At the Movies with Count and Hurley: Avatar

Prologue: for those of you who haven't watched At The Movies with Margaret and David yet on ABC, firstly: WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH YOUR LIFE?!?! and secondly, you might be a bit confused about the format of this movie review. It's a rip-off of Margaret and David's couch banter, infused with some of their mannerisms. And, as always, epic movies deserve epic reviews. So I called in reinforcements for this one. Please tolerate the length of this post and write a comment!!

~ Hurley Who?

James Cameron and Sam Worthington

CL: For a film with a budget of $300 million and that took James Cameron (of Titanic fame) the best part of a decade to make, I had high hopes for this film, and for the most part, it lived up to my expectations.

HW: I agree, CL. What makes the movie so great is not the story. Definitely not. It’s a pretty traditional, intro-complication-conclusion, run-of-the-mill story. What makes this movie great is the visuals. If anything, watch it so you can be transported to an extremely beautiful and well-thought out world. Spinning, bioluminescent insects? Crazy helicopters with two circular spinny things? Giant orange speckled winged creatures? Beautiful jellyfish-like delicate floating seeds from a sacred tree? It was definitely not a traditional 3D movie, where things jump out from the screen. The movie doesn’t need to stoop to such levels to amaze you. The landscape does that already, even without the 3D effects.

CL: I agree, I mean, conceiving the alien world was an unbelievable imaginary feat – there is so much detail and apparently James Cameron invented a whole language especially for the movie.

HW: Was that overkill? I don’t know. At the time, it felt appropriately exotic. It did take him 10 years to make the film.


CL: And, again, plot-wise, this isn’t stupefying or particularly original although there were nice political/moral subtexts, such as the parallels with recent invasions of foreign countries (e.g. Afghanistan, or further back, Vietnam) cemented by the familiar political catchphrase “hearts and minds” being thrown around in the movie.

HW: Well I thought the political and environmental message, was, at times, bleedingly obvious. In hindsight, it was a little too drawn out if you ask me. Environmental protection, over-mining, the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, pre-emptive strikes, a post-apocalyptic world blah blah blah… we’ve heard it all before. Don’t need James Cameron lecturing us about it.

CL: And at a running time of 161 mins (nearly 3 whooping hours) your brain starts to feel exhausted just after the first plot arc is executed. And I mean exhausted from the effort of actually processing the visual extravaganza on the screen...

HW: I found, at first, it was difficult to follow the extremely complex storyline. I didn’t know what Jake Scully (Sam Worthington) was doing on Pandora, or why or how or who got him there. But you figure everything out after the first hour. Then there’s two more hours of the movie to go, so you’re pretty much set.


CL: Interesting fact - lots of people (e.g. Herald critic Paul Brynes) have criticised the movie for not taking enough risks plot-wise, calling it a “beautiful folly, a technical wonder that represents a failure of nerve”, which I, your average movie goer, didn’t really think about too much when I was watching the movie, being far more focused on taking in the action on the screen, but in hindsight, they might have a point.

HW: While we’re on the subject of cons, I felt that the score sounded too much like the Titanic score, and every few minutes, I couldn’t help but hear Celine Dion’s voice in the back of my head because of the similarities. That kind of ruined the moment. Oh, and I thought the dialogue was a little stilted and exceedingly obvious. Especially Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Then again, Jake Scully’s dialogue was not that much better. Or anyone else for that matter.

CL: Yep, the romance plot was bleugh, especially the dialogue there - “I’ve already picked that woman...” - oh dear… we get the point.

HW: Yea, and going on from that, what was essentially the last plot arc of many was a bit predictable too. Blue people fight humans. And -SPOILER ALERT- they win. As if we haven’t seen a thousand 'underdog rises to the top' movies already. But the sense of satisfaction, awe and wonder is still there because of those well-crafted battle scenes.

CL: But at the same time, Cameron does shy away from the full implications of clashes between dissimilar cultures/races. Like for instance, the political parallels with Afghanistan were there, but I couldn’t help but think when I was watching the film “there isn’t a Taliban”. It was extremely black and white morally – apart from a few good scientists, the humans were deranged, unobtanium hungry nut-cases (especially the Commando), and all the aliens were victimised natives- there was no grey area, and hence no scope for any really challenging, thought-provoking insights about such clashes to be made.

HW: That Commando dude both scared and amused me. On one hand, how can you take an old guy with that much muscle seriously? On the other, he was a tough cookie.

Getting ready to fight the greedy Americans

CL: Then, of course it ended happily – skimming over the reality of native cultures being destroyed or being forced to assimilate. But maybe that’s just what happens when you make a huge mainstream blockbuster; you can take risks with the look of the film, but not the message that the look is enhancing or maybe its a reflection of what we as audiences want – the reassuring, the uplifting, the ingratiatingly sentimental, even if it is the unrealistic or the unchallenging.

HW: Yep, there’s no denying that this movie was made for the mouth-breathing American public. And by looking at the sales figures, maybe the general public doesn’t want to be morally and ethically challenged. They just want a good time in the cinema. On the whole I thought it was a great film. I’m giving it 7.75 out of 10.

CL: I’m going to give it 8.1 out of 10.

~ CL and Hurley Who?