'Avatar' (James Cameron, 2009)

Title: 'Avatar'

Release Year: 2009

Director: James Cameron

Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Sigourney Weaver, Joel David Moore.

Plot: 2154. After he loses both of his legs, Jake Sully is commanded the mission of infiltrating between the Na'vis, the native inhabitants of planet Pandora, which contains the solution to the Earth's energy crisis. To do that, he uses an Avatar with which he can finally move his legs again. But after he's saved by one of the Na'vis and accepted among them, the vision he has on whether he belongs to a side or another blurs.

Review: I first saw 'Avatar' a couple of years ago and had no intention to include it in the project, but after thinking about it, I convinced myself that its technological achievements were worth mentioning (we're talking about America's cinema history, which -although I focused on them- it's not necessarily the same as America's best films).

So before we go the obvious negative side, let's point that out; 'Avatar''s technology is groundbreaking. The results of Cameron's efforts through more than a decade. The special effects are remarkable and the new methods he used to capture actors' gestures justify the movie's atrocious budget. But is that enough to praise a film?

Let's not fool ourselves. If 'Avatar' became such a hit three years ago it's because it had the name of Titanic's director behind and people turned blind with it's marketing campaign: "Hey! The production cost 300 milion dollars, those effects must be really good!" Gimmicks. That's one of the reasons I love independent cinema; there, a movie must earn the audience, not buy it. And both mainstream public and film industry keep making the same mistake; we eat what they sell us, no matter how fresh or rotten it is, we don't stop a second to be critical.

Avatar special effects are impressive, but the only other field in which it outstands is in reminding us that we mustn't be fooled by mainstream tendencies, a trend that's becoming dangerously common in modern day society (and nowadays' film industry)

And I accept that Avatar was not horrible. I'm not going to say that it's the typical terrible blockbuster that audiences devour in summer. However, smashing the box-office is one thing (not very much can be expected from those responsible for making 'Transformers'' last film another economic success) and receiving critical praise is another. I mean; Oscars? Really? Of course the movie had a ticket for the Kodak Theatre since Cameron made public how much the special effects cost, but Best Film? We can't let the general craze think for us. 'Avatar' was far from bad, but it was even further from outstanding; the plot was corny, predictable and less original than a yogurt's advertisement (Anybody remembered 'Pocahontas' when they decided the nominees?) and I'm sorry, (not really) but Cameron's budget can't hide that with so many effects the avatar's expressions (intended to look exactly like the actor's ones) were less natural than Belen Esteban selling precooked chicken. 'Avatar' was, most of the time, entertaining. Nothing more. The only thing that James Cameron did (which he didn't need to when actually good material was behind 'Titanic') was hiding his film's flaws behind gimmicks. And groundbreaking cinema is about finding new acting techniques, or delivering fresh stories. In this case we only see an overrated blockbuster that through a good campaign and Cameron's tricks became one of the most mediocre Academy Award nominated films for the Best Picture category in the last decade. And it almost won...