Movie Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

Directed by Chris Weitz, 2009, 130 minutes, Starring Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner.



Am I the only person who feels that adapting Stephanie Meyer’s not exactly stellar novels to the big screen actually makes them bearable? Not to mention helps you understand exactly what all the fuss is about. When stripped of Meyer’s atrocious writing, one is actually able to, you know, enjoy what is going on behind it all. The plot is worth finding out and you don’t feel constantly attacked by such prose as, “I was in danger of being distracted by his livid, glorious face”, talk about a turn off.

Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson) are back as the most depressing and rock faced couple you’ll meet this side of Neo and Trinity, along with Jacob the *spoiler for those living in a cave without a TV* Werewolf who obviously serves one purpose in the movie, bet you can guess what it is. Luckily for those think Pattinson died in Harry Potter and should have stayed there, he leaves about twenty minutes into the proceedings, leaving Bella to pout and mope to her hearts content in the months that follow, also leaving the door open for Jacob to step in and make her day, working as an interesting love interest as well as creating quite the supernatural love triangle that begs one simple question, why go back to sparkles?

I guess it’s a testament to either the actors or the characters or the material they are working with that they are actually able to keep your attention. I’m not sure about the actors since there is not really much acting here as reciting of lines that might be painful to listen if we weren’t paying attention to the plot, which you think would be slower then it actually is, but no. Instead you get a good looking film that actually manages to gather your interest from plot point to plot point, removing bits of what made the first Twilight (2008) so flawed, or at least making them not as glaringly noticeable; remember tree climbing and vampire baseball scenes? Unfortunately the rest of us do too.

Really my main problems with New Moon are more issues that can’t be solved by adapting the novels to the screen and are really just nitpicking's from someone who truly does not understand. Why the hell does Edward sparkle? Vampires don’t sparkle, they fizzle, and by fizzle I mean into flames, dust and ashes. What is this bull where the vampire walks into the sun and all you get is SPARKLE! Oh my god, so great! Another issue, and this could be counted as a spoiler I guess, is why does Bella go back to Edward after getting a chance with Taylor “Screw Me I’m Almost 18” Lautner? I mean look at him! He’s got the tan and the abs and doesn’t look like he lives in a perpetual state of self-loathing. Final question, what is it about neutered vampires that set off so many pre-teen girls?

In the end I cannot hold any of these things against the film however, which is a lot better then it should be, at least more entertaining. The Twilight Saga: New Moon represents a decently paced and involving enough two-hours to justify seeing it, if not with a group of friends or at least with the girl you want who goes absolutely gaga over this shit, then a decent way to pass the time, which is what mainstream, big-budget, Hollywood money grabbers are for. The film represents solid entertainment, have at it.

*** out of ****

Movie Review: Love Exposure (2009)

Directed by Sion Sono, 2008, 237 minutes. Starring Yu Tsuoda, Hikari Mitsushima, Sakura Ando.

If you let the running time fool you, then you may miss out on one of the best movie going experiences in years. Love Exposure is an absolute treasure of a movie, a film so well made and marvelously written you cannot help but be pulled in and fully entranced by the magic it works with the time it is given. Director Sion Sono pulls elements from all his previous work together for what may be his best written, although not quite his best, and most epic film to date.

Sion Sono is best known overseas for his 2002 masterpiece Suicide Circle; he has since released other art-house modern classics such as the prequel/sequel to his 2002 film, the 2005 released Noriko’s Dinner Table, the horror film Exte (2007), Hazard (2005) and Strange Circus (2005). If you are worried about quality due to the number of films he may release in any given year, don’t; if there are any problems one may have with any chosen Sion Sono film, quality is not one of them.

The plot is a long and complicated thing that even Sono himself could not condense (the films original six-hour cut was cut down to two-hours at the besieging of producers, but the cut was supposedly incomprehensible). The film is essentially a character study based around themes of religious guilt, the perception of perversion, mans nature and of course – the one you can never seem to get away from – love, among many, many others. Yu Honda is the son of a windowed Catholic priest, who begins to ask him one of the inescapable questions in the Catholic faith, “what sins have you committed today?” To give answer to his fathers incessant questioning of his souls daily unrest, Yu goes seeking out new sins day to day, eventually finding his talents lie in pedestrian panty shots, this also works to help Yu achieve his ultimate goal: find the girl of the dreams (who will undoubtedly be the only girl to turn him on), or his “Maria” as he refers to her. Wouldn’t you know that one day he finds her, a misandrist who takes far too much pleasure in her job destroying houses and beating the shit out of any unlucky beau who is unfortunate enough to stare at her sideways. Also, who is Aya Koike and what is her connection to the sinister Zero Church?

Still not getting how this is enough to successfully fill over four-hours of film? Well fear not, because Sono’s fantastic editing, pacing and use of music help move the film along with its plot to keep you thoroughly involved until the very end. During the introduction for the film at the Tokyo Filmex, director Sion Sono assured the audience the film would be “over in a flash.” While I was not there to attend that screening, I cannot say I have argued with him once it was finished. The film is one of the most magnificently edited films I have seen since JFK (1991), constantly moving at a bullets pace from scene to scene without ever losing you half a mile before the next scene. In fact, the film reminds me more of Magnolia (1999) in presentation than that of JFK.

Another possible problem the film might have had to get around was the actual content; needless to say most people haven’t seen a film where the main character decides to shoot panty-shots as a precursor to events to come, yet this really is never a problem in the film. The film has a certain take on itself to where none of its content truly offends, and you are never actually disgusted by the any of the characters actions (well, maybe in a few instances, particularly involving the character of Aya Koike, and trust me you’ll know it when you see it) because it all goes fits perfectly into the characters, their flaws and weaknesses. The farther into the film you get, the more involved with the characters you become; there is never a one-dimensional character throughout the proceedings, not one character that is written from the “Cardboard Book of Characters” that Michael Bay seems to adhere to so religiously, these are all people. Like in real life, anyone can seem to be anything until you get to know them, and in this film you get to know the characters quite well.

If the film has a flaw, they are few and far between. At times the film looks like it was shot with a documentary camera, others it looks near perfect. The acting is all quite good; the film has genuine pathos and is also genuinely funny without even seeming to try. The film is fascinating with its running themes, motifs and symbols prevalent throughout, although with the four-hour running length it eventually becomes tiresome to listen to Yu refer to his “hard-on” no matter what it symbolizes. If there is one major flaw in the film, I’d have to say it’s the films focus on plot in the later half of the film, while there is nothing particularly wrong, it seems to detract from the characters, which is really the films focus, but even this is not a very strong negative on the film.

With Love Exposure, Sion Sono has delivered his most light-hearted film, after the pessimistic Suicide Club and Strange Circus, one would never expect one of his films to have a happy ending, but this film does. Sion Sono has crafted a wonderfully made film that is a fantastic experience to watch, all four-hours of it. Seeing the film is quite the same experience as JFK and Magnolia were; these films are a rare breed, made by talented filmmakers using all the best of their abilities to make a piece of art that you will not likely soon forget. Totally original in concept and execution, I can honestly say I loved this movie; it is a film that begs to be watched again and again, and honestly deserves to be. It’s a shame, the film is highly likely not to be released in the United States outside of the festival market, although the film has been picked up in Great Britain, with a DVD release supposedly scheduled for this coming January, here’s hoping a North American distributor picks up its feet and grabs on to this one; it’s a film that truly deserves it.

Rating: **** out of ****

What Were They Thinking?

Of all the horror films I have seen, one of the few that truly stands out is Rosemary’s Baby (1968), a true masterpiece of a genre where few masterpieces reside. This film alone is proof of director Roman Polanski’s not inconsiderable talent; but does this make him a good man? It is common knowledge of Polanski’s rape of then thirteen-year-old Samantha Gailey, also of how he fled the United States before his final conviction. Now that Polanski has been arrested, the story is headlining the news once more.

So why talk about an issue that has been beaten to death over and over? Because of petitioners who have “demanded the immediate release” of the infamous filmmaker. This petition, signed by over one-hundred filmmakers and actors and the sort, states “His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.” I can see one major problem with the petition right there: since when was rape an issue of “morals”?

This petition has been signed by the likes of Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, Alfonso Cuaron, Jonathan Demme, Wong Kar Wai, Michael Mann, Alexander Payne, Tilda Swinton (did she not star in The War Zone (1999)?), Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen, a joke in and of itself.

What were these people thinking? Are they merely ignorant of what Polanski really did or are they just so jaded they don’t care? I don’t know any person who considers rape to be a “case of morals” as this petition states but apparently a lot of seemingly sane men and women in Hollywood don’t seem to see it as a problem. Do they simply view Polanski as a brother under fire or are they just not paying attention?

I find it totally offensive that because this man has talent he seems to be above the law in matters of this severity. This is not an issue that can be determined based on morals, this was a forty-four-year-old man drugging and having non-consensual sex with a minor. Whatever way you look at it, you would think this would be viewed as repugnant. If it was anyone but a famous figure would this even be an issue? I do not see Scorsese or Allen running to the defense of other rapists, one time or not; yet for some reason they run to the defense of this man.

Do I respect Polanski’s work? Yes. The man has made some of the greatest films of our time, from Rosemary’s Baby to Chinatown (1974). Do I respect the choices he has made in his life? No. It is as simple as that, and I find it disturbing to find so many people find these choices to be an issue of "morals".

Sincerely,
The Undergraduate.