Hoodwinked again

Rating: 1/10 (27 December 2010)

Let me begin with a confession or two: first, I rarely walk out of movies, but I walked out of James Cameron's last must-see movie, "Titanic," well before the iceberg made its appearance. I figured, I already knew the ending, so why endure another hour or so of Rose and Jack, two characters so thoroughly calculated and cliché that I wanted to throw them both overboard myself.
Second, when "Avatar" was released, with all the hyperbolic language Hollywood could muster ("movies will never be the same" was one tag line I remember), I didn't see it in its intended 3D glory. Fact is, I was suspicious of the hype, and felt a little snake-bitten from my last foray into Cameronia. Instead, I waited, and endured in the meantime the jibes of those who saw and loved the movie -- one relative saw the darn thing SEVEN times -- who just could not believe that I had not yet seen it after all this time. Fact is, I really wasn't all that interested. When someone else said that they originally had a similar level of indifference but, after having seen it, ended up loving it, I figured that I would finally invest the nearly three hours. I sat down with my wife last night to watch it. On Bluray, on a beautiful Sony Bravia with a great surround-sound system. But no 3D.
Having done so, I can firmly make this statement: without 3D to distract and/or amuse you, this movie is one big steaming pile.
Plot: little, and what there is of one is predictable and cliché. Others have documented the blatant similarities and outright lifting of the plots of other, better movies. Let's just say that if Cameron did in fact write the script in three weeks, he must have spent two of them in a coma.
Dialog: burp. From the opening line of someone having had "a hole blown through his life," you know you're in for more cheese than a Wisconsin harvest festival. Junior college creative writing students would have been embarrassed to turn in such work.
The vaunted CGI: not to put too fine a point on it, but it was SyFy Channel quality at best. Having on the previous night watched a much more convincing CGI flying beast movie "How To Train Your Dragon," I was absolutely shocked by the poor quality of the CGI. The textures and lighting were lame and unconvincing, and I never for once suspended any sense of disbelief.
Acting: who was in this movie again? Between Sam Worthington's Aussie-creep accent in what was supposed to be a flag-flying-red-white-and-blue jar-head character to the Na'vi who fluctuated from speaking halted English to perfect and back again, lets just say that I was left unimpressed and unmoved.
Direction: so "nothing special" that I can hardly believe the raves this movie got. Fail.
And don't even get me started on the "unobtanium."
I am completely sure that in 3D, this movie was a wonderful visual experience, and enough of one to distract a viewer from the utter lack of originality and substance in the movie itself. Viewing it without this visual aid, however, the movie's flaws are glaring and hard to overlook. Still, Cameron made a bucket-load of money on this movie, so I recognize that mine is a minority opinion. But my wife hated it too, so I got that going for me, which is nice.
However, one thing is absolutely and completely certain: I will never again be hoodwinked into turning over my hard-earned cash to the snake-oil salesman who is James Cameron. "Avatar" is a movie for thirteen year old male video game enthusiasts or those easily amused by sparkly things. Otherwise, save your dough and your time. You'll be glad you did.