News|Movies|BD & DVD|Writings|Other

Sunday, May 2, 2010

BD impressions: Avatar

8:19 PM / BD Impressions / 9 Comments

I see no point in making all the predictable "DANCES WITH SMURFS" and "POCAHONTAS II" jokes that I'm sure you've all heard a hundred times before. Yes, AVATAR's script is incredibly derivative. Let's move on.

Unlike just about everyone else on the planet, I didn't see AVATAR in the cinema. The BD was my first introduction to it, and as such, I've "only" seen it in 2D. Opinions vary wildly on whether or not this actually makes any difference. Some people claim it's a completely different experience in 3D; others say it's not that big a deal. The latter point of view was summed up quite succinctly by a work colleague who, when I asked if she'd seen it in 3D, replied "Well, supposedly."

So yeah, that's my proviso: I haven't seen AVATAR in 3D. You may (or may not) wish to bear that in mind when I say I wasn't exactly overwhelmed bit it. It's technically impressive for sure (even if the Na'avi designs are spectacularly goofy), and has some well-choreographed action scenes. I can't say the narrative resonated with me one bit, however, and quelle surprise, it's a good hour longer than it needed to be. I always say that films need a damn good reason for continuing past the two-hour marker and this one, with its flat, uninteresting characters, clichéd "technology vs. nature" narrative and general lack of anything of interest except for its technical advancements and a few genuinely stunning images, didn't seem to have one. I actually felt myself getting droopy eyelid syndrome on a few occasions during the final hour, as action sequence after action sequence unfolds, serving no apparent purpose except to pad out the running time.

Can I understand why many people were enthralled by AVATAR? Absolutely. Am I one of them? Absolutely not. I actually went in with a sneaking suspicion that I might end up hating it - none of the trailers or EPKs I'd seen had done anything to convince me it was a film I would enjoy - and was rather relieved that this wasn't the case, but for me the pleasures it offered were rather limited and I can't see myself watching it again any time soon... in 2D OR 3D.

Image quality: I confess that I find it very hard to objectively rate BDs of films that have been photographed digitally, because all too often the artefacts that are inherent in the photographic process itself bear a striking resemblance to those of a poorly encoded BD (or one derived from a poor master). There are no two ways about it: the live action segments of AVATAR look pretty underwhelming. The computer-generated material is much better, and I believe that the quality of the encode itself can only be objectively measured by ignoring the live action entirely and concentrating solely on the CG. But then, of course, you're still left with the problem that the live action footage - a significant portion of film - looks rather unimpressive, regardless of precisely WHY that is. I don't doubt that AVATAR will be many people's new demo disc of choice, and I completely understand why, but if I wanted to show off the format's capabilities, I would be more likely to put on something film-sourced, or at least something like ZOMBIELAND or THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON, whose digital photography is much less underwhelming than this.

Avatar
studio: 20th Century Fox; country: UK; region code: AB; codec: AVC;
file size: 41.8 GB; average bit rate (including audio): 37.05 Mbit/sec

9 Comments

 
To combat spam, commenting is automatically disabled on entries older than 30 days.

Did a comment you tried to post accidentally get eaten by the spam filter? It happens from time to time. I get upwards of 200 spam comments every day and unfortunately don't have the time to weed through all of them in case something genuine ended up there by mistake. If one of your posts gets incorrectly flagged as spam, email me at whiggles[at]ntlworld[dot]com and I'll do my best to retrieve it.