05 December, 2011
Pointless Rambling
It's probably poor etiquette to post two blogs in the same day, indeed the same session at my local Starbucks, but I suppose it will make up for my lengthy absence. I honestly don't have a particular topic in mind to talk about, but I do enjoy letting my mind meander from time to time on different things. Maybe I'll post what I write, maybe I won't, that was largely the point of this blog to begin with. In any event, I happened to see Stephen Hawking's hour long presentation on the subject: "Did God Create the Universe". Given that I am currently staying under the roof of my heavily creationist Grandparents, and given that my granddad decided to watch it with me, I feel I could perhaps be forgiven for being more than a little apprehensive about what would follow in the next 60 minutes. I found myself pleasantly surprised however, Hawking did a fine job, without being too controversial, or so it seemed to me. The first half of the show was spent talking about the history of the conflict between science and religion. Needless to say, Galileo was mentioned as he always is (with good reason, mind you). Once the second half got started however, Hawking's proverbial gloves were off, and he got down to some fairly difficult to grasp physics, for the layman certainly, he didn't go into quite as much detail as I would have liked, but more than I was expecting certainly. It is Hawking's view that God could not have created the Universe, for the simple reason that time came into existence at the time of the big bang, a fairly uncontroversial viewpoint, (unless you are a creationist, of courser) and thus, there was no time available for any deity to do any creating of any kind. His reasoning is hard to fault, but I wouldn't say it's the most satisfying answer I'll ever hear, particular with "creationist cop-out argument #34": God is outside of time, and is not bound by it (or some such nonsense). Nonetheless, it was an enjoyable watch, it was very well shot, and hawking does a good job of making some of the more incomprehensible aspects of physics slightly easier to digest, through the use of some reasonably clever metaphors. I'm unsure as to whether or not the idea that quantum mechanics can account for the initial singularity at the beginning of the universe is an idea that was first postulated by Hawking, but I know there are others who subscribe to it. One such man is the brilliant theoretical physicist, and one of my personal intellectual heroes, Lawrence Krauss, one of the fathers of the concept of dark matter and energy. Krauss has a new book coming out in the new year called "A Universe from Nothing", which I will definitely be picking up as soon as I can, and would heartily recommend it to anyone remotely interested in the subject; they don't call Krauss "the Woody Allen of physics" for nothing. The book also features a foreword by Christopher Hitchens and an afterword by Richard Dawkins, and personally, I couldn't pick a better dream team. Sadly, my time is short, so I'd better wrap this up. Next blog will probably be my Top 10 TV Shows, so watch out for that, should be up at some point this week.
The Harry Potter Series: A Retrospective
Now that the dust has settled, Deathly Hallows part 2 is now out on DVD, the film itself being released to universal critical and commercial success, I’d like to take a step back and take a hard look, at both the whole series, and all 8 films individually. I thoroughly enjoyed the Harry Potter books growing up, and I felt that there was a consistent curve of improvement, each book an improvement over the last. My relationship with the films however hasn’t always been positive.
Though I enjoyed them in my younger years, the first two films are pretty bad on the whole. The three main actors don’t do the best job, although Emma Watson’s potential was there for all to see. The secondary characters have been strong from the word go however, particularly Alan Rickman as Snape and Maggie Smith as professor McGonagall. They are both tremendously talented actors, and have given consistently good performances to go with their very good characters. Robbie Coltrane was practically born to play Hagrid and does a fine job. As for Richard Harris, we’ll get to the role of Dumbledore a little later on. Two films in however, and although they were hugely commercially successful, (the first film was the highest grossing film in the series until Deathly Hallows part 2, which grossed over $1.3 billion worldwide) and critical reception was generally positive, I wouldn’t say that I care for either of them much, though if nothing else, they do fill me with a wonderful feeling of nostalgia.
Then Prisoner of Azkaban came along, and it marked a noticeable improvement in quality for the series. The talented and versatile Gary Oldman was added to the cast, playing the roll of Sirius Black. (Incidentally, I think J.K. Rowling is something of an astronomy fan, Sirius and Bellatrix are both names of stars) There was an improvement in the acting as well, the three leads looked more comfortable in their rolls, and although Daniel Radcliffe still had some bad moments (the crying scene, anyone?) they did a much improved job. Despite the improvements however, Prisoner of Azkaban still isn’t quite good enough to make it a film that I could find myself watching anymore than once every year or two, and I’m a guy who generally rewatches a lot of films. However, things were definitely on the right track. Step up Goblet of Fire.
Goblet of Fire was the first film of the series that I could say was actively good. Now three two-and-a-half hour films is a very long time to get it right, make no mistake, but they did get it right finally. The actors gave further improved performances, bar a few emoting issues from Radcliffe, the special effects were better than ever, and it was the first of the films were I actually felt emotionally invested in what was going on. Robert Pattinson gives a passable performance as Cedric Diggory, before running off to do that vampire film that no one knows about. I highly enjoyed the films climax, I thought it was played very well, and was probably the high point of the film, which is what a climax should be.
Order of the Phoenix continued the trend of improvement, introducing the character of Dolores Umbridge, played extremely well by… an actress who’s name escapes me. I loved the overarching plot threads, Harry learning occlumency, the distancing between Harry and Dumbledore, the threat that Hogwarts faces both from the ministry of magic and from the forces of Voldemort (more on Ralph Fiennes’s performance to come). It creates genuine drama, something the films were lacking up until this point, although Goblet of Fire had it’s moment. It also features one of the most intense moments in any of the films, the battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore. The wizarding world’s two top talents jousting was spellbinding, if I may use the expression, and was a real triumph for the series.
Then we come to The Half Blood Prince. Again, the improvement is there for all to see, and at this point Half Blood Prince isn’t just good for a harry potter film, it’s just good. It’s a really good movie, in every aspect. Jim Broadbent gives a very good performance as Horace Slughorn, which was a trickier roll than most of the side characters, he’s a character that is kind of slimy and cowardly, but who’s heart is in the right place, and that’s a difficult balance to find, and Broadbent does an admirable job. Alan Rickman is also at his very best in Half Blood Prince, in one of Snape’s more important role’s within the series.
Finally we come to Deathly Hallows. Part 1 really showed how much confidence and faith that the film makers had for it’s three main leads, whom 90% of this film is centered around. The more experienced actors aren’t to be seen, or are only seen very rarely. The film banks on it’s characters, it banks on it’s actors, and it banks on it’s script, and it deserves to be commended for that at the very least. As for the film itself, the actors do a great job, and I do mean great, they give very good, confident performances, and they anchor the film very well. One thing I will say is that the film quite slow paced, and there are a few occasions where it’s pacing lets it down a little, but this moments are generally sparing.
Part 2 is the total opposite. There isn’t a moment of down time, just an unrelenting, momentus, glorious finish to the series. The film features a lot of action, and it’s action scenes truly do the series justice. I also like the fact that the fight between Voldemort and Harry at the end was altered a little. In the book, it was purely plot driven, and the exposition did come across as a little clumsy. In the film, while it certainly is still plot driven, there is more of an actual fight, and it’s handled pretty well. A terrific ending, to an altogether very good series of films.
But what is it that makes these films good? Well, a large chunk of the credit has to go to the actors on display. I’ve already a mentioned that it took the three main actors a few films before they really started to perform, but from the fourth film onwards, they do give good performances, and the quality of them only increases. Daniel does a more than competent job as Harry, Rupert Grint is fine as Ron, although he does overact every now and then, and Emma Watson is probably the most talented of the three actors, and is very good in the roll as Hermione.
Another important factor is that the series never takes itself too seriously. An Academy Award winning drama with wizards is one thing that I think few people want to see, and Harry Potter is wise enough to know what wants to be. There are some tense, dramatic moments of course, but the films are also light hearted enough to get in some good humour, usually courtesy of the Weasley family, particularly in the early films. The humour does take a back seat in the later films, but it’s still present throughout.
Now there are 3 key performances that I haven’t yet gone into: Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, and Richard Harris and Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Let’s start with Harris. I liked Harris in the role, I thought he did a good job of capturing the essence of the character and bringing him to life, he understood the playful and eccentric side to Dumbledore’s character, and he portrayed it well. His portrayal of Dumbledore was much closer to the book, and was undoubtedly superior to Gambon’s portrayal. Sadly, Harris passed away after the release of the second film, and Michael Gambon did take over the role. When Gambon took over, I thought he was terrible in the role. I thought Gambon was a million miles away from the essence of Dumbledore, and it was literally like looking at a completely different character, and it’s one of the bigger problems of films three to five. His performance improved slightly in Half Blood Prince, but it still never felt like I was looking at Dumbledore. As for Ralph Fiennes, he plays Voldemort just fine, Voldemort isn’t the most interesting villain that cinema has ever seen, but he does the job required of him, nothing more, nothing less.
Love it or hate it, the Harry Potter series has been a phenomenon that only comes along once in a lifetime. More than $8 billion grossed worldwide, multiple awards won, all films being met with critical acclaim and overwhelming commercial success, the Harry Potter journey may be finished, but it will live a long time in the memory, and be admired by many generations of watchers and readers and everything in between yet to come.
Though I enjoyed them in my younger years, the first two films are pretty bad on the whole. The three main actors don’t do the best job, although Emma Watson’s potential was there for all to see. The secondary characters have been strong from the word go however, particularly Alan Rickman as Snape and Maggie Smith as professor McGonagall. They are both tremendously talented actors, and have given consistently good performances to go with their very good characters. Robbie Coltrane was practically born to play Hagrid and does a fine job. As for Richard Harris, we’ll get to the role of Dumbledore a little later on. Two films in however, and although they were hugely commercially successful, (the first film was the highest grossing film in the series until Deathly Hallows part 2, which grossed over $1.3 billion worldwide) and critical reception was generally positive, I wouldn’t say that I care for either of them much, though if nothing else, they do fill me with a wonderful feeling of nostalgia.
Then Prisoner of Azkaban came along, and it marked a noticeable improvement in quality for the series. The talented and versatile Gary Oldman was added to the cast, playing the roll of Sirius Black. (Incidentally, I think J.K. Rowling is something of an astronomy fan, Sirius and Bellatrix are both names of stars) There was an improvement in the acting as well, the three leads looked more comfortable in their rolls, and although Daniel Radcliffe still had some bad moments (the crying scene, anyone?) they did a much improved job. Despite the improvements however, Prisoner of Azkaban still isn’t quite good enough to make it a film that I could find myself watching anymore than once every year or two, and I’m a guy who generally rewatches a lot of films. However, things were definitely on the right track. Step up Goblet of Fire.
Goblet of Fire was the first film of the series that I could say was actively good. Now three two-and-a-half hour films is a very long time to get it right, make no mistake, but they did get it right finally. The actors gave further improved performances, bar a few emoting issues from Radcliffe, the special effects were better than ever, and it was the first of the films were I actually felt emotionally invested in what was going on. Robert Pattinson gives a passable performance as Cedric Diggory, before running off to do that vampire film that no one knows about. I highly enjoyed the films climax, I thought it was played very well, and was probably the high point of the film, which is what a climax should be.
Order of the Phoenix continued the trend of improvement, introducing the character of Dolores Umbridge, played extremely well by… an actress who’s name escapes me. I loved the overarching plot threads, Harry learning occlumency, the distancing between Harry and Dumbledore, the threat that Hogwarts faces both from the ministry of magic and from the forces of Voldemort (more on Ralph Fiennes’s performance to come). It creates genuine drama, something the films were lacking up until this point, although Goblet of Fire had it’s moment. It also features one of the most intense moments in any of the films, the battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore. The wizarding world’s two top talents jousting was spellbinding, if I may use the expression, and was a real triumph for the series.
Then we come to The Half Blood Prince. Again, the improvement is there for all to see, and at this point Half Blood Prince isn’t just good for a harry potter film, it’s just good. It’s a really good movie, in every aspect. Jim Broadbent gives a very good performance as Horace Slughorn, which was a trickier roll than most of the side characters, he’s a character that is kind of slimy and cowardly, but who’s heart is in the right place, and that’s a difficult balance to find, and Broadbent does an admirable job. Alan Rickman is also at his very best in Half Blood Prince, in one of Snape’s more important role’s within the series.
Finally we come to Deathly Hallows. Part 1 really showed how much confidence and faith that the film makers had for it’s three main leads, whom 90% of this film is centered around. The more experienced actors aren’t to be seen, or are only seen very rarely. The film banks on it’s characters, it banks on it’s actors, and it banks on it’s script, and it deserves to be commended for that at the very least. As for the film itself, the actors do a great job, and I do mean great, they give very good, confident performances, and they anchor the film very well. One thing I will say is that the film quite slow paced, and there are a few occasions where it’s pacing lets it down a little, but this moments are generally sparing.
Part 2 is the total opposite. There isn’t a moment of down time, just an unrelenting, momentus, glorious finish to the series. The film features a lot of action, and it’s action scenes truly do the series justice. I also like the fact that the fight between Voldemort and Harry at the end was altered a little. In the book, it was purely plot driven, and the exposition did come across as a little clumsy. In the film, while it certainly is still plot driven, there is more of an actual fight, and it’s handled pretty well. A terrific ending, to an altogether very good series of films.
But what is it that makes these films good? Well, a large chunk of the credit has to go to the actors on display. I’ve already a mentioned that it took the three main actors a few films before they really started to perform, but from the fourth film onwards, they do give good performances, and the quality of them only increases. Daniel does a more than competent job as Harry, Rupert Grint is fine as Ron, although he does overact every now and then, and Emma Watson is probably the most talented of the three actors, and is very good in the roll as Hermione.
Another important factor is that the series never takes itself too seriously. An Academy Award winning drama with wizards is one thing that I think few people want to see, and Harry Potter is wise enough to know what wants to be. There are some tense, dramatic moments of course, but the films are also light hearted enough to get in some good humour, usually courtesy of the Weasley family, particularly in the early films. The humour does take a back seat in the later films, but it’s still present throughout.
Now there are 3 key performances that I haven’t yet gone into: Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, and Richard Harris and Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Let’s start with Harris. I liked Harris in the role, I thought he did a good job of capturing the essence of the character and bringing him to life, he understood the playful and eccentric side to Dumbledore’s character, and he portrayed it well. His portrayal of Dumbledore was much closer to the book, and was undoubtedly superior to Gambon’s portrayal. Sadly, Harris passed away after the release of the second film, and Michael Gambon did take over the role. When Gambon took over, I thought he was terrible in the role. I thought Gambon was a million miles away from the essence of Dumbledore, and it was literally like looking at a completely different character, and it’s one of the bigger problems of films three to five. His performance improved slightly in Half Blood Prince, but it still never felt like I was looking at Dumbledore. As for Ralph Fiennes, he plays Voldemort just fine, Voldemort isn’t the most interesting villain that cinema has ever seen, but he does the job required of him, nothing more, nothing less.
Love it or hate it, the Harry Potter series has been a phenomenon that only comes along once in a lifetime. More than $8 billion grossed worldwide, multiple awards won, all films being met with critical acclaim and overwhelming commercial success, the Harry Potter journey may be finished, but it will live a long time in the memory, and be admired by many generations of watchers and readers and everything in between yet to come.
02 December, 2011
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: Review
Fine, it might not perhaps be the most linguistically correct thing to have two colons in one title, but you can blame those pretentious money-hoarding halfwits at summit entertainment who seem to think that giving a film title the prefix "The _____ Saga" will automatically give it an air of class. Or perhaps I should be blaming Stephanie Meyer, who infected us with this slow, laborious and oppressively boring series in the first place. It is thanks to this woman that there now exists four films telling a story that, to be quite frank, could be fit into one, given the fact that nothing happens in the first three.
It wasn't until Eclipse's turn to defecate all over every vampire/werewolf book/film/game/song ever made that the film actually bothered to try developing some of its cast, and even then they only bothered with the two least interesting characters in the Cullen family. And now, we have Breaking Dawn, the film where conflict increases, Bella gets married, knocked up with a demon baby and almost killed, (and goes through all those life changing events wearing the exact same emotionless expression, mind you) Jacob finally imprints on someone, the werewolves fight the Cullens, and Bella is finally turned into a vampire (though the ramifications of this won't be known to those of us who haven't bothered to read the books for another year). Did I mention that this review contains spoilers?
Anyway, just how does Breaking Dawn do overall. Well... not ridiculously bad to be honest. The series faces all of the problems that held back the first three films, namely the relentless slow pace, the lack of acting talent on display from any of the three lead actors, nay, the entire cast (with the exception of Carlisle and Charlie), the lack of any sense of attachment to any of the three main characters (and again, most of the cast), and the fact that the Twilight story just doesn't translate well to the big screen in any way. All that said however, this film is easily the most tolerable of the series thus far. Maybe it's because my expectations were just so low going into the film, maybe because I've gotten used to how bad the main characters are that it doesn't cause the same scornfulness that the first three films will always have directed at them, I don't know, but I can say this at the very least: this was the first Twilight film that genuinely seemed to be trying to entertain me. Sure, there are a lot of times when it didn't succeed, but at least it was trying, at least it seemed to care whether or not I had a decent movie-going experience, and that is more than I can say for the first three, particularly New Moon. On the whole, the film probably gets more wrong than it does right, but it does do a few things right, again, more than I can say for the first three. For one it opens with the wedding, which was a good choice, get it out of the way early, and the wedding itsself moves just quickly enough to stop me getting too bored. The most interesting moments come from Charlie's mixed emotions towards his daughter getting married, and the guy playing Charlie (who's name tragically escapes me) does a more than competent job. Then there's the honeymoon, which goes on for far too long, and features what I dare say will probably be the biggest let down of the whole series for the Twilight faithful... the sex scene. Now, this scene has had a lot of build up to it, we've sat through six and a half hours worth of characters not doing anything remotely interesting, and what do we get? Ten seconds. Let me repeat that, although doing such a thing purely for effect purposes seems fairly redundant in a text-based medium, but I can't resist drama. Ten seconds. That's it. They're in bed, we see Edward breaking the headboard and that really is it. I know they're trying to keep the age rating down, but they really couldn't have done a little better with this scene, which in a better film, a better series, could have been a very emotional and intense moment. But then again, this is Twilight. Then we discover Bella is pregnant, which I suppose does create some dramatic tension, and the film handles it fairly well (with the exception of the ridiculously bad judgement on the part of the film makers who decide that Edwards housekeeper, only just introduced ten minutes beforehand, should be the first person they go to for advice, who then promptly exclaims "Death!" upon examination of Bella's belly). Then the film turns it's attention to without a doubt the worst part of the Twilight series: Jacob. Jacob hears that Bella is feeling unwell, heads round to the Cullen's house to see what's going down, tries to convince Bella to terminate the foetus (though Rosalie, probably the least likeable member of the Cullen household continues to aid the propagation of the film's pro-life theme and instead refers to it as a baby) and then some more very boring things happen, the second act for the most part is a total bore, let's just cut to the films climax. I will say that the labour scene is gut-wrenchingly brutal, and was winning points right up until the moment where Edward finally decides to turn Bella into a vampire... by injecting vampire venom into her chest... through a syringe. WHO'S IDEA WAS THAT?!?! I mean what the hell, why on earth is a syringe being used. How determined is this series to take all the vampirism out of being a vampire. They can go out in sunlight, crucifixes, holy water and stakes through the heart aren't mentioned at all, they don't sleep in coffins, and now they don't even bother biting their vampires to be, they just inject them like they are administering some sort of vampiric booster shot. God dammit. Jacob imprints on Bella and Edwards new offspring, another fairly uninteresting scene, the vampires and werewolves fight in a terribly done fight scene where it is an impossibility to tell who is winning, considering everyone is moving so fast and the camera is cutting more often than if David Fincher was shooting it, if he had found out the day before that his wife was having an affair, his whole cast had died, and the entire film had caught fire and been destroyed, the day before it was due to be released to expected critical and commercial acclaim. Where was I? Oh yes, Bella finally wakes up from her comatose state, her eyes are red, the credits roll, everyone's hap- wait, what? That's where your going to end your film. Just Bella waking up? Fine, fine, I'm beyond caring at this point, I know your trying to hook everyone in and make them pay you more money for seeing the final part of this drivel next november, but fuck you anyway.
On the whole, Breaking Dawn still isn't a good film, though it is a marked improvement on it's predecessors, and perhaps part two might finally give us a Twilight film that I can say with honesty was actually good. For now, part one still suffers the same problems of it's predecessors, but this time there are some halfway good moments to accompany it. It's a shame the series has taken so long to start finding some quality, had it started on this note, then by this point, the series might actually be of some merit, instead of being what it will always be remembered as: a bleak chapter in the history of cinema that should be flayed, gutted, buried and forgotten about.
I'm typing this in a starbucks and my time is limited, so forgive me for not talking about the films second act, let me just summarise it here: BOOOOOOOOOOORING.
Good night, and good evening
It wasn't until Eclipse's turn to defecate all over every vampire/werewolf book/film/game/song ever made that the film actually bothered to try developing some of its cast, and even then they only bothered with the two least interesting characters in the Cullen family. And now, we have Breaking Dawn, the film where conflict increases, Bella gets married, knocked up with a demon baby and almost killed, (and goes through all those life changing events wearing the exact same emotionless expression, mind you) Jacob finally imprints on someone, the werewolves fight the Cullens, and Bella is finally turned into a vampire (though the ramifications of this won't be known to those of us who haven't bothered to read the books for another year). Did I mention that this review contains spoilers?
Anyway, just how does Breaking Dawn do overall. Well... not ridiculously bad to be honest. The series faces all of the problems that held back the first three films, namely the relentless slow pace, the lack of acting talent on display from any of the three lead actors, nay, the entire cast (with the exception of Carlisle and Charlie), the lack of any sense of attachment to any of the three main characters (and again, most of the cast), and the fact that the Twilight story just doesn't translate well to the big screen in any way. All that said however, this film is easily the most tolerable of the series thus far. Maybe it's because my expectations were just so low going into the film, maybe because I've gotten used to how bad the main characters are that it doesn't cause the same scornfulness that the first three films will always have directed at them, I don't know, but I can say this at the very least: this was the first Twilight film that genuinely seemed to be trying to entertain me. Sure, there are a lot of times when it didn't succeed, but at least it was trying, at least it seemed to care whether or not I had a decent movie-going experience, and that is more than I can say for the first three, particularly New Moon. On the whole, the film probably gets more wrong than it does right, but it does do a few things right, again, more than I can say for the first three. For one it opens with the wedding, which was a good choice, get it out of the way early, and the wedding itsself moves just quickly enough to stop me getting too bored. The most interesting moments come from Charlie's mixed emotions towards his daughter getting married, and the guy playing Charlie (who's name tragically escapes me) does a more than competent job. Then there's the honeymoon, which goes on for far too long, and features what I dare say will probably be the biggest let down of the whole series for the Twilight faithful... the sex scene. Now, this scene has had a lot of build up to it, we've sat through six and a half hours worth of characters not doing anything remotely interesting, and what do we get? Ten seconds. Let me repeat that, although doing such a thing purely for effect purposes seems fairly redundant in a text-based medium, but I can't resist drama. Ten seconds. That's it. They're in bed, we see Edward breaking the headboard and that really is it. I know they're trying to keep the age rating down, but they really couldn't have done a little better with this scene, which in a better film, a better series, could have been a very emotional and intense moment. But then again, this is Twilight. Then we discover Bella is pregnant, which I suppose does create some dramatic tension, and the film handles it fairly well (with the exception of the ridiculously bad judgement on the part of the film makers who decide that Edwards housekeeper, only just introduced ten minutes beforehand, should be the first person they go to for advice, who then promptly exclaims "Death!" upon examination of Bella's belly). Then the film turns it's attention to without a doubt the worst part of the Twilight series: Jacob. Jacob hears that Bella is feeling unwell, heads round to the Cullen's house to see what's going down, tries to convince Bella to terminate the foetus (though Rosalie, probably the least likeable member of the Cullen household continues to aid the propagation of the film's pro-life theme and instead refers to it as a baby) and then some more very boring things happen, the second act for the most part is a total bore, let's just cut to the films climax. I will say that the labour scene is gut-wrenchingly brutal, and was winning points right up until the moment where Edward finally decides to turn Bella into a vampire... by injecting vampire venom into her chest... through a syringe. WHO'S IDEA WAS THAT?!?! I mean what the hell, why on earth is a syringe being used. How determined is this series to take all the vampirism out of being a vampire. They can go out in sunlight, crucifixes, holy water and stakes through the heart aren't mentioned at all, they don't sleep in coffins, and now they don't even bother biting their vampires to be, they just inject them like they are administering some sort of vampiric booster shot. God dammit. Jacob imprints on Bella and Edwards new offspring, another fairly uninteresting scene, the vampires and werewolves fight in a terribly done fight scene where it is an impossibility to tell who is winning, considering everyone is moving so fast and the camera is cutting more often than if David Fincher was shooting it, if he had found out the day before that his wife was having an affair, his whole cast had died, and the entire film had caught fire and been destroyed, the day before it was due to be released to expected critical and commercial acclaim. Where was I? Oh yes, Bella finally wakes up from her comatose state, her eyes are red, the credits roll, everyone's hap- wait, what? That's where your going to end your film. Just Bella waking up? Fine, fine, I'm beyond caring at this point, I know your trying to hook everyone in and make them pay you more money for seeing the final part of this drivel next november, but fuck you anyway.
On the whole, Breaking Dawn still isn't a good film, though it is a marked improvement on it's predecessors, and perhaps part two might finally give us a Twilight film that I can say with honesty was actually good. For now, part one still suffers the same problems of it's predecessors, but this time there are some halfway good moments to accompany it. It's a shame the series has taken so long to start finding some quality, had it started on this note, then by this point, the series might actually be of some merit, instead of being what it will always be remembered as: a bleak chapter in the history of cinema that should be flayed, gutted, buried and forgotten about.
I'm typing this in a starbucks and my time is limited, so forgive me for not talking about the films second act, let me just summarise it here: BOOOOOOOOOOORING.
Good night, and good evening
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)