Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (2012, U.S.)

I am stunned! I really didn't like the second half of Breaking Dawn (the book), so I expected the movie to be even worse. Mainly, I absolutely hated that stupid kid. However, in the movie you can actually see why she was so appealing to everyone, which makes the second half so much more sensible!

But I get ahead of myself. I want to start with how amazing the credits were. I'm getting them confused in my head (opening and closing), but I believe it was the opening credits that were all black and white with hints of red, really artfully done. The closing credits did this amazing thing where it showed the final words of the novel from the novel, and it felt like a book closing with this sort of finality. Then they did the kind of credits were all the main actors were pictured from the entire series, which furthered that feeling. Pretty awesome on both ends.

And the middle was really good too. Like I said, the kid was not annoying. They simplified the whole "Jay" sideplot to work with the movie. The supporting cast of vampires was really amazing, although I have to say a big part of why I didn't give this a 4.5 is because I felt like they were all short changed on screen time. The big fight at the end was just amazing, especially with all the twists that I had managed to completely forget from the book. I was completely nail-biting, which was completely unexpected.

Everyone belittles "KStew" and "RPattz," but I continue to think that they're both great actors. Maybe this isn't the best vehicle for them, but still. Stewart does a convincing job as someone finally getting in touch with her real self. The contrast between the awkward human and the graceful vampire is very obvious if you compare the early movies to this one.

I thought this was a strong ending to the series, particularly with the above-mentioned credits that tied the movie into the book and tied all the movies together. I'm looking forward to a marathon when it comes to DVD.

Rating: 4.0

Breaking Dawn, Part 1 (2011, U.S.)

This movie is an excellent example of how low expectations can really improve one's enjoyment of a movie! I knew from the second that I read "the scene" in Breaking Dawn that the movie was going to end up being a cheesy B horror film, for at least five minutes. Then I kept hearing bad reviews of the movie, and I said to myself, "Well, duh." But really, it wasn't that bad.

To begin with, the wedding was beautiful. It wasn't quite how I pictured it in my head, but I liked their interpretation. Bella's dress was stunning, in my opinion, and Kristen Stewart looked incredibly beautiful. I loved how they reused their prom song for the wedding background music. I loved how everyone else literally disappeared from the scene while they were getting married, showing how they were the whole world to each other. I really loved their wedding kiss, which was long without being R-rated, sweet, romantic, and so laced with meaning. Oh it was just beautiful!

Visually, it was very well done too. I already mentioned the wedding. There were a lot of beautiful establishing shots of the island, Washington forests, the waterfall where they swim, Rio (the giant Jesus!), and the like. I loved the use of montages, namely the island time one and the Renesmee one. The one on the island showed them hiking, playing chess, swimming, talking, and just being together, and I thought it perfectly crystallized and captured that honeymoon feeling and their connection. Hard to explain. (Also, I loved their use of the red and white chess pieces from the front of the book. That was pretty clever, and I don't think they've done that since the first movie... not that a ribbon and a rose petal are easy to incorporate.) The shots of teenaged Renesmee were very dreamlike and actually made me want to like her, which is quite an accomplishment—I really kind of hated her in the book. Bella's dream the night before the wedding was really well done, but something makes me not want to go into detail and give it away. The honeymoon love scene was close to perfect. I figured they would go the book route and just "fade to black" and wake up in the morning with feathers flying (which didn't get left out, yay!), but they actually showed it. It was tasteful and beautiful and it definitely looked like soul mates being together for the first time. That was one of many scenes that was quite moving. One other visual aspect I was impressed with was the makeup on "sick" Bella. Until now, most of their makeup has involved making humans look like pale vampires with golden/red eyes and beautiful looks. Bella's transformation into a ravaged, hollow-eyed, broken girl was pretty incredible, especially in contrast. (On the other hand, I was less impressed with vampire makeup. Carlisle's hair looked greasy, Rosalie's nasty black eyebrows continue to irritate me, Alice isn't as cute without spiky hair, and Irina's—yay, Maggie Grace!— eyes didn't look like the contacts were set quite right, to give a few examples.) Anyway, I think this might have been the most visually appealing of the movies so far.

So what was wrong with it? I'll start with the obvious. The birth scene. No. Still, it could have been a lot worse. In fact, I thought Bella's broken bones, especially the spine, were quite underdone. There was no fountain of blood at the birth, which you might consider underdone but that actually made the scene fit better. (There was still chewing, but you can't see it, so again that really helped. The whole scene was not the B movie bloodbath I had anticipated, which was the biggest relief ever.) The effects of the venom injection are shown though a sort of CGI vein interior, which was sort of cheesy and reminded me of a Magic School Bus episode. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure how they would have accomplished this otherwise, because they don't have the benefit of Bella's Ernaline monologues like the book has. Also on the subject of point of view, I thought that losing Jacob's perspective during the pregnancy was a loss for the movie, which is ironic since I didn't like that narrative choice in the book. (You have to admit that it's weird for the first 3 books and 2/3 of the fourth book to be told from one perspective and then 1/3 of the last book to be told from another.) I missed the scenes of Jacob trying to imprint and his snarky comments and his anger at Edward, Bella, "Blondie," and just about everyone else in the world. It took a lot of emotion away. Also on the subject of werewolves, the pack has a big meeting where they do their talking in each other's heads thing, and it was really stupid. Their voices were sort of edited to sound all echo-y and more raspy and just fake in general, and I thought that scene in particular (or any scene with inner wolf conversations in general) would have been a lot less ridiculous and more effective if they just used normal voices.

On the subject of actors, poor Billy Burke didn't have as many funny moments as previous movies, which was sad. On the other hand, Pattinson and Stewart's chemistry was off the charts. The way they oriented around each other in scenes (as Bella's mom notes in the previous movie), the way they look at each other, the love scene, the wedding kiss, the chess matches... I swear their connection was palpable. Rather breathtaking, really. As for everyone else, they were basically standards and really irrelevant to the story. I would have liked more from Taylor Lautner, but I felt the fault was not his but the scripts. He did do a lot with his body language to convey emotion he was never able to vocalize.

Probably the most disappointing thing was the music. The score wasn't bad, and the soundtrack might not have been either, but I didn't think it was used to the same effect as earlier soundtracks. (Can anyone think of baseball anymore without hearing "Supermassive Black Hole" in their head? I can't!) The music may have been good, but it just didn't stand out. The one exception was, as I mentioned before, the reuse of "Flightless Bird, American Mouth," which gave the movies and the characters' relationship an agreeable symmetry.

So overall, I quite liked it. That may be mostly because my expectations were so low, but hey... I'll take what I can get!

Rating: 4.0

Water for Elephants (2011, U.S.)

I have been looking forward to this film for ages. On one hand, I was very nervous about them ruining one of the best books of all time. (It's definitely in my top 3, if not my favorite book, period.) On the other hand, such a powerful story with the fascinating, detailed description of Water for Elephants has a lot of potential for greatness. (And with a knockout tagline like "Life is the most spectacular show on earth," it better live up to that potential!) I was also one of the few people who cheered for the casting of Rob Pattinson. (Twilight aside, he is a brilliant, brilliant actor. See: Little Ashes, Remember Me, The Bad Mother's Handbook, The Haunted Airman, and even Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.) I was actually more hesitant about Reese Witherspoon, although I do love her too.

So what's the verdict? It was a beautiful film. It wasn't the book, but it was a fairly strong adaptation. (It was one of the best since Gone with the Wind, I'm tempted to say—and about a thousand times better than the adaptation of The Time Traveler's Wife.) Mostly what was lost were the details of riding the rails, life in a circus, and relationships between characters. It wasn't enough to take away from the story, just enough that it didn't have the same sense of total immersion I felt while reading the book. (One detail that really bothered me was the number of liberty horses in Marlena's act. The description in the book really stuck with me, and my memory tells me she had 12. In the film, she only had 4. It's not that her act wasn't good, it's just that it was supposed to be the main attraction and didn't have the same grandeur I expected. Even 6 would have been okay, but 4 was too few! Yes, I am picky.) The only other thing really missing was on-screen time for Old Jacob. His thoughts on aging were real gems, and I wish Hal Holbrook had more of an opportunity to make the old man shine as much as the young one.

On the subject of actors, wow. Perhaps I'm biased, but I thought Pattinson was stellar. He captured the innocence, uncertainty, and compassion that are so definitive of Jacob's character. Reese Witherspoon was also wonderful and quite lovely. I've read that many people think they lacked chemistry, but I thought they had a sort of quiet chemistry, and their love for each other was built through their mutual love of animals. On that front, three cheers for Tai, the elephant who played Rosie. The Jacob/Marlena relationship would have been lost without her. The real unexpected talent came from Christoph Waltz, who I vaguely remember from Inglorious Basterds. (I was too busy trying to work out the plot of that movie to appreciate the acting, I suppose.) He was phenomenal as August. From his abusive rages to broken tears, from suave charmer to ruthless businessman, he didn't overact anything but truly conveyed that August was subtly but undeniably insane. Unfortunately for him, the script focused more on Jacob and Marlena, underwriting his part, which also served to cloud his motivation a bit as the climax approaches. Waltz did a lot with a little, in my opinion. I feel safe in going ahead to predict another Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this performance.

I don't even know where to begin on the costumes and sets. They were breathtaking. From the Cornell classroom to the home of Polish immigrants to the hospital to the forest to the train to the bigtop to the Chicago speakeasy to the office of the modern day circus, everything was perfect. The train, especially, seemed to almost be its own character. The costumes ranged from beautiful to grungy, simple to elaborate. Marlena's performance ensemble was an especially strange one, but kind of fun. And Reese Witherspoon was absolutely stunning in every costume, from simple clothes with a brightly polka-dotted scarf in her hair to form-fitting silk evening gown. August's ringmaster's get-up was probably the most circus-y element of the entire film, and I loved it.

The one thing I was surprised to be disappointed by was the score. James Newton Howard is one of my all-time favorite composers. While he's had some average scores with average movies, he's also given some wonderful films the extra push to make them truly great. (Two examples are Defiance, which had the most hauntingly beautiful score that makes my heart break when I listen to it, and the 2003 Peter Pan, which has such a magical score I can almost believe in fairies.) It's not that this was a bad score; in fact, it was quite good, and much stronger than countless other composers could have provided. I guess I was expecting this score to do for the circus the same thing that his Peter Pan score did for Neverland—bring it alive, transport me to the world of the film even when I'm not watching it. It just didn't quite cross that threshold, though it has some very nice themes (see especially "Did I Miss It?" and "Circus Fantasy"). I hate criticizing him, because I would have praised the efforts of any other composer on this score. I just expect something more from him, I guess.

In short, this was a beautiful, gritty, romantic, heartbreaking, powerful film, and I loved it. I may have even given it 5 stars if it wasn't based on a novel. I can't wait to see it again (especially because I don't always appreciate/enjoy a film as much if I've been anticipating it for so long—that anticipation can make it awfully difficult to focus). I also can't wait to read the book for a third time; the sooner the better.

*Special note: I have to say that for anyone who lives in NoVA or Texas and is lucky enough to be near an Alamo Drafthouse theater, you must see it there. The circus-themed preshow included a flea circus cartoon, a Droopy cartoon, an excerpt from Dumbo, Charlie Chaplin, Groucho Marx, and two songs from the Elvis flick Roustabout, among a few other things. It was awesome!*

Rating: 4.5

The Bad Mother's Handbook (2007, UK)

This was a really surprising and wonderful film, especially for a made-for-TV deal. It's about being a mother (as the title implies), but I think it was also about being a daughter too. Karen is a 33-year-old teacher's assistant who wants to go to Paris, and when she gets her birth certificate for her visa, she finds out she was adopted. Meanwhile her daughter Charlotte, who was born when Karen was 16, breaks up with her boyfriend when she finds out he's cheating, only to find out that she's pregnant.

That's what it's about, but it's not really about what it's about. It's more about the relationships, how they process their feelings, how their relationships with their mothers affected their own motherhood, why they made the choices they did. What they do becomes irrelevant, or perhaps inevitable. It's subtly and beautifully done. I especially loved the grandmother, who was obviously suffering from some sort of dementia and chattered to imaginary companions all day, mostly about her memories of Karen as a girl.

I think all mothers and daughters can appreciate this film, even if you weren't adopted, a teen mother, or a combination or product of these situations. Men play a very limited role in this film. Even Daniel (a lovable loser, portrayed in a perfectly understated performance by Robert Pattinson), who becomes Charlotte's friend, helper, and quiet but strong support, is a very unobtrusive presence for such a central figure.

In fact, the whole thing had an understated simplicity that you just can't help but appreciate. I teared up a few times, I'll admit. A moving, authentic work.

Rating: 4.0

Eclipse (2010, U.S.)

Okay, this was probably the most successfully executed of the three films so far. It was on the level with New Moon in terms of treating it as a serious film. (On the other hand, I do have a special place in my heart for the first film. It was incredibly stupid in parts but in a funny way, and it is still my favorite of the books.) Anyway.

I was a little iffy on a lot of the costuming and makeup. For instance, why does Emmett's hair look like he's wearing a black skull cap plastered to his head? Why does super-blonde Rosalie have scary jet-black eyebrows? Why does sweet Esme with her sweet brown hair suddenly have severe black hair? Not good. At least Edward's hair has settled into a sexy but disheveled style that suits his face... but what happened to the bronze color? And I'm also glad that they stayed consistent with Bella, a low-key, long-haired, tomboyish beauty. Her costumes were the best. I also liked the new costumes for the Volturi. Their hoods were much less cheesy and much more natural looking. Edward's sense of style seems to have been downgraded (unfortunately), the Cullens now fight battles in strange matching black, and Charlie's last name is misspelled on his uniform. But besides that...

The special effects also win a prize this time. The wolves still look great, and I think they've finally managed to capture the speed (if not quite the grace) of vampires in motion. There are several scenes where the Cullens are running through the woods, and you can just see the trees whipping by them and the Cullens next touching them. It's amazing. And then the fight scenes are just unbelievable. That is when their grace and power really show. The vampire death has come a long way since James too. Not of that using chicken/cheese to stand in for a ripped-out throat, no doll's head popping off and tumbling into a fire. Instead, there was rending and creaking like nails on a chalkboard, vampires breaking like the cold, hard things they are. A little of that showed in Edward's fight with Felix in Volturra in the last film, but this film really took it to the next level. Wonderful. To add to the look of the film, there were several breathtakingly beautiful flyover shots of the Pacific Northwest that gave the feeling of grand scale and epic events taking place. A nice touch.

I think the writing was pretty decent too. As always, there were some good one-liners, some from Charlie, some from the boys. My favorites were "Doesn't he own a shirt" from Edward about Jacob and "Well I am hotter than you" from Jacob to Edward. Even Jasper got a couple of good lines. The interaction between various characters is realistic and well done, in my opinion, and that's partly writing and partly acting. For instance, Charlie and Bella have the best father-daughter on-screen relationship I think I've ever seen. (Billy Burke is awesome.) Jacob and Edward's rivalry and contrasting loves for Bella come alive too. And the chemistry between Jacob and Bella and Edward and Bella is phenomenal. You can see the tension in relationship with Jacob. They're best friends, he loves her more than she loves him, it's hard for both of them... And then Edward and Bella have a multitude of "moments" in this film. It really is like a drug addiction (to use Edward's metaphor), and they share several achingly tender kisses over the course of the movie that are just delicious.

I have to say that Lautner and Pattinson can act. Lautner's Jacob is gruff but funny but hurting and still a smartass, while Pattinson uses these subtle facial expressions as Edward when he's amused or hurt or angry, and it's like he is feeling so much but trying to keep it from his face and just barely not succeeding. Good stuff. Also, I still hate Dakota Fanning, and Jane is supposed to be a hate-able character, so good work there! The re-casting of Victoria was probably the most unfortunate part, because the new actress has this cute kitten-y look rather than the tough, tigress-type look of the earlier actress. And the whole point of her army is revenge for a dead lover, yet we never saw this actress with James and even though you know she's supposed to be the same, she just doesn't feel the same. if that makes sense. As I said, very unfortunate.

Overall, I liked this as a book adaptation. I would only complain about a couple of things. First, the lack of a preface. Both of the previous movies made use of the novels' prefaces, but this one didn't. Instead, we had a scene about Riley becoming a vampire. (More on that in a second.) At least they did have Bella read the poem that prefaces the preface of Eclipse, Frost's "Fire and Ice," as if she's studying for an English final. The problem with the first scene they used in the film (and subsequent scenes featuring Riley and the newborns) is that it takes away from the element of fear and surprise when the Cullens aren't sure who's coming or why (in the novel). Instead, the viewer knows what's coming and why, and that takes some of the fun out of it. (Until the newborns come rising out of the water like the undead pirates in POTC, and then it is a bit funny... just not in the good way.) Arguably this is stuff you learn in The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner, but I don't think it was meant to be known in the context of Eclipse, which is told from Bella's viewpoint. And Bella doesn't know what's going on in Seattle, which makes this a bit of a slip in narrative person.

Lastly, as always, music. I liked the score. I'm not sure whether I liked the Eclipse or New Moon score better, though I have to say the score was used better in New Moon. They didn't use the soundtrack very effectively in this film either. In that category, Twilight wins for best use of soundtrack. Howard Shore's score, unsurpisingly, is beautiful, but they could have showcased it to greater effect. He did a neat trick by using some strains from "Eclipse (All Yours)" into a few of his songs, which tied things together neatly. Speaking of that song, it was used in the credits and was absolutely perfect for the tone and subject of the movie. Who should Bella love, what life should she lead? One scene where the music really stuck out was "Rolling in on a Burning Tire" during a close up of Riley and Victoria prepping for battle, and it was tough and perfect for the tone. I also liked the use of "Ours," with the repeating lyrics "this time is ours" during the graduation party. Very fitting. But then the party soundtrack follows with Muse's "Neutron Star Collision," a song written just for this film. A great song, and it was given all of 10 seconds of background music time? Really sad about that. Other songs from the soundtrack, which were quite good, I never heard in the film at all. Come on people. You have a strong soundtrack and the brilliant Howard Shore composing your score, so use it!

Otherwise, good filmmaking here.

Rating: 4.5

Little Ashes (2008, UK)

This was a beautiful film. It was about boys who were becoming men, artists who were finding their talent, liberal homosexuals trying to survive in Fascist Spain, lost souls trying to find love... and themselves. It really was beautiful. Fractured and hard to follow, but it a good way.

Javier Beltrán and Robert Pattinson were phenomenal. They're both talented actors, and they had a strange chemistry. Watching Pattinson change from a strange, outcast boy into a intensely passionate young man to an absolutely crazy, flamboyant artist was incredible. (On the other hand, he goes from a Spanish accent to an English accent when eight years pass, although he also does a French one on purpose later, so maybe it's a sign of his craziness.) Beltrán was steady as rock, gentle and sweet and fragile and poetic, for lack of a better word. When I looked for information on Frederico García Lorca, I discovered that the actor and the deceased poet looked shockingly similar.

They used what seemed to be archive footage cut into film, which I always find effective. I felt like I learned a lot from this film, although how accurate it was I couldn't say. I was familiar with Dalí's work, but not his life. And I'd never heard of García Lorca, but I found his poetry to be beautiful and his life to be fascinating and, of course, tragic.

The filming was (yes, you guessed it) beautiful as well. There is one scene in particular where García Lorca and Dalí are young and taking a holiday in Andalusia. It's nighttime and they're swimming in the moonlight together. The way they float around each other seems symbolic of the complicated dance they're doing in their relationship and the lack of clear definition in their lives. Amazing.

I wish I could describe how wonderful the acting and cinematography and writing and absolutely everything were, but there just aren't words. You could call this film "art." Art about art. Magical.

Rating: 4.0

Remember Me (2010, U.S.)

I was absolutely stunned to discover that most professional critics ripped this film apart. It was absolutely astounding.

Essentially, two young people who have suffered terrible losses find each other and fall in love. Ally saw her mother murdered when she was 10 years old, and Tyler (whose 22nd birthday is approaching) had an older brother who committed suicide on his 22nd birthday. Ally's father has become overly protective while Tyler's parents divorced and his father especially emotionally distanced himself from his surviving children. Tyler is close to his young sister, a shy brainy girl whose classmates torture her.

The characters were so incredibly real. I've always said that Robert Pattinson is a seriously underrated actor (inevitable, due to his roles as Cedric Diggory and especially Edward Cullen). (See The Haunted Airman for further evidence.) He was Tyler in this film—frustrated, lost, alone, a good brother, a bit of a mess, imperfect but still a basically good person. Emilie de Ravin wasn't overwhelming by any means when contrasted with Pattinson, but she is still a fairly strong actress and convincingly portrayed a fragile girl trying to find herself and redefine her identity without hurting her father too much. The rest of the cast was also great, though what else would you expect from the likes of Pierce Brosnan and Lena Olin? The real stunner was the young actress who played Tyler's younger sister. Her performance just defies description; you have to see it to believe it.

Ally had a thing about eating her dessert before her meal, because anything could happen and she might not make it to the main course. The filmmakers seemed to make such a big deal of it that I kept running over it in my mind and found the heart of the story. This is a film about loss and living life as if each day will be your last. About learning from grief and embracing each day and appreciating each person that comes into your life. It's hard to say more without giving away the ending, but a lot of critics said that this film was just a series of tragic things happening to beautiful people. That sounds like the kind of opinion I would be prone to have, and yet I didn't. Even with an ending that was incredibly cliche and, in retrospect, totally obvious, I still thought it worked well.

Aside from fantastic acting, the subtle score, gritty New York scenery, touches of humor, and good writing really made this a stunning film. So take that, Roger Ebert.

Rating: 5.0

New Moon (2009, U.S.)

Wow. New Moon definitely dominated Twilight in terms of being able to treat it like a serious film. But I think a lot of that is in the director. Chris Weitz must be an amazing guy to work for. Remember The Golden Compass? Based on one of my favorite books of all time, but the script was terrible. Weitz took a bad thing and did the best he could with it, and it truly was amazing—apart from the writing. His directing, combined with some seriously talented (and under-appreciated) actors, made for fantastic drama.

In the beginning, there was a very short amount of time to establish how deep Bella and Edward's relationship is, and yet they defined that clearly. (And, might I add, made Edward look way yummier than should be allowed—more on that later.) In the few minutes she has to interact with the Cullens, in the beginning and the end, all of their relationship dynamics are clear too. I was very impressed with how well the acting conveyed so many small things. Every person on that cast is talented. They have their own moments, but they don't outshine each other. Bella's human friends, the Cullens, the werewolves... they all fit together and play their parts beautifully. (And random note on acting: I've always hated Dakota Fanning's smug little face. And her irritating lack of talent paired with the world gushing about her. And here, she plays the worst of the vampires, and it was all too easy to hate her. But was it as easy for everyone else? Because she didn't do very much acting...)

Special effects—infinitely, infinitely improved from Twilight. The wolf transformations were completely seamless, the fighting realistic. And the wolves looked exactly as they were supposed to—like real wolves, but the size of horses. They also clearly upgraded the diamond skin effect, and when they showed Edward's face in the sun, he looked a lot more like the mesmerizing, beautiful man you imagine in the book. And the fights between the vampires. Wow. They did such an amazing job of showing speed and grace without resorting to cheesy sound effects or stupid jumping around on trees. It was graceful and lethal and fast, all at once. The choreographer must be a genius.

Now at the risk of going all fangirl-ish, a paragraph on chests. One thing that really bothered me, however, was Edward's naked torso. In the book, Meyer describes Edward (ad nauseum) as having a beautifully (her word) sculpted (her word) chest, like a statue. In reality, we're faced with Robert Pattinson's (bless him) scrawny, unhealthy-looking physique. Would it really have been that hard to superimpose said sculpture over the reality? Or for him to eat something and lift a few weights? Take a page out of Taylor Lautner's book, RPattz! That kid is 17 years old (that's six years younger than our favorite grungy Brit), and yet he somehow put on enough muscle to put even the most dedicated health nut to shame. Even one 10 or 15 years older. When he first pulled off his shirt, there was a very audible collective sigh in the audience. We're talking loud. And mostly women old enough to be his grandmothers. It boggles the mind.

But enough of that. Though on the subject of Jacob, I have to say that Lautner may be a great actor one day. Because I truly believed that Taylor Lautner was Jacob Black. The infectious smile, the physical presence, the bantering, the caring... Incredible. The other two are kind of like that too. Great acting, have I mentioned?

They also stayed pretty close to the book, probably more so than the first installment. I would have liked to see Stewart walking around holding herself together with her arm a bit more, but still, she did a remarkably good job of portraying a girl falling apart because of a broken heart. I especially loved that they used a similar tactic to Meyer's when they showed time passing and Bella not improving. Great stuff. And using the dream where Bella thought she was her grandmother. And certain instances of dialogue and physical behavior... I could go on and on. And probably on some more.

So I will end with one of the most important things to me—music. When I saw the last movie, I mentioned that I hated the use of modern music, which dates the film. However, I've since changed my mind on that stance. There were a few gems in the first movie, but there were even more in this one that really fit the mood and theme. "Satellite Heart" was one of my personal favorites, as was "Possibility." Some of the songs were used quite effectively, while others would have fit perfectly in places they weren't used. It was hit or miss, but (most) of the songs were pretty good. The big disappointment was that there were no more Robert Pattison songs used... and they really would have fit with the quieter feel of this soundtrack. Fingers crossed for Eclipse. The score. Yes. Alexandre Desplat has been one of my favorite composers for a long time, and he didn't disappoint here. When I listened to the score before the movie came out, I wasn't sure how it would work... but it did. Perfectly. He has a gift for matching music to the screen, and even if all of the songs don't really stand alone outside of the movie (though some do, of course), it doesn't matter. Because they enhance the on-screen action wonderfully. (And, much as I love Carter Burwell, I was beyond thrilled that Desplat didn't stick with Burwell's weird electronic suspense-type themes. That was a huge mistake in the scoring of Twilight, I think.)

Anyway, loved it. Can't quite give it 5 stars. Mostly because some stuff was missing. (Like how they tried to make Jake look like a perfect guy—where was him forcing himself on Bella and her breaking her fist on his face?!) That's a specific example, but there are a lot of other things—feelings, actions, lines—that were just missing something. (I mentioned Bella's arm before. That's a good example.) Still, loved it. Did I mention?

Can't wait to see it again. And buy it. And see Eclipse in June! (I can probably wait a lot longer for Breaking Dawn. I shudder to think about that film.) And as another side note, I cannot believe it's been a whole year since I was at the midnight premier of Twilight with Stacey and Hanna. Wish they were here now!

Okay, really done now.

Rating: 4.5

How To Be (2008, UK)

I gather that this film was supposed to be pretty funny. And although I'm a bit of an Anglophile, it may have just been too British for me, because most of my laughing was in an "Are they serious?" type way.

Art is having an existential crisis, post break-up. He realizes that his family has never shown him much love and he doesn't know what he wants to do with his life. So he hires a Canadian self-help guru to come to London and help him out, naturally.

Pattinson was pretty amazing as Art. He's sensitive and unsure of himself and awkward and an all-out misfit. (Then again, something tells me that this is the really Robert Pattinson, behind the heartthrob mask.)

Of course the ultimate message here was to be who you are and do what makes you happy. It was touching, and sometimes even funny. Just not my favorite movie of all time.

Rating: 3.0

The Haunted Airman (2006, UK)

What a crazy film. There was a lot of psychological baggage to cram into 68 minutes, and it was definitely a head trip. I went into it thinking that I would probably like it, because the previews looked incredible. And I will say that I did, in fact, like it, though I say this with reservations. Because mostly I was confused.

From what I gathered, this British pilot was shot down during World War II and lost the use of his legs. He goes to a creepy recovery home, as far from the war as he could be. He starts to lose his mind, feeling spiders everywhere and seeing things that aren't there. Or perhaps he doesn't. Perhaps his doctor is actually pushing him into these delusions. Meanwhile, the RAF pilot has been having an affair with his deceased uncle's wife, and they let her come stay at the hospital too. It's just a bunch of weirdness. And the end will really blow your mind.

I definitely need to see this again to understand it better. But I can say that the cinematography was incredible. And the acting was superb. This is a 20-year-old Pattinson who acts like he's been at it for decades. (In reality, he'd just been in Vanity Fair, where his scenes were cut; a made-for-European-tv movie, where he had very few lines; and The Goblet of Fire, in which he made us all fall in love with Cedric Diggory.) The intensity with which he portrayed this character and his fractured mind was simply mind-blowing. Previously unknown gems like this make it clear that Pattinson has real talent, and isn't just a lucky boy (to land HP and Twilight roles) with a pretty face (and musical talent and bad hygiene).

Rating: 3.5

Ring of the Nibelungs (2004, Germany)

This was definitely an interesting movie. It's based on the Norse myth that inspired Tolkien to write Lord of the Rings, apparently. (One notable difference, however, is that women play a much more prominent role in this film.)

There were some very interesting elements here. Star-crossed lovers, dragons, magical helms, deception, sword fights. It has some very dark, obviously Norse concepts. For instance, the hero slays a dragon and bathes in its blood, which makes him invincible in battle—at least everywhere the blood has touched.

I really liked it on one level. As I said, there were some very interesting elements, and it's just the kind of thing that Lord of the Rings fans or fans of Arthurian myth would enjoy. I really loved the music too. It opened with something that sounded almost like modern Scandinavian pop. Then it had a lot of beautiful slow songs and impressive epic songs. However, overall it was overly melodramatic in a lot of places (perhaps partially because of some overacting), and some plot points just didn't connect well.

It might be worth trying, if you're interested in this type of thing. Very neat, but overdone.

Rating: 2.5

Twilight (2008, U.S,)

Here we go, the moment everyone's been waiting for. I saw the midnight premier of Twilight, like the huge nerd I am. I adore the books (well, at least the first three), and I tried very hard to go into this with little to no expectations, since I knew it would never live up. (I can't think of a single movie that I've liked more—or even as much as—the novel it was based upon.)

First let me say that it was super fun to go to the midnight showing with a bunch of squealing, swooning high schoolers. They were all just too funny. You could tell the crowd had almost all read the book, because there were so many parts that were just SO overdone where we all just died of laughter. For example, when Edward first catches the scent of Bella's blood—she walks into the classroom in front of a fan, her hair blows out, and the camera pans to Edward who looks like he's about to vomit. The entire theater erupted into peals of laughter, because it just looked ridiculous. The same goes for the pained expression that never left Japser's face. And Edward's horribly cheesy line—"Hold on, spider monkey!" It was all just beyond ridiculous, but it was kind of fun because of that.

On the whole, the film stayed remarkably true to the book. They actioned it up a bit, but not so much that it detracted from the story. The main thing that bothered me was that it seemed entirely too rushed, like the Cliffs Notes version of the book. (This is kind of how I feel about the HP series, but HP's definitely worse in that respect.) One of the best parts of the book is the suspense of this slowly unfolding mystery/romance together, and the pace of the film was just too fast for that. But again, the general feeling was there, so I can't complain. We all thought the dance studio scene was going to be destroyed, but it was really okay.

What else, what else? Casting was fabulous. The one person I was hesitant about was Carlisle, but I think I actually liked the guy. Charlie was not anything how I pictured Charlie, but not bad. And Edward... Let's just say I nearly hyperventilated every time he was on screen. Boy did he pull off the smoldering eyes. I also liked all of the siblings, particularly Emmett. And the guy who played Billy Black was perfect, if a bit too young.

Special effects were terrible. Terrible, terrible, terrible. The running, climbing up trees, ripping people's heads off, and especially Edward's sparkly skin were a major let down. Mostly it all looked cheesy and fake. I knew they would never pull off the sparkly skin, and of course it could have been worse, but yeah. Mostly he looked kind of blurry, if anything.

Music was also terrible. I hate it when potentially timeless films (okay, it may be a stretch to put Twilight in that category) use modern music. Especially trendy or bad modern music. For one thing, it really dates the movie, and for another thing, it detracts from what's going on in the movie. I have a huge thing for scores though—9 times out of 10, a good score means a good movie. Carter Burwell, who composed the score for Twilight, is one of my favorite film composers (albiet toward the bottom of the list). And while he did have one theme that was especially good ("Bella's Lullaby," to be exact), the rest of the score just didn't have the power, beauty, and—dare I say it?—sublime quality it could have had. Also, while "Bella's Lullaby" was good, it wasn't good enough to be the "Bella's Lullaby." (You Twilighters know what I mean.)

The last thing I didn't really like was the ending. They had a perfect ending, just like in the book (that would be the prom), and a perfect shot that would have been a beautiful freeze frame to end on. Instead, they have to show creepy Victoria watching them and looking all vengeful. Okay, I get that you want to set up the second movie, but seriously? Twilight begs for a romantic ending over an ominous ending—there's plenty of room for that in later installments.

Overall, it was kind of hard not to like this one, in a twisted sort of way. I (and the rest of the theater) laughed way too much at parts that shouldn't have been funny. (I did this in the book too, but not to such an extreme extent.) But it's okay to laugh when you tell yourself, "Hey, it's a teen vampire romance!" They also added some jokes that were quite Meyer-esque. And we librarians loved hearing Edward Cullen saying, "You can Google it!" and Bella going to a book before researching on the internet. Like with HP, the casting was great. (Did I mention how swoon-worthy Rob Pattinson was? Gah.) And that was pretty much what made it great, the cast.

To use a metaphor from the movie itself, this one definitely wins the Golden Onion (something Edward and Bella win in biology for doing their lab the best—definitely not in the book). It was amazing, but it was awful. Like a golden onion. Ha ha.

It's quite difficult to objectively (and succinctly!) review a movie based on a book I love so much, but I've tried my best. So here's a quick and dirty summary, just in case:

An Academy Award winner? No. A worthy guilty pleasure? Most definitely.

Rating: 4.0