Twilight Fans - Explain Yourselves!

This is a legitimate question: how on Earth or heaven above can any reasonably minded person defend the Twilight series as quality literature or cinema? I have not read the books, and I have only seen one of the movies, but this is an honest inquiry.

Nearly everyone woman/girl I know has read this book series and faithfully watched the movies, and nearly all of them treat it as some sort of stigmata... and they continue to follow it nonetheless. My fiancee flew through the books, devouring each of them within days, but she says they're nothing special. She's hated the movies. Hated them. Any time Twilight comes up in the national conversation, she talks about how unhealthy the Edward-Bella relationship is, how stupid the Bella character is, how poorly the books are written, how bad the movies are... She even showed me a scene from Breaking Dawn where the wolf pack talks telepathically and is all "The baby must die!", "I am the son of a chief - I take orders from no one!", and all growly and Darth Vader-sounding... the dumbest spoof in the world could not come up with a funnier, more ridiculous scene - and she told me no one laughed! She nearly fell out of her seat in hysterics, and the other patrons just watch it placidly.

This is a real scene!

So what is the appeal?

I was ambushed by New Moon. On the way home from work, my fiancee surprised me with a "Guess what we're watching at midnight!" phone call. I'd never expressed interest, never even feigned desire to have anything to do with the Twilight series, but there I was, surrounded by screaming, moronic, adolescent girls at midnight on opening night. God, what an awful movie. Truly, an awful movie. Poorly written, poorly made, bad special effects, bad acting - there was not a single redeemable quality about that movie. My fiancee agreed.

And yet there she was, and there she has been, year after year waiting in line for the next one. It's like this series has some kind of pull over her - like the morbid curiosity that causes us to stare at a car wreck.

This just screams vapid.

It's not her I want to hear from, though. I want to hear from the real fans. I want to hear from the delusional ones who regard this as essential reading, essential viewing; the ones who think Edward and/or Jacob embody some sort of masculine ideal which men should aspire to; the ones who identify with and feel for Bella's struggle to choose the right mate.

I want this information because I just don't understand this phenomenon. It's not uncommon for garbage to claim a place in the public pantheon (how else do you explain the success of Michael Bay?), but so far as I can tell there is truly not one positive thing about the series. From what I've seen, Edward is a complete and utter douchebag who has not learned anything about humanity, culture, or himself within the centuries he's lived; Bella is an idiot who falls for the wrong man and subsequently spends the rest of the time justifying her foolishness to herself and everyone else; and Jacob is nothing more than a superficial plot device meant to introduce some sort of rote complication in an otherwise overly simplistic story.

One girl I work with tells me she likes the books because she's a hopeless romantic. This makes no sense to me. What is romantic about someone telling you what to do? A woman willing to die for me is not attractive - it's insane. Did no one see Fatal Attraction? That's what obsession leads to! Another friend tells me it's mindless fun, that she just has a good time. This I at least understand. Garbage as camp, I get; garbage as engaging entertainment, I don't.

So let me hear it, Twilight fans. This is your time. Tell me what you like about the series. Extoll the brilliance of Stephanie Myers' creation. Defend against my attacks. Let me know why I'm wrong. And make it good.

Random Thoughts

More unstructured little bits...

(1) There seems to be a general misunderstanding of the terms "curvy" and "voluptuous." A lot of women are using these words in place of "fat" or "overweight." I don't want to sound mean - aside from the health problems, there's nothing wrong with being overweight - but let's call a spade a spade. "Fat" = rolls, "curvy" = hourglass. There is a difference. I've seen a lot of women - trust me, I know.

Also, this is just a pet peeve, but I'm a little confused about how "voluptuous" got thrown into the mix here in the first place. Look it up: "voluptuous" means sensual/seductive/pleasurable... nothing to do with body shape.

See the difference?

And don't get on me for saying everyone should be skinny - that's not what I'm saying either. Look at Christina Hendricks. Quick online research puts her height at 5' 8" and her weight between 155 and 175, she wears a size 14 - she's not exactly tiny.

(2) While we're on the topic of language, a major pet peeve is the sudden, generational misuse of "loose." I don't know when this started happening, but it seems to be a universal problem for people under a certain age. Here's the issue: "loose" means, well, loose - the opposite of tight, free from restraint, etc. Generally, it's a descriptive term. (It can, of course, be a verb, but you rarely hear people say they "loosed" something.) All of a sudden, "loose" is being used in place of "lose" - a verb which means, well, you lost something.

It's an easy typo, so I get that, but it's being used far too often to simply be a typo; it's a mistake. A silly mistake.

(3) I don't like "Movember," or whatever it's called. I'm all for facial hair, but growing it out for cancer awareness is really stupid. Furthermore, I hate when people ask if I'll shave my beard and just wear a mustache for a month. No. What good does your mustache do prostate cancer? Doesn't it seem kind of insulting? Here's this horrible, wretched disease that hurts people and destroys lives, and you're "supporting" it with a goofy handlebar? That's not support - that's trivializing. Also, 99% of people look like child molesters when they wear a mustache.

lame

(4) I can't stand online classes. You pay hundreds of dollars and waste hours of personal time... for what? To teach yourself a subject. If you take an online class, they should at least give you the book for free. I see no rationale in paying hundreds for a class, another hundred or so for a book, and then having virtually zero (if not actually zero) interaction with a professor. I'm sure there are professors who can actually do great work in the online setting, but so far I haven't met them.

(5) Can we please wait until Thanksgiving is over before we start Christmas? I enjoy Christmas as much as the next person (okay, probably not), but one month is enough. More than enough.

(6) Will Republicans ever find a viable Presidential candidate before Election Day? Not that I'm looking for somebody to vote for, but virtually each and every one of them is a certifiable nutjob. It honestly feels surreal - like it's all some elaborate prank. If you saw a single one of these characters in a movie, you wouldn't believe it - but conservatives have about a half-dozen... at least!

The only one I have any respect for - despite disagreements - is Ron Paul. I feel like all the others are soulless bureaucrats who would do (and have done) anything to be popular. Ron Paul at least sticks to his guns.

(7) Who would have thought that the San Francisco 49ers - a team which hasn't had a winning season in about a decade - would have the second-best record in football? A strange world we live in.

(8) I can't get this song out of my head...

That's it for now. Have a good one!

Cinematic Smackdown: Rob Zombie's Halloween (Part II)

Halloween II - 3.5/5
(dir. Rob Zombie)

Halloween II has the distinction of being one of the only genre sequels I know of that actually treats its characters with respect and realism. Generally, horror sequels are simply an exercise in gore/technique with a new cast, aiming to bring in the original audience and hopefully a few more. This film turns that cliche on its head: some really disturbing and disgusting things happened in the first film, and rather than repeat it all over again with some fresh faces, Zombie instead probes the much more interesting question of, "What actually happens to someone who's been through something like this?" As such, the cast is mostly the same (the boy who played Michael in the first film was replaced - apparently he matured a lot in two years), but they've all gone to much different places.

Take Laurie. In the first film, her parents were killed, most of her friends were killed or left for dead, and she shot someone in the face. The second film starts mere minutes after with her wandering the streets, covered in blood, an expression of sheer confusion and disbelief on her face. She's seen and experienced things no one should ever have to go through, and now she's left to deal with the consequences. The film is mostly about her transformation.

Also returning from the first film is Sheriff Brackett, who's basically adopted Laurie. His daughter, Annie, was on the brink of death at the end of Halloween, and naturally this film finds him much more cautious and protective of the two of them. He will even post a detail outside his house if he feels uncomfortable. His character is perhaps the most tragic. Annie, on the other hand, has all but withdrawn from society. In the first film she was popular, social, upbeat; this time around she stays home all the time, speaking only to her family. Emotionally she seems stable, but her scars are an obvious reminder of what has happened, and thus she prefers to stay safely confined in her house.

And then there's Michael himself... what a paradox. Without the Michael Myers character or presence, Halloween would not exist in the first place, and yet he is perhaps the least interesting of all the characters. In the first film, Rob Zombie tried (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to explain what events caused him to become the stalking killer everyone knows. This time around, Myers is truly a minor character, showing up periodically to kill and remind the audience that he is, indeed, coming for Laurie, but that's about it. Zombie even tries to occasionally show the world from Michael's perspective, but aside from providing a surreal respite from the slash and gloom, these scenes are mostly ineffective.

The most intriguing aspect of the film by far is the transformation of the Laurie Strode character. She was so naive, innocent, sweet; a stark contrast to the troubled, pill-popping teen of this film. She continually has nightmares about what happened in the past, even nightmarish visions of Michael's rampage and (perhaps?) future events in waking thoughts. The violence has consumed her, changed her; she cannot escape it. The film suggests that she (and by extension we in the audience) may be just as capable of such violence - it's simply a matter of whether she (we) reaches the tipping point.

Despite some very strong scenes, the plotline remains troublesome, and the film ultimately left me wanting more. Too often the violence just felt like it was on auto-pilot, and too many scenes (especially early in the film) go from violent to gory to flat-out gratuitous. This is less of a problem toward the end, thankfully (indeed, the most effective murder of the film is left off-screen entirely, revealed only in bursts), but is off-putting nonetheless. I wish the film focused more on Laurie and her character's change than Michael's rampage through every locale even tangentially related to the Myers family or Laurie specifically; she is the linchpin of the story and too often is placed in the background of what is happening.

I had a tough time coming up for a rating for this film, which is why the delay between posts has been so long, even though this review has been finished for a few days now. My initial thought after the film finished was "Good, not great"; then I started thinking about the elements that didn't work (I hate the strip club murder scene, as well as the gratuitous gore of the opening sequence, and [like the first film] I wanted to press the "Mute" button when Laurie was hanging out with her friends, though I love the scenes with her and Annie)... and then I started thinking of all the elements that did work. The music, the cinematography, the acting (every major and supporting actor did a great job, especially Brad Dourif and Scout Taylor-Compton), the editing, so many brave directorial choices - the film stays with you, there's simply no denying it. So I went with 3.5/5, which to me is the "really good, but somewhat problematic" rating.

In the end, I admire and respect the film more than I like it. I like what Rob Zombie tried to do, especially with the Laurie character, I love the decision to use 16mm (gives the film a much grittier look), and he achieves genuine greatness with some sequences; and I love the challenge he put to the audience by making a thoughtful film about violence and its effects rather than a bloodier retread... but... basically I wish we didn't have to cut away to Michael's latest grisly killing every few scenes. My favorite scenes with Michael don't even involve violence: (1) There's a shot of him sitting in the wilderness, looking up at the moon. I love that shot. It's so simple, and so enigmatic; I just kept wondering what was going through his mind. To me that was far more effective than the hyperstylized surreality of his mother. (2) There's a brief scene with him and a young trick-or-treater (an obvious throwback to Frankenstein) that works really well. The boy just has such sweetness, such innocence - I love the contrast of characters, as well as the mental comparison despite Michael being so different physically. Other than that, I feel he should have been even more of a background presence. The more peripheral, violent scenes would have been time better spent observing and understanding what Laurie is going through. Listening to the commentary track, it seems Zombie himself mentally disregards the killing scenes, focusing instead on what his characters are going through. The ambition for greatness is there, it's just covered in too much fake blood.

Cinematic Smackdown: Rob Zombie's Halloween (Part I)

Disclaimer: Though they could be viewed together as one long movie (with the sequel starting mere minutes after the first), I'm going to treat and review them as two separate films, especially because I feel they both offer unique takes on the source material.

Halloween - 2/5
(dir. Rob Zombie)


When I first heard the announcement that Rob Zombie would be remaking Halloween, I didn't really know what to think. On the one hand, John Carpenter's Halloween is quite simply a masterpiece - a classic "untouchable" of the horror genre (meaning, basically, that it's so good the first time, what could be better a second time?). On the other hand, though, Zombie had established himself as quite a talented director of horror films, especially after The Devil's Rejects. He wasn't reinventing the wheel - often borrowing heavily from the obscure 60s and 70s horror films he was trying emulate - but he proved a fine craftsman and a surprisingly good writer-director. (Listen to the commentary track for The Devil's Rejects and tell me that doesn't sound like any other articulate, erudite filmmaker trying to do something exciting and original.) So I had my reservations, but I was excited to see what he could do.

I'm sorry to say he was not able to do much. I don't know if he felt trapped by the original story or what, but the tactic seemed to be, basically, to treat the film as a half-prequel/half-remake. There are strong moments in each portion, but ultimately the story (and thus the film) comes up short. The main problem, for me, is Zombie's primary conceit. The "prequel" material is meant to show us how Michael Myers the boy became Michael Myers the monster. As such, we are treated to some particularly nasty scenes with an abusive father, a desperate mother, bullies at school, and an unhealthy fascination with animals and asserting power over them.

Enter a long-haired, hippie-dippie Malcolm McDowell as Dr Loomis, a stark contrast from the doomsday-crying, straight-laced Donald Pleasance. After Michael is involved in another fight with a bully (apparently one of many), Loomis is sired to come and recommend professional psychiatric help. Not for the fighting, but for some rather disturbing things found in the boy's locker. Michael catches wind of this and, naturally, decides to avoid the good doctor and go at it himself; and just like that, he commits the first of many grisly murders, his first target being the bully.

Now, this is the problem... the whole idea of the prequel material is to show us why Michael is the way he is - what extremes drove him to such madness. With the revelation that, apparently, Michael was hurting animals and taking matters into his own hands long before being the infamous stalk-and-slash hulk we know, the point is moot. I guess the explanation Zombie is trying to offer is what drove Michael to go from animals and other "lower" life forms to human beings, or perhaps what drove him to regard even people as lower life forms. The original Halloween offered no explanation - Michael Myers simply was that way. This film offers an explanation of sorts, but it basically comes to the same conclusion - he just is that way. Sure, the bully and his father treat him despicably, but his mother genuinely loves and cares about him, and even at the sanitarium he comes to call home, one of the guards kind of regards him as a surrogate son... But none of these things matter. Once Michael starts killing, he is completely indiscriminate, and oftentimes the reasoning is incomprehensible.

For all its faults, though, Halloween still remains a very watchable and fairly entertaining film. Zombie is able to craft some real drama and tragedy in the relationship of Michael and his mother, driven to desperation and hysteria as her baby boy becomes increasingly withdrawn from both her and reality. The scenes with her trying to save him are the most powerful in the film... As it must, though, Halloween eventually tips into full slasher territory. Years go by with Michael at the sanitarium, growing ever larger, ever quieter - ever more powerful. And then, as he must, he breaks loose, basically killing everyone and everything in his path, in increasingly grisly and sadistic ways, trying to get back home. Many of these scenes are startling and effective, a few genuinely thrilling and chilling, but at the same time they just feel so... inevitable. Zombie does his best to keep things interesting and change up the original material as much as he can, but I think in the second half he was simply too restricted. (You find yourself thinking, "Oh, well, he's going to go there next and do this because that's how the original goes." This doesn't come true all the time, but most of the time.)

Also, and I know this is a strange criticism, but I pretty much cringed any time the teenage girls were on-screen together. Zombie is known for giving his actors quite a bit of freedom for improvization, so with that in mind I guess he can't be blamed too much, but the conversations between the girls just sounded too... typical. Too "valley girl," almost. All these squeaks and laughs. I've heard girls talk to each other, and rarely do they sound like this. I'm not saying they should have went to the opposite extreme - without the girls and the occasional cutaway to their goings-on the film would just be oppressive - I'm just saying I didn't believe them as real people.

So in the end, I have to admit that the film is not bad. Despite all its faults, I kind of enjoyed it, and I would probably watch it again some future October; I was just hoping for more. Rob Zombie really impressed me with The Devil's Rejects - a  thoroughly entertaining horror film, and a much more thoughtful one than most are willing to admit. I guess what I'm saying with this one is the "explanation" of Michael Myers just isn't good enough. If you want to take the time to try and make me understand the psychology of a monster, then it had better make sense; if you're going to spend all that time and essentially say nothing more than, "Well, he's a monster," then you haven't really said anything.

Cinematic Smackdown: DOUBLE FEATURE! Paths of Glory & A Day at the Races

Paths of Glory - 4.5/5
(dir. Stanley Kubrick)

What an amazing film. Great performances, top-notch filmmaking, a superb script - all the pieces are there, and they work with utmost precision. In fact, the only "bad" thing about the movie is that it's so short it leaves you wanting more.

The film is about war, but more than battles, brotherhood, or bloodshed, Paths of Glory is interested first and foremost in the politics of war. There is rousing, harrowing footage of futile troops and combat, men pressing on in the face of violence, but the film instead focuses more on the aftermath of the battle than on its viscera. The backdoor dealings of generals and politicians, powerful men who view soldiers as little more than dots on a map advancing toward an objective - this is the crux of the film.

There is a problem, however. In this particular case, the "dots" have disobeyed. Not out of a sense of purpose - there is no "I am Spartacus"-type rebellion - but out of practicality: troops were pinned down, vastly outgunned and outnumbered, so many chose to flee rather than fight. They are subsequently charged with cowardice. There is a brilliant, darkly comedic scene between the general and an artillery captain: the general demands artillery be dropped on his own troops to encourage them to move forward. The artillery captain replies that he will do no such thing without the proper paperwork; he does not refuse out of pity or pride, but because of duty and bureaucracy. Paths of Glory is filled with such moments - scenes which are brilliantly written, conceived, and assembled - which coalesce into greatness.

Where it goes from there speaks more to the ego of war, the sheer absurdity and tragic futility of men who base their lives and ambitions on the deaths of other men. It is surely no accident that the pivotal point each side wants to capture is nicknamed "The Anthill." Paths of Glory is a wondrous film, a perfect synthesis of talent as the great Stanley Kubrick finally showed what he was capable of.

Cinematic Smackdown: DOUBLE FEATURE! Conversations with Other Women & Bridesmaids

Conversations with Other Women - 4/5
(dir. Hans Canosa)

Hans Canosa's Conversations with Other Women is so good it almost earns your derision. The film is just so effortless, simplistic, complicated, and in the moment that you forget you're watching a movie. It works so perfectly as a slice of life, letting you peer into the tragicomic lives of its characters, that you don't even see the flaws at the time, though they may occur to you once the film is finished.

The "plot," as it were, can be summed up in a few words: former lovers meet. That description could describe countless titles, but what sets Conversations apart is the care of the filmmaking and the quality of the acting. Helena Bonham Carter is near irrecognizable as a bored housewife (as opposed to her "eccentric" roles... it's good to see her show some range), and Aaron Eckhart proves himself worthy of his ego as the cynical lover who's been searching for her in one way or another since they split.

And that's basically it. The pair meet at a wedding reception apparently strangers, but then we realize they know each other. Then, not only do they know each other - they loved each other. Then, not only did they love each other - perhaps they still do. The remaining minutes are dedicated to the two wrestling with their current and former feelings, obligations, and relationships, both between themselves and their current and former lovers.

The film is shown entirely in split-screen, which can sometimes feel pretentious or distracting, but for the most part works perfectly. Clearly, it was not simply a stylistic choice, but one that beautifully underscores the alone-but-together feeling of its characters. Likewise, the split-screen is a choice of economy: how much more effective it is for "flashbacks" to simply be shown alongside the present rather than disrupt the entire flow of the narrative. It's a simple device, but it works. Note: the last shot of the film is perfect. A beautiful, tragic, touching summary of the entire story in just a few seconds of screen time.

Cinematic Smackdown: Puss in Boots

Puss in Boots - 3/5
(dir. Chris Miller)

Whew... Dreamworks kind of dodged a bullet on this one. They've been trying for nearly fifteen years to carve out a niche and keep pace with the Pixar powerhouse: where Pixar cast a broad net that won over pretty much everybody, Dreamworks went into edgier, more "adult" territory. (We're not talking Heavy Metal-adult, but just compare Antz to A Bug's Life, and you'll see the difference.) Their biggest success, of course, was Shrek, a series which became ubiquitous in the early party of the century: four movies in nine years, nearly $3 billion in domestic/international box office, and God knows how much in advertising and toys. Each sequel, however, produced diminishing returns, and the critical response was becoming less and less enthusiastic... Dreamworks Animated needed a shot in the arm. Puss in Boots may not be the creative surge that will suddenly put them on par with Pixar, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

That's the prologue. Now onto the main issue: is the movie any good? I'm happy to report: yes, it is good. It is not great, nor does it compare to the Pixar titles with which it so desperately wants to compete, but it is entertaining enough in its own right and well worth your time.

The film is superbly animated, with lush colors and a vivid landscape. The settings range from non-descript saloons, Western vistas, and Spanish villas to legendary castles, clouds, and a giant of fairy tale vegetation. A few shots were definitely designed to take advantage of 3D technology, but otherwise I feel that the option is unnecessary.

Antonio Banderas does great character work, playing the comedy straight and laying the machismo on thick. The script is not as good as his performance, but he makes up for it. The supporting characters, unfortunately, are less inspired. Salma Hayek is the saucy femme fatale, playing Banderas's love interest for the sixth time in their careers. Her work is serviceable, but she is not given as much to work with. She's always been more beauty than actress, so casting her in an animated role reveals her limitations. Then there's Zach Galifianakis, whom I've never been a fan of, as Humpty Dumpty. He gets a few good laughs, but is unfortunately trapped in the predictable, melodramatic role of sidekick-turned-villain-turned-sidekick-again. The best gags exploit the absurdity of him being a talking egg, yet acting like an over-the-top villain nonetheless. Rounding out the cast is mostly forgettable work from the likes of Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris.

The main problem is that the film simply tries too hard to give Puss and company more depth than they need. He's an anti-hero cat - do we really need all the excessive flashbacks to his lonely childhood, or the misunderstanding that made him an outlaw? ... Or virtually the same flashbacks and backstory to flesh out Humpty Dumpty? A film like this should feel Go, Go, Go! - instead it feels padded, as though the filmmakers were required to fill ninety minutes despite not having ninety minutes of material.

I'm not trying to say it's a bad movie; on the contrary, I'm saying that Puss in Boots manages to be a good and very entertaining movie despite these drawbacks. I already mentioned the animation, but there are a plethora of great, inspired gags which I won't dwell on too extensively because the surprise is half the fun. Suffice to say the film's action-epic sensibilities work in its favor, and the biggest laughs come from the pitch-perfect balance of satire and seriousness. There are rousing action scenes involving all manner of medieval weaponry, horse chases, heroes and villains alike swinging from ropes, tempting their fates - all involving cute and cuddly animals.

The movie has its fair share of problems, but most of these are in the script. If you just sit and watch and not worry about issues with the plot or tenuous circumstances and get in touch with the kid in you, you'll have a good time. Enjoy.