Editorial
Front Page - Friday, July 16, 2010
The Critic's Corner
David Laprad
Walking into “The Last Airbender,” I was expecting a spectacular failure, as 94 percent of the critics polled on Rotten Tomatoes had said it was one of the worst films of the year. But as I watched the movie, I kind of liked it.
Based on a Nickelodeon cartoon series that aired for three seasons beginning in 2005, “Airbender” is set in a world in which humans are divided among four nations, each of which is identified with a specific element: either Earth, Air, Water or Fire. Certain members of each nation are able to control their particular element. To keep nature in balance, one human in every generation can control all of the elements. This is the Avatar.
Avatars are born to one nation, with the ability to bend only one element, and learn to control the other elements as they mature. In addition, Avatars are born to nations in succession according to the seasons of the year: autumn for the Air Nomads; winter for the Water Tribe; spring for the Earth Kingdom; and summer for the Fire Nation.
Over 100 years prior to the beginning of the movie, the current Avatar, Aang, rejected his status while still a boy and encased himself in ice under the surface of the ocean. I don’t know how this was possible since he was just an airbender at the time, but never mind. While he was cooling his heels in suspended animation, the Fire Nation took advantage of the lack of balance in nature and killed all of the airbenders, then moved to take over the other nations.
The film opens with two teenagers with the Southern Water Tribe, Katara and Sokka, reanimating Aang. Zuko, the 16-year-old exiled prince of the Fire Nation, becomes aware of this event and moves in to capture Aang. By doing so, he hopes to take the Avatar to his father, who banished him for being a coward, and restore his honor.
I’m almost halfway through my review, and I’m still covering background material. That’s not because the narrative is too complex for its own good, but because the show’s mythology runs deep. Before seeing the movie, I read the Avatar Wiki, watched the first three episodes of season one, and asked my stepson a slew of questions. I didn’t want to go in uninformed. I was impressed with its accessible, yet rich, background tapestry, which allowed for truly dramatic storytelling within the confines of a children’s cartoon.
The movie tries to carry the plot of the entire first season, which consists of 20 half hour episodes. If there’s a problem with the script, other than overly simplistic dialog, it’s that writer and director M. Night Shyamalan tried to pack too much story into its two-hour running time, and therefore had to take several big leaps forward when small steps would have been better.
For example, Katara inexplicably says to Sokka after meeting Zuko that, “The Fire Nation must be up to something!” With that in mind, they head north so Aang can learn waterbending. One of the generals of the Fire Nations somehow knows Aang is going north and sends an army in that direction. That’s not intuition at work, it’s lazy writing.
The other BIG problem with the movie is the acting. Every actors in the film has at least a few cringe-worthy moments, while some of the actors are terrible all the way through. In particular, the man who plays the general chews the scenery like a hillbilly munching on a plug of chaw, while the actor who played Sokka reminded me of Hayden Christensen’s awkward turn as Anakin Skywalker in the “Star Wars” prequels.
The failures of “Airbender” rest on Shyamalan’s shoulders. First, he cannot direct actors. Second, his inexperience with the source material shows. After the movie, my stepson voiced several complaints about how the personalities of the characters differed from those in the show, and how Shyamalan had needlessly altered important story elements.
But Shyamalan is a talented filmmaker, and he had the resources of special effects house Industrial Light and Magic at his fingertips, so there are some great looking shots in the movie. Although the 3D was not worth the surcharge on my ticket, the visuals in the film were lush enough, and the elemental battles visually exciting enough, to make me want to see “Airbender” again in 2D.
Although “Airbender” has suffered a severe smack down from critics and fans alike, my reaction wasn’t as negative. I like the mythology, the story held my attention and the visuals were nicely done. Since most of the people who read this column are adults, and will probably not see this film without taking someone younger, this is good news. Your kids could insist you see “Marmaduke.”
Email David Laprad at dlaprad@hamiltoncountyherald.com.
|
|