← Back to Reviews
in
Avatar
A disabled army vet gets a chance to take his dead twin's position to travel to a moon in a distant solar system. The ex-vet gets a chance to drive the remotely controlled bodies called avatar which are scientifically developed bodies that are made from DNA of native population of the planet and resemble them.
So the description sounds complicated but the director does a great job of conveying it with ease.Hollywood has been against James Cameron from the moment he won Oscar for Titanic and it swept the Oscar season of that year. James Cameron movies have two things in their foundations that are at odds with each other . The concept and execution of his movies are of the highest quality. But the script and dialogue is clunky. There is always this battle in his movies. Which is between making a kick ass movie vs an intellectual movie. Movies like the rock or die hard can easily be considered as well made but dumb action movies that appeals to masses. But , the difference between James Cameron and tons of other action commercial directors of all time is that his canvas is different.He operates with subject matters and concepts that has never been dealt with before. For example, his movies like Terminator and Abyss operate with killer robot and underwater creatures. There has never been concepts like that in movies before.So there is no scale for critics to compare it with. If you make a gangster movie then people will compare it with godfather or goodfellas. If you make a western then people will compare it with unforgiven. For superhero movies its the dark knight. But the moment you zone in on a very specific type of movie then people have to deal with it as a movie of its own kind. James Cameron did it with almost all his movies. Even a sequel like Aliens was made as an action movie as opposed to a suspense horror original alien.
The story is very famously considered as a rip off and a copy of lots of other movies. Its the tried and tested formula of "understanding the ways of others" plot line. But the way in which his imagination or derivation or whatever you wanna call it enhances the movie experience by combining science fiction with tried and tested formula is spectacular. It blows the plot line out of the water. Forget about the plot line and just look at the awesome planet that is created is the subtext here. Avatar is a case study about how to make an epic that is remembered for ages. Every filmmaker wants to make a movie that stands the test of time. But if the movie is an epic, then it will be remembered even more fondly. So you have to throw lot of money at it. But, studios won't throw lot of money at a movie if they can't guarantee box office. Only very few directors can get that kind of cash without a star attached. But often times in such cases the financiers are being tricked into thinking that the box office success of movies is due to directors. A movie like Hugo had a budget of 200 million only because the financiers were tricked into thinking that Scorsese has something to do with box office of movies like the departed , shutter island etc. But in reality its the star of those movies that's responsible for its financial success. Immediately after financial failure of Hugo they realized that it wasn't Scorsese that's the draw. So he had to go and make wolf of wall street. After that he struggled to get financing for his next two movies and settle with foreign investors and Netflix. This is the usual trajectory of auteurs if they wanna make ambitious prestigious epics with the intention of standing the test of time. You either need an unusually large fan base or you need a movie star with unusually large fan base in your movie. The movie of course should demand theater viewing. Cinematography and scale of the movie are vital in peeking the interest of audience to the point of going to the movies as opposed to seeing it on computer screens.
One of the other important things is the hype and anticipation for the movie. How does it work ? There is good hype which comes from the fact that the people involved in the project have already delivered a great movie before. Then there is cautious hype. Which is mostly a bad hype because no one knows how good the movie will be or any good. DiCaprio is trying to use the former technique with his movies. He refused to make any movie if it is not directed by Legendary directors or would be legends. Sure, that might not get him an Oscar win again. But the contrary to that could be failure. So, he is trying to retain the goodwill from Revenant and wolf of wall street and Django and use it to propel once upon a time in Hollywood into a hit.But this whole thing is very hard to replicate unless you have "it". Its like building a wall. You can't build the 10th layer if your 1st layer is not built. But the obvious handicap he has is the directors. If Scorsese is dead then I don't think there are very many directors who will make the kind of movies his testosterone filled machismo seeking fan base craves for. Paul Thomas Anderson is not his kind of director. So is David O Russell. Because they don't make movies that ooze machismo.
Back to avatar. The movie is an out of body experience. The effects in the movie has that lived in feel to it. They feel very real. You are being told that what you see is real. And your mind buys into it. That's something that's never been done before. Most of it is possible because of the skin texture of Navi and the way they communicate with humans feels real.One primary trapping this movie avoids is the pacing issues. Most of the times when a movie takes place outdoors, directors become obsessed with the landscapes in the movie. And they tend to include lots of boring shots and scenes in the movie that drag the pace. For a director who has been obsessed with this movie for years, all these might be interesting. But for a person who is not involved in the making of the movie all these make it boring. Director looses sense of being self critical. So from his point of view he thinks "this is good" but in reality it is not. And also epic scale film making should avoid the trappings of feeling simple.You can't complicate the plot when hundreds of millions are riding on the movie. At the same time you can't make it too simple. The only way to achieve this is the mechanics of the movie needs to be complicated yet interesting but the overall story of the movie has to be simple. For example if the story of a movie is A need to kill B. But A needs to meet experts in various fields to develop plans to kill B, that is a good movie. The overall act of the movie is simple like A kills B. But the steps taken are complicated enough to make the movie interesting. But if the plot of the movie is complicated then its not gonna make its money back.Something like A doesn't wanna kill B but he wanna teach a lesson to B and at that point the story starts getting complicated and its a bad business idea.
This movie has a very simple plot. But the dose of sci-fi makes it interesting. The movie time frame makes it interesting. It takes place years into the expedition. But few years into Navi program. So instead of starting the movie at the beginning of expedition the director gave it sometime to have room for emotion. In the beginning it would have been all about primal instinct of survival and war. But as time went by, it becomes much more nuanced. So James Cameron wanted that time entry point.The creature design is heavily based on earth life form. But that's another key aspect in the movie. You can't make alien life form un-relatable. You should feel their emotions. So the aliens just look different but feel the same. The aliens are different to a point. Beyond that, they are the same. One unique thing about aliens is the actual physical bonds they need to make at a certain point. With the animals or trees or when mating. All these make the aliens feel primitive yet wise. They live with bare necessities.Even the way they choose their flying creature is very primal and tests the skill of rider with no room for failure. All these makes the movie a pleasant watch with epic scope and awe.
Even though James Cameron has done the best he could to make this movie everything anyone ever wanted which is a commercial critical ambitious awards-celebrated epic which will be remembered more than most movies ever will be, I do think the movie's goal to appeal to wide range of audience forced Cameron to soften some rough edges and make the movie smoother. Consequences of actions are softened. Heroic moments are overplayed and heightened. Stereotypes are exploited. If these aspects are rectified then the movie probably wouldn't have made 2.8 billion. So thats a catch-22. But in the end this movie is really a lesson on how to make ambitious epics. Because of its structure. Make the movie a theater experience. Something audience should see in the movies. Make it in a very specific sub genre , so audience or critics can't really measure it against any other movies. Even though this is a dance with wolves kinda movie, this has sci-fi environmental colonialism messages in it. Thats not dealt with in movies like dances with wolves or last samurai etc. So thats very specific. Other similar examples include spaghetti western Django unchained, which can't really be compared to either unforgiven or 12 years a slave because its in its own plane. Movies like hostiles(2018) become easy targets because the narrative and everything screams conventional and even the subject matter is conventional .So, even though the film maker promotes it as a psychological western, audience can't really see the reason not to compare it with traditional westerns like unforgiven. So the movie ends up being butchered by critics. Something like revenant is playing on a whole different plane. Its a frontier western but a survival epic set in snow as opposed to deserts of the typical westerns. So critics really can't compare it with traditional westerns. same with wolf of wall street. There are far too few wall street movies and even then this movie is so crazy as opposed to them that it can't be compared. Critics are always on the hunt for a movie that can't be compared to other movies. If they are able to compare then the movie better be good. Otherwise they will use the movie as a dart board to tear it into pieces. Lastly ,of course the movie has to be well made along with good pace. Audience don't wanna linger on shots that they can get in their backyard or by going outside their house. They wanna linger on shots they can't even dream about or they can't see in their surroundings ever. All these point to production budget. But the interesting thing about big budget movies is that the critical response is much more sharp. Love or hate. Its not going to be a mediocre and middling response and thats really a good thing. It will either be remembered as postman or as the dark knight.I most certainly can say that except movie snobs no one will remember hurt locker. But far too many people will remember avatar. Its become cool now to hate on it but if box office history is any indication then international box office always increases for sequels. Avatar's box office most certainly will increase.
A disabled army vet gets a chance to take his dead twin's position to travel to a moon in a distant solar system. The ex-vet gets a chance to drive the remotely controlled bodies called avatar which are scientifically developed bodies that are made from DNA of native population of the planet and resemble them.
So the description sounds complicated but the director does a great job of conveying it with ease.Hollywood has been against James Cameron from the moment he won Oscar for Titanic and it swept the Oscar season of that year. James Cameron movies have two things in their foundations that are at odds with each other . The concept and execution of his movies are of the highest quality. But the script and dialogue is clunky. There is always this battle in his movies. Which is between making a kick ass movie vs an intellectual movie. Movies like the rock or die hard can easily be considered as well made but dumb action movies that appeals to masses. But , the difference between James Cameron and tons of other action commercial directors of all time is that his canvas is different.He operates with subject matters and concepts that has never been dealt with before. For example, his movies like Terminator and Abyss operate with killer robot and underwater creatures. There has never been concepts like that in movies before.So there is no scale for critics to compare it with. If you make a gangster movie then people will compare it with godfather or goodfellas. If you make a western then people will compare it with unforgiven. For superhero movies its the dark knight. But the moment you zone in on a very specific type of movie then people have to deal with it as a movie of its own kind. James Cameron did it with almost all his movies. Even a sequel like Aliens was made as an action movie as opposed to a suspense horror original alien.
The story is very famously considered as a rip off and a copy of lots of other movies. Its the tried and tested formula of "understanding the ways of others" plot line. But the way in which his imagination or derivation or whatever you wanna call it enhances the movie experience by combining science fiction with tried and tested formula is spectacular. It blows the plot line out of the water. Forget about the plot line and just look at the awesome planet that is created is the subtext here. Avatar is a case study about how to make an epic that is remembered for ages. Every filmmaker wants to make a movie that stands the test of time. But if the movie is an epic, then it will be remembered even more fondly. So you have to throw lot of money at it. But, studios won't throw lot of money at a movie if they can't guarantee box office. Only very few directors can get that kind of cash without a star attached. But often times in such cases the financiers are being tricked into thinking that the box office success of movies is due to directors. A movie like Hugo had a budget of 200 million only because the financiers were tricked into thinking that Scorsese has something to do with box office of movies like the departed , shutter island etc. But in reality its the star of those movies that's responsible for its financial success. Immediately after financial failure of Hugo they realized that it wasn't Scorsese that's the draw. So he had to go and make wolf of wall street. After that he struggled to get financing for his next two movies and settle with foreign investors and Netflix. This is the usual trajectory of auteurs if they wanna make ambitious prestigious epics with the intention of standing the test of time. You either need an unusually large fan base or you need a movie star with unusually large fan base in your movie. The movie of course should demand theater viewing. Cinematography and scale of the movie are vital in peeking the interest of audience to the point of going to the movies as opposed to seeing it on computer screens.
One of the other important things is the hype and anticipation for the movie. How does it work ? There is good hype which comes from the fact that the people involved in the project have already delivered a great movie before. Then there is cautious hype. Which is mostly a bad hype because no one knows how good the movie will be or any good. DiCaprio is trying to use the former technique with his movies. He refused to make any movie if it is not directed by Legendary directors or would be legends. Sure, that might not get him an Oscar win again. But the contrary to that could be failure. So, he is trying to retain the goodwill from Revenant and wolf of wall street and Django and use it to propel once upon a time in Hollywood into a hit.But this whole thing is very hard to replicate unless you have "it". Its like building a wall. You can't build the 10th layer if your 1st layer is not built. But the obvious handicap he has is the directors. If Scorsese is dead then I don't think there are very many directors who will make the kind of movies his testosterone filled machismo seeking fan base craves for. Paul Thomas Anderson is not his kind of director. So is David O Russell. Because they don't make movies that ooze machismo.
Back to avatar. The movie is an out of body experience. The effects in the movie has that lived in feel to it. They feel very real. You are being told that what you see is real. And your mind buys into it. That's something that's never been done before. Most of it is possible because of the skin texture of Navi and the way they communicate with humans feels real.One primary trapping this movie avoids is the pacing issues. Most of the times when a movie takes place outdoors, directors become obsessed with the landscapes in the movie. And they tend to include lots of boring shots and scenes in the movie that drag the pace. For a director who has been obsessed with this movie for years, all these might be interesting. But for a person who is not involved in the making of the movie all these make it boring. Director looses sense of being self critical. So from his point of view he thinks "this is good" but in reality it is not. And also epic scale film making should avoid the trappings of feeling simple.You can't complicate the plot when hundreds of millions are riding on the movie. At the same time you can't make it too simple. The only way to achieve this is the mechanics of the movie needs to be complicated yet interesting but the overall story of the movie has to be simple. For example if the story of a movie is A need to kill B. But A needs to meet experts in various fields to develop plans to kill B, that is a good movie. The overall act of the movie is simple like A kills B. But the steps taken are complicated enough to make the movie interesting. But if the plot of the movie is complicated then its not gonna make its money back.Something like A doesn't wanna kill B but he wanna teach a lesson to B and at that point the story starts getting complicated and its a bad business idea.
This movie has a very simple plot. But the dose of sci-fi makes it interesting. The movie time frame makes it interesting. It takes place years into the expedition. But few years into Navi program. So instead of starting the movie at the beginning of expedition the director gave it sometime to have room for emotion. In the beginning it would have been all about primal instinct of survival and war. But as time went by, it becomes much more nuanced. So James Cameron wanted that time entry point.The creature design is heavily based on earth life form. But that's another key aspect in the movie. You can't make alien life form un-relatable. You should feel their emotions. So the aliens just look different but feel the same. The aliens are different to a point. Beyond that, they are the same. One unique thing about aliens is the actual physical bonds they need to make at a certain point. With the animals or trees or when mating. All these make the aliens feel primitive yet wise. They live with bare necessities.Even the way they choose their flying creature is very primal and tests the skill of rider with no room for failure. All these makes the movie a pleasant watch with epic scope and awe.
Even though James Cameron has done the best he could to make this movie everything anyone ever wanted which is a commercial critical ambitious awards-celebrated epic which will be remembered more than most movies ever will be, I do think the movie's goal to appeal to wide range of audience forced Cameron to soften some rough edges and make the movie smoother. Consequences of actions are softened. Heroic moments are overplayed and heightened. Stereotypes are exploited. If these aspects are rectified then the movie probably wouldn't have made 2.8 billion. So thats a catch-22. But in the end this movie is really a lesson on how to make ambitious epics. Because of its structure. Make the movie a theater experience. Something audience should see in the movies. Make it in a very specific sub genre , so audience or critics can't really measure it against any other movies. Even though this is a dance with wolves kinda movie, this has sci-fi environmental colonialism messages in it. Thats not dealt with in movies like dances with wolves or last samurai etc. So thats very specific. Other similar examples include spaghetti western Django unchained, which can't really be compared to either unforgiven or 12 years a slave because its in its own plane. Movies like hostiles(2018) become easy targets because the narrative and everything screams conventional and even the subject matter is conventional .So, even though the film maker promotes it as a psychological western, audience can't really see the reason not to compare it with traditional westerns like unforgiven. So the movie ends up being butchered by critics. Something like revenant is playing on a whole different plane. Its a frontier western but a survival epic set in snow as opposed to deserts of the typical westerns. So critics really can't compare it with traditional westerns. same with wolf of wall street. There are far too few wall street movies and even then this movie is so crazy as opposed to them that it can't be compared. Critics are always on the hunt for a movie that can't be compared to other movies. If they are able to compare then the movie better be good. Otherwise they will use the movie as a dart board to tear it into pieces. Lastly ,of course the movie has to be well made along with good pace. Audience don't wanna linger on shots that they can get in their backyard or by going outside their house. They wanna linger on shots they can't even dream about or they can't see in their surroundings ever. All these point to production budget. But the interesting thing about big budget movies is that the critical response is much more sharp. Love or hate. Its not going to be a mediocre and middling response and thats really a good thing. It will either be remembered as postman or as the dark knight.I most certainly can say that except movie snobs no one will remember hurt locker. But far too many people will remember avatar. Its become cool now to hate on it but if box office history is any indication then international box office always increases for sequels. Avatar's box office most certainly will increase.