Let me get the basics out of the way. Avatar is a great movie. Everyone will tell you that it's worth seeing. Some people will tack on "…if only for special effects." That's the easiest way to tell the reluctant snob: they make apologies for enjoying a movie with a big budget. (If you want to irritate these would-be critics, say something like "I don't know, I hear it has subtitles…)
Assuming you have the capacity to enjoy the occasional Blockbuster, this film won't disappoint. Some people will complain that the plot is predictable. So was Moby Dick. Look up foreshadowing. The truth is, I wouldn't be surprised if this movie, besides inevitably becoming a landmark film for special effects and immersive environment design, ends up becoming a textbook example of effective progressive exposition of a sci-fi world. There's no confusion, the plot is neither delayed nor interrupted to explain what's going on, and the story continues at a rapid but even pace. What else could be as important?
But the biggest question to come out of this is "Is 3D ( or D3D as it seems to be known) that much of an added value? You might think this has already been answered, with previous 3D films, but I would disagree. I likes Beowulf in 3D--but then again I had better; that was the only reason I went to see it. The fact that Gaiman threw together an interesting twist on the classic only proved to be icing on the cake. If you have seen any films so far in 3D, ask yourself, was the 3D really an enhancement, or was I going to see the novelty?"
Don't get me wrong, polarized glasses that don't give you a headache are a real accomplishment. And I certainly enjoyed some of the 3D gimmickry of Avatar. But was it more immersive as a result, or was it just frosting that would have fit on top of any cake? Perhaps I sat a little too close to the screen, but it certainly took while to get comfortable adjusting focus, and even then, action too much in the foreground was not clear. My brother, who sat with me and who has seen from farther back assures me that that is a problem no matter where you sit. His biggest concern was that, sitting so close to the screen, you have some difficulty in following action when it becomes faster and busier--i.e. whenever the money-making action starts going on.
I will admit that seeing the drifting seeds of that tree of souls (or whatever it is that's supposed to be Pandora's equivalent of the huge chunk of plaster in the middle of Disney's Animal Kingdom them park) did make me feel more like I was in the jungle, so to speak. But the rest, from the long tunnel view of the opening carrier to the ubiquitous flying-lizard-tail-in-the-face of the end battle scene, all made me say "what a cool effect" rather than "what a cool experience." And the latter, which can be correctly said with respect to the seemless integration of computer animation and physical acting, is what you are really trying to say when you want to enshrine a film as a blockbuster classic.
So go ahead, pay the extra $3 to see it in 3D, because it is cool, and you do want to see that, and there aren't many offerings at the moment, and you'll have years to celebrate the 2D experience when you own the Blu-Ray. But if you're friends are running late and it looks like you won't make the 3D showing, or you want to see it a second time in a different way, or the theater is crowded and you'll be forced up front, or all your experience with 3D offerings have left you asking "why bother?" then don't be too hesitant to watch it in 2D. It will still be a special experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment