Can somebody tell me the difference between James Cameron’s Avatar and a “good old fashioned” cowboys and indians film? I’m not saying I was disappointed in the film (though I’m not sure it was worth $15 to see on a fake IMAX screen at the multiplex) but the film certainly doesn’t deserve to quite the slobbering mindless praise that it has gotten.
Let me get the biggest problem I have with the film out of the way. Unobtanium. Apparently humans have traveled the stars and are mining the alien world of Pandora for a very rare element. This is a plot device which is as old as … well, I was going to say “as old as the hills” but the hills have been strip mined. I have no problem with with story mechanic as the reason for the human’s presence on Pandora, but it’s the name of the element that made me laugh out loud in the theater. Unobtanium? Really? Why not call it McGuffintonium or McGuffinite? That would have been more original. (The more I think about it, the more I think it should be spelled “Maguffinite.) With so much thought and attention to detail that went into the making of this movie, this is what we get? What are we, 16?
There are plenty of other small bits like this in the plot that don’t make as much sense as they should (such as why the helicopter pilot played by Michelle Rodriguez is never admonished for abandoning her post during one of the big attacks), but most of those are easily glossed over. This is a movie after all, and for the most part the logic works. While there are themes that are present in Avatar that are reminiscent of a whole lot of other films and books. Heck, I don’t think James Cameron claimed to have come up with a completely original story idea, so let’s take that issue off the table. Almost every film made today is a variation on a theme that we’ve seen time after time, so originality shouldn’t be an issue here.
Where originality shouldn’t be an issue, being derivative is another matter. Certain plot elements of the story are clearly derivative. Then again, some of the films that people are claiming James Cameron of stealing from, are themselves, somewhat derivative. Sadly, Avatar is somewhat derivative, and as a result, predictable.
But damn if it wasn’t enjoyable to sit through.
Now, I spent $15 to see it in IMAX 3D at my local multiplex. I knew that I’d be paying more for IMAX, but not having been to an IMAX theatrical release since Fantasia 2000, I figured this might be worth the money. Since the multiplex that I was going to see the film at was very recently built (having opened less than 2 years ago) I thought that it might actually be technically up to the task. The problem I ran into was that the screen wasn’t actually an IMAX screen. Sure, the aspect ratio may have been true to IMAX specifications, but the scale, the sheer size of what I expect an IMAX screen to be, that wasn’t there. The bottom line is that if you want to see a theatrical release on an IMAX screen, go to an IMAX theater, not the local multiplex, no matter how new it was built.
I should have skipped the premium IMAX charge and just seen in on the regular screen in 3D.
I am sure that the film will be enjoyable on home video, but Avatar is certainly meant to be seen in 3D, the same way that The Wizard of OZ loses much of its impact when seen on a black and white television. I hope that James Cameron worked on some additional technology to translate his vision to home video.