james cameron

The show has been ranked as the second most disappointing show in London in a Private Tours England study of TripAdvisor data. For me, it more than lived down to the hype

In the months after the first Avatar film hit the silver screen in 2009 and smashed its way to the title of the highest-grossing film ever, it’d be fair to assume that the future of cinema was 3D.

Indeed, the film’s director James Cameron has repeatedly argued as much, declaring in 2014: “I believe all movies should be made in 3D, forever”, praising 3D films as “stunning visual experiences which ‘turbocharge’ the viewing of the biggest, must-see movies.”

A decade on, it’s clear that the movie industry at large disagrees. Since the record year of 2011, when more than 100 3D movies were shown in theaters, new 3D releases have steadily declined to a quarter of that number.

READ MORE: I stayed at UK’s worst hotel and used UV light in my windowless room – I wasn’t preparedREAD MORE: Seven ‘red list’ destinations Brits should not travel to in 2026

I side with film critic Roger Ebert, who argued that “3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension” that is “unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness” and causes “nausea and headaches.”

In exactly the same way, Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience (recently named the second most disappointing attraction in London in a Private Tours England study of TripAdvisor data) manages to turn the work of one of the greatest painters into a farcical, queasy spectacle.

The show is the work of Fever Up and first welcomed visitors in 2021. It did so a year after Emily of Emily in Paris fame visited a similar exhibition in the French capital, leading several companies to set up similar shows in Europe and the US.

Perhaps I was unlucky and chose the wrong one. Or maybe they’re all as disappointing as one another.

The warning signs began when I walked right down Shoreditch’s Commercial Street and past the exhibition entrance, which was very easy to miss. Once safely through the inauspicious door, I found myself in a strangely dark, cramped hallway where a woman sat in a chair checked my ticket. It was a Monday evening, but the low-effort entrance felt curiously at odds with the £25-a-person entrance fee.

It would’ve been entirely forgotten had Fever Up invested the savings into the exhibition itself. In reality, what lay beyond the hallway was a complete mess of a show that not only added nothing to the work of the Dutch painter but made it much worse.

The exhibition features two main rooms. The first is fairly similar to a typical gallery, featuring printouts of Van Gogh’s paintings on the walls and a brief overview of the artist’s life. This was my favourite bit, despite the fact I could’ve just read the Van Gogh Wikipedia page and learned considerably more. Or gone to see one of the many Van Goghs that are permanently displayed for free in London, such as the National Gallery’s Sunflowers and The Courtauld’s Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear, rather than the texture-free printouts.

The second room, and the supposed main event, was even more disappointing. The large space was devoid of physical objects beyond a couple of deckchairs and a bench. Projected onto the wall were computer-altered versions of Van Gogh’s paintings in which the swirls swirl and the petals flutter about a little. Maybe I had expected too much, but I was not immersed.

Others have suffered worse fates. One colleague told me they’d been sick after gazing up at the lightly undulated walls for too long.

I left the exhibition just 30 minutes after walking in, feeling not only short-changed but also quite sad.

One of the Wikipedia-style blurbs had detailed Van Gogh’s final years, when he cut off his ear before suffering through several months of hallucinations, paranoid spells and a period in Saint-Paul asylum. Shortly after, he walked into a wheat field and shot himself in the chest with a revolver.

From afar, it seems that an unbearable sadness hung over Van Gogh throughout his life, made worse by his self-perceived failure as an artist and great concern that he was a burden on his brother. That he never lived to see how revered and beloved his work is today is a great shame. The only scrap of solace is that he never lived long enough to endure an evening at Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience.

The exhibition closed in London last autumn and subsequently moved to Belfast, Bristol, York and Leicester.

Fever Up has been contacted for comment.

Have you been to Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience? Let us know what you thought of it in the comments below or by emailing webtravel@reachplc.com

Fire replaces water as the elemental character in James Cameron’s “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” It’s even weaponized by Varang (Oona Chaplin), the ruthless leader of the volcano-dwelling Ash People, in their war against the rest of the Na’vi tribes.

“After figuring out water in all its complexity in [‘The Way of Water’], we focused on fire,” Cameron said about his VFX Oscar front-runner. “Fire is very much the same — you have to be very observant of [this] in the world. This is where having an understanding of physics — which I do — helps, and this is where a lot of real-world photography and reference comes in handy.”

Creating more realistic-looking fire in CG required Cameron to apply his understanding of fuel and how it burns, including flow rates, the interaction of temperature gradients, the speed of an object that’s burning and the formation of carbon and soot.

In essence, fire became the centerpiece of every scene — and a character with its own escalating drama. That’s where the VFX wizards of Wētā FX in New Zealand came in. They developed Kora, a high-fidelity tool set for physics-based chemical combustion simulations. Kora increased the scale of fire while providing more artist-friendly controls. The film contains more than 1,000 digital fire FX shots, ranging from flaming arrows and flamethrowers to massive explosions and fire tornadoes.

“Physical fire is really hard to control, so we had to come up with how to bend the physics towards the direction that Jim was giving it,” said Wētā senior VFX supervisor Joe Letteri. “Because he was very specific where he wanted the fire, what kind of speed, rate, size, how much or how little energy. He very carefully crafted every component, guiding your eye across it.”

“Fire serves two roles,” added Eric Saindon, a VFX supervisor at Wētā. “There’s always a little bit of low fire going on during quiet moments, but then you get fire that becomes much more destructive whenever there’s an attack sequence.”

In the film’s best scene, where archvillain Col. Quaritch (Stephen Lang) and Varang meet for the first time in her tent, fire takes on a more subtle, mysterious quality. She gives Quaritch a trippy “truth drug” to ascertain his real agenda, seductively playing with fire with her fingers like a sorceress. The scene turns surreal with camera distortion and zoom shots to convey his hallucinatory point of view.

Then Quaritch surprises her with his superpower: the truth. He proposes a partnership to provide his military weaponry so she can spread her fire across the world and he can rule as her co-equal. “In a strange way, they become the power couple from hell,” Cameron said. “He wins her over by sharing his vision.”

The physical properties of fire drove much of the visual effects work in “Avatar: Fire and Ash.”

(20th Century Studios)

Meanwhile, the subtle flicker of fire with cool blues around the edges of the flame is like a magic trick. “She knows it’s about theater, so she presumably has some kind of a gel or makeup that’s on the tips of her fingers so that they just don’t burn away in the first few seconds,” Cameron continued. “She’s able to dip her fingers in some kind of inflammable oil and light them and have them burn like candles. Of course, in his mind, it’s all enhanced much more due to the hallucinogen.”

Cameron praised both actors in the scene, but singled out Chaplin’s performance for the force she brings to Varang’s shamanistic authority. “She understood how the character would manifest her power psychologically and how there was a flip in the scene, where the flow of power runs the other direction at a certain point.”

The director also commended Wētā’s facial capture animation team for achieving a new level of photorealism, thanks in large measure to more realistic muscle and skin movement. “The way Oona’s performance comes through so resoundingly in the character is a tribute to a lot of R&D, a lot of development in the facial pipeline. But I think it really demonstrates how the idea of CG as a kind of digital makeup really does work. What I’m proud about in that scene is that it’s a culmination of an almost 20-year journey in terms of getting exact verisimilitude in the facial representation of the characters as an extension of the actors’ work.”

“It was really fun showing Varang to Jim because he knew what he had in the performance,” added Dan Barrett, a senior animation supervisor at Wētā. “And he included Oona’s idiosyncrasies in the final animation. He was very respectful of the performance.”

In fact, Cameron argues, Chaplin’s performance as Varang is Oscar-worthy. “It may be counterintuitive, but I would argue that it’s a more pure form of acting,” he suggested. “Now, you may say that it’s cheating in terms of the cinematography in the sense that the cards are stacked in our favor because that perfect performance will always be there and will be repeatable as I do my different camera coverage. But it’s not cheating in terms of the acting.”

Cameron has recently been more proactive in demonstrating how the performance-capture process works to academy and SAG-AFTRA acting members so they can better understand it. “It was just us, working on capturing a scene, and I even wrote new scenes so it wasn’t a made-up dog-and-pony show. And they were blown away,” he added.