Tooth Fairy - Review

I freely admit that Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson is a guilty pleasure of mine in every sense of the word. As a male, I wish I had his physique. I wish I could have his athletic skill. I don't necessarily want his acting talent but I won't reject his success. Dwayne Johnson stars in Tooth Fairy as aging hockey player Derek Thompson. Derek Thompson is stuck in the minor leagues struggling with the fears of his crumbling career. He is also in a promising relationship that never seems to get off the ground due to his selfish atttitude. Through a twist of fate or magic or whatever he becomes a tooth fairy for a couple of weeks so he can learn that there is still magic in this world and the greatest fear in life is losing ones sense of wonder.

Tooth Fairy is part Santa Claus and part The Game Plan. There isn't anything really new in the story and all the plot twists are relatively predictable even for a PG rated audience. I guess the joy in this film comes from watching a rather large individual dress up in powder blue pajamas with fairy wings and then eventually covering his powder blue pajama fairy costume in hockey pads. Is it entertaining? I won't deny it - I chuckled. It helps that Stephen Merchant (co-creator of the hit show The Office) plays the tooth fairy case worker assigned to help the confused hockey player complete his assignments. Julie Andrews plays the fairy godmother and Billy Crystal has a goofy but delightful cameo as the gadget man for the tooth fairy agency. Oh and Ashley Judd is in the movie as the girlfriend with the the daughter who is told by Derek that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy and a son that is struggling through those early teen years. Again, nothing new here.... selfish egomaniac discovers that his own fears ruins the dreams of others, his heart is melted by the kindness of strangers and a family wanting to love him.

Dwayne Johnson is not a great actor but he is more flexible than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone ever were or could have been. He has the ability to deliver some fun lines and use more facial expressions that Harrison Ford has ever had. He is more charming than the bland and robotic Vin Diesel. He also has the size to pull of the silly sight gag of wearing a tutu. He plays everything pretty straight and like every one of his roles you rarely get the impression that he is playing the role rather than playing himself. I suppose that is why much of his roles are of an arrogant athlete. At the same time, the scenes between Johnson and Merchant are charming. Johnson holds his own, delivering clever jokes and bad puns back forth between the great comedic talent Merchant. Hopefully Merchant becomes the new Eric Idle or John Cleese, co-starring in a variety of films as the funny English guy. Merchant is really funny in his role as Tracy the case worker that desires to move up and become a real tooth fairy.

Tooth Fairy is certainly not a great movie but it has some moments that are pretty darn funny. It also has lengthy moments that can be completely ignored. I'd try not to ignore the moments with Merchant. I wonder if Dwayne Johnson will continue to make these films directed for children or if he will ever attempt a role that can actually challenge his ability as an actor. Tooth Fairy is directed at children but with that in mind there is very little physical humor and sight gags that would interest children or at least young children. Many of the lines delivered by Johnson, Merchant and even Crystal are sarcastic nuggets, banter or bad (but good) puns that I am unsure children would understand. I say this because at the age of 27 I still miss a good (but bad) pun from time to time.

Tooth Fairy might not be that good but it has 20 minutes of intentional humor in a 90 minute movie and that is a lot better than a lot of other so called comedies I have seen as of late. It might be hard to recommend the movie unless you like guilty pleasures or lack high expectations, enjoy the Rock or the notion of Dwayne Johnson playing hockey. It is a relatively funny concept. Carry on Mr. Johnson. Carry on.

Up In the Air - Review

Up In the Air is a film about a man who travels around the country laying off workers for a variety of companies. Clooney is Ryan Bingham. Bingham is the hired gun sent to companies to do their dirty work. He is not the guy who makes the million dollar deal at the last second or saves the company from corporate espionage. He fires people. On his spare time, he delivers motivational speeches directed to those struggling to become independent from the things that tie them down like a relationship, house or even a job.

The film starts off with Bingham firing workers. He comes back home to Omaha to discover that his job is being threatened by a young and idealistic new employee. Her idea is to stop sending Bingham and other agents out into the field to lay off workers but to stay in the office and do the dirty work over an internet connection and video feed. Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) is the young go getter that insists that this new transition in the company's procedure will not make Bingham's position obsolete. Bingham is weary of this new technique and believes his job requires a certain sensitivity not found on a computer screen. After a debate with his boss Bingham is ordered to show Natalie the ropes. They go on a cross country tour of firing company workers and along the way Bingham dishes out job mentoring along with travel tips and relationship advice.

On his travels he encounters Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) a female counterpart that is quick witted, sexually adventurous and as she puts it - Ryan Bingham but with a vagina. Alex and Ryan connect and eventually Bingham who once stood on the principle of solitude where things, objects, places and people do nothing but weigh you down is falling in love with Alex.

As Ryan bonds with Alex, he builds a friendship with his new coworker and reconnects with his two sisters over his baby sisters weddings ceremony. It seems a bit odd but other than difficulties of his profession, it is never understood why Clooney's character is so adamant about being alone. Quick to judge and easy to distance himself Bingham left home. Other than the harsh Wisconsin winter it is hard to understand why. His family seems like pleasant small town folk that dream of traveling the world but struggle financially to do anything let alone travel. If there is a more sinister wolf underneath sheep's clothing than I could not see it.

Eventually Clooney decides to give it all up for the woman he loves. He can no longer make lengthy public speeches about the trials of personal and intimate relationships. He suddenly wants to find himself attached. He has discovered, as he convinced his soon to be step brother not to leave his sister on their wedding day, everyone needs a co-pilot. Unfortunately the woman he chooses is married. A surprise that doesn't come off as shocking, unfounded but not shocking. The discovery of her marriage dashes a relatively clever film with a cliche twist. Bingham makes a decision to include someone in his life but that decision is ruined by her marriage thus his next decision to travel the globe with his 10 million air miles doesn't seem like a gradual evolution of thought but a reactionary one. How differently would the film have been if Bingham was simply rejected? Instead of her saying no because of her marriage, her simply saying no out of choice might have been a better parallel to his occupation and the fate of the workers he fires. Like Ryan, the viewer knows very little about Alex. Her marriage is a bit of a surprise but the film lacks any clues to merit this turn of events.

Director Jason Reitman does a fine job creating a methodical tempo for the film. With the repetition of scenes, sequences, and dialogue Clooney's Bingham character isn't a machine but a creature of habit. We see him travel, deliver motivational speeches, pack, and fire people with a consistency that doesn't get old but displays the success of his formula. The character had found success in this repetition but so does the film until the very end. As his life begins to change, Bingham changes his routine. It is meant to symbolize a changed man. A man slighlty unhinged. unfortunately the viewer is robbed of a key scene. At the end of the film, at a big motivational conference where Bingham has been invited to deliver his speech but cannot go through with it. He is in love and cannot deliver a speech about the profits of being content in being alone. He runs off the stage and is hit by the marriage of his lover. It is an unfortunate twist that the viewer doesn't get a chance to see Clooney deliver his motto for the third time. To see that speech for the third time would be a real chance to show the development of the character. It could have been that scene that everyone remembers. Why that speech doesn't exist is unfortunate. It would have been interesting to see if Clooney could dish out the goods. To see if he could deliver the same speech with the same impact but with different intentions and the opposite perspective would have been a sight to see.

Clooney has never been a great actor but he is perfectly cast in this role as Bingham. He is cheated out of the big impact scene that Hollywood films love to display. The scene where he saves his sister's marriage is cute and the scene in which he discusses his relationship with Alex over the phone lacks impact. He is perfectly cast because he is good looking enough to play the cavalier jet setting playboy. He has always come off as a charming guy and charming is something Bingham has to be to deliver the speeches and the pick me up motivational pep talks after laying off a half dozen people before lunch. He is lady killer and life coach. Clooney delivers his lines like slogans and the richness of his voice only adds fuel to the fire.

One also has to admire Reitman as he does not shy away from making a man whose job is to fire people the hero of his film, in this economy. It takes a certain amount of guts to make a film in which he tries to stir sympathy for characters that do and do not feel bad about firing people. I am not sure if his attempts at sympathy work but it certainly takes a certain amount of balls to film it. Rietman is crafty enough to never plea for Bingham to receive any amount sympathy but allows Natalie to garner some as her innocence seems lost. Sympathy doesn't come to those who have lost their job, at least not until one is actually fired via video conference. It is only when one person is fired through Internet communication that we feel sorry for the nameless company staffer and it is a sympathy that seems to come from how he is being fired rather than the firing itself. It is a hard message to sell. It is not exactly the Dr. Frankenstein or his monster story line. The viewer never gets the perspective of the company letting the workers go and Reitman again shows a certain objectivity by never making any of the companies the villain. I repeat, It is a hard argument to sell. It is argument that is never fully developed or convincing but that does not deminish the attempt or the cojones Reitman must have to relay the message.

Another thing to possibly examine is the portrayal of women in the film. Natalie is innocent and emotionally ruined by the news of her boyfriend leaving her. She also quits the company after word that one of the people she let go committed suicide. An act that leaves little to no impression on Bingham. She quits and pursues the career that she always wanted without the "typical" female pursuits of house, husband and family that caused her to abandon her original plans. While interviewing for her new position it seems unlikely that the position would have been filled with out the help of Ryan. The appropriately named Alex is the only other female of note and there is an interesting role reversal between her and Ryan. In some ways, at least stereotypically, she is more the dominant male figure compared to Ryan. She is sexually adventurous, commits a secretive affair and does not get emotionally attached to Ryan's plea for love. One might wonder who truly is the emotionally detached one of the two. It is also a woman that kills herself after being fired. It is so hard to see any positive female character in this film but the very same could be said for the men and the main character.

Up In the Air is a clever film that suffers from the occasional bout of stupidity. It is a movie that seems obsessed with debating youth and immaturity against adulthood and responsibility. The movie constantly refers to these two sides as Bingham lives his lifestyle. Is he a child for living the way he lives? Is he avoiding responsibility? Is he one step ahead of the game? Is he not mature for being able to separate his personal life with his professional one? With all this said, there is a great philosophical argument to be made about his alone man on an island routine but that argument is never made. It becomes a little frustrating that none of the characters as smart as they are never speak of anything else but what it means to be an adult.

Another lapse in judgement is the montage of workers who share their feelings about losing their job and the role their family or loved ones have played in helping them cope. It seems odd that Reitman would throw this scene in at the very end of the film. It seems like an obvious statement. The statement being that it is hard to live life alone and through the rough times, good friends and family can do a lot to help. The scene involving the recently laid off is not needed unless the director feels that the central message of the film is not clear or lost upon his audience. Reitman either doesn't believe his argument is sound or believes that the audience is too stupid to simply get it. It is a lapse in judgement to add this scene. Reitman comes off as not trusting his audience. If he desperately wanted to include their stories then it would have been better suited for the ending credits.

Up In the Air has a cheap plot twist in the end, an underdeveloped argument about being an adult, characters that lack back story, and failures in the editing room. With all that said, it is not a bad movie. Reitman somehow manages to make cram enough postcard imagery into a film about traveling along with enough humor and romantic intrigue to keep the film afloat. Clooney is good but is robbed of any moment to make it a great performance. Reitman is proving to be a skilled director and his ability to create humor out of despair and difficult situations is welcomed. Reitman who has also directed Thank You For Smoking and Juno seems perfectly fine with making movies about outcasts, rejects and loners. Bingham is a little bit of all those things. He is an outcast in his profession, rejected by the one he loves and in the end, ultimately alone.

It's Complicated - Review

Meyers first success was What Women Want with Mel Gibson as a marketing executive struggling to save his job and relationship with his daughter. Through a stroke of luck, magic or mystery he is able to hear the inner thoughts of the female sex. Something's Gotta Give stars Diane Keaton's as a play write struggling through a block and her daughters relationship for an older man as well her own feelings for that older man, played by Jack Nicholas. Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet are best friends trying to deal with heart ache while getting away from their normal lives in The Holiday. With her latest release It's Complicated, Meryl Streep tries to find closure to her divorce and uncover the passion within that has been lacking for so long. In some way or another, her films tend to focus on the lead characters discovering the beauty and passion of female sexuality. This discovery of the female sexuality does not exclude Mel Gibson in What Women Want. Meyers writes a lot about women. Her films are often about the struggles, emotional, physical and social women face within the family, at work, in public and private. Despite being about women it is hard to for me to imagine that her films appeal to all women. All of her female characters are above the age of 35 with high profile professions and upper class lifestyles.

Blue collar doesn't really exist in the written world of Nancy Meyers. Most of her films take place in the glam of Hollywood or New York City or where those characters vacation. The good thing is that Meyers is able to write the characters with enough charm and humility that they seem endearing. Meyers films speak out for middle to upper class white people and that is a community dying for representation. Despite being a criticism, Meyers does deserve some praise for writing films for middle aged women, especially when Hollywood is a boys club and where many women have seen their work load diminish after the age of 40.

The real problem with It's Complicated is Nancy Meyers direction. She is a stronger writer than she is a director. That really is not saying much. She should explore the Woody Allen mode of directing. Allen relied on quality actors to deliver his unique dialogue. He would use a consistent of amount of medium-long shots and let his actors perform as if they were on stage. Unfortunately Meyers and her editor ruin much of her dialogue by over cutting the footage. Instead of just turning the camera on and letting her actors roam free with her dialogue, Meyers constantly cuts from actor to actor seemingly in between each line or transition of dialogue. The problem with this over editing is that much of the conversations in each scene never really flow and the some of the jokes lose their impact. It is unfortunate with talented actors like Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin along with a talented comedian like Steve Martin that she doesn't let them loose. This over editing does nothing but make natural acting seem more scripted.

Another fault of the film or of the people who make previews for films is that all the best moments are ruined by the preview. With that said, there weren't that many funny moments if most are spoiled in the preview. Their is a sequence where Streep and Martin get high while on their first date. It is funny but it feels like something we have seen plenty of times in goofier or raunchier comedies. Thank goodness John Krasinski, playing Streeps step-son supplies some comedic relief during the pot smoking sequence. Unfortunately it seems that much of Krasinski's comic talents are wasted and forced. As if his casting was a throw in to appeal to a younger audience that could care less about mid-50's romance.

It's Complicated is a comedy that is mildly entertaining but after the first view a second is hardly necessary. Meryl Streep proves that she can do anything, act any role and make even bland characters appealing. Streep is truly in a class of her own no matter how much she tries to downplay her talents.

Avatar - What does Avatar technology mean for movies?

Avatar is breaking lots of records for Hollywood and theaters are loving it. First, a little perspective. The movie is making lots of money but that doesn't mean more people are going to see it over other films. Remember when you hear of how much money it is making consider that there is the additional cost of seeing it in 3-D thus allowing it to gain 20-40% more because of the technology. What I am saying is... a normal matinee costs $7 at my theater but a 3-D matinee costs $10.50. This isn't inflation. Avatar is making more money because it costs more to see. Don't get me wrong I am down with 3-D. I think it is the future of movie theaters. I hope it works. I hope it grows. My struggles are not with 3-D but with the use and scale of digital effects in Avatar.

There is a concern, at least within my vision. I fear this digital manipulation of film is or can become a negative thing for film makers. When shooting Avatar, writer/director James Cameron didn't scout or use locations, so he created his own. I am not just talking about sets or stages but an entire world. He created this world of Pandora using computers. It is quite an amazing feet. But the realism that can be created with his computers is not just beautiful but in some ways very frightening.

Think of some of the great movies you have seen or some of the great movies in history. Think about where those films were made and how those cities play a huge part in making them great. Think about all the great films shot in New York City like Taxi Driver or Do The Right Thing. Try thinking of Breathless or Amelie without Paris. Are you understanding what I am laying down? Who is to stop someone from shooting a film set in Paris, Rio, South Africa, Hong Kong or the badlands of Nebraska from their basement. I am not saying this is happening now or that it will happen but with advancing technologies who is to say that it won't happen. Maybe this will allow a certain amount of flexibility with filming. Maybe it will make it more cost effective and better. James Cameron once spoke about the power of this technology in reference to the famous sunset kiss sequence in his film Titanic. The crew waited for days to film under the right sunset. Now, that scene would be shot in a studio and the sun would painted on, wasting no time and creating no inconvenience. For me, this is a horrible idea. It destroys a certain sense of realism that film carries. An art form that has battled notions of realism in many forms will simply become more of a staged event. It will have less taste and texture. It won't feel real. It will be the veggie burger posing as a meat product or faux wooded flooring pretending to be oak. There is something fascinating about shooting on location.

I am not sure how the Italian Neo-Realists of the 1950's, or the French New Wave rebels of the 60's or the Germans of the 70's would taken to this new technology. It certainly seems to be the antithesis of organic film making. How would Kurosawa, Renoir or Hitchcock look at this technology? As a hopeful film maker, I am amazed by its abilities and frightened by its possibilities.

Some of have ignored my concerns or simply suggested that films or the business would never go that far. I doubt that to be true. I think if there is technology out there, someone will exploit it as long as a profit can be made. I don't think this new film technology will be used solely to create other planets, underwater civilizations or anything else outside our realm of possibility. I know one day a few actors will perform their lines in front of a green wall and then Seattle or Mexico City, Berlin or Cairo will be painted in the background. Film makers will no longer seek the adventure of the open world but try to recreate in a box. I think that is a horrible thing and I hope there will be those out there to resist it.

The Beginning. What You will Get from Me.

Hello.

I love the cinema. I love movies, films and the things in between. Here you will find reviews, editorials, stories and moments of reflection on a world all around us and away from us. I have studied film for most of my life, either as a personal pursuit or while attending the university. I like to think that movies have had a great influence in shaping my mind and attitudes. I give it credit for a vast amount of things including saving my life in some overly dramatic high school kind of way. Here are my thoughts on, for and about film. I hope you will share them with me.

I leave you with a couple of excerpts from a couple of films I enjoy. The first comes from one of the greatest films in history, Citizen Kane. The excerpt is the promise Charles Foster Kane publishes in the newspaper he had just purchased. The second is the note made by Anton Ego in the delightful animated comedy, Ratatouille.







The details are not exact. The first applies to a newspaper, the greater picture and a bigger wold. The second applies to critics and cooking. I think they still apply. In essence I want to write a truthful, meaningful, direct and honest blog about cinema. There is not much I don't want to talk about or explore. I want to write about movies, good and bad, uncovered and discovered. I want to celebrate actors, writers, directors, make up artists, camera operators and more. This is a blog that will not neglect history or ignore that history is being made with every second that passes. This might be a lot to think about but it is my belief as well as many others that the cinema is the art form of the 20th century. I choose to celebrate that art form.

thank you.

A. Ramirez

Avatar Review

The nearly three hour epic that is Avatar is built around uncanny special effects and the expansion of third dimension film technology. Unfortunately the script and direction fail to deliver in several aspects causing the film to be nothing more than a bloated Hollywood spectacle.

Sam Worthington plays Chuck Sully, a wounded marine who replaces his recently deceased brother on a special mission to become an avatar scientist on the moon Pandora. Sully is confused about his mission and uncertain about his direction in life. He has a somewhat greedy mentality. He wants to complete his mission, return home and repair his spine so he can walk again. If he does his service well then the contract army which he is currently working for will front the bill for the surgery. As the only funny moment in the film, James Cameron takes a second to jab the health care system and it's failures some hundreds of years into the future. Back to the film. Sully is ignorant of his own situation and the situation fallen upon the Na'vi people. The Na'vi people are a clan of indigenous people on the moon Pandora. They sit on land where a valuable energy producing mineral is heavily sought after by a human corporation.

Humans have been on Pandora for years. The humans on Pandora consider this foreign world an equivalent to hell. We arrive on Pandora with Sully as Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) greets his new recruits and warns them of the dangers of Pandora, the Na'vi and the unfamiliar world that surrounds them. Humans have been there long enough to mine the mineral, create a market for it on Earth, and attempt several diplomatic efforts to obtain this mineral without success. The film does not update the viewer on what diplomatic efforts have been attempted other than building a school, why those attempts have failed and what has kept the itchy trigger finger of the contract army from going ballistic on the Na'vi for so long.

For some reason, the diplomatic efforts don't actually include politicians but a corporate executive, the colonel and a group of scientist, led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) who have tried to learn the Na'vi culture. This is where director/writer James Cameron begins to lose the script. Each one of these branches or groups of people display every stereotype we normally associate with these groups. The Corporation, represented by the awkwardly cast Giovanni Ribisi is primarily concerned with making a profit at all costs. He is introduced to the viewer with a very common visual, practicing his putting on a fake golf green. The army, most notably represented by the colonel is like all army representations in these type of films; a representation summed up in the philosophy of shoot first, ask questions later. The army quarrels with the scientists and calls them pansy tree huggers. Of course the scientist are naive. They either ignore or are blind to the corporations intentions and spend most of their time trying to convince the single minded "bad guys" of how much humanity can learn from the Na'vi and their biology.

The rest of the film continues with bland writing. Sully through science links his crippled body with that of a genetically created avatar of a Na'vi warrior. He attempts to become a member of their society while spying for the army. He gathers intelligence for them then falls in love with the Na'vi princess, Neytiri. It is the wounded soldier meets noble savage and turns his back on the society that hell bent on destruction. Sully, as his avatar alias, predictably falls in love with the princess. He predictably is the only one who can save them from the humans. He predictably does something only 5 Na'vi have ever done to unite and save the tribe. He predictably becomes a Na'vi through spiritual transformation, literally. Most of these predictions come easily through set ups during the course of the film. There is the montage of his Na'vi training, military check ins and video daily diaries that serve as narration. The use of narration in these type of films is also very common. Countless movies have used the Pocahontas and John Smith story line but it's not the lack of originality that ruins the film. It's lack of innovation and lack of details within the characters that makes this story so bland. There is little exploration to why the characters do what they do or what makes them tick. What we do know is so basic or common knowledge that watching the movie hardly seems necessary.

Throw in some questionable plot points that defy logic. For instance, the Michelle Rodriguez character that defies orders during their attack on the Na'vi people without being caught or disciplined. If there was any sense of realism to the picture then she would have been disciplined and jailed thus not allowing her to rescue Sully from imprisonment and then fighting alongside the Na'vi during the raid of their village. This chain of events seems unlikely because of the colonel's attention to detail and how much he values the mission. But that is a loophole like many others casually neglected.

There isn't anything really special about the direction. It does all the basic things a big action, science fiction adventure. Sweeping cameras, fast editing and big explosions. It might feel larger or more encompassing because of the 3-D. The acting is remedial, it's also not helped by uninspiring dialogue and stationary blocking. It is at times hard to judge the actors and the possible restrictions they faced because of the technology during shooting. On a good note, kudos to the film for having the worst pre-fight inspiration speech since Independence Day.

It can be hard to ignore a film that denounces technology from a director fascinated by its commercial use and appeal. The Na'vi people feel that there is no use for technological advances because their connection with their natural world gives them peace, satisfaction and balance. Eventually it would be Sully that rejects technology by preferring the Na'vi ways, forgetting that it was technology that allowed him to become an avatar. It is ironic because in many ways the film is built through and by advancing technologies within the medium. Technology has caught up with Cameron's vision and without it the film would have never been produced.

The positives. The special effects are great. I am not going to bash technology. This is a blog. I personally feel that the jungle sequences are better than the plane, spaceship or ariel sequences. The 3-D was seamless and lacked gimmicks. In the eyes of this viewer, the 3 dimension technology was so fluid that it was not noticeable.

In the end, Avatar is a movie like many other Hollywood spectacles. It is an unchallenging, large, flashy and bland. The movie does nothing new except find new ways to be shiny. A film does not stand alone on special effects. At almost three hours long, Avatar has predictable plot twists causing the film to drag and become rather dull even during some of famed action sequences. Avatar is not a good movie. It's a story worth talking about. Imperialism does not look the same as it did 100 years ago but that doesn't mean it has vanished from our society, our world or possibly other worlds. The film is another take on several westerns like Dances With Wolves. The comparison is so obvious that even Cameron casted the great Native American/Cherokee actor and activist Wes Studi to play the Na'vi Chief. Another culture imposing its will on another for commercial gain. There is no doubt that Cameron has made a film appropriate for the time.

It is predictable and predictable is not the primary flaw. As someone who loves art, I look for new ways to say old things. How do we tell our children, wife/husband or friends that we love them in a distinct way that separates them from the rest. How do we create images of Christ or Buddha in new ways that distinguish them from the rest? There are countless films about boy meets girl, they fall in love and live happily ever after but it's the details in those films that make It Happened One Night, Annie Hall or (500) Days of Summer not only good or great but special. Each one of those films essentially doing the same thing but each having a distinctive voice that separates it from one another and the rest of the pack. There are countless films that tell the same story Avatar tells and the only things special about this film is the special effects and that seems a little shallow to me. Like I previously mentioned... special effects do not make a movie. There has to be more than special effects or gimmicks and without such things Avatar is exceedingly lacking.