You may have heard about Avatar. For several months now, discussion of the teaser trailer of James Cameron’s first movie since Titanic has been tearing through the internet like Dennis the Menace through a toy store. The latest trailer debuted a few days ago, and now we have even more to discuss about this supposedly revolutionary piece of effects-based filmmaking.
But will this trailer make us want to see movie? Let’s discuss…
The Movie: Avatar (opening December 16)
The Buzz: James Cameron attempts to melt our brains with 3-D technology that’s supposedly more lifelike than anything ever seen on screen. Oh, and there’s a story about aliens or something.
The Trailer:
The Review:
Okay… look. I don’t like Titanic, but Terminator 2, another Cameron film, rocks my world.
Why make the distinction? Because T2, despite the scene where Edward Furlong watches Ahnuld descend into a pool of molten lava, doesn’t strain to make its effects create a sentimental attachment between the story and the audience. Titanic, however, absolutely wants us to swoon, to weep, to care. I know that many people did feel connected to the film, but me? I was bored out of my mind. For me, the people got swallowed by the effects, so that what I saw was a vague semblance of a story being used as a flimsy excuse to make cool shit happen. I couldn’t quite enjoy the spectacle because the movie was pretending there were other things that mattered, and I couldn’t get into the story, because the spectacle (and the crappy writing stole focus.
This is a familiar anti-Cameron argument, I know—Roommate Joe referenced it just today—but it seems like Avatar will make it even more relevant. Like Joe, I’m on board with the first half of this trailer, but when we get to the land of the blue meanies, I check right out.
The story seems like it could be interesting (earthlings treating aliens like the Europeans treated Native Americans), but even watching this snippet, I’m distracted by the effects. There are just so many of them! And it’s clear that when I’m in the theatre, the narrative is going to being sold as something Big and Romantic and Moving. As though little Sam Worthington and his blue girlfriend could compete with the digital circus.
Oh, and here’s another thing: When they’re beaming from the two dimensions of my computer screen, the alien-based scenes look like they come from a typical computer-animated film.This does not compel me to buy a ticket.
And here’s another thing: It seems like this movie is going to that “epic” place of staging battle after battle after battle. That always makes me numb, because eventually, battles blend together. Who can differentiate between this CGI clash and the one from a few minutes ago?
So yeah… I’m out. I have no desire to see this. Do you agree? Why or why not?
11 responses so far ↓
1 Laura Mc. // Nov 5, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Wow! That looks great. I will see it.
I mean, clearly it’s a mish mash of familiar stories, but whatevs. At a certain level of extravagant budget, screenwriters will not stray miles from what movie goers already like. Pocahontas meets Independence Day meets A.I. (which I missed). James, you’ve got my attention.. though the end product might not be revolutionary.
Did I see the big, mean army general take a swig of coffee before flying his ship into battle? That’s strange..
2 Laura Mc. // Nov 5, 2009 at 5:47 pm
(And P.S. Giovanni Ribisi= hot and smart and the only reason I have faith in new actors.)
3 Collin H // Nov 5, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Avatar has just as much going for it as it does against it in my mind. I love the artistry of special effects, even more so since we’ve entered into the HD age. If Avatar delivers on the visuals it promises, then I’ll probably go see it.
However, I’m not sold on the story at all. Maybe I’ve just seen too much science fiction, but it just doesnt look like it’s going to tell me a story I havent heard a dozen times before. Humans are evil technological aggressors? Shocking! Funky looking aliens in tune with nature fight for their home? Captivating! It’s really looking like Cameron is making Ferngully in Space.
It’s been an odd year in the theater for me. I’ve loved stuff I shouldve hated (GI Joe) and disliked things I should have loved (Transformners 2). Now Avatar looks like its going to end the year on a neutral note.
4 will // Nov 5, 2009 at 7:15 pm
@Colin: “Ferngully in Space” Hillarious!
But don’t worry, there’s no reason that you should have likes Transformers2.
Mark is spot-on with this review. I will never see this steaming pile.
And another thing, whatever happened to leaving some of the movie for the theater? This trailer completely develops the first, second, and third acts. I feel like I’ve already seen the whole movie. This is a running theme of late. Do Americans really need that much spoon-feeding to decide if they want to watch the 2.5 hour version?
5 Bunting // Nov 5, 2009 at 8:16 pm
What Will said. The effects don’t look that great to me; the Grand Tragedy looks overbaked and will probably take way too long to unfold; I don’t care what happens to the blue anime people.
Skip.
6 Cin // Nov 5, 2009 at 10:16 pm
As usual, I agree with Collin. Oddly enough, Ferngully and Native Americans and colonists crossed my mind while watching that trailer
I aint so stupid after all! The more a director WORKS to have me feel a certain way about a character the more I’m turned off. Don’t try to spoonfeed me my own emotions. That said, it looks to be a pretty movie and I will catch a matinee.
7 Madge // Nov 5, 2009 at 11:57 pm
I hate these kind of movies, where we’re supposed to be in a real, non-cartoon space, and are given CGI “people.” It gives me major Uncanny Valley heebie jeebies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091013123353.htm).
I’m with you, Mark – nothing about this movie seems interesting once we get to what is supposedly the point of the whole thing. I only ask one thing of my entertainment, lately – that I be given a reason, any reason at all, to care about the people I’m watching. Which means that a bunch of effects with a “plot” slathered over them isn’t going to cut it for me.
8 Michael // Nov 7, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I agree with Mark and all–this looks like a pile of swollen, warmed-over clash-of-cultures cliches, not so much a neglect of script values as being deliberately conventional and predictable so that attention can go to the CGI surface where the actionis; smugly, deeply cynical about an audience as distractable as a toddler with a fourth-of-July sparkler.
That said, I’m curious: do you guys think that this is a lost cause? That once a film looks like a high-end videogame, certain expectations almost irresistibly kick in, and standing outside the groundswell bemoaning the lack of story, character, and theme is like standing on a streetcorner bewailing the higher visual quality of Betamax tapes? Wouldn’t higher intelligence, originality, and integrity in this film be a hindrance? I see the images, and my honest-to-god spontaneous response is, “Cameron’s aiming lower than I care to go. Not my kind of film. Punto.”
9 Jesse // Nov 9, 2009 at 12:06 am
I trust the trailer far less than I trust the director. I know this is a cop-out… honestly, the trailer ran as a super-cheap popcorn flick for me. It successfully manipulated my epic-action-trope instinct, and this was enough for me to be happy. If it was a crappy director, I’d actually be happy enough with the trailer than I’d never bother with the movie.
However, I DO respect Cameron’s love of storytelling. I suspect that the trailer has been edited into something that looks more conventional and pandering than it actually is. So while I agree with all the criticism… the visuals don’t look that transcendent, and the plot looks totally conventional… I’m going to bypass it and trust Cameron’s ability to invest a relatively shallow premise with a grand scope and courageous directorial decisions. And I’m going to go in hoping that this movie really was created for an iMax screen and 3D glasses, and that its intended context is required for the visual brilliance to come out… I’ll be critical, but I haven’t ruled out being impressed.
10 Laura Mc. // Nov 9, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Thank you, Jesse. Yes!
Besides, what is the bias all about with the detailed close-up of human conditions?Sometimes movies are broad, and glorious, and expensive and that’s kind of it.
They don’t necessarily suck because of this.
Color me unafraid of the Spectacle of the Blue People. I mean Avatar.
(Though this forgiving premise does not translate to stage for me. Cirque du Soleil= not fun.)
11 Michael // Nov 13, 2009 at 10:14 am
Laura, Laura: Broad, glorious, and expensive gets your tentative support (to me, it sounds like a kind of mindlessness–which can be redeemed, for me, by wit, surprise, playfulness, all of which look signally lacking in this excerpt–which is why we’re all moaning about predictability)–but Cirque du Soleil, with its extraordinary individual talents and novelty doesn’t? SIGH . . .
Leave a Comment