Movie Review - The Perks of Being a Wallflower

I will be the first to admit, I love movies, especially ones that tell a good story that I can identify with some part of the narrative or one of characters.  Once in a great while you run across a movie that you really connect with on multiple levels and that is something special. For me, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" was one of those films.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on how it compares, but, given that the author of the book both wrote the screenplay and directed the movie, I imagine that it's as faithful as an adaption can be.

The basic premise of the story is "alienated teen starts high school and finds their niche".  Most films that start with this premise quickly devolve into comedy with some serious overtones. This movie is a serious drama with well-timed comedic moments.

So why did this movie touch me so deeply?

In many ways, I was the protagonist of this film. While I had my own underlying issues that differ from Charlie, my story was not that different.  I started high school very much alone and was lucky enough to find a group of friends, much like Charlie does.  Friends that, to this day, I can arrange to meet, even after not seeing them for twenty plus years and it's as if there is no gap in time. Friends that I can open up to completely without fear of repercussion.  Friends who will not judge me for past transgressions, but for who I am today.

As someone who had to start over in high school, I can completely relate to Charlie.

 

It doesn't hurt that the group of friends he connects with are not dissimilar to the group of friends I connected with.  Nor does the fact that the movie takes place very close to the time I went to high school (a few years after).  I do question the group's commitment to music if they didn't recognize David Bowie's "Heroes," but that's my own viewer 50% kicking in.

 

The story has a lot of depth, character growth and some undertones that are not happy.  But that's high school.  I won't go into details of the story for a few reasons:

1. Spoilers are bad. 
2. As I said, there is a lot going on in this film, and talking about parts of it I believe would lessen the impact of the movie.
3. From my perspective, character driven dramas, especially good ones, draw the viewer in.  This did this very effectively for me and even revealing details about the characters feels like I'd be ruining the experience.

From a narrative standpoint, the movie unfolds very well.  There are some flashback scenes that normally pull me, as a viewer, out of a movie.  In this movie they were both unobtrusive and critical to the story.

The cinematography on this film is critical.  As much as I love "The Breakfast Club," for what becomes an intimate story, the actual technical filming of the movie felt like it distanced you from the characters.  Not so with "Perks."  The filming of the movie is done in an intimate fashion that makes you feel like you're part of the group and not an outsider looking in.

Where the movie really shines is the acting. As both the writer of the novel and director of the film, clearly Stephen Chbosky had control over who would play these characters who were so close to him.  And he chose well.  Logan Lerman, who plays Charlie was perfectly cast.  He has the acting range to pull off the depths in his character.  Emma Watson, as Sam, shows she can act (sorry Potter fans, but Hermione had very few character moments that stretched Emma Watson as an actress,) and act damn well.  Ezra Miller, who plays Patrick, Sam's stepbrother plays his part to perfection as well.

Though this is a movie focused on teenagers, it would not work without the adults in the film.  Dylan McDermott and Kate Walsh play small but very impactful roles as Charlie's parents and they do it in such a manner that I never doubted either their characters or their actions in any way.  Paul Rudd is his usual charming self in a pivotal role as a teacher at the high school.

I have to assume that much of the acting props really have to go to Stephen Chobsky.  This is his work of love and he has the talent as a director to make this come to life in the way he wanted.

Finally, I have to give a shout out to the music.  

As I mentioned, I went to high school a few years before this movie came out and music was a big part of my life.  The soundtrack to this movie is, in many ways, the soundtrack to my high school years and was just another level on which I connected to this film.

Not only was I entertained by "The Perks of Being a Wallflower," it's a movie I can and will re-watch many times.

Movies That Engage

I realized after rereading my "Desolation of Smaug" review and comparing it to others I've written there are two issues I have with the review:

1. Writing rust.  It's been years since I actually wrote a review and I was having some trouble finding an entry point.
2. I didn't engage with the movie.

I enjoyed watching "Desolation of Smaug," but I didn't immerse myself in the world.

At the core of most movies is suspension of disbelief.  This is especially important for movies that are set in a time frame/reality that is dissimilar from the one you live in.  If you don't achieve this in a movie, it leaves the viewer as just that: someone who is an outsider looking in.  The goal of most movies should  be to grab the viewer's attention and keep them surrounded in the story they have created as if they were experiencing it for themselves.  

In a heavily CG movie, writing, acting and pacing are key to this, though novelty also can be a valuable hook.

Part of the issue with "Desolation of Smaug" is that there really wasn't anything new with the movie.  There were no stunning CG moments that grabbed you and the cinematography could have been from any of the Middle Earth movies.  I mentioned a complaint about Jackson's use of long range shots in the review and that is also part of what kept me as a viewer of the movie and not a participant. 

There are two examples in the last five years that clearly come to mind of movies that got it right: James Cameron's "Avatar" and Guillermo del Toro's "Pacific Rim."

I'm not going to get into the "Avatar" debate right now (it is on my list of movies to review,) however for the purposes of this post, I will say that I enjoyed the movie for all its faults and my suspension of disbelief was total.  

"Avatar" was, in my eyes, a great movie from a cinematic standpoint. Cameron paced the movie well and the CG was such that it felt like you were immersed in the world.  I can clearly remember glancing to my wife during Jake's first flying sequence: she looked right at me and there was an amazing connection between us as we clearly were immersed in the world together.  It's rare that a movie can do that for one person, to have two people, granted like-minded people, share that connection is nearly unheard of, especially given my wife does not engage with movies as I do.

"Pacific Rim," was another example of how to pace a heavy CG movie correctly, but also how to do CG correctly.  "Pacific Rim" had all the makings of a movie that could have gone very wrong: a lot of CG, just about every character was an archetype, and a story that was very "take it or leave it," in its premise. Yet, for me the movie worked and for very specific reasons:

• The computer generated effects didn't feel CG to me. The effects were so painstakingly rendered that at no point did I think to question them. 
• Another aspect was the way the CG scenes were shot. It is one thing to create beautiful art via the computer. However if the lighting of the scenes and the camera angles are inadequate CG feels forced, which was the case with "Smaug."  The lighting and camera usage in "Pacific Rim" were very natural in an artificial environment which kept me engaged in the fantasy which was being created.
• There was a great balance of practical effects with the CG.  Many people might not be aware, but the inside of the Jaegers in the movie are an actual set.  Del Toro had a huge platform created with hydraulics for moving the head of the Jaeger and the entire suit connection including the armatures which were powered by the leg movement of the actors were real.  All too often in visual media based presentations the actors are acting with empty props.  I can't tell you how many times I've watched a scene where an actor has a coffee cup with a lid and I get annoyed because it's clear the cup is empty by the movements the actor's arms arm making. That Del Toro went the extra mile to create the machinery of the Jaeger paid off because you could tell the actors were physically working to move the rig and it made the scene that much more real.

It's not just movies with effects that need suspension of disbelief and the need to maintain it.  Comedies rely heavily on this as do action films and dramas, but each comes with different needs. 

For a comedy to work, you need to either buy into the story or be so taken by the characters that you need to engage with them.  A good example of this working is "Dodgeball: An Underdog Story."  The title tells you what you are in for: an underdog movie that takes place in the framework of a game you might have played as a child.  What makes the movie work are the characters. Just about every member of the Average Joe's Gym team has character development, and they are likeable people.  The humor in the movie is a great balance of visual, spoken and physical comedy and the usage of multiple types of comedy helps the movie, but without engaging characters you would have another one of the cookie cutter National Lampoon "Blah Movie" titles that are released every year.

For an action film to truly work, it's all about the pacing, the action and the characters.  A cookie cutter action film like "Cobra," leaves little to enjoy.  Sure, you can satisfy a craving to see some ass kicked, but really, there is not much there.  "300" came closer to a really good action film, but Zak Snyder's cinematic tricks (action pacing that stopped for a slowed motion close up) , rock video soundtrack (do we really need to have bombastic music only playing during the action?) detracted from the movie, but where it really fell down was the characters.  I hated Leonidas.  I knew he was going to die and could have cared less.  To get to that next level, you need characters that you care about.  One of the best examples in recent times has to be "Taken."  You can identify with Liam Neeson's character, the pacing of the movie is almost perfectly balanced and when he is in action mode, you believe he has these abilities and it's not an "actor" playing a role.

Drama is, in many ways, the hardest to have suspension of disbelief.  If the story and characters don't work, the movie fails and fails hard.  Yes there may be some action, but in order to maintain the viewer's attention, it all falls on the actors and writers with the director having an input in his camera usage choices.  To contrast, I'm going to use two Oliver Stone movies: "Platoon" and "Savages."  "Platoon" is an example of how to do things right.  You have characters that you care about and the story is both engaging and acted in such a manner that you are drawn into plot.  The cinematography on this film is beautiful and adds an extra dimension in engaging the viewer so they feel as if they are part of the plot.  I'm not sure where Oliver Stone went wrong after "Platoon," but by the time he got to "Savages," he'd clearly lost his way.  "Savages" is one of two movies I've actually turned off without finishing it in the last ten years.  If I had paid money for the movie, instead of DVR'ing it during a free preview weekend I'd have been really pissed. I never cared for any of the characters in "Savages," which made it hard to watch.  Stone's cinematography skills have regressed into almost a third party observer mode and by the time the movie devolved into the torture porn route it was headed but I hoped it wouldn't go, I was done. 

To sum things up, I can still enjoy a movie if I don't completely engage with a film.  I was entertained by  "Desolation of Smaug," and didn't engage.  Clearly, if I leave a theater and am talking a lot about the movie, both the good and bad, I've engaged on some level.  I left the theater after seeing "Desolation of Smaug," had a perfunctory discussion with my family as we walked to car and, by the time we left the parking lot I was already trying to figure out what to make for dinner instead of continuing the discussion about the film in the five minute drive home.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

After a five year hiatus from this blog I've decided to restart it.  I need to get back in the habit of writing and this will be part of that process.  Since I have five years of backlog material, I should not run out of material for quite some time.

Onto the review:

I first read the Hobbit when I was around 10 years old.  Unlike most of Tolkien's works, this is a book I can reread and do so every five to ten years.  I should do an accompanying review of "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey," and I might someday, but for now I will simply state that I thought it was "Just OK."  It met my criterion of "Was I Entertained," but not much more (though I will reference it for contrast many times).

So going into seeing the second part of the Hobbit trilogy I had some preconceptions:

• I knew this would stray from the book.
• I knew parts of the Silmarillion would be included.
• I knew there would be new material.
• I was not going to see the movie in 3D.  This will be another post/rant, but for a later day.

The rest I figured I would sit back and let the movie happen.

As with "An Unexpected Journey," I took exception to some of the changes Peter Jackson made.  Some parts of the material he bypassed were favorites of mine.  Given the changes in the first movie, I was not surprised by the alterations to Beorn's scene, but it left me with a slightly bitter taste to begin the movie. 

With that said, I'm going to avoid spoilers as much as possible, not because I think they are a surprise, but rather that I endeavor to keep my reviews spoiler free.

Let's start with acting.  I don't think anyone has any expectation that any of the actors in these movies will be awarded recognition as I'm not sure Peter Jackson knows how to tell a character driven story such that the actors are pushed in their craft.  The acting in this movie was actually a pleasant surprise, mostly due to the new written material.

The writing on the movie was interesting.  As I stated earlier, there were parts that were omitted that I whole heartedly disagree with.  And, while there are new additions I felt did not need to be included (Radagast being an obvious choice,) some of the new material is very enjoyable.  Kili becomes more than just the nephew of Thorin and Bard becomes a character of depth that gives a foundation for where he will wind up in the third movie (presuming it is not changed from the book).

While I'm not quite convinced that we needed a potential love triangle as a way of pushing Legolas into the movie, I actually liked the addition of Tauriel because, let's face it, Tolkien did not write a lot of female characters and having an elf who doesn't conform to their societal constraints is a fun idea.  I also found Evangaline Lilly's Tauriel much more likeable than Liv Tyler's whiny Arwen from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  

Next up is pacing.  "An Unexpected Journey" was horribly paced.  "Desolation of Smaug" was well paced for the most part.  Some of this goes back to the writing, some of it is we needed less exposition to introduce people and part of it was this felt like a movie with a purpose.  "Desolation of Smaug" found the story it was trying to tell and stuck to the tone.  There were many moments in the film where it could have fallen into the "I don't know if I want to be serious, a comedy or an adventure film," trap that I felt its predecessor did.  This film is, for the most part, a serious adventure film that, even in its slower sections does not lose sight of the end product.  Granted the film has much more action to it, mostly due to the source material, but none of it felt forced.

One place where I felt the film fell down was in camera work and CG.  There were more than a few moments in the film where the establishing shot was off angle, or zoomed out and then the camera view rotates in and centers.  I know this is a stylistic choice by Peter Jackson, but I hate it.  It feels like someone is playing with the 3D cameras that James Cameron created for "Avatar" and hasn't quite figured out how to use them yet.  I'm also not a fan of Jackson's aerial shots to establish perspective on a line of people walking/riding.  I understand he's using this to establish time passage in the journey but I'm really tired of them.  

My final concern about the camera work is Jackson's insistence of reusing shots.  I'm not sure if there hasn't been a movie in the five which have taken place in Middle Earth where a character presses themselves against something to hide themselves from whatever is hunting them. I get that it's a bread and butter shot for Jackson, but it's over used at this point and has started dragging me out of the tension in the scene because it feels like we've done this all before.

As for the CG, I'm not sure if it's a style choice or what but I felt really let down by a lot of the CG in this movie. Don't get me wrong, Smaug himself was beautifully done, however even he felt like he was CG.  I compare the effects from this movie to those of "Pacific Rim" and they aren't even close.  Too often in this film, when presented with CG rendered scenes they felt very artificial.  An example would be molten metal. As it flowed, it looked like someone was rendering it on a computer without thought to anything but the metal itself.  We should have seen heat waves coming up in layers, but we didn't.  And that made the CG both obvious and flat to me.

It does make me wish that Del Toro had stayed as director of the Hobbit films as I suspect the CG and direction issues I have would have been nullified.   

To balance out the above issues, I will say that, though Legolas and Tauriel's fighting style is a direct rehash of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the action in the movie is handled very well.  Jackson has always gone for a character focused action sequence, where Von Clausewitz's fog of war is mostly ignored as the action is centered on the character in the here and now and not even considering the big picture. In "Desolation" it works very well. 

One final thought:  "Desolation of Smaug" sets up the final movie very well.  We are going to get hammered with some serious action in the final installment of this trilogy and while I have concerns that Jackson will "Forest Gump" the end of the last movie the way he did with "Return of the King," (my "Forest Gump" reference is my opinion that a movie should have ended 15-20 minutes earlier but tacked on two to three scenes that didn't necessarily have to be there and could have been ending scenes on their own).

Overall I was entertained by "Desolation of Smaug,"and in such a manner that I didn't feel the need to spend a lot of time picking it apart afterward as I did with "An Unexpected Journey."

Movie Fest

So this is actually a complilation of some of the movies I've seen since going on vacation near the end of December (in no particular order.)

Vantage Point: This movie had all the makings of a potential disaster and avoided most of them. I wasn't sold on the "same incident from multiple viewpoints" concept, especially after the first time "reboot." However, the movie avoided rehashing "what has gone on before," to the point where they lost the viewer each time they reset the clock to show a new perspective, and rather did a very good job of advancing the plot. The action was handled well in the film, and while the twists were very predictable, the movie held together very well. From a plausability standpoint, I has concerns that this would turn into an extended episode of "24" which has more plot holes and plausability issues than a Laurell K. Hamilton novel, but, once again, the writing was handled very well and giving the personal perspective of everyone was a welcome touch.

However, there is no way this movie would have worked anywhere near as well as it did without Forrest Whitaker. I've been a fan of his since Fast Times and Ridgemont High and every movie he's in he brings a humanizing touch too (yes, even Last King of Scotland.) His character was not only central to bringing the whole plot together, but, without his ability to get you to believe in his character, this movie wouldn't have worked. I was entertained!

Southland Tales: Make no bones about it, this movie is a mess. The plot, unlike Richard Kelly's last film, Donnie Darko, never really came together into a satisfying conclusion. The writing is uneven and it was pretty obvious to me that Kevin Smith had at least a substantial contribution into the majority of Sarah Michelle Geller's character's lines, because Richard Kelley cannot write characters like her, and certainly a majority of what came out of her mouth sounded more in tune with a Kevin Smith film than a Richard Kelly.

The sad thing is, this movie has a ton of potential, not as a movie, but a 4-6 hour mini-series. The back story is interesting, the anthropology behind the world as it is in the movie was engaging. Even the "plot" of the film had potential, but it just never came together in any satisfying way.

From a visual perspective, most of the time the movie is really well put together, however, especially in the drug sequences, Richard Kelly went too overboard in trying to get us to see the scene as a dream and would have been better off taking them with a more realistic approach.

Three actors really stood out in the film for me: 1. Cheri Oteri. I would have liked to have seen her character foam at the mouth a little more, but she did very well in a mostly non-comedic role. 2. Jon Lovitz: All I can say is, holy crap. This small role gave me a perspective that he would make one heck of a "disturbed psychotic," in a psychological thriller. I didn't think he had it in him, but he does. 3. Dwayne Johnson. We know he can play "the Rock," and saw glimpses of that character here, but he impressed me as someone who was, at times, completly neurotic.

While the movie as a whole was a mess, I enjoyed parts of it.

The Bucket List: Take two great actors, put them in a melanchology buddy film and let them go. This movie had potential to head straight down the tubes and managed to avoid the drain. Once again, the markerting department screwed this one up, trying to play it as a comedy. Yes, there where funny moments in it, however, this was more of a character study focused on the character growth as they approach death. Sure, it's hard as heck to market a movie about two guys who are dying, but they could have done better.

One thing I noticed with this film is the trend Jack Nicholson is taking in his recent roles: He's still playing "Jack Nicholson" but with more introspection. It's almost as if he's taking roles that reflect where he's at in life after playing "Jack Nicholson" for the last 30 years. And, if he is, in fact making said decisions consciously, I suspect George Clooney may want to watch those films and figure out that the life of the Hollywood playboy will leave you quite alone in the end.

Regardless, I enjoyed this film.

Jane Austen Book Club: I like romatic dramas. Especially those which focus on characters with believable situations. This movie easily met this criteria. Both intelligent in the nature of the interpersonal relationships as well as the light humor which was used throughout the movie to keep it moving along, the movie flowed exceptionally well and, while I had a few quibbles with one of the characters, I enjoyed engaging with all the characters for the two hours of this movie. While I don't have as much to say about the film, it was probably the one I enjoyed the most.

Over Her Dead Body: This movie had a lot of potential and never reached it. A lot of the comedy fell flat (much of the "humor" was Eve Longoria Parker's character being mean to another and that type of humor never sits well with me,) the romance was stilted at best and I really felt bad for Jason Biggs who seems to be increasingly stereotyped into the comedic sidekick, but never seems to get the quality of material he deserves. I did laugh at a few of the jokes and while the movie was predictable, I didn't get up from the couch thinking "what a waste." On the other hand, I didn't leave the couch thinking "Wow, that was a lot of fun."

Bourne Ultimatum: The Jason Bourne films all seem to flow together to me in one giant mush. They remind me of the TV series 24, but with more intelligence. The third installment was no different. Yes, there are a few action scenes, however, the movie, like the first two is esentially one oddly paced chase film all the while trying to solve a mystery. That isn't to say they don't have their place and are certainly a welcome exception to the standard action films these days, however, there's just nothing unique enough between the three films to make them absolutley stand out for me. I am entertained by the series, but wish there was more to distinguish the three apart.

Doomed: Straight to cable film about a TV game show where people who are under the death penalty have the chance to win money and their freedom. Did I mention there were "zombies" on the island? The movie actually had potential to be a commentary on our society in a number of ways and fell flat. Really flat. While I didn't ask for my 85 minutes back, I didn't think the movie had much to offer after the fact and wouldn't reccomend it.

Gangs of the Dead: Another straight to cable film as far as I can tell. This time the Zombies are in the 'hood and two rival gangs and policemen have to cooperate to survive. This one was so bad I didn't even finish it. Medicore plot, awful effects, and acting that made me wince. I was not entertained.

Definitely, Maybe: So this was another film marketed as a "Romantic Comedy," but really, there wasn't a lot of comedy in the film. The premise of a soon to be divorced father telling his daughter the story of his love life without mentioning which woman in the sotry is his soon to be ex-wife has potential. And the movie was engaging in each of the pastiche's which forwarded the story. However, the pacing was off on this one. Ryan Reynolds did a good job as the main character, however, I felt his character should have been taken in a different direction by the director or writer in the "sad sack" part of the story. They played it for humor which was inappropriate and made his character less sympathetic, when the moments had the potential for you to really identify with him. Still, the movie was enjoyable.

Movie review - Twilight

It's been a while since I've had anything to say about entertainment. Not because I haven't been watching movies, but rather that life has intervened and most of the movies I've been watching are ones I've already seen. I do have a list to get through, but wanted to start back up with a movie still in the theaters: Twilight.

Obviously, I'm not the target audience for this film. Keep that in mind.

I understand the vampire conventions. I read a lot of books and watch a lot of movies. The Twilight series is one I've never read, so I went into the movie with no preconceptions.

As a story concept, the first movie in this series is solid: Girl moves to new town, girl falls for hot boy, hot boy is a 100 year old vampire, issues ensue which only strengthen the bond between them.

Nothing spectacularly new. Yes there are "twists" such as that the vampire is part of a small clan which are "vegetarian" vampires, which means they don't "eat" human blood and sunlight causes them to go all glittery as part of their predatory capabilities, but, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer's "Angel" "Bill" from True Blood, "Edward" from Twilight is a new generation of vampire: self aware as a killer and choosing to reject his societal norms trying to integrate into the human society.

Still, the movie had a lot of issues some of which come from catering to an audience with preconceptions.

Like the Harry Potter series, Twilight has a built in audience of millions who've already read this book and, most likely, the entirety of the series.

So the writers and director are left in a really precarious position: How far can you go into the depths of the book be it with subtle nuances or outright display without alienating the people who are seeing the movie because they were intrigued by the trailer but haven't read the books, heard of the books but know nothing about them, or are being dragged, possibly kicking and screaming, by someone who is flat out in love with the books?

For the first two on the former list, you’re really stuck. Go too in depth and you lose the first time viewer. Don’t go in depth enough and the fan who is your built in audience will not be dragging their friends to see it when they go for the second or third time.

From someone coming into this world with no preconceptions and no understanding of the world, I thought the movie missed on a lot of levels plot wise.

I know I’m not one for spoilers, but there are some specifics I need to complain about so………..

********SPOLIER ALERT********

For someone just coming into the books, I still have no idea if the sheriff father knows of the existence of vampires. There are intimations that he most likely does, then again, he seems so clueless about the nature of the attacks that I have to wonder. This plot point needs to be clarified in the movie.
Bitchy vampire sister. I get it. She hates our heroine because she wants Edward and will be the antagonist for the next movie. I thought the completely non subtle way we were hammered over the head with the intimation she’s going to cause trouble in the next movie was waaaaaaaaaaaay overdone at the end.
Native American Werewolves. It’s implied but we never see them. Maybe they aren’t integral to this plot, but they are implied. We needed more background than a Google Indian legend found on Google. At one point during the movie we are told there is a complication to Edward and Bella’s relationship because of the Native American friends her dad has but it comes to nothing. You needed to emphasize this thread more, especially since I am willing to be it becomes a big issue later on.
Teenie Boppers. This movie has them and there are subplots involving them, however they sort of come and go throughout the movie and usually in an intrusive way. This was one of those plot areas I felt probably had to be in for the fan folk as well as the overall story line, but was so poorly executed that it distracted from the overall experience.
Points for realism. Ok, I get that you are messing with the vampire codex to explain why they don’t show themselves in sunlight in this day and age. However, even in the “rainiest place in the United States,” you are going to have more than 8 days with sunlight and that seems to be “the line” high schools draw these days for absences. Yes, “daddy” is a doctor and could write them medical notes, but no school in the world is going to let the kids out of school that much and let them pass/graduate.
Make up your mind what movie you are making. Once again, it’s based on a book with probably a lot more back story and I know that my wife insists there are no new plot ideas but, as near as I can tell you have the following movies happening all together:

A: Ten Things I Hate About You: They combined the “Bad boy with a lot of rumors surrounding him romantic interest” with the “new kid in school” romance element.
B: She’s All That: “Outcast finds a place with the popular crowd.”
C: Karate Kid: “New kid in town triumphs over adversity and background to get the hot, unattainable rich kid.”
D: The Lost Boys and Near Dark: “New kid in town hooks up with hot vampire and deals with integration issues with the long standing members of the pack.”
E: Sixteen Candles: “Outcast Girl gets the hot guy with the cool car.”

And those are just the teen romance movies.

Then you have the secondary conflict.

A: The Terminator: “James will not stop until Bella is dead and is much stronger and more powerful than the puny human.”
B: The Terminator 2: “Strong non human and counterpart fight over the human doing untold damage to the scenery in the process.”
C: Any martial arts film from Hong Kong or the USA after about 1995: It’s all about the wirework.




*********END PLOT SPOILERS********



So, with all that out, lets talk effects:

Ok, this is a medium budget film.

But, there are no “A” list actors in the film.

So say the film had a small (approximately 10 million) budget for effects. I had small quibbles with the strength displays, with the car scene from the trailer being the best of them and very well done. What bugged me the most is the “super speed” effects which were done throughout the film. In specific, it’s the legs. Every single one of those shots were done in low light or in forest. There was NO (pardon my yelling) reason to show the legs of the vampires as they did the super speed thing. It looked cheesy and detracted from the film. In every shot I can remember, there would have been no detraction from the scene to either do a combination of two things:

1. Give us a first person POV not looking at people’s legs. Bella, as she clings to Edward and he runs through the woods. That scene would have been enhanced by a first person POV of her looking over Edwards head as they race through the woods. Yes, it was done in Return of the Jedi. And, you know what, it worked! What they did with the wide angle pan shot was make things look silly. The same could have been done for James’ run through the woods/racing the car and, once again, you add tension to a scene that should have had tension, instead of pulling us out of the scene with the silliness.
2. If you’re going to do a side pan shot, make them a blur with flashes of hair and clothing color to remind us who is running. By having the environment react to the vampire racing through it as opposed to showing them directly, you add texture to the shot without overdoing it.


Makeup:

I have to mention the makeup especially on Carlisle: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overdone with the whiteface. He looked like a guy with a lot of white pancake makeup on or his face was covered in zinc oxide, not that he was someone who never saw the sun. I don’t care if I’m bleeding out, having a massive coronary and have a limb held on only by a flap of skin all at the same time, if he walked into my room as a doctor, I’m running out of the room.

So what about sound? As you can probably deduce if you’ve read any of my earlier reviews, I’m an audio junkie. To me, sound matters. This movie has it’s ups and downs. First, I have to give the director credit for making a teenage movie without a single obvious and intrusive pop song tie in (there may have been one, but it was so well done I couldn’t remember it.) The orchestration underlying most scenes was well placed.

But!

(There’s always a but.)

Music enhances the mood. The orchestration used throughout the majority of the film was trying for haunting and mysterious and came across as slow and plodding. In the few scenes there was tension or action, we had the same slow paced orchestration. I’m not asking for Rossini or Paganini in the action scenes but picking up the pace in the orchestration would have, once again enhanced the scenes and further drawn the viewer in. Instead, we plodded along with the music and were distanced from the tension.

And that underlies a major problem in the movie: Pacing.

This movie was so unevenly paced, I was unsure whether I was watching a comedy, a romance, a mystery or an action film. Once again, the movie couldn’t make up it’s mind and moved in fit’s and spurts which distracted from the story.

Finally, the acting.

I’m tying this into the directing in this case, because this film is filled with actors I am familiar with and know their capabilities and ranges (with the exception of the leads, of which I only knew one as Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire which wasn’t a “stretch” type of role.) I think the best acting in this film came from the teenagers at the high school. They were real, plausible and genuine. As for the vampires, older townsfolk and vampires, with few exceptions which were scene based, they seemed to be plodding through the film without much belief in the role they were playing. The one adult exception would be Gil Birmingham who played the Native American dad the wheelchair. He was likeable, had interactions with other characters that seemed to bring out some semblance of believable humanity as opposed to looking at someone acting a role.

Now, less you think I despised this movie, the truth is, I enjoyed large parts of it, however, as a whole, the movie was somewhat of a mess and was more on the line of "wait for video" rather than the matinee price I paid.

Still, it did meet my criterion for fun, and I was entertained.