‘Twilight: Eclipse’ is going to make a lot of young fans very happy. Easily the most well made and thematically satisfying of the three adaptations of Meyer’s popular books, Eclipse boasts better effects, better acting and better direction either Twilight or New Moon. The three leads, Lautner, Pattinson and Stewart, like the leads in the Potter films, have grown as actors and do what they can to give the triangle between Bella, Ed and Jake some kind of weight and pathos. With Bryce Dallas Howard creepily smirking her way through the role of Victoria this time out, there’s plenty in this blockbuster to satiate the raving legions who worship at the altar of all things Ed and Bella.

For everyone else, this one is still a giant bust.

Bella Swan has been back and forth over the issue of whether or not Ed Cullen, the pasty vampire with the hair that won’t quit, is her destiny. At the opening of this film, which includes poetry in a field of wild flowers, Bella longs to be ‘changed’ by Ed, and Ed wants her hand in marriage in exchange for this. Although she’s quite clearly ready to give up her human life and trade it in for an unnatural one (one even Ed seems loathe to give her), she actually recoils at the thought of marriage. Strange that she would find that marriage has a permanence that being undead doesn’t.

On the Edward/Bella front, that’s the film’s main dilemma. Bella, who doesn’t seem to mind leading on two supernatural creatures at the same time, also has to deal with Jacob Black, the Native American werewolf who thankfully traded up his fright wig for toned pectorals. So excessive is her shirtless prancing in this film that even Ed has to ask ‘Don’t you ever wear a shirt?’ Easy for Ed to say. If the series ever saw him without a shirt, audiences would need special order sunglasses just to cut the glare.

Jake believes that he and Bella should be together and he does everything he can to ensure that she won’t be turned at the end of the month, after graduation, where she’s ready to leave everything and everyone she knows behind. Strangely, it’s Jacob in this film who comes off more than a little possessive and creepy. Bella never really calls him on it, but he simply won’t relent. While she does slap him for forward intimate advances, in the end Bella justifies his irrational pursuance by reciprocating feelings. Of course, by this time, she’s already more serious with Ed than she’s ever been.

For those who thought they were showing up to a fantasy adventure and not just the detailed fever dream of a teenage girl, there’s a subplot involving a roaming pack of vampires in Seattle who seem to be amassing an army for the purposes of tracking down Bella. It is suspected by Ed and the rest of his clan that the vampire Victoria, whose mate Ed killed, is behind this army.  As they approach the final showdown, Ed and Jacob, and the vampires and the werewolves, must join forces to protect Bella.

David Slade is a welcome change as a director, and he brings a darker sensibility to the evil vampires that is welcome for a series that has mostly been milquetoast to this point. For the most part, he also gets some mileage from the beautiful wilderness scenery and under his watch, the special effects look markedly better, although those wolves still seem a bit ‘plush’ for my taste. Where he gets hung up is on the romantic relationship which still demands to be taken seriously even though it exists on such a level of imaginary feeling that it could be a satire of itself. Take, for example, the scene in a tent between Ed, Bella and Jake. Bella is freezing and she needs the shirtless Jake to warm her up. So that’s what he does, cuddling and cradling Bella, while sitting there talking with Ed. The scene is ridiculous for any number of reasons and it has no purpose for existing other than to set up a scene where Bella gets to have both men fawning over her.

At the end of the day, that’s where I get off the bus regarding the Twilight saga. It’s poorly constructed as a story, albeit well made as a movie. For its target audience, who made the decision long ago on whether or not to join this world of chaste vampires and amorous werewolves, it might just be the movie event of the season.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆ 

“acheivable? acheivatate? acheivalize?”

I’m still searching Wikipedia to find out which word most people believe is a real word…

Sorry, I just can’t put “Theatricality” into a three point recap because, at least for myself, some of the most entertaining moments of this episode were just that- moments not stories. I don’t know, obviously everything is a part of some story so when we find out that Principal Figgins believes that vampires are real you have to thank the Tina or Lady Gaga story line. As Tina figures out (the hard way) be yourself, don’t change for anyone.

“This is totally gonna get Robert Pattinson’s attention.”

Then there’s the Kurt and Finn story, or Finn and Kurt story depending on whose side you’re on. Finn’s mom accepts Kurt’s dad’s offer to move in only Finn’s uncomfortable with that because, at least for a little while, Kurt and Finn will have to share a room and Finn knows that Kurt likes him. The lesson that Finn learns over the course of the episode is that he has “a lot to learn” -would someone please tell me what Finn has to learn?

Finally Rachel and Coach Corcoran meet for the first time as daughter and mother. Rachel professes that she needs a mom (her two dads can’t sew). Sadly Coach Corcoran realizes that she’s not ready to have a full time relationship with her teenage daughter but promises to be around “from afar, for a while.” This relationship should continue to get interesting. I guess now would be the time to say- “That’s what you missed on Glee.”

No Sue this week

“Brad! He’s always just around.” Brad is the accompanist with the glasses and shaggy hair that knows and plays all songs on the piano for the club. I have often dreamt of an episode devoted completely to this very mysterious character. I expect a special feature devoted to Brad on the complete first season DVD.

“Yes, for several years in my early 20s, I dressed up as Elvis. But he was a Christian… and he did not possess the ability to transform into a bat!” thank you for that lovely nugget of gold Principal Figgins. I realize that I have not given Principal Figgins enough love and would like to take this time to say that I want more Figgins. Figgins! Figgins! Figgins!

Finally what are your thoughts on the almost fully developed trend of lyrics replacing more and more dialogue?

Academy Award winner Bill Condon has been confirmed by Summit Entertainment as the director of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, based on the fourth novel in Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series. Melissa Rosenberg, who adapted the three previous books for the screen, is currently writing the screenplay.

Summit plans to break the fourth novel’s story into two movies, the first including Bella’s wedding, pregnancy, and delivery, and the second covers her transformation into a vampire and her child’s growth. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner are set to return. Filming will likely begin this November.

Condon wrote and directed the films Dreamgirls, Kinsey, and Gods and Monsters, which won him an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. He was also nominated for another Academy Award for his screenplay for the movie Chicago. Condon’s current project, the indie movie Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, written by Slumdog Millionaire‘s Simon Beaufoy, has been put on hold until he is finished with Breaking Dawn. His planned Richard Prior bio-pic has also been put on hold indefinitely.

The upcoming third film in the Twilight series, Eclipse, comes out on June 30, 2010.

The final trailer for the third installment in the Twilight saga premiered on Oprah on Friday, and now it’s available online. Check it out below the official plot synopsis for the movie:

“In The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, Bella once again finds herself surrounded by danger as Seattle is ravaged by a string of mysterious killings and a malicious vampire continues her quest for revenge. In the midst of it all, she is forced to choose between Edward and Jacob knowing that her decision has the potential to ignite the struggle between vampire and werewolf. With her graduation quickly approaching, Bella is confronted with the most important decision of her life.”

Well, I’m not anticipating this very much. I’ve seen the first two, and did not enjoy either, although New Moon was slightly more watchable. Anyway, I hope all of you Twilight fans enjoyed this sneak peek.

The third film in the “Twilight” series was helmed by director David Slade (30 Days of Night) and opens in theaters and IMAX on June 30, 2010.

With a franchise this popular a fan base this rabid, nearly every day gets to be a Twilight related news day.

However, on this final day of March, it’s more so than usual. Fans of the films  have a couple of new pics from David Slade’s upcoming adaptation of Eclipse to help tide them over until June 30th, and readers of Meyer’s work have something else to get excited for.

On the picture front, we have 3 new stills featuring Bella, Ed, and Jacob, all in various forms of interaction/confrontation and another shot of the Cullens family lounging in the misty forest. You can check all three of them out below.

On the literary side of things, Meyers has just recently announced that she’s finished a spinoff novella from the Twilight series, which will be distributed for free online. Following a secondary character from Eclipse, The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner will expound on the exploits of its titular hero. In addition to the electronic roll out, the novella will also hit bookstores on June 5th, 2010, preempting the film’s release date and no doubt cashing in on mounting excitement.

So, tell me fans, does Bree Tanner, whoever they might be, really warrant his/her own story? Let’s hear about it in the comments.

As an outsider to the cult of Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight, I confess to not understanding the draw of Bella Swan and her pasty, blood-sucking paramour.  Having not read the novels and seen only the  frustratingly bland and often risible  first installment, I was less than eager to catch-up with New Moon.

After watching it, less-than-eager seems far too naive a stance to have taken. Significantly more stilted, cloying and nondescript than its predecessor, Moon stares full-on into the flat, gray abyss of teenage gothic longing and sexual repression. I now understand the draw, but am baffled by the lack of taste with which the series handles its themes.

Last time, wobbly, vacant-eyed teen Bella got all goo-goo over even more vacant-eyed and self-absorbed (though the series want to sell it as self-possessed) Ed Cullen, part of a local vampire clan. Their chaste courtship in the first movie was the stuff that narcolepsy is made of. I’m at a loss to think of a film with a less lively couple of lovers at its center, and I’m counting that scene of the snails mating to classical music in Microcosmos.

Stewart and Pattinson, both proving acting chops in other films, simply don’t generate together the heat or conviction necessary to make anyone–save for the most easily swayed–want to follow them. Some claim that the innocence of their relationship hampers that flame. Nope, not at all. See Kiera Knightley and Matthew McFayden in Pride and Prejudice or Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw in the recent Bright Star to see burning passion and commitment without carnal action.

 In fact, the relationship between Bella and Ed doesn’t come off to me as innocent; instead it’s more than a little creepy. First time through, Ed says “You are like my heroin” and Bella, little more than a blank slate, fawns over him for it. He’s shifty, controlling, and even his selflessness, exemplified in this movie by sending her away from him forever because she makes his family crazy(all that warm white girl blood I guess), could be interpreted as surly indecision. We know he will be back, and that Bella will probably be waiting.

Ed wants her out of danger. Even though they are parted, whenever she finds herself in a scrape, he appears to her as an Obi Wan-esque ghostly image. When she figures out what triggers these supernatural Skype moments, she starts seeking out danger and adrenaline rush so she can dial up her brooding beau. Seriously, Bella, he dumped you. Stop trying to get his attention with idiocy.  

Left alone, it isn’t long before she’s attacked by some of the vampires from the first movie and then rescued by her American Indian bud, Jake Black, who has clearly spent the summer on the 300 diet before being reunited with Bella. I suppose its a spoiler of sorts if you live in a cave, but Jake, and the rest of his ‘clan’, are werewolves; he’s just recently discovered that special time in a boy’s life when he starts changing at will into a large CGI Alsatian. Jake takes his shirt off, Bella stares at him, and thinks “It’s been awhile since I’ve pined for a grumpy, emotionally-inaccessible monster”. Yea, that’s pretty much it. Plenty of ‘will they/won’t they’ moments, but not anything that made me care either way.

For a movie with vampires and werewolves based on a fantasy series that is overwhelmingly popular, you would expect much more to actually happen here. Even Chris Weitz’s heavily truncated last adaptation, The Golden Compass, had more going on in its passages than this tepid loaf of half-narratives and paper cut-out characters. I didn’t miss Edward, but his absence makes this film even more arbitrary than the last one.

Moon doesn’t work very hard to make us think Jake and Bella have a chance, and Bella can’t be bothered to understand his lycanthropy in the same we she accepts Ed’s vampirism. She may like washboard abs, but not as much as men the same color as the washboard. As for Edward, he goes to meet a coven of elder vampires headed up by Dakota Fanning and Michael Sheen. Eventually, the whole movie has changed setting and the characters are all racing around Italy looking desperately for a plot that matters.

As I’ve said before, I’m no Twilight fan, but I take no pleasure slagging the series simply because it is popular or it happens to be the kind of story that usually sits best with 13 year old girls. The truth of it is that Moon isn’t very interesting and a lack of actual repercussions or consequences for the characters’ actions, coupled with a very simplistic and silly view of teenage obsession, renders it almost negligent as entertainment for the younger crowd.

As a heroine (not the kind Ed likes) Bella is pathetic, her taste and approach to men eerily echoing the same kind of behavior that lands real world women in abusive relationships. Wietz, nor anyone else working on the film, seems to see this, preferring instead to assume it is just a lightweight fantasy. The truth is that New Moon is far, far less than that; its training wheels for brooding angst.

movie rating:

Rating: ★½☆☆☆ 

To prove I’m not a complete grump, here’s a sequence, featuring Ed and Bella sharing an important conversation, from this summer’s upcoming ‘Eclipse’ (From what I hear, this can be found on the WalMart version):

Bluray Special Features:

*Note* Die-hard Twilighters, you may have to poke about at the various retailers for the version you want, as there seem to be several of them out there. Walmart, Barnes and Nobles and Best Buy all boast different sets with different features. I’ll leave the task of determining which is best to you.

The version I’m covering here is the one disc Bluray edition.

Although not jam-packed with all the goodies the others might have, this one disc actually has some fun stuff for fans of the series. 

There’s a quite good audio commentary with director Chris Weitz and Peter Lambert, the film’s editor, that is remarkably lively considering the film it’s attached to. Weitz seems quite happy with the movie, the shoot, and his actors. If you enjoyed the film, this is definitely worth a listen. I was more than happy to listen to these two talk over the rest of the picture.

The big extra on this disc is a six-part ‘Making Of’ documentary that covers all of the shooting, the props and costumes, some funny anecdotes involving Kristen and Rob filming some of the forest scenes, and a nice peek at the special effects work on the wolves. Gene Siskel used to be fond of saying “Is your film as interesting as a documentary of the same actors eating lunch together?” New Moon and it’s ‘making of’ feature prove perfectly what Siskel was talking about.

Pattinson and Stewart, and even Lautner all come off as funnier, more charming and energetic than their onscreen counterparts. It looks like every0ne really enjoyed making the film and it was a good time on the set. Strangely, for me, none of this translates to the final product. I was honestly a bit surprised by that.

Oh well, it’s clear that I’ve missed the boat on this one, but if this is the trip you are looking for, I’d recommend the Bluray; the forests are greener, the werewolves more ripped, and Ed pastier than you can hope for in regular old dvd. If you are the kind of fan that made it through my trouncing of the movie just to find out what’s on this disc, seeking out one of those meatier versions might be the best way to go.

And finally, a scene I was hoping to catch on this disc but isn’t anywhere to be found. Sigh!

Remember Me is a tragedy.  

I’m not talking about the film’s plot or themes, or even the idea that it’s a dead-on-arrival romance. In fact, it isn’t. Surprisingly, Rob Pattinson and Emile De Ravin make a believable and interesting couple and the film actually delves into some effectively dramatic family relationships.

What’s tragic about the movie is that after finding its legs and delivering several wonderful and on-point moments, Remember Me destroys every single thing that came before with an ill conceived, nearly flabbergasting ending that doesn’t just cheapen the film and its characters, but renders them all inconsequential.

Imagine going to the house of a casual friend who often irritates you, sitting down and then being treated to some wonderful cooking and great conversation. Just as you are thinking what a great idea it was to get together, said friend sneaks behind you and brains you with a shovel, and then immediately bolts out the door. It’s exactly like that and it hobbles what was working as a good, poignant romantic drama.

But let me digress from the ending and its obvious troubles and focus on something else. Rob Pattinson is acting here, and on top of that, it’s good acting. Lost’s Emile De Ravin (she’s Claire) shares much of the film’s screen-time with him, and they take this slight, New York-centric indie chick flic and give it honest, emotional gravity. This is particularly an amazing feat given how contrived and heavy the general premise feels.

Pattinson plays Tyler, another angsty twenty-something (as opposed to Ed Cullen’s  angsty 220-something), who’s a heavy drinking, rebellious mess of daddy issues and deep grief. The daddy issues come for distant businessman, Pierce Brosnan, who spent his life financially providing for his family, and saw that as pretty much the end of the responsibility. The grief is from the death of Tyler’s brother, who killed himself 6 years prior and shattered the family even further as a result.

 One night, Tyler drunkenly shoves Sgt. Craig (Chris Cooper) and gets a face full of windshield for his troubles. Craig himself is a brooding type, and with good reason; his wife was murdered on the subway in front of his young daughter. Now that daughter, Ally, is grown-up and played by Ravin. Tyler’s sleazoid roommate, Aiden, identifies her at school and pushes Tyler to date and dump her, as revenge for the officer’s brutal handling of him.

Of course, as is the case of things in a movie like this, they fall for each other and Tyler abandons his plans of vengeance in favor of cuddling, sharing sob stories, and eventually, doing things with Ally that will no doubt make any Twilighters  in the audience pass out and choke on their gummi bears. This plot is old, old news, and I’m not so sure I liked it the first 400 times they walked it out of the gate. But, when you have the right people and the right pieces in the right places, any formula can work (except for torture films and anything with Stephen Baldwin). This one does, I’m almost loathe to admit, largely because of Pattinson.

What the Twilight saga has so thoroughly obscured is Pattinson is a gifted actor with his own sort of charm. Yes, that charm is based off of an aloof, sulking kind of persona, but if you can build a character that exists under that, then there’s something that an actor and an audience can unwrap; you aren’t left with just a pale, pasty straw man eyeing up your neck. Pattinson really pulls up some emotional baggage in Tyler and then he gets to show the young man in the process of throwing that baggage away, and it’s largely due to Ally’s influence on him.

The most welcome surprise of the film is that Pattinson’s best scenes aren’t just reserved for his time with Emile, and he gets some stellar interaction with Brosnan, who’s making a new career out of very juicy bit parts. Tyler also has a kid sister, played by Ruby Jerins, and they have this very warm, sweet relationship that could have generated a different and likely better film all on its own. 

Ravin began as a pretty face on Lost, but she built Claire out of strong stuff and pushed the character through several emotionally tricky circumstances. She’s got a very disarming way of playing notes of distress or sadness, and it helps that she manages to soften and radiate during moments like that. It makes Ally not just credible, but her attraction to Tyler credible too. This isn’t a pairing based off of long moody stares, but shared pain and struggles with family, and the movie has the courage to let the characters work through both factors; the pain and the family.

Unfortunately, we’ve reached that point of the review, where it becomes necessary for me to bring up the film’s end and issue a disclaimer for what has been a positive review. I’m not going into a single spoiler, but quite frankly, there’s no single good reason why the choice was made to shoot this ending. Understand, it’s not just bad, or dishonest, or even inherently divisive to the rest of the film. It’s worse than that; it’s completely overwhelming, the kind of broad, shocking statement that is trying to create context and give us something we can socially connect to.

So, take that into account. If you leave the moment Rob Patt walks out of his dad’s office, you will have still seen a good movie and can go home with the integrity of your 10 dollars intact. If you stay, well I warned you. Some may suggest I should be harder on the film, but the truth is that most of it works and it will serve as a good reminder to fans of Pattinson’s vampire stuff that not every love story is based around pouty looks.

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

Recently I asked you who your favorite big screen werewolf was and that got me thinkin’ about some other popular characters portrayed by multiple leading men in the movies. This discussion must always start with the character of agent 007 James Bond, best played by Sean Connery. Other popular Bonds were Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore while Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby aren’t

remembered so fondly for their portrayal of the famous secret agent. Currently carrying the torch and ordering shaken martinis is Daniel Craig who seems to make a lot of people happy; I prefer him on the other side of the law as he was in Layer Cake and Road to Perdition.

Then there’s Dracula, or vampires in general. The list of actors who have played a vampire on film is a long one. So here are a few that come to mind, please remind me of any as I’ll most definitely leave some out – Leslie Nielsen (Dracula: Dead and Loving It), Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise (Interview with the Vampire), Willem Dafoe (Shadow of the Vampire),  Robert Pattinson (Twilight), Bela Lugosi (Dracula), Gary Oldman (1992′s Dracula), Frank Langella (1979′s Dracula), Christopher Lee (1970′s Count Dracula), and Kiefer Sutherland (The Lost Boys). Needless to say, all of these guys suck, but who is your favorite?

Second in big-screen adaptation popularity to Dracula is  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes who, along with Dracula, has been in the movies since the very beginning. Personally I’ve got a John Barrymore’s Sherlock Holmes (1922) waiting for me on my DVR, which I recorded after seeing Robert Downey Jr. play the part this past Christmas. I also watched a slew of Sherlock films from the late 1930s into the 40s starring Basil Rathbone, the man most of us think of when we imagine Holmes. Robert Stephens played the part of Holmes in what I consider to be one of the worst Holmes films The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. Probably the most popular Holmes story The Hound of the Baskervilles has seen many leading men including Peter Cushing (1959) and Peter Cook (1978) in the role of Holmes. My favorite Holmes adaptation is Disney’s The Great Mouse Detective (1986) starring Barrie Ingham’s Basil of Baker Street as a Holmes-like mouse.

Another Hollywood mainstay that’s been around almost as long as Sherlock and Dracula is Robin Hood. Russell Crowe will be slinging arrows this May in theaters as Robin Hood. My favorite Hood is a tie between Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Disney’s foxy 1973 adaptation voiced by Brian Bedford. Douglas Fairbanks first wore the tights and feathered cap in 1922′s Robin Hood followed by Errol Flynn in 1938′s Robin Hood. Mel Brooks didn’t play the part but he did direct Cary Elwes as he had fun with the part in Robin Hood: Men in Tights. One Hood adaptation that I’ve not seen and as a native Texan am dying to see is Gene Autry’s 1947 Robin Hood of Texas! I can only imagine…

Honorable mention goes to Batman and Superman, both qualify for this discussion but I really don’t think either are very interesting as the best/worst in each case are pretty black and white. Don’t agree with me? Say so!