The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

Directed by, Chris Weitz__Starring, Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner 


Movie number two in the new preteen cult classic series, "Twilight", based on the popular young adult novels. The "Twilight" saga, with the release of its second film, "New Moon," has now made it's name by stealing the third place spot for most money grossed by a film opening weekend. So, it must be an instant classic, yes? Well, it fell a bit short of MY expectations, which, were not soaring too high.


The sole reason this film has been so successful, is because it has the undying support of almost every female who ages from 7 to 25 years of age. how does it do it? The answer is simple, it feeds the hormones of young women all too conspicuously, using rippling male abdomens and OVER THE TOP melodrama. 


It was almost too painful to watch at times, and I try my best not to be harsh, (being that i value my life). The acting alone was too dry and bland, the actors/actresses seemed almost uninterested at times, as if they were applying no effort at conveying ANY emotion, and when they did show emotion, it was usually way over the top, and melodramatic. Had this aspect of the film alone been better, then it may not have been so agonizing to watch. But, the acting was terrible, and the script they were reading did not help. 


Now, I am not familiar with how the novel reads, so this is no negative blow towards the author, Stephanie Meyer. But, the screenplay had to be one of the most repetitive, and worst written all around, that i have seen in a while. Not only that, but nearly every time the script seemed to repeat itself, so did the entire scene. When the film continues to drag on the same mind-numbing conflict and dialouge between the characters, it simply grows dull and boring.


Now, looking at the positive elements of the film, there were a few interesting and exciting sequences. The special effects were, surprisingly, the saving point for the film. There were a few very exciting scenes with CG wolves that were done quite well. But, it seemed nearly every time there was a great scene like this, they would cut away too quickly, bringing us back to more dull melodramatic dialouge with Bella (our protagonist). Though there was one sequence that stood out above all others for me. It was a chase scene through a forest, and the contrast was deep and haunting mixed with slow but intense music. I was actually quite impressed at the artistic level displayed among the rest of the film, which was OVER DRAMATIC and agonizingly tedious.


All in all, Same movie as the first, different boy/monster. I found myself quiet at times when I was meant to be humored, and i found myself laughing at the poor attempts at drama. When a studio is making a film for the sole  purpose of targeting a key audience in order to gain as much profit as possible, and therefore putting the art of film aside, you end up with a poor film, that makes big bucks. 


(p.s.- I would not want my daughter watching this. The ridiculous amount of despair that is portrayed over something so small, like "breaking up" with a boy, is not healthy for young, and already highly emotional girl to see, and obsess over.)

My Rating: BLAND

The Fourth Kind (2009)

Directed by, Omar Osunsanmi__ Starring, Milla Jovovich.

Alien Abduction, True Story, REAL FOOTAGE! how do you take these three words, make a movie where they are the description, and leave the viewer walking away feeling less convinced? I don't know, just ask the makers of "The Fourth Kind." The Premise of this movie seems to be an attempt at provoking thought over whether or not aliens do exist, by using firsthand accounts on encounters made by a psychologist in Alaska. 


Not only did this film not convince me in the slightest, it also bored me to tears, and annoyed me greatly. Where to begin though...oh yes, lets start with the split screen. Throughout the film, there were reenactments of live footage from the events that took place. For some reason unknown to me, the director thought it would be a good idea to have, on one side of the screen, the reenactment of the video, and on the other, the real footage! ok, just pick one. Not only does the reenactment now serve no purpose, but the veiwer is now annoyed and/or laughing. Let's see, what else...oh yes, now let us take a look at the reenactments of abduction. Why am i paying 20 dollars to see this, when the reenactments are reminiscent of a low-budget history channel documentary? Slow motion, and a blurry screen does not make for a haunting abduction.


Now let us move away from the annoying parts of the film...and focus more on the unconvincing parts. When the real footage was shown, whenever alien phenomenon happened, the camera all too conveniently goes out of focus, and into fuzz, as if the alien forces have distorted it...really... Not only is the footage unconvincing, but at the end of the film it tells us that nearly all those involved with the "real" incidents in Alaska, refused any help to the making of the film. Which leaves us with one source, that of the widowed mother who lost a child (supposedly abducted), and frankly, She seems a bit crazy in her interviews. So, why don't we just make a movie about every whacked out hillbilly who claims alien abduction?


All in all, I think the film would have been much better had they just adapted the story into an exciting alien movie, and then maybe shown some of the real footage during the credits. Sure, that wouldn't have convinced anyone really, but neither did this. so all said, along with sub par acting by almost all involved (minus that of Elias Koteas and Will Patton), made for a film that was not too well thought out, and in turn, hard to watch.

My Rating: BLAND

The Road (2009)

Directed By: John Hillcoat__Starring: Viggo Mortensen

DESPERATION. That feeling overwhelms all other emotions in this film. Based on the the new american classic novel by Cormac McCarthy, it is the story of a father and a son fervently attempting to survive in a post apocalyptic world where most of mankind, or whats left of it, has turned savage and cannibal. Trust No One.


It is Rare when a movie follows a novel so closely, and Joe Penhall (screenwriter), achieves this. He juices the novel of its desperation, pain, anguish, and fear, and throws in a little more creating a script that enhances all the underlying morals, and surface emotion. When you take this brilliant adaptation and hand it over to a talented director like Hillcoat, you get a film that has the viewer walking away feeling truly impacted by the story.


The "look" of this film, is grey, barren, and dead. But, the thing is...it's not ugly. Thats how great the cinematography is. There are actually some very beautiful scenes between the man and his son (names purposely unknown), where the photography of the shot enhances the emotion expressed. It's simply amazing to me, that one could portray any beauty in such a horrific world. There are also many shots that in themselves are shocking, like a father and son walking down the middle of an empty freeway overpass, or a forest where not a single tree has been left standing for miles. I found these scenes to be quite haunting and thought provoking, and it is rare when a landscape shot alone can get you thinking. It really makes the viewer feel the sense of hopelessness, like, there really is no one left to turn to.


All in all, I smell Oscar noms. Not only for "Best Picture" or "Best Cinematography," but also a possible "Best Actor" nomination, but I am not quite sure for whom, because the performances of Mortensen, and young Australian newcomer Kodi Smit-McPhee (who portrays the boy), were both absolutely spectacular. And actually now that i think about it, a possible "Best Supporting Actor" might be in order for Robert Duvall, for his brief but impactful performance.


Awesome film, had me thinking about it for days, and when a film can have that kind of effect--you know it is gold.

My Rating- FLAMIN'

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Directed By, Francis Ford Coppola__ Starring, Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder 

Okay, so with this new Vampire Craze that is sweeping the nation, i am sure there will be a lot of movie goers out there who will be looking for some classics to sink their fangs into! So i decided to help you out a little by doing a review on the most expensive vampire movie ever made. "DRACULA" the 1992 version was directed and envisioned by the legend behind "The Godfather", Francis Ford Coppola, but,unfortunately, it will not achieve the form of greatness that "The Godfather" did ,or any other form for that matter.


This film has to be the biggest letdown ever experienced for me. As a fan of the novel "Dracula," by Irish author Bram Stoker, i went in with high expectations. I knew there would be some changes here and there, and minor things would be left out, and yes, that is what happened. Along with one of the greatest desecrations of the story ever! 


Not only are the story, the characters, and the whole moral aspect of the novel changed for the movie, but it is also turned into what seems to be a soft core vampire porn at times! This all wouldn't have even bothered me like it does, had Coppola not put the name "Bram Stoker" in the title of the movie! Then i would have just walked away thinking, wow that was an odd movie, who thought a werewolf would wanna rape you? haha! now your intrigued! But alas, it is not worth it.


Given that the beginning was not half bad, that Gary Oldman (who played Dracula in this adaptation) did a fantastic job with what he was given, and that the whole visual aspect of the film was quite haunting and slightly impressive (This must be noted, because Coppola did a splendid job on the visual aspects of the film), I would not deem this a terrible film. But, the massacred story and the weird sex stuff was (for me) enough to distract from the positive.


All in all, for a fan of the classic novel, this movie will just anger you, so steer clear. but if you are an impartial veiwer looking for a CREEPY interpretation of one of the greatest horror stories ever told, then by all means, find a cheap way to see it. 

My Rating: BLAND-MILD 

ATONEMENT- (2007)

--Directed by, Joe Wright. Starring, Keira Knightly, James McAvoy--

Romance, Betrayal, Desire, Longing, and Passion. These words are often used to describe dramas and romantic films, and I feel they are thrown around all too loosely. So, when I use them now, to describe this film, you must note that I truly mean it. Especially that last word, passion. As I walked away from this film, I felt...a grip around me, a shortness of breath almost, like I had lost the love of my life. Not to be dramatic, but "Atonement" really captures that passion, better than any film I have ever seen, and it is able to do so because of the splendid performances by all the actors/actresses involved. Though all the actors did a fine job, I find the performance of James McAvoy to be the most captivating. What he feels, you feel, and when an actor is able to have that sort of an effect on you there is only one word to describe it, "Bravo."


The cinematography/look of this film is quite stunning as well. With wonderful landscape shots, and scenes of deep contrast and color, the visual aspect alone is a beautiful piece of artwork.


It is a story of lost love combined with the horrors of war, and when you hand that plot over to some very talented Directors, actors, and cinematographers you end up with a marvelous film, that sends a message, and truly has an impact on the viewer. "Atonement" deserved it's nomination for "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards. (too bad it was just such a great year for film, i.e. "No Country For Old Men" or it could have taken home the Oscar.)


All in all, If you really like a good drama about war and romance, and you love great photography, then watching this film will be like striking gold. Amazing Film, True Passion, ATONEMENT.

My Rating: FLAMIN'