Skip to main content

The last person on earth to see Avatar

It sometimes feels like I'm the penultimate person on earth to see the movie Avatar. I've certainly left it late, so anything to be said about it has been said before. Won't stop me, though. You may not want to read this if you are the last person not to have seen Avatar.

Yes, there are *SPOILERS*.

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first. Storyline? Full of holes and derivative. It's not an original observation, but this was Pocohontas in Space. Boring. To be fair, the way the indigenous people defeated the hi tech invaders wasn't as preposterous as it seems at first sight. We've plenty of real life examples of temporary setbacks when a big powerful hi tech nation takes on the locals. But the chances are high their victory would be short-lived. And there were far too many opportunities for the baddies to interrupt the avatar controlling process that weren't taken. Etc, etc. Oh, and where was this Pandora? Six years away in a sub-light ship? Not many options, and none that would fill the bill.

Of course, you don't need a great storyline if you've wonderful characters to carry the audience along. But no. For a 3D movie, the characters here were predictably cardboard. Everyone did exactly what was expected of them. Everyone was a stock figure from cartoon characters 101. There was chance after chance for development, and all were missed. There were also irritatingly plot hooks that weren't picked up. Firing up the equipment at the remote station, Sigourney Weaver's character says 'this is the least glitchy of them.' Ooh, glitches. Opportunity for interesting developments. Nope. Glitches never arrived.

However. Big, however. As a visual spectacle it was stunning. I gather in 2D it's nowhere near as good, but the 3D was excellent - never tiring on the eyes, usually quite understated, yet very effective. (Admittedly I did long for a few eye-poking bits of 3D exploitation, but we never got any. The only time the 3D surprised was when ash was falling, and seemed to fall in the auditorium.) The graphics were remarkable. When you consider that about 90% of this movie is a sophisticated cartoon - no live action - it came across as startlingly real. The graphics were good enough to sustain this long film. It was interesting that the only time I dropped out of being absorbed by it (as did a fair proportion of the audience from the shuffling noises) was during one of the live action sequences.

So Mr Carpenter should have got a decent writer to give him a better plot and richer characters - but you can't fault the technology (anyone spot the irony in a film in which touchy-feely oneness with nature triumphs over technology?) Remarkable.

Comments

  1. Yes, Brian I am that last person. I read the first paragraph and then averted my eyes :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I must be the lastest, then - have not seen it and don't intend to. (I think I may once have had to sit through "Fern Gully the Last Rainforest" with a very young child, and that was enough for me, given that Avatar is apparently a remake of it.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another last person here - I'm anticipating this movie in equal parts excitement and trepidation. I'm expecting another Titanic - visually stunning, but braindead storytelling and woeful dialogue. Something tells me I won't be disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I saw it almost as soon as it came out, cinema junkie that I am, and I totally agree with you Brian. Flabby characters and unoriginal plot, but astounding special effects. What really got me were the colours, they were just incredible.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...