I will give some credit to this otherwise awful film, that it is better than its abysmal sequel Superbabies:Baby Geniuses 2. On paper, it doesn't look so bad, it has a great cast including beautiful Kathaleen Turner, Christopher Lloyd who is a lot of fun in pretty much everything he's in and the late Dom DeLuise. If only, if only it had a decent enough script and a good enough plot. However, the film is severely lacking in both areas, and makes a waste of those truly talented actors.
The script is just awful, and doesn't give anyone enough to work with, and there is no originality or sophistication. The story is one that has been done before and better about a nasty children's magnate who is carrying out tests on a host of brainy little children on the premise that they can speak in a secret language. Bob Clark's direction is very unfocused throughout, and doesn't improve whatsoever. The camera-work is rushed, and the slapstick is uninspiredly staged. In fact, if there was a redeeming quality, the soundtrack was okay to say the least.
The performances are disappointingly poor, and they are not helped by the lacklustre direction and the witless script. To be honest I found triplets Leo, Myles and Gerry Fitzgerald very irritating as the twins who try to outmatch Dr Kinder. As for Turner, this has to be a career low for her. This is a shame, because she is so beautiful and talented, but her strengths aren't even put to use here and she does overact quite wildly. Christopher Lloyd usually excels in roles similar to the one he has here, but he looks embarrassed here and looks as though he wants to get it all out of the way. And Dom DeLuise? For such a talented and versatile actor like DeLuise, you would expect a lot from him. But his part is so badly underwritten that he comes across as wasted.
All in all, sorry but I didn't like this movie. Even with such a wonderful bunch of actors, their talents are all gone to waste with poor writing, direction and plot. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Baby Geniuses review
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 03:17 (A review of Baby Geniuses)0 comments, Reply to this entry
Osmosis Jones review
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 03:14 (A review of Osmosis Jones)Osmosis Jones isn't the funniest movie I have ever seen, but it is very clever and has an original concept. The humour is crude I agree, but it is actually amusing- the script does have its witty and amusing parts. The animation is not too bad either, certainly a unique style of animation, the backgrounds are nice and the characters have interesting features. And the music is very good as well. As I've said already, the concept is very original and the equally original and well written story(even with one or two predictable parts) does justice to that concept. Also, I liked the characters, Ozzy and Drix are likable and what they get up to is intriguing, fun and often unpredictable, Thrax is a great villain and the voice acting from Chris Rock, Laurence Fishburne, David Hyde Pierce, William Shatner and Bill Murray is top notch. Overall, clever, original and entertaining. 8/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Wonderfully atmospheric with exquisite visuals
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 03:03 (A review of Coraline)Adapted from Neil Gaimon's book, comes Coraline, a truly wonderful animated film with lots going for it. The atmosphere was wonderful, people may find it too dark, but I for one loved how dark it was. And of course the visuals are absolutely exquisite, I loved the backgrounds, character designs and the darkly bold colours. The music is nice and quirky while having an appropriate atmosphere, while the script is intelligent and well balanced and the story is well paced and compelling with very few dull moments. The characters are great, I love Coraline especially because she is very inquisitive, and I like that in a protagonist, and the voice acting is superb especially from Dakota Fanning and Keith David. Overall, loved the atmosphere, loved the visuals, loved the flick. 9/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo review
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 02:47 (A review of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)Not quite in the top 5 of David Fincher's best films ('Se7en', 'The Social Network', 'Fight Club', 'Gone Girl' and 'Zodiac') but it does come close. And this is somebody who found a lot to like about all his films, including his lesser ones like 'Alien 3' and 'Panic Room'.
Despite being often considered a remake, personally prefer to call it a second adaptation of the book. The book is a fantastic read, and as an adaptation while it is condensed and has some changes Fincher's film still adheres to the basic tone of the book as does the Swedish version. Of the two versions, the Swedish version just gets the edge for its incredible atmosphere complete with bleakness, chills, shocks and is more authentic, with Noomi Rapace burning the screen enigmatically with her presence.
Where Fincher's film improves over the previous version are in four areas. One is the production values, which are far more audacious here. The cinematography, both bleakly moody and exquisite to look at, is more cinematic and perfectly captures the frozen landscape which is like a character in itself. The film is very tightly edited too in a way that is distinctively Fincher. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' music score is another winner of theirs, it is haunting and gives a really unnerving vibe, combined with some clever sound mixing. The script, even when condensed, is more polished and tighter and also has more flow. While Lisbeth is a fascinating and complex character in the Swedish film, the Lisbeth in Fincher's film has even more complexity and more variation of emotions.
Fincher's direction is exemplary, showing a mastery of visual style and mood setting, ensuring that the film stays intriguing throughout the length. In lesser hands and with less assured pacing, with the long running time 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' could have been a long haul but had plenty of intrigue. Much of the storytelling is gripping, and while not as authentic or quite as masterful in atmosphere like the Swedish counterpart was it has its fair share of chills, twists and turns (without being convoluted or illogical) and shock value as well as a murky bleakness. Contrary to what some believe, this second adaptation did have point (was fearing it wouldn't), as it made the story more accessible and gave it more exposure.
Good acting helps. Daniel Craig is very wisely restrained, the character should have a quiet determination and dignity which Craig handles very well. Christopher Plummer is simply terrific as well, one of his best performances in recent years, while Stellan Skasgard is frighteningly demented and Yorick van Wageningen is unsettlingly sadistic. Robin Wright does her best with a shallow character. Best of all is a magnificent Rooney Mara, such a multi-layered performance and sees Mara not just playing the role but disappearing into it. See her appearance for example, so committed that when you see her in other films you would not believe that it's the same person.
There are faults however. Did not think much of the Gothic James Bond-like opening sequence that just felt jarring and out of place. Nor with the accents, which were a mix for some of the actors of having one too heavy or thick (Wright) or not attempting one at all (Craig). The decision to use both English and Swedish in some scenes did have a tendency to confuse, while the central relationship (mostly successfully done) did feel underdeveloped and, even for characters that are the heart of the story, takes over the story a little too much somewhat.
All in all, almost as good as the Swedish version and better than both of that film's heavily flawed but still worthy sequels. 8/10 Bethany Cox
Despite being often considered a remake, personally prefer to call it a second adaptation of the book. The book is a fantastic read, and as an adaptation while it is condensed and has some changes Fincher's film still adheres to the basic tone of the book as does the Swedish version. Of the two versions, the Swedish version just gets the edge for its incredible atmosphere complete with bleakness, chills, shocks and is more authentic, with Noomi Rapace burning the screen enigmatically with her presence.
Where Fincher's film improves over the previous version are in four areas. One is the production values, which are far more audacious here. The cinematography, both bleakly moody and exquisite to look at, is more cinematic and perfectly captures the frozen landscape which is like a character in itself. The film is very tightly edited too in a way that is distinctively Fincher. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' music score is another winner of theirs, it is haunting and gives a really unnerving vibe, combined with some clever sound mixing. The script, even when condensed, is more polished and tighter and also has more flow. While Lisbeth is a fascinating and complex character in the Swedish film, the Lisbeth in Fincher's film has even more complexity and more variation of emotions.
Fincher's direction is exemplary, showing a mastery of visual style and mood setting, ensuring that the film stays intriguing throughout the length. In lesser hands and with less assured pacing, with the long running time 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' could have been a long haul but had plenty of intrigue. Much of the storytelling is gripping, and while not as authentic or quite as masterful in atmosphere like the Swedish counterpart was it has its fair share of chills, twists and turns (without being convoluted or illogical) and shock value as well as a murky bleakness. Contrary to what some believe, this second adaptation did have point (was fearing it wouldn't), as it made the story more accessible and gave it more exposure.
Good acting helps. Daniel Craig is very wisely restrained, the character should have a quiet determination and dignity which Craig handles very well. Christopher Plummer is simply terrific as well, one of his best performances in recent years, while Stellan Skasgard is frighteningly demented and Yorick van Wageningen is unsettlingly sadistic. Robin Wright does her best with a shallow character. Best of all is a magnificent Rooney Mara, such a multi-layered performance and sees Mara not just playing the role but disappearing into it. See her appearance for example, so committed that when you see her in other films you would not believe that it's the same person.
There are faults however. Did not think much of the Gothic James Bond-like opening sequence that just felt jarring and out of place. Nor with the accents, which were a mix for some of the actors of having one too heavy or thick (Wright) or not attempting one at all (Craig). The decision to use both English and Swedish in some scenes did have a tendency to confuse, while the central relationship (mostly successfully done) did feel underdeveloped and, even for characters that are the heart of the story, takes over the story a little too much somewhat.
All in all, almost as good as the Swedish version and better than both of that film's heavily flawed but still worthy sequels. 8/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Gone Girl review
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 02:39 (A review of Gone Girl)David Fincher to me is one of the most talented directors around today, and while Se7en from personal opinion is his best film Gone Girl is up there with his best. Fincher directs with his usual superb class, giving the film great style and keeping the story alive(Gone Girl is easily one of the year's best directed films), and the whole film looks absolutely great with brooding lighting that evokes the creepy atmosphere brilliantly and Gone Girl is also a film that makes good use of digital, after seeing many directors over-using or cheapening it it was refreshing to see the technique done with taste. Trent Rezner and Atticus Ross's music score gives the film a haunting vibe and adds much to the unsettling intensity that a lot of the film(at least two-thirds worth), managing to not do it in an in-your-face manner. The use of sound mixing was interesting and came off cleverly, almost like a distant thought process. Gone Girl also has a brilliantly written and adapted script that does a great job balancing dark humour- that's not overused and is often hilarious- and suspense mystery (The Cool Girl monologue in particular is a masterpiece of script-writing, one of my favourite film monologues ever), while the story(apart from taking a bit of time to get starting) is absorbing from start to finish, rich in detail and characterisation and is filled with shocks and unpredictable twists that will be guaranteed to leave you reeling. That it is adapted from superb source material(one of the best books I've read in recent memory actually) helps it, and that it is faithful to it is commendable, a case of being faithful to the source material actually coming off wonders rather than being bogged down by being too faithful. The not-what-they-seem characters are incredibly interesting and richly developed, especially Amy who is one of the most chilling female characters of the year. And the acting is one of the high points of the film, as good as Fincher's direction and the score are it's Rosamund Pike's knockout turn as Amy in restrained- she only has to raise an eyebrow or something like that and it says a lot- but quite terrifying mode(especially in the third act) that makes the film. It will be a great surprise if she isn't at least nominated because it is easily her best performance. Ben Affleck has the other not-what-they-seem role and plays it with oozing charm and brooding intensity, while Neil Patrick Harris surprisingly excels in a very against-type role(who knew he could be sinister?) and Tyler Perry oozes charisma and is very funny. Carrie Coon is the standout in support, it's a tricky role and the moral compass of the film but Coon is touchingly likable in it. The ending does for my liking end too suddenly and the storytelling got implausible and lazy at this point, but apart from that Gone Girl was a winner and one of the best of the year. 9/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Loved this sequel! Amazing work by everybody
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 02:36 (A review of The Mummy Returns)The Mummy Returns is a film that, I think, you need to see the first film of the saga because otherwise you don't understand some little details. That film is a film like Indiana Jones with the same plot and the same characters. But the kid is an exception. The cinema show us the kids like boys and girls insufferable, but Alex O'Conell is a boy that "pass more time in the museum that in house". One difference this film have respect Indiana Jone's films are the sobrenatural characters than appears like The Scorpión King or Imhotep. If you like Indiana Jones and Egyptian mithology, I recomend you that film
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Great fun in the vein of "Indiana Jones"...
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 02:35 (A review of The Mummy)"The Mummy" is an adventurous yarn in the vein of "Indiana Jones." It's a lot of fun, very charming, and never tries to be more than what it is. What is it? An entertaining summer flick which is not only worth seeing, but perhaps even owning. It's one of those fun movies you can return to over and over again and never grow tired of doing so.
It's hardly a remake of the Universal classic of the same name. It's merely a new way to tell the story with the same basic idea - a murderous mummy is brought back from the dead. This time we have a hero and heroine who must stop him before he takes over the world, or something along the line of world domination.
The hero is Rick (Brendan Fraser), a thief thriving off the very basics out in Egypt circa 1930. Arrested and to be hanged, he is saved by the heroine (Rachel Weisz), who believes he may hold the key to helping them find an ancient Egyptian kingdom buried under the sand, if I recall correctly (though it has been a while since I've seen this). Little does she know what lurks beneath the sand near that old kingdom is none other than the remains of a man who was caught cheating on the king's wife years ago and mummified.
Now, after unearthing the remains of the kingdom, the expedition led by our heroes come upon an ancient "Book of the Dead," which, when read from, brings the ancient mummy back to life. Now he is out to kill, regenerate and bring back his old lover - pretty neat, huh?
I own "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy," a great movie spoofing the classic film. "The Mummy" isn't exactly a spoof but it's very tongue-in-cheek. It knows it isn't an Oscar-winner, it knows it stands nothing against the older film, and so it goes for pulp thrills. I actually believe that this film is a bit classy in execution - compared to many other entertainments floating around nowadays it stands as one of the only films to return to the roots of the pure adventure films like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) so successfully did.
Brendan Fraser is a perfect choice for the lead star. Calm, but with ironic and sarcastic humor; cool, but a strong lead. I wondered what it would have been like if they had casted an actor in his role who would have taken it all more seriously. I bet the results would have been disastrous. Fraser knows that this is all good fun, and he's having a good time playing his role with comedy. Every once and a while you can catch a wink at the screen that lets us know that he knows what he's doing.
2001 brought a sequel to "The Mummy" named, of all things, "The Mummy Returns." I found it just as fun as this film though some critics begged to differ. Summer 2002 brought yet another "Mummy" film, this one a prequel called "The Scorpion King" - it was a following of a co-star of the first sequel. The Mummy was not in it at all. It was a horrible film that wasn't near as fun as this one. So I recommend you see "The Mummy" as soon as humanly possible. After that, see "The Mummy Returns."
Either way, you simply can't go wrong.
It's hardly a remake of the Universal classic of the same name. It's merely a new way to tell the story with the same basic idea - a murderous mummy is brought back from the dead. This time we have a hero and heroine who must stop him before he takes over the world, or something along the line of world domination.
The hero is Rick (Brendan Fraser), a thief thriving off the very basics out in Egypt circa 1930. Arrested and to be hanged, he is saved by the heroine (Rachel Weisz), who believes he may hold the key to helping them find an ancient Egyptian kingdom buried under the sand, if I recall correctly (though it has been a while since I've seen this). Little does she know what lurks beneath the sand near that old kingdom is none other than the remains of a man who was caught cheating on the king's wife years ago and mummified.
Now, after unearthing the remains of the kingdom, the expedition led by our heroes come upon an ancient "Book of the Dead," which, when read from, brings the ancient mummy back to life. Now he is out to kill, regenerate and bring back his old lover - pretty neat, huh?
I own "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy," a great movie spoofing the classic film. "The Mummy" isn't exactly a spoof but it's very tongue-in-cheek. It knows it isn't an Oscar-winner, it knows it stands nothing against the older film, and so it goes for pulp thrills. I actually believe that this film is a bit classy in execution - compared to many other entertainments floating around nowadays it stands as one of the only films to return to the roots of the pure adventure films like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) so successfully did.
Brendan Fraser is a perfect choice for the lead star. Calm, but with ironic and sarcastic humor; cool, but a strong lead. I wondered what it would have been like if they had casted an actor in his role who would have taken it all more seriously. I bet the results would have been disastrous. Fraser knows that this is all good fun, and he's having a good time playing his role with comedy. Every once and a while you can catch a wink at the screen that lets us know that he knows what he's doing.
2001 brought a sequel to "The Mummy" named, of all things, "The Mummy Returns." I found it just as fun as this film though some critics begged to differ. Summer 2002 brought yet another "Mummy" film, this one a prequel called "The Scorpion King" - it was a following of a co-star of the first sequel. The Mummy was not in it at all. It was a horrible film that wasn't near as fun as this one. So I recommend you see "The Mummy" as soon as humanly possible. After that, see "The Mummy Returns."
Either way, you simply can't go wrong.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Space Jam review
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 02:30 (A review of Space Jam)I notice that there are people who like "Space Jam", but others who don't so much. While I think it has flaws, I think it is an entertaining and energetic film, not as good as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Looney Tunes:Back in Action" but an entertaining movie for Looney Tunes and basketball lovers(I admit I am more of a Looney Tunes fan). The story is a very nice idea, but there were parts when it was rather juvenile, likewise with some of the dialogue. Michael Jordan is a great athlete, and his skills are put to great use, but his acting isn't as impressive, it seems as though he is playing himself at times. Flaws aside, it is very funny with some great jokes and constant energy, and excellent supporting characters. Bill Murray, wearing clothes that you shouldn't ideally wear on a golf course, steals every scene he's in, and Danny DeVito is great fun as evil Swackhammer. The Looney Tunes are hilarious, especially Daffy, and technically with all the radiant colours the film works wonders. Overall, I like "Space Jam", it isn't Oscar worthy material, but it is fun to watch. 7/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Excellent
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 02:25 (A review of Dracula (1931))Dracula(1931) mayn't be the definitive version of the brilliant Bram Stoker novel, but it is still a classic. My only complaints are the abrupt ending and David Manners as John, he tries his best but sometimes his line delivery is awkward and some of his lines are stilted.
I did also think that to a lesser extent the first half is better than the second. The opening scene is absolutely brilliant, but while there are still some compelling and well-done scenes the second half is rather talky. That said, there is a lot I loved about Dracula. The costumes, sets, photography and lighting are suitably atmospheric and grandiose, the story is still the timeless story even with the many changes I love and the screenplay apart from the odd stilted line from John is very good.
I saw Dracula in two versions, one without background music which added to the genuine atmosphere, and one with a suitably hypnotic and haunting score from minimalist composer Phillip Glass. While I loved Glass' score, I do prefer slightly the one without the scoring, the silence further added to the atmosphere I feel. The whole film is beautifully directed too, and while the film is very short at about an hour and a quarter the pace is just right.
The acting is very good, perhaps theatrical in a way but I think it worked. Bela Lugosi has such a magnetic presence in the title role, Edward Van Sloan is perfect as Van Helsing but in a sinister and funny performance Dwight Frye steals the film.
In conclusion, excellent film and a classic. 9/10 Bethany Cox
I did also think that to a lesser extent the first half is better than the second. The opening scene is absolutely brilliant, but while there are still some compelling and well-done scenes the second half is rather talky. That said, there is a lot I loved about Dracula. The costumes, sets, photography and lighting are suitably atmospheric and grandiose, the story is still the timeless story even with the many changes I love and the screenplay apart from the odd stilted line from John is very good.
I saw Dracula in two versions, one without background music which added to the genuine atmosphere, and one with a suitably hypnotic and haunting score from minimalist composer Phillip Glass. While I loved Glass' score, I do prefer slightly the one without the scoring, the silence further added to the atmosphere I feel. The whole film is beautifully directed too, and while the film is very short at about an hour and a quarter the pace is just right.
The acting is very good, perhaps theatrical in a way but I think it worked. Bela Lugosi has such a magnetic presence in the title role, Edward Van Sloan is perfect as Van Helsing but in a sinister and funny performance Dwight Frye steals the film.
In conclusion, excellent film and a classic. 9/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: Part 2 review
Posted : 2 years, 9 months ago on 2 March 2022 02:23 (A review of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: Part 2)As said in my review of Breaking Dawn: Part 1, I am neither a fan or detractor of the Twilight Saga, though in terms of the books I only lasted the first chapter of the first book. Of the movies, for me the best was Eclipse, and the worst New Moon. In terms of Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 I'd say that it is a marginal improvement over Breaking Dawn: Part 1 and ranking the whole saga I'd put it bang in the middle, but for a finale to a film series I found it very underwhelming.
Does it have good points? Yes actually. I did think the scenery was really lovely, very evergreen-looking, and the photography did have some nice shots(some of the zooming though does get too much). I also thought that Breaking Dawn: Part 2 did have the best music score, courtesy of Carter Burwell, of the saga, and that Renesmee was just adorable. There are a few performances that were quite good. Michael Sheen does ham things up but he is gleefully fun to watch, Billy Burke is once again amusing and Ashley Greene is good as Alice. Dakota Fanning is also not too bad, I think an improvement over the previous instalments, but I have seen her give better performances in better movies.
That said, I am still not convinced by the acting of the three leads. I will say though that Kristen Stewart does give her best performance of the series, she does finally crack a smile after looking bored previously, she doesn't mope around as much and she does show some genuine concern regarding Bella's situation. However, and it doesn't help that Bella(in my eyes) is such a dull and unlikeable character, I still didn't find her entirely convincing, her eyes show no signs of life, her face lacks expression and she has a lot of flat line delivery. Robert Pattinson does have some sweet chemistry with her, but he does look constipated a lot and his facial expressions have a tendency to be on the hammy side. They are not that bad though compared to Taylor Lautner, who is unbearably wooden here as Jacob and the constant taking off of his shirt got old quickly.
On top of that, Bill Condon's direction seems rather uninspired. I am familiar with Condon and do find him a promising director/writer who observes things well, Gods and Monsters is one of my favourites, Kinsey is very interesting and Dreamgirls is decent. But there is little of what these things as good as they were on display here, so as like the previous instalment there is the sense that Condon was not in his comfort zone. A lot of things don't help though, as the dialogue continues to be clunky and almost like watching an overly-melodramatic soap opera- especially in the first half where everything is lacking in any kind of intent- and the story is plodding- though the beginning also manages to feel very rushed- in its exposition with scenes dragging on too long and very little that is exciting or surprising. The ending has no real gusto or emotional punch(though actually it still manages to be the highlight of the entire film), the fight scenes are clumsily choreographed, the opening credits go on for far too long and you just don't care for any of the characters.
In regard to the special effects and make-up, they are pretty terrible here. The computer generated wolves manage to be both cheesy and stupid in design and manner and the red glaring contact lenses look dodgy and are more at home in a cartoon. While Renesmee as a baby looks so creepily fake that it is laughable, the be-headings are the equivalent of ripping the head of your favourite toy in a rage and the white greasepaint passing for make-up all looks blotchy and artificial. The closing moments are clichéd and reek of cheese as well, and the vampires are as far away from authentic as you could come. Overall, not the best or worst of the series, but for a saga finale it was underwhelming, where it had potential to go out on a bang it was more of a whimper.
4/10 Bethany Cox
Does it have good points? Yes actually. I did think the scenery was really lovely, very evergreen-looking, and the photography did have some nice shots(some of the zooming though does get too much). I also thought that Breaking Dawn: Part 2 did have the best music score, courtesy of Carter Burwell, of the saga, and that Renesmee was just adorable. There are a few performances that were quite good. Michael Sheen does ham things up but he is gleefully fun to watch, Billy Burke is once again amusing and Ashley Greene is good as Alice. Dakota Fanning is also not too bad, I think an improvement over the previous instalments, but I have seen her give better performances in better movies.
That said, I am still not convinced by the acting of the three leads. I will say though that Kristen Stewart does give her best performance of the series, she does finally crack a smile after looking bored previously, she doesn't mope around as much and she does show some genuine concern regarding Bella's situation. However, and it doesn't help that Bella(in my eyes) is such a dull and unlikeable character, I still didn't find her entirely convincing, her eyes show no signs of life, her face lacks expression and she has a lot of flat line delivery. Robert Pattinson does have some sweet chemistry with her, but he does look constipated a lot and his facial expressions have a tendency to be on the hammy side. They are not that bad though compared to Taylor Lautner, who is unbearably wooden here as Jacob and the constant taking off of his shirt got old quickly.
On top of that, Bill Condon's direction seems rather uninspired. I am familiar with Condon and do find him a promising director/writer who observes things well, Gods and Monsters is one of my favourites, Kinsey is very interesting and Dreamgirls is decent. But there is little of what these things as good as they were on display here, so as like the previous instalment there is the sense that Condon was not in his comfort zone. A lot of things don't help though, as the dialogue continues to be clunky and almost like watching an overly-melodramatic soap opera- especially in the first half where everything is lacking in any kind of intent- and the story is plodding- though the beginning also manages to feel very rushed- in its exposition with scenes dragging on too long and very little that is exciting or surprising. The ending has no real gusto or emotional punch(though actually it still manages to be the highlight of the entire film), the fight scenes are clumsily choreographed, the opening credits go on for far too long and you just don't care for any of the characters.
In regard to the special effects and make-up, they are pretty terrible here. The computer generated wolves manage to be both cheesy and stupid in design and manner and the red glaring contact lenses look dodgy and are more at home in a cartoon. While Renesmee as a baby looks so creepily fake that it is laughable, the be-headings are the equivalent of ripping the head of your favourite toy in a rage and the white greasepaint passing for make-up all looks blotchy and artificial. The closing moments are clichéd and reek of cheese as well, and the vampires are as far away from authentic as you could come. Overall, not the best or worst of the series, but for a saga finale it was underwhelming, where it had potential to go out on a bang it was more of a whimper.
4/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry