For film lovers at least Avatar has been on the radar for
the last 6 months with a slow burn marketing campaign built around its director
James Cameron. For everyone else Cameron’s last ‘appearance’, Titanic released
in January 1998, was better known for having helmed a film that reportedly almost
bankrupted Hollywood, with auctions to raise funds from the sale of film props,
but going on to achieve the highest box office taking in movie making history.
With Sunday magazine editorials and movie mag features concentrating on one aspect, his return, the story was of a multi award winning, billionaire director, one of the most influential and respected men in Tinsel Town, claiming a piece of work that would change the movie going experience forever. So could this be true?
Before I answer that, is this film worth seeing and is it
worth paying the extra to view it in 3D..?
Yes and yes. Avatar is indeed worth the money if only to appreciate a
director’s efforts in employing two thirds of
Stunning in its visual depth, colour, sound and attention to detail this is a (3D) film that for the first time truly immerses you into the film world itself and in no small part is as a result of spectacular shots and ground breaking technology.
So will Cameron have changed the landscape? Will we enjoy future films with the kind of experience delivered in Avatar? Yes again. In film making, advances in technology are greedily demanded by directors…. a reason why George Lucas is the daddy or should I say granddaddy of special effects building a multi billion dollar industry around his giant ILM. You only need to see the name of the films attributed to Cameron for release over the next 3 years to appreciate that ‘his’ technology is about to fly. Remember how effect advances made for The Matrix were copied even parodied?
So what is it that James has done that George hasn’t and why him after a dry spell of almost 11 years? The fact is that Cameron has invested a considerable amount of his own money in the project and owns all of the (new) technology. And the reason he’s managed to deliver a film of this size is because he is a trusted director. This alone allowed 20th Century Fox to feel better about releasing a few dollars – well, over $200 million. With this kind of money you either have a film that’ll eventually feature in the top 100 all time grossing movies or a new record - the most expensive pre-Christmas flop.
Returning to what matters to a potential filmgoer I’ve already
confirmed that this is a film worth a trip to your local cinema… you’d be hard
pushed to find one that hasn’t reserved most of its seat capacity for the film…
a sad testament to the ever growing decline of independent film distribution.
So what about the story and the acting? Here I agree with others that whilst
generally sound the story suffered from poor delivery, complexities that
annoyed rather than enhanced the understanding of this awesome world Pandora
(god forgive me for using the ‘awe’ word) and a lead character (Jake Sully
played by Sam Worthington) who came across smug rather than genuinely moved.
Personally, I would have preferred Ewan McGregor as Sully. The best actor for my money was Zoe Saldana,
last seen as Uhura in Star Trek, notching up a phenomenal character role as
Neytiri.
My rating, an easy 4 out 5 (IMDb rating 8.5 / 10)
Recent Comments