The visuals, morals, and pace of computer gaming--in pulsing 3-D CGI

Rating: 6/10 (21 December 2009)

Avatar (2009)
Technically dizzying, morally unambiguous, with dialog and a story line aimed at teens and young adults, but clearly with wider appeal. Set a hundred and some years in the future, the helicopters landing still conjure up Vietnam, and some of the big mean soldier stuff drinking coffee in the middle of battle, with the airships rolling in over the population below, is pure Apocalypse Now. It's a "big" movie, and visually demanding.
The 3-D is terrific, smoother and more restrained than other 3-D releases (Journey to the Center of the Earth), which gives it sophistication beyond just the gimmick. I watched part of if without the glasses, and it's actually still pretty jazzy, so I think it would work in 2-D very well, if that's what you have in your area (or in your budget--they charge extra for the extra dimension). The music is heart pumping stuff, formulaic for sure, but part of the adrenalin machine.
Is this a "good" movie? Not really. It's an impressive movie, obviously, but it has a hyped up computer gaming feel to it, not only visually but ethically, and in terms of depth of plot. It does have a science fiction fascination to it, with the mind and soul switching bodies in different ways, though I'm not totally sure it makes logical sense, which even sci-fi has to do. And the clichés are fun in their own ways, even if I got tired of it all the constant running and fear, the endless platitudes, the constantly pretty prettiness (it's one heck of a beautiful planet, Pandora is). Even more of a problem is the stereotyping going on, culturally, from the natives to the military, but I'll save getting angry for another day. If you notice it, it's demeaning, if you don't, watch it again.
These aren't all things to hate, but the movie doesn't have a lot to love, nothing to dig into, nothing to think about, nothing to make you feel deeply. It might make you feel in a more sympathetic way--there is room for a lot of sympathy, and if your heart strings are dangling beware--but it will do so in the way the Lion King or Pocahontas did. Someone said to me, hearing my doubts, "You expect too much." And that makes me think, "Really?" I'd hate to ever say that about a movie this ambitious, even from a James Cameron who already proved his crowd pleasing intentions, and savvy, with Titanic. Expectations aside, I want more, and you might, too.
I added this response to the New York Times blog, after a comment by their reviewer Manohla Dargis:
Well, yes, it's sort of given that we all carry our baggage with us, and apply our viewpoints with bias, one way or the other. But Dargis is too willing to just say, "Whatever," as if the movie didn't have some specific narrative and symbolic qualities that can be scrutinized. That is, even if viewers come away from the movie with a diversity of views (hopefully they do), it is still true that the main character is a white male (with a disability). Or that there are almost no African representations among the humans, and few women (two, mainly, and they both die). Or that there is a kind of broad stereotyping of the natives in attitude and appearance (widely open to interpretation, but not a blank slate). Or that the invading traitor ends up being, voila, the leader of this hapless tribal people with very high ideals. Etc. Etc. If it sounds like I'm suggesting a way to read the movie, it's not on purpose. That's the baggage thing, and I have mine. But it doesn't mean that we should all just turn a blind eye to the possibilities, without polarizing the argument, and without making the movie more than it is, a dizzying entertainment a step away from some Disney classics. With all their stereotyping.