Thoughts on "Avatar"

I'm having a little trouble adjusting back to reality at the moment.

This is partly because the world of Avatar in 3D was incredibly immersive, and after nearly three hours in the theatre, I've only taken off the 3D glasses ten minutes ago. I think the disorientation, however, is due to something else.

I'm wanting to describe "Avatar" with some serious glowing praise of the type that I'd expect to have to take back later. Phrases like "greatest movie ever" and "possibly the most incredible spectacle I've ever seen", and "calling this 'a movie' doesn't do it justice." Truly, it was an experience.

So I'm trying to adjust to reality by remembering other movies that have left me with similar impressions. Several years back, I walked out of the theatre convinced that the battle of Helm's Deep at the end of the Two Towers was the most epic battle sequence I could imagine, yet when Return of the King trumped it in scale and scope, I had to recant. The Matrix Reloaded was a hard-to-top spectacle of special effects that sucked me hopelessly into a virtual world, yet several years later, I remember that impression with a chuckle, since time has made its plotline campy and shown how weak the dialogue, direction, and story details were.

Does Avatar change everything? My gut response is yes -- I will probably never be able to enjoy a 2D movie experience without remembering the richness of detail and visuality of Avatar. It's a new standard by which I'll judge everything. I used to think of the detail in the sea world of "Finding Nemo" as the standard for this kind of imagery, but Avatar's is several notches better with its neon blooms, thick undergrowth and foreground flourishes. "The Dark Knight" excelled at making the viewer believe that this time, the good guy really might not win, yet Cameron pulls off a similar effect here, though the general is not as quite as ominous as The Joker. The color grading and look of "300" was awe-inspiring, to be sure, but it doesn't come close to the look of the jungle of Pandora -- quite an accomplishment for the latter considering that the stereoscopic technique hampers the color palette. The one standard that I can think of that it doesn't reset is that of a call to action - the feeling afterwards that something must be done about this once the credits start to roll. That standard would still be in the hands of the documentary crafters.

My only hesitation in giving such extreme praise is that I have not experienced very many 3D movies other than the gimmicky kind of the red-and-blue glasses, "Spy Kids" variety, where the 3D effect drives the story. Perhaps Avatar's success lies in letting the 3D technology disappear and immersing you in the world of Pandora so fully, which perhaps other digital 3D movies have been capable of achieving, though they passed under my "must see" radar while they were running in theatres.

Even so, it's tough to find a weakness in "Avatar". The story seemed quite tight and believable, once you get past the technology that makes the avatars possible to begin with. The dialogue was strong, the acting was superb, and the human / Na'vi emotions and characters were well-crafted. All in all, it just gets everything right, especially from a technical and imagineering standpoint, and I recommend that anyone who loves movies see it in 3D while you can.

I hope that in a few years, many more films will have come out that will trump Avatar in quality and appeal, but the realist in me doubts it. Avatar is simply too well-done, and a great film like it doesn't come around often enough. It threatens to remake how movies are made, and I'll gladly support any effort to continue making films of this quality, no matter what it does to my own perception of reality.