PERCY JACKSON: SEA OF MONSTERS

Cole's Rating: ★ ½

Director: Thor Freudenthal

Year: 2013

Cast: Logan Lerman, Alexandra Daddario, Brandon T. Jackson

Genre: Adventure/Family/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG

        Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters is the epitome of washed up, remedial, Hollywood sequels. That’s too bad because I thoroughly enjoyed the first one. I liked its introduction (to the modern day cinema world) of greek mythology, I thought it was plotted well, and I thought it was an overall thrilling experience. The characters were likable, as compared to what they are here: walking clichés.  There’s quite a few things that I could say that would sum up this movie, but I’ll say this: you know it’s bad when a CGI monster is making sexual inferences in a PG film.

        And that seemed to be the case for quite a few scenes/moments in this movie. Since the screenplay clearly lacked the ability to keep the movie afloat, the filmmakers decided to throw in some completely distasteful one-liners to lighten up the story (which is something that Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief didn’t have to do). Right in the middle of a potentially good scene, they’d say something like: “I’m killin’ these shorts, didn’t you notice?”. Nope, I didn’t, I was too astonished at what was coming out of the actors’ mouths before that line (I found myself staring, jaw open, marveling at the incredibly inept writing).

        This film basically continues the adventures of the now cocky Percy Jackson, who, based on his prior excellence, believes that it is his calling to save the camp of the half-gods, to which he belongs. As the movie progresses, he becomes more and more unlikable, until I found myself desiring for his character to be put against the odds and not come out on top (to die). I know, call me a cynic. I’m no better than Neal Paige (haha), but that thought is as justifiable as any when the movie’s predictable conclusion arrives, which vexed my critical nature all too much.

        So why isn’t this an outright dud? Well, I continued to enjoy some of the greek mythological references made throughout, and there were a few scenes that caught my attention (in a good way, this time). With a summer full of bad sequels (this is no exception), let’s hope that there are a few more noteworthy follow ups to good movies as the year progresses; after all, asking the studio to stop making sequels is like saying that the Percy Jackson film series is a competitor with other younger audience fantasy movies like Harry Potter. As if!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Cole's Take On: MAN OF STEEL

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Zack Snyder

Year: 2013

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

         To date, Man of Steel is my second favorite film so far this year. Now given, it hasn’t been an incredible year for movies, I still think that this is a cinematic achievement—for some of its totality. My only wish for a movie like this, which is chock full of ambitious and irresistible elements, is that it could withhold its magnitude for the entirety of its running time. Director Zack Snyder isn’t capable of making this happen, but who knows that it was really him? Maybe Michael Bay swooped in towards the second half of the film and took over. I swear that I saw his fingers around the lenses of the camera during the action scenes. And if I should say so myself, they were tinted a bit green.

        Man of Steel begins with the introduction of the knock-out cast. Russell Crowe plays Jor-El, Superman’s father who sends him to Earth in a last second attempt to preserve his life from the apocalyptic (or soon-to-be apocalyptic) Krypton. A cold Michael Shannon plays General Zod, a Krypton-trained warrior who wants to rebuild his home planet on Earth. And finally, Henry Cavill plays the Superman character quite well, however, comparably not as good as Tom Welling in the Superman series titled Smallville. But as the movie progresses, I discovered that Cavill became more and more comfortable in the main role (and unshaven, might I add). Amy Adams looks the part as Lois Lane, who’s under-developed relationship with Superman is only a cause for the inevitable sequel. Kevin Costner also plays a big role in the movie, even though his screen time may be miniscule. He helps build the backbone for Superman as a child, and his performance is Academy-Award worthy (he is in the best scenes of the movie). The cast is excellent, the story is riveting, and it’s all carried out through a series of both chronological storytelling and flashbacks.

        You may ask, “what could go wrong?”. Well, instead of continuing the movie’s epic case of storytelling, it takes the easy, Hollywood way out by turning the whole thing into a sabotage picture: blowing things up and tearing buildings down. I will give the director credit though. Something that he possesses that most directors do not is the ability to be imaginative with the action scenes. I’ve never seen anything like it. So I guess I was wrong about seeing Michael Bay’s hands; after all, he could never make action scenes like this. I guess the greenish color was foreshadowing Snyder’s greater success (not to mention monetary benefits) to come, maybe even with Man of Steel 2.

        I took my nine-year-old brother to this picture, and I don’t think I will take him to another like this again. The movie takes a lot of intriguing plot turns, which is something that he had a hard time keeping up with. In fact, I think that’s what I liked about the first half of the movie. The plot is constantly developing at a nice, breezy pace, and the only thing that you might have to say is to slow down. I only found myself saying it once, as I was thoroughly impressed with how interesting the tellings panned out. Let’s hope that between our viewing of this and our viewing of the sequel, Snyder starts reading books instead of watching Transformers. That is if he decides to stick with it. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE for Jesse's written review of Man of Steel

Click HERE to watch the video on YouTube

Jesse's Take On: MAN OF STEEL

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Zack Snyder

Year: 2013

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        For the record, I have only seen one of director Zach Snyder's previous films being 2004's Dawn of the Dead. That vehicle was a very small sample size compared to what I witnessed at a screening for his much anticipated Superman reboot Man of Steel. Within two and a half exhausting hours, I realized that this man is truly a visionary filmmaker. Snyder shoots action scenes like no other director I've ever seen (a lot of long shots and extreme long shots). There's a relentless sort of exuberant energy that comes with every frame. He throws a lot at you until you just can't take it anymore. Okay, let's lay it all out on the line, there's enough suspenseful battles/fistfights/shoot-em'-ups in Man of Steel to fill 7-8 movies (I'm not kidding). They are well done and totally eye popping. But this flick is a classic case of a cinematic exercise "living by the sword and dying by the sword". That means Man of Steel's strength is also its weakness. The last 45 minutes consists of carnage and destruction that you have to see to believe. There's an attempt of movie sabotage going on here which does two things: it bogs down the third act (story loses focus) and makes you, the moviegoer, feel like you're watching Transformers all over again (the part that hurts the most is that once the action heightens, the caliber of acting goes downhill and the characters become less dynamic). Now based on my rating, it's apparent that I will recommend this movie. But I am disappointed in the fact that it could have been so much better. The first half is incredibly compelling and invigorating (a possible Best Picture nominee). The second half, well, what can I say? It's a big explosion fest that would fuel the psyche of your typical action junkie. To conclude the first paragraph of this review, I will say this: Yes, Man of Steel is a "popcorn flick". In fact, towards the end, it's popcorn with a pound of butter and plenty of fine, iodized salt.

        Now if you've seen the first two Superman films (Superman (1978) and Superman II (1981)), or you have a love for comics, the story should be very familiar to you (Jor-El predicts that Krypton is going to be destroyed so he sends his son Kal-El to earth where his identity remains unknown. As time marches on, Kal-El realizes who he really is and identifies his possession of superhuman powers. This propels him to maintain and take care of our planet). Man of Steel stays somewhat faithful to the past Superman entries, but at the same time, there is a whole new take on the proceedings. This film has the distinction of being a remake with plot elements of not one, but the combo of both flicks from 78' and 81' (General Zod is a more pivotal character this time around and Lex Luther is non-existent). And let it be known, this is a much, much, darker adaptation. It's more military in nature and the whimsical love story between Clark Kent and Lois Lane is sorely left out. Now, a lot of critics have found the seriousness and darkness of this entry off putting. Thankfully, I have no problem with it. Snyder's new vision is realized and assured. And there's a kind of anti-hero vibe to Man of Steel that makes it surprisingly moving (maybe it's keeping with today's mindset, I can't be sure).

        The cast is mostly all aces. All the actors/actress that show up and contribute, probably could each helm their own movie (Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams). Almost everyone on screen delivers, but it's Costner (Jonathan Kent) who's stands out. His performance in a somewhat small role as Kal El's adopted father is quietly powerful (there's a scene with destruction by tornadoes that will give you goosebumps). And then there is Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Listen, nobody is cooler than Crowe. He even fights a little (Gladiator style at the beginning). But his performance doesn't quite match the intensity of Marlon Brando's stint from 78' (I think it was Marlon's voice alone that kind of sealed the deal). As for the lead of Superman, Henry Cavill does a fine job despite what you might have heard. He's no Christopher Reeve (it's impossible to equal Reeve's charm and charisma) but he looks the part perfectly, has a solid screen presence, and caters to the physical demands of the role. He's a little wooden at times, but with the next installment (you know it's gonna happen), I think his acting will probably get better and better. Just a hunch. That leaves the one weak spot in casting which would be Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Now I still think she's a solid actress but her minutes on screen lack a little depth. When Margot Kidder played the part in the original, she did more "reacting" than acting and it made her performance more natural, not to mention more human. Adams is no doubt a movie star, but when I saw her in Man of Steel, I just thought, that's Amy Adams (this tends to happen with a lot of big name stars).

        In conclusion, I found Man of Steel to be a solid entry in the retelling of the Superman franchise. There's shades of greatness that mostly show up early on. Honestly, if this flick had eyes, you'd see in them, a yearning early on, to become a cinematic masterpiece. Sadly, because of the plot going on autopilot late in the proceedings, things don't quite work out that way. But come on, it's going to make a ton of money and there's sure to be a sequel. How do I know? Well, you can painfully tell that the filmmakers do an obvious job of shoving that notion right down your throat. This is done at the very end and I've never seen a film try harder to announce a sequel than this one does. But hey, no worries. You'll probably enjoy the feverishness and relentless swagger that is Man of Steel.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click here for Cole's written review of Man of Steel

Click HERE to watch the video on YouTube

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Joel Schumacher 

Year: 1981

Cast: Lily Tomlin, Charles Grodin, Ned Beatty

Genre: Sci-Fi/Comedy/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG

        After two obscure T.V. movies, Joel Schumacher decided to helm this torrid misfire as his first feature film. The Incredible Shrinking Woman is a collision of dark, dramatic science fiction undercut with felonious comedic overtones (the font of the opening titles might have been used later on in the flick Wargames). You watch in disbelief as scenes that are suppose to be funny, actually make you queasy. To this day, Schumacher continues to be a director and I'm okay with that. After The Incredible Shrinking Woman, you'll notice that he stayed away from making comedies (unless you count Batman and Robin as comedic, just kidding). Entertaining in spots and sometimes loaded with fanatical wit, this moderately successful release from 1981 was something I viewed as a kid (religiously on cable of course). Fast forward 25 years later, and I realize that I am a much different person now than I was back then (of course, right?). This is one of those flicks in which you take a closer look at what's on screen and find yourself feeling criminal, like you need to be arrested for viewing something so misguided and ultimately, so out of whack. Everyone in the cast seems to be obsessed with wearing bright colors (from what I saw, I'd say pinks, oranges, light reds and yellows), the movie sledgehammers the art of consumerism (could there be a connection? Maybe), and its main character/subsequent hero (Lily Tomlin as Pat Kramer) is so frowned upon, so belittled, that you don't root for her, you just feel sorry for her. Once more, I couldn't figure out why so many great actors/actresses decided to sign on for this thing. One of them was in Rosemary's Baby, one was in Deliverance, and three of them were in Nashville (all movies with a slew of Oscar nominations). I guess even famous, rich movie stars sometimes fall behind in their mansion payments.

        Projecting itself as either a fantasy or possibly a movie that takes place in a dreamlike state (the bright hazy look from cinematographer Bruce Logan might suggests this), The Incredible Shrinking Woman is about suburban housewife Pat Kramer (Tomlin) who's life seems pretty happy. She has lot of friends, a great husband (Charles Grodin, likable as ever), and two cute children (keep in mind these misfits don't really have any lines in the movie, they improvise by giving new meaning to the phrase, "kids say and do the darndest things."). About ten or so minutes into the film, Vance Kramer (Grodin, who's character has a job in advertising) by accident, spills some experimental perfume on his wife and within minutes, she begins the shrinking process. Within a day or so, she goes from 5'7" to 5'5", within a week she's looking over the steering wheel to drive, and within a month, well you get the point. Over time, word gets out and Kramer becomes famous, so famous in fact that a couple of mad scientists (Henry Gibson and Elizabeth Wilson) want to kidnap her, get blood from her, and use it to shrink the rest of the world (I don't get why anyone would want to do that, honestly what would anyone gain from it?).

        

        With special effects that clearly needed to be redone (when Tomlin shrinks down to nothing, everything that appears around her looks bigger and ultimately looks fake, especially food that mistakenly gets dumped on her) and villains that act like they're disconnected from the rest of the cast, there are flaws that run rampant in this exercise. But as I noted in the first paragraph, the movie's ultimate demise for me, has to do with the screenwriter getting the viewer completely involved with the dark storyline and then shifting gears to lighten things up. This is done by the use of forced laughter. It simply doesn't work because we're talking about a woman dwindling down to nothing, being forced to live in a doll house, accidentally falling down a garbage disposal (almost dying, I might add), and being locked in a hamster cage for scientific experiments. What's really strange is that the secretive, scientific lab where she is hidden/kidnapped is right next door to her neighborhood shopping center. What the...? This is not supposed to be funny, and if it is, I must have missed the boat entirely. It certainly doesn't help that Tomlin is also doing the narration throughout the proceedings. Her tone, and the background music that accompanies it, just seems eerie and not fit for what was advertised as a so called comedy. On the other end of the spectrum, and in an almost unnecessary way, there are a couple of scenes in this exercise where melodic human behavior is taken to the extreme (I feel only Chevy Chase does this effectively). It's as if the filmmakers wanted to wring the neck of the moviegoer by taking an uncomfortable situation as far as it will go. I figured it was supposed to be funny but I wasn't completely sure. The camera kept rolling and I begged Mr. Schumaker to yell cut! You'll see what I mean when you witness a confrontation in Tomlin's car with her incredibly annoying children, a mishap with a potent form of crazy glue (it's called "galaxy glue" in the film), and a cringe worthy encounter between Tomlin's ever shrinking character and robotic toys (what nonsense).  

        But let's be fair, the performances aren't all that bad, the storytelling is adequate, and monster special effects guy Rick Baker is entertaining as Sidney the ape. There is also an appearance by Kramer on The Mike Douglas Show in which she is less than a foot tall. The Kramer character is now famous and although a little silly, this sequence as a whole feels stronger and more genuine than everything else in the barely 90 minutes of running time. Still, I can't give this film a positive review because I would have no argument to suggests anything otherwise. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but Lily Tomlin literally gets put through the wringer in more ways than one. She plays four characters in The Incredible Shrinking Woman (the other three are fairly irrelevant) and the one that matters is made to look inferior. It's a shame because I can't get it out of my head that this film could have have been decent. For starters, it seems like a solid pitch for a Hollywood executive to listen to. I'm not kidding. The only problem is this, I think this script might have looked good only on paper. Nevertheless, it's safe to say that things totally went south when the cameras started rolling. The Incredible Shrinking Woman, I'm sad to say, is "the incredibly sinking ship" when it comes to cinematic equivalency.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

CATWOMAN

Thatcher's Rating: ★★

Director: Pitof
Year: 2004
Cast: Halle Berry, Sharon Stone, Benjamin Bratt
Genre: Action/Fantasy
MPAA Rating: PG-13
         
          Now before any lovers of comic books and fandom read this (if any lovers of comic books and fandom read this) I'd like to forewarn you; if you keep this movie to heart or crave Halle Berry's seductiveness to the death, then please do not read this review in fear that you will be disappointed with the review and overwhelm the comments section with disapproving opinions as if it were a carpet bombing.

          Since I've made myself clear with this point; on to the review (Your last chance to turn back is here). Catwoman starts with Patience Phillips (Halle Berry), a mild woman whose only intrigue from others derives from her rather strange name (which isn't even Selina Kyle, the name of the original D.C. Comics Catwoman. That's right, I've had past interests besides those concerning cinematography). Patience lives a stressful office life with her promiscuous friend, Sally (Alex Borstein). This in itself is very strange considering she constantly looks for men out of her league. Patience does meet "cute cop", Tom Lone (Benjamin Bratt), which you think would be sure to raise her self confidence. Nope, not even hints and flirting from the handsome policeman are enough to raise her spirits. Then, in a rapid turn of events, Patience unearths secrets of the company she works for, Headare Beauty, that weren't meant to be found and ends up in a tragic accident... That is, until a CGI cat breaths into her, or something. The connection between the cat and Patience is hard to follow, even with a subplot revealed   entailing the cat's owner. The newly transformed patience (Catwoman, that is) is undoubtedly attractive, but nothing we haven't seen before. The leather-clad heroine first decides to fight bad guys for some odd reason (watch next time you're laying with a cat and make sure it doesn't breath on you, otherwise you might find yourself trying to beat up bank robbers). Eventually she makes a little more sense and tries to get to the bottom of what her former company is brewing and even tries to kindle some romance with Tom along the way.

         What I don't like about this film is the apparent lack of attention to anything film-worthy. Instead all possible effort is focused on Halle Berry, her figure, her voice, and everything about her that makes the modern male audiences pay attention in their movie theater seats for. It's okay when films use a sex idol in a movie role as long as they focus on movie elements as well (Some Like It Hot, the sex idol being Marilyn Monroe). Catwoman did not follow this method and instead used every excuse it could to show Berry in the director's unlawful vision. The plot is the worst; the acting isn't great (try watching Sharon Stone in this one, just try!); there is absolutely no character motivation. It has terrible special effects; realism isn't evident whatsoever; and practically everything else is uncalled for. The cameraman had some good ideas, but I doubt they were used to be artistic and will likely end up making you dizzy. Catwoman may have had nine lives, but this movie should've been buried upon opening.

Written by Thatcher Boyd

SOMEWHERE IN TIME

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: Jeannot Szwarc

Year: 1980

Cast: Christopher Reeve, Jane Seymour, Christopher Plummer

Genre: Drama/Fantasy/Romance

MPAA Rating:  PG

        Somewhere In Time is a movie that I somewhat embraced as a kid. I was intrigued by the whole concept of time travel (the gist of what's on screen). Also, it was unique in that it was filmed almost entirely on Mackinac Island (I grew up in Michigan so go figure). However, after a recent viewing (almost 30 years later) and a need for random nostalgia, I found the film to be a well intentioned but borderline misfire. 

        "Time" tells the story of playwright Richard Collier (Christopher Reeve)  He is mysteriously visited by an elderly woman while doing a play as a college student somewhere in Northern Michigan. Fast forward 8 years later and he is living in Chicago. He's still a playwright but has a serious case of writer's block and out of nowhere, decides to visit the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island. A sense of Deja Vu kicks in and Collier realizes that the woman he met 8 years ago was a famous actress from the year 1912 (Elise McKenna, played with restraint by Jane Seymour). She in fact did a play on the Island so he decides to go back in time to see her.  After Reeve's character successfully realizes that he has mastered the art of time travel (he dresses up like someone from 1912 and puts old coins in his pocket. Oh yeah, he also lies on a bed and says over and over that he is in the year 1912), he goes to great lengths to find her and fall in love with her. This is all to the disenchantment of her overprotective and overbearing manager William Fawcett Robinson (a very young Christopher Plummer).

        If you look at "Time" in hindsight, it's the type of cinematic exercise that probably could have gone from being 1hr. 44 minutes (film's running time) to maybe 2 hours and some change. It's weird saying that because if you ask most moviegoers about the length of a film, they'll probably say it's too long or drags too much. "Time" is the opposite. I'm not saying it's because it feels like scenes were literally left out on the cutting room floor. That's not the case. What I'm saying is that additional scenes could have been added to explain the general actions of the characters more. What we get from "Time" is something that was editing too tightly and got rushed out to theaters back in 1980. The ending, although terrific on paper, lasts for maybe 30 seconds. Then there's the musical score. It's hauntingly beautiful but it seems to come in at wrong points in the movie. It feels like a cheap solution to beef up dramatic momentum when it's obvious to anyone watching, that there isn't any. The film also has the mistake of giving the lead role to the late Christopher Reeve. He looks the part, he's in every frame, but it feels like he's trying way too hard. You can tell back then, that he wanted to break out of the whole type casting thing for his success with Superman (1978). Added to the miscasting of Reeve is the love story between his character and Jane Seymour's character. Besides the fact they are both involved in theatre, there is real no blatant evidence to back up the notion that these two people would actually fall in love. They spend one day together (5 or 6 scenes in the whole movie) and there is barely any conversation between the two of them. If it was lust I'd accept that. But it's annoying that we as an audience are manipulated into thinking that these two people belong together when in fact they barely know each other. Among other things, this in a nutshell, is the biggest misstep with "Time." The biggest bright spot however, is the casting of Christopher Plummer as the antagonist. He's menacing and cold. He pretty much does the whole Robert De Niro thing by out acting everyone with his eyes. Sadly though, he doesn't command much screen time and is woefully underused.

        Ultimately, Somewhere In Time is not a bad film. It's just the type of film that had the potential to be so much better. I mean, its beautifully shot and has a great sense of time and place. But when it came to character development and a strong script, everyone involved, was "somewhere" else.

Written by Jesse Burleson

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2

Cole's Rating: ★★★ 1/2

Year: 2011

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

Genre: Adventure/Family/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Why can’t every series be as good as this? My answer is a big ‘dunno’! Both series of books and films outrank any other in both categories, and that’s really saying something. By now, if you have not read or seen the previous seven installments, then you should probably just stop reading, and definitely don’t watch the movie (without seeing previous films), as it will do nothing for you. It would be like reading a review for and watching an episode of the later series of Heroes, after reading a synopsis of the previous seasons, and realizing, well, that was a waste of time!

        I have enjoyed seeing Daniel Radcliffe age over the years, as he starred in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone when he was age 11. If I had to name one actor who did a superb job throughout his career, including when he was a youngster, it would be him. He portrayed the role of the curious, adventure seeking Harry Potter better than anybody could, especially at that age.

        The best thing about Harry Potter for me was the intrigue that I experienced. The idea of witchcraft and Hogwarts and all of the mysteries inside the castle fascinates me and I hate to think about how it’s just a set for a film. Undoubtedly the movie did that just for me, and any film that can do that, is one that should be praised.

        After reading the series, it was magical for me to see the story come alive. J.K. Rowling’s screen adaption was a complete success, all the way through. With each installment, the character development furthers, and the complexity of relationships increase. (It makes sense, as we watch them go through childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was the only film that made changes more than minor for the storyline, to what I can remember. Together, the producers, and author J.K. Rowling did what very little are able to do, make the movie as good as or better than the book.  Despite Jennifer Lawrence’s appearance, The Hunger Games is an average (okay) movie, but an great and unforgettable book. Harry Potter will never be considered as such.

        At this point in the series, it’s just too far along to summarize the movie, but I’ll say that it is a face-off between Harry and Voldemort; It’s a great conclusion to a flawless series. It’s entertaining, it’s enjoyable, it’s everything a fantasy film desires, and what many lack. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is epic; it’s a must-see, if you’ve seen the previous films that is.

Written by Cole Pollyea

TWILIGHT BREAKING DAWN PART 2

    Cole's Rating: ★ ½

Year: 2012
Cast: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner
Genre: Adventure/Drama/Fantasy
MPAA Rating: PG-13


    Best movie of the year for some, one of the worst for me. To sum up a movie in one sentence can be difficult for some movies, but not this one. Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2 was a sorry last installment of the series, a poorly acted, mistakenly popular movie with surprisingly good cinematography and one entertaining action scene, that turned out to solve the conflict in the movie. That’s all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

The plot of the film was about Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) fighting with all they had to ensure that their daughter not be taken away by an evil, prestigious group of vampires who believe she is a threat to society because she was half mortal, half immortal, they believed she could not control her abilities. Let me just say that Stephenie Meyer did it right. Being a reader of the series, I can state with no doubt that the transition over to the big screen was a downgrade. The acting was so awful, at one point during the movie, I was seriously debating on the fact that this movie could indeed be a parody. At moments in the movie that were intended to be perceived as dramatic, tear-jerking moments, I was crying... Of laughter. Overall, the cinematography (makeup, visual effects) was the shining star in this film. 

Written by Cole Pollyea