The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1

I am well aware that in writing this review, I am addressing an army of teenage girls the size of which hasn't been seen since Justin Bieber was spotted doing a kissogram in Blackpool. The seemingly religious following which the Twilight Saga has created has bemused many but obviously reflects a certain quality which runs throughout all the films and which appeals to a very specific demographic. The first three Twilight films made over $1,800,900,000 and have become one of the most financially successful film franchises of all time. The second film, New Moon, broke box office records by having the biggest midnight screening and opening day receipts in history. Not bad for a series which many critics have dismissed quicker than an offer for a free massage from Edward Scissorhands.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1 (what a snappy title!) has been eagerly anticipated by the fans and, for the most part, positively received by them. However, the vast majority of critics have given it very unfavourable reviews and, for the most part, I disagree. In order to give Breaking Dawn a proper appraisal, it is necessary to watch it bearing in mind the audience at which it is targeted. Directed by Bill Condon, the fourth instalment follows Bella (Kristen Stewart) as she marries vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and falls pregnant. As the child grows inside her, it soon becomes clear that Bella's life is in danger and that the birth of a vampire-human will create new problems for the vampire coven and their rivals, the werewolf pack. The film started with what has become the Twilight trademark; Taylor Lautner took his shirt off, Robert Pattinson gave his 'I'm about to eat you' look and Kristen Stewart delivered her lines with as much enthusiasm as if her pet dog had just died. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. But what I'm trying to say is that the first half of the film follows the formulaic style which has made the previous films so popular – that is to say, a focus on Bella and Edward's relationship. Many have called this first half slow, dull and uneventful. I have to say that, whilst it did have some pacing issues, the first half explored Bella and Edward's relationship in a way which had not been done before. Condon brings a sense of inwardness and intimacy to the two characters and their predicament which, by definition, takes a lot of screen time to develop.

This instalment has lost a certain edge that the first film had and looks less distinctive in terms of cinematography. Gone are the blue filters which permeated Twilight, to be replaced by a warmer, more aesthetically-pleasing colour scheme – a nod to Bella and Edwards deepening relationship? I think not. But either way, the visuals looked a bit too Hollywood and a bit too polished and I think this is a shame as the original film almost had a Gothic-esque look to it which I liked very much. I was also unsure about the soundtrack which at times felt obtrusive and totally unsuited to the drama playing out on screen. On another level, the 12A certificate was a surprise as the content of the film (not so much the sex, but the blood and body horror) was definitely bordering on a 15 rating. I reckon the distributors slipped the BBFC a cheeky tenner and a signed Taylor Lautner calendar. These issues aside, my overall response to the film was positive. I am in no way a fan of Twilight and Breaking Dawn is not the sort of film you'd go to see (having not seen any of the others) on a rainy Sunday afternoon if there was nothing else on at your local multiplex. The film, by its very definition, requires the audience to be a fan.

And that is what annoys me the most about critics' reviews of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1. The vast majority make no attempt to consider the film in terms of 'fandom'; there's nothing seriously wrong with the film and it works within the context of a fan audience. The fact that (as this goes to 'print') on RottenTomatoes.com, Breaking Dawn was liked by 28% of critics compared to 92% of the audience, speaks volumes. The phrase 'this film wasn't made for the critics' is banded about all too frequently but in this case, I think it is adept. The teenage girl audience is often ignored by Hollywood which, instead, tends to produce series of films for teenage guys (Transformers, Star Wars, Die Hard) and when the occasional teen girl flick does come along, it is lambasted by critics as infantile drivel. Breaking Dawn, Part 1 is not high art. But that's okay. It works within the context in which it was produced. And you know what? It's high-time some critics got over themselves. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Immortals

My viewing of Immortals (in 2D!) will always stick in my mind. Why, I hear you ask? Well, it was the first time I'd been to the cinema where I'd been the only person in the audience. And boy, was it good. I could pick my own seat, right in the middle of the auditorium, with no-one sat in front of me to disrupt my view and no inconsiderately tall person sat behind me, kicking my seat every two minutes. There were no rustling crisp packets, no buckets of over-priced popcorn and no mobile phones constantly vibrating and illuminating the auditorium as if guiding a plane into land. Perfect. If only the film had lived up to this.

Immortals is loosely based on Greek mythological characters, namely Theseus (Henry Cavill) and his struggle against the evil King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke). Throw in a few gods, more topless men than you could shake a bottle of baby oil at and you've got yourself Hollywood's answer to Homer's Iliad. Now, I'll start off with the positives. The film, directed by Tarsem Singh, has an unusual visual style which almost works. There's a heavy use of CGI and, whilst it's proficiently executed, it lacked the flair which would have lifted the film up a level. In general, the costumes and sets were interestingly constructed, although the costumes of one or two of the characters looked as if they'd been hired from the Old Vic's Christmas production of Aladdin (and no, this isn't a good thing). The key to any film of this nature is, of course, its action sequences which, I have to say, were paced rather well. The violence in these sequences was graphic, but not totally over-the-top and worked within the context of the narrative. In general, however, the narrative felt slightly disjointed and the action sequences seemed to occur in isolation. Things were not helped by sections of dialogue which could have been written by a primary school child.

The performances were flat and forgettable and even John Hurt seemed to be floundering against a cast which had as much twinkle as a wet sparkler. And then there's Mickey Rourke. As the megalomaniac King Hyperion, his performance is suitably dark but, at times, I found it difficult to understand what he was saying. His trademark 'my-vocal-chords-have-been-attacked-with-a-cheese-grater' voice may have suited the dark character he was portraying but at times it verged on the comedic. But again, his character (along with all the others) lacked a depth or back story which would have made the film all the more enjoyable. Cavill's Theseus was also very two-dimensional and this resulted in an overall absence of empathy towards his predicament. It would seem that the writers bypassed characterisation in favour of muscle.

An obvious point of comparison for this film would be Leterrier's Clash of the Titans or Snyder's 300 (the Immortals poster boasts the same producers as 300). Whilst Immortals lacks the distinctive visual punch of 300, it is certainly comparable in terms of violence. As I've said, I felt the violence in the battle sequences was justified but I was slightly unconvinced by certain scenes in King Hyperion's court. It's interesting to note that the BBFC cut the film at the request of the distributor in order for the film to achieve a 15 rating. In the words of the BBFC, cuts were made to remove 'the bloody focus on a throat being cut, reducing the focus on young women dying, having been burnt...the focus on eye gouging...the shot of a beheading, and reducing some focus on large splashes of blood resulting from characters being killed'. Whilst the cut version is still graphic, I think, contextually, it's much more appropriate. Full marks to the BBFC.

So, my overwhelming feeling towards Immortals? It's as flat as a Yorkshireman's cap and it could have been much tighter, deeper and more emotive. Basically, I sat down on my own, in a deserted cinema, some stuff happened in front of me and I left. That's it. But one thing's for sure: immortal they ain't.

Clapperboard Rating: * *

The Help

This film should never have been made. In fact, it's a sad testament to humanity that it was. I don't mean that it's a bad film: merely that the events portrayed in the film are based on fact. The film shouldn't have been made because there shouldn't have been a history for it to take place in. But the fact remains that there was. And this is what makes The Help all the more heartbreaking.

It was with a degree of trepidation that I went to watch The Help as I had read, and very much enjoyed, the book by Kathryn Stockett on which it is based. Film adaptations of novels are always a risk – they can go one of three ways. The film can capture the essence of the book perfectly, remaining faithful to the original text and therefore become as celebrated as the book itself. On the other hand, a film adaptation can re-interpret the original text, approaching the themes from a new and exciting angle. Or, finally, a film adaptation can totally destroy the heart of the original text as if the film makers decided it would be a laugh to reinterpret something in the manner of Katie Price's cover of 'A Whole New World' (for example, the awful film that was The Time Traveler’s Wife). I can happily say that The Help does not fall into this last category. As with the novel, the film follows aspiring author and society girl Skeeter Phelan as she attempts to write a book giving the view point of the black domestic help in white households in 1960s Mississippi. At first she finds it difficult to find any maids willing to open up and tell their stories but when Skeeter's best friend's maid, Aibileen, agrees to talk, it soon becomes clear that they are playing with fire.

First off, the performances are terrific, with Viola Davis as the tortured and life-weary Aibileen giving a performance which is surely an Oscar-contender. A strong cast, including Emma Stone as Skeeter and Bryce Dallas Howard as the fearsome Hilly Holbrook, makes the story all the more touching and creates a world which seems removed and alien but unnervingly real. The cinematography is graceful and perfectly captures 1960s small-town America, as do the superb costumes and hairstyles, with more beehives in sight than in an episode of Winnie the Pooh. The script worked well and struck the right balance between comedy and drama and this coupling of humour and serious drama worked wonders. The sad moments in the film (and trust me, there more than a few) work so well and have such an effect on the audience because, five minutes previously, you were laughing. However, this mixing of emotions is where the film fell down slightly. Such a serious issue such as civil rights deserves to be treated thoroughly and I felt that, in general, the film seemed to gloss-over the issue, giving a prettified and superficial representation of the troubles. This is not to say that the film did not try to address such issues but I felt that it didn't go far enough.

At 2 hours, 26 minutes, The Help is longer than your average film but the plot is so well paced and the narrative so engaging that it is hardly noticeable. The interactions between the maids and their employers are at times confrontational, funny, disturbing, warm and uplifting and it is these scenes which are the stand out moments in the film. The second half of the film is, no doubt, both powerful and devastating. If you fail to be moved by Aibileen's denouement then, I'm sorry, you're not a fully formed human being. Even though I'd read the book and knew what was coming, I was still an emotional wreck by the final shot and, you know what, I don't care. Even though every opportunity to tug at your heartstrings is exploited to the full, the nature of the film demands that you go along with it and that, in my mind, is no bad thing. Viola Davis' performance demonstrates just how effective a look or gesture can be and how it can replace a thousand words of dialogue. This performance was the highlight of the film. A sensitive score by the incomparable Thomas Newman reflected perfectly the domestic drama which was unfolding and certainly aided in tear production levels.

It is a sad fact that the film is based on reality – a reality that most Americans would rather forget. But The Help should be celebrated, just as the book is, for addressing such an important and emotive topic and I'm glad it has been made. This film will climb the Box Office Top Ten, as it deserves to, and the characters, performances and overall narrative make it worth seeing. Be prepared to have your heart broken, laugh uncontrollably and be taken on an emotional ride which is worth twice the ticket price. But ladies, please, wear waterproof mascara.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * 

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

First off, let me hold my hands up and say that I haven't read any of the Tintin Adventures and I'm sure I'm missing out on a rich, vibrant and exciting series of comic books which have been lovingly read by generations. So it was with this general ignorance of all things Belgian-related that I watched The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (the colon suggesting there are more films to follow). And let's say I was pleasantly surprised.

From the directorial juggernaut that is Steven Spielberg and producer Peter Jackson, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn follows Tintin and his faithful dog Snowy on their first adventure with Captain Haddock as they track down the lost treasure of Haddock's ancestor. What ensues is your fairly run-of-the-mill adventure with more smashed booze bottles and fights than down at your local Wetherspoons on a Friday night. The most interesting aspect of the film has to be its animation. Using motion capture cameras to film live action and then convert it into digital animation, the film is very striking. The locations are visually stunning (especially during the harbour chase sequence in Bagghar) and the attention to detail breathtaking. The animation is so realistic that I kept having to remind myself that I wasn't watching a live action film. This may sound a bit weird but, genuinely, it looks so real. If you're the type of person with a bit of a hand fetish, go and see this film as the characters' hands really are a thing of beauty (blimey, I never thought I'd say something like that!). Anyway, enough of how good it looks. Trust me, it's amazing. It's just a shame that other aspects of the film don't live up to the visuals.

The plot was...um...okay. Just okay. Nothing special, just...adequate. It took a little while to get going but, once it did, the plot did produce some spectacular set pieces (such as the fantastic fight on the pirate ship) which were made all the better by the fantastic animation. Spielberg's stamp was all over the film, both in terms of style and the slightly nostalgic and warm script which was fairly witty and did raise a few chuckles. Some solid voice acting from Jamie Bell in the title role, along with cinema giants such as Daniel Craig, Toby Jones, Andy Serkis and Simon Pegg, made the film very enjoyable. And yet, I felt that the character of Tintin was a bit of a let down. The character felt a bit flat and, ironically for a film in 3D, slightly two dimensional. There was no emotional depth and no back story to Tintin's character and it felt like he'd lost his personality somewhere between filming and the editing studio. In other words, Tintin's character had as much personality as a school dinner lady with gastroenteritis. Hopefully, however, this will be resolved in the next film which, I have to say, I am already looking forward to. And why am I looking forward to it? Because it's a good, Sunday afternoon film which you can just sit back and enjoy. Not effort required. And I mean this in a good way.

I liked the approach to the action sequences, specifically the fight scenes, where there was no shying away from violence which is often seen in films aimed at a younger audience. I don't mean it was very violent, just that the violence was justified in context and made the situations seem more realistic. In terms of characterisation, children will obviously love Tintin's dog Snowy who, in many ways, had more of a spark behind the eyes than Tintin. Moreover, I felt that the bowler-hatted Inspectors Thompson and Thompson could have made much more of a comedic impact than they did: the potential was there but, ultimately, the two characters served little purpose in the narrative. Despite its flaws, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn remains a fun and enjoyable film, which provides enough for both children and adults to keep them entertained and demonstrates what good animation can do to a film. However, a word of warning. Don't stare at Tintin's quiff for too long – it gets scarily hypnotic.

P.S. See it in 2D. Much better than 3D. And you'll save some money for the bus home.

Clapperboard Rating: * * *