Man Of Steel

Bombastic and ambitious, Man Of Steel creatively re imagines the Superman mythos for the modern audience. It lacks in acting, pacing and story, but makes up for it in sheer spectacle.

In response to the massive success of Marvel's Avengers franchise, DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. have unveiled their plans to create a Justice League film, featuring iconic comic book characters such as Superman and Batman.

While Batman has found great success on film recently, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight series was heavily grounded in reality, delving deep into the psychology of its central figure. Not the stuff of science-fantasy franchise building. But in the wake of Batman's success, Nolan was brought on board (along with Dark Knight writer David Goyer) to develop Superman into a story that could not only resonate with today's audience, but could also form the foundation for a whole series of DC-universe blockbusters that could intersect and expand.

The two super-powers of the comic book film franchising realm are clashing, and in the glorious carnage, we the audience are about to reap the benefits. Or endure the consequences. It's hard to say, really, whether this kind of film making is good for the industry or not.

"New" Hollywood tactics - of throwing as much money as possible at a film, and having it appeal to the widest audience possible - have been around for well over 30 years now. Has anything changed? Today's industry, it seems, is exacerbating the trend started by Star Wars and Jaws, with bigger budgets, bigger marketing, stronger branding, deeper pockets to be emptied and refilled. What do we call films like The Avengers, and the Justice League project? Mega-blockbusters? AAAA movies?

Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness is a perfect continuation of a supremely well-executed reboot. It draws on the old lore, builds on the new, with a balance that will likely please both the casual audience and the hardcore.

(This review will spoil some major plot developments from J.J. Abram's first Star Trek.)

Star Trek Into Darkness takes the solid foundation of the first film, and builds on it fantastically. The aesthetic of 2009's Star Trek remains with the action scenes, the creatively envisioned future gadgetry  and even the infamous lens flare. Yes, the first film caught a bit of flak for the incessant lights that seemed dialed up to 11, but this film tones it down only a touch. It's no longer blinding, but it's familiar and consistent with the feel of the first film. Good compromise.

J.J. Abrams 2009 effort to reboot one of sci-fi geekdom's most well known franchises was perhaps the most brilliantly executed in reboot history. Recasting new faces as iconic characters, Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), the trick they pulled in that film was to make the new series occur in a parallel universe; one affected by time travel. Different from the original series, but with the same characters and settings (well, minus Vulcan).

What made it really work was the presence of old Spock, played by the original actor, Leonard Nimoy. Nimoy's presence in the film served both to tie it in with the old series; acknowledging its existence, and also allowed the new series to take it's own direction with this slightly altered timeline. It was like the old franchise was giving its blessing that the new one be made, and be made differently. And how different it is! Unlike previous iterations, Star Trek was an action/adventure blockbuster, and a good one at that.

Iron Man 3

In Marvels ongoing quest for world domination via massive interconnected blockbuster franchises, Iron Man 3 is utterly expected, but full of surprises. A step down from The Avengers, but a big step up from Iron Man 2.

Disney/Marvel's Iron Man film franchise has never looked more cartoonish than in the closing credits of Iron Man 3. Unlike the previous films, which featured first line drawings, then comic-strip style illustrations splashing across the screen to the music, this film uses live action snippets from the film, and from the gag reel (I believe). Despite the photo-realism, the mad-dash editing and brisk musical beat give it the feel, more than ever, of a Saturday morning cartoon title sequence.

It's a fine and fitting credit sequence, but I mention it because it's representative of where the franchise has been heading. Iron Man, way back in 2008 took a fairly realistic approach to the superhero film. It featured topical themes, and only barely stretched the boundaries of realistic technology. It was unique at the time. There have been a slew of more recent films that have connected with the original Iron Man, using that film's established credibility, and expanding its universe to include a large array of colourful characters who have been referenced and cameoed to no end in this ambitious project. And with each little step, this universe has grown further and further from our own; straining credibility both in the science-fiction aspects (which might as well be labelled fantasy at this stage), and with the fundamental principles of reality, such as the fact that a mere mortal cannot survive (let alone continue to fight) after a certain amount of force is applied to the body. All this is to say that Iron Man 3 continues Marvel's franchise-wide trend of turning this world that looks like ours into their own thoroughly cartoonish one.

Django Unchained

Django is by no means Tarantino's best - far from it in fact. However, by the very nature of what the film is about, it may wind up being one of the most important things he's ever done.

Films about slavery are few and far between. In my lifetime, I've seen one - Amazing Grace from 2006. Wikipedia lists twelve (three of those are set for release in 2012 or 2013). A scant few compared with  many hundreds - if not thousands - of films that have been made about the greatest crime against humanity in the twentieth century; holocaust films.

After the holocaust came a swell of films about the holocaust; providing an outlet for the widespread feelings of anger, horror, repentance and regret. They came from all sorts of countries, but German cinema especially was shaped by a generation of Germans looking back on their past. Likewise, in the wake of the Vietnam war, there were a flood of films that depicted the horrors that unfolded there, and called into question America's longstanding pride in superiority in warfare. The scars of the Vietnam war are still there, but it has been 'dealt with' on a cultural level. These films helped entire nations move on from the mistakes they've made; they are a result of and a part of the healing process. It's a trend that has gone on for centuries, and we see it now in today's trend of movies about wars in the Middle East.

But America hasn't finished dealing with its past yet. Django Unchained is an important movie because it is an American film about American slavery before the civil war. The practice is arguably more inhuman than the holocaust; treating entire people groups as animals to be commanded, traded, and bred. It was widespread around the world, and lasted far longer than the holocaust or any other genocide (for a solid rundown on the context of slavery, click here). And as I said before, there is relatively little in American popular culture that reflects on precisely what transpired across those decades.

Dr. No

The first in the Bond franchise is only really remarkable in light of its legacy.

James Bond is a legendary figure of pop culture. First envisioned by author Ian Flemming in 1953 in his novel, Casino Royale, the name has become synonymous with the film series, and the universally recognized catch phrase; "Bond... James Bond." Dr. No was made in 1962, and was the first in a long, long, line of films featuring James Bond, with several actors playing the role of the central character (and others) throughout the 50 year run.

The first film opens unexpectedly with three goofy looking old men crossing the street, to the tune of 'Three Blind Mice'. This strangeness abruptly gives way to thriller material when the three men break into a building and kill everyone inside. This prompts MI6, to send their best man. Here we meet James Bond, suave agent of British Intelligence. He's introduced to us in a nightclub, playing poker, because that's what gentlemen do. We see him briefed by his superior, 'M', and given a different pistol by 'Q' (a shadow of the scene in later films), and flown off to Jamaica to investigate.

Gangster Squad

From the director of the fresh, funny, surprising Zombieland comes something utterly mediocre.

Gangster squad is set in late 1940s Los Angeles, with the city under the control of real life gangster Mickey Cohen. Hotheaded but honest cop John O'Mara, played by Josh Brolin, is chosen to put together a squad off the books to wage guerrilla warfare against the 'enemy occupation' of drug runners, whorehouse overseers and tommy gun toting gangsters that wear the badge of Mickey Cohen.

This true story is exaggerated into life on the big screen with stylish flair. Fast forward and slo-mo is liberally applied to the competent action beats to give them a glossy sheen. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone provide the sex appeal as the sexy cop and sexy femme fatale (although unlike real femme fatales, Stone's character is a good girl pretending to be bad). O'Mara and his wife give moral grounding and warm fuzziness. Giovanni Ribisi plays the gang's tech expert and sympathetic family man (after O'Mara),  while Max Kennard plays the gunslinging bad-ass and Michael Peña his junior partner and part time comic relief.  There's also a black guy who's good with knives, because every team needs a black guy and someone who uses knives. So I guess they saved money by rolling them into one? Anyway, he's played by Anthony Mackie and he's pretty bad-ass as well.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is finally here! Epic-ness overload!!!
Like really, way too much.

The Hobbit is one of my favourite books from childhood. I tried to get into Lord Of The Rings, but found it too dense. The Hobbit was a shorter story, on a smaller scale. A straightforward adventure with a tight band of characters. The book indicated links to a larger world and a broader story, but it was really an intimate tale of humble beginnings that built to an epic - but still relatively small - climax.

I feel like the films have gotten this mixed up.

Coriolanus

Shakespeare's elegant verse translates beautifully into this tale of modern warfare... As long as you have the patience for it.

Up until last year, Shakespeare's Coriolanus has never been adapted to film. Is that not astonishing?

Ok, there was a BBC series from the 80s, and it had some decent actors and direction behind it. I watched a little; it's a pretty much your standard BBC Shakespeare. This film is very different.

Coriolanus is tells the tragic tale of a Roman general, Caius Martius (played in the film by director Ralph Fiennes), who wins glory in battle and runs for consulship (similar to presidency) of Rome, urged on by his ambitious mother. The play is about patriotism, rivalry, jealousy, ambition and pride. There's a fair bit of Freudian psychology involved too, but since that wasn't invented when Shakespeare wrote it's a testament to his grasp on human nature that he hits on themes that will fascinate humanity for centuries to come.

Skyfall

Despite lagging a little behind in action movie trends, the newest Bond pulls them off flawlessly, delivering a fantastic spectacle, and reigniting the franchise's potential.

Like my little blog that lags behind schedule, and reviews films after they've been in theatres for a month, James Bond returns with all the action movie tropes you've seen in other films over the past few years, complete with the motorcycle chase from The Bourne Legacy. That's not to say the Brit's are lacking in originality; Bourne didn't hijack a caterpillar on a flatbed, and use it to rip a hole in a train carriage in order for him to board. Bourne just kind of ended.

There's a lot in Skyfall that riffs off recent action films. There's also a lot that riffs off the rich history of the character in the past 50 years. For Christmas I received the Bond 50 collection, and as I work my way through them I'll be posting reviews for each. So while I had to look up a few of the references in this film, I expect over time I will grow to appreciate it more.

And please hear me: I really, really enjoyed this movie.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2

Apart from a few really clever surprises, Twilight is mediocre on every level. This is no Harry Potter finale.

Yes, it's nice to know that The Twilight Saga has finally drawn to a close. Despite its occasional hilarity, its importance in popular culture today is somewhat disturbing to me.

I'll start with the good.

The opening credits in Breaking Dawn Part 2 are really pretty. All those close ups of snow and roses freezing and melting... great stuff.

Plot-wise there are a couple of moments that stand out; when Edward makes a rousing 5 second speech, all the vampires from around the room pledge to join him in the fight. One vampire turns to another and says "That was easy." My thoughts exactly. Billy Burke gets one good scene in which he watches Taylor Lautner strip - It's intentionally very funny. The best jokes in the film are the ones with an air of self-referential mockery about them, and the the film doesn't suffer for them.

What I don't think was intentionally funny was when the Cullen's give Edward and Bella a house as a gift. "It's perfect" says Bella, having barely had time to glance at the thing.

The Bourne Legacy

Awkwardly woven into the plot of the previous trilogy, The Bourne Legacy does as it's supposed to: it cashes in on past successes, and delivers a good enough film to sell tickets.

Sometimes sequels can be great things. They can develop a character, expand a world, explore new ideas, deliver new thrills, and make a healthy profit for the movie industry - all built upon the foundation of an earlier film. The Bourne franchise has had its fair share of this; The Bourne Identity was a well paced, well executed spy thriller that broke a dry spell of good spy thrillers (just have a look at the Bond movies coming out then). The Bourne Supremacy took the idea further - introduced new well-integrated characters, better explored Jason Bourne's motivations, and dialled up the action to boot. The Bourne Ultimatum improved on everything in Supremacy, and tied things up nicely with a happy - and importantly, non-violent ending.

The Bourne Legacy takes that fantastic foundation, chucks it in the dumpster, and goes on to tell its own mediocre story that taints the beauty of the first three films.

The Dark Knight Rises - The Ending

If you haven't already, read my first post about this film (spoils a few plot details). This post will simply continue that train of thought, but with explicit discussion of the final act of the film.

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW - WATCH THE MOVIE FIRST!

Ok, let's start with some small things.

Alfred leaves Batman. Apparently this is some kind of heresy in Batman lore; Alfred should be loyal to the very end. For this trilogy though... I don't know, I kinda liked it. It was the most emotional scene for me - I felt literally heartbroken as it unfolded; as the consequences of Alfreds well-intentioned lie began to dawn on him. "Let the truth have its day" he says. It resonates well, on a larger scale, with Gordons deception about Harvey Dent exposed to the city. The peace they had tried to establish was founded on untruth, and ultimately usurps them.

So thematically it was consistent, and Micheal Caines acting can seemingly never be faulted... But I guess I just wanted more of Alfred. He says he's leaving, and in the next scene he's gone - just a shot of him getting into a car would be nice. But worse, he never appears again until after the day is saved. I feel like maybe he should have been waiting outside the prison when Batman rises, or contributed to the final fight in some way or other. Again, I want more, though it might have hindered the pace of the film even further.

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is fairly complex for a teen fad series - with solid story, acting, action and characters - I look forward to seeing the next few!

All that build up and finally it's here. This is probably the darkest teen book-made-movie I've ever heard off - it puts all the most interesting elements of The Twilight Saga to shame - in just one film! I'll say right from the start that in light of other popular teenage franchises, the popularity of this series is a positive thing.

Prior to seeing this film, I had just an inkling of what it was about; A bunch of teenagers are forced to fight to the death in a reality tv show in the dystopian future. The hero was a girl. I wasn't that excited for a movie about this - it would probably end up as a dumbed-down, kiddie-friendly Battle Royale, right?

Well, honestly, I can't comment on the Battle Royale comparison, because I haven't seen that movie. Let's be clear though: Battle Royale is not a Japanese Hunger Games; the Hunger Games are are a Western Battle Royale. But dumb and kid-friendly the Hunger Games are not! Take the rating seriously on this one parents, there are some brutal things in this film that your child may not be ready to see. There are also some really smart things in this film.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

The fourth instalment in the 15 year spy series, leading man Tom Cruise brings back the action with spectacular flair. Balls-to-the-wall from start to finish, this spy adventure delivers the thrills, especially on the big screen. Watch this film, and enjoy.

First a few changes to my blog: Spoilers will now be placed 'after the jump'. Everything on the front page of the website, and the front page will be much more compact. Hopefully people are interested enough to click a single button to get to the meatier bits of whatever I'm talking about. Also, I'll write a summary of the film and my opinion at the head of each post, before the picture. I need to work on creating a hook for the post, and encourage people to start reading rather than blabbing on about never getting time to watch movies. Speaking of watching movies, I actually got up off my lazy arse and made it out to the cinema this week! Here's a review of something that's actually screening right now...

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. MI4, some may call it. If they keep at it a few more films, this series will be verging on Bond territory. In short: I loved it. In long: think The Incredibles in live action, with real(ish) people. Or Bourne, with high-tech gadgetry. Or Bond, with failing gadgetry. I'm not in a position to comment on how this film stands with the Mission series as a whole, but from what I've read, this is undoubtably the best of them. The pace is frantic, as the narrative thrusts us from one action set piece to the next, via some short expository interludes. The breathless pacing is matched in every scene by visceral and frenetic action, and more broadly by the urgency of the world-ending threat. This is something close to a perfect action movie. 

Characters have arcs, and a little time is given to each of them, but that's not the point. There's just enough backstory to understand where each member of the team is coming from, and to establish them as a tight group - with a dynamic that ranges from hilarious to occasionally tense, but consistently watchable and entertaining. Given the lack of character moments, the actors contribute hugely to creating this tight sense of belonging in our small group of hapless heroes.

What did I not like? Well, spoilers...

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight

I'm going to do something a little different this week. Firstly, since I was too busy to blog last week, I'm going to write a double post this week - on a series of movies that I love. Secondly, I'm going to start writing my post, then watch the two movies back to back, then finish writing with what stands out to me this time around (my fourth or fifth viewing). 

Some obligatory speculation on what the third instalment in this trilogy will bring will probably be included, but that's not what this post is about. This post is about appreciating a series which has elevated a 'mere' comic book into a spectacular tale interwoven with fantastic production values and deep explorations of themes. This is Christopher Nolans' Batman.

I'll start by saying I have very little history with Batman lore prior to these films. I saw Batman: The Animated Series a few times in my childhood, and I saw Batman action figures aplenty back then as well. I never saw Tim Burtons' films (but I think I remember seeing Batman Forever), and I certainly never saw the 60s serial. I learnt about all these after seeing Batman Begins. 

From what I understand, Spider Man was the movie that demonstrated how a comic book about a super hero had the potential to achieve commercial success as a blockbuster film, with huge crowd appeal and spectacular action. Batman Begins was the first time a comic book character achieved all that and could be taken seriously. The gritty realism in Batman Begins coupled with the believable characters, dark and serious themes and a powerful atmosphere made for a blockbuster that was unique, and thoughtful, unlike much of commercial Hollywood.

The Dark Knight was even more remarkable - firstly because it was a blockbuster sequel that deepened rather than destroyed the canon of the first film. But mostly because it took the comic book blockbuster to a whole new level of credibility. It carried on the themes, characters and world of the first film, but developed them from that origin story. It introduced new elements (most notably the Joker) to discuss different themes, as well as delivering more action and powerful drama. The film played like a conventional crime thriller, and despite the fact it was basically about a man in a bat costume fighting a clown, it was executed so well people were clamouring for a nomination for Best Picture.

There's a lot to be said about both of these films, especially The Dark Knight. My favourite discussion has to be from Christian podcast More Than One Lesson, which explores the underlying philosophies behind Batman and Joker, tracing the latter back to Frederick Nietzsche, and drawing comparisons between TDK and Lord Of The Flies.

And without further ado, I'm going to interrupt this blog with a screening for myself of the films in question. I will be back in a few hours to give my thoughts on the series as a whole, and whatever else springs to mind.

...

...

5 IN-MOVIE HOURS LATER... BRING ON THE SPOILERS!

...

...

Alright, I'm not going to try do this again. It's been 24 hours since I wrote the first half of this post, and spaced out across that time I have watched both Batman movies. Life just gets in the way of everything doesn't it.

I'll start with the big issues of Batman. Justice, for one, is laboured upon heavily in Begins, with the League of Shadows representing an absolute system of justice and punishment, while Batman forges his own path of compassion, intended to inspire redemption of the city. The second film focuses on the role of the hero - as times change, people begin to rise up against the corruption of their city (inspired by Batman), but begin to look to others, such as Harvey, to be the hero.

It is fascinating to see the transformation that goes on in Bruces' mind from grand idealism (in childhood, following his father) to mere vengeance (wanting to kill his parents murderers) to seeking justice (training with the League) to finding a balance between justice and compassion (inspired by Rachel, and in opposition to the League). In TDK he gets even further from his initial concept of justice, leaning more and more towards compassion for the people of Gotham. Eventually he sacrifices his own reputation in order to save that of Harvey Dents'. Jesus parallels abound, and the final montage of TDK sums up his position perfectly: people deserve to have their faith rewarded. Bruce realises that justice is not about revenge, not about balance, not even about himself, the hero, but the thing he started out to create; an idea. Batman symbolised the beginning of the end of corruption in the city, but could not see it through. He had to set aside his lone hero persona, in order to let Gotham save itself.

Initially, it seems, Harvey goes on a similar journey to Bruce Wayne; from the sweeping idealism of the political hero, the good man in the spotlight; to suddenly losing it all, and thirsting for revenge. Who knows, if given time and the right influence, maybe Two-face could have become more like Batman. But Gotham no longer needs Batman; they need a White Knight. And because Batman has taken responsibility for his crimes, Harvey is immortalised in the minds of the people as the ideal; the public face that they can aspire to be.

One scene in TDK reminds me of a video game. It's a shot that spins around the trio of Gordon, Harvey and Batman - in a way that's stylish and effective at presenting them as the three pillars of good in the city - but somehow feels a little like the cutscene right before a mission in a game. Gordon and Harvey argue, while the Batman silently watches; the player character. After some exposition, some character moments, some conflict, the pair of them turn to Batman as if to say 'we've laid it out for you, now go play the level.' Batman of course says yes, because that's always the answer video game heroes give. He then proceeds to Level 10: Hong Kong, where we witness our next action set piece. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Perhaps indicative of the way video games rely on the 'hero' concept for almost every story they tell.

But The Dark Knight shows us Batman as the perfect hero, in a way that most games, and most movies for that matter, don't. Batman is the perfect hero because when it comes time for him to step aside, he does so. More than that, he takes on a heavier burden to allow other people to continue what he started. He set his goals in Batman Begins - to become a symbol and to inspire people to stand against injustice - and stayed true to them to the point of self sacrifice. For most heroes, if it came down to something like that, their pride would get in the way.

It occurs to me now, I've pretty well finished my raving, I haven't said a thing about The Dark Knight Rises. Well, I have high hopes for the film. And having just watched these two, I'm all the more excited. I've heard talk about the idea that Batman may die at the end of the next film. I honestly can't tell whether or not that's something that Christopher Nolan might do! Or something he might want to do, but the studio would never allow. In any case, I feel like that ending would be (on the one hand) appropriate, to completely round out the story, carry the themes of justice and sacrifice, and bring a real gravity to the film. That is, of course, if it is executed well... doubtless it will be though. On the other hand, Batman is a character who should endure. The appropriate ending to a Batman movie is one like the other two we've received; the Dark Knight overcomes all obstacles and ends up standing on a rooftop, surveying his city, which he will continue to defend. Of course, the discussion of Batman passing on his mantle in TDK casts some doubt on that ending, and TDKs ending itself carried some implications for Batman that are bound to make the next film completely and utterly unique, even amongst these two already different films.

In sum: I don't know what's coming, but I sure look forward to it. Batman has lived long enough to see himself become the villain... and don't we all want to know what he'll do next!

Twilight: Breaking Dawn

No, I don't care that its full name is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1. That is not a snappy title for a blog post. Or a movie, for that matter.

So it is I'll admit, with only a twinge of shame, that I saw Breaking Dawn the other night (instead of writing my blog post on time!). Wasn't sure what I was going to write about anyway, so since I've gone and done it I might as well review a popular new release film. I actually enjoyed my experience in the cinema watching this - perhaps in part because my local Hoyts just opened up a new and especially large screen in time for it. Also, I'm grateful that my girlfriend is not a die-hard fan of the series, so if I feel the need to laugh at a scene, she'll just slap me and smirk.

For the purpose of this review, I'll assume a little familiarity with the Twilight franchise, as I'm sure most people probably have. I've only seen the first two movies myself, and never read the books. I'll start with what I liked about Breaking Dawn...

Firstly: the Dad. I liked him from the very first film - not only does he have the best one liners in all the movies (I know he'll be a good husband... Because I own a gun.), but he's the only character I find that I really sympathise with emotionally. As he walks her down the aisle in an early scene, I could feel the conflict inside of him more than whatever Bella was feeling. You can see it in his eyes; he isn't completely sure about the wedding, but he wants his daughter to be happy, and he wants to trust her judgement.

WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW (AS IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS)

There are also two scenes in particular that stand out as awesomely intense - at least in the theatre I was in. One scene when Jacob is fleeing in anger (his main purpose in this film) and Bella... psychically calls him... or something? I don't know, but it was confusing and cool, even if I'm not sure there was a purpose to it. It's solid, well-directed filmmaking, at least for these scenes. The other is the delivery scene, which is pretty graphic and really intense for a series aimed at kids. The sound, the blurriness, the confusion, the imagery, the heavy red saturation... it's a well cut sequence which delivers the horror without the gore of a cross-bred monster tearing its mother apart from the inside. Mind you, once she's out, she's really not that much of a monster. She looks like a normal, albeit 2-month-old, newborn.

And having seen that bit where her back snaps as she goes into labor, I cringe every time I read the title... "Breaking Dawn"

Ok, what was bad? A lot. But I'll try and focus on what stood out for me the most: character relationships.

I may have missed a lot of this love triangle drama in the third film, but what is up with Bella and Jacob? Every scene that these two are in together is really uncomfortable... especially if Edward is also there. I gather they are supposed to be friends? Why do they dance so close, snuggle so much, and have whatever psychic connection nonsense? If she knows how frustrated he is that he can't have her, why does she lead him on like that? If he knows she's just going to tease him, why does he keep coming back? When Edward and Jacob interact it's fine. It's like two dudes have to get stuff done, and they might have some history, but whatever, they're dudes. Bella just brings in an uncomfortable, disconcerting group dynamic whenever she's with them.

In fact, everyone seems so desperate to stick their neck out for Bella... BUT WHY?? She's being stupid and stubborn about something that's dangerous to herself and others. It's like bad news doesn't affect her - in her mind, as long as she acts tough and sees it through it will all be fine. Her well thought-out retort to Jacobs attempts to reason with her is "Everything will be alright." Even in the face of the doctor saying "It will kill you before you can give birth", she's straight down the line. What happened to that anyway? The movie seemed to just ignore that seemingly solid piece of evidence, and proceed with a deus ex machina series of coincidences which systematically saves everyone, and resolves everything peacefully. Don't worry young girls, if you're stubborn enough, the world will be a happier place. Goodness comes from wanting things your way, and getting it.

In short; I don't hate Twilight. What I hate are the lessons that it teaches, and the fact that this franchise is so astoundingly popular. It's not even that surprising, but it is tragic.

PS. Ranting is fun! I hit 800 words... I'm not very good at this cap thing.