James Cameron and his "little space movie"

Rating: 8/10 (8 April 2010)

If a director takes almost 12 years to make a film, the usual response is that there better be a good reason for it, especially if that film is a follow up to "Titanic". Add to that, the Internet, which sometimes seems like it solely exists to generate outlandish over-hype, even managing to develop a backlash before "Avatar" had a trailer. It then represented something totally different then its original intent; judged unevenly, with its reputation preceding it. And if the film didn't exceed or match its over-hype, it was doomed to fail.
This inability to live up to tremendous hype has happened before, of course. Axl Rose took 15 years to make "Chinese Democracy", which barely made a dent in the charts when finally released because by then no one cared. And lest we forget George Lucas' "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace"; that bomb was 16 years in the making. Unfortunately the parallels don't end there for George Lucas and director of "Avatar" James Cameron. They both came into Hollywood as young, burgeoning independent filmmakers. Both taking bold risks in story and genre to achieve their extravagant visions. Both have taken on roles of writer, producer, director, and editor of their films. And lastly, both have taken huge leaps in creating new computer technologies to see their visions fully realized. There is however one big difference between the two; George Lucas lost his Midas touch years ago, James Cameron did not.
I got worried for awhile; Cameron was pumping up this baby like he had an earpiece with Fox executives whispering through it. The trailers were all over TV and plastered on billboards, graphics would pop up during sport games with "Avatar" sponsored halftime reports. They crossed over onto your cellphones, made a shitty video game, and the toys were in McDonald's. Even Cameron said "let everybody in the world know this movie exists and think it sucks is a better condition than having a few people think the movie's great before it comes out". Were they attempting to compensate for a bad movie? This had the same symptoms of failure Phantom Menace had. My friends rooted against it joining in on the backlash. Even South Park had a poke at it, claiming it was nothing more than a rip off of the Smurfs. Could this film be judged without its Stigma? No, but it was worth a try.
I didn't see the IMAX showing which is really the only way to see it. I instead got stuck in a regular movie theater with crap smudgy "3D" glasses, that I had to take off several times because my eyes hurt. What I did see though was the unrestrained vision of a highly imaginative director who had the know how, insight, and gall to create a film as grandiose as Avatar. The planet Pandora inhabited by the alien creatures called the "The Na'vi" is beautifully detailed in rich blue and purple hues as if inspired from a Jeremy Blake interactive art exhibit. And the film's message is pretty straight forward and clear when the lead character Jake Sully says in reference to humans effect on earth "they killed their mother (earth) long ago". OK, so the film is a little...eco friendly and New Age right down to the Papyrus subtitled font and Native American flute soundtrack, but is there really anything wrong with that? Cameron doesn't hit you over the head with this message, he subtly suggests it. Its a warning, much like Wall-E was, that if we continue to be destructive to the planet, its will only worsen its condition. Although this is the heart of the film, the real draw is the spectacle, which is (when seen in IMAX) well worth 2 hours and 45 minutes of your time. This is what took 12 years to painstakingly perfect, and what took so long to create. So yes Cameron not only trumped the hype, he proved that a purely CGI driven film can succeed if steered correctly, and can be great without relying on a franchise. So suck it Lucas.