Avatar

With all the hype around “Avatar”, I’m here to set the record straight. Expectations have run high because of “Avatar’s” record-breaking $300 million plus budget and the likes of a big name director James Cameron who was involved in “Titanic”, “Aliens” and “Terminator,” all highly touted science fiction movies.

“Avatar’s” plot is nothing special, original, or anything to get excited about. Imagine a twisted “Pocahontas”/”Fern Gully” with a paraplegic man, Jake Sully, who controls a body of a Na'vi (the natives to the planet), created by scientists called Avatars, to infiltrate the Na'vi clan and get them to leave so the precious metals at the base of it can be harvested. But along the way Sully falls in love with the Na'vi’s way of life and coincidentally, the chief’s daughter. Then, when diplomacy fails and the human military gets involved, Sully needs to take up a side and decides who matters the most to him.

Cameron’s “Avatar” has very impressive CG, much like that of “District 9” but this is expected when $300 million is put into it. The plot is weak and the 3D effects weren’t necessary and didn’t add much; I’d rather have seen it in 2D. Also, the movie runs 2½ hours and dragged at times, not moving the plot forward much at all, although the plot wasn’t completely awful - but I could have been much better. The character’s half CG-ed, half-live acting was without a doubt the strongest point of the movie, intermixing and functioning very well together. A close second to the CG was the cinematography, which at times, was breathtaking. This winter blockbuster failed to live up to all the hype and attention paid to it. Although it was a solid movie, I expected more and because it’s only in 3D, be prepared to spend and extra $3-4 for the glasses.


Overall Rating: 7.5 out of 10