Twilight (2008)

This will be the review that earns me the wrath of the teenage girls of the world.  At least the ones who like Twilight.  Because I hated Twilight.  It was a terrible story, terrible movie, and a terrible awful no good blight on popular culture.

Where to begin?  Let's start with the acting.  Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson star in this wreck of a film.  On the merits of their performance here, neither one deserves to act in any other film at any other time for any other conceivable reason -excepting perhaps a demonstration video on what not to do.  Neither one knows how to open their mouths and utter intelligible words.  Neither knows how to close their mouths when they are not talking.  And both seem to think that the way to act in love is to behave as though they have been stabbed in the stomach with sharpened steel rebar.  Only about 10 minutes into the movie I already hated the main characters, just on the strength (anemic weakness, really) of the acting.

What about direction?  This tripe is brought to us by Catherine Hardwicke, who deserves only blame and ridicule.  Terrible decisions abound, as does slow motion.

Writing?  Certainly the film has to benefit from being based on a hit book, right?  Wrong.  Oh so very, tragically wrong.  This is a movie (and book) about vampires, right?  No, it isn't.  Vampires have a long history in literature, owing most famously to Bram Stoker's Dracula.  Vampires are creatures of the night; not dead, but no longer living shadows of humanity.  Vampires are despicable creatures, evil to the core, stalking and preying upon humans using deception and stealth.  The horror of them stems from their nature, not from their viciousness.  But vampires, no matter their strengths, had specific weaknesses and in are built on a Christian mythology.  They have no power over Christ or the symbols of the church, and they are repelled by symbols of life, vibrancy, and hope.  Sunlight makes them weak and powerless, exposing them as being the hollow shells of darkness that they are and will eventually kill them.This is the Christian ethic at work: darkness is frightening and seemingly powerful, but the slightest light will destroy it and show it to be sham without strength.
The problem with Twilight's writing then begins from the very foundation of the story.  These are not vampires in Twilight.  They are so different from Stoker's ideas that we might as well call them something else entirely.  Our new name for them has to describe what they are like in the movie, so it has to be something not scary, not intimidating, not horrifying, but certainly stupid.  So I will call these idiot creatures "Sparklies" from here on out.

The problems only cascade downward from there.  Slow motion is substituted for suspense.  Posturing and looking idiotic is substituted for character development.  Shirts are optional.  And no one ever behaves in a rational way.

To save space, I'll just relate some of the so-bad-its-funny aspects of Twilight in bullet form:

• The male Sparklies wear mascara.  For some reason.  Maybe to look less intimidating, if it were possible for an effeminate sulking man-child to look less intimidating.
• Every teen guy is a blithering idiot.  And the new girl in school is instantly popular.  Like that happens.
• Why do Sparklies become human disco balls in the sun?  Because it isn't cool, it isn't neat, and it isn't something remotely needed.
• When Edward tells Bella they shouldn't be friends she takes that to mean that she should try really, really hard to be friends.
• Ok, I had the briefest moment of connection with Edward when he said that Claire de Lune was his favorite song.  But this moment was ruined when the next words out of his mouth were (and I swear I'm not making this up) "Hold on tight, spider monkey."  Then he scampered up a tree like a squirrel with Bella on his back.  This is inexplicably stupid.
• When bad guys show up to threaten the good guys, even though the good guys outnumber the bad guys they don't fight then.  Instead, the tactic is to split up so the bad guys have a chance.  Why?  Some people call it suspense, but in reality it is simply poor and lazy writing.  And frustrating.

When it comes to the values of the film, I don't even know where to start.  Let's just say I am terrified for teenage girls in our society who buy into this nonsense.  I submit the following observations:

• Bella falls in love with a guy who treats her like dirt to begin with.  He runs away in the middle of conversations, glares at her like a creepy stalker, and tells her he wants to eat her.  This is treated like romance.  I call it terror.
• The fact that Edward sneaks into Bella's room at night to watch her sleep is also treated as romantic.  Here's the reality: it's sexual harassment and creepy.  News flash to the teenage girls of the world!  If a guy says "I like watching you sleep" it doesn't mean "aww, how sweet!"  It means run away and call the cops!
• Edward tells Bella that he's killed people before.  She says (again, I'm not making this up) "I don't care."  Because murderers are people to hang out with?  Because this tiny detail of homicide shouldn't factor into who you spend your time with?  All is forgiven because "he's just so hot?" (public service announcement: I do not really think Robert Pattinson is hot.  That is all.)
• The Twilight description of the perfect guy is as follows: 1)he must be far older than the girl.  2) He must desire to hurt the girl.  3) He must constantly abandon the girl.  4)He must have homicidal tendancies he barely holds in check.  5) He breaks into her house to check on her, watch her sleep, and otherwise control her life.  6) He should have a cool car.

I mean, really?  That's romance?  No wonder our world is in a mess.

Here's the bottom line: Twilight is abhorrent dreck, a miserable sludge of a film.  I have not seen the sequels, so I can't comment on them.  However, at least the first one has to go down as one of the worst movies I've ever seen.  I honestly cannot think of a single thing it did right, or a single moment (other than the Debussy flicker of hope that was instantly quashed) that was even remotely intriguing.  

Avoid.  Avoid it like you would a Sparklie.

Entertainment: 1/10 

Artistic value: 1/10 

Technical merit: 1/10

Overall: 1/10

And just to be clear -I didn't like Twilight.

Revising my Reviews

Just as an FYI for anyone who happens to read my blog (hi mom!), I'll be going back through all the reviews I've done over the next few days and revising my ratings.  I feel that I've painted myself into a bit of a corner, giving slightly higher ratings to some than I should have.

So here then is an indication of what my scores will mean from here on out:

• A score of between 1-3 is a terrible review.  The film maker did little that was right or good.
• Between 4-6 is average to good.  The main bulk of movies fit in this range.
• 7-8 is well above average.  These will be standout movies, well-worth seeing and re-watching.  A movie in this range is much rarer.
• And then of course, 9-10 is the exceptional movie, one that I would consider to be at the top of the class. A 10 means that I believe improvement to be almost an impossibility.

So that means I need to lower some scores and be a bit tougher and more stingy with the higher numbers.  But that does not mean I like the film less, just that my ratings scale has changed.  

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

Ah Jimmy Stewart, you are the king of feel good sentimentality, if only for this film!  In 1946 Frank Capra created one of the most enduring and heart-warming movies of all time in It's a Wonderful Life.  Capra had already hit cinematic gold with Mr Deeds Goes to Town with Gary Cooper, Arsenic and Old Lace with Carey Grant, and once before with Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith Goes to Washington (yes, Capra liked the word "Mr." in his titles.).  But nothing has quite endured in the public consciousness quite like It's a Wonderful Life.  And this fact is odd, considering the fact that when it was released it was one of his least-successful films.  In fact, critics really seemed to dislike it and audiences kinda stayed away.  It was not until repeat releases and regular television showings at Christmas time that It's a Wonderful Life got the recognition we know today.

To be honest, I can really understand critics panning this film when it first came out.  It is shmaltzy, sappy, and overflowing with (here's a funny phrase) hopeless optimism.  It's really hard to know which is worse; its theology of angels (also known as angelology, I kid you not) or the quality of the child actors.  There is so much to dislike that I forgive anyone who regards it as "not a good movie."

But all is forgiven for so many reasons.  Yes, it is not a perfect film, but it has a sweet, simple, and uplifting message: each of us can make such a huge difference in this world.  To remove a man or woman from existence is to make the world that much poorer.  Add on the top the notion that the American Dream is not really getting rich and powerful, but doing good for one's neighbor, and you have a very strong ethic going on here.

Therefore I say, so what if 75% of George Bailey's lines are sappy enough to make syrup?  Those lines are delivered by Jimmy Stewart!  So what if Karolyn Grimes -who played Zuzu -delivered one of my least favorite child actor lines in Hollywood history (the monotone and slurred together "look daddy, teacher-says-that-everytime-a-bell-rings [gasp of breath] an-angel-gets-its-wings!")?  I'm still so happy George has her petals back!  Who cares if Mr. Potter's character is some Hollywood leftist's swipe at free market capitalism?  I say the critique is needed, that unfettered greed is a problem in any society!  So what if the theology takes a few (dozen) liberties?  It still teaches a Christian moral.  So what if the ending seems a couple thousand miles over the top?  I want to believe that decent people will win in the end, supported and helped by other decent people!

This is not a movie I like because it is well done.  But I love it for how Jimmy Stewart simply makes me smile.  This is a movie that makes everyone wish they had a friend named Clarence.

So remember everyone, no one is poor who has friends!

Entertainment: 6/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 6/10

Overall:  6/10 (but I like it anyway!)

The Bourne Identity (2002)

Directed by Doug Liman, starring Matt Damon

Plot summary: a wounded man without a memory is fished out the Mediterranean sea, who then finds himself chased by deadly assassins as he seeks to discover his past.

This is the spy movie that changed things for Hollywood action movies.  It has the same title as a spy novel written by Robert Ludlum that changed the way spy novels were written.  Interestingly, the title is about all the movie shares with the novel.  I exaggerate a bit, but not by much.  Let me explain.

I enjoyed The Bourne Identity.  A lot.  It has everything I love in an action film: great fights, frantic chases, quick thinking, and a simply fantastic car chase.  It keeps away from everything I hate about action movies: stupid plots, pathetic acting (or over acting), awful writing, terrible direction with horrid editing that disguises all the other rough edges.  Bourne worked into my heart, and I liked it greatly.

But the film has this one detail, a plot hole so deep and wide that I just couldn't get past it.  You see, Jason Bourne is a super spy.  He knows how to play the angles in any room, use anything for a weapon, can blend into the background or completely dominate physically.  He has an astounding ability to observe and memorize, as he himself admits and describes in one scene of the film.  So why would a guy who can memorize every license plate of the cars on the way into a diner need a fancy gizmo inserted into his hip with his bank account info on it?  Is he worried that he might forget his password?  You see, it irritated me to no end that this thing in his hip only seemed to be there in the rather unlikely eventuality that he would be wounded, recover, but lose his memory.  WHY IS THIS THING THERE??

So I read the book.  I simply had to find out if there was a rational explanation.  Turns out there is, though it is never discussed in the movie.  See, it's there as an insurance policy, where if Bourne ever was killed in action this thing in his hip would be found, his past discovered, and his name could be cleared.  Whew, one mystery solved, a host of others begun.

Understand, I read the book to understand the movie better.  But what I discovered is that the movie has almost no relationship with the book.  Sure, there's an amnesiac spy named Jason Bourne is in the book, as is a girl named Marie.  There is indeed something called Treadstone, and the CIA are involved.  The hip implant is there, and the beginning of the novel is very well represented in the film.  Other than that, there is nothing at all similar.  The plot is so divergent, so different, so unrelated that to say The Bourne Identity movie is based on the book is close to an outright lie.

So all that to make a judgement on the movie.  Is the movie any good?  Yes.  Yes.  Yes.
By no means is it perfect -the acting, while good, is often uneven.  The plot is convoluted, and the writing at times is not quite able to help you keep up too well.  And the romance side seems just a tad forced.  But on the whole, this is a well-done film.  Cinematography and editing a far above average, with some truly beautiful shots, complete with very nicely choreographed fight scenes.  Direction is great; plenty is done that is new and unique for action film.

What stands out is the humanity of the whole film.  It centers on one man and brings out his confusion quite well.  Action is great and frantic, but never for the sake of the action.  Everything centers around the man and his quest to know himself.  And when all the pieces come together the conclusion becomes unavoidable.

Bourne was a well-timed movie.  It found a niche, appealing to an audience loosing trust in the intelligence community after 9/11/01.  (Interestingly, just after 9/11 they shot a whole new ending, one that you might say makes the CIA into a "good guy" of sorts and helps build confidence in government security, but the original ending played better with audiences, so it stayed.)  And it reinvented the tired and stale spy thriller genre -Mission: Impossible 2 and the later Pierce Brosnan James Bond films released about the same time were more than a bit lackluster.  As such, The Bourne Identity is not just enjoyable; it is important as well.

Entertainment: 6/10
Artistic Value: 4/10
Technical Merit: 7/10

Overall: 6.5/10

Favorite Directors: Akira Kurosawa

So how do you choose what movies to watch?  Typically there are at least five major influences that convince me to watch a film:

1. I'm interested in the topic (AKA -"wow, that looks like something I'd enjoy!")
2. I'm a fan of the major actors (AKA -"Jimmy Stewart is in this!  Squeeeee!")
3. I'm with a group of friends, and they all insist on watching some terrible movie against my opinionated, yet correct, urging. (and that is how I was forced to watch the horrendous Wild Wild West more than once.)
4. It is made by a great director. (and thus I will watch anything that Christopher Nolan has made.)

We all have favorite directors.  My all time favorite has always been Alfred Hitchcock.  I've loved Alfred the Great since I first really encountered his work in high school.  

But right now I want to talk about a director that I've only recently discovered that has simply amazed me with his work.  I'm speaking of Akira Kurosawa.

I discovered Kurosawa in watching his magnificent epic Seven Samurai.  I'd long heard of SS, knowing how influential it was and how it was remade in America as the western The Magnificent Seven.  If you've heard of Seven Samurai and have not seen it, forget everything you have ever been told -it is far better than you could imagine.  It really deserves its own review sometime, but now suffice to say this; it is more magnificent than any remake.

Of course, one great film does not mean that a director is great.  Even bad directors sometimes strike gold, or as they say, even a blind squirrel can find a nut.  That is why I decided to check out more of Kurosawa's work.  Thus I watched Ran (the character "ran" in Japanese means something like "rebellion" or "betrayal"), Kurosawa's Japanese Samurai adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear.  If you're thinking that Samurai King Lear sounds awesome, that's because it is (and again, the sweepingly brilliant Ran deserves its own review).  Then I bought and watched The Hidden Fortress, a film that had strong influence over George Lucas as he wrote Star Wars.  There I marveled at Kurosawa's ability to develop strong characters and slowly ramp up action, then bring together action and tension in completely stunning ways.

It hit me sometime after watching The Hidden Fortress that I was becoming an enormous fan of Akira Kurosawa.  Clearly he had a pattern of greatness, evident even in the three that I saw at first.  If you think of great film making, nobody thinks of Japanese flicks from the 50's.  Yet in that period Kurosawa was making films that were not just better than what Hollywood was producing, they profoudly changed movie making itself.  The preeminent example is 1950's Rashomon, which was the single most influential film in bringing Japanese cinema to the West.

Kurosawa became friends with the American western director John Ford.  He was highly influenced by Ford's work, and then Kurosawa's work highly influenced Ford (and everyone else).  For myself, I know that my appreciation of good film has been enhanced since running into Kurosawa's work.  He was a genius, far ahead of his time, who made films that have simply made me sit back in wonder.

Watch out Hitchcock, Akira is gunning for your spot on my favorites list.

Life is busy

So it's been a while since I've posted.  Of course, I've had vacation, work, and a family with kids.  That means far too little time that you might describe in any charitable way as "free."  So when it comes to "how do I spend that free time?" the answer is more frequently "watch movies" rather than "write about movies I've watched."

So enough excuses.  I'll be writing, just about as often as I can.  Which is to say, infrequently and in spurts.

Dreams of Star Wars 7: Thoughts on the Disney/Lucas Deal

As you may have heard by now, Disney will be buying Lucasfilm for 4.05 billion dollars.  And as part of the news release about the deal they revealed plans to release Star Wars Episode 7 in 2015.

So what does this mean for the future of Star Wars?  Is this an indication that Star Wars will Return to Strike Back with a New Hope?  Or will we see the Revenge of a Menace of idiot Clones?

To be very clear, I hope the new movie(s) are like episodes 4-6, not like episodes 1-3.  Because 1-3 were painfully bad.  Episode 1 was boring with horrible child acting and juvenile writing and directing.  Episode 2 made little sense, had a convoluted "plot," but much more satisfying action.  Episode 3 was decent in many respects, though still weak on the writing and direction.  Each film got progressively better, so the trend might lead us to Star Wars movies that are once again worthy of the name.  But of course, all our worse fears might be realized if Disney decides to continue Star Wars along the same lines as the prequel trilogy.  I'm not sure my childhood memories could take another assault like that.  I mean, could you imagine another Jar Jar, endless senate political discussion on whether to table the motion to amend the amendment, and (shudder) more horrible child actors?

So how do we make Star Wars good again?  What will it take to make the Sequel trilogy (or wherever it goes) better than the Prequel trilogy?  I mean, aside from the obvious observation that not much could be worse than the Prequel trilogy?  Fear not, dear reader!  For I am here with my opinionated ideas for how to save Star Wars!

1.  Get George Repellent

We must acknowledge, of course, the great debt we who love Star Wars owe to Lucas.  He came up with the whole idea, sold it to studios, pulled off Episode 4 with greatness, and built the empire (pun intended) of toys, games, and collectibles we all love to pay tons of money for.  In gratitude, we've made him extraordinarily rich and still give him applause for everything he does.

But it has to stop.

Honestly, he may be the reason Star Wars got started, but he is also responsible for how far it has run off the rails.  Lucas had a visionary idea, but he really needed to surround himself with people who would be honest with him and tell him what a horrible script he had for Episode 1.  He needed people to tell him that the entire idea of Jar Jar was a terrible mistake.  He needed people to tell him that Jake Lloyd couldn't act.  Most of all, he needed people to tell him that HE was not the right person to direct.

Therefore, the Sequel trilogy would benefit greatly from an investment in George repellent.  The less Lucas has to do with the direct production of any future Star Wars, the better.  Boy, that's hard for me to say, having grown up enjoying Star Wars as I did -but hey, sometimes the truth hurts.

2. Find the Right Director

(A guy can dream, right?)
Whoever the producers end up being need to find a director who is up to a real challenge.  The director needs to come with a vision for how to make the new films his very own, yet still retaining the spirit of Star Wars (to clarify, episodes 4-6).  This vision must be clear, understandable, and doable.

What simply cannot be allowed to happen is for a committee to come up with a list of things that must be done, then hire a director to bring it all together.  Story by committee rarely ends up well.

So get someone who has passion for Star Wars please.  Someone with backbone.  Not just someone who will put out whatever will make the studio execs happy.  I want a real Star Wars movie again, not a two hour commercial for Lego toys.

Oh, and please, not Spielberg.  I like him and all, but it's time for fresh blood and new ideas.

3. Get the Plot Right
I have dreams in my head of an aged Master Luke and his Jedi Academy, with a young apprentice who is dabbling in things he shouldn't...

I don't know what really could be done with the plot.  Perhaps some variant adaption of the Timothy Zahn books, with the resurgence of the Empire.  Perhaps some new threat could rear its head in the galaxy far, far away.

Whatever is done, please, for the love of all things cute and cuddly, make the plot more like episodes 4-6 and less like 1-3!  Make the plot simple.  You know, like there's this Evil Empire and a rebellion against it, so let's save the Princess and blow up the Death Star.  Make it something we care about again.

And along those lines...
4. Get a Wicked-Cool Bad Guy

See this?  That's wicked-cool.  Let's have a memorable bad guy like that, someone we want to dislike, someone we know is gonna do all kinds of evil things if he's not defeated.

Grand Admiral Thrawn would be a great candidate.  I mean look at this guy...

That's wicked-cool.

Wicked-cool means unique look, genuinely evil actions, and poses a serious threat to the good guys.  Having dark side force powers and having great lightsaber skills a plus, but not necessary.

Characters who have names that effectively translate to Count Poop?  Not wicked-cool.
Characters who are asthmatic robots and have names that effectively translate to General Bad Guy?  Not wicked-cool.

5. Get John Williams

Without the music, it's not Star Wars.  'nuff said.


In conclusion, there is no single thing that can be done to guarantee that the Sequels will be better than the Prequels.  In fact, I'm sure that no matter how well done they are there will still be fans who are disappointed with something.  But if they will just get some of these main things done right, everything else will fall into place.  And hey, who knows?  Maybe Star Wars will come roaring back!