Good But Hardly Best-of-All-Time...Kids and Hollywood Accountants Will Be Pleased

Rating: 8/10 (27 December 2009)

I have never particularly been motivated to write a review here until today, when I almost collapsed from faint in seeing all the "best movie of all time" or "one of the best...." comments pouring out here.
Assuming these are not truly planted reviews, I would be more accepting of the hype of these statements if someone had written instead "Best movie I've ever seen" and the reviewer had not been born when filmmaker Cameron made Terminator 25 years ago, and especially not been born when Titanic about half as long ago. It would clearly be indicative of a short lifetime still in need of many more experiences.
Frankly, this entertainment spectacle---cannot call it "film," right?--- will not make the top 50 or maybe top 100 of any authoritative expert's list of "groundbreaking" films.
What was really groundbreaking about it, besides the budget perhaps?
Is it a visual wonder? Yes. Is it entertaining? Yes! When you consider that it has a more than two-and-a-half hour running time, the true test of a film is whether you notice the time going by. I was dreading such a long time to sit in the cinema, but I made a point to look at my watch one point--not out of boredom at all---and was stunned that an hour had fully gone by and I was thinking I had just sat down to enjoy the show. A good sign.
But in looking at this nearly 3-hour film twice now (the 2nd time to see what I missed with my girlfriend distracting my attention the first time), I am really wondering what is so novel and earth-shattering here. None of us need be impressed any longer that the actors or their stunt doubles can be set up in marionette black suits with blue screen backgrounds and provide the raw movements and facial features for animating the characters. The technology of CGI has progressed sufficiently well before Avatar hit the widescreen that I am not sure that much of what we saw is really a jaw-dropping film-making wonder. Cameron had the idea of making this film more than a decade ago and was only halted in his tracks because the cost was too high to green-light it.
The plot/story is boilerplate: even the least astute critic posting here pointed out this obvious finding.
In fact, it's as if Cameron is challenging us to point out which well-known films provide the borrowings that form the basis of "Avatar." Perhaps the presence of Sigourney Weaver is the hint. After all, what film series features corporate colonial imperialism capable of interstellar space travel wanting to exploit some far-away world's mineral or natural resource? "Alien" and "Aliens" anyone? And the allusion to other films where someone is sent to infiltrate the tribe/civilization to be a target for conquest and ends up becoming a defender of them once he is culturally immersed in their society...I am a sure a dozen films can be listed quickly that follow that story.
You can argue whether Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana filled their shoes. I think they went beyond what was expected of them, and did as much as they could do with a production where they generally were part of a cartoon.
Well-done support all around. Michelle Rodriguez is putting back on her tough woman persona that she got from that S.W.A.T re-make she did. Sigourney and Cameron probably had to fight executives with sensitivities to political correctness to allow her to be the chain-smoking wise-ass whom we adore as the required character who is not the team player and fights the corporate culture. Wes Studi and CCH Pounder did their voice roles admirably. Giovanni Ribisi played the Paul Reiser role well with the dialog he was given. It's clear that Cameron got (and sought?) a culturally/ethnically diverse cast, but I dare anyone to say that it came at the expense of the final product, since every cast member has the requisite talent.
Special mention must go to bad guy Stephen Lang. I have admired this actor ever since "Crime Story," and I imagine this production will give him much more exposure than he already has (hopefully he'll get rest-of-a-lifetime financial security as well, but who knows?). He convinced me within a minute (even without that claw scars all over his head) that he was the story's psychopath who would run to where the fight was rather than retreat and have to explain a lost battle. He didn't get much to work with, so I doubt a nomination for major acting award is likely for him, but he brought the needed audience tension to a role with predictable dialog. The audience is supposed to want to really hate the bad guy, is it not?
The film has nearly paid for itself on the opening weekend, so all the investors are likely giddy that Cameron is ever the bankable filmmaker, and he will give them a four- to five-fold return once the DVDs go to market, and that's not figuring in all the action figures and video interaction games which will make Disney characters and heroes and villains forgotten. This will probably be making bank accounts fat for as many years as "The Wizard of Oz" has been around.
I think Cameron is good at his art. But a lot of his best work where he showed some originality is from years ago. Sure, he is the Cecil B. DeMille of his generation. But has he reached the level of Welles, Scorsese, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Fellini, Kubrick, and Allen (some might throw in Tarantino)?
But really...let's get some perspective, people. While Avatar will be a memorable film for 2009, I don't much seeing it making a sensible person's Best 10 or 20 All-Time list.