It wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. I'd actually say I found it a little easier to watch than Highlander: The Source, which I couldn't even bring myself to hate the way I hated, say Big Momma's House 2 or In the Name of the King, which were movies of pure technical incompetence and carelessness and were bad in every which way. (And I had hopes for In the Name of the King because I know many of those actors are better than that movie--but oh, what a bad miscarriage of a movie it was.)
I am a softy. I give points for trying.
It took me a couple of days to figure out what was missing or could be done better. Other people have definitely written savage reviews and reviews that trashed different aspects--I would say, and this surprises me in no way, the best savage review I read was at Io9. I didn't really want to go that route with the review--but here's what I think:
Not even midway through the movie, I found myself wondering what other directors would have done with the material. This is a bad sign. (But Shamalyan is not one of my faves. I don't know why. He just tries to do this "Hey, I surprised the audience with the thing I did" twist in his movies which is...dumb. Okay. I pulled your finger the first time, Uncle Clever. Now entertain me.) I re imagined it as a Del Toro film--darker, more adult, more fantastic (rewritten, better dialogue) and as a Spielberg film (entertaining and well-crafted with characters who were juveniles, but not juvenilely treated.) Also, I thought about how I would have gone about doing it differently.
I would have started with Aang, not with Katara and her brother discovering him under the ice. Why not start with a little back story--shown, not told? This way, when Aang finds that his home was destroyed by the Firebenders, we already pre-emptively have an emotional connection with them? There's just no reason not to know that Aang ran away from the responsibility of being the Avatar right away. Starting with the back story would make the rest of the story cohere better. The flashbacks show that he had a mentor that was like a father--more of that would have been great! Show him being a kid so we can sympathize with how a youth has this thing thrust upon him.
Then we could start understanding him as a character with an arc, as the pretentious people who care about such things say.
Now, I never saw the animated series, so I'm at a loss for how faithful the movie is to the series. The hints that Katara and Aang are going to bond later along the lines of Anakin and Padme creep me out a little because--they do. I don't know if that's something built-in or what, of if I'm just misreading the heck out of that. But I will say the dialogue is at least as bad as Lucas. I so agree with Charlie Anders--Aasif Mandvi does look a little like he's too aware that what his character is saying is sooo stock-villian-y. But he's still one of the people who is fun to watch in this movie. As are Dev Patel and Shaun Toub--their motivation seems more concrete.
As for goofy melodramatic things like: "We need to show them that we believe in our beliefs as much as they believe in their beliefs." which Katara really does say--the stupidity is, it has so little to do with belief at this point. The Fire folks believe the other 'Benders should be ruled by them or wiped out, and the other people just pretty much believe they should neither be ruled by Fire folks or wiped out. It's not all that heavily ideological so much as existential. I think the real melodramatic bullshit line was when Aang is meditating in the sacred area of the Northern Water tribe and communing with the yin-yang fish, and might as well have a "Do Not Disturb" sign on his head, when Katara offers the weirdly wrong-sounding encouragement that she "always knew" he was the Avatar.
Always knew? Since when? Like, since her grandmom told her earlier in the movie, when it seemed a little like the youngin's had no idea about the Avatar? Or like, since it was kind of obvious that he was the Avatar--why bother saying that? Was it doubtful? Is he supposedly meditating because he doesn't know people think that and are rooting for him to spiritually kick ass? Or was it more like Katara is not speaking as a character (who would have motivations, a personality, and a story) but as an embodiment of the hopes of all the oppressed people depending upon the Avatar?
If the latter--boo. She's Katara. If she has to speak for anybody, let her speak for herself. Develop the character.
The movie was big-budget but clocks in under two hours. I think with attention to the story and character development, the movie could have been a little longer and cost the same but been qualitatively better. More showing, less telling. More confrontation, less narrative. There were good ideas that were explored, like Aang learning to accept the consequences of not accepting his destiny, or the idea that Princess Yue sacrifices herself for the greater good because it gives her purpose--these things shouldn't be rushed or piled in.
I dunno. I see a lot of promise in the material, but just don't think it was made into a good-enough movie. And I won't necessarily knock against the young actors in it, because I can't separate their performances from what they were performing in.
The movie was entirely set up for a sequel. Even though I was lukewarm about this, I would probably watch the sequel, anyway, on the off-chance that lessons would be learned.
I give points, as I said, for trying.
No comments:
Post a Comment