The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 (2011)

Dear Every Other Reviewer of Twilight,

Please stop complaining about the plot of the movies. Everyone knows the story is silly already-- we read the books. For those viewers of the movie who did not (or did not wish to) acknowledge how silly/terrible the plot is, and what a disgustingly distorted and unhappy relationship dynamic it represents, your review means nothing. They will simply say "haters gon' hate" and throw your review in the trash.

Kindly focus on the cinematic aspects of the movie that failed. They were nearly as catastrophic as the plot elements that you spent your precious word count critiquing. However, as stated above, the flaws of the story were already there in the book. Leave criticizing those up to the book critics.

Please see my review below for an example of an honest consideration of the film's strengths and weaknesses.

Thanks,
Cait (The Complainer)


REVIEW:

This movie sucked and was majorly boring.

Hideously inept acting, extremely poor pacing, and ill timed and ill themed musical accompaniment soured the entire film experience overall. Little details like garish yellow contact lenses and unintentionally hilarious use of special effects kept everyone wondering why they paid to see to the movie in theaters. Lengthy "conversations" between snarling wolves and extremely corny love scenes provided handy moments for bathroom breaks. Taylor Lautner doing a laudable attempt at a crying breakdown, providing what was to be the only emotionally resonant moment of the film for me, served as a handy litmus test for just how bad the movie was overall.

I am still going to see the final installment. I have no justification as for why.

But please get a new editor or a new director or something. At least make me able to pretend I didn't waste my twelve bucks and 100 minutes.

Secretary (2002)

When I first heard about Secretary from a girlfriend I was skeptical. I did not think I could trust a movie with James Spader in it to treat the subject of BDSM with proper respect, showing the complexities and subtleties of the lifestyle without regressing into some silly caricature of what some straight-laced people think BDSM means/looks like.

But then, after many different girlfriends over many years repeatedly suggested it to me, I finally caved and added it to my queue.

I was pleasantly surprised. Maggie Gyllenhall wields a sweet submissive agency over her (somewhat reluctantly) dominating boss played quite well by Spader. As their romance unfolds we get to see the dynamics of their relationship played out with almost a parable-like flair-- even the erotic scenes are treated such that they carry plenty of meaning (and interest) and still manage void the pitfalls of vulgarity and unnecessary realism.

Overall--recommended if you like something off the beaten path are are comfortable seeing a different kind of hetero relationship than what you usually get at the movies.

Iris (Cirque du Soleil-- Kodak Center, Los Angeles)

Iris (pronounced the French way, "ee-rees") isn't a movie; it's a Cirque du Soleil show that's playing right now at the Kodak Theater (where they film the Academy Awards) in L.A., the theme of which is the history of cinema and movie making.

Needless to say, when I several months ago first saw the advertisements for this show, I was overwhelmed with enthusiasm and excitement. This buoyant feeling almost immediately (and predictably) devolved into anxiety that Cirque would somehow manage to screw it up and thereby incur my wrath for sullying the subject that has been my passion for quite some time now. Despite my apprehension, however, I ended up deciding to go to the show anyway, because I've been fortunate enough to have seen several Cirque shows over the last ten years and I thoroughly enjoyed them all.

Fast forward to September 11th, 2011 (yes, I'm a little behind on my blogging) and you'll find me nearly moved to tears within seconds of being seated before the show starts, because I can see from the get-go that the crazy French Canadian Guy Laliberte (CEO of Cirque du Soleil) has done yet another mind bogglingly competent job putting together a crazy-weird-circus-fantasy spectacle.

My favorite pre-show attraction was the female mime wandering the crowd with a metal contraption surrounding her body. She solicited several people to spin her curious cylinder-skirt, and when no one would do it fast enough to suit her needs she gave it a yank herself. To the delight of the crowd, her skirt (which resembled a film reel turned on its side) revealed itself to be a working zoetrope showing boxers fighting each other in a short, repeated loop. Rewind to February of 2005 and you'll find a fresher-faced me sitting in my history of early cinema class at UC Berkeley watching a very enthusiastic young professor (Professor Kaveh Askari, a graduate of the University of Chicago (?) if you were wondering) demonstrating much smaller versions of the same pre-cinematic device and others like it. This was probably the moment that I decided I loved film and wanted to learn everything about it, and so for the Cirque show to reference it meant a lot to me. (<-- huge understatement) The rest of the show was no different in terms of its emotional impact. Nearly every single aspect connected to some aspect of film as an art form, film history, or film production. Some of the references made were: - Norman McLaren's "Pas de deux"

- Georges Melies' "A Trip to the Moon"

- Edison's "Electrocution of an Elephant" (part of the Cinema of Attractions)

"The Kiss"

- Lotte Reiniger's "Adventures of Prince Achmed"

- Dziga Vertov's "The Man with the Movie Camera" or "The Cinematic Orchestra"

- The Al Jolson film "The Jazz Singer"

- And even what I took as a reference to a particular character from a Hayao Miyazaki film (Howl's Moving Castle)

All these references (and many, many more) were integrated with the usual Cirque spectacle of acrobatics, contortionists, a loose, somewhat dubious romantic narrative that ties the show together, wonderful live music, and some silly clowns which Cirque here opted to use to refer to modern day Hollywood industry stereotypes.

My favorite part was the McLaren reference, because it took a series of dancers and placed them in front of an enormous screen that showed their motion trails, just like in "Pas de deux". I also greatly relished the carnival/vaudeville aspect to this particular Cirque show (though I recognize it's a somewhat common theme throughout them and circus in general), because it connected back to the roots of film as a sort of freak show attraction. I also was just as much impressed by the integration of technology into the acts (I'm thinking in particular of one scene that's incredibly difficult to describe, so I'll leave it up to you to go experience it for yourself) as I was by the skill of the performers, some of whom are Olympic athletes.

I can't say whether many people in the audience understood these myriad references to cinema, but whether or not they did is not important to me. I loved the show because it reminded me of a time in my life not so long ago when I was ruled by a singular passion and drive inspired by the art form of film. Though this time isn't very far distant from me, it feels miles away. Because I am acutely aware of the literal (and metaphorical) distance I've traveled since those glorious days of oblivious (arguably naive) infatuation with my chosen subject of study, Iris moved me quite deeply insofar as it helped me reconnect with past moments in the sun, and I know this intensely personal experience would certainly not be what most people experience on seeing the show.

I highly recommend that you see Iris if you love film and you're in Los Angeles. You won't regret it.

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)

This movie was just OK.

I really wanted it to be fantastic and have an interesting statement to make about relationships, but at the end of the day it was just a standard story with decent performances.

You can probably get the same experience of watching the movie if you just watch the preview, and you'll save time too.

Unless you want to be treated to an unsavory view of Ryan Gosling's creepy so-deep-you-could-lose-some-food-in-there-and-smell-it-rotting-three-weeks-later chest and abdominal muscles. I guess some people are into that type of thing?

Whatever. Worth your time if you're bored, have not a lot else going on, and want to hear a bunch of people talk about love like you've heard it talked about 1,000+ times before.

Blue Valentine (2010)

Ugggghhhhhhhhhhh! Blue Valentine makes me want to die.

But on the other hand.

Uggggghhhhhhhhhhh! It was so good.

Michelle Williams (whom you already know I very much admire) and Ryan Gosling play a couple in a gut-wrenching failing relationship, familiar to anyone who has ever really opened themselves up to another person and watched that connection disintegrate.

We are treated (or maybe subjected) to the whole arc of their relationship from its sweet beginnings to its crushingly meaningless and empty end.

The hardest thing about Blue Valentine is that you're not asked to like or dislike any of the characters. This is also the most valuable aspect of this film. It doesn't take a side. That's up to you, which is incredibly difficult and if you're anything like me could lead to melancholy bouts of relationship oriented introspection.

I can't say I'd recommend this movie to anyone. Not good for anyone looking for a happy ending, obviously, but also surprisingly not so cathartic. More frustrating overall.

Excellent acting, excellent, bold filmmaking. Brave choices all around for everyone involved in making it.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

I think this is my least favorite HP of the series. Moments like this can begin to show you why. I believe what bothers me about this particular HP installment is sadly obvious in the clip, despite the laughably poor quality of this video. If you don't pick it up, then I think you and I are on very very different pages in terms of movie taste.

But anyway, besides the over-the-top campyness used to portray the two visiting schools of magic, the main problem I have with the movie is that there is neither enough blatant silliness and nor enough disturbing darkness to really draw me into the film as much as the rest of series.

There are a few redeeming features, however, and experience of watching Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire is by no means a waste of time. My favorite aspects of HP4 are MadEye Moody, the portrayal of the nationalistic mania associated with the Quidditch World Cup, and the blunt sucker-punch of Cedric Diggory's death.

Plus, who can help but slyly grin at all of Ron Weasley's vaguely vulgar asides regarding the rear ends of the ladies of BeauxBatons? Certainly not me.

In fact, I find myself clinging to this film in a way, especially knowing what sort of emotional blows await me in the final chapters of the story.

While I look forward to seeing the development of my favorite characters (and the introduction of my alter-ego!) in the films to come, HP4 marks the turning point from which I may look back at the previous films with nostalgia for the innocence portrayed in them.

Red Riding Hood (2011)

A lot of close-ups on Amanda Seyfried's way too big eyes as she gazes unconvincingly longingly at some very not cute Edward/Jacob knock-offs.

Bewildering story, inane details (Large metal elephant that you can torture someone in by putting a fire under it??? How did anyone ever think this was a good idea?!), infantile delivery and editing choices. PS. There's a choreographed dance scene.

PPS. This movie sucked.

Worth a laugh, maybe, as a rental. Do not pay to see it in a theater. They couldn't even get the shots of the winter landscape scenery right. Ouch.

Eclipse (2010)

Despite what you may expect, I, like many people all over the place, have totally and not altogether regrettably been sucked into this whole Twilight mass tomfoolery. I enjoy debates over who is “better for Bella.” I can tell you the plot of the whole series in the time it takes for a bus to travel about ten blocks. I have pretty definite opinions about casting decisions that have been made, and I now own the soundtrack to two of the movies. And I can say all of these things while still acknowledging (like most adult fans of Twilight) that even through the whole thing is pretty awful, when you get right down to it, I still sincerely enjoy participating in it.

And yet I found this latest installment of the self-proclaimed “saga”, Eclipse, pretty ho-hum. Where they were trying for suspense all they really achieved was too much dilly-dallying and dwelling on some weaksauce make-out scenes. The intensity of all the smoldering gazes is totally neutered by the sheer number of shots that are dedicated to them. Plus I think I’m now totally insensitive to both Taylor Lautner’s abs and Kristen Stewart's sultry sulking, which is a goddamn crying shame. Overexposure was the culprit, again.

Pretty much the most emotional part of the whole movie was the scene in which Bella spends what is supposed to be her last sunny vacation with her mother in Florida, which was probably the only scene in the movie done with any type of restraint or subtlety whatsoever.

I spent the rest of the movie being bothered by the clunky opacity of the yellow contacts they put on the Cullens and wishing for a tiny bit of risqué behavior from anyone at all on screen. All this idle time also unfortunately allowed me to make dangerous realizations about Stephanie Meyer’s narrative style, which basically entails her not thinking about the mythology she’s creating, backtracking, and then re-writing the rules so that the story can continue and everyone is happy.

Whatever. I still can’t wait to see the next movies. They should be just as forehead-slappingly frustrating, yet just as mandatory to attend to anyone addicted to the crack that is Twilight.

Yours truly included. (Team Bella).

Knight and Day (2010)

A bizarre and uncomfortable mixture of extreme violence and goofy humor.

No chemistry whatsoever between the stars.

Sort of entertaining in a “this is what the world has come to???” sort of way.

Kudos to Cameron Diaz for her most sincere effort at doing a not-so-over-the-top Boston accent. Part of the time.

Overall, weak!

Robin Hood (2010)

Ok blog readers. I am going to tell you something. Get ready for it. Ok, prepared?
I’m a feminist.

No, not the kind from the ‘60s. Not the kind from the ‘70s or ‘80s. Not even really the kind from the ‘90s either, even though that's when I grew up. The kind from right now, probably more aptly named queer-something-or-other. I’m into thinking about things like gender, sex, sexuality, queerness, LGBT issues, etc. And specifically thinking about how these sometimes broad, intangible concepts intersect and interact with pretty much every aspect of real life that you could imagine. And how those interactions, whether under-wraps or overstated in day to day life, are inevitably and often interestingly manifested in the media, specifically film.

In case you didn’t realize that I had this thought pattern from older posts, I just thought I should let you know. Because I am about to go off on a pretty specific aspect of the latest cinematic iteration of Robin Hood Hollywood is offering. You know. The one that’s out right now, with Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. Yeah.

Here’s the thing: this movie is dumb. I don’t even know if I can confidently say that this movie ever even had the potential to be good. I mean, you take a story that’s been done many times over on film and you pretty much give us the exact same thing with different actors. I think there was one moment of suspense in the whole thing. One. And the fight scenes. The endless and repetitive fight scenes. Please stop.

But even if you set aside the unoriginality of the most recent Robin Hood—which I grant that you could, if you’re a huge fan of the mythology and you’re really into seeing “the olden days” reconstructed with a big budget—even then. Even. Then. You can’t ignore the annoyance of the treatment of the character of Marion Loxley, played by Cate Blanchett.

She starts out as this ridiculously capable woman who runs a whole town for ten years during her husband’s absence. She manages the household, she runs off thieves, she fights for the townpeoples’ rights, etc. Basically she performs the roles of Lord and Lady of the Manor simultaneously and effectively, albeit not without struggle. Great. This is good.

But then guess what happens. Russell Crowe shows up and through some silly and contrived arrangement gets to pretend that Marion is his wife. All of a sudden it’s “Wife, get me this” “Wife, show me the village so I don’t look like an idiot” and “Wife, ask me nicely.” So she swoons. She swoons. After approximately three days of knowing each other, they’re exchanging dramatic ‘I love you’s and slow dancing prom style to some Medieval band. Apparently for no other reason than that Robin Hood put her in her place. Awesome.

And that’s not all. The filmmakers have the audacity to have Marion follow Robin into battle, predictably striving to do some heroics while actually just messing everything up because of her unsurprising ineptitude at hand to hand combat. Guess who saves her. I’m lucky my eyes didn’t get stuck rolling so far back into my head at this particular scene.

But do you know what? I’m not even mad about Robin Hood. I think we all could have predicted that this was the type of female “heroine” that we’d be offered in this type of movie. Plus, historically, this version of Marion would probably have been burned at the stake for her extremely progressive attitude. So I guess this is progress.

What I’m really mad about is the recent news that they’re planning on remaking The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with Hollywood actors. As in (probably) a more conventional leading lady, a more palatable storyline, and less grittiness. (They’re also planning on re-doing the recent awesome movie Let the Right One In, but that’s fodder for a whole other angry essay.)

Anyway, this “leave the Swedes alone” moment isn’t an entirely unrelated tangent. Because the fact that Western mass media markets actually prefer Blanchett’s performance of the acceptable version of a the life and romance of a “strong woman” over something like the remarkably different and varied versions of femininity, feminism, sexuality, sex, gender, etc that world has to offer… That’s what really bothers me.

Seriously, it’s 2010, and we’re still all buying into the whole “she couldn’t do it without a strong man” crap? How is this still even a thing? I’m so tired of it. I swear to God I’d pay $100 a ticket if Hollywood was to produce a movie that in any way took a risk when it came to how it handled its female characters.

Am I the only one?

Ponyo (2008)

I was really delighted by Ponyo, Hayao Miyazaki’s latest fantastical children’s tale that springs from the most basic details of Hans Christian Andersen’s story “The Little Mermaid”.

Because I am a huge Miyazaki fan, it came as no surprise that I was entirely charmed by this movie. However, watching Ponyo helped me articulate to myself just what, exactly, I find enjoyable about Miyazaki’s films.

The aspects I enjoyed the most, in the case of Ponyo specifically, were the expressiveness of the animation and the near perfect conveyance of the wonderfully illogical imagination of children via the fantastical storyline and some of the film’s imagery.

In Ponyo the ocean is alive. It is filled with towering waves the size of monsters, fish-cronies that melt into the water, baby-faced mermaids that bulge into huge carp, goldfish that shape-shift into small magical girls, inexplicably giant women who save ships from disaster, and a myriad of other weird creatures and moments that just are. And the best part—I didn’t need an explanation for any of it. Something about Miyazaki’s style both enables and emboldens me to simply appreciate the incredible creativity that goes into the film and accept it for what it is.

When I watch Miyazaki movies I feel happy, boundless, and hopeful. I feel like I can tackle life’s greatest problems and challenges without any of the grown-up baggage that so often drags me down in real life (i.e. fears, anxieties, memories of failure, etc). I think this is because in Miyazaki’s worlds strange, awful, scary things are happening all the time all around, but the children that have to get through it do so without batting an eye.

If only we could all live somewhere in Miyazaki’s dream worlds!

Youth in Revolt (2009)

Soooo. Filmmakers behind Youth in Revolt. Again with Michael Cera in the “young guy who really wants to not be a virgin anymore” role? Really?

…And the ill-advised audacity of shoehorning overly pretentious youths pining away for French Cinema of the ‘60s into this tired narrative?

…And using ridiculously poorly done “artsy” animations to pass the time between the hackneyed scenes of teenage romance?!

Please. Please do not do this kind of thing. Ever. Again.

P.S. Michael Cera: more Francois Dillinger roles, less Nick Twisp. Grow a pair, buddy. Take some freaking risks. You were almost sexy there for a second, guy. Almost.

Avatar (2009)

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could leave it at that, but I probably should elaborate at least a little, being as this is the last post before 2010.

First the obvious: beautiful visuals, seriously (no really—SERIOUSLY) astounding technology. You will forget that what you are watching isn’t real, which I think ought to be the goal of any movie, heavily CGI’ed or otherwise.

Second: plot. Kudos to you, James Cameron. You got me to genuinely enjoy an admittedly cliché story. Sure, I could turn to Fern Gulley: The Last Rainforest or even (as a friend pointed out) Dances with Wolves for a similar narrative experience, but given the choice I would pick Avatar because it was entirely engaging through and through. I forgot about the cheesiness and just enjoyed the adventure.

Finally: hello grown-up use of 3-D! Thanks for not having random objects fly out of the screen toward my face. Tasteful and thoughtful interaction with human beings’ sense of depth perception.

Don’t wait for DVD—you really need to see this in theaters. Even if you don’t like it or it spurs you to launch your own phantasmagoria of complaints, it is an experience that you really mustn’t pass up.

Love Actually (2003)

When this movie first came out I watched it and I immediately hated it. In retrospect, my revulsion for Love Actually stemmed from my being at the height of my high school era “I’m so lonely and angry and no one gets me!” angst as well as a serious (perhaps irrational) grudge against Keira Knightley.

Recently, having ditched at least most of my adolescent personality issues and learned to accept (or at least give the benefit of the doubt) to Ms. Knightley, I thought I would generously offer Love Actually another chance. After all, there are tons of other good actors in it and it seems to be a Christmas favorite of a lot of people so why not.

Well my friends, this movie had all the charm of a month old stick of Juicy Fruit gum—a little sweet, a little sickening, overall hugely unimpressive and sure to leave a bad taste in your mouth. Love Actually is not bad enough to outright reject, but has few redeeming qualities that make it crave-able, at least for me.

I would much rather watch a movie that I felt strongly about, whether the film is outright rage-provoking or entirely delightful. Otherwise it just feels like I’m wasting my time in bland, inoffensive, “nice” way.

Not a great way to spend a holiday evening.

Whisper of the Heart (1995)

This movie… explained EVERYTHING. At least with regard to its sort of sequel The Cat Returns, the oddball adventure movie I reviewed a while back and valued for its sheer whimsy.

In Whisper of the Heart we see that the lead characters of The Cat Returns (The Baron and Muta) are very minor characters that figure in a narrative about finding out what you really want out of life. Whereas Cat takes some serious flights of fancy, Whisper is far more solidly located in the real world. In it we follow Shizuku through Tokyo as she struggles to decide what path she wants to take in life. She has to face obstacles stemming from family, love, and problems with self-worth while she pursues her goal of becoming a writer.

Though Whisper can’t compete with Cat for first prize in weird, Whisper does have hugely superior quality animation. And while Cat is a bit silly and hard to take seriously on the level of plot, Whisper is way more emotionally engaging. Definitely more along the lines of what you would expect from Studio Ghibli.

Overall, Whisper of the Heart is good for the same thing every other Ghibli film is good for—interesting visuals, interesting narrative, and all around great animated filmmaking!

New Moon (2009)

All I have to say about the latest installment of “The Twilight Saga” is OMG AWESOME. By that I mean that New Moon is a very appropriate and entertaining adaptation of the second book in the four-part series. It sticks to the original material quite faithfully, using interesting visuals to convey Stephenie Meyer’s addictive (albeit wholly silly) fantasy world of brooding undead and friendly shape-shifters.

Here is what happens: Edward leaves, Bella dies a little, Jacob is hunky. Edward is a drama queen, Bella leaves, Jacob is sooooo sad. Vampires and werewolves, etc. Teenagers—lol!

And as a serendipitous addition to this already guiltily pleasurable emotional rollercoaster, Kristen Stewart actually improves upon the Bella from the books, trading obnoxious whiney inner thoughts for a more compelling and nuanced melancholy moodiness. While the other actors stick to Meyer’s original characterizations, Stewart goes the extra mile of making Bella all the more believable and therefore more emotionally-investable as a character.

New Moon is an obvious must for any follower of Meyer’s books, but is also delightfully engaging for any fan of hyperbolic romance served up fantasy style. You won't regret seeing it on the big screen.