Buddy Acker (buddyacker)

THE DIFFERENCE A YEAR CAN MAKE



MORE BEAUTIFUL





MORE ABS





MORE...BROODING?



BOTTOM LINE: It's alright, but it's still no "Half-Blood Prince."

Did you know that in the dictionary ?overhyped? comes just before ?overrated?? Okay, not really, but after watching ?The Twilight Saga: New Moon,? I?m inclined to agree that it should. Roger Ebert seemed to think so also because he gave the movie one star out of four and stated it as an experience akin to ?driving a tractor in low gear through a sullen sea of Brylcreem (Brylcreem is a men?s hair-growing cream).? That is a hilarious observation, but I liked the movie a great deal more. Nevertheless, after standing in line in pouring rain for an hour waiting to see the film, I think I have the right to say that the end result was a bit of a letdown.

The beginning of ?New Moon? doesn?t make any sense, then it does, then it doesn?t again. It also starts out really slow and tedious and I was beginning to think that maybe Roger Ebert was right. Things pick up a bit when Edward leaves and then they REALLY pick up when Jacob?s big secret (he?s a werewolf; you?ve seen the trailer) comes out and then they REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pick up when the Volturi are introduced. If it wasn?t for those three things, I would fail ?New Moon? without a bit of hesitation. After all, I hated the book. It is the worst-written in the ?Twilight? series and overall the one that left me feeling the most unsatisfied. Nobody can tell me that Stephanie Meyer is the best author ever, especially after this book in which every other piece of dialogue is basically ?I?ll protect you, Bella? or ?I love you, so-and-so? or something along the lines of ?his body was cold, but his heart was ablaze.? Vice versa for Jacob.

I rolled my eyes a lot of times for various reasons. The biggest one was probably when Taylor Lautner took his shirt off and nearly every girl in the screening room went ?OMG!? or ?Ooooooohhhhhh!? Another instance of my ridiculous-o-meter going off was Bella?s reaction to Edward?s sudden departure. I don?t dispute that she had a right to be sad (although I wasn?t because that guy is dreary), but lying on the ground and crying and then screaming night after night while cutting yourself off from your friends and becoming an adrenaline junkie is a bit of an overreaction. Speaking of the adrenaline junkie scenes, I believe that they were a bit on the stupid side as well. To explain, in the book Bella hears Edward?s voice telling her to stop taking risks, but in the movie, not only does she hear his voice but she also sees him, which means she?s not really seeing him, which means the viewer is really seeing him, which means that Chris Weitz and Melissa Rosenberg should have stuck with the voice-in-the-head angle.

At one point, when Bella is weighing her options for picking one boy over the other, I loudly pointed out that she could either have a man with a bad temper or a man that looked like he had rubbed road kill on his chest, causing nearly the entire row in front of me to crack up. What is up with that weird hair growth on Robert Pattinson anyway? And why are girls so infatuated with Jacob? Oh yeah, the abs. Which he got naturally because he?s a werewolf. Which means that he cheated. Which means that he?s about as committed to exercise as I am. Too bad I wasn?t born with an internal temperature of 180°F.

The best parts of the entire film, in my opinion, are the parts where Edward and Bella are involved in conversation, which is not often considering that Edward is in approximately 30% of the film. That includes Bella?s hallucinations. This in itself is not a bad thing because to me, Edward, while a compelling character, is all brood, brood, brood and a little romance. He could have killed this movie in retrospect. The action sequences are also wonderful. The effects are about 100% better this time around than they were in ?Twilight,? which leads to some breath-taking showdowns between all the numerous inhabitants of Forks. I especially liked the ending fight sequence involving the Volturi.

The acting is better this time around as well. Kristen Stewart plays Bella as good as Bella can be played while Robert Pattinson turns Edward into something else and something better. Taylor Lautner is a mixed-bag because while he?s a beast at shouting and, in time, good at literally being a beast, he?s really bad at delivering soft-spoken dialogue. I myself do drama better in front of the mirror. Despite their efforts, all three of the lead characters come off as bland. The real stars in this movie are two guys who spark up the one-to-three scenes that they?re in: Billy Burke and Michael Sheen. Burke is Oscar-worthy (yeah, I went there) as Charlie, Bella?s dad, and Michael Sheen portrays Aro, the leader of the Volturi, in a delightfully wicked light. The stars are all out in this movie, as they are in a better movie with better characters and better special effects (?Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince?). In addition to Burke and Sheen, there is Peter Facinelli, Cameron Bright (who has starred in movies such as ?Thank You for Smoking,? ?X-Men: The Last Stand,? and ?Juno?), Edi Gathegi (from ?Crank,? ?Gone Baby Gone,? and ?Twilight?), and even Dakota Fanning (from?.every other movie ever made; ?I Am Sam,? ?Sweet Home Alabama,? ?War of the Worlds,? ?Charlotte?s Web,? ?The Secret Lives of Bees,? and ?Coraline? are just a few). All of the supporting cast ranges from good to great.

Because I know about the vast scope of ?New Moon,? I have made the possibly foolhardy choice to write my longest review yet. It may not be a well-written piece and you may not agree with a bit of it, but I hope that you have at least an inkling of an idea of how I feel about the movie. Overall, the movie is about as good as the first ?Twilight,? with better action sequences and abs but lacking a bit in the story department. What once was love lost is now love strangled, but it didn?t wear on me to the point that I wouldn?t still call the movie ?good,? which is it. If you asked my advice on seeing the film, I would tell you to wait until it hit DVD, but no amount of my saying so will stop the screaming fan-girls from lining up to see the too-long 121 minutes of ?New Moon.? Even after reading all of the books and seeing both movies, I still have not picked a side in the Team Edward vs. Team Jacob ordeal. Consider me part of Team Who Gives A Rat?s Ass? Now, next in the series is ?Eclipse,? which is my favorite book in the saga, so I?m expecting a classic (which may be ignorance on my part). I want my Bella with a little more happiness, my werewolves with a little more anger, my Charlie with a little more screen time, and my vampires with a little less suck and a little more bite. ?New Moon? better consider itself lucky because a little more of the stupidity and my score would have dropped from a ?Heck yeah? to a ?Heck, maybe.?

Critics who agree:
Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: "Why does ?New Moon? basically work, even with its grave self-seriousness? A few reasons. Weitz lets the material breathe, and his actors interact. The film does not try to eat you alive."
Score: *** (out of four)
Why I agree: THE SELF-SERIOUSNESS IS OFF THE PAGE! But Weitz does do a good job of immersing himself in the film and it ultimately led to success.

Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: "Fan-ready and saga-solid."
Score: B+
Why I agree: You better have some knowledge of the first movie or the books going in, or for a short time you will be more lost than Lindsay Lohan at a good actor party.

Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer: "Given this swoon-inducer, Summit Entertainment would be well-advised to set up fainting couches in the multiplex lobby and provide smelling salts to those who need them."
Score: *** (out of four)
Why I agree: Or popcorn salt. Ha ha ha ha.....well, I thought it was funny.

Jordan Mintzer, Variety: "Carried by Kristen Stewart's compellingly dark performance, but also by helmer Chris Weitz's robust visuals."
Score: 70 (out of 100)
Why I agree: If it wasn't for Kristen Stewart, this movie would be a far less pleasant ride.

Claudia Puig, USA Today: "The werewolves have it all over the blood-suckers in The Twilight Saga: New Moon. When these oversize, hirsute creatures burst onto the screen, they inject life into a rather inert story."
Score: **½ (out of four)
Why I agree: Thanks goodness the werewolves showed up, which is exactly what I said when I read the book.

Critics who disagree:
Roger Ebert, Chicago-Sun Times: ""The Twilight Saga: New Moon" takes the tepid achievement of "Twilight," guts it, and leaves it for undead."
Score: * (out of four)
Why I disagree: This review is coming from one of the biggest critics of all time, the same critic who didn't have much bad to say about the first "Twilight." This is also coming from a man who, for some reason, gave "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" **½ and then turned around and gave "Land of the Lost" ***. I'm not alone in saying that there's something whacked about that reasoning, and I'm not alone in saying that "New Moon" is not as good as "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" but it's certainly about three times as good as "Land of the Lost."

Kyle Smith, New York Post: "New Moon is supposed to be an exciting love story plus monster action. So where?s the excitement? Where?s the action?"
Score: *½ (out of four)
Why I disagree: Here's the excitement: Victoria. Here's the action: all of the fight scenes involving Victoria and one with the Volturi.

Ella Taylor, Village Voice: "Chaste, oddly bloodless, and nearly plotless saga."
Score: 30 (out of 100)
Why I disagree: Man, I'm telling you what, I swear that "New Moon" is like SOOOOO bloodless. That's why, like five minutes in, Kristen Stewart's arm is pouring blood like a fountain. Oh, and like when she wrecks a motorcycle and her head is bleeding. Or like the forty other times that blood, in some form or fashion, makes an appearance. Who gives a crap about blood? Caring about blood in this movie is like caring about diabetic people at a bake sale. No offense to diabetic people; my uncle's diabetic. Just making a point. And plotless? Yeah, that explains why every person who's seen the movie, aside from Ella Taylor, can tell you word-for-word what the story is about. You may not understand if you haven't read the books or seen the first movie, but that's your own damn fault.

Jessica Baxter, Film Threat: "It?s intellectually and socially detrimental to both literature and cinema, simultaneously."
Score: 0
Why I disagree: Who in the hell is Jessica Baxter?

After coming off a somewhat disappointing "New Moon," I am looking forward to "Eclipse," which was my favorite book in the saga, so it BETTER be a damn good movie.

It is an absolutely, unbelievably great movie--my favorite movie ever, to be more specific. Just when I thought that I had seen all that the movie had to offer, it surprised me again. I watched mesmerized as the movie progressed and re-defined the vampire genre, at least for me. The chemistry between the two children is also fantastic. This movie will truly teach you a lesson, that lesson being to always remember to "let the right one in". Check it out if you haven't ever seen it. "HELL YES!" Critics who agree (not with the favorite movie part, but with the other parts of the review): John Anderson, Washington Post: "In the basest of terms, a horror flick. But it's also a spectacularly moving and elegant movie, and to dismiss it into genre-hood, to mentally stuff it into the horror pigeonhole, is to overlook a remarkable film. 4 stars." Michael Phillips (yay!), Chicago Tribune: "The film is terrific. The upcoming screen version of ?Twilight? (opening Nov. 21) may be the set of fangs everyone?s waiting for, at least among certain demographics, but I can?t imagine anyone older than 15, who cherishes vampire lore or not, failing to fall for this spectacularly assured, mournfully beautiful entertainment, one that mines an old myth for all sorts of insinuating new themes and variations. 4 stars." Kim Newman, Empire: "At once a devastating, curiously uplifting inhuman drama and a superbly crafted genre exercise, Let The Right One In can stand toe-to-toe with Spirit Of The Beehive, Pan's Labyrinth or Orphee. See it. 4 stars." Jeremy Knox, Film Threat: "The best fairy tales always have so much darkness in them. That's why they resonate so deeply. This is a magnificent film. 3 3/4 stars." Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: "Stick your neck out for this Swedish horror show. It's a winner, full of mirth and malice, plus a young romance you'll never see on the Disney Channel. 3 1/2 stars." Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer: "Funny, fear-inducing, with periods of voyeuristic gore and an undercurrent of anxiety and dread, Let the Right One In is up there with the bloodsucking classics. 3 1/2 stars."

Pan's Labyrinth is a joy to watch. It's like seeing everything you could ever want in life wrapped up in a movie. It strives to focus on every minute detail and you become entranced and involved within the opening minutes. The movie is simultaneously set in Spain and in a girl's imagination and it never once gets off-track in delivering a magical and beautiful escape. If you're not involved with the characters, you weren't watching the same movie I was. Sergi Lopez is sadistically good. He will give you nightmares. The main player, Ivana Baquero, is a charming girl with a perfect sense of what she needs to do. There is just so much about this movie that I can recommend. It's just, in retrospect, one of the greatest movies ever made and my film of the year for 2006. There is no reason that you should miss it. Now, to make it better, I would suggest that you watch the movie in Spanish with the English subtitles turned on (unless you are Hispanic, of course). The dubbing downplays the experience and is almost blasphemous to such a tremendous movie. "HELL YES!" Critics that agree: Roger Ebert: "One of the greatest of all fantasy films. 4 stars." A.O. Scott, The New York Times/The Tuscaloosa News: "A swift and accessible entertainment, blunt in its power and exquisite in its effects. 4 stars." Ella Taylor, LA Weekly: "Pan's Labyrinth, like his terrific 2001 "The Devil?s Backbone," Mexican horrormeister Guillermo del Toro's new movie offers us both real-life and fantastical monsters, and if you know his work, you won't waste time figuring out which to root for. 4 stars." Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: "The result of the intricate interplay is a fairy tale for adults that is violent, sometimes shocking, yet utterly engrossing. And eerily instructive; it deepens our emotional understanding of fascism, and of rigid ideology's dire consequences. 4 stars." Jack Mathews, New York Daily News: "A critic trots out the word "masterpiece" at his own peril, but there it is. 4 stars." Lou Lumenick, New York Post: "Nothing [in 2006] comes close to being as utterly unforgettable as Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, an extremely dark and disturbing fairy tale for audiences say, ages 12 and up. 4 stars." Glenn Kenny, Premiere: "This intense film, a mix of horror, fantasy, and history that convinces on all those levels and mixes them up with dizzying brio, is a searing cinematic experience, a beautiful, terrifying vision from writer-director Guillermo del Toro. 4 stars." J. Hoberman, Village Voice: "Literally and figuratively marvelous, a rich, daring mix of fantasy and politics. 4 stars." Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: "Del Toro never coddles the audience. He means us to leave Pan's Labyrinth shaken to our souls. He succeeds. 4 stars." Peter Rainer, Christian Science Monitor: "In tone, Pan's Labyrinth resembles a cross between "Alice in Wonderland" and H.P. Lovecraft, with some Buñuel thrown in for good measure. It is a tribute to - as well as a prime example of - the disturbing power of imagination. 4 stars." Wesley Morris, Boston Globe: "Pan's Labyrinth is a transcendent work of art. 4 stars." Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer: "This is the breakthrough work of one of world cinema's most visionary artists. 4 stars." Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: "Like any great myth, Pan's Labyrinth encodes its messages through displays of magic. And like any good fairy tale, it is also embroidered with threads of death and loss. 4 stars." Michael Sragow, Baltimore Sun: "With a surgical saw instead of a hatchet, del Toro takes apart patriarchy and opportunistic religion as well as fascism. 4 stars." Claudia Puig: "Pan's Labyrinth artfully fuses a war film with a family melodrama and a fairy tale. The result is visually stunning and emotionally shattering. 3 1/2 stars." David Ansen, Newsweek: "Suspended between the brutally graphic and flights of lyrical fancy, Pan's Labyrinth unfolds with the confidence of a classical fable, one that paradoxically feels both timeless and startlingly new. 3 1/4 stars." Justin Chang, Variety: "There's plenty of blood -- both literal and figurative -- coursing through the veins of Pan's Labyrinth, a richly imagined and exquisitely violent fantasy from writer-director Guillermo del Toro. 3 1/4 stars."