is it a classic? Well, that depends on how you define the term. Will Avatar be remembered as the film that opened the door for a whole new level of polish and attention to detail in animation? Certainly.
But will it be taken in, savored and regurgitated an infinite number of times by legions of rabid, slavering fans? Will every movie critic worth his pen (or laptop) fawn over it in the same way as they do films like "Star Wars" and "Blade Runner?" Well, perhaps the former will come to pass; fanboys (and girls) aren't always so discerning. Cinephiles, on the other hand, with time, should recognize "Avatar" for what it is: historically important for its technological breakthroughs, but not a particularly good movie.
Chances are, in the not-so-distant future, films as highly advanced (if not as brilliantly crafted) will be a dime a dozen and, alas, "Avatar" lacks the substance to compete with the inevitably better future films that will make use of the same technology, possibly with even more breathtaking results.
Unlike, say, George Lucas, James Cameron didn't bother coming up with interesting characters and concepts to flesh out his painstakingly crafted world. Instead, he relies on tried-and-true clichés. Indeed, some of the human ships and creatures look like they could have been ripped straight out of other works.
Did anyone else notice the similarity between the human gunships in "Avatar" and those in "Halo"? You know, the ones with the rudders? A little derivativeness doesn't harm a film if its characters are memorable. This is not the case with "Avatar." Cameron falls back on stock characters about as believable as those on a low-end Saturday morning cartoon show.
But is it a classic? Well, that depends on how you define the term. Will Avatar be remembered as the film that opened the door for a whole new level of polish and attention to detail in animation? Certainly.
But will it be taken in, savored and regurgitated an infinite number of times by legions of rabid, slavering fans? Will every movie critic worth his pen (or laptop) fawn over it in the same way as they do films like "Star Wars" and "Blade Runner?" Well, perhaps the former will come to pass; fanboys (and girls) aren't always so discerning. Cinephiles, on the other hand, with time, should recognize "Avatar" for what it is: historically important for its technological breakthroughs, but not a particularly good movie.
Chances are, in the not-so-distant future, films as highly advanced (if not as brilliantly crafted) will be a dime a dozen and, alas, "Avatar" lacks the substance to compete with the inevitably better future films that will make use of the same technology, possibly with even more breathtaking results.
Unlike, say, George Lucas, James Cameron didn't bother coming up with interesting characters and concepts to flesh out his painstakingly crafted world. Instead, he relies on tried-and-true clichés. Indeed, some of the human ships and creatures look like they could have been ripped straight out of other works.
Did anyone else notice the similarity between the human gunships in "Avatar" and those in "Halo"? You know, the ones with the rudders? A little derivativeness doesn't harm a film if its characters are memorable. This is not the case with "Avatar." Cameron falls back on stock characters about as believable as those on a low-end Saturday morning cartoon show.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 2
dustin
posted 2/06/10 @ 7:15 PM EST
I mean its sorta a racist flick. Not to mention its ideas are conservative and not liberal, unless you mean neo liberal....
Post a Comment