"The Spirit": Just Add Pot

I have a firm belief (that many will probably challenge) when it comes to filmmaking. I believe that a good story with good acting and good dialogue will always triumph over shaky visuals. The Mist’s visuals were average, if not bad, but it still managed to win over most critics. Another obscure monster movie, Eight Legged Freaks, had CGI spiders that stuck out like sore thumbs against the screen, yet the witty story and smart dialogue made it one of my favorites. Alas, it’s not a two-way street. Strong visuals cannot overcome a bad story, and though it can make a movie entertaining (Transformers), visuals alone can never make it truly good.

But I’ll be damned if The Spirit doesn’t try.

Frank Miller’s latest effort to filiminize lesser-known comic icons* achieves a nearly impossible feat of being beautiful to look at it, while simultaneously painful to watch.

The Spirit is another monotone, film-noir type story in the same vein of 2005’s Sin City, with most of the colors washed out with the exception of the ones we’re focused to symbolize moods and tones. Many people dub it the Sin City effect but I prefer the Pleasantville effect because I liked that movie and everyone seems to have forgotten about it.

Anyway, this comic-book cinematography does wonders as eye candy. The grey of the city is strangely beautiful, the slight sepia in certain parts truly thrusts you into the gritty underground world in an amazingly genuine fashion. The Spirit walks across nothing but a red background. He dances underwater with beautiful women with blazing blue eyes. His cute little red tie glows eerily and proudly as he scrambles across rooftops. Any way you slice it, The Spirit truly is, from a cinematography standpoint, a work of art that begs to be watched while under the influence of foreign substances.

But there’s a big problem with everything else in the movie: everything else sucks.

Frank Miller, who penned the screenplay, should be banned from the WGA and not permitted to write scripts ever again. From the opening, the dialogue is blatantly laughable. The story is one of the most unimaginative I’ve ever come across. His motivation for being a super hero is never truly defined, and Samuel L. Jackson’s villain, the “Octopus” (who makes sure to tell us he has eight of everything…except probably points on his IQ score) seems more like a parody rather than anyone we should take seriously. That’s contradictory of Miller, for the film takes itself so seriously that when you throw in a villain like Jackson’s it kind of makes you wonder what exactly they were aiming for.

Gabriel Macht does a decent job of portraying the masked vigilante, but he’s an unfortunate victim of circumstance. The characters around him overact so much and his dialogue is so corny and clichéd that it completely takes you out of the experience the amazing visuals try so hard to push you into.
There’s one scene in particular I watched with my roommate that I think epitomizes everything you need to know about The Spirit:

The Spirit is tied to a chair in some Nazi interrogation room, while Jackson explains to him dubious plans involving the DNA of Hitler and drinking the blood of Hercules all while melting a cat. Seconds later, a beautiful woman who is supposed to kill the Spirit sets him free, then tries to kill him anyway after they escape.

If you’re wondering, I didn’t make anything above up. And you’ll probably say the same thing when you see it that we both did: “What. The. Fuck. Is. Going. On?”

The Spirit tries so hard to be a stylistic Batman with unique ideas that it ends up falling off the edge of the Earth and into a vat of ludicrous plot turns and a muddled story that feels more like it came from the mind of a 3rd grader entering a “Make Your Own Superhero” contest rather than from a respected figure like Frank Miller. It’s a shame that such fabulous visuals are wasted on what in the end is 2 hours of Frank Miller trying to imitate The Dark Knight while at the same time not imitating The Dark Knight. There’s potential here, there really is, but it seems that any chance that The Spirit had of making a good movie was dashed the second Frank Miller sat down to write it.

Score: 2/10

*lesser known to people who don't read comic books or know comic book history

Note:

I'm trying to be counted as an RT reviewer so you'll see a lot of old stuff I never posted. To get to the newer stuff like Twilight and Watchmen just scroll down.

"The Dark Knight": Spoiler Alert: it kicks ass

Where do we begin? Not only is this uttered by the Joker in the trailers and the movie, but it's also the same question I have to ask myself when sitting down to write about one of the few event movies to ever live up to the expectations so reverently.

Everyone knows the story. I won't even discuss that. So first, in the true objectivist way, I'll get the negatives out of the way first. I don't care what anyone says, replacing Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal was not a good idea. She's not a better actress, and it hurts the continuity between The Dark Knight and it's equally brilliant predecessor Batman Begins. Second of all, Two-Face falls victim to Venom syndrome (Spider-Man 3), he is introduced too late into the film and his run seems to be over too early. He's a great villain, probably the second most recognizable Batman foe (behind, of course, the Joker), and it feels as if he should've had a whole movie to himself, not just the final half hour of this one.

And that's it.

Everything else about The Dark Knight is nearly flawless.

Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker is so haunting, you get goose bumps when he's onscreen, talking calmly yet at the same time maniacally. He's all about simultaneousness; he's funny but at the same time scary, calm but at the same time mad, and crazy yet at the same time intelligent. Nearly everything he says will be quoted in AIM away messages around the globe (including my own) from his final "madness is like gravity" to even his simple "yea..." when a mobster asked him if he stole his money. Every word that emanates from his scar-littered mouth is memorable. This Joker truly is the definitive version of the villain. He's brutal and terrifying, yet at the same time never loses that casual hilarity about his crimes that makes him the Joker in the first place (one particularly good moment shows the Joker frustrated that his bomb isn't going off, so he presses the button in frustration like a little kid with a video game controller).

If you asked me who I'd take in a battle between Ledger's Joker and Jack Nicholson's Joker, it wouldn't be much of a contest: Ledger's new, edgy, brutal Joker is more terrifying than Nicholson's could ever hope to be while killing people with shampoo and dancing to Prince.

With that said, and it needed to be, lest we forget the other performances, all of which are equally good (with the exception of Maggie Gylennhall, who really doesn't do anything with the Rachel Dawes character except hurt continuity). Christian Bale is once again a solid Bruce Wayne, and is slightly better as Batman than in Batman Begins (the "bat-rasp" has been enhanced, but not quite fixed). Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius, and Michael Caine once again reprises his role as the surrogate father figure to Bruce Wayne, with every line he speaks being some sort of lesson about morality.

The film itself, minus the performances, succeeds not just as an actioneer but a drama that attempts to blur the line between right and wrong and succeeds on many levels. There are many, many "WTF?!" moments (including two particular plot twists that made everyone in the audience gasp). It's incredibly violent, and at times, very disturbing as well. The Joker really has no limits when it comes to who he kills or how he kills them, and this is something that not only Batman discovers, but the audience as well, and it has quite an impact.

The action sequences are better done that in Batman Begins, and the IMAX cameras give a breath of scope to the overhead cityscapes that's never really been seen before. The Dark Knight is the Empire Strikes Back of the Christopher Nolan Batman series. It serves as not only a sequel, but a standalone film that succeeds on its own solid ground while also laying out the future. Its epilogue somehow manages to tie up all of the film's loose ends, while at the same time leaving everything in chaos for the (inevitable) third installment. There is conclusion, but no closure.

Oh yeah, also, Cillian Murphy-the Scarecrow-is in it, but only for about a minute. Here's hoping he's back for the next Nolan-Batman movie. Here's hoping that Robin never shows up. And here's hoping that director Christopher Nolan finds some way, somehow, to top this masterpiece.

But as Lucius Fox says to a young lawyer threatening to out Batman: good luck with that.

Score: 9.5/10

"Hancock": Featuring Will Smith as Will Smith...again

If Hancock's last half hour was even half as good as its first hour, it would probably be Will Smith's best movie since 2004's I, Robot. As it stands, though, it becomes another fun, yet disposable and ultimately forgettable, summer spectacle that is surprisingly limp of special effects. The movie can be compared to the Lakers-Celtics game 4 in the NBA Finals this season (I think it was game 4, could be wrong) whereas the Lakers were up by about thirty or so, only to have the Celtics come back within a few points. The Lakers still won, but barely and not nearly as impressively as they began.

The same holds true for Hancock. It begins with promise, with a deep, brooding superhero who no one seems to like and creates more collateral damage than he's worth. Hancock seems to relish that he's publicly hated, yet privately wishes he was indeed cared for. It hinges on emotion and the conversations between characters are often more entertaining than the action.

It's when we discover the "truth" about Hancock's abilities that things go very bad very fast, and the laughable origin, and the way it is "discovered" feels more like an excuse than a reason. It's really bad, and, in all honesty, ruins the rest of what starts out as an excellent film. It's a complete turn-around that I didn't see coming.

Stephen King wrote recently in an article that he hates when directors and authors feel the need to "explain" everything. I didn't agree with him then, but I do now, for Hancock would've worked much better if it concentrated on the boy-to-man storyline which worked so well for the first hour and abandoned its "origin" story that so dampens the film. We DON'T NEED to know why Hancock has superpowers, and we don't care, and never once questioned it during the movie. It feels like Peter Berg fell out of the director's chair near the film's third act and was replaced by an intern.

So, even though it's last act is disappointingly hollow and nearly kills the movie, Hancock is still high in entertainment value and well worth seeing...at least the first hour of it.

Score: 7/10

"Wall-E": Better than rats, not quite as good as fish

Wall-E is inflicted with a bad case of Halo 3-itis. When you go into a movie expecting it to be the best thing you’ve ever seen, to completely blow your mind, and it ends up being "just" great, you tend to walk out the theater disappointed. So I know that after that statement you probably assume I didn't like Wall-E because it didn't enthrall me in the same way Finding Nemo did, so let me write this: Wall-E is a great film. But that's it. It's "just" great.

Getting the basics out of the way, Wall-E is about a little robot left on Earth who, with his only friend being a cockroach, spends his day scouring the abandoned planet, cleaning up, and collecting numerous artifacts that serve as memoirs to humanity. One day, Eve (earth vegetation extractor) comes to Earth in search of a proof that the atmosphere is livable, and finds it in the form of a plant Wall-E collected. There really isn't much need to tell anymore. It would ruin the rest of the story, and what a story it is.

Therein lies the problem, the lone problem, with Wall-E: it's complexities. Despite its "G" rating, the story of two robots in love who must save a lone seed, proof that life on Earth is possible, from the hands of an evil autopilot aboard the Axiom, a giant space cruiser upon which humans have lived for 700 years and have become giant immobile gluttons. There is very little lazy exposition. Everything is given off through visual clues that help progress the story, and while this is great for adults, I know that about 90% of the storyline went right over the heads of every person under ten years old in the audience.

It's a beautiful, simple story, but the complexity with which it is executed and progressed is too intelligent for most kids to understand, and because of this many of them in the audience fidgeted and yawned while the adults watched on in sheer awe.

The story is much smaller than the trailers would have you believe, it involves but four characters really: Wall-E, EVE, Captain Macrea (human captain), and the evil autopilot. Other than that, the other characters, most of which are robots and synonymous looking humans, are obscure, with the primary focus of the story on Wall-E and EVE. It's not epic. Wall-E doesn't travel to many far off lands and meet tons of colorful characters like earlier Stanton effort Finding Nemo. It's small, with two locations, Earth and the Axiom, and runs a little short with a somewhat flippant climax.

The first half hour of Wall-E is by far the funniest and most memorable, with the little robot, who speaks with electronic beeps and tones, collecting things around the planet and displaying his unhealthy affinity for Hello Dolly. This is where the makers of Wall-E shine. Despite the fact that he is surrounded by humans for the latter hour of the movie, the piece of junk is easily the most human character. He knows waves, and hand holding, and basic gestures that human beings had forgotten amidst their growing reliance on technology.

The statement Wall-E makes about commercialism ruining the planet is very hypocritical indeed considering the source being one of the biggest commercial companies in the world, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the product is always grand. Wall-E is a funny, incredibly smart, touching story that works on a small scale that incorporates beautiful writing with extravagant animation that pushes the limits of human imagination. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than Finding Nemo? No. But it is the best thing Pixar, the best thing any animation company has done, since 2003.

Score: 8.5/10

"The Incredible Hulk": Another Hulk movie bites the dust

The second tentpole film of the Marvel giant for this summer is entertaining...but empty. A remake. Already. No, it's a 'reboot.' Whatever, how about this: "we're running out of superhero movies (Ant-Man, are you serious?) so we're going to remake movies that are only 5 years old and make tons of money in the process."

Just thought I'd get that little gripe out of the way first. Now on with the review.

The Incredible Hulk is the epitome of the summer blockbuster: lots of effects, little brains (see Transformers). The 2003 Ang Lee version, Hulk, was flawed by the fact that it was just too artsy, too long, too focused on character development and not enough of the green protagonist himself. While it was still a decent enough picture, it was critically panned by many for just being too dramatic and too intelligible for the target audience. It's kind of like that really smart kid who gets picked on by the "cool" kids.

2008's The Incredible Hulk has the right idea of moving away from that and into a more action-oriented, fast-paced film, but goes too far to the point where what you're watching is nothing short of mindless action sequences slopped together with some heavy metal playing in the background. It tries so hard to not be 2003's Hulk that it forgets to have any brains at all.

The entire origin story is done and over in about a minute, the characters are not well developed and stereotypical, and the dialogue is so by-the-numbers that you can predict exactly what characters will say: (eg, Bruce Banner: "There's only one thing that can fight that thing, and it's in me.") Oh. Wow. Didn't see that coming.

Much was said about the casting, a lot of good things, before the movie was released. The truth is that very few of the cast members actually work in their respective roles. Don't get me wrong about Edward Norton, I like him and I like every movie he's ever made, but he's just so damn boring as the Hulk. I thought he was great in The Italian Job, as with everything else he's done, but this is easily his worst role. His heavy lisp and geeky appearance just doesn't make him mysterious enough to be Hulk, and add that with the fact that the big green guy looks nothing like him in the face at all. In fact, Eric Bana in 2003's version was much better suited for the role. He was more mysterious, more compassionate, and still managed to look like the dork we know as Bruce Banner.

I'm not trying to rip on Edward Norton, but Eric Bana is a much, much better Green guy. As far as the other roles go, it's tough to really get a feel. Can Liv Tyler pull off Betty Ross? We don't really know, because there's not enough development to judge. William Hurt as the general? Meh. In fact the only role/performance that really stands out is Tim Roth. He may be the most underrated actor in Hollywood. His creepy looks yet badassness make him one of the best badguys out there, and I honestly thought he was scarier as Emil Blonksy than as the Hulk-wannabe Abomination. Roth, even though he's been in critical failures, has never done a poor job, and single-handedly made Planet of the Apes. I'm glad to finally see him in a semi-lead role.

I know it feels like I've ripped The Incredible Hulk for the past few paragraphs, so I'm going to focus on its single saving grace that prevents it from being a bad movie: it's somewhat fun to watch, even if it doesn't suck you in. That's mainly due to the effects-laden sequences and the breathtaking (albeit predictable) finale. Like I said, the action scenes are fun to watch, but the over-reliance on computer generated imagery just isn't very convincing, and sitting at the preview screening I got the feeling I was watching a videogame rather than a feature film.

For all it's flaws, 2008's The Incredible Hulk is not horrible. Is it worth seeing? That's up to you. Take it or leave it, maybe rent it, something. But the fact is that this very very very dumbed down version of Ang Lee's Hulk tries so hard to improve upon its predecessor's failures that it creates its very own.

Score: 5/10

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull": Indy's "back"

Like many of Indy's amazing feats throughout the years, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull narrowly escapes death from the clutches of the all-powerful Hype Machine. I love Indiana Jones. I wanted to be him growing up. And the movies, even the crappy one, Temple of Doom, are all movies that everyone needs to see before they die. The stories were supernatural, yet at the same time plausible and not too far out there. The action was great, the dialogue humorous, and the stories engaging.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, however, while still very entertaining, does not feel like Indiana Jones. It still has all the action, all the humor, and even Shia Labeouf, who everyone questioned, does a great job at delivering some of the much needed comic relief. There's one scene where he even combs his hair before prepping to be executed by some native, and for some reason, it actually works. The special effects are engaging and fun to watch, even if it does succumb to using too much CGI at times, and damn it if Harrison Ford can't still swing around and do a great job as Indy. He hasn't lost anything. And even with the gray hair he doesn't seem physically dematerialized at all.

So what's the problem, Brent?

The story.

It sucks.

The stories in the Indiana Jones films have always walked that fine line between plausible and implausible very well, sometimes teetering over the edge a little bit but never enough to make us believe that what we were watching just couldn't happen. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on the other hand jumps over that line of implausibility, sprints, and never looks back.

I'll buy the Holy Grail turning someone to ashes, I'll buy a temple where guys rip other guys' hearts out, I'll buy the Ark of the Covenant cursing those who open it... ...but I'm not buying aliens hiding a spaceship underground and planting the seed of civilization.

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg turned Indiana Jones into sci-fi. Granted, there's nothing wrong with sci-fi, it's just that this story simply does not belong in Indiana Jones. It just doesn't. And it just gets better and better (aka worse and worse in this context) as it leads up to one of the most ludicrous endings I've ever seen. Which would've been fine if it WASN'T Indiana Jones.

Ultimately, this a movie worth seeing. It's fun to watch, the acting is solid, and Harrison Ford is still Indy. It just doesn't feel like a true Indiana Jones movie, though. Thanks to its farfetched, sci-fi, kiddy story that is borderline fantasy, what was supposed to be the greatest movie of the summer has tripped over a rock, with The Dark Knight and Wall-E nipping at its heels.

Score: 7/10

"Iron Man": As entertaining as real iron

So how good was Iron Man? I couldn't tell you. He was only on screen about 5 minutes.

Marvel is making a lot of money lately. There's no doubt about that. And after the crapfest that was Spider-Man 3 and Fantastic Four 2 I wasn't expecting much from Iron Man. And I didn't get much. I'm probably going to get a lot of heat; Iron Man has generated a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's Spider-Man 2 numbers. That's like the Tom Brady of superhero movies. I, personally, just don't get it. I'm not a hater, but I'm not a lover. Here's why: Where's Iron Man?

This isn't so much a super hero story, but an origin story. It does this very well. Robert Downey Junior is perfect for the part and seems to be having a good time on screen. After all the drugs and alcohol and other stuff, it's good for him to remind us that he can act. Act like Tony Stark. As Iron Man, not so much. In fact all of the characters fit well, even Gwenyth Paltrow even though she just looks like an older version of Mary Jane. The only one who doesn't is Jeff Bridges' character. He is trying WAY to hard to pull off the evil badass thing and it just ends up looking clichéd and silly. It's like when an actor is sucking in a play and all the other actors are trying to cover for him, glancing at each other back and forth.

See the problem I have with Iron Man is that it's not really about Iron Man, which ironically seems to be why every other critic in the world loved it. This is a movie about Tony Stark. It's a movie about how a man changes emotionally after witnessing the effects of his business. It feels genuine, and Downey pulls it off flawlessly. Iron Man himself just feels like a side note, and that's why the film suffers so much. Iron Man is only on screen for about seven minutes total, and the whole thing feels like it's about an hour and a half of setup with about a half hour of movie. It jumps straight from Act I to Act III with nothing in between.

Iron Man shows up about 2/3 through the movie, and again at its tail end. And that's it.

It feels like a prequel.

It feels like this is but a prelude to something grander in the future, just a stepping stone, and though it is decent enough, it just feels incomplete and rushed and spends too much time concentrating on pre-Iron Man. In my opinion, since they knew they'd be making a sequel, they should've called this movie Stark, and have the next movie be called Iron Man. This is not Iron Man. This is Iron Man Begins. It's an origin story that focuses very little on its title character and squarely on the man beneath that mask. And while this does not kill what is still a decent movie, it definitely hurts it, even if only in my eyes.

Score: 6/10

"Forgetting Sarah Marshall": Unforgettable (aka bad pun)

Comedies generally aren't very good. They're usually dumb, with poor acting, no story whatsoever and packed with unrealistic clichés. Forgetting Sarah Marshall, though, is not. It breaks the mold formed by most comedies, which rely solely on making jokes, then squeezing in a story. FSM does the opposite; it composes a beautiful and EXTREMELY realistic story of heartbreak, loss, and recovery and then fits in splashes of comedy that is much more hit than miss.

One of the most amazing things anyone who's been through the protagonist's situation is that the movie's is very, very real. All the emotions and events and stages involved in breaking up and finding someone else, along with the jealousy ensuing from the dumper, the change of feelings, of heart, everything is just so accurate and true to real life it's as if director Nicholas Stoller is taking events from his own life (or maybe mine). Not to mention that it doesn't rely on 'jokes,' like most comedies, and isntead feeds off of the truths about life and relationships. It's one of the most honest movies I've ever seen, and offers a picture into the soul of many people around the world right now.

For all of its brilliance, it does miss on occasion. Jonah Hill, who's become a house hold name since Knocked Up, wears out his welcome after his second appearance, and becomes annoying and unfunny, and feels like he's only adding star value that the movie doesn't need. The movie itself is also a little too long, but this is easily forgiven as the characters are so well developed that it's worth it. Russel Brand, who plays Aldus Snow, is brilliant. His character, a parody on British rock stars, is a hilarious portrait of comedy and realism that will be quoted and remembered for years.

Stoller's film is a triumph. It's one of the most realistic comedies ever created, and hits home on a subject many have gone through and develops its characters better than most dramas. It doesn't need to be funny to be a fine film, but the comedy sprinkled throughout adds a thick icing to an already amazing cake. What Forgetting Sarah Marshall ultimately proves and achieves is that a great comedy can also just be a great movie.

Score: 9/10

"The Ruins": Not as cool as Audrey II

The Ruins is like that borderline grade you get on a test. You know, like that C-, like not very good, but at the same time not bad enough to be awful. It's a cheap, forgettable movie that never really delivers on any of the promises it makes, basically that movie you go see when everything else is sold out. Two years ago, I read the book. It was bad. It was about 400 pages of text that could've been easily trimmed to 200 without losing any of the story. Therein lies the problem with the film: the horror, the tension, it all relies on knowing the characters, their backgrounds, what they're thinking, stuff like that. You can't do that in movies very effectively, and in the end result is five punching bags whose only reason for existing is to be killed very gruesomely. That's what holds The Ruins back; it's a by-the-numbers, short horror story with no heart and no soul that is only here to make money from teenagers who need a date movie.

So what's it about? It's a plant. A 'killer' plant that also happens to be a wuss and doesn't really do anything. That's another issue; the primary antagonist, the whole reason for the people being quarantined, really takes a backseat to the fake drama that's playing out on screen. It does nothing of any significance and as a monster in the movie it fails miserabley. When your movie's monster isn't on screen as long as the title sequence, AND the people in the movie aren't very interesting, then you have a problem.

I'm done ripping it.

The fact is, I'm probably approaching it the wrong way. I was expecting a monster movie and didn't get one so I'm going to whine about it. The reality, though, is that the plant really isn't a 'monster,' I guess it's supposed to represent the foil, that little devil on the shoulder, a gremlin or a nuisance that's supposed to just oversee the fake drama. Oh well.

With all the negatives in this movie, being its wussy monster, its short length and throwaway characters, it does manage to squeeze in some chills. There's a part where the plant slithers inside one of the characters through a cut. The ending is also drastically improved from the book, which cops out. So while The Ruins isn't necessarily a horrible movie, it's still exactly what the producers intended it to be: a throwaway film with throwaway characters and a throwaway plot that you'll spend 20 bucks to see and then forget it ever existed. At the end of the day, The Ruins is the middle man between your date and her bedroom.

Score: 5/10

"10,000 BC": Based on a True Story...Ish

I didn't want to see this movie. I saw it because I wanted to go see a movie. And thus, this was the choice. And I'm glad I took it. I'm a pretty trusting person, I don't remember the last time I locked my car, and when I read the 9% approval rating (aka bad) on RottenTomatoes, I was somewhat put off. The main complaint: historical inaccuracy.

That got me thinking: is it? First, let me get this out of the way, this is an action movie, NOT a documentary. It is not based off of the conventional theories of ancient human history, it's based off of the Robert Bauval/Graham Hancock theories theorizing that the pyramids were built by a civilization in 10,000 BC that had lost their own civilization (ala Atlantis). And anyone who knows anything about this theory will recognize things like the Piri Reis map and other well-researched articles throughout the film. It's almost like an inside joke shared only by those who have actually studied archeology beyond what what they've told you in school.

The other common complaint about the film is that it's dumb, but to be honest, it's only dumb to dumb people, while smart people educated in 'alternate' archeology will find it quite intelligent. Alas this movie is a fantasy. And if you go into the theater expecting a dead-on accurate historical depcition of (conventional) prehistoric life, you should be watching Apocalypto, and not because I think that's any better, but people have put Mel Gibson up on a pedestal next to God lately so his word must be true, right?

The story is clichéd, the dialogue is bad and almost laughable, but that's not what this is about. The action and combat is riveting, watching the rebels storm the Mountain of the Gods (the Pyramids) will get your adrenaline pumping, and the opening sequence of giant mammoths storming across the valley reminiscent of the apatosaurs in 2005's King Kong is breathtaking. I enjoyed 10,000 BC, much more than I thought I would. And if you can look past the indescrepencies and horrendous acting, you will find that Roland Emmerich's film does exactly what it sets out to do: entertain us. And at that it does a fine, fine job.

Score: 7.5/10

"Cloverfield": The Blair Witch Project with balls

The next person who makes a Godzilla comparison to the Cloverfield monster needs to go back and study up on their monsterology. Godzilla is a colossal, majestic animal, while the Parasite (Cloverfield's monster, what I call it, and all the other nerdy fanboys roaming forums late at night) is basically a giant praying mantis. The movie makes an awesome trailer, but so did Spider-Man 3, and we all see what happened with that. The problem I had with Cloverfield is that I went into the theater with sky high expectations and dreams beyond that of Godzilla. I wanted to see a big badass monster destroy a city, and I did, but only out of the corner of my eye.

You see, what it doesn't do well is give us a big popcorn action movie. Yes, you see the monster, but never clearly, even when it's out in the open bathed in daylight. And this hurts the film somewhat, for even after sitting through the whole whopping 70 minutes (see: 'sarcasm'), I still really couldn't draw a mental picture of this thing. So if you go into Cloverfield expecting a big budget monster smashing good time, you'll be disappointed, because unlike the poster-one of the most awesome posters ever made-it's not a movie like that.

What it does well is offer up a good story of survival and does a decent job of putting things in an interesting and frightening perspective. The scenes at the beginning of the Parasite's attack when Hud, our camera guy, is running in the streets with military guys firing at the monster is great. But that's also the problem, the monster is so neat, that we wish it would just take up the whole damn movie. It doesn't. In fact the monster is only in it for a little bit in the first half hour, and then the last ten minutes, with 45 minutes in the middle of crappy human drama that we could care less about. That’s nice and all, but when I go see a monster movie I want to see monsters. (Also, why were there spider things in this movie? I'm tired of watching spider things take over monster movies. It seems like they're in every movie and I think they need a break.) Back to the human drama. Yes, human-wise, Cloverfield gets pretty intense at points, even if Rob, the main character, seems to have no trouble sacrificing his closest friends to save some girl who's probably dead already (see: 'whipped'). Big heart, no brains.

Cloverfield offers up some truly cool moments, and the monster, though his appearance is short-lived and sketchy at best, is impressive to a degree, even if it seems to be the result of a Godzilla-Praying Mantis-Monkey sexual encounter. It's worth seeing, but not paying 10 bucks for (I paid $60 to see this movie including my siblings' tickets, my 'friend's' ticket, and food). This isn't a movie about story, in fact I feel like I've written this same story about ten times when I was in fifth grade. It's a style movie, a movie that knows that it has no story and is simply about art and special effects. That's probably the best way to describe Cloverfield. It's a piece of filmatic art that really fails to truly enthrall yet succeeds at creating interest. Though it isn't the large scale monster movie I was hoping-praying-for, it's definitely worth a rental and a tub of popcorn some lonely weekend.

Score: 6.5/10

"No Country for Old Men": Yet the theater I was in was full of them

First off, let's get this straight: I did NOT want to see this movie. In fact, the only reason I saw it was because my family was going, and my uncle paid, so it was free, but just so you know, while standing in line I was secretly praying that this movie would be sold out and we would go see The Water Horse instead. But no, I ended up sitting down to this movie. And, wouldn't you know it, it was the best 2 hours I've spent at the movies this year.

The story is simple, and has been done before: a man comes across a botched deal, finds some money, takes it, and then gets hunted down by people who want it. Sound familiar? It should. But I'll be damned if the Cohen Bros. didn't dust off this old plot and turn it into one of the most riveting, suspenseful, and albeit great titles in recent memory.

Josh Brolin is our main good guy, here, who's only in this whole mess because he decided to do the right thing and try and save a guy's life. He's pretty much a badass, which is good, because the guy chasing him down for the money is also a badass. So it's kind of like Aliens v. Predator except with humans and a script.

Javier Bardem, as the psycho, is absolutely amazing. I'm an effects guy, personally. I don't care about acting. But this guy was good. Very good. Noticeably good. He plays this psycho badass guy who goes around killing people with a smile on his face. He uses a silenced shotgun and either blows them to bits or uses a can of compressed air to flush out their brains. Yet, at the same time, he's polite, he says 'please,' he's got a decent personality, and if he likes someone, he'll give them the option whether or not they want to live or die, depending on a coin toss. In short, despite the fact that Bardem plays one of the most monstrous bad guys ever in a movie, he's also, easily, the most genuine.

Tommy Lee Jones does nothing here, nor does his character. Seriously. He takes up time and adds star power. Woody Harrelson is also superfluous, but hell, the rest of the movie is so damn good that you really don't notice, nor care.

It's intense beyond words, including a long scene in a hotel room that will keep you on the edge of your seat or holding your breath. There is also quite a bit of humor to tone down the action and keep the pacing methodical yet engrossing. The southern, Texas dialogue is flawless, and at times, funny. The script is well-written, but no film, including this one is perfect... There are about 3 scenes in this movie that do nothing but bog it down. One is where Tommy Lee Jones, the sheriff who does absolutely nothing (and even ACKNWOLEDGES the fact that he does nothing) is talking to some old guy, and the old guy tells some five minute story, but we can't understand it because the speech is so slurred. This didn't need to be in the film, and while I understand it is an attempt to add depth, it also adds, uh, boringness.

The ending, that I won't spoil, I am sad to say created boos in the crowd. It's a shame to see such a great film nearly killed by one of the most abrupt, inconclusive, unsatisfying endings ever. The credits start rolling out of nowhere, and you think "What the HELL? It's over?!" It's that kind of feeling. It feels like it should have another half hour to tie up the loose ends. But it never does. And it ultimately damages what would've been a flawless movie.

No Country for Old Men, despite it's horrendous ending, is well directed, brilliantly acted, and overall just a great movie. In a year full of All-Hype-No-Payoff Movies like Spider-Man 3, Pirates 3, Shrek 3, and others, it's a sigh of relief to know that one of the best films of 2007 has come right in the nick of time.

Score: 8.5/10

"I Am Legend": More Like 'I Am Decent'

Probably the most widely marketed and heavily advertised December movie of all time, I Am Legend doesn't dissapoint in terms of doing what it sets out to do: blow you away and awe you at the same time. Like a really really really good prostitute. Essentially, that's what I Am Legend is. One of those high end prostitutes. Think I'm kidding? Just hear me out: First, you give it money. Then you get to hang with it for an hour and a half while it makes you go 'whoa!' and 'awesome!' and 'oh shit!' And then it leaves. And that's it. No meaning. No purpose. Hell, not even a phone number.

I'm not going to tell you everything that's good about I Am Legend. The promos and trailers, which are all over the internet, radio, sides of busses, on bananas, and even wrapped around peoples' cars, tell you all you need to know. There are scenes of intensity, like one where Robert Neville is hanging from a rope while the sun descends, bringing about the 'Dark Seekers,' or the Infected, who prey upon the survivors. It's pumped full of action from the opening scenes, and never lets up, even if story-wise it fades out in the end. It's a popcorn movie. But sadly, nothing more.

Changes in this movie from the 1954 book are obvious, including the ending. And unfortunately for the movie, everything seems to have lost its meaning. Everything is just happening. No reason. Why is the leader of the Dark Seekers so focused on getting him? Why is he, in fact, Legend? These are questions the book answers, yet the movie doesn't despite asking them. There is a large missed opportunity here as well. Early in the film, Neville comments that the Seekers have been completely dehumanized, meaning they've pretty much lost all intelligence, yet later in the film they manage to trap him in the same way he trapped them. Sadly, instead of exploring the fact that Neville was wrong, and that the Seekers are in fact becoming SMARTER, it's almost as if the movie says 'oh, wait, forget about that part' and just moves on with the premise that the Seekers are just bloodthirsty beasts with no real rhyme or reason to their actions. These are themes the book played upon well, and eventually answered.

Though extremely entertaining, even if Smith overacts more than his fair share of times (someone needs to tell him to stop fake crying and just keep being funny and shooting monsters in his movies), the quick ending which makes very little sense to anyone watching it (I heard about ten people shout 'Why didn't you just go in there too! (you'll know what I’m talking about when you see it)) and by taking out the twist ending and various major points from the book giving everything a sense of reason, Francis Lawrence hurt his film...though not mortally. While you're sure to forget this movie a week later, you'll at least have fun watching it. I Am Legend is a good movie. Just not legendary.

Score: 6.5/10

"The Host": The Real Monster is Us. And the Critics Who Convinced Me to Watch this Stupid Thing.

It's definitely overachieved with critics, that's for sure. I watched this last night with my somewhat 'just friend' blah blah whatever she is and she fell asleep, and I would've too if I wasn't such a fan of monster movies. For some who might think this review is biased, know this: I live for monster movies, therefore it is. My 'just friend' I mentioned above can vouch for this. I have every Godzilla movie ever made on DVD (some illegal) and I have two pet dinosaur eels named Loche and Champ. Not kidding. But the fact is, this is a movie which is so packed with anti-American messages and stupid humor that it very nearly comes off as a spoof of all those things I hold dear. It really does. There are often times, like in the very beginning, when it is painfully obvious that all director Joon-ho is doing is talking about how stupid and stubborn America is. When the film starts, an American scientist tells his Korean (this is a Korean film, not a Japanese one like some people are suggesting) assistant to dump the chemical down the drain, but NOT before talking for five minutes about how dangerous it is. America rocks!

The writing is bad. And I'm not talking about the fact that the dubbing is so horrible that it's really hard to pay attention without laughing every five minutes. The monster's coming to be is classic, as in it's a product of chemical runoff, and doesn't waste time trying to explain it scientifically (The Mist did this well). This is a good thing. What's a bad thing is when the human characters' actions are so horribly written that it makes it almost painful to watch. There is one scene where two hazmat-like workers stop a truck because one saw a dollar-which was practically invisible-in a sewage drain...on the other side of the truck. Of course, they have to get out and see (because a dollar is like, what, ten times what they make in a year!) and become monster food. But that's the problem with this script, as in too many of the actions are forced and work only to move along the ridiculous story reminiscent of something from Roger Corman in 1992-oh yeah, Carnosaur. Did I mention this movie is kinda like that? It’s lazy, lazy writing.

By the way, before I continue, why is this thing rated R? Just thought I'd ask. Because, honestly, the big F-bomb comes up just once, and I think it's the only cuss word in the whole movie, and there's less gore than on an old episode of Power Rangers. The story is also substantially silly. Why is it so easy for two guys to sneak into a military base who aren't even wearing military colors? How can a drunk suddenly go all Tom Cruise on some police officers and escape a high-rise building? All these ludicrous subplots seriously detract from the monster itself. In fact, the monster seems like so little of an actual threat that it often takes a back seat to everything else happening.

And this is where I stop totally ripping this movie and talk about the good stuff: the monster itself. The 'Host' is a neat-looking, well thought of, creative, and thoroughly good monster. Its emergence from the river in the beginning is memorable beyond words, and is clearly the best scene in the movie. This monster, unlike ours like King Kong or the Japanese Godzilla, is often much more terrifying. It's quick, it's scary looking, it's brutal, and it doesn't think. It attacks, it kills, and thanks to the special effects of WETA (which worked on King Kong by the way) is simply amazing to look at. When the Host is on screen, this movie is excellent. But it’s not on screen very much.

So after watching this movie, I have found a way to make it better.

1) take out the dubbing and PLEASE just watch it in Korean with English subtitles

2) take out all of the scenes that don't have the monster in it (about an hour and a half of film time) 3) up the volume on what you have left

Simply put, The Host has some of the most intense, beautifully-rendered monster scenes ever conceived, yet it is unfortunately wrapped in what is a horrible script with horrible actors. It's like tootsie pops. You have to get through a lot of annoying lollipop to get to the good stuff, and at the end of the day it’s just not worth it.

Score: 4/10

Hugo trailer and new poster

Harder at work at Hugo than I expected. Just a few quick promos. Response to the trailer I've posted (mostly on my facebook, nothing really on youtube) has been overwhelmingly positive.

Here are the opening credits, I chose Louis Armstrong as the title song. Since I'm not selling Hugo hopefully I won't get sued.

'Hugo'...My Venture into Animation

With the completion of first short film, and in the process of planning a bigger, feature project (with actual actors!) for the summer, I'm also going to try my hand at animation. Obviously, I'm not Pixar, and the best animation I'll be able to come up with won't look much more sophisticated than an old episode of South Park, but I'm not worried about that. I want to tell a really good story, and that'll be the goal. Aiming for about 10-15 minutes or so for a Fall 2009 release. I'll post more info as I develop it. Anyway...

Hugo, which yes, is a take on the name of some of the infamous 'ugly' cartoon characters throughout history, is about a subject that's bothered me for years: the lobsters in the tanks in seafood restaurants and grocery stores on death row. Hugo is the story of a 100-year old American lobster who's seen more history than most humans who is one day plucked from his home and put up for sale in a seafood restaurant. Let the escape being.

Here's a promo pic:

My First Short Film

Just finished my first short film, ever. Before you take a look at it, here are a few tidbits about it:

• I wrote and shot this film from scratch in about 2 days. My actor I realized probably couldn't do it at the last second and my brother, or camera man, wasn't able to make it up. Desperate, I changed everything. This was originally about a rebellious angel. I ended up with a dramatic horror.
• So then it turns out the audio SUCKS, so I make it a dialogue-less film.

• Every piece of audio was added in post, from the big things like the rain and thunder to tiny things like the faucet turning on, everything was done in post.
• Because I'm poor, the entire thing was edited with Windows Movie Maker. It's not exactly what Spielberg uses, but it's simple.
• I'm the star of the movie, unfortunatley. I hate being in front of the camera and love being behind it and hope I never have to act in one of my own films again. Because I was pretty much my own camera man, setting up the shots took three times as long and none of them were perfect.
• In gist, this short film is an example of how every shortcoming that's thrown at you shouldn't stop you from making a decent product. If I can put something like this, which looks better than Vin Fucking Diesel's first film, then what the hell are all these directors doing with their $250 million dollar budgets? Buying $20 million dollar tripods?

Watchmen: Meh...

Before starting I think it’s first necessary to inform any and all readers that I had not even heard of this Watchmen thing before trailers and hype started spreading throughout the internet like an unstoppable epidemic. Within a few months, the mass hysteria over the greatness that was to premier in theaters in March of 2009 was a little too annoying to ignore, so I researched it and discovered that Watchmen is actually a graphic novel by Alan Moore that most comic book readers put up on a pedestal right next to Halo and God. The novel involves colorful characters in costumes going around fighting crime and a secret plot against them all (according to Wikipedia). My reaction: so? It sounded to me like a typical, clichéd, stereotypical crime fighting story with nothing particularly interesting about it except for the fact that it takes place in an “alternate” 1985, where Richard Nixon still rules (I didn’t make that up). Despite my own personal questions about it, Watchmen apparently doesn’t have the same effect on most people, who revere it with the utmost loyalty and have been salivating over the film since it was announced. Naturally, I had to know what all the fuss was all about. I haven’t read the comic, like I mentioned before, but I did feel obliged to get in on the secret that everyone in the world except me seemed to know and go see the movie.
First impressions were positive. It’s always a good thing when a movie can completely dash all doubts about the stupidity of its setting right out of the starting gate. The film opens with a beautiful flashy montage showing the development of alternate history in which it takes place along with the opening credits that made me completely forget about its implausibility and pulled me into the story’s setting quite well. I was impressed. Good job, so far, Watchmen.
Then it goes south.
The story begins with the murder of a former superhero, who gets thrown out of a window by some guy dressed like a rejected version of the Joker. A fight preludes the death that’s complete with slow motion dramatics and loud sounds to cue hit points. It turns out that, according to Rorschach (I know I probably spelled his name wrong. I don’t care.), a vigilante with a shape-shifting mask and the personality of that recently-divorced guy at the bar, has the feeling that there’s an underlying conspiracy to get rid of all former superheroes, who have been outlawed (think The Incredibles if they ended up in a Grand Theft Auto game). This sets off a chain of stories which are essentially all interconnecting origin stories that lead up to about an hour of present time “saving the world” stuff. There’s a blue God guy named Dr. Manhattan (I’m assuming that’s a really, really bad and obvious allusion to the Manhattan Project), this Batman wannabe who isn’t cool enough for bats so he dresses like an owl, a girl who wears the suit from Kill Bill, and maybe another one or two that were lost in the shuffle of goofiness that is the Watchmen.
Now comes the inevitable criticism, and it really stems from one thing: tone. Watchmen is a movie about guys who dress up in very, very colorful costumes and is supposed to deal with superheroes in the “real world,” which in itself is an oxymoron. It’s hard to take the film as seriously as it wants us to when you have giant blue penises swinging around and “Hallelujah” blaring when one of the heroes finally gets it up after saving people from a burning building. Add that in with the fact that it doesn’t even take place in the real world, it takes place in an “alternate” world, which again takes away the suspension of disbelief. The film tries to mix things that look like pieces of a MadTV skit or a Saturday morning cartoon with downright seriousness, something that was attempted before in Spider-Man 3, and look how well that turned out. If you’re going to try and put your superhero in a realistic setting (um…The Dark Knight) then make it a realistic superhero, not a giant fu*king God-like being who’s practically unbeatable and has a summer house on fu*king Mars!
The acting isn’t very good, and jumps around from overacting to underacting. For example, when Dr. Manhattan goes from a geeky scientist to blue Mr. Clean, he steps into some giant machine to get back his watch (Watchmen, get it?), he gets locked in, and the two scientists behind the glass window practically shrug their shoulders, showing very little, if any, dread for what’s about to happen. What the hell is the point of that machine, anyway? Does it have a practical purpose besides turning people blue? Then, later on, you have the Shakespearean overacting, like from Rorschach. I know he’s a moral absolutist and sees the world in black and white, but seriously, dude, you’re wearing the Invisible Man’s outfit and killing people with hairspray torches, crack a joke once in a while!

I hear an expression sometimes when I ask people if they liked a particularly movie: “It’s good…if you’re into that sort of thing.” I can’t think of any better way to describe this film than that phrase. Watchmen is a movie for people who like Watchmen the graphic novel. Just like U2-3D is a movie for people who love U2 and The Fast and the Furious is for white kids who want to be black. I have no doubt that it remains faithful to its source material considering it runs longer than it takes to actually read most books these days; I don’t see how they could’ve left anything of significance out. It feels like it goes on forever, with the stories all winding down to a single 40-minute climax that would’ve been better suited for a mini-series on the SciFi channel.
Watchmen isn’t bad. It has enough action to keep you entertained, the effects may not be dazzling but they do the job, and Rorschach carries the film fairly well when the other characters don’t. Unfortunately it’s bogged down by its contradictory intentions, its silliness mixed with staidness, its confusing back stories and its unacceptable length. This results in what is no more than an average movie for those who aren’t already in love with its source. There’s nothing particularly horrible about it, but nothing great either. Most of the themes explored have been explored in movies many times over (this includes its ending, which really lacks any emotional gravity) and the effects aren’t anything revolutionary. Watchmen is a movie made for, dare I say it, the fanboys. If you love the original graphic novel, then I have a strong feeling you’ll love the film as well. To us, the mainstream, it’s just another super hero movie, a dime a dozen, but the people who worshipped the novel over 20 years ago I think will be satisfied by what it has to offer, and that it acts as a perfect companion to any previously established Watchmen collection. For the rest of us, it’s been there, done that, with nothing new to bring to the table.

Watchmen
Running time: 2 hours 43 minutes (there was a misprint at the movie theater I went to that read 1 hour and 43 minutes…imagine my bladder’s surprise)

Score: 2 out of 4

Twilight: An Emasculating Surprise

[This was originally a class assignment, hence the quotations.]

Over the previous Summer I found myself increasingly perplexed by a media phenomenon that seemed to ever so obnoxiously sweep the globe. Apparently, a popular teenage book series, which I’d never heard of, was being made into a film to be released in the Fall. The aforementioned film, Twilight, concerned the escapades of a teenage vampire and his love for a teenage non-vampire with (like totally OMG!) horrendous consequences (despite the implied, yet subtle notions of bestiality). Immediately, my crappy-cash-cow-movie-aimed-at-teenage-girls sense went off upon having to endure the swooning of every girl in the audience during the film’s trailer attached to, quite audaciously, The Dark Knight. The 2-minute preview that featured the likes of gloomy Harry Potter-esque forested landscapes and Hollister models pretending to be vampires had me all but ensured that it would be no more than a Nickelodeon movie disguised as something bigger, and I quickly organized a propaganda-filled campaign of hatred towards it. I began a personal boycott of the film, cursing it as the epitome of the spoiled tween white girl persona, that it would only be enjoyed by those who wear the word “pink” on the back of their sweatpants and drive around in silver Jettas, and that any money it made would be solely derived from that demographic. When the reviews were posted after the movie was released, I was overjoyed to see that many critics agreed with me, like Frank Ochieng, a featured critic of MovieEye.com:

"Twilight sparkles for its intended audience of indiscriminate adolescent females. However, it will only be deemed as a softened, hackneyed horror show of synthetic affection for the rest of us."

For months, I avoided exposing myself to Twilight; I avoided conforming like everyone else in the world and buying a ticket and supporting the very reason terrorists hate us. I went dateless for a few weeks while it was still in mainstream theaters, knowing that every girl I made one with would inevitably want to sit in the theater and tremble in the presence of “pin-up prince” (Ochieng) Robert Pattinson, who plays the leading vampire, and make me feel like the world’s ugliest college kid (even though Pattinson’s lipstick appears thicker than his female co-star’s most of the time). Alas, when the feature came to our local theater in recent days, I was finally coerced by some of those ravaging hormonal females into seeing it. I paid my dollar, ripped up a few Man-Cards, and stepped into the theater guns ablaze, prepared to metaphorically rip Twilight to shreds and burn its teen-corrupting corpse.
I rolled my eyes the first time our male heroic vampire, Edward Cullen, appeared on screen, predictably accompanied by the slow motion and slanted eye contact. A few minutes later, he locks eyes with the female non-vampire love interest, Bella, played by Kristen Stewart (aka the most boring girl in the world, ever), and I once again, though hesitantly, rolled my eyes. Then something completely unexpected happened. A scene or two later, Edward saves Bella Spider-Man-style by jumping in the path of a runaway van and stopping it just before it gets the chance to crush her puny little human body into oblivion followed by a longing stare into each other’s gaze. And, much to my utter surprise, I couldn’t come to visually criticize it; I couldn’t roll my eyes or chuckle mildly. Why? Because as much as I wanted to hate Twilight, as much as I would love to tell you how dreadfully awful and clichéd it is, I can’t. I can’t because, to my horror, the blue tinting, the somewhat serious romance and the awkward mystery of the main characters was all, well, it was all working.
Alright, I’ll admit it: Twilight is good. And no, I don’t mean good as in “tolerable”, I mean good as in that I genuinely enjoyed the experience. What the film does so well is something the marketing for it didn’t do so well: it doesn’t overdo anything.
Balance is important in filmmaking; spending too much time focusing on one aspect of your story to the point where it becomes monotonous bores your audience, but not spending enough time on it has the opposite effect, where plot points are lost. Twilight provides everything in small doses. The action, the drama, the suspense, and yes, even very good humor on occasion, is all delivered at a good pace throughout the course of the film without wasting too much time on either one. Yes, it has your occasional moments that appease only teenage girls, like Edward’s dramatic entrance, but they’re rare, and everything else in regards to the relationship between he and Bella is surprisingly mature. Like I said, nothing is overdone; the vampires are held in a more realistic light, but the movie doesn’t focus too much on it. It tells us what they are and leaves it at that, without incorporating magic or long rants about legends that interrupt the suspension of disbelief. It is, as one Washington Post reviewer put it, a “self-respecting vampire movie” (O’Sullivan). That may be the best way to describe Twilight; it’s respectful to itself and its audience and its actors and never goes down the road of horror, portraying the bloodsuckers in a more humanistic manner.
A movie is empty without its performances. Nothing does a better job at immersing you into the world the film attempts to create than good acting, and the title characters have some of the best on-screen chemistry I’ve ever seen. Maybe it’s because they’re both fairly creepy looking or both dry and weird, but the romance between Bella and Edward is, dare I say, believable. Having two actors stare at each other for prolonged periods of time is a common method used by directors to convey the essence of love, and it’s dangerous if the actors don’t have that special connection. Luckily, it works gloriously here as the feelings our two stars have for each other in the film come across as completely genuine.
Twilight is far from perfect, mind you. O’Sullivan mentions in his Post review that “the special effects seem outdated, as director Catherine Hardwicke relies too much on motion blur”. There’s an essentially useless character named Jacob who shows up once in awhile to steal screen time, but we never really learn anything about him, nor do we ever really care. The third act really falls apart, and feels as if it was put together at the last second. The story’s primary antagonist is both introduced and disposed of in under a half hour, and what feels like what should be the longest, most heart-wrenching section of the movie ends up being cut disappointingly short with no real sense of danger. It’s almost as if Michael Bay snuck onto the set and kicked Hardwicke off the director’s chair for the final leg of the film (I couldn’t resist), and because of that it speeds up as if to catch a deadline when the reality is that it needed maybe an extra 20 minutes or so of breathing room to come to a satisfying conclusion. It breaks what I dub the “Jumper Rule”, whereas the ending exists only as a precursor to an inevitable sequel.
None of these quibbles really ruin the experience the film has to offer. In fact, Twilight is one of the biggest surprises to reach movie theaters in a long, long time. It feels as if the filmmakers went against the grain of appealing only to teenage girls and made a dark, well-written, mature romance film with impeccable performances that does an outstanding job of never taking itself too seriously while at the same time never becoming a virtual parody. I applaud it, as well as all the people who ridiculed me for doubting it. It’s one of the rare films that seeks to outdo the expectations set before it, positive and negative, and succeeds grandly in both.

Twilight

running time: 2 hours

score: 3 out of 4