1.) Yes, the special effects are amazing. James Cameron's mythical planet Pandora is visually stunning. I don't even know how they did it, but the unique creatures, floating mountains, flight scenes, etc. are a thrill to experience, especially in 3D. The first half of the movie is absolutely visually stimulating and then the experience only gets better as things start to blow up.
2.) I've heard that the movie is awesome in 3D, but what is it about? A paraplegic ex-marine, named Jake Sully, travels to the planet Pandora as part of a scientific mission to learn about the natives (the Na'vi). Jake does just that, but there is also a military presence on the planet waiting for the go-ahead to attack the natives in order to obtain a precious mineral, unobtanium, that can solve the Earth's energy crisis. Jake reports schematic information about the Na'vi village back to the military commander, but insists on trying to reach a diplomatic agreement before the order to attack is given.
3.) What's the deal with these blue creatures? These blue creatures are the Na'vi. They are humanoids (taller, faster, and stronger than humans) who speak their own language and live on Pandora. Not only does each Na'vi have a tail, but they also have what appears to be a long pony tail with flailing tentacles that attaches to various creatures, wildlife, and other Na'vi. They worship the goddess Eywa and perfrom crazy tribal chants that are much wilder than this one.
4.) Why does James Camerson want me to root against the human race? The non-scientist humans in this film are completely and utterly vilified. Never in my life have I seen a movie where the human race, as represented by the military force on Pandora, is portrayed so negatively. The implication is literally that we (humans) are the bad guys and they (the Na'vi) are the good guys. Why are people okay with this? Is it because the Na'vi have weird trees with tentacles and they can communicate with their ancestors? Seriously, take a step back for a minute and look at it from the human's point of view. The fate of the Earth/human race is at stake. Another planet has a mineral that can solve the Earth's problem. The clock is ticking. Would it not make logical sense to do anything in our power to obtain this mineral?
5.) Is the film too long? Yes and no. The film is two hours and forty minutes, which by my standards is wayy too long, but it doesn't drag as much as I thought it would. That being said, I did feel as if some scenes were forced and unnecessary, even though they ended up being essential for future developments in the plot (1.) The introduction of Toruk 2.) When the Na'vi try to revive Sigourney Weaver's character). To me these scenes felt like an 8th grader's first attempt at foreshadowing.
6.) Should it have won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture-Drama? No. Up in the Air is a much better movie (and from what I've seen and heard, so is The Hurt Locker). The takeaway feeling after seeing Avatar is based solely on the film's physical presentation. Up in the Air connects with the viewer on a much more human level. Avatar is a fantasy targeted towards teenage boys. Up in the Air has a message for adults.
7.) Was I turned on by the Avatar sex scene? I'll be honest, I felt a little tingle in my man parts. Although, as my friend Frank writes, "If the film's constant declaration of Na'vi love, "I see you" becomes a catch phrase I'm done having conversations with people." This reminded me of the repeated use of the word "ditto", easily one of my least favorite words in the English language, in Ghost (1990).
8.) Is Avatar going to be our generation's Star Wars? Unfortunately I think the answer is yes and here's why. I'm sure you've heard this 1000 times by now, but it took James Cameron 12 years to make this movie. He filmed it in a way that no other movie has been filmed before. There was no way to create an actual, physical set to film Pandoran (Pandorian?) scenes, so the actors and actresses playing the Na'vi/Na'vi avatars wore crazy helmets that showed them what their surroundings looked like. I'm by no means a "gamer", but it's the equivalent of them all playing a virtual reality video game. This enabled Cameron to capture their genuine facial expressions/body language/etc. Now combine future advancements in computer technology with this way of filming and we may soon see the end of the physical set. Acting may soon turn into a bunch of people standing in front of a green screen wearing goofy helmets.
Also, I feel as if this film is going to be the one that gets all of the credit for the move to 3D even though I saw the Muppets in 3D in Disney World back in '96. While the thought of moviegoers wearing 3D glasses for every movie they go to is a bit absurd, I don't think we are too far away from this becoming a reality.
Lastly, I can already see the Avatar nerds forming fan groups and going to conventions dressed as Na'vi to develop more and more of the language.
9.) The star of the movie is....James Cameron. This movie has been Cameron's lifelong project. He has said that this is the film he wanted to see when he was a 13-year old boy. He wrote it, he directed it, and he made sure that he was the star even though he does not appear in it. The biggest name in the cast is Sigourney Weaver, but she's washed up and only plays a supporting role (which she did well). The real star of the film is Zoe Saldana, but her character (Neytiri) is a Na'vi. It's a shame, but she won't get nearly the amount of accolades that she should because no one will be able to recognize her. Yes, Neytiri is made in her image and likeness, but the blue skin and humanoid body ruin any chance for her to achieve any sort of identifiability (if that's not a word then I just made it up). Just so you know, this is what she looks like in the flesh.
10.) Is Avatar a social commentary? All the makings are there, but I hope not. Here is why some people think it is. In the film, Earth (the United States) invades a foreign land (Iraq) in order to obtain a precious mineral (oil) that will solve their energy crisis. Now I've connected the dots for you, but I just don't think James Cameron is the bleeding heart liberal Hollywood type. I'm convinced that he was just trying to make a movie that teenagers would love and remember for the rest of their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment