Two films from me over the hols, I'll cover the biggie first.
Avatar. The expectation on this was immense, and incredibly, from the technical and visceral angles, it actually delivers!
The technical achievements are staggering. Although the realisation of the aliens varies from shot to shot, the quality ranges from mostly awesome to pretty damn decent. There are many instances when the aliens properly act, and it's clear the motion capture has advanced, especially for facial movement - Sam Worthington's acting tics come through very clearly, and Zoe Saldana (Uhura in Star Trek) in particular is brilliant and brings her character fully to life.
The design of the aliens is interesting. Cameron has specifically made them humanoid, as he wanted to ensure that audiences could engage with them - it's too expensive a film to take that extra risk. But I would have loved to have seen the aliens actually be alien, not pseudo-human. I could have done without the faux African overtones too.
Away from the aliens the general design and graphical quality of the planet and its environments is stunning, especially the bioluminescence. Vast portions of the film are entirely CG, and yet very quickly you can forget it's not real, despite the alien nature of the flora! That's not real grass being flattened by rotor blades...
In a large way Avatar is a breakthrough film technically, but this would always have happened at some point, and it's not game-changing in that sense.
Where it DOES change the future of film is in its use of 3D. Cameron designed the 3D cameras himself, and has employed them in a way never before seen to an effect never before experienced.
It's a completely visceral reaction - you FEEL something while watching, at some fundamental, sub-conscious, gut-instinct level. The eyes are feeding the brain, the brain struggles to adjust and then suddenly the world of the film seems to open up and drag your body in. It's incredible, mentally tiring, but incredible, and makes cinema exciting in a whole new way. No previous use of 3D has managed this - I think Polar Express in IMAX 3D is the only comparison I can make, that was engaging and visually impressive, but not as immersive.
How much of this is due to Avatar specifically will be interesting to discover. This is a story about being immersed in a new world, and has been designed and shot specifically with that immersion in mind. Cameron leads us in, both through the characters and visuals - look at how the use of space and depth and volume are employed throughout the film.
Does this new level of immersion affect our interpretation of the film itself? I've seen it in 2D and 3D, and in 2D it's easier to appreciate the film, as the 3D isn't there as a distraction. In 3D, there's a whole extra level of engagement happening on top of the film. Does the 3D do more than excite? Possibly - it feels like there's a new kind of chemistry happening, a new alchemy. I don't think Avatar has fully utilised this effect, there's more to be discovered, but it's introduced it and I think it will change the future of film for films that can make use of it.
There is a downside. To a large degree Avatar's script sucks. The dialogue is often risible, the character motivations are overly simplistic and yet badly delineated, the story entirely predictable, and the many opportunities to broaden the depth with aspects of religion or race or politics or metaphysics are completely ignored. It's a frustrating waste, as the film could really have been something special on an intellectual level too if some simple and obvious changes had been made. In 2D in particular these problems are made stark.
So, absolute top marks to Cameron and his crew for the staggering technical achievement and new-found excitedness of immersive 3D, shame about the script.
7.5/10, but it's an absolute must-see in 3D.
