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

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012, U.S.)

Ugh. This movie was almost a complete disappointment. Usually I defend Kristen Stewart to all haters, because she really is a great actress. She wasn't bad here, but she didn't stand out either. But neither did Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth, Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, or any other great actors that peppered the cast. In fact, I thought Charlize Theron bordered on bad, because everything she did seemed so overacted, to the point of melodrama. Honestly, the whole thing was pretty melodramatic

Perhaps it was the writing or maybe the directing, but it just seemed ridiculous. Visually it was quite stunning, but on the other hand it seemed like they relied entirely too much on visual effects to the detriment of the plot. The nugget of plot was so good too.

It was also very distracting that every other minute something presented a visual reminder of another fantasy film, particularly The Lord of the Rings. (Down to the Tree of Gondor that graced KStew's armor... that was a bit much.) James Newton Howard is one of my favorite composers, and some of his pieces here were spot on, but he didn't quite win my favor this go round, because even his score echoed LOTR occasionally. Altogether strange, and you'd really have to see it (and be very familiar with the trilogy) to see all the subtle echoes. It was disconcerting.

I would recommend this to die-hard fans of any of the cast and people who like their fairy tales nice as dark (as they were intended), and even to LOTR fans who take pleasure in yelling, "Copycats!"

Rating: 3.0

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

The Yellow Handkerchief (2008, U.S.)

This is a film about an unlikely trio of three very lonely people. Martine is a beautiful teenager who feels trapped in her backwater Louisiana town. When Gordy, an awkward itinerant, stops in town, she somehow ends up in his convertible, heading across the river. Then they pick up Brett, a quiet man who was just released from prison. When a storm (Hurricane Katrina) hits, they take shelter in a hotel together. As they continue their journey through the destruction of Louisiana after the hurricane, they begin to piece together solutions to each other's loneliness. Martine senses Brett's loneliness, and Brett senses Gordy's. They help each other find the answers that they can't find for themselves.

The beauty of this film is in its simplicity and in the quiet brilliance of the actors. I don't know if I've ever seen William Hurt in action, but this role seemed tailored for him. Kristen Stewart, who I always say is an under-appreciated actor, was solid in this role (although it seemed almost like it didn't offer he much of a challenge). And Eddie Redmayne has yet to cease amazing me. I can't think of a single person who plays the socially awkward, sweetly well-meaning, intelligent young man as well as he does. Breathtaking. Add to that the slow, almost languid pace and the authentic Louisiana scenery, and you've got a winner.

I liked this film. I think the main thing that would have made me like it more was if the focus was spread more evenly across the ensemble. Although there are arguably three main characters, the focus is obviously on Brett. More balance would have improved an already wonderful film.

Rating: 4.0

The Runaways (2010, U.S.)

Color me surprised. I didn't know anything about The Runaways and I've never really liked late '70s/'80s music, but I was curious to see Kristen Stewart in this one. I already thought she was an underrated and quite brilliant actress, but this one really convinced me. I love how she is so unafraid to look ridiculous, wearing silly clothes, rocking the ugliest hairdo, and singing like a fool. And wow, she was Joan Jett. The even bigger surprise was that Dakota Fanning, who I've absolutely loathed in the past, was almost as good as Cherie Currie. Between the two of them and the rest of the cast, there was a great dynamic that lent an excellent sense of realism to the film.

Costumes and makeup were stellar. I was investigating The Runaways' website and some of the costumes matched their tour pictures to a tee. Sets, script, everything made the period come alive.

This was a fascinating biopic that made me enjoy music that I'd never liked and taught me something that I never knew and entertained me all at once. That is a successful film if I ever heard of one. I'd love to see it again. A real cherry bomb!

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

Jumper (2008, U.S.)

When 15-year-old David is about to drown (while saving something that belonged to his big crush, Millie), he realizes he can instantaneously transport himself anywhere he wants. (In this instance he goes to the Ann Arbor Public Library, which I thought was amusing.) Eight years later, he's living in NYC and using his talent to rob banks. Suddenly a shadowy group called Paladins, who hunt Jumpers, start coming after him. For some reason he decides this is the perfect time to travel to Italy with his girl. There he runs into a British Jumper who tries to explain how foolish David is being.

There's a lot of action, a lot of very neat special effects as they jump from place to place, and a lot of beautiful settings (Tokyo, the Coliseum, the Sphinx...). They didn't overcome the lack of coherent plot and overall logic. Why were the Paladins exterminating Jumpers? Where did the Jumpers come from? Why take a girl you haven't seen in years on a trip to Italy when you're being hunted by bad guys? How does the Brit Jumper know about the Paladins and how does he track them? Why bother making David's mother a Paladin, and why does she have another child who is irrelevant to the plot?

It really was a neat premise and had fabulous special effects, but there is no escaping from poor plot. Fail.

Rating: 2.5

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

The Messengers (2007, U.S.)

This movie was shockingly identical to Cold Creek Manor. A family moves from the city (Chicago) to the country (a sunflower farm in North Dakota). They have a daughter (played by Kristen Stewart again) and a younger son. The house is creepy, and something is obviously not right. Then a handyman shows up, and their luck seems to be turning around.

The major difference was that this movie had a supernatural element that the other lacked... and it was awful. It was really creepy, but it was pretty predictable. They used crows pretty well, but at the same time this seemed like a pretty cliché horror tool.

The best part about this movie was Kristen Stewart, of course. She's great at the troubled teen who's made some mistakes but is a great big sister and an honest person. She is also great at acting terror.

Perhaps I would have liked it more if I hadn't just seen Cold Creek Manor. Or if the ending wasn't so cheesy. But too bad, I did, and it was.

Rating: 2.0

Cold Creek Manor (2003, U.S.)

I've become a huge Kristen Stewart fan recently, so I decided to try out this movie even though it's not my usual fare. I have to say, I was pretty impressed. This movie was creepy.

A couple and their two children move from Manhattan to upstate New York. They move into a house they bought at auction; the previous occupants had gone bankrupt. The father, a documentary filmmakers, begins working on a film about the previous occupants. But weird things start happening in the house. Snake infestations, a dead horse. It is terrifying, especially because you know who is responsible the entire time, yet the family remains clueless.

They send their children home to protect them, and as the suspense builds and it becomes clearer to them what's going on, my skin just kept crawling. The final confrontation is something else—although very cliché, as it occurs at night during a thunderstorm.

Sharon Stone and Dennis Quaid are very good actors, and the chemistry and marital tension between the two was great. And of course, Kristen Stewart was fabulous. Christopher Plummer was very convincing as an old, senile man. But it was Stephen Dorff, who I've never even heard of, who stole the show. He played very sketchy white trash to a T.

I wish I remembered the music more clearly, because I noticed later that the director also composed the score. Interesting.

Anyway, this is a great movie if you want to be super creeped out!

Rating: 3.5

Speak (2004, U.S.)

I feel like I am always saying this, but anyone who underestimates Kristen Stewart is an idiot. I have never seen this more clearly proven then watching this film, in which she plays a high school freshman who was raped. She can't speak about it, and becomes selectively mute. Meanwhile, her friends turn against her, her parents don't understand her, her teachers either pick on her or don't notice her.

The range of emotion Stewart portrays, from sheer joy with her friends, to terror, to emptiness, to courage, to a million other infinitesimally different ones, is beautiful. Her face is just incredibly expressive. It's just as interesting to watch her face as she walks down the street as to watch scenes where more action happens. I could rave about her performance forever.

The various devices the filmmakers use to tell the story are artfully employed. The mixed use of flashback and first person narration voiceover is very successful in painting a haunting picture of the mental condition of a traumatized girl. So too is the use of tree symbolism, although the whole "healing through art" thing is rather overdone in film, if you ask me. Lastly, the music was lovely and understated, setting just the right mood.

This film took a very painful subject and made it accessible to teenagers. It was heart-wrenching without being cliche. It was moving, especially because the main character was the perfect balance of fragile and strong.

I would strongly recommend this film. Especially if you want to see a 13-year-old with as much talent as a classically trained, middle-aged woman.

Rating: 4.0

The Cake Eaters (2007, U.S.)

After Adventureland, I decided I needed to check out some more Kristen Stewart films to verify whether she was as good of an actress as I thought. Well, if this film is anything to go by, she is going to be the actress of her generation.

The Cake Eaters is a family drama about the intersecting lives of two families. The measured revelation of secrets and lies and hopes and desires is expertly done. The pace may be a bit slow, but it is definitely compelling.

Although the story is an ensemble drama about various members of the two families, Stewart stole the show as a terminally ill fifteen-year-old girl with Friedreich's ataxia, a disease that ravishes her nervous system, slurring her speech and making her movements jerky. Watching her performance, you would think that she was truly affilicted with this disease in reality if you didn't know better. Her performance is not a mockery of the condition—it is incredibly sympathetic. Her quest to live a full life in the very short time she has left is beautiful beyond words.

It's hard to describe how powerful this film is. Even if you're not from a poor, rural family, it would be hard to watch this without feeling it touch something in your heart.

Rating: 4.0

Adventureland (2009, U.S.)

I loved this movie. I thought it looked like a stupid teen comedy from the previews (and that's probably what they were going for), but it was actually a very serious, sad, funny, touching story about growing up and finding your place in the adult world. It was truly wonderful.

I don't know really what else to add. The acting, mis en scene, scripting, everything was just so well done. I can always live without the use of modern music instead of a score, but it worked pretty well for it.

It's terribly embarrassing, but I really have become a Kristen Stewart fan. Sometimes she's weaker than others, but for the most part, she is absolutely enthralling.

I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone, but especially recent graduates who are having a hard time getting started in life, or people who remember what that was like.

Rating: 4.5

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