The Human Centipede 2 [Full Sequence] Review

Not Rated

Running Time: 1 Hour & 28 Minutes

Cast:

Laurence R. Harvey-Martin Lomax

Ashlynn Yennie-Miss Yennie

Vivien Bridson-Mrs. Lomax/Martin’s Mother

Bill Hutchens-Dr. Sebring

Maddi Black-Candy

Peter Blankenstein-Alan

Dominic Borrelli-Paul

Dan Burman-Greg

Kandace Caine-Karrie

Peter Charlton-Jake

Daniel Jude Gennis-Tim

Georgia Goodrick-Valerie

Lucas Hansen-Ian

Lee Nicholas Harris-Dick

Emma Lock-Kim

Katherine Templar-Rachel

Directed by Tom Six

What a way to end 2011 by watching "The Human Centipede 2 [Full Sequence]"!

As a film critic (professional or otherwise), I do not have the luxury of being picky with the types of films that I watch as it is my obligation to present my honest opinion to my readers. The best I can hope for is that my criticism of a particular film inspires mature discussion; whether the reader agrees with me or not is irrelevant as it is, after all, just an opinion. Now, I am not a squeamish person as I’ve seen my fair share of films with…questionable content but director Tom Six’s “The Human Centipede II [Full Sequence]” is such an unrelenting endurance test into the depths of human depravity that it will turn off even the most stoic of viewers. Two years ago in 2009, “The Human Centipede [First Sequence]” became infamous for its unusual premise when it made the rounds at various film festivals. Six’s film gave new meaning to ‘ass to mouth’ as it told the story of a mad doctor kidnapping three victims so he can realize his vision of a Siamese triplet…by surgically connecting their mouths and anuses together! His inspiration for the film came from seeing a child molester on the news, prompting him to joke, ‘they should stitch this guy with his mouth to the ass of a very fat truck driver. It would be a really good punishment for him.’ Reactions to the film ranged from glowing praise to outright revulsion, with Michael Ordoña of the Los Angeles Times declaring in his review as a ‘crime against cinema.’ Whatever Six set out to accomplish, it worked and now we have the equally-controversial sequel that serves as the answer to all those naysayers who complained about the original’s relative lack of blood and gore. “The Human Centipede II [Full Sequence]” feels like a totally different film and while it may be hard to believe, the sadistic violence does serve a purpose but in his attempt to outdo himself, Six has created something that feels little more than a gimmick. Yet it has a certain unexplainable hypnotic quality to its bleak black-and-white imagery and even when the most horrible acts are being committed, you find yourself unable to look away from the screen thanks to the excellent dialogue-less performance of Laurence R. Harvey. 

Asthmatic and overly obese Martin Lomax (Laurence R. Harvey) is a short middle-aged man who works nights as a toll booth collector at an underground parking garage somewhere in the UK. He lives in a small flat with his elderly mother (Vivien Bridson) who hates Martin’s very existence and frequently voices her desire to kill him and herself. It is heavily implied that his father (who is currently in prison) sexually abused him when he was a child. Martin’s only source of happiness (and pleasure) comes from watching Tom Six’s “The Human Centipede [First Sequence]” on an endless loop while he works at his toll booth. He keeps a centipede as a pet and a scrapbook on the film under his bed. His only visitor is the lecherous Dr. Sebring (Bill Hutchens), who reassures Martin’s mother that he is going through ‘a phase’ and that it will pass. The lines between fantasy and reality begin to blur for Martin as he takes his obsession with Six’s film to new extremes by brutally kidnapping twelve people and creating his own ‘human centipede’ at a dingy warehouse. 

“The Human Centipede II [Full Sequence]” is billed as ‘100% Medically Inaccurate’ and the amount of blood and fecal matter on display makes the original film look relatively tame as it serves as a response to all those viewers who were expecting an all-out gore fest but came away disappointed. As I was watching the film, it almost feels like Tom Six is gleefully daring audiences to see if they can make it through to the end credits. I must confess that the version I saw was edited with approximately 2 minutes and 37 seconds of scenes excised in order for it to be released into theaters. The full uncensored version that premiered at Fantastic Fest 2011 back in mid-September at Austin, Texas is currently available on Bounty Films’ website for rent or download but unfortunately, it is restricted to UK and Australian citizens only, which is ironic considering the fact that both countries initially banned the film from being shown in cinemas. I do not approve of any form of censorship against films (or media in general) as people should have the right to choose what they want to watch but regulatory organizations such as the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) feel it is their ‘responsibility’ to protect the public from material that would be considered ‘obscene.’ Violent or objectionable content in media often spurs complaints from watchdog groups that it will inspire copycats and the sequel uses that as its inspiration with Martin attempting to make his own human centipede. I find it admirable that Six wanted to challenge his critics by utilizing a meta-narrative device but in his attempt to outdo himself and give the audience what they clamored for, all the commentary and subtext ultimately gets lost in a sea of dehumanizing, sadistic violence and that’s the reason why this sequel is inferior. Looking at the film at a more technical level, the editing this time feels haphazard and amateurish compared to the original but I believe it is Six’s attempt to give it more of an ‘underground’ vibe. The black-and-white style does seem at odds with the sequel’s intentions but I admit it exudes a bleak, oppressive atmosphere that wouldn’t be possible in color. There’s a sense of hopelessness to what is happening and has a gripping, hypnotic effect that it’s impossible to turn away. Say what you will about Tom Six but he certainly has a way of drawing the viewer in and keeping them immersed in this depraved world he’s created. 

As for the violence, I just know you’re curious so I’ll give a brief rundown of the highlights. A woman gets repeatedly hit with a crowbar in the head and we see the gory aftermath with her skull smashed to bits. Martin uses a hammer to knock everyone’s teeth out and uses a rusty pair of scissors to cut off their tendons to keep them from escaping. To connect all his victims, he bloodily slices open their buttocks and staples their faces to the next person’s anus. He injects laxatives into everyone and the fecal matter expelled splashes onto the screen in the film’s single use of color. Last but not least, a woman’s tongue is forcibly removed with a pair of pliers and the tail-end of the centipede is brutally sodomized by Martin with a piece of barbed wire wrapped around his penis (implied in the edited version). This is only the edited version as the uncensored one includes a newborn infant having its skull graphically crushed against a gas pedal by its own mother who is desperately trying to escape. Knowing all this, would you still watch the film? This I leave up to you, the reader, to decide. 

Dialogue is kept to a minimum in the film and the acting is on the amateurish side as everyone exaggerates with all the expletives. I must say, I am impressed by Six being able to gather such a cast willing to strip down naked and then crawl on all fours while having their heads taped to another person’s rear end. The one performance that really stands out is Laurence R. Harvey, who inspires pity and disgust at the same time. I have no idea where Six found him but he apparently worked in children’s television and theater so there’s a bit of irony seeing him in a film like this given his previous roles. During his audition, he admitted that he flipped a chair upside down to mimic raping someone as Six wanted to challenge him. From interviews, he comes off as a friendly chap but on film, his mere blank stare inspires chills. This is the birth of a horror icon. None of the original cast returns with the exception of Ashlynn Yennie, who is playing an exaggerated version of herself. 

“The Human Centipede II [Full Sequence]” had a limited theatrical release on October 7, 2011 and will be available on DVD and Blu-Ray on February 14, 2012, which is ironically Valentine’s Day. For those living in New York City, the only theater that showed the film was the IFC Center and they were only doing midnight screenings. I have no information on its production budget but it was reportedly similar to the first film. Either way, its low box office earnings ($123,043 domestic) shouldn’t be a problem as it’ll break even as a home and video-on-demand release. Reception has been negative with 31% on Rotten Tomatoes as critics concluded the sequel ‘attempts to weave in social commentary but as the movie wears on, it loses its ability to repulse and shock and ends up obnoxious and annoying.’ Roger Ebert wrote in his own review that it was ‘reprehensible, dismaying, ugly, artless and an affront to any notion, however remote, of human decency’ and awarded the film zero stars compared to the non-rating of the original. I will not be surprised if most people have this type of reaction and there’s nothing wrong with that but for me, it’s impossible to quantify my feelings with an arbitrary score. I appreciate Tom Six’s talent in making the film but whatever he wanted to say was lost in the sea of relentless violence so the only comment I can make without hesitation is that this sequel is inferior to the original. Whether you hate it or love it though, “The Human Centipede II [Full Sequence]” will be talked about for a long time to come.

Final Rating: N/A (Does not mean 0 out of 5)

*No line here since much of the film is dialogue-less.*

Read More

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows Review

Rated PG-13 (Intense Sequences of Violence and Action, and Some Drug Material)

Running Time: 2 Hours & 9 Minutes

Cast:

Robert Downey Jr.-Sherlock Holmes

Jude Law-Dr. John Watson

Jared Harris-Professor James Moriarty

Noomi Rapace-Madame Simza Heron

Rachel McAdams-Irene Adler

Stephen Fry-Mycroft Holmes

Kelly Reilly-Mary Morstan Watson

Paul Anderson-Colonel Sebastian Moran

Eddie Marsan-Inspector G. Lestrade

Geraldine James-Mrs. Hudson

Directed by Guy Ritchie

Sherlock Holmes faces off against Professor James Moriarty in "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows."

Exactly two years ago in 2009, director Guy Ritchie struck gold by re-imagining Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous literary detective Sherlock Holmes as a bona-fide action hero in a film that became a surprise hit among modern audiences, owing much of its success to Robert Downey Jr.’s energetic portrayal, who imbued the lead character with a likable roguish wit and charm. “Sherlock Holmes” did extremely well at the box office with a final worldwide gross of $524 million, impressive considering that it faced stiff competition from James Cameron’s 3D visual spectacle, “Avatar.” A sequel was all but expected considering the first film concluded with one of its subplots deliberately left unresolved, leaving Ritchie with the challenge of making a follow-up that not only retains the fun thrills of the original but also raises the stakes and action set-pieces. While “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” is an intermittently enjoyable flick that wisely retains the sarcastic banter between its two leading men, it ultimately disappoints and makes for a hollow viewing experience as it suffers from the same flaws that plague most modern sequels in its weak attempt to hide a lazily-written story under a veneer of flashy fight scenes and loud explosions. 

Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) is dutifully recounting an adventure he had with his at times irritatingly good friend and comrade-in-arms Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) in 1891 on his typewriter, revealing that Europe was on the brink of war after suffering from a series of bombings perpetrated by an unknown group of anarchists. Holmes, in an ill-conceived disguise, is stalking his sometimes lover and enemy Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), who is delivering a package to a wealthy doctor named Hoffmanstahl in exchange for a sealed letter. Hoffmanstahl believes the package to be his compensation but it is revealed to be a bomb, which Holmes quickly disposes of while Adler makes a quick escape. He realizes in the confusion that the doctor has been killed by a small poisonous dart that induces a heart attack. Adler arrives at a crowded teahouse to meet with Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), the criminal mastermind behind the events of the first film. She tries to explain what happened but Moriarty poisons her as she had been compromised by her feelings for Holmes. Meanwhile, Watson arrives at 221B Baker Street to remind Holmes that he is getting married to Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly) the next day and should head out for his stag party. Holmes reveals that he is currently working on the single most important case of his career and that recent events have all been tied to Moriarty, although he does not yet have sufficient evidence to bring him to justice. At the party, which includes Holmes’ equally sarcastic brother Mycroft (Stephen Fry), Watson is disappointed that none of his friends have been invited and sulks off to the gambling tables. Holmes, however, is there to meet with a gypsy fortune teller named Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace) and gives her the letter he stole from Adler. He asks for Simza’s help in locating her brother Rene, who is the author of the letter and is the only lead Holmes has on Moriarty. Holmes defeats a Cossack assassin sent to kill Simza but she escapes during the confusion. After Watson is married and sent off to his honeymoon with Mary, Holmes finally meets face-to-face Moriarty. The two admit their admiration for each other but Moriarty warns that if Holmes does not desist from interfering with his plans, he will begin to target those closest to him. Assassin’s sent by Moriarty attack Watson and Mary on the train to their honeymoon but Holmes had already stowed aboard in another inept disguise. The duo manage to escape after a huge firefight and they embark on their final case together in order to stop Moriarty from instigating a ‘world war’ among the nations of Europe. 

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” is a lazy sequel that rests on the laurels of the original film, with an ill-conceived script that makes no logical sense and is little more than an excuse to string along a series of loud action scenes while pushing its characters from point A to point B, as if it was in a rush to be over. Despite the promise of such a well-known villain from Doyle’s stories, Moriarty’s ultimate plan is surprisingly banal given the way the film makes him out to be some grand-scheming sociopathic genius. Ritchie, with writers Kieran and Michele Mulroney, attempt to thematically connect the plot with the uncertainty of today by having Moriarty fund a group of anarchists (or terrorists) to sow the seeds of conflict for a war between the European nations. His goal is to reap the profits from the war since he owns much of the weapons manufacturing industry. These ideas show promise but when implemented into the story, it comes off as half-baked as nothing meaningful is being said. Plot points are often blatantly telegraphed in the dialogue and Holmes’ deductions border on deus ex machina by treating the audience as idiots with long-winded explanations. The humor is largely hit-or-miss and often tries too hard to elicit laughs. Ritchie’s steampunk-inspired visuals are well done on a technical level but the flashy action scenes soon grow tiresome with its overuse of slow-motion in order to showcase random objects splintering into a million pieces or Holmes planning out his fights in his mind. However, it was a nice change of pace to have Holmes and Moriarty wage a climactic battle of wits over a game of chess during the final twenty or so minutes of the film. Such a game feels befitting for two geniuses who reside on opposite sides of the same coin but unfortunately, it’s a case of too little too late. 

“A Game of Shadows” wisely retains the sarcastic banter between Holmes and Watson, the original dynamic duo, and this can largely be attributed to the rapport Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law share. At times, Downey Jr.’s performance borders on parody with his wordy witticisms and increasingly ridiculous disguises but he remains as one of the few bright spots of the film because he’s clearly enjoying himself in the role and is complemented so well with Law’s more understated acting. The weak script however does not afford any opportunity to develop their characters since it’s in such a rush to move to the next location. Rachel McAdams is quickly done away with in the first fifteen minutes and Noomi Rapace is simply wasted in her American debut as she often just stands in the background staring into space and having little to say. Jared Harris is deliciously evil as Professor James Moriarty and the best scenes are when he and Holmes try to outdo each other with nothing but their intellect. Disappointingly, there are far too little of these scenes. Stephen Fry rounds out the cast as Holmes’ equally eloquent brother Mycroft but he serves as little more than comic relief. 

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” was released on December 16, 2011 to mildly positive reviews with 59% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics found the sequel to be ‘a good yarn thanks to its well-matched leading men but overall stumbles duplicating the well-oiled thrills of the original.’ Despite the enthusiasm exhibited by audiences for the first film, “A Game of Shadows” has been under-performing at the domestic box office, with a weekend gross of $40 million compared to the original’s $62 million. The previous film also had to contend with “Avatar” but although the sequel will earn less, it should make back its estimated $125 million production budget and turn a sizable profit to warrant a third entry, as was intentioned judging from the ending as once again a plot thread is left unresolved. Box office analysts have been trying to explain away the current slump and while the dismal economy does factor in, the answer is more obvious as the pre-release advertising for “A Game of Shadows” just showcased more of the same. Hollywood is currently so afraid to even attempt anything new for fear of losing money. “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” benefits from the camaraderie exhibited by Downey Jr. and Law but this sequel is ultimately an exercise in pointlessness with its nonsensical script and hollow action scenes.

Final Rating: 2.5 out of 5

“They're dangerous at both ends and...crafty in the middle. Why would I want anything with a mind of its own bobbing about between my legs?”

Read More

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) Review

Rated R (Brutal Violent Content including Rape and Torture, Strong Sexuality, Graphic Nudity, and Language)

Running Time: 2 Hours & 38 Minutes

Cast:

Rooney Mara-Lisbeth Salander

Daniel Craig-Mikael Blomkvist

Robin Wright-Erika Berger

Christopher Plummer-Henrik Vanger

Stellan Skarsgård-Martin Vanger

Yorick van Wageningen-Nils Bjurman

Joely Richardson-Anita Vanger

Geraldine James-Cecilia Vanger

Steven Berkoff-Dirch Frode

Donald Sumpter-Detective Gustav Morell

Goran Visnjic-Dragon Armansky

Embeth Davidtz-Annika Giannini

Tony Way-‘Plague’

Ulf Friberg- Hans-Erik Wennerström

Per Myrberg-Harald Vanger

Bengt C.W. Carlsson-Holger Palmgren

Elodie Yung-Miriam Wu

Joel Kinnaman-Christer Malm

Directed by David Fincher

Rooney Mara delivers an intense performance in David Fincher's remake of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo."

When was the last time you saw a Hollywood film featuring an original idea? Off the top of my head, I can only think of merely one, Christopher Nolan’s brilliant science fiction action/heist flick “Inception,” but that was released a year-and-a-half ago and since then Hollywood has unloaded numerous films upon an ever-dwindling audience that was either an adaptation, sequel, remake or some combination of the three. Don’t get me wrong, people still go to the movie theater in droves but with films that more often than not fail to deliver on its hype and increasing ticket prices year-after-year, many are just waiting out the extra three or four months and watching it in the comfort of their own homes without the extra headache. I myself often wake up bright and early to catch new releases at matinee prices. One of the current trends plaguing Hollywood is the remake and many of them have ended up as critical box office bombs, yet this has not deterred clueless studio executives from trying to make a quick buck, however little. I am not opposed to remakes but it ultimately comes down to the creative force behind them. Again off the top of my head, Matt Reeve’s 2010 “Let Me In” was a worthy remake that can stand proud with the Swedish 2008 original “Let the Right One In” but it’s a sad state of affairs when only one film comes to mind. Despite what you may believe, Hollywood does not have a high opinion of its audience and there oft-used excuse for remaking otherwise great foreign films is to ‘broaden its appeal,’ meaning that western viewers are too lazy and stupid to follow the subtitles so we’re making it easy by simplifying everything for you. So when Columbia Pictures/Sony announced an English-language remake in early 2010 of Niels Arden Oplev’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” from Sweden, itself an adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s 2005 critically-acclaimed novel and the first part in his Millennium Trilogy, I was very skeptical and echoed Oplev’s thoughts, ‘Why would they remake something when they can just go see the original?,’ which was released only two years ago in 2009 to rave reviews and earned $104 million at the worldwide box office but of course, in the United States, it barely registered as a blip since Hollywood has brainwashed the masses into thinking themselves incapable of reading subtitles. It all seemed like a cash-grab…until David Fincher came along and once the first publicity photos began to trickle out, my confidence and anticipation for the film grew. Having finally seen the film, Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is less a remake and more of a new interpretation despite treading the same material and while there are some minor flaws in compressing the numerous subplots, the end result is one of the best films of 2011 with the director putting his own personal stamp on the project from the viscerally surreal opening credits to the ominous droning beats of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ score. Lisbeth Salander, so brilliantly realized by Noomi Rapace in the original films, is once again brought to life with an awards-worthy performance from Rooney Mara, who throws herself into the role with such wild abandon that it renders her virtually unrecognizable, looking dangerous and beautiful at the same time. Steven Zaillian’s script is both faithful to the novel and expertly-paced, upping the suspense and tension even if you know how it all ends. 

Investigative journalist and co-owner of Millennium magazine Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) has just lost a much-publicized libel case against wealthy industrialist Hans-Erik Wennerström (Ulf Friberg), for which he must pay 600,000 Swedish kronor (approximately $87,000) in damages to avoid jail time. Meanwhile, brilliant but socially withdrawn hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) is assigned by Milton Security to compile an incredibly extensive background check on Blomkvist for lawyer Dirch Frode (Steven Berkoff). Frode works for the wealthy Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), the retired CEO of Vanger Industries, who wants to enlist Blomkvist’s help for a job despite the recent scandal. Henrik invites Blomkvist to his estate on Hedeby Island in Hedestad and asks him to solve the murder of his great-niece Harriet Vanger, who disappeared without a trace almost forty years ago. He believes the killer to be one of his family members as he receives a package of a framed pressed flower on his birthday every year, something that Harriet used to give him when she was still alive. Blomkvist is at first reluctant to take the job but when Henrik promises him a substantial fee and information on Wennerström, who used to work for him, he agrees. Back in Stockholm, Lisbeth, a ward of the state, discovers to her shock that her guardian, Holger Palmgren (Bengt C.W. Carlsson), has suffered a debilitating stroke. She is assigned a new one, Nils Bjurman (Yorick van Wageningen), who takes immediate control of Lisbeth’s finances and blackmails her into performing sexual favors for him in exchange for money. Lisbeth eventually exacts revenge on Bjurman after he brutally rapes her. At the same time on Hedeby Island, Blomkvist methodically follows-up on every known clue on Harriet’s disappearance but when he accidentally stumbles upon a new lead, the first one in four decades, he recruits Salander in bringing the killer to justice. 

Both Fincher and Oplev’s adaptations remain faithful to Larsson’s novel but differ in subtle details. The Swedish films were originally edited from the television mini-series, with each book divided into two ninety minute episodes so the pacing is certainly better with Fincher’s version as Zaillian only had to write for one medium. Despite a lengthy 2 hour and 38 minute running time, the film remains an absorbing experience even when it does inspire déjà vu at times because Fincher actually brings something new to the table as opposed to all the other lazily cobbled-together remakes that Hollywood sees fit to release year-after-year. For one, the surreal opening credits has numerous bodies covered in an inky black liquid screaming and writhing in agony as they are entangled by an infinite number of computer cables while Karen O’s (of the indie rock band Yeah Yeah Yeahs) rendition of Led Zeppelin’s Immigrant Song blares in the background. Using his background in music video directing, Fincher sets the tone that establishes that this “Dragon Tattoo” is his film, not a simple remake. The opening is also highly reminiscent of a number of James Bond films, which is ironic considering the inclusion of Daniel Craig. The film also has more of a distinctive cinematic look compared to Oplev’s version, which can come off as too workmanlike at times, as every scene is framed with blue or sepia tint that emphasizes the literal and figurative isolation of its characters. The novel’s themes of sexual violence, corrupt authority figures, and the dark impulses of human nature often hidden by a genial façade fit into many of Fincher’s works such as 1995’s “Se7en” and 2007’s “Zodiac.” Zaillian’s script wrings every ounce of suspense and tension as the central mystery slowly unfolds but it does stumble in two key areas, one of which lies more at the fault of the source material. The revelation of who the killer is occurs at the two hour mark like in Oplev’s film and it’s a brilliant conclusion as any but there is a lengthy epilogue that serves to tie up all those pesky loose ends. Unfortunately, the condensed plotting during the last thirty minutes in Fincher’s film feel rushed and while it is not enough to derail the momentum built up, the ending is ultimately not as satisfying, even if is more faithful to the novel. To be fair though, the extended edition of “Dragon Tattoo” from Sweden ends in a similar fashion but it had the luxury of a three-hour running time, a rarity for a mainstream Hollywood production. The complicated relationship between the two leads also lacks credibility as it is never made clear as to why a girl like Lisbeth would be attracted to someone like Mikael. Nyqvist’s Mikael exhibited warmth but Craig looks too imposing and confident despite the film’s attempts to give him an unkempt appearance. Ultimately, these issues, while noticeable, aren’t enough to undermine the film and if Larsson was still alive today, I sincerely believe that he would be proud to have inspired two excellent adaptations of his novel. 

Although Daniel Craig is afforded the most screen-time, it is Rooney Mara that makes the film so compelling and it’s even more impressive considering that her career is still in its relative infancy. Comparisons between Mara and Noomi Rapace are ultimately pointless as both give memorable and intense performances that focus on different aspects of the same character. Rapace’s Lisbeth keeps her feelings close to her chest and is more emotionally fragile while Mara emphasizes her feral-like rage, like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Her thin frame and albino-like complexion makes Mara’s Lisbeth appear to be death incarnate and the way her hood hides her face borders on supernatural at times. There’s even a seductive quality to Lisbeth even if she defies all conventions of feminine beauty. As for Craig, he lends a sense of desperation as Blomkvist, who views the case as a way to redeem himself and restore credibility to his name but I cannot help feeling that a lesser-known actor would’ve served the role better as he looks too heroic to be a simple journalist but there’s nothing inherently wrong with his acting per se as my gripe comes down to a matter of personal preference. The supporting cast does not feature anyone as recognizable as Craig, with the exception of Stellan Skarsgård, but it is readily apparent that Fincher was very careful in choosing his actors and actresses for even the smallest of roles as all of them do an excellent job. 

Released on December 20, 2011, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has received critical acclaim that’s on par with Oplev’s film with 85% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics hailed it as ‘brutal yet captivating…the result of David Fincher working at his lurid best with total role commitment from star Rooney Mara.’ Despite being backed by a massive marketing campaign and the novel’s popularity, the film has been underperforming at the box office, which may put the sequels in jeopardy but Fincher has stated at a press conference that he plans to shoot the second and third films back-to-back as they are essentially one story but as of right now, nothing has been officially announced. Having earned $32 million domestic so far, the film will make back its $90 million production budget and turn a profit once international grosses are factored in but a likely reason as to why it hasn’t being doing as well as expected is that the intended audience is for adults and unlike teenagers, they are more discerning about which films they want to pay to see. While there are some minor issues in condensing Larsson’s already-lengthy novel, David Fincher has crafted an excellent adaptation of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” that can stand proudly alongside Oplev’s film even if it cannot entirely escape its shadow. As far as personal preference goes, I do enjoy the Swedish one more partly because it offers a more authentic viewing experience but look at it like a two-course meal. Oplev may have been the main course but Fincher is the dessert and what a delicious one it is.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

“Rape, torture, fire, animals, religion…am I missing anything?”

Read More

2001: A Space Odyssey Blu-Ray Review

Rated G

Running Time: 2 Hours & 29 Minutes

Cast:

Keir Dullea-David Bowman

Gary Lockwood-Frank Poole

Douglas Rain (voice)-HAL 9000

William Sylvester-Dr. Heywood R. Floyd

Robert Beatty-Dr. Ralph Halvorsen

Sean Sullivan-Dr. Bill Michaels

Leonard Rossiter-Dr. Andrei Smyslov

Margaret Tyzack-Elena

Daniel Richter-Moon Watcher/Lead Primitive Human

Directed by Stanley Kubrick

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."

As I closed my eyes and hummed to the tune of Johann Strauss II’s famous waltz The Blue Danube while it plays triumphantly during the end credits of Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 magnum opus “2001: A Space Odyssey,” I lamented on the fact that such cinematic heights have become all too rare nowadays in Hollywood’s increasingly commercialized climate where money has taken precedence over creativity. The only director working today to come close to matching Kubrick’s intense perfectionism while maintaining total artistic control is Terrence Malick, whose latest film, “The Tree of Life,” was released earlier this year to critical acclaim, winning the prestigious Palme d'Or at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival in France. Audience reaction however was mixed as many found the film too abstract and struggled to grasp its meaning while others derided it as nothing more than pretentious claptrap. Strangely, “2001: A Space Odyssey” faced a similar polarizing reception upon its release as during its premiere, 241 people walked out during the screening with actor Rock Hudson reportedly asking, ‘Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?’ Opinions slowly changed and forty-three years later, “2001: A Space Odyssey” is widely considered not just a science-fiction masterpiece but one of the greatest films ever made. I find it humorously ironic that if Kubrick were still alive and released such a film today, reactions would still be polarizing, especially from the masses that lack the necessary patience for such a methodical and philosophical work, weaned as they are on recycled, easily-digestible stories and shiny yet ultimately meaningless CG special effects. Four decades later, “2001: A Space Odyssey” has lost none of its hypnotic power and remains as a singular experience that no filmmaker has come close to replicating with the exception of Malick. Exploring the very nature of humanity’s advancement and place in the universe, Kubrick’s visually dazzling magnum opus transcends the definition of film, becoming an awe-inspiring work of art. 

After an ominous overture, “2001: A Space Odyssey” opens to the booming introduction from Richard Strauss’ Also Sprach Zarathustra before settling into its first of four acts. A group of ape-like, early humans are foraging for food but are driven from their water hole by a more aggressive tribe. They awake the next day to find a strange black Monolith before them and approach it cautiously while György Ligeti’s Requiem (the Kyrie) blares in intensity. Later, one of the members of the group realizes how to use a bone as both a tool and a weapon and reclaims their water hole by killing the leader of the other tribe. He throws the bone triumphantly into the air and the scene shifts (via match-cut) to an orbital nuclear satellite thousands of years into future (presumably the year 2001). Humanity has reached the stars and as a Pam Am space shuttle proceeds to dock with Space Station V, Strauss II’s The Blue Danube plays in the background. The shuttle is carrying a Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester), who is meeting with a security official on the space station before proceeding to Clavius Base, a United States outpost on the Moon, to investigate an excavated anomaly ‘deliberately buried’ underneath the lunar surface four million years ago. This anomaly turns out to be another Monolith which emits a loud signal directed towards Jupiter when Floyd and his team of scientists get close to investigate. Eighteen months later, the American spaceship Discovery One is slowly on-route to Jupiter carrying three scientists via cryogenic hibernation while pilots David Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) tend to the day-to-day maintenance of the ship, their efforts assisted by a supercomputer nicknamed HAL (voice of Douglas Rain). HAL begins to exhibit strange behavior during the journey, forcing Bowman and Poole to become locked in a battle of wits against the supercomputer. However, nothing can prepare them for what is waiting on Jupiter and ‘beyond the infinite.’ 

People viewing “2001: A Space Odyssey” for the first time will no doubt wonder what the whole point of the film is but that is one of the beauties of Kubrick’s work as there are no easy answers. Loosely inspired by the 1951 short story The Sentinel by British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, the film and subsequent novel adaptation were developed concurrently and released the same year with Clarke receiving sole credit for the latter while sharing a screenplay credit with Kubrick for the former. Although the novel does shed light on many of the events and motivations of the characters in the film, it is highly advised to read it after viewing the film because it will allow the viewer to formulate their own interpretations of what Kubrick is trying to convey rather than going the easy route. “2001: A Space Odyssey” jettisons almost all traditional methods of narrative, with some critics such as Roger Ebert likening it to a silent film due to the minimal use of dialogue. Judging from an acting standpoint, the performances do come off as dull with little in the way of emotion since the characters serve mainly as conduits for Kubrick’s themes and ideas. What little is said is largely of the mundane variety and the only instance in which the film strikes an emotional chord is when HAL repeatedly pleads with Bowman not to disconnect him as he fears death and sings Harry Dacre’s Daisy Bell to soothe his own pain—which is ironic considering that he is an incorporeal machine. A tense moment arrives late in the film with Bowman locked in a battle of wits with HAL as the supercomputer tricks the pilot by locking him out of Discovery One, forcing Bowman to enter through the emergency airlock without an oxygen helmet despite the risk of anoxia. 

Split into four distinct acts, the film can best be described as a symphony and Kubrick utilizes a number of classical music pieces in lieu of a traditional score.  The docking sequence between the shuttle and the space station is lovingly edited to the tempo of Strauss II’s The Blue Danube to resemble something akin to a waltz and this beautiful scene, in its stark simplicity, remains superior to all of its CG-driven contemporaries. Certain music cues, especially the ones from György Ligeti, have an ominous and foreboding tone, lending a pessimistic slant to the way humanity’s evolution is linked with an act of violence, first with a simple bone club and finally advancing to a massive nuclear satellite orbiting Earth. Kubrick also took great pains in making space travel as scientifically realistic as possible, starting with the fact that there is no sound in space. All of the space scenes are either totally silent or accompanied by classical music. Space travel follows the speed of light with time delays between sending and receiving communications. Ship designs were made to look functional according to engineering considerations rather than for aesthetics. There are some inaccuracies related to navigating a zero-gravity environment but this can be attributed to technical difficulties or artistic license. 

Unfortunately, all of the aforementioned aspects are ignored by audiences who keep asking the same question over and over: what is the film about? That’s a hard one to answer as it differs from person to person but for me, “2001: A Space Odyssey” is an exploration of humanity’s advancement and their place in the universe. The Monoliths are no doubt of extraterrestrial origin but all attempts to understand it have failed. We often ascribe human-like qualities to strange creatures or objects but the probability of meeting an alien race that resembles us is virtually zero. The inability to establish a dialogue with extraterrestrials is explored in another seminal science fiction work, Stanisław Lem’s 1961 novel Solaris, which was adapted into a film in 1972 by Andrei Tarkovsky and again in 2002 by Steven Soderbergh. Humanity likes to believe they are in control of their own fates but it is the Monoliths who spur our evolution and the signal sent to Jupiter could be a way to signify that we are ready for the next step, to transcend the limitations of the physical form into something entirely new. The final twenty minutes, puzzling as they are, is one of the most visually dazzling and surreal sequences in all of cinema as Bowman is sucked into some sort of wormhole and witnesses a variety of cosmic phenomena. He arrives at a place of limbo full of ornate furniture and lives out the remaining of his years where time appears to be accelerated. On his deathbed, the Monolith appears before Bowman once more, transforming him into the ‘Star Child,’ an event that signifies the cyclical nature of life, death, and rebirth. Free from all physical constraints, this form is the final step in human evolution and represents the unimaginable possibilities that await the rest of humanity. 

“2001: A Space Odyssey” has been available on Blu-Ray since late-2007 and the results are nothing short of stunning. For those who have seen the film, viewing it in full-blown high definition is akin to seeing it for the first time. The opening act is full of vibrant color as the camera slowly pans across the arid desert but the space scenes are on another level as all the intricacies of the ships from the outer hull to the beeping cockpits are fully realized. For a film made four decades ago, this transfer rivals many of its contemporaries. The audio has a bit of a hollow effect that is common in older films but the numerous pieces of classical music are accurately reproduced and the dialogue remains sharp, especially HAL’s monotone way of speaking. The Blu-Ray has a healthy dose of extras including an audio commentary with actors Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, plus various featurettes in standard definition ranging from twenty to forty minutes long exploring aspects of the production design and the long-lasting influence the film has had on both cinema and contemporary filmmakers. 

Released on April 6, 1968 (re-released on October 5, 2001), “2001: A Space Odyssey” inspired a wide range of reactions with some critics praising the film and others deriding it as nothing but a tedious bore. James Berardinelli of ReelViews writes in his own review that ‘it’s a universal truth that art isn't always immediately recognized as such—this is why so many revered painters, authors, and composers have died in poverty and relative obscurity.’ As with the case with Kubrick’s film, opinions slowly changed and it is now widely regarded as a masterpiece and currently has a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. With an estimated production budget of $10.5 million, the film managed to turn a small profit with a domestic gross of $57 million or a whopping $369 million when adjusted for inflation. Apparently, MGM wanted to pull the film from theaters as it appeared to be a major box office flop but several theater owners managed to convince the studio to keep showing the film as an increasing number of audience members were paying to see it specifically for the famous ‘Star Gate’ scene under the influence of psychotropic drugs. The film was nominated in four categories at the 1969 41st Academy Awards for Best Visual Effects, Art Direction, Director, and Original Screenplay but only won for the effects. “2001: A Space Odyssey” caters to a very specific type of cinema lover as mainstream viewers even to this day continue to throw up their hands and wonder what all the fuss is about. One of my Literature professors screened the film to an audience who honestly did not deserve to be shown something of this magnitude and many either fell asleep or began loudly complaining about how boring it is. This is the reality of the majority of moviegoers and I understand they simply want to be ‘entertained’ but to not strive for something more meaningful, something that makes you ponder the ‘bigger picture’ is just sad. “2001: A Space Odyssey” is an important film in cinema history whose influence in filmmaking has been and continues to be far-reaching. This is a work of art the likes of which we’ll never see again and everyone should be given the chance to at least experience it once. ‘Open the pod bay doors, HAL’ and prepare for a majestic, awe-inspiring, thought-provoking odyssey ‘beyond the infinite.’

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

“Eighteen months ago the first evidence of intelligent life off the Earth was discovered. It was buried forty feet below the lunar surface near the crater Tycho. Except for a single very powerful radio emission aimed at Jupiter the four million year old black Monolith has remained completely inert. Its origin and purpose…are still a total mystery.” 

Note: Johann Strauss II's The Blue Danube plays during the end credits, which only last for approximately four minutes. Since the piece lasts for eight minutes, it continues to play over a black screen.

Read More

Melancholia Review

Rated R (Some Graphic Nudity, Sexual Content and Language)

Running Time: 2 Hours & 16 Minutes

Cast:

Kirsten Dunst-Justine

Charlotte Gainsbourg-Claire

Kiefer Sutherland-John

Cameron Spurr-Leo

John Hurt-Dexter

Charlotte Rampling-Gaby

Stellan Skarsgård-Jack

Alexander Skarsgård-Michael

Brady Corbet-Tim

Jesper Christensen-Little Father

Udo Kier-Wedding Planner

Directed by Lars von Trier

The end of the world has never looked so beautiful in Lars von Trier's "Melancholia."

What does happiness mean to you? Do our lives hold any meaning in the grand, intricate web of the universe or is it something we manufacture in order to justify our existence? Danish film director and screenwriter Lars von Trier has been making movies for thirty-four years since 1977 and those who follow his work are aware that he suffers from a variety of phobias and at times, crippling depression. His intense fear of flying has led him to shoot all his films in Denmark or Sweden, even if it were taking place somewhere else and he insists on driving to France every time he is invited to the Cannes Film Festival. Von Trier suffered something of a breakdown in mid-2007 when his depression left him unable to work, leaving him feeling ‘like a blank sheet of paper’ but he did manage to finish working on the highly controversial “Antichrist” in late 2008. He admitted in an interview that ‘the script was filmed and finished without much enthusiasm, made as it was using about half of my physical and intellectual capacity.’ Von Trier’s latest work is “Melancholia” and functions as a way to exorcise his emotional demons and deal with depression. However, the premiere of the film at this past summer’s Cannes Film Festival was marred with controversy when he responded to a question from film critic Kate Muir of the British newspaper The Times by saying that he held some sympathy and understanding for Adolf Hitler, prompting the festival’s board of directors to declare him persona non grata for his comments. He later apologized and admitted that he made a bad joke but then backtracked by claiming that he didn’t make it clear that he was joking. The whole mess has forced him to declare that he would ‘refrain from all public statements and interviews.’ Honestly, I think his nervousness got the best of him, causing him to ramble and not know when to stop. It’s a shame we won’t hear from him again but at least we’ll have his films and “Melancholia” is by all means an amazing one, a masterpiece that feels like a companion piece to Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” released earlier this year with one exploring the birth of the Earth and another exploring its end. Visually stunning, grandiose, and operatic, “Melancholia” explores the emptiness and lack of significance our lives hold when faced with Armageddon—a beautiful movie about the end of the world indeed. 

During a prologue set to Richard Wagner’s Prelude from his famous opera Tristan und Isolde (which also serves as the film’s leitmotif), a series of slow-moving images depict the final moments of two sisters while a rogue blue terrestrial planet dubbed ‘Melancholia’ collides with Earth in a cataclysmic explosion. Divided into two parts, the first half focuses on Justine (Kirsten Dunst), an advertising copywriter promoted to art director about to be wed to a naïve young man named Michael (Alexander Skarsgård) at the castle-like home of her sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her wealthy husband John (Kiefer Sutherland). The wedding is glamorous and no expense is spared but as the night wears on, Justine becomes alienated and withdraws inward. Justine’s estranged parents, Gaby (Charlotte Rampling) and Dexter (John Hurt), argue amongst themselves while her self-absorbed boss, Jack (Stellan Skarsgård) spends the whole night pushing her into providing him with an advertising tagline. On numerous occasions she looks up at the sky at a bright red star, which John, an aspiring astronomer, identifies as Antares, part of the Scorpius constellation. Her crippling depression causes her to lash out at Jack and when the night is over, Michael leaves with his parents. Antares disappears from the night sky and the second part, which focuses on Claire, reveals that a massive rogue planet named Melancholia has eclipsed it and is approaching Earth but will not collide according to scientists. This turns out to be false and as the planet draws closer, Claire slips further and further into panicked state of anxiety while Justine simply accepts, and even welcomes, the inevitability that they and everyone on Earth will die. 

Hollywood has destroyed the Earth many times over but “Melancholia” is unlike any of those films. There are no expositional news broadcasts detailing the impending doom, no focus on attempts to prevent the coming cataclysm, no hackneyed melodrama, nor are there cities or famous monuments being destroyed in spectacular fashion in an orgy of over-blown CG. The end just happens and the simplicity and insignificant way it’s depicted in the beginning of the film ties into the main themes that Von Trier focuses on, that humanity is inconsequential in the universe and that no one will even remember us once we’re all gone. It’s a cynical worldview that is held by people who suffer from depression and feel that their lives hold no meaning. Working at two emotional extremes, Von Trier explores the two sisters as they face the inevitably of their death in a destructive cosmic event beyond their own control. Justine (named after the main character from Marquis de Sade’s novel of the same name) believes that happiness is a false concept and although she tries, she is unable to stop herself from falling into a deep depression and views the false veneer that people display as hypocritical. Life is full of suffering but people refuse to accept it by living in denial. Death is inevitable and since it cannot be escaped, then what is the point of living? Claire, however, sees much to be thankful for, with a loving husband and son but this ‘world’ she has created begins to crumble apart once the threat of Melancholia looms over her. The situation becomes reversed as Claire slips into an anxiety attack in a futile attempt to control what she cannot while Justine feels calm, almost serene that the end is coming. Never has Peter Wastholm’s quote, ‘Always expect the worst, and you will never be disappointed,’ been more apt. At one point, Justine strips naked and lies in the grass under the night sky, staring longingly as Melancholia approaches in a peace-like state, almost as if she was welcoming the rogue planet with open arms. Von Trier often puts his female heroines, and his audience, through the gauntlet, because he wants us to identify with his nihilistic worldview and feel what he feels inside. The only question that remains is whether you agree with him or not: Are our lives meaningless and do we manufacture our own happiness with trivial customs in a lifelong state of denial? Is it a futile attempt to grant meaning to our lives and when faced with our own mortality, should we simply accept it or attempt to claw for some semblance of control even when there is none? There are no easy answers. 

Despite the dour subject matter, there are some moments of levity such as when the wedding planner (Udo Kier) gets disappointed at Justine as a bride that he cannot even look at her, covering his face with his hand every time she passes by. In addition to its thought-provoking themes, “Melancholia” is one of the most beautiful films I’ve ever had the pleasure to experience and much of it is owed to cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro. The eight minute prologue that opens the film is a feast for the eyes as Melancholia slowly approaches while images of the sisters are intercut with slow motion, such as Justine floating in a pond while wearing her wedding dress like Ophelia from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet or Claire desperately trying to escape with her son but unable to as the ground below threatens to swallow them up. The ending will stun you into silence as Justine, Claire and her son sit in a circle under a makeshift tent constructed from tree branches while Melancholia slams into Earth as Wagner’s Prelude crescendos. The film features no traditional score other than the Prelude from Tristan und Isolde, cutting in and out during specific scenes and events. 

The acting is of the highest caliber as both Charlotte Gainsbourg and Kirsten Dunst deliver awards-worthy performances but it is the latter woman who makes the most lasting impression. This is easily the best work that Dunst has done in her career as she portrays a woman who is virtually dead inside and when the end comes, it’s almost as if it’s a big relief for her to finally be released from this sad, physical existence. She received the Best Actress Award at this year’s Cannes Film Festival and I have no doubt that she’ll be nominated at next year’s Academy Awards, perhaps even win as well. The rest of the supporting cast largely appear in the first half and deliver some fine, if less showy performances, although Kiefer Sutherland can’t quite shake off Jack Bauer.  I half-expected him to say through gritted teeth ‘DAMMIT!’ whenever he displayed anger. The dialogue was all improvised with von Trier providing instruction between takes so the interactions aren’t as forced compared to more mainstream productions, which utilize rehearsals. 

Premiering at the Cannes Film Festival back in May and in limited release since November 11, 2011, “Melancholia” has received largely positive reviews with 79% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics noted that the film’s ‘dramatic tricks are more obvious than they should be, but this is otherwise a showcase for Kirsten Dunst's acting and for Lars von Trier's profound, visceral vision of depression and destruction.’ It’s currently playing at the Angelika Film Center, which also includes a rather intimate café where you can sit and read while you wait. This theater focuses on independent and art-house films so the screen is a rather small and the auditoriums do not have stadium seating. You can also hear the rumble of the subway underneath your feet but you get used to it after awhile. The most important thing is that cinema lovers can see films that AMC and Regal often shy away from. With a production budget of approximately $7.4 million, “Melancholia” has made $9.3 million worldwide so far but I doubt von Trier cares about such trivial matters. Will it be nominated for Best Picture at next year’s Academy Awards? The probability is high but winning is an entirely different matter as the judges have increasingly chosen more conventional, crowd-pleasing films. “Melancholia” definitely appeals to a more niche audience as most would not call it entertaining and will find it even tedious and boring. For those looking for an alternative from mainstream Hollywood fare look no further as von Trier’s latest is hypnotic and terrifying at the same time that if the end does come, I wish it would be as beautiful as the way it is depicted here while Wagner’s Prelude plays lovingly in the background.

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

“The Earth is evil; we don’t need to grieve for it. Nobody will miss it. Life is only on Earth. And not for long.”

Read More

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 Review

Rated PG-13 (Disturbing Images, Violence, Sexuality/Partial Nudity and Some Thematic Elements)

Running Time: 1 Hour & 57 Minutes

Cast:

Kristen Stewart-Isabella 'Bella' Swan

Robert Pattinson-Edward Cullen

Taylor Lautner-Jacob Black

Billy Burke-Charlie Swan

Ashley Greene-Alice Cullen

Jackson Rathbone-Jasper Hale

Kellan Lutz-Emmett Cullen

Nikki Reed-Rosalie Hale

Peter Facinelli-Carlisle Cullen

Elizabeth Reaser-Esme Cullen

Christian Camargo-Eleazar Denali

Mía Maestro-Carmen Denali

Maggie Grace-Irina Denali

MyAnna Buring-Tanya Denali

Casey LaBow-Kate Denali

Gil Birmingham-Billy Black

Chaske Spencer-Sam Uley

Tyson Houseman-Quil Ateara

Alex Meraz-Paul

Julia Jones-Leah Clearwater

Boo Boo Stewart-Seth Clearwater

Anna Kendrick-Jessica Stanley

Justin Chon-Eric Yorkie

Christian Serratos-Angela Weber

Michael Welch-Mike Newton

Sarah Clarke-Renee Dwyer

Michael Sheen-Aro

Jamie Campbell Bower-Caius

Christopher Heyerdahl-Marcus

Directed by Bill Condon

Not much of a honeymoon if you spend your time playing chess.

What is there left to say about the “Twilight” films? With each successive installment, it becomes increasingly clear that reviewing them is a pointless endeavor as its hardcore teen fan-base will simply lap up Stephenie Meyer’s work like blind, obedient dogs while the films continuously break records at the worldwide box office. In a blatant move at money grabbing, Summit Entertainment has opted to split the adaptation of the fourth and final novel, “Breaking Dawn” into two films, mimicking the situation with this past summer’s “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” However, the latter film at least had a creative in addition to a financial reason for doing so but it makes little sense for “Breaking Dawn” to be split into two films as it forces new director Bill Condon to cram the first part with so many filler moments that have no bearing on the main story and I doubt the pay-off in the second half will be as emotionally satisfying compared to “Deathly Hallows.” “Breaking Dawn Part 1” still manages to muster up some small improvements over the previous two installments but it’s all a matter of too little too late as the glacial pacing continues to bore, the dialogue remains cringe-inducing, and too often the cast stand around looking forlorn to the background tune of the film’s mopey, alternative rock soundtrack instead of actually acting. Ultimately, the main problem goes back to Meyer’s hackneyed prose. 

Isabella ‘Bella’ Swan (Kristen Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) are about to be wed, much to the distress of Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), who angrily transforms into his wolf form and runs away into the woods upon receiving his invitation. The rest of the Cullen family, Carlisle (Peter Facinelli), Esme (Elizabeth Reaser), Alice (Ashley Greene), Emmett (Kellan Lutz), Rosalie (Nikki Reed) and Jasper Hale (Jackson Rathbone) are keeping themselves busy preparing for the wedding. Edward makes one last attempt to dissuade Bella by explaining to her the consequences of becoming a vampire but she stands firm in her decision. Once the two are finally wed, Bella is taken to the woods where she meets Jacob and they dance. When she reveals that she plans to consummate their marriage on their honeymoon, Jacob becomes infuriated and attempts to attack Edward but is held back by the members of his wolf clan. Edward takes Bella to a private villa on an island called Isle Esme off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. They make love for the first time but the next morning, Bella discovers bruises on her body, which horrifies Edward. Against her wishes, he remarks that he will abstain from having sex with her while she remains human. Two weeks later, Bella discovers that she is pregnant and that the fetus is maturing at an accelerated rate. They return to Forks, Washington where Carlisle reveals that the vampire-human hybrid is crushing her from the inside and that she will die before she is able to give birth. Upon seeing a sickly Bella and learning of her pregnancy, Jacob blames Edward for ‘destroying’ her, leading to a deadly confrontation between the Cullens and his wolf clan, who believe the hybrid to be a monster and plan to kill it along with Bella. 

“Breaking Dawn Part 1” features a threadbare plot stretched to two hours as director Bill Condon is forced to shove in pointless scenes full of angst-ridden drivel and immature characters. As expected, Taylor Lautner opens the film by tearing off his shirt in the rain but the wedding scenes are actually competent and handled well, although keep in mind the bar has been set incredibly low so this isn’t exactly an accomplishment to celebrate. For the first time, I believed that Bella and Edward were in love and there are several moments of levity from Anna Kendrick’s Jessica Stanley and Billy Burke’s Charlie Swan. Unfortunately, the film goes downhill from there as the pacing slows to a painful crawl in order to meet the necessary running time. The much advertised love scene between Bella and Edward has been sanitized to a fault in order to garner a PG-13 as an R rating would’ve been financially disastrous for Summit Entertainment. Condon’s handling of Renesmee’s birth is by using frenetic editing, close-up reaction shots of Bella and a blurred first-person perspective and despite the financially-imposed censorship, it largely works as there’s a visceral urgency to it and there are cuts to a bloody aftermath. However, thanks to Meyer mucking around with vampire lore, I’m still not entirely sure how Edward is able to impregnate Bella considering that he’s not considered living and that vampires cannot have children. The film even breaks its own logic as Edward seemingly runs around in broad daylight without fear of being discovered. Another concept that’s poorly explained is the process of imprinting. From what I understand (and I actually tried to), it’s when a shape-shifter finds his or her soul-mate by staring intently at the other person. I kid you not as this is what happens when Jacob sees Bella’s baby minutes after she’s born and ‘imprints’ on her. The whole scene is laughable, ridiculous, and simply all kinds of wrong as a grown man becomes attracted to the child of the woman who has continuously rejected him. Maybe he sees Renesmee as his rebound? In fact, scenes like this occur throughout the film, such as when Jacob has a dramatic confrontation with the rest of his clan by telepathically communicating with each other in their werewolf form but we’re unable to take it seriously because the CG looks amateurish and the size inconsistencies of the wolves from shot-to-shot are distracting. In contrast, the work done on making Bella appear sickly thin is frighteningly effective, the one element that I can praise without any reservations. 

Ultimately, what really kills the film (and the franchise) is that none the three main characters ever mature and their angst-filled behavior grows tiresome to watch. Edward is controlling and mentally abusive, Jacob is all jealous rage and unable to move on, and Bella is without any real hopes and dreams as her world revolves entirely around the two men in her life who continuously fight over like a piece of raw meat which seems to get all those squealing girls quivering in their nether regions. It’s like they’re trapped in some vicious cycle and are unable to escape with endless declarations of love but no attempt to pierce deeper at what that actually means. The use of depressing alternative rock music is exasperating because one crops up every ten minutes when the cast just gets lazy and refuses to do their job. The acting remains emotionally inert as Kristen Stewart, while managing something resembling a performance in the first half-hour, devolves into her sleepwalking mode. Stewart can act and has proven this numerous times but the “Twilight” films have always hamstrung her talents. Robert Pattinson continues to look like a constipated James Dean in need of Metamucil and Taylor Lautner butchers every law of acting every time he opens his whiny, little mouth. The supporting cast consists of the same attractive faces devoid of any real personality and looking like bleached wax figures. 

Released on November 18, 2011, “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1” has received overwhelmingly negative reviews with 29% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics called it ‘slow, joyless, and loaded with unintentionally humorous moments, [the film] may satisfy the Twilight faithful, but it's strictly for fans of the franchise.’ In other words: same old, same old. As expected, the fans were out in force during opening weekend as it debuted with a gargantuan $138 million, just shy of the $142 million of 2009’s “New Moon.” The film will likely top out at $300 million domestically, although it appears that it will continue to reign supreme over Thanksgiving weekend as none of the new releases were able to make a significant dent in its earnings. “Twilight” has always been about pleasing the fans rather than creating actually good films and “Breaking Dawn Part 1” continues in that tradition for better and for worse. The final film will arrive next November and I doubt much will change. Fans: enjoy it while it lasts as I for one am glad that this whole madness will soon be over…until Meyer comes up with another idiotic concept.

Final Rating: 2 out of 5

“Childhood is not birth to a certain age, where at a certain age the child is grown and puts away childish things. Childhood is the kingdom where nobody dies.”

Read More