34.0°

'Avatar'

20th Century Fox

2 hours, 42 minutes

James Cameron has done the impossible, again. First, they said it was a fool's errand to spend so much money, the most ever spent on a movie, to film a sappy love story about a sinking ship. Of course, "Titanic" went on to win more Oscars and make more money than any movie before or since.

This time around there were fewer naysayers, but still the task, simple as it sounds, was a daunting one. With "Avatar," Cameron's goal was to create completely digital characters that were virtually indistinguishable from the regular human ones. And so, once again spending more money than anyone ever has, the king of the world has proven that, for him at least, nothing is impossible.

It is no exaggeration to say I was blown away by "Avatar." The story, well-told but fairly simple, revolves around Jake Sully, a disabled Marine offered a chance to be of some use on a distant mission. A small planet orbiting a gas giant in the Alpha Centauri solar system has been discovered to be rich in the mineral "unobtanium." (The name of the mineral, by the way, is just about the only dumb thing about this movie). The substance is so valuable that it justifies the incredible cost involved in getting it. The trip to the planet, Pandora, alone is just over six years long, and once there, it's the planet's flora and fauna that prove substantial obstacles. Most substantial of all are the planet's intelligent humanoid inhabitants, the Na'vi, who are understandably against the raping of their environment.

In an attempt to both win hearts and minds, as well as obtain first-hand scientific data concerning the bizarre and fascinating ecosystem of Pandora, mission scientists have developed a way to create "avatars" -- essentially empty bodies, biologically Na'vi, but able to be "driven" by their human counterparts. Sully, in his avatar body, is asked to integrate himself into the Na'vi's primitive society -- to learn their ways, gather intelligence, and ideally to help the natives understand and accept the humans. Once accepted into the tribe, however, Jake finds his loyalties clouded.

"Avatar," despite its technical brilliance, sticks to a pretty standard story. That's fine, if you can tell it well, and Cameron does. His standard villains, corporate raiders and short-sighted military men, are all in attendance. Since he makes so few movies, it's easy to carry the thread of his standard anti-corporation eco-theme from the "Terminator" movies to "Aliens" to "The Abyss," and finally to "Avatar."

This movie reminded me most, however, of a Costner movie rather than a Cameron one. "Avatar" can't be said to completely mirror "Dances With Wolves," but it certainly comes close. And, much as was heard with the Oscar-winning western, James Cameron has taken some flak for his portrayal of the "noble savage." I suppose some argument can be made that not all primitive societies were peaceful, just like not all technologically advanced ones are aggressive, but for the purposes of storytelling, it's much more compelling to ask us to root for the underdog, the side with bows and arrows instead of the ones with 50-calibre machine guns.

Besides, Cameron's greatest achievement in "Avatar" is not the plot, it's the Na'vi themselves.

Cinema has a long tradition of animation, just like it has a tradition of regular live-action filmmaking. For a long time, the two existed side by side, rarely ever mixing. Sure, you got the occasional "Incredible Mr. Limpet," or "Yellow Submarine," but the first time a real attempt to have animated characters interact fully with live-action characters came with "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," in 1988.

It's become pretty commonplace today, with the introduction of computer graphics, to have bizarre and fantastic creatures fully inhabiting the same space as their live counterparts. Usually these characters are little more than set dressing, like the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park" or Dobby the house-elf in "Harry Potter," on screen for short periods and no real acting to do.

Occasionally, though, filmmakers attempt to bring actual dramatic development to these digital cartoons, with varying success. Lucas gave us Jar Jar Binks and, irritating though he was, it was pretty amazing at the time to see him goofing around with Obi Wan. Peter Jackson went one further and attempted to create a fully rounded character in Gollum, by far the most tragic player in "Lord of the Rings." Gollum was a true leap forward -- he became more than just a special effect. But though you could care about him, he never actually looked real. There was never any doubt you were watching an animated figure.

With the Na'vi, however, all that has changed. These digital creations make Gollum look like claymation by comparison. Yes, the special effects in the movie -- the giant creatures, the floating mountains, the bioluminescent forests -- are all spectacular. But it's the natives, 10-feet tall and blue though they are, that make the film. It's hard to describe how real they look, except to say that they don't look at all fake. They don't flow smoothly like their predecessors do -- they just move.

There has been a lot of talk about how "Avatar" is a game changer in terms of filmmaking. I can't speak to the 3-D aspect, having never actually seen one, but in terms of fully integrating digital characters who give real, nuanced performances, this film is pretty revolutionary. That, combined with a solid story and good, steady acting by a talented cast make "Avatar" one of the best movies I've seen this year.

Grade: A

"Avatar" is rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence, language, and partial blue nudity.

Chris Jenness is a freelance graphic designer, artist and movie buff who lives in Nikiski.