Twilight (2008)

Twilight (2008)

Directed by: Catherine Hardwike

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Billy Burke

Plot: After her mother remarries, Bella Swan decides to move from Phoenix, Arizona to Forks, Washington to live with her father.  When she arrives at her new home, she immediately makes many friends at her new school.  They warn her not to interact with the Cullens, a group of rich, pale, and antisocial foster siblings, especially Edward Cullen.  After saving her from an out of control van, Bella begins to suspect that there's something supernatural about him.  She tries to get him to confess, but he refuses to tell her, and warns her to stay away from him.  Despite his warnings, she continues to interact with him, until she discovers that Edward is a vampire.  Now that they're being honest with each other, they begin to develop a romance.  Unfortunately, a small group of nomadic vampires have been killing various people around town.  When one of them realizes that the Cullens have been interacting with a human, he decides that she'd be good prey to hunt.  Will Edward and his family be able to protect Bella from becoming vampire chow?

Good: Despite what many people have claimed, this movie does have some redeeming qualities.  Billy Burke as Bella's dad does a great job as the concerned father and the dedicated police chief.  It would have been cool if there was a story about him and his struggle between caring for his daughter, while also solving a supernatural murder mystery.  Taylor Lautner is good as Jacob Black, making the friendship he has with Bella seem natural.  Peter Facinelli is also serviceable as Dr. Carlisle Cullen, who's dedication to his family is very evident in all of his scenes.  There are some moments when the two leads have some genuine moments of emotion, such as when the Cullens and Bella play baseball during a thunderstorm.  The audience can see the genuine bond these characters have for each other as they use their powers to have fun together.  It's also one of the few moments when the movie decides to have fun with its premise.  I wish the rest of the film had been like this small scene.

Bad: Although there are some moments of good acting from the leads, for the most part, they're very flat.  Kristen Stewart as Bella rarely shows any emotion, even when she's in danger.  Robert Pattinson as Edward is not much better, with his acting ranging from boring to hilarious.  It's very difficult to watch the scene where Edward reveals his sparkly skin to Bella, and not smile when he says that "It's the skin of a killer".  However, this isn't necessarily the actors fault.  They've put in good performances in the past, so I have to assume that this was a mistake on the director's part.  The special effects are serviceable at best, and awful at worst.  The effects for the sparkly vampire skin and Edward's super speed are laughable, and take away from the seriousness of many of the scenes.  Also, the majority of the daytime scenes in Forks have a blue filter on constantly.  While this is obviously a stylistic choice (since I can tell you from experience that the Pacific Northwest is not constantly blue and grey), it makes the film look really bland.  The biggest problem, however, is the writing.  None of the dialogue feels genuine, with many of the conversations ending abruptly, leaving the audience confused.  The pacing is awkward, with 75% of the film focusing on the romance, then some antagonists suddenly show up for the last quarter of the story with very little build up.  Most of the characters are all written with very few flaws, especially the main cast.  The Cullens are incredibly bland and one dimensional, with very little personalities.  Edward's only personality traits seem to be either creepiness (more on that later) or blandness.  However, Bella is the worst offender then it comes to characterization is Bella.  Like The Room's Johnny, Bella's a great example of a Mary Sue.  This is most evident when she arrives at her new school, and nearly everyone either falls in love with her, or become her best friend.  I find it ironic when she tells one of her friends to take control of her life, because she is a "strong, independent woman", since she ends up wanting to dedicate her life to a man she's only known for about a couple months.  She even goes as far as wanting to make the ultimate sacrifice and become a vampire just so she can be with him for eternity.  While it may be that she only feels an attraction towards Edward, as many teenagers do when they have a crush on someone, but he constantly sends up red flags that even a teenager would notice.  He has sudden angry mood swings, he constantly talks about how he wants to taste her blood, and he even watches her in her sleep without her permission.  Bella ignoring these obvious warning signs makes her seem like an idiot.  Not only does this make her a bad character, it makes her a horrible role model for some of the audience members.  While many of these issues are from the source material (from what I've heard), it's the filmmakers' fault that these issues remained in the adaptation.

Trivia: 

• During the scene where Edward perform "Bella's Lullaby", Robert Pattinson was actually playing the piano.
• Kristen Stewart had to wear a hair pieces so that the crew didn't have to use up time doing her hair, leaving more time to film.
• Robert Pattinson spent a few weeks before shooting not talking to anyone in order to feel as isolated as his character.
• The movie grossed about $69.6 million during its opening weekend, which was the largest opening for a movie directed by a woman, as well as one starring a woman.

Final Verdict: When I first went into this film, I was expecting a movie on par with The Room, with many laughs to be had at how horrible it would be.  However, for the most part, it's pretty boring.  Oh sure, there are some moments that were genuinely good (i.e., the baseball scene) and some that are so bad they're hilarious (i.e., the sparkly scene).  I just couldn't get into the unrealistic romance, the bland characters, and the poor special effects.  I would only recommend this movie if you were already a fan of the books, because if your not, this won't make you a fan.

  

Next week, we'll look at my first review of a musical on my blog, with Mary Poppins.

Stay Tuned

The Godfather (1972)

The Godfather (1972)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola

Starring: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, and James Caan

Plot: Vito "The Don" Corleone is the head of a crime family in New York during the 1940s.  They have many ties to political leaders, gambling rings, and celebrities, and do dirty work for them in exchange for money, favors, and loyalty.  Business seems to be going well for the Corleone family, until a rival family, the Tattaglias, start hunting them down, starting with Vito.  Pretty soon, all the gangs and crime families in New York are at war with each other.  Through a series of twists and turns, the youngest of Vito's sons, Michael, who originally didn't want to be a part of the family business, gets more and more involved in the situation, and he begins to climb up the ladder of power in the family.  Will they be able to stop the war without familial blood being spilled, or is it already too late? 

Good: There's a reason this movie is held in such high regard.  The acting alone makes this movie a must watch.  Al Pacino as Michael Corleone does a very layered and complex performance.  The evolution of his character as he becomes more and more involved with the family business.  He starts out uninterested and unassuming, but as darkness overtakes him, he becomes more confident and grows into the power he gains.  James Caan is also great as Sonny Corleone.  His dedication to his family is very evident from the start, becoming furious whenever something bad happens.  He also has some of the more entertaining fight scenes, since his character is the most violent of the family members.  Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen is also good, keeping a level head whenever things get bad, along with being one of the most intelligent people in the family.  He is very convincing as the family's lawyer and consigliere.  But the best performance by far comes from the legendary Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone.  His acting in this film is absolutely stellar, his slurring slow speech patterns making him almost hypnotic to watch.  He portrays both the power he has over people and his fondness towards his family brilliantly.  The make up effects on him are also wonderful.  The subtle aging of the character is really effective, especially when you compare his first scene with his last.  The rest of the production design is amazing as well, with the 1940s New York setting looking very convincing.  The progression of time is evident from the subtle changes in the costumes and vehicles.  The score, composed by Nina Rota, is a beautiful composition, capturing the haunting atmosphere of many of the scenes, as well as the Sicilian roots of the story.  Even though the story is about gangsters in the 1940s, the writing can make any audience in any generation identify with and care for the characters.  The story deals with themes of power, corruption, and most of all, family.  This last point is probably why so many people can care for the characters, despite the crimes they commit.  Their familial bond with each other makes them very sympathetic, no matter how many people they murder.

Bad: Yes, even in a masterpiece such as this does have some issues.  Due to the three hour run time of the movie, some audience members might become bored at certain points.  This includes the part where Michael goes to Sicily, when there isn't a whole lot that happens.  Further more, there are a lot plot points that may be difficult to understand if someone wasn't paying attention to an earlier scene.  This film requires the audience's full attention, which can be a turn off to some.  Also, Marlon Brando can be a bit hard to understand when he's speaking, but for the most part, he's pretty clear.

Trivia:

• Marlon Brando had to wear a mouthpiece in order to get the signature bulldog-like look down.
• The smack that Vito gives to Johnny Fontane was improvised by Brando.
• Most of Brando's lines when he's holding the cat had to be dubbed since it was purring too loudly.
• Francis Ford Coppola insisted that the film be titled Mario Puzo's The Godfather, since his script was so faithful to the original book, and Coppola thought Puzo should get a writing credit for the film version.

Final Verdict: What can I say about The Godfather that hasn't already been said.  The acting is fantastic, the score is beautiful, and the story is one that will last for many more years to come.  I would only dissuade people from watching it if they couldn't handle the sight of blood, since there's a fair amount of it in the film.  Otherwise, this is a must see for anyone who has even the slightest interest in movies.  You won't be disappointed.

Next time, we'll take a look at the film that split movie goers in two.  Whether you love it or hate it, I'm going to review Twilight.  Oh boy...

Stay Tuned   

Harvey Reacts: Jurassic World Feathers

Harvey Reacts to:

Should Jurassic World's Dinosaurs Have Feathers?

As I've said before, Jurassic Park is one of my favorite movies of all time.  So naturally, when I heard that there was going to be a new movie in 2015, I was very excited, especially after the trailer dropped.  However, there has been a debate going around the Internet that I've found interesting: Should the dinosaurs in the movie have feathers?  For those of you who don't know, in the last 20 years, there has been a lot of evidence suggesting that many dinosaurs had feathers, including Velociraptor, Therizinosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus.  This has lead many people to be frustrated that a movie franchise that was once praised for its accuracy, has continued to subscribe to the outdated idea of "naked" dinosaurs.  This is especially troubling with the raptors, who are the most bird-like of the dinos.  Many people want to show the main steam media that dinosaurs and birds were much more birdlike than previously thought, and the Jurassic Park franchise is the perfect way to do it.  However, other people believe that making some of the dinosaurs have feathers would confuse audiences who didn't already have a lot of knowledge on paleontology.  Also, adding feathers would make it feel out of continuity with the other films, which had a lack of feathers.

So what do I think?  I would have to go with the pro-feathers camp.  As someone who is fascinated with paleontology, it would be awesome to see feathered dinosaurs on the big screen, showing how far science has come since the first movie.  As for continuity, they could explain in the new movie that they had previously genetically modified the dinosaurs to look more like the common perception of dinosaurs at the time.  However, there is a way that not having feathers could work.  A character could mention that they tried making the dinosaurs with feathers, but it didn't appeal to test audiences or the board of directors.

Ultimately, this is a small issue in the grand scheme of things.  The Jurassic Park franchise has always had inaccuracies, whether it's the gigantic size of the Velociraptors, or Tyrannosaurus not being able to see still objects.  Despite the "nakedness" of the dinosaurs, I'm still very excited for Jurassic World.  Chris Pratt training raptors is too awesome to miss.

Stay Tuned