So Avatar, the anti-corporate-excess, anti-unregulated-mercenary, anti-imperialist, anti-war, anti-materialism, anti-racism, pro-environment, sci-fi action adventure romance just passed $1.1 billion not too long ago (and stands as the fastest movie to hit a billion). Not too shabby, especially for sci-fi, which traditionally does not have wide appeal. I guess James Cameron knows how to make a movie.

Personally, I think Avatar is the best action/adventure movie I’ve ever seen. There, I said it. I think I’m a picky bastard, too. It easily tops Dark Knight for me, another movie that ranked highly with me. I loved Dark Knight, but DK is totally consumed by raw negativity (And I can be a jackass). There’s no rest, no break, no salvation. Just cynical bleakness. It’s a great window into the darkness, but as a result it just lacks balance, and that gets wearisome. I’m not surprised that men seem to favor DK more than women (in my personal sphere).

Avatar on the other hand has superb, technically accurate action (yet it’s an anti-war film; just like in Terminator 2, Cameron is so good at annihilating things while simultaneously being against it), but it also has a pretty well developed romance, for a movie that’s supposed to be action/adventure anyway. As Kim Masters of the Daily Beast wrote, “Cameron’s genius is this: He makes movies for women disguised as movies for men.” I’m sure the girls will say that it can’t match The Notebook or something like that (haven’t seen it, don’t want to), but that would probably throw off the balance for the men. But with the girl…er, female power, and the love story in Avatar, I’m not surprised that Avatar is doing quite well with women, probably not to the extent of Titanic, but still, I’ve heard plenty of women who want to and have watched Avatar multiple times.

Basically, the only way I can fathom someone not liking Avatar is if they hate fun and adventure—and love (or if one is diehard conservative, more on that below). If one finds such things abhorrent, then yes, Avatar is a bore. Hell, even A.O. Scott of the NYT liked it, and that mother is one of the snobbiest, high brow pro-reviewers I’ve ever seen. For the rest of us, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Avatar, at the moment, is the closest any of us ghetto 21st century folks will get to experience what it’s like to travel to another planet. You’re buying a ticket for an experience, a trip almost (especially when seen in 3D). Along the way, there’s a universally appealing story. So, relax, and enjoy the ride!

But is it just the effects, and the wonderful immersive 3D? I’m not sure anymore. I read an argument somewhere that movies don’t make over a billion dollars on effects alone, that Avatar is connecting with people at an emotional level somehow. I think I must agree. It definitely made me question whether I need to make so many unnecessary gadget purchases, and rekindled my doubt about the role of the cubicle in my life. Apparently, in China, some interpreted it as representative of the battle between real estate developers, and impoverished homeowners.

The most major initial criticism I hear is the simplicity of the story. Yes, it is simple, but it’s also epic, truly epic. “Epic” gets tossed around a lot these days, particularly with action/war movies, but Avatar is a true epic in the old school sense. Love, culture, and war. All in 2 hrs 40 minutes. It wasn’t totally predictable either, as some claim, especially towards the end. And it’s also complete. No further sequels are needed or alluded to. I’m actually hoping there won’t be any, because I wouldn’t want the franchise to be destroyed like so many others due to crappy sequels. While I love the characters in Avatar, their story is over. Unless Cameron can pull another miracle.

Besides, it’s how a story is told that is important. That’s all epic storytellers have really been doing for the last few millennia anyway, adding their own permutations to common storylines, or telling the same story, but better, like different productions of the same musical.

But I would also argue Avatar’s story is not significantly simpler than most movies out there anyway. I think it was just an easy aspect to criticize, especially by people I like to call the “nouveau intelligentsia,” who make the argument without really considering if it’s fair or not (especially Will Heaven’s poor argument that Avatar was racist, but more on that later). Because most movies aren’t that complicated, especially in the genre Avatar is in, and such movies definitely didn’t get as much heat. Success attracts disdain I guess.

Yes, in other movies, the dialogue can be more sophisticated, but unlike most other movies, Avatar pushes hard on multiple, relevant contemporary themes simultaneously (as previously listed). In this sense, I honestly think Avatar is actually quite sophisticated. Avatar tends to expound its themes through visuals, instead of telling through dialogue, letting the viewer stew on it later, like a painting (indeed one guy interpreted some 9/11 imagery that I hadn’t thought of, and that I don’t think Cameron intended, though he found it interesting). Of the recent “good” films I’ve seen lately, District 9, Dark Knight, Inglorious Basterds, Up in the Air, I think Avatar generated more introspection and personal thought. Basterds came close (but in a negative way. More in its own review). Up in the Air was an interesting character sketch, but hey, I’ve got my own issues to deal with, and if I want to waste my time to see you conquer or deal with yours, I’d only want to see it once.

Here, I stumbled across a well-written argument by an Amazon customer; I can’t really put it any better, so I’m just going to quote her:

You could boil the plot down to Dances With Wolves does Star Wars in Middle Earth, but that wouldn’t do real justice to this fantastic film. It follows an archetypal storyline (archetype, not stereotype), which may make it feel familiar (or trite, if you are looking for a plot twist a minute). Think Joseph Campbell: the Hero Journey (the basis of tales like Star Wars and LOTR). I think a familiar, archetypal, mythic storyline will draw much more of the audience into this fantastic world than a quirky tale with plot twists. Here in York County PA, tastes run to beer and blue jeans, and it’s hard enough getting them into the theater to see “some weird story about ten foot tall half naked blue guys”. Kudos to James Cameron for creating a tale with relevant issues (decimation of indigenous peoples, our overconsumptive culture, our relationship with tech and the natural world), awesome visuals, and universal appeal.

I’ve got to agree; I don’t think a jumpy or soapy plot would have been appropriate, nor would the sharper, snarkier dialogue of someone like…Joss Whedon. Cameron went for classic epic that appeals to children and adult alike, while hitting on relevant real-world topics, not “hey, that was quirky and interesting, but I have no intention of watching the movie again.”

And Avatar only seemed to get better with another viewing – if you were like me who was kind of cynical about the whole thing at first. From my first viewing, I came away liking the movie, but I was not amazed with it. However, the more I thought about it, the more it grew on me. Then I saw Avatar again and I was definitely hooked. The amazing visual effects definitely do the grunt work, but the attention to detail do as well, like the Na’vi language created by a USC professor, the alien flora and fauna, also created by a professor, and the raw emotion of the actors captured by Cameron’s upgraded mo-cap technology. You can see every expression that the original actor made, but on an alien body. No uncanny valley here. It really helped me empathize with these “space smurfs”, and it definitely put Zoe Saldana on the map for me.

Sadly, Avatar made me realize that there could be tons of talented leading ladies out there that will never get the time of day because of their skin color, unless they get roles like Neytiri. Other than films sketching minority life, how often do you see a colored woman in the lead actress role?

I suppose I should now mention the subset of conservatives that hate the movie for such themes. But they hate most things out of Hollywood, so I don’t want to waste my time. Besides, I think their complaints are legitimate, in the sense that it definitely crosses their ideology. Although I think the movie is less about anti-America, and more anti-Blackwater/Halliburton. And well, if you can still defend either of those, our ideologies are way too different.

Well before I write an actual movie review, I thought I’d throw this up after I went with some IMAX noobs at one of my viewings of Avatar…My friend’s friend waited over 3 hrs in line, alone, being about 20th from the front. What’s he do once he goes in? He sits 4 rows from the front bar. Which is good for a normal theater, but the front bar in a true IMAX is essentially the *very front* (as opposed to a LieMAX).  Head and neck aches ensued. From that position, the 3D didn’t sync on the far right and left unless you actually turned your head to look directly at it. I don’t fault him; he didn’t know any better. Poor guy, all that time spent waiting.

Anyway, this is primarily for Avatar-style 3D, but I suspect movies using that technology will continue to trickle in. A major component of Avatar is the immersion, so you might as well see it as it was intended and see where all that spending went, right? I’ve seen Avatar in 3D from various positions now, and I can tell you that more than any other movie I’ve seen before, positioning really had a large affect on my enjoyment of the film. With regular 2D film, it’s clear that you’re watching a flat projected image coming from a projector. But with “Cameron”-style 3D, the movie makes you feel as if you’re there. Until Total Recall technology comes around, Avatar 3D is going to be the closest to traveling to another habitable planet any of us will ever get. I really don’t think 2D or Bluray is going to do this movie justice.

A true IMAX 3D is the best way to see it in my opinion, despite what I said in the previous post on the differing 3D technology. The IMAX version has the full 1.78:1 (16:9) cut of the film, while the 2D and non-IMAX 3D cuts are 2.35:1. I ran the numbers, and we’re talking about a 25% loss in vertical image going from the IMAX cut to the non-IMAX cut. If anyone knows what cut the LieMAX screens are showing, I’d appreciate it.

For a true IMAX screen, I found 5 rows from the top is very good (this is specifically true of the true IMAX in Irvine. Your mileage may vary). It optimally puts the whole screen in your field of vision, without requiring you to move your neck side to side to see what’s on the left and right. You’re also vertically centered, so you don’t need to crane your neck up either. For all intents and purposes, the top of the IMAX is analogous to the center in a regular theater. So anywhere in the back is good. The front is the face-f**k zone. I got a little dizzy sitting that close. Plus as I mentioned before, the 3D on the sides weren’t syncing sitting that closely unless I physically turned my head to look.

For a regular, non-IMAX screen, the back is terrible. Normally I’d say the back is fine for any other film, but with the immersion factor of Avatar, sitting in the back kind of ruins it. I could see speakers and the walls of the theater in my peripheral vision. It was like watching real life Picture-in-Picture. So in this case, you’d want to sit in the middle, probably near the bar.

I haven’t seen Avatar in a LieMax, but since they’re just up-converted regular theaters, I’d guess the middle would be where to go.

Well, hope that helps some people out there.

“Cameron’s genius is this: He makes movies for women disguised as movies for men.” Definitely a pretty good balance of yin and yang.

OK, I’m addicted. I’ll admit it. I’ve seen Avatar in 3D, three times now. If I know someone that hasn’t seen it, I unabashedly agree to go with them. I’m slightly ashamed, yet the addiction is strong enough that I don’t care. Twice in Imax 3D, and once in RealD. I didn’t know there was a difference, but apparently RealD is superior. Link about different 3D tech. The trade off is that the screen is smaller, and I believe some of the image is cropped = less immersion. I sat in the back for the RealD show and it was like watching a picture-in-picture broadcast. Too much of the peripheral vision was filled by “theater”: speakers, walls, people….definitely sit around the middle or closer.

The 3D…hmm the first time I watched it, I didn’t really think it added all that much. I think it’s because Cameron used it tastefully, did the whole movie in 3D, and didn’t make it in-your-face, save a couple scenes here and there. Hence, since we naturally view things in 3D on a daily basis, I just didn’t notice it and didn’t think it added that much. However, when I saw it a 3rd time at the Irvine Imax 3D, the feed for the left eye was extremely messed up (you can verify by closing each eye individually; the image should be sharp for each). It pretty much ruined all of the 3D. That and the dumb broad next to me who was literally texting on her cell every 5 minutes. I wanted to throw that phone down the stairs. Although I’m guilty of being retarded for not saying anything…

But on the flip side, while constantly fiddling with my 3D glasses, I noticed just how much of the movie was in 3D, and how much of it I was taking for granted. I watched the trailer when I got home, and boy did it look like crap in comparison, like watching some kind of ancient Egyptian papyrus version, or some kind of stone tablet version. I seriously don’t think I can watch this movie in 2D. The bluray isn’t going to do this movie justice, so I figure I should catch it in theaters while I can, until 3D TVs come around. Our kids will wonder how we could put up with 2D TVs.

If you read the first comment in the link above, he mentions a tech called XPAND, supposedly the best of them all. There’s a theater in socal with it…tempted…