Top 10 reasons why I didn’t like AVATAR

Top 10 reasons why I didn’t like AVATAR

Jul 13

I reviewed Avatar on opening day. Fresh from watching the film, my mind had a tendency to focus on the trees rather than the woods, and, while the review still holds up, it could use some clarification.

Eight months have passed since then, the dust has settled, everyone’s absorbed Avatar into their consciousness, and the film’s due for re-release in six weeks’ time. What better time to reflect on the cultural phenomenon than now?

Here follows a list of the ten main reasons why I – me, myself, and only I – couldn’t appreciate Avatar like everyone else (and their dog) seemed to.

10 – The 3D Doesn’t Really Help

Avatar is a visually busy film. Vibrant colours, eye-catching character designs, constant movement, and a lush aesthetic already do enough to overload the visual centre of your brain; putting it all in 3D didn’t help clarify it for me, it just helps to make it even busier.

Plus I wear glasses in everyday life already; having to wear another layer of plastic in front of my face for two-and-a-half hours gave me uncomfortable eyestrain.

9 – The People vs Pandora

Sometimes I felt like the people in the movie were dwarfed by the planet. I don’t mean visually; I mean thematically. I understand that James Cameron really wanted to immerse us in the world of Pandora, but the way to do that is to set the action against a detailed and fascinating backdrop. I’m not stupid. I can see that the backdrop is interesting. You don’t need to constantly derail your scenes just to rub this in my face.

8 – Science Fantasy

In my review I went to great lengths to bemoan things like the blue skin and red blood of the na’vi, the four-eyed faces of the native fauna, the breathing holes on the creatures’ chests, and the na’vi’s distinct separation (physiologically) from every other species on Pandora.

Basically what I was trying to say was that Cameron was blending science fiction with fantasy, two incompatible systems. Either you go for realistic plausibility (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey), or you throw realism out the window (Star Wars); trying to marry both disappoints me for some reason.

7 – The Uncanny Valley

Motion-capture bugs me. It’s not so bad when it’s aliens that are being rendered, as in Avatar, but the uncanny, rubbery faces still hurt the characters for me. I was aware that what I was watching wasn’t a human performance, but a computer-enhanced one. This annoys me for the same reason Justin Bieber’s hideously auto-tuned voice annoys me: it’s disingenuous., and it puts up a barrier between me and the characters on the screen.

6 – Meanwhile, Back On The Earth

All the way through Avatar, I wanted to see Earth as it was in whatever year the plot’s set in, because even a glimpse of the world at that time would have helped shape the universe as a whole. Where does Cameron see us going in the future? That’s important information in service of shaping the thematic content of the film. We hear mention of an Earth overcome by pollution. Could we please see that for some perspective, please?

5 – The Misanthropic Principle

Reading between the lines, Avatar wants you to believe that all humans are incapable of controlling their destructive urges, and that the only way to become a better human is to stop being a human, and turn yourself into an organism from a different species altogether.

The na’vi are presented as perfect beings, happy communities with nary a care in the world, while we are presented as bull-headed rednecks with barely a skerrick of common sense between us. This nastiness pervades the film and offended me, denting my appreciation of the story. Plus the only humans who stand up for the na’vi – Sigourney Weaver’s and Michelle Rodriguez’ characters – get killed at the end. Thanks.

4 – Upping The Ante

Following on from #5, what’s the biggest thing the na’vi stand to lose in the plot of Avatar? It all boils down to that big tree that provides the basis for their neural network with the world. The only thing that separates us from the na’vi – hence, the only thing that stops them from being human – is that link with the past, that shortcut to empathy. If you removed that link – horror! – the na’vi would become just like us, only able to generate empathy through force of will. And this is presented as the worst possible thing that could happen to the na’vi – that they might end up like us. Ouch.

3 – Too Long By An Hour

I probably wouldn’t have had time to think of complaints to throw at the movie if only it had breezed along at a steady clip, aiming for a 100-minutes-and-change run-time. The biggest problem here is the Rocky / Karate Kid-esque training montage in the middle of the movie, which goes for about 45 minutes straight. That could easily have been condensed and my butt could easily have been saved the unnecessary en-numbing-ment it unhappily underwent. I know Cameron had to establish the characters and the universe in a limited time, but if George Lucas could do it in two hours in 1977 you can sure as hell do it just as fast in 2009.

2 – Cartoon Villains And Cardboard Heroes

Ultimately, who is Jake Sully? He’s a wheelchair-bound ex-marine with an incongruous Australian accent. That set-up serves the dual purpose of generating sympathy for the character and conveniently proving his suitability for the Avatar Program, but it does little to help define him as a character. He’s stubborn and takes good initiative, sure – but this is generic hero stuff. What really makes Jake Sully who he is?

How about Quaritch and that character Giovanni Ribisi plays? They’re just personal manifestations of nastiness, nothing more and nothing less. (For the record, I actually enjoyed Ribisi’s performance, even at the same time I questioned his relevance to the movie as a whole.)

1 – Everything Is Pixels

Avatar may blend live-action with animation better than something like Mary Poppins, but unlike Mary Poppins it doesn’t have a stylistic justification for flip-flopping between real people and pixellated creations.

The world is presented as being real, but my eyes tell me otherwise. I’m not a fan of animated films to begin with, so that predisposition probably coloured my reaction to Avatar which is, technically, about 80% computer-generated. If it had focused more on the real people I probably would have enjoyed it a hell of a lot more.

Ultimately, watching Avatar for me became akin to looking over someone’s shoulder as they played a beautifully-rendered videogame. The blank slate hero was there, the wish-fulfilling empowerment was there, even the alien sex scene was there (kind of). It was like playing a non-interactive videogame, which is obviously the worst kind of videogame there is.

James Cameron’s big blue baby is by no stretch of the imagination a bad film; I just didn’t like it. I applaud Cameron’s success in tapping into something universal, something that touched a lot of people, and brought a unique cinematic experience to the lives of millions. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

There’s no denying that Avatar came at precisely the right time in history: everyone’s rightfully worried about the environment, and are looking increasingly to technology for escapism from a cruel world full of death, destruction, horror, and electricity bills. The idea of stepping into someone else’s shoes and solving the world’s problems satisfies us on a fundamental level, now more than ever.

I’m thrilled for Cameron’s success, but I think it’s born of good timing rather than masterful storytelling. That isn’t meant to belittle the film’s success in any way, but hopefully I’ve given you food for thought to chew over as you watch Avatar on DVD for the umpteenth time, or go to catch it in its re-release in August.

As always, I’m keen to hear your thoughts on this – comments are welcome and appreciated.