We've been in an interesting time for bad movies, where it used to be luck of the draw if a critic had a bad one on their hands we've now been blessed with a consistent whipping boy for the past four years in the form of the "Twilight Saga" based on a series of four books aimed at young adults, specifically tween aged girls. While on the surface being harmless enough as a book, (apparently, I've never actually read them as, you know, I'm a guy.) the films have been very harshly bashed for their terrible acting, bland direction, awful scripts (all written by the same screenwriter I might add.) and a flat out horrible message for younger girls. However, things are finally coming to a close, as last year saw the release of the fourth movie, and this year saw the release of the light at the end of the awful tunnel.
To go over why "Breaking Dawn Part 1" is a terrible movie would be like sounding off on the twilight check list. So, allow me to make it more interesting by asking you to take a shot from whatever alcoholic beverage of your choosing as I run down my response to this movie. This time around, worst female character ever Bella Swan has finally gotten her somewhat reluctant boyfriend Edward to marry her and all is right with the world. But on the honeymoon when Bella says she wants to have sex with him BEFORE he turns her into a vampire, (yeah if you didn't know, Edward's a vampire and there's a love triangle involving another guy, Jacob, who is a werewolf. if you didn't know this already, color me surprised.) said sexual encounters end up with Bella getting pregnant with a vampire human hybrid and Jacob breaks off from his tribe to protect her from them, as the werewolves are pissed about this for a reason I'm still trying to figure out.
So the first big problem with this movie is the acting (take a shot). Again Kristen Stewart plays the non entity that is Bella Swan and again all her scene are dull, emotionless and just making you wish the character had died in the last movie to end this series (take a shot). Robert Pattinson returns as her boyfriend/husband that seems to be physically ill at her existence (take a shot) and proves that the only satisfying thing he's ever done in a movie is die (Seriously, I love "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" so much more now in hindsight). No one in this movie acts, they more go through the motions while thinking about what this and the next movie's paychecks will net them. The direction doesn't matter (take a shot) because the film maker is working with terrible material (take a shot) and the script is just awful (take a shot). The movie really hammers home how pointless it is in this one because there was no reason for them split the fourth book into two parts, but Summit entertainment and Lionsgate would have lost their cash cow and that would be bad. So horribly is this movie padded, that it is constantly clawing for the very right to exist. It's a pointless movie plain and simple. This is why I've never reviewed the "Twilight" movies, there is literally NOTHING new to say! The movies are bad and there's only so many ways to say that. So instead I'll just comment on what everyone has a problem with in these movies, it's terrible message.
Basically, when you get down to it, "Twilight" is a bad lifetime movie without the actual physical abuse. It's all about how Bella loves Edward so much she marries him and wants to become a vampire to spend forever with him. It's not so much that this is the idea that "Twilight" is selling as it is people looking a little too deeply into it. My girl friend who HAS read the books pretty much summed up the whole thing like this: They're about having a boyfriend. That's it, it's basically a trashy romance novel without the sex instead opting for a wait until your married abstinence message. I personally don't really see a lot of what people have issues with when I watch these things, but I will agree that Bella Swan is a terrible female role model. She's just a horrible person, every action she does is selfish, all her justifications are despicable, and the way she treats people is just down right cruel. I would actually love someone to remake this entire series without changing a thing except playing Bella's actions like SHE was the main villain. That'd be an interesting movie in my book and you'd barely have to change a damn thing. I bring all this up because I don't think younger girls should look up to this character, and now there is thankfully better one to fill the gap.
"The Hunger Games" is the Lionsgate follow up to the wild success of things like the "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" franchises with another this time trilogy of books by Suzanne Collins. In it's story, set in a somewhat post apocalyptic America, the country has been divided into a bunch of different zones and each year one male and one female between the ages of 12 and 18 to fight to the death in what are known as the Hunger Games. Our hero, Katniss Everdeen, has volunteered for the latest Games to save her sister. In the lead up to the actual Games, she and her cohort Peeta are taken to the Capitol to promote themselves to get sponsors to help them out in the arena.
So at it's core the story is basically using the old gladiator games to make a deeper point gimmick and I feel it really works. Not having an entirely original story doesn't instantly make a movie bad, but I'm already starting to hear some backlash much in the same vain as "Dances with Wolves" in space with this being a more watered down version of things like "Battle Royale". I get that, I'm actually reading THAT book at the moment and when I went to "The Hunger Games" yeah it came to my mind, but really, this kind of plot is more about it's point than it's story. "Battle Royale" was more making about about Japanese culture and the "entitlement" generation while "The Hunger Games" is more making points about things like The 1% and reality tv shows. Even with all that it is a very well told version of said "unoriginal" story. The characters are all fleshed out and all the main characters have interesting arcs sprinkled with fun supporting characters.
The director on this was Gary Ross, famous for "Pleasantville" and "Seabiscuit", and he really goes all in on this one. He proves once again that he can get great performances out of great actors while at the same time making the movie interesting to look at... for the most part, but I'll get to that. Jennifer Lawrence is Katniss, and once again proves that she's a truly incredible talent and I'm glad to see her getting more high profile work. But the real show stealer, like always, is Woody Harrelson as a former Games survivor that's become a somewhat embittered drunk that's supposed to be Katniss and Peeta's mentor. He's just great fun every time he's on screen. In fact if I was to go on about how fun Stanley Tucci is as on of the hosts, or how great an over top caricature Elizabeth Banks turns in, but that would get really long and I have better things to talk about, just know that the acting in this movie is really entertaining.
Honestly I really liked this movie and the only real problems I have are nit picks like how the pacing at the beginning feels kind of rushed or how in some of the action scenes the shaky cam, while justified gets a little tiresome as it makes it hard to see what's happening, but those are just nit picks. Overall the movie is great and knowing that it's roughly being marketed to the same demographic as "Twilight" is a real win in my book. So while I'm giving "Twilight Saga: The Set Up for the next one" a total zero for just being a terrible movie. I'm more than happy to give "The Hunger Games" a 4.5 on my scale. It's a smart, interesting sci fi story with a great cast, don't miss this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment