Issues with ‘Avatar’

Everyone else can love it, but the mega-blockbuster “Avatar” is certainly NOT one of my favorite movies of 2009.

James Cameron’s science-fiction epic continues to shatter box office records, and three weeks after its worldwide release, word of mouth seems to be stronger than ever. Critics have gushed over it, and many consider it to be the front runner in this year’s expanded Best Picture race at the Academy Awards.

To all of this, I say, “Eh.”

I’m not here to bash the popular kid. I’ll give “Avatar” the credit it deserves in that it’s easily the most spectacular looking movie I’ve ever seen. The special effects are seamless, and the motion-capture animation is revolutionary and realistic. Gollum in “Lord of the Rings” is nothing compared to the subtle performance by Zoe Saldana as Na’vi warrior Neytiri.

The problem is everything else.

Considering all the visual detail, one would think Cameron would give his story and characters the same intense focus. The epic story of “Avatar” seems to boil down to “FernGully” meets Disney’s “Pocahontas.” Take away the tall blue people, and all you’re left with is a generic Cowboys vs. Indians conflict.

A familiar story wouldn’t matter so much if the characters had any depth. Sam Worthington brings very little to our marine-turned-blue man protagonist, and the film’s villains couldn’t be more cookie-cutter evil.

Just in case you don’t understand Cameron’s simplistic allusions, one villain refers to a military operation as “shock and awe.” Oh how timely.

In the end, I don’t care about military critiques or eco-friendly messages. I want a story that captures my imagination and makes me care about the people (or Smurfs) onscreen. Cool visuals and actions scenes don’t mean much if I don’t understand the characters experiencing them.

I didn’t feel anything for the characters in “Avatar.” I lost them somewhere between the lazy screenplay and pretty glowing flowers. Even with two hours and 40 minutes of screen time, “Avatar” plays like level-after-level of a video game. When the inevitable climatic battle scene began, I just wanted the movie to be over. Instead a got 30 more minutes of empty visual effects.

One last gripe: Every musical score composed by James Horner sounds the same. That “emotive horn flutter” heard repeatedly in the final battle is plucked out of several of his other movies (especially “Troy” and “The Perfect Storm”).

I don’t mean to be too hard on “Avatar.” I enjoyed it as an entertaining and visually stunning blockbuster. What I don’t like is the assumption that it should be nominated for Oscars just because it has expensive 3D eye-candy.

The Academy opened the Best Picture race to 10 nominees this year in an effort to entice people to watch the ceremony. It means broad appeal movies like “Avatar” and “Up” have a chance to be recognized alongside smaller-scale critical darlings like “Precious” and “Up in the Air.”

I support the larger field as long as voters actually nominate the best mainstream movies and not just the one that came out most recently. I’d argue that “Avatar” is only the third best science-fiction film of 2009, behind the “Star Trek” reboot and “District 9.”

“Avatar” deserves accolades for its art direction and special effects. I’d even argue that Cameron deserves a Best Director nomination just for presiding over the details of this visually ambitious work.

But Best Picture? I say OK as long as they rename it “Dances with FernGully.”

First appeared in The Coeur d’Alene Press.