Showing posts with label film adaptation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film adaptation. Show all posts

Friday, April 20, 2012

Fiction Friday: Lame Lists

I've had a busy week and haven't had time to reread a book I had planned to review for Fiction Friday.  Instead, I'm just going to post some of my favorite literary things.  Lame?  Yes. 

Sorry.

Five Top Favorite Book Series:

1. The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis
    -Fave book from the series: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
2. The Time Quartet by Madeleine L'Engle
    -Fave book from the series (and favorite novel in general): A Wrinkle in Time
3. Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
    -Fave book from the series: The Return of the King
4. Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling
    -Fave book from the series: either The Prisoner of Azkaban or The Half-Blood Prince. I think.
5. The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander
    -Fave book from the series: Taran Wanderer
Honorable Mentions: The Hunger Games books by Suzanne Collins, Anne of Green Gables books by L. M. Montgomery, "Austin Family" books by Madeleine L'Engle, Ramona books by Beverly Cleary, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books by Douglas Adams, Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis, Winnie-the-Pooh books by A. A. Milne

Top Five Film Adaptations of Novels:

1. The Princess Bride, novel AND screenplay by William Goldman
2. The Return of the King, novel by J. R. R. Tolkien
3. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, novel by J. K. Rowling
4. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, novel (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) by Roald Dahl
5. Jurassic Park, novel by Michael Chriton
Honorable Mentions: Ramona and Beezus, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (both parts), Water for Elephants, 10 Things I Hate About You

Five LEAST FAVORITE Film Adaptations

1. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, novel by J. K. Rowling, film by morons
2. A Wrinkle in Time, novel by Madeleine L'Engle, film by malicious beings intent on mutilating one of the greatest works of fiction of all time
3. Eragon, novel by Christopher Paolini, film by people who didn't seem to realize this would have made a brilliant SERIES of movies
4. 2010: The Year We Make Contact, novel (2010: Odyssey Two) by Arthur C. Clarke, film by people who probably thought it was a good idea at the time
5. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005 version), novel by Douglas Adams, film by people who were brilliant enough to cast Zooey Deschanel and Alan Rickman, yet who still just don't seem to get it
Dishonorable Mention: Twilight

Five Film Adaptations that were vastly different from the books, yet, IMO, still highly enjoyable:

1. Pollyanna, novel by Elanor Porter, film by Disney
2. The Hunchback of Notre Dame, novel by Victor Hugo, film by Disney
3. The Sword and the Stone, novel by T. H. White, film by Disney
4. Mary Poppins, novel by P. L. Travers, film by Disney
5. The Black Cauldron, novel (mashup of The Book of Three and The Black Cauldron) by Lloyd Alexander, film by Disney (I'm totally seeing a theme here)
Honorable mentions: Alice in Wonderland, The Three Musketeers, and The Jungle Book.  All wonderfully screwed up by Disney.

Top Five Fictional Characters (that I didn't invent)

1. Meg Murray from A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
2. Samwise Gamgee from Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
3. Lucy Pevensie from The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis
4. Vicky Austin from A Ring of Endless Light (etc.) by Madeleine L'Engle
5. Neville Longbottom from Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling
Honorable Mentions: Eeyore, (I'm ashamed to admit it--okay, so I'm not) Peeta Mellark, Anne Shirley/Blythe, Puddleglum, Inigo Montoya, Taran

Top Five Dead Writers

1. Madeleine L'Engle
2. C. S. Lewis
3. Lloyd Alexander
4. J. R. R. Tolkien
5. Alfred Lord Tennyson
Honorable Mentions: Douglas Adams, L. M. Montgomery, A. A. Milne, Kenneth Grahame, Beatrix Potter, Shel Silversteen, Roald Dahl

Top Five Writers Who Are Still Alive:

1. J. K. Rowling
2. Suzanne Collins
3. William Goldman
4. Beverly Cleary
5. Tie among several authors who wrote books I loved as a kid (and as an adult): Katherine Paterson, Jerry Spinelli, Louis Sachar, Judy Blume, James Howe, Caroline B. Cooney, etc.
Honorable Mentions: Homer Hickman, Lemony Snicket

Thanks for reading this drudgery.  Please now feel the need to bombard my comments with all of your favorite and least favorite things, and I'll promise to read them.

Again, I am sorry for this boring blog of lame lists.  Please accept my apology and this lame picture of me holding the book with my least favorite title:


Friday, March 30, 2012

Fiction Friday: Thoughts on the Film Adaptation of THE HUNGER GAMES

Spoilers ahead! If you haven’t read the book AND seen the movie, I suggest you stop reading this now and go do both. Then come back and read my blog.  Seriously...come back.

Also, I didn't realize how long this was until I'd finsihed writing it.  I think I'm kinda sorta passionate about The Hunger Games.  Sorry this is so long.

So it’s been a while since I was brave enough to see a movie on opening weekend, but I decided that I just couldn’t wait to see The Hunger Games. It was definitely the best book (and best series) I read last year. I haven’t been this excited about a film adaptation since Voyage of the Dawn Treader.  ...or maybe Harry Potter 7.

Overall, I think I liked The Hunger Games movie. At least, I definitely can’t say that I disliked it. It’s just that as I sat in the theater and the credits started to roll, I turned to my roommate and said, “It lacked something.” She nodded in agreement, but neither of us could immediately say what that “something” was. I had to take a couple days to sort out all my thoughts regarding the film adaptation of The Hunger Games.

First, the positives, and there are a lot of positives. I am one of those people who has to read the book before seeing the movie, but I am NOT one of those people who demands that every detail of a film adaptation be exactly like the movie. In fact, many of the changes in the structure of the film were brilliantly done.

In the book, everything is from Katniss’ perspective. It’s told in first person, present tense, which means we’re experiencing everything that Katniss experiences as she is experiencing it. Yes, there are flashbacks and inner dialogues, but the action of the story is always the immediate action that Katniss experiences. We don’t know what’s going on unless we’re living vicariously through Katniss.

I was curious to see how they would handle this in the movie. I was hoping they wouldn’t do a lot of voiceovers, having Katniss’ thoughts verbally project over things that were taking place. It might have added something, but I think it would have been annoying (and reminiscent of Bella-Babble from Twilight—shudder). They didn’t go that route. In fact, they didn’t even open the movie with Katniss, which surprised me. Instead, they opened with Caesar Flickerman and Seneca Crane talking about the Hunger Games.

I was confused by this tactic at first, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to be set up that way from the beginning. The filmmakers were able to communicate different aspects of the story without constantly putting us inside Katniss’ head. I thought it was actually kind of brilliant the way the filmmakers took the audience away from the arena to show what the announcers had to say about the actions that were taking place in the arena.

For instance, during the Tracker Jacker scene, I was starting to get nervous. If someone hadn’t read the book, how were they to know how dangerous Tracker Jackers are? Was there to be an out of place voiceover?  Was Katniss going to talk to herself or “stage whisper” to Rue? Was Glimmer going to go into a screaming monologue about the dangerous aspects of a Tracker Jacker sting as she was being stung to death? Were the filmmakers just going to go “Prisoner of Azkaban” style and just completely confuse anyone who hadn't read the book?  I had no idea how they were going to communicate the Tracker Jacker dangers—but they managed to do it well.  They took us out of the arena and had Caesar explain it.  Even if the delivery of the lines in that scene was a little obnoxious (which was probably done on purpose, because Caesar is obnoxious), I thought it was brilliant how they pulled it off.  There were several scenes in this movie that were embellished by Caesar’s announcements—it made sense to start the movie that way, as if the film audience were being treated to the show along with the citizens of the Capital.

In a way, I think that perhaps the film audience was meant to feel as though they were watching a reality show—connecting us with the audience in the Capital. America’s “reality shows” might not be pitting teenagers (or anyone else) against one another in fights to the death, but most of them are thick with false emotion, artificial drama, and writers’ tactics that draw us in to something that really isn’t reality at all. We’re too easily manipulated and too eagerly entertained. So consider this the “after school special” paragraph in this blog. We aren’t sick enough to be entertained by real kids fighting to the death, but we (myself included) are far too preoccupied with being entertained and catered to that we don’t pay attention to the “Districts” of the world. As long as we’re happy, the other people aren’t important. That’s the attitude of the Capital, and it’s one I find in myself far too often. I’m not at all sure if the filmmakers were trying to communicate that by leading into the movie with the “reality show” feel, but that’s what I took from it.  I think that's kind of the moral of the story....

I greatly appreciated that the film showed what went on in the Gamemaker room. I never really envisioned it while reading (because Katniss never saw it, we never did either), so it was interesting to see the filmmaker’s vision of it. It was also interesting (and maybe a little disturbing) to see how easy it was for the Gamemakers to develop torturous circumstances for the children in the arena—as if they weren’t real human beings.

I also liked the “notes” that Haymitch sent Katniss along with the parachutes (and I liked that the parachutes made distinctive sounds that were similar to wind chimes—made more sense than just a “metallic clunk” that could be anything). This was another brilliant way the filmmakers communicated important elements of the story without putting us inside Katniss’ head. Little details like that seem so simple, but they make a big difference in the understanding of the story. I really liked that.

The politics of the books (as well as the politics of reality) are confusing to me. I think I have a better grasp of them than most of the teenagers who have read them, but that’s not really saying much. But I really have grown to like the character of President Snow. I hated him/was afraid of him in the first two books, but that changed in Mockingjay, when I kind of realized that he and Katniss had some similarities. They both had an agenda. Even when their agendas were hopelessly threatened, they both fought and managed to “win,” at least on some level. In a way, President Snow’s character development was one of the most interesting of the series.

And I just have to say that I LOVED being able to see more of him in the movie. I appreciated the talks he had with Seneca (and I loved Seneca’s beard—if I were a guy, I’d totally get a beard like his). I think that my favorite line from the movie came from one of these scenes. I’ve only seen the movie once, so this is paraphrased, but I think President Snow said, “The only thing stronger than fear is hope.” Love it. I know where he was going with that—a little hope is good, but too much of it is dangerous. That’s not where my mind took it, but I doubt anyone wants to hear me gush on about Hope at this particular moment in time. Believe me, there will be plenty of that in future blogs.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the “extra” scenes with President Snow. I think the filmmakers were wise to include those. Not only were they interesting for this movie, but I think they laid some important ground work for the movies that will follow. I’m very interested to see how they continue to handle his character, especially as he relates to Katniss.

I also liked the "extra" scenes that showed Gale's reactions to what was going on in the arena.  I'm so TEAM PEETA that sometimes I prefer to pretend that Gale doesn't even exist, but the added scenes helped add to the "love-triangle" aspect of The Hunger Games story (which I'm glad was downplayed...just a little).  Liam Hemsworth was also very convincing in the role of Gale.  Nice and brooding...but not in an Edward Cullen sort of way.

For the most part, I appreciated the special effects. The “fire ball” scene was wonderfully intense! I was also highly impressed at how well Peeta camouflaged with the rocks and such. Seriously, I was amazed by that. I honestly thought that they would just leave that part out, but a very small part of me was hoping to see the camouflaged Peeta. I was not disappointed. Not at all. It was so much better than I thought it would be. And—sidenote—loved Effie’s makeup and clothes—futuristic with a Victorian feel! Perfect! I might want to be her for Halloween…maybe.

The muttations were a little fake-looking, and they weren’t at all as terrifying as the ones in the book (I was disappointed with that, albeit relieved because it would have been visually disturbing to actually see mutts that looked like dead Tributes—especially Rue!), but I have to admit I jumped a few times when they lunged out of the forest.

I also wasn’t thrilled with the chariot scene where Peeta and Katniss were “on fire.” The flames weren’t big or bright enough to impress me. It was good, but just not enough. And honestly, that’s kind of how I felt about the whole movie.

See, I think I finally figured out what it was that was lacking in this movie. For a while I thought it was just that I wasn’t satisfied with the connection between Katniss and Peeta. But the more I thought about it, I realized that was only a small part of it. I wasn’t satisfied with most of the relational connections in the movie. What the movie lacked, overall, was depth.

I came to this movie prepared to weep like a baby when Rue died. I have cried while reading that scene all three times that I’ve read the book. I even teared up a little when I first saw the girl who had been cast to play Rue. I was moved by how truly young and small she was. I compared her to several of the small preteen girls I know, and it broke my heart to think that anyone could ever think to make them fight to the death. So when I entered the theater, I prepared myself for some heavy tears.

Yet, when the time came, the emotion just wasn’t there. Maybe if I hadn’t been expecting it, it would have affected me differently, but I don’t think so. Katniss and Rue’s connection in the movie was substantial, but in the end, it just wasn’t enough. This was the same problem I had with Katniss and Peeta’s relationship. This was the same problem I had with Katniss and Prim’s relationship. This was the same problem I had with Haymitch’s relationship with Katniss and Peeta. It just wasn’t enough. Almost none of the relationships in the movie were quite enough.

I don’t think this was the fault of any of the actors. The vast majority of the actors in this movie were wonderful. Jennifer Lawrence did a phenomenal job as Katniss (and truly looked the part—she looked EXACTLY how I pictured her during the reaping scene, in her mother’s blue dress), but I think the director/writers tried to play up her “strong personality” too much. I understand that she does have a strong personality. She’s had to be strong; she’s had to be hard. But the Katniss I love from the book isn’t just a warrior. The filmmakers did show a little of her insecurities and conflict and such, but it just wasn’t enough. The tears she cried over Rue’s death were too little too late, and they just seemed almost out of place.   They couldn't find the right balance for her character.

Woody Harrelson was good as Haymitch, but I can’t help but think that he could have been absolutely brilliant if he had been given more to work with. He had a few good lines, a few good opportunities to show who Haymitch really is, but for the most part I just wasn’t convinced. I love Woody Harrelson and was really excited that he was playing Haymitch. I don’t think it’s his fault that I wasn’t happy with the portrayal.

Amandla Stenberg (Rue) was adorable, light, little, sneaky, sweet—everything that Rue was supposed to be. I just wasn’t convinced because the writers didn’t give her enough of an opportunity to shine.

And to be fair, I realize that this movie was over two hours long. There really wasn’t enough time to do justice to every character and every important event in the book. I am definitely not advocating the removal of the “extra scenes” (which I loved) in order to make room for more of the things that actually happened in the book. I just think that some things could have been done slightly differently. I don’t have any immediate suggestions. I simply think that what happened was that the writers (one of which was Suzanne Collins, the author of the books--which makes me a lot less eager to criticize the film's writers) and directors and editors attempted to communicate an emotionally powerful story in a brief span of time. Some things were undoubtedly cut. They had to make decisions on how to communicate certain things—which things to leave in, which things to leave out, which things to change and reinterpret. Their task was not at all easy.  They didn’t fail at ALL, but they fell short a little. And I’m not sure how it could have been corrected without greatly lengthening the time of the movie, but I’m hoping they figure it out by the time Catching Fire comes out. It was so close to being right—but it just lacked. It just wasn’t quite there yet.

Maybe a better soundtrack would help? A musical montage to communicate the passage of time as Katniss and Peeta hid out in the cave (with more kissing, or at least some believable signs of affection). That might have been disastrous. I don’t know…. It just needed more.

There were two portrayals that I truly enjoyed, that did not fall short. One of them really surprised me, but the other didn’t surprise me at all.

The one that surprised me was Lenny Kravitz’s portrayal of Cinna. When I heard that he was playing Cinna, I got angry. I had no idea that man could act. I just always thought of him as the guy who didn’t sing “American Woman” as well as “The Guess Who.” I had this picture of Cinna in my mind that greatly conflicted with the image I had of Lenny Kravitz. Yet, I was blown away at how well he did. Of course, I do believe the writers gave him a lot of good stuff to work with, but he was very convincing. Now, when I read The Hunger Games books, I’m probably going to picture him as Cinna. …and can I just say that I was SO relieved that they remembered to include the gold eyeliner. So important for Cinna!

The other actor that completely impressed me was Josh Hutcherson as Peeta! They gave him a lot to work with, as well, but the actor perfectly captured Peeta’s humility, winning personality, and loyalty towards Katniss. Honestly, Peeta is my favorite character from the series, and I was happy that he lived up to all my expectations. Katniss didn’t always impress me in how she related to him, but I was almost always impressed at how he acted and reacted. So Peeta! So perfect!

But overall, the characters, their relationships, the emotion…it just wasn’t there. It was almost there. So close. Just not close enough.

There are little nitpicky things I have, too. The filmmaker’s seemed to think it was important to add all this Appalachian feel to the movie—I even heard they specifically looked for actors from Kentucky.  But see, as a native Kentuckian (from central KY—from a county that’s technically considered to be on the very western edge of the Appalachian mountains, but really isn't Appalachian.  At all.), I know that Louisville (where Jennifer Lawrence is from) isn’t Appalachia.  Eastern Kentucky is really the only part of Kentucky that can be considered Appalachia.  District 12?  Especially the eastern EDGE of District 12?  That’s probably West Virginia, folks.  I’m just sayin’.  But none of that matters much, because the Appalachian thing didn’t work well.  Why? Because they attempted to pull it off and almost succeeded, but again—it just wasn’t enough.

Maybe if they’d had Taylor Swift sing some folksy songs DURING the movie instead of waiting till the credits…? I don’t know. Actually, I kind of wish they’d just stop trying. It doesn’t add that much, and there’s other more important stuff the filmmakers can work on without trying to be cute in adding “Appalachian flavor” that they obviously don’t understand.

I like that it was filmed around Asheville, NC, though. Those are “my” mountains in that movie.

Another little bitty nitpick? Yeah, I’m going to sound really petty for this, but it bothers me. I’m not upset about the fact that Peeta’s eyes are supposed to be blue, and in the movie they’re brown. That’s not a big deal. It doesn’t bother me. The brown eyed Peeta was really convincing. So I’m not one of those people who gets upset about minor details being wrong.

Except, it REALLY bothered me that Buttercup the cat wasn’t yellow/orange. Petty right? Well, I can’t help it. The cat was only shown for like half a second, long enough to hiss at Katniss, but it was a black and white cat. And this bothers me so much for two reasons: 1) What kind of a black and white cat is called “Buttercup”?, and 2) HOW HARD IS IT TO FIND AN ORANGE CAT, PEOPLE? Seriously…I could go out behind Walmart and find you twenty orange cats hanging out at the dumpsters. If I were making a film and needed an orange cat to hiss at the camera for a split second, I’m pretty sure I could find one. I wouldn’t feel the need to resort to some other color of cat. Orange cats aren’t an endangered species, people. Seriously? Seriously.

So, I guess if I had to summarize my thoughts on the film adaptation of The Hunger Games, I’d have to say that I really liked it, but it wasn’t enough. There was just something missing. I think they were so close to having it just right, and maybe they will figure things out while working on Catching Fire. Maybe.  ...and maybe I'll lower my expectations, too...though I doubt it.

I guess all I can say at this point is:

May the odds be ever in our favor….

Friday, March 2, 2012

Fiction Friday: Thoughts on the Film Adaptation of Breaking Dawn, Part One

(Spoilers Ahead! If you haven’t seen the movie or read the book, you might not want to read this. You’ve been warned.)


It was my full intention to wait until Part Two of Breaking Dawn was out on DVD before renting and viewing both parts. However, the other day when I came home, I found that my roommate had rented Part One from Redbox. Since I had nothing better to do (insert hollow laugh here), I went ahead and watched it.

I’m about to make a mistake that a lot of wanna-be authors make. I’m about to criticize a popular book (in fact, a popular book series) on my blog, which might just get me black-balled by some literary agents and publishers (but then again, Jodi Reamer, Stephenie Meyer’s agent, already rejected me—her assistant sent me the nicest rejection response I’ve ever received, though!). Maybe it would be wiser to live by the mantra, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nuthin’ at all.” –Thumper, Disney’s Bambi

Too bad I’m a bigger fan of Thumper’s other famous quote, “Eating greens is a special treat. They give long ears and great big feet. But it sure is awful stuff to eat.”

Moving along now….

It has been a while since I read the book, Breaking Dawn, and honestly, I’m not sure if I’ll ever take the time to read it again. I went through a brief but glorious “Twihard” phase a few years ago, right about the time the novel Breaking Dawn came out. I couldn’t get enough of the books during the first read. By the second read, I thought they were good, but they had some obvious problems. By the third read, I thought they were laughable. Don’t get me wrong. Stephenie Meyer is a really good writer. Her biggest problem is that she needs to learn to edit, and dare I say that someone out there in the publishing world should have caught on to that before publishing her hundreds of pages of “Bella-Babble.” The Twilight books are not the worst thing ever written, but they’re all sparkle (any vampire puns are unintentional, I assure you) and no shine. They’re fun books, and there is nothing wrong with reading just for fun—but I prefer reading books that can both be fun and have depth. I have enjoyed Twilight and will continue to enjoy Twilight (in small doses), but I don’t take it at all seriously. In fact, I find the movies comical—especially the first one. I’ve actually had a couple parties where all my friends came over and we MST3K’d the crap out of the film version of Twilight. Good times.

Well, the movies have gotten progressively better since the first cheesy film. As movies go, Breaking Dawn didn’t suck (was that another vampire pun?). As far as I can remember, it was pretty darn close to the book. I even remember some of the lines being word-for-word the same. They beefed up the action in a way that made for better visuals. Most of the love scenes were paced well. I also appreciated the way the filmmakers worked some of the musical themes (and at times, even the same songs) from the other three movies into scenes in Breaking Dawn. Even though the latest film in the series is so much better made than the first film, the use of music and imagery from the first film tied the series together in a really good way. I’m actually looking forward to seeing if they continue this trend in the second part.

I have to admit at this point that Breaking Dawn: Part One actually made me cry.

Hold your horses. Don’t get carried away. Let me ‘splain.

I’m a writer. I’ve written novels. I’ve written novels, (and edited them a lot) and I hope to get them published. I would love to have some of them made into movies. My favorite part of watching the credits of ANY film adaptation of a novel is seeing that “Based on a novel by…” credit. It’s my favorite part because I dream of the day when I’ll see a film credit that says, “Based on a novel by A. R. Campbell.” I have a feeling that if that ever happens, when I first see it, I’ll be laughing and crying at the same time.

Well, during the wedding scene in Breaking Dawn Part One, as Bella was walking down the aisle, the camera drifted across the faces of all the people who had been important in Bella’s life. There was her family, her friends from school, …and this lady. The camera froze for a full second or two on this lady. I looked at the lady and understood that she was important, but I couldn’t remember why. I’m glad I was watching at home, because I skipped back and watched the scene again so I could figure out who the lady was.

As the camera froze on her again, I realized who she was. Stephenie Meyer. The author of the books. The look on her face was just amazing—she was looking at an interpretation of one of her characters, a character that was no doubt as important to her as a friend, perhaps even as important to her as a child. She was watching her character come to life, walking through an interpretation from a scene in her story. The combination of that joyous, wondrous look on Meyer’s face and the realization that she was an important person in Bella’s life, so important that they gave her that one brief scene in the movie—that’s what brought tears to my eyes. It wasn’t really the movie, but the poignant moment where an author had the unique ability to be inside her own story—if only in a souped up Hollywood sense.

…moving on again…

There were, of course, things I didn’t like about the film. Most of these things had to do with the fact that I’m basically over Twilight. Watching Edward and Bella “be in love” really doesn’t make for good entertainment, at least not for me. I’m sure there are still several people out there who eat that stuff up, and well, I guess this film is better suited for them. Most things were done well, but it didn't personally entertain me.
The acting was not the best I’ve seen, and I have a feeling that it has little to do with the actual actors. I’ve seen most of the actors in other films, and they’ve done well. I recently watched Robert Pattinson in Water for Elephants, and was pleasantly surprised by his believable performance. Twilight’s directors haven’t really thought much outside the box since that crazy director lady on crack Catherine Hardwicke set the standard for cardboard angst acting. There were some better performances than others. Taylor Lautner is perfect for the role of Jake (but then, he has something to work with). Billy Burke has always done a wonderful job (TEAM CHARLIE)! Other than that, I just think there are a lot of good actors who don’t get much of a chance to shine, as well as a handful of really crappy actors who take up far too much screen time for my taste (Jessica's wedding speech made me want those fifteen seconds or whatever of my life back).

I also have to say that the “Wolf Council” scene (if you’ve seen it, you know exactly what I’m talking about) was probably one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen in any movie. The Twilight films have never done a good job with canine CGI. The wolves looked fake. I can handle a fake CGI wolf, though. The thing that made the whole scene laughable was not the way the wolves looked; it was the way they sounded. Sam and Jake had this “show-down” that I’m sure was meant to be suspenseful and perhaps even scary. Me? I laughed through the entire scene. “I SNARL am the SNARL grandson of SNARL Ephraim Black SNARL blah SNARL blah blah SNARL.” It was so horribly done, but it made for some good comic relief between the "Edward and Bella love each other forever! WE GET IT!" scenes.

I do have to give kudos (not the candy granola bar, calm down) to the people who did Kristen Stewart’s makeup and special effects magic. I had absolutely no idea that she could look even more anorexic than she already does. I mean, seriously. The girl already looks like she could stand to eat a cheeseburger—or twelve. They managed to make her look even thinner. And you know, if you think about it, it probably sends a good message to teenage girls: if you’re too thin, you’ll make your vampire lover feel guilty. I kid! I kid! Seriously, I really do think the special effects were done well, and moreover, I feel that the filmmakers did a good job with the imagery. They clearly communicated that her thinness was unnatural, that she was deathly sick (or being starved by her unborn vampire halfling child—same same). …but for real, Stewart. Eat a cheeseburger.

Speaking of the unborn vampire halfling child, I also appreciated the Pro-Life message in the book and film. I mean, it was a really bizarre Pro-Life message, but it was Pro-Life nonetheless. I like that Bella sacrificially loved her unborn child, willing to give her life to keep the baby safe. I like that Rosalie was so protective of the child, getting angry when the others called it a “fetus.” I like that Edward was able to read the thoughts of the child, communicating that unborn vampire halflings are people, too.

And another good moral message from Breaking Dawn: Don't sleep with your vampire lover until you're married.  And by "sleep with," I mean "have sex."  But it's perfectly okay for your vampire lover to make out in bed with you, then later watch you while you sleep.  That's perfectly moral and not at all creepy.  Riiiight.

All in all, I did enjoy the film. I won’t be rushing out to purchase it or anything, but it wasn’t a waste of time at all. It’s just Twilight, and well, it is what it is. I enjoy it. I think it’s fun. But when it’s over, it’s over. I go back to my life and don’t think about it…

…except for when I start growling in my ridiculous fake wolf voice, because that is some funny stuff....