Avatar 3D is a film where, unlike many films before it, what is really on display and can be considered the 'star' of the film is the concept of Pandora. The planet, creatures and ultimately the Na'vi themselves clearly represent the bulk of thought and budget allocations.
There is indeed a lot of well documented Cameron military technology on display here but it only features as technology to drive up against the natural defences (flora and fauna) of Pandora. The latter being far more intricate, conceptually complex and of course, entirely computer generated as opposed to part set part special effect. This does not diminish the importance or effort put into the human devices in the film merely to acknowledge that the scale of the eco-system that is depicted feels vast, intricate and real unlike many (but not all) depicted alien environments of previous films.
As a poster film for space exploration, non-exploitation of ecosystems and respect of other cultures and places the film is flawless however such well intentioned messages do not necessarily make for innovative narrative and entertaining film. Avatar does not surprise with its' story however it is competantly told and from a cinematography point of view well executed.
If every film you watch must revolutionise narrative construct then you're either very fussy about what you watch or perpetually disappointed to the point of depression.
If you are of a more level-headed ilk and take hype with a healthy dose of salt and expect to see a well told story from James Cameron, who is in this instance a master of technical execution (currently without peer) telling a solid but unremarkable story then you will see an exceptional feast for the eyes and be relayed a coherant, understandable but untaxing plot with some well rounded if slightly cliched characters.
Net result: A visual revolution driving a solid but uninspired narrative with a good cast and performances of confidently constructed characters.
Now onto the 3D - is it worth it?!
Honestly, it's a two part answer.
Early in the film there are many interior, multi-layered (fore - mid - background) shots that make the 3D really feel like you're witnessing the events on screen, that the camera is not a camera at all but rather a portal to the events you are seeing, fundamentally this is an amazing experience that makes you feel physically connected to what's on screen.
However as the film progresses I admit that wider shots of the environment often don't impress (in 3D immersion as opposed to cinematic quality) as much because there's little in the foreground to connect you to the scene. Additionally when the action heats up and cuts become faster and more involved there's less time for the 3D effects to take hold and unless something on the screen comes really close to the camera you don't feel as involved or much like you're witnessing an event, more that you are in fact watching a film.
So on the one hand there are amazing scenes that work from an immersive point of view, on the other hand none of them are the scenes you'd probably like to feel most connected to.
I suspect however that as with films themselves 3D is probably more of a personal choice at the moment rather than an overalapping format that's vying for removal of standard 2D. I found 3D enjoyable and noticable in a majority of shots and this definitely increased my immersion in a number of scenes. If you don't want to, can't or just feel reticent to stump extra money for the ticket I have little doubt that the 2D version of the film is equally enjoyable.
Caveat - I have yet to see the film in 2D so I don't know whether or not I will feel a distinct lack of the 3D but when I do see it (yes I'm going back for more) I'll update this section of the review to tell you if retrospectively 3D added enough to justify the expense.
There is indeed a lot of well documented Cameron military technology on display here but it only features as technology to drive up against the natural defences (flora and fauna) of Pandora. The latter being far more intricate, conceptually complex and of course, entirely computer generated as opposed to part set part special effect. This does not diminish the importance or effort put into the human devices in the film merely to acknowledge that the scale of the eco-system that is depicted feels vast, intricate and real unlike many (but not all) depicted alien environments of previous films.
As a poster film for space exploration, non-exploitation of ecosystems and respect of other cultures and places the film is flawless however such well intentioned messages do not necessarily make for innovative narrative and entertaining film. Avatar does not surprise with its' story however it is competantly told and from a cinematography point of view well executed.
If every film you watch must revolutionise narrative construct then you're either very fussy about what you watch or perpetually disappointed to the point of depression.
If you are of a more level-headed ilk and take hype with a healthy dose of salt and expect to see a well told story from James Cameron, who is in this instance a master of technical execution (currently without peer) telling a solid but unremarkable story then you will see an exceptional feast for the eyes and be relayed a coherant, understandable but untaxing plot with some well rounded if slightly cliched characters.
Net result: A visual revolution driving a solid but uninspired narrative with a good cast and performances of confidently constructed characters.
Now onto the 3D - is it worth it?!
Honestly, it's a two part answer.
Early in the film there are many interior, multi-layered (fore - mid - background) shots that make the 3D really feel like you're witnessing the events on screen, that the camera is not a camera at all but rather a portal to the events you are seeing, fundamentally this is an amazing experience that makes you feel physically connected to what's on screen.
However as the film progresses I admit that wider shots of the environment often don't impress (in 3D immersion as opposed to cinematic quality) as much because there's little in the foreground to connect you to the scene. Additionally when the action heats up and cuts become faster and more involved there's less time for the 3D effects to take hold and unless something on the screen comes really close to the camera you don't feel as involved or much like you're witnessing an event, more that you are in fact watching a film.
So on the one hand there are amazing scenes that work from an immersive point of view, on the other hand none of them are the scenes you'd probably like to feel most connected to.
I suspect however that as with films themselves 3D is probably more of a personal choice at the moment rather than an overalapping format that's vying for removal of standard 2D. I found 3D enjoyable and noticable in a majority of shots and this definitely increased my immersion in a number of scenes. If you don't want to, can't or just feel reticent to stump extra money for the ticket I have little doubt that the 2D version of the film is equally enjoyable.
Caveat - I have yet to see the film in 2D so I don't know whether or not I will feel a distinct lack of the 3D but when I do see it (yes I'm going back for more) I'll update this section of the review to tell you if retrospectively 3D added enough to justify the expense.
