Movie Review Argylle

Argylle (2024) 

Directed by Matthew Vaughn 

Written by Jason Fuchs 

Starring Bryce Dallas Howard, Sam Rockwell, Henry Cavill, Bryan Cranston, John Cena, Ariana Debose, Dua Lipa, Samuel L. Jackson, Catherine O'Hara

Release Date February 2nd, 2024

Published February 1st, 2024

The high concept premise of Argylle is relatively simple: what would happen if the spy novels written by an unassuming, shut-in, bestselling author, became a reality that forces the writer into the real life world of espionage, violence, and betrayal. Bryce Dallas Howard stars as the hapless best selling author Elly Conway. Elly's high flying spy adventure Argylle has become a worldwide phenomenon all while Elly lives a peaceful, slightly lonely, existence at a lakeside home far from the crowds of admiring readers. Elly's idyllic life of writing and spending time with her beloved cat, Alfie, is upended when she can't think of a final chapter for her fifth book in the Argylle series. 

Suffering from severe writer's block, Elly boards an Amtrak train headed to see her mother, Ruth (Catherine O'Hara) who she hopes will help her snap back into writing mode. Unfortunately, Elly is not going to make it home to mom. On her train ride, Elly finds herself in the company of Aiden (Sam Rockwell), a real life spy who saves Elly's life from a series of attempted assassinations aboard this moving train. Bodies pile up fast as Aiden whipsaws about the train snapping necks and shooting baddies right in the heart while he saves Elly and Alfie from assassination. 

As Aiden will eventually explain, Elly's books are somehow mirroring real world, geo-political situations in which a rogue spy agency is trying outwit a group of good guy spies working to protect the world. Caught in the middle, Elly doesn't know who to trust, Aiden and his CIA pal, played  by Samuel L. Jackson, or the head of a rival group of spies who Elly may or may not already be familiar with. It's a terrific premise and it's all building to a pretty nifty twist until director Matthew Vaughn twists us one too many times leading to a flat finish for an otherwise fleet footed action flick. 

Click here for my review 

Jurassic World and the Legislating of Character Traits

Published June 17th, 2015 at IHateCritics.Net

“Jurassic World” has been called ‘”sexist,” “anti-feminist” and, in one review, “gendered,” a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are aimed at the portrayal of the character Claire played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career-oriented, driven administrator of the Jurassic World Theme Park.

Claire’s character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain. However, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc — you know, like a movie character.

As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition threatens to legislate traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters that stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws.

One of the criticisms of Claire as an anti-feminist symbol is centered on her clothes. Bear in mind: We are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in board rooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. Being chased by dinosaurs was, quite fair to say, not on Claire’s schedule EVER.

And yet we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs.

The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire’s comfort comes from achieving her ambition, which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait, but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition, then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack, then what is the dramatic arc?

Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominus Rex — maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. She was a little busy for a wardrobe change: There’s a freaking dinosaur on the loose.

I hate to engage in a cliched argument, but I will: If Claire were a man, would anyone call him out for wearing a suit to work? Then, when the stuff hits the fan, would that man be called out for not throwing on his boots and khakis before dealing with the situation at hand? No, a male character is allowed to have character traits. A female character, apparently, has to be a beacon to her gender, a symbol of all that is good, and just and never wrong, out of place, or in the process of learning valuable lessons like keeping a pair of running shoes and dungarees in the office in case a freaking dinosaur escapes its inescapable cage.

If there is an anti-feminist moment in “Jurassic World” it comes in a bizarre and reductive conversation between Claire and her sister, Karen, played by Judy Greer. Karen has sent her two sons to see their aunt and tour the park. Claire, being a busy executive running a multi-million dollar theme park, shoves the kids off on an assistant for the day, much to Karen’s dismay. Here Claire demonstrates an unlikable quality, otherwise known as a character flaw.

That aside, the anti-feminist statement comes from Karen, who instructs her sister that she will understand the fear that Karen feels for her children in the care of some stranger instead of their aunt, when Claire becomes a mother. When Claire states that she doesn’t see herself becoming a mother, Karen shoots back, pointedly stating that Claire will one day be a mother. The exchange is awkward. Karen’s insistence that her sister will be a mother one day plays as if she were saying that all women should be mothers.

It’s a bad scene, indefensible even in context. With that said, one thing that is being quite unfairly neglected by those who wish to make Claire a symbol of anti-feminism or sexism is that Claire never for a moment indicates that she agrees with her sister. Even after saving her nephews from dinosaurs and seemingly becoming more loving and thoughtful in the process, Claire never indicates in dialogue or action that she’s changed her mind about being a mother. Yet, in the minds of those who are attacking “Jurassic World” the fact that Claire eventually falls for Chris Pratt’s hunky raptor trainer is somehow an indication that she’s going to give up her ambitions in favor of being a mother. That’s quite a leap of logic.

So, a female character in a modern action blockbuster cannot meet and fall in love with anyone because it is an indication that she wants to give up her ambition and be a wife and mother? What’s the other option? If, as the film establishes, Claire is a heterosexual woman with a typical sex drive, then is it not perfectly alright that she’s attracted to a handsome man and may in fact want to be with him? Moreover, returning to my previous point, nothing in dialogue or action indicates Claire has changed her position about having children. She’s more loving toward her nephews, but that’s because they’ve all just survived a horrific dinosaur related trauma.

Context is the enemy of those who wish to make a larger point about a piece of pop culture that doesn’t perfectly suit the writer/critic’s world view. Claire is a character built of context. She is a character thrust into the most unlikely, unimaginable scenario, one for which she was quite fairly unprepared.

Taken in context, the actions of Claire the movie character make a reasonable amount of sense, but that doesn’t matter to those with an agenda as anything that doesn’t fit their agenda is simply wrong.

Look, my fear here is that writers and critics who spend time calling out pop culture for lacking in areas that match their socio-political worldview will eventually legislate character flaws out of existence. In the future, all characters will lack anything resembling a failing out of fear that said failing will be seen as a betrayal of some of-the-moment-important socio-political world views.

Returning to Claire for just one more point, is there not something to be said for the fact that she is a woman who is in charge of a multi-million dollar dinosaur theme park? Everyone in the park answers to her. She’s the second in command behind the billionaire dilettante owner played by Irrfan Khan. She’s a strong, successful woman, flawed in her seeming lack of care for the dinosaurs, blind to how her ambition effects those she cares about. Claire is not some sexist/anti-feminist caricature, she’s a warts-and-all character who, over the course of a ridiculously scary adventure will come to realize what is truly important to her.

Movie Review: 50/50

50/50 (2011) 

Directed by Jonathan Levine 

Written by Will Reiser 

Starring Joseph Gordon Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anjelica Huston, Bryce Dallas Howard, Anna Kendrick

Release Date September 30th, 2011 

Published September 30th, 2011

Cancer is a topic of grave seriousness. To even attempt to place the word cancer near the word comedy could be seen as folly. Yet, we have 50/50 a very funny comedy about a young man who faces death from cancer. The tightrope that 50/50 walks in creating its comedy, a broad swath of Knocked Up style irreverence, Seth Rogan is a co-star in 50/50, and the kind of gallows humor that permeates many war movies.

If you were a casino game, you'd have the best odds

Adam (Joseph Gordon Levitt) is 27 years old, he has a pretty artist girlfriend named Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard), a great job working at NPR in Seattle, and he has this pain in his back that just won't go away.

That pain turns out to be a malignant tumor attaching to his spine. Adam has cancer and faces the 50/50 odds of survival with a serious course of chemotherapy. First however, he has to survive telling his family and friends.

Rachael seems to take the news as well as could be expected. The relationship is relatively young for such a heavy burden to be placed on it but she takes it on, first buying him a dog and then being there when Adam tells his mother (Angelica Huston).

I'm moving in!

Adam next tells his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogan). Kyle's emotional reaction is indicative of most reactions to Adam's news. Kyle doesn't process the info well and Adam ends up having to console him.

The same can be said of Kyle's mother who is already caring for Adam's Alzheimer's afflicted father (Serge Houde). Mom wants to move into Kyle's house to care for him but Adam tells her that Rachael is taking care of him.

We know, and he will soon know, that this will not be the case. Rachael isn't a very good person but in fairness, who could be prepared for such a shocking turn of events. The fact that the relationship was sputtering before the cancer diagnosis should also be noted.

Humor from the gallows

Though Kyle proves to be a stalwart friend he to struggles with how to help Adam. Being a typically Rogen character, one lacking in maturity or a filter for his thoughts, Kyle's notions of helping amount to helping get Adam laid and getting high with him.

The only people who react appropriately to Adam's diagnosis and offer honest comfort are two men Adam meets in chemotherapy. Played by Phillip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer, their journeys could likely make wonderful movies of their own.

Somewhere in the middle of the appropriate and the misguided is Adam's therapist, Katherine, played by the terrific Anna Kendrick. We get right away that these two have chemistry beyond the patient-therapist relationship; Levitt and Kendrick however, surprise us by underplaying the attraction to great effect.

A very funny movie about a guy who has cancer

Trying to recommend 50/50 is more challenging that it should be. 50/50 is very funny and humane and is populated by terrific performances, especially from Levitt and Rogan. It's just difficult to get past the idea of a 'Cancer Comedy.'

If you can get past preconceived notions about cancer and comedy being mutually exclusive and give yourself over to this being Adam's specific experience of cancer you will be rewarded with a great movie going experience.

Movie Review: A Dog's Way Home

A Dog's Way Home (2019) 

Directed by Charles Martin Smith 

Written by W. Bruce Cameron, Cathryn Michon

Starring Ashley Judd, Edward James Olmos, Alexandra Shipp, Bryce Dallas Howard

Release Date January 11th, 2019 

Published January 12th, 2019

 A Dog’s Way Home is a movie for kids. I had to keep telling myself that so that I would go easy on this otherwise tacky and manipulative melodrama. This is not a movie intended for an audience capable of seeing through its mawkishness and pushy sentimentality. A Dog’s Way Home is meant for yet to be fully formed intellects that won’t recognize the cheap dramatic tricks on display.

A Dog’s Way Home features the voice of Bryce Dallas Howard as Bella, a dog born living underneath a fallen house. Bella grows up alongside the sweetest group of feral cats in history until animal control grabs most of them and Bella’s mother and brothers. For the next part of her life, Bella is raised by a cat that she calls Mother Cat. Seeing a dog feed on a cat is a new experience and one I am not quite sure I am comfortable with.

Bella’s life is changed forever when she meets Lucas (Jonah Hauer King), a young man who has been working to rescue the cats living in this otherwise destroyed neighborhood. When he finds Bella, Bella falls immediately in love. Lucas takes Bella home even though his landlord doesn’t allow for him to have a pet. Lucas lives with his mother, played by Ashley Judd, an Iraq war vet with the lightest touch of PTSD, she gets a little sad sometimes.

This is the status quo for some time until Lucas crosses the developer trying to raze the building where the cats have been living. The developer sics animal control on Bella and because she is part Pitbull, and Pitbull's are apparently outlawed in Denver, where the film is set, Bella is taken away. Lucas decides to take Bella out of town until he and his mother find a new apartment outside of Denver.

Unfortunately, Bella doesn’t understand that she’s only temporarily going to be away from her owner and when she gets the chance, Bella flees the home in New Mexico and goes on a run through the woods and towns and some 400 miles to get herself back to Denver and back to her beloved owner. Along the way, Bella makes pals with a sweet hearted gay couple and a cougar that she calls Big Kitten.

You know how I said this is a kids movie? Well, there is at least one part that probably doesn’t belong in a movie for kids. In a subplot that left me utterly bewildered, Bella befriends a homeless man on her journey, played by Edward James Olmos, literally slumming for this role. The homeless man, like all of the supporting characters in this film, is a veteran dealing with PTSD. He keeps Bella tied to him until he is close to death when he decides to chain Bella to himself and then he dies.

Yes, this kiddie flick about a heartwarming dog’s journey home, features our hero dog chained to the corpse of a homeless veteran. It’s a scene as bewildering as it is bleak. I get that Bella needs life threatening crises for dramatic purposes but this one goes way too far, and we’re talking about a movie where a dog befriends a cougar and fights wolves. Bella nearly dies until two kids find her and the body because the trauma needed more witnesses I guess.

A Dog’s Way Home will, despite how tacky and cheap it is, still appeal to animal lovers. Much like the classic cheap child in danger plot, audiences can’t get enough of cute animals in danger plots. Add in a cutesy voiceover, as if the dog has a narrator trapped in its skull and audiences go crazy for it. Our love for animals runs so deep that we often give a pass to even the most trashy of cute animal movies and no doubt many audiences will give a pass to A Dog’s Way Home. I won’t but that’s just me.

Movie Review Jurassic World

Jurassic World (2015) 

Directed by Colin Trevorrow 

Written by Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Colin Trevorrow, Derek Connelly 

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'onofrio, Ty Simpkins, Omar Sy, Irfan Khan

Release Date June 12th, 2015

Published July 13th, 2015 

"Jurassic World" has been called 'Sexist,' 'Anti-feminist,' and, in one review, was called 'Gendered,' a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are each aimed at the portrayal of the character of Claire, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career oriented, driven, Boss of the "Jurassic World Theme Park." 

Claire's character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain however, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc, you know, like a movie character. 

As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition however, threatens to legislate character traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters who stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws. 

One of the criticisms of Claire that I have read about Claire and her anti-feminist symbology centered on her clothes. Bare in mind, we are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the Jurassic World theme park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in boardrooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. The being chased by dinosaurs part is, quite fair to say, not on Claire's schedule EVER. 

And yet, we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs. 

The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire's comfort comes from achieving her ambition which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack then what is the dramatic arc? 

Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominous-Rex, maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. My point, she was a little busy for a wardrobe change, there's a freaking dinosaur on the loose. 

I hate to engage in a clichéd argument but I will: If Claire was a man would anyone call him out for wearing a suit to work? Then, when the stuff hits the fan would that man be called out for not throwing on his boots and khakis before dealing with the situation at hand? No, a male character is allowed to have character traits, a female character however has to be a beacon to her gender, a symbol of all that is good, and just and never wrong, out of place, or in the process of learning valuable lessons like, keep a pair of running shoes and dungarees in the office in case a freaking dinosaur escapes its inescapable cage. 

If there is an anti-feminist moment in "Jurassic World" it comes in a bizarre and reductive conversation between Claire and her sister, Karen, played by Judy Greer. Karen has sent her two sons to see their aunt and tour the park and Claire, being a busy executive running a multi-million dollar theme park, shoves the kids off on an assistant for the day, much to Karen's dismay. Here Claire demonstrates an unlikable quality, otherwise known as a character flaw. 

That aside, the anti-feminist statement comes from Karen who instructs her sister that she will understand the fear that Karen feels for her children in the care of some stranger instead of their aunt, when Claire becomes a mother. When Claire states that she doesn't see herself becoming a mother, Karen shoots back pointedly stating that Claire will one day be a mother. The exchange is awkward and Karen's insistence that her sister will be a mother one day plays as if she were saying that all women should be mothers. 

It's a bad scene, indefensible even in context. With that said, one thing that is being quite unfairly neglected by those who wish to make Claire a symbol of anti-feminism or sexism is that Claire never for a moment indicates that she agrees with her sister. Even after saving her nephews from dinosaurs and seemingly becoming more loving and thoughtful in the process, Claire never indicates in dialogue or action that she's changed her mind about being a mother. Yet, in the minds of those who are attacking "Jurassic World" the fact that Claire eventually falls for Chris Pratt's hunky raptor trainer is somehow an indication that she's going to give up her ambitions in favor of being a mother. That's quite a leap of logic. 

So, a female character in a modern action blockbuster cannot meet and fall in love with anyone because it is an indication that she wants to give up her ambition and be a wife and mother? What's the other option? If, as the film establishes, Claire is a heterosexual woman with a typical sex drive then is it not perfectly alright that she's attracted to a handsome man and may in fact want to be with him. Moreover, returning to my previous point, nothing in dialogue or action indicates Claire has changed her position about having children. Yes, she's more loving toward her two nephews but that's because they've all just survived a horrific dinosaur related trauma. 

Context however, is the enemy of those who wish to make a larger point about a piece of pop culture that doesn't perfectly suit the writer/critic's world view. Claire is a character built of context. She is a character who is thrust into the most unlikely, unimaginable scenario, one that she was quite fairly, not prepared for. Taken in context, the actions of Claire the movie character make a reasonable amount of sense but that doesn't matter to those with an agenda as anything that doesn't fit that agenda is simply wrong. 

Look, my fear here is thus, that writers and critics who spend time calling out pop culture for lacking in areas that match their socio-political worldview will eventually legislate character flaws out of existence. In the future, all characters will lack anything resembling a failing out of fear that said failing will be seen as a betrayal of some of-the-moment-important socio-political world view. 

Returning to Claire for just one more point, is there not something to be said for the fact that she is a woman who is in charge of a multi-million dollar dinosaur theme park? Everyone in the park answers to her, she's the second in command behind the billionaire dilettante owner played by Irrfan Khan. She's a strong, successful woman, flawed in her seeming lack of care for the dinosaurs, blind to how her ambition affects those she cares about. Claire is not some sexist/anti-feminist caricature, she's a worts and all character who, over the course of a ridiculously scary adventure will come to realize what is truly important to her. 

That's not a symbol of anti-feminism, that's a character arc.

Movie Review Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom

Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom (2018) 

Directed by J.A Bayona 

Written by Derek Connelly, Colin Trevorrow 

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jeff Goldblum, Rafe Spall, B.D Wong 

Release Date June 22nd, 2018 

Published June 21st, 2018 

Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom picks up the action of Jurassic World not long after the action of the first film in the reboot franchise. Here we find Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire now working as a dinosaur advocate. Claire is lobbying the government to mount a mission to Isla Nublar, former home of the Jurassic World theme park, to rescue the dinosaurs who are threatened with extinction due to an active volcano on the island.

When the government declines the effort, on the advice of none other than Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jeff Goldblum’s character from the original Jurassic Park, Claire is forced to accept the help of secretive billionaire Benjamin Lockwood (Jame Cromwell) and his associate Eli Mills (Rafe Spall). Lockwood was a partner of the original park owner, Dr. Hammond (Sir Richard Attenborough from the original Jurassic Park), before he dropped out of the project following the death of his daughter.

Lockwood and Mills will bankroll a secret expedition to save as many dinosaurs as they can but only if Claire can convince her old flame Owen (Chris Pratt) to come with her. Owen is the only person on the planet who can likely convince Blue the Raptor to remain calm enough to be captured and taken off the island. Once he agrees, the expedition is all set but of course, there is a secret agenda at play and once the dinosaurs are secured, plans get underway to bring them to Lockwood’s estate and not the island sanctuary that Claire was promised.

Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom was directed by J.A Bayona who took the reins of the franchise from Colin Trevorrow. Trevorrow had left the project behind after he’d been hired to direct the final film in the Star Wars franchise, a film he was famously fired from. Trevorrow remains on this project however as one of the screenwriters alongside Kong Skull Island screenwriter Derek Connolly. Bayona brings a unique, childlike sensibility to Fallen Kingdom that makes the film scary yet still family friendly.

Bayona was the director of the wonderful 2016 family adventure A Monster Calls and that experience appears to have influenced the making of Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom. The film features a subplot involving the granddaughter of Benjamin Lockwood, Maisey played by newcomer Isabella Sermon. This subplot brings a child’s perspective to the film similar to the perspective in the original which featured a pair of kids in peril.

There is a warmth to the production design of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom that was lacking in the original. This is owed to the main setting of the film, an elaborate mansion filled with dinosaurs as the film progresses. Despite the chilling scenes of suspense and terror with characters running for their lives, the mansion is actually rather inviting, like a library or a museum but filled with real dinosaurs.

The strong production design of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom extends to the special effects which are top notch. The dinosaurs remain an extraordinary sight and the ways in which the effects interact with the human characters are as remarkable today as they were in 1993 when Steven Speilberg made us believe that dinosaurs had roared back to life in Jurassic Park. The effects and design go a long way to make up for a tepid script and lacking characters.

I remain a fan of Chris Pratt but boy does he need to change up his style soon. His Owen is barely a step away from his Star Lord character from Guardians of the Galaxy. Owen is perhaps a tad more muscled up and slightly more mature but the wisecracks and tough guy posturing remain Pratt’s prominent acting tricks. Howard meanwhile, has moments when she breaks out of damsel in distress mode but it’s a mostly one note performance undermined by a script that doesn’t seem to know what to do with her.

The human villains are the weakest part of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom. Rafe Spall’s weasley assistant and Toby Jones rat-like underground arms dealer the ostensible villains but they never prove necessary beyond providing a reason to get the dinosaurs to the mansion. They lack personality and their ambitions appear silly. The notion that gangsters and arms dealers are paying millions to buy dinosaurs never registers as realistic and the supposed buyers are mere caricatures of villains from other movies.

The best villain in the film is the one that doesn’t have an agenda or a scheme. The Indo-Raptor is a remarkable creation, combining the DNA of a T-Rex and a Raptor. The bad guys were hoping to create a hunting, killing dinosaur that could be controlled and used as a weapon. But, when the Indo-Raptor gets loose, there is no controlling it and its rampage provides the best parts of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom.

I don’t love Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom but by the lowered standard of brainless summer blockbuster, it’s not bad. Turn off your brain and enjoy the remarkable dinosaur CGI and you will have fun with this movie. It may not be great art but it’s fun enough for me to say take the kids and have a good time. Keep in mind, Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom is rated PG-13 and the violence can be scary for young kids, especially the Indo-Raptor is a potential figure for children’s nightmares but as long as you prepare them and hold their hands, kids 8 and up should have a good time here.

Movie Review Rocketman

Rocketman (2019) 

Directed by Dexter Fletcher 

Written by Lee Hall 

Starring Taron Egerton, Jamie Bell, Bryce Dallas Howard, Richard Madden

Release Date May 31st, 2019

Published May 30th, 2019 

Rocketman is one of my favorite experiences at the movies in some time. This dream of the life of Elton John won me over from the first moment and held me in rapt attention throughout the two hour plus runtime. I am a fan of Elton John’s music but I would not call myself a super fan, I wasn’t predisposed to love Rocketman in the ways some Elton fans undoubtedly were and yet, this review will likely come off as that of an Elton fanboy because I adored every moment of Rocketman. 

The first important thing to know about Rocketman is that it is not a straightforward, entirely linear biopic. On top of being a musical, Rocketman plays like Elton John recalling a dream of his own life. Elton acted as Executive Producer of Rocketman and I like to imagine the script as Elton attempting to remember his life through a haze of drugs and resentment and decades of removal. Those musings are then given to Bernie Taupin who picked out choice collaborations to accompany Elton’s fond and not so fond remembrances. 

The film is slightly linear, it does work somewhat chronologically through the life of Elton John from when he was 5 years old through the mid-1980’s and his first days after overcoming a debilitating and almost deadly abuse of drugs. But don’t think you will be able to figure out exactly when the incidents of Elton’s life are actually taking place, as I said earlier, this is a dream we’re talking about and the movie is filled with dreamlike images and logic that extend beyond the necessity for chronology. 

Taron Egerton portrays Elton John from his late teenage years through his middle age and that approach makes complete sense within the dream structure of Rocketman. Egerton neither looks much or sounds much like Elton John but as the representative of a dream that Elton has of himself, he makes perfect sense. Of course Elton remembers himself as better looking and less talented than he actually is, a mixture of narcissism and self loathing is a rather common trait in all humans. 

Egerton proves himself in Rocketman to be a remarkable talent worthy of the hype that came from his starring roles, opposite Elton cameos, in the Kingsman franchise. I am buying in hard on the Taron Egerton movie star idea. Egerton oozes charisma and complexity in equal measure in Rocketman. He can sing well enough, he sells the songs with remarkable confidence and that proves to be more than enough in the structure of Rocketman. 

Jamie Bell portrays Elton’s longtime best friend and writer Bernie Taupin and you can be forgiven for not realizing the two are just friends. For years, many people have held the mistaken notion that Elton and Bernie were a couple, how else to explain such a perfect marriage of singer and songwriter. Rocketman does a wonderful job of capturing the complicated emotions that led to their partnership and friendship and the ways Bernie completes the story of Elton. Bell also can belt out a song as needed and it’s beautiful. 

Bell is rounding into an amazing character actor despite how his hunkiness is making being just a side man, a supporting player, harder and harder to buy into. Bell appears to be one starring role away from becoming a permanent leading man with perhaps his heavy accent the only thing keeping him away from massive stardom. None of those observations are particularly necessary, the point is that the child star of Billy Elliott has proven remarkably resilient and increasing talent. 

Rocketman is rich with wonderfully detailed supporting performances. I mentioned Jamie Bell and now we can turn the spotlight on Richard Madden. The now former Game of Thrones star portrays Elton John’s villainous former lover and manager John Reid. Less kind reviewers have called Madden the weakest part of the film as he is nearly a mustache twirling baddie, broad enough to be a silent film outlaw. 

What those reviewers are missing, again, is that this is Elton John’s outsized memory of Reid. Rocketman is a burlesque of John Reid the real life former everything in Elton’s life. Of course Elton recalls the worst of Reid as well as the best. No one remembers the average moments of their time with a former lover or co-worker. You remember the moments of passion, the extremes, the big love, the big loss, the great sex and the ugliest rows. 

Richard Madden is playing the man that Elton John has despised for decades since their partnership ended in ugly, tabloid fashion. Of course Madden plays the character with a broad sense of nastiness and savage wit, that’s how Elton would choose to remember him in his less charitable moments. The film also depicts the obvious passion the men shared as well in a fashion that is likely more broad than reality. That’s how a dream or a memory tends to go. 

Bryce Dallas Howard and Steven Mackintosh round out the cast as Elton’s parents and once again, many critics are missing the point. Howard portrays Elton’s mother as a blowsy broad from 50’s Middlesex and an aging, angry, homophobic harridan and while this is certainly not capturing the complexity of the real Mrs. Dwight, it captures Elton’s reasonably resentful idea of this woman who failed to be as supportive and loving as one would hope for in a mother. 

Elton’s father is also not particularly complex. Mackintosh, like Howard, is playing a broad burlesque of an absent, cold, English father. Both parents are Freudian approximations of Elton’s most basic psychological shortcomings and well they should be. Again, that’s how many people view their parents when those parents are absent, or they associate those parents with specific or non-specific trauma. 

Director Dexter Fletcher and his incredible cast bring these wonderfully broad ideas to brilliant life all the while jukeboxing Elton’s amazing catalog and using Bernie Taupin’s remarkable lyrics as a storytelling catalyst rather than a device. Bernie Taupin was a poet and while you can try to literalize some of his words, Rocketman is not interested in anything particularly literal. The music adds to the dream-like state of the entire movie and in that way it deepens and enriches the film. 

I completely adore Rocketman and I would not be surprised to find it at or near the top of my list of my favorite movies of 2019 when this year comes to an end.

Movie Review: The Village

The Village (2004) 

Directed by M Night Shyamalan 

Written by M Night Shyamalan

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody, Bryce Dallas Howard, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver 

Release Date July 30th, 2004 

Published July 19th, 2021 

The Village is a real trip, an at times exceptionally well acted, epically misguided story of outsiders with a deep, dark secret. The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Lucius and Bryce Dallas Howard as Ivy. Despite a slow start, the film slowly evolves as a mysterious 19th century romance with a twist of horror movie monsters hanging over it. The couple are residents of a colony that is cut off from the rest of the nearby towns by a forest populated by monsters who live in a delicate detente with the residents of The Village.

The town elders, led by William Hurt as Ivy’s father, Edward Walker, have raised their families in fear of the creatures who are fed a sacrifice of animal flesh on a weekly basis. Residents of the Village are not allowed to enter the forest and must not wear the forbidden color, red, which is said to set off the creatures. As we join the story, the monsters are believed to be raiding the town at night and causing a panic.

In the midst of the panic, Lucius begins to spend more and more time looking in on Ivy and her family and while he is a character of few words, Joaquin Phoenix as an actor communicates all we need to know about Lucius, he’s in love with Ivy and shows it by becoming her de-facto protector. For her part, Ivy is far more open and vocal about her feelings and these two approaches collide in the best scene in The Village in which they eventually declare their love.

I had forgotten about The Village since seeing it on the big screen in 2004. This led to a wild viewing experience in which I was convinced that I completely disliked it and then shocked to find myself deeply invested and enjoying it during this rewatch. No joke, I was riveted by the performances by Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard, William Hurt and the supporting players including the brilliant Brendan Gleeson and Sigourney Weaver.

Then the third act hit and my memory came rushing back. Now I remember why I hated The Village back in 2004. The third act of The Village is a complete trainwreck. From the moment that Joaquin Phoenix is knocked into a plot device coma to the reveal of the big twist well before the actual end of the movie to the nonsensical and self indulgent ending, The Village goes completely off the rails.

The next section of this review of The Village goes into spoilers so if you still haven’t seen The Village and want to remain unspoiled, jump off now and come back after you see the movie, it’s on Netflix. We’ll be here when you get back.

The big twist of The Village is despite the setting in a village that even the tombstones indicate exists in the late 1800’s, the movie is actually set in modern America 2004. The monsters that provide the oppressive atmosphere of the first two acts aren’t real. The town elders portray the monsters as a way of keeping their families from trying to leave the village and find out about the modern world outside the forest.

William Hurt, it turns out, is a secret billionaire who, with the help of the elders, created The Village as a way of escaping the crime of the modern world that had tragically taken the lives of members of every family in town. This ‘twist’ is deeply problematic in numerous ways. For instance, why convince everyone they can’t wear red? Why make red a plot point at all? It never becomes important, especially after Hurt admits to making up the rules along the way/ 

At one point, after the creatures are revealed as not real, Bryce Dallas Howard, whose character is blind, is seen to have wandered into a field of red flowers and tense music plays and you’re baffled as you know there is no danger and she knows there is no danger and yet the movie wants the scene to be suspenseful because of the monsters. The monsters that, by this point, he's already revealed as fake. Why would we be afraid in this scene?

Why didn't the elders simply declare themselves Amish and create a colony based on those values? Why the elaborate ruse about the outside world? I get that they want to frighten the children into never leaving but there has to be something simpler than goofy-looking woods' monsters to convince people from leaving. This just seems like a lot of unnecessary work to hide a secret that doesn't need much hiding.

Shyamalan directs the third act of The Village as if he hadn’t revealed the twist ending at the start of the act. The movie straight up has William Hurt admit the elaborate lie to Bryce Dallas Howard and then sends her on a journey through the now completely safe woods that is then played as if there were still real monsters on the loose. When Howard finally makes it out of the woods it appears Shyamalan wants us to be surprised that we are in modern day America.

That would be fine if he didn’t tell us that before she ever actually left the village. The only real tension is that Howard’s Ivy is blind and must find her way through the forest alone and blind. This is something she manages quite well under the dire circumstances but raises the question of why Hurt didn’t just go himself. He gives some nonsense about how he vowed to never leave the village and yet he reveals the lies about everything to his blind daughter and then encourages her to leave the village on her own? Blind, going into the woods alone. At the very least, that’s awful parenting.

The Village stinks because it wastes two acts of a really compelling drama on a twist that wasn’t a twist and a series of nonsensical story beats that the script undercuts by revealing everything far too soon. We get the secret about the fake monsters and the modern day setting before Ivy leaves into the forest. The film has an action beat left courtesy of Adrien Brody’s offensive burlesque of a mentally challenged man but that’s not what we have been building toward.

We were promised a twist ala The Sixth Sense and what we got instead was a third act that would come to define the worst traits of M Night Shyamalan, his tendency toward convoluted and overwrought twist endings and big plot moments. In the third act, Shyamalan abandons the strength and heart of the film, the love story between Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard in favor of nonsense action movie chases and a twist that he spoils himself before it can surprise us.

It’s a shame because there were two thirds of a really compelling movie in The Village.

Movie Review Spiderman 3

Spiderman 3 (2007) 

Directed by Sam Raimi 

Written by Ivan Raimi, Alvin Sargent 

Starring Tobey Maguire, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, Bryce Dallas Howard, J.K Simmons 

Release Date May 4th, 2007 

Published May 3rd, 2007 

It was bound to happen. The law of diminishing returns had to kick in at some point. For some film franchises; it happens right away (Matrix Reloaded, anyone?). For some; a good run continues (We’ll see what happens with Shrek and Harry Potter soon). Other film franchises have never gotten off the ground creatively (How did we get a second Fantastic Four and a third Rush Hour?).

But, for one of the great franchises of all time, a great run doesn’t exactly end as much as it ebbs. In Spiderman 3 a great franchise doesn’t jump the shark, to appropriate a TV term, rather it levels off with a first mediocre entry. Failures in logic, underwritten villains and overripe melodrama, can’t sink a great franchise but it does bring an unsatisfying end.

When last we left Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) he had revealed himself as Spiderman to the woman he loves Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and she had run away from her wedding to be with him. Now, Peter is ready to take the relationship to the next level and ask Mary Jane to be his wife.If only things could be that simple.

Unfortunately for Spiderman a trifecta of villains has other plans for the webslinger's future. First there is Peter’s ex-best friend Harry Osbourne (James Franco) who believes Spiderman killed his father and wishes for revenge. Then there is Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) a petty thief who stumbles into some kind of science experiment and becomes the Sandman.

Finally, the third villain, for a time, is Peter himself. With New York finally coming to see Spidey as a real hero, things are going to Peter’s head. He is soaking up the love and admiration of the public and is beginning to neglect his relationship with Mary Jane. When a meteor filled with a lively black goo slams into the earth it attaches itself to Peter Parker and its power is transformative.

The problems with Spiderman 3 are going to be obvious and overbearing for some and easily forgivable for others; but they should be obvious to everyone. Director Sam Raimi, in a rush to cram a whole lot of plot into not a lot of space, cuts a few to many logical corners. Coincidence and contrivance takes the place of rational plotting.

Characters make decisions based on what is needed for the scene even if it contradicts previous behavior. More than once a character arrives somewhere because the plot needs them and not for any other logical reason. One character holds on to a piece of information that could have been helpful as far back as Spiderman 2. This previously insignificant character happens to hold this info until just the moment that it is needed in this plot.

Despite the logical leaps and the abuse of coincidence and contrivance, there is still much to enjoy in Spiderman 3. The computer graphics continue to be cutting edge. The action and CGI work together in dazzling effect. The scene in which Flint Marko becomes the Sandman is a visual mind blower as we watch Thomas Haden Church pulled apart atom by atom until there is nothing but sand.

Then; there are the fight scenes which grow bigger with each successive battle. Peter versus Harry, fighting in mid air. Spidey taking on Sandman inside and outside a moving brinks truck and the battle at the end between Spider and the tandem of Sandman and that villainous black goo, which attached itself to a new host, are all terrific scenes and more than enough reason for me to recommend Spiderman 3.

Later this summer Shrek will try to avoid its own jump the shark moment. Meanwhile Pirates of the Caribbean will try and bounce back from a lackluster follow up. Every franchise is different but each will have a low point. If Spiderman 3 is the low point for the Spiderman franchise then we can look forward to more great things from our friendly neighborhood Spiderman the next time he swings into theaters.

Movie Review Jurassic World

Jurassic World (2015) 

Directed by Colin Trevorrow 

Written by Rick Jaffe, Amanda Silver, Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow 

Starring Christ Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'onofrio, B.D Wong 

Release Date June 12th, 2015 

Published June 11th, 2015 

“Jurassic World” has been called ‘”sexist,” “anti-feminist” and, in one review, “gendered,” a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are aimed at the portrayal of the character Claire played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career-oriented, driven administrator of the Jurassic World Theme Park.

Claire’s character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain. However, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc — you know, like a movie character.

As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition threatens to legislate traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters that stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws.

One of the criticisms of Claire as an anti-feminist symbol is centered on her clothes. Bear in mind: We are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in board rooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. Being chased by dinosaurs was, quite fair to say, not on Claire’s schedule EVER.

And yet we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs.

The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire’s comfort comes from achieving her ambition, which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait, but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition, then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack, then what is the dramatic arc?

Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominus Rex — maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. She was a little busy for a wardrobe change: There’s a freaking dinosaur on the loose.

Movie Review The Help

The Help (2011) 

Directed by Tate Taylor

Written by Tate Taylor 

Starring Viola Davis, Emma Stone, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jessica Chastain

Release Date August 10th, 2011 

Published August 9th

"The Help" catches you off guard with warmth and humor in the midst of great turmoil. A tremendous cast of extraordinary women will move you to laugh and to cry within the space of moments. This story of racism, civil rights and dignity in the face of undignified circumstances finds glorious moments of grace and humor amidst a story that invites anger and sadness.

Emma Stone stands at the center of "The Help" as Eugenia 'Skeeter' Phelan, a budding journalist who returns to her family home in Jackson, Mississippi in 1963. Things haven't changed much since she left but they are about to. Skeeter's writing career is about to take off after she gets the idea to write a scathing novel that exposes the ugly, racist side of Jackson's high society.

Bryce Dallas Howard plays Hilly, a high strung ex-classmate who touches off Skeeter's controversial idea by angrily insisting that her African American maid, Mini (Octavia Spencer), not use her bathroom. Hilly is convinced that Black people carry different diseases than white people and she intends to start a trend in Jackson of building separate bathrooms in everyone's home for the Help.

Mini is soon fired after she refuses to use the outdoor bathroom in the midst of a hurricane. Eventually, Mini will tell her stories about Hilly to Skeeter for her book which will for the first time tell a story from the perspective of The Help. First to aid Skeeter however, is Aibileen (Viola Davis) who decides that telling her story is necessary after seeing another maid arrested for doing something desperate to take care of her kids.

Soon other maids are talking and Skeeter has a remarkable book that is more than just juicy gossip; it may be an article for change. In the time of the story of The Help Medgar Evers and President Kennedy are assassinated and Dr. Martin Luther King is risking his life to lead the fight for Civil Rights. This historic context lends seriousness to The Help that underlines the film's poignancies.

This remarkable cast has the power to move audiences with just a word or a glance. The emotional strength of Viola Davis is matched by the fearlessness and attitude of Octavia Spencer and each creates a bond with Emma Stone that allows the book writing scenes to crackle with unexpected life and wit.

Bryce Dallas Howard has the most difficult role in The Help and pulls it off with remarkable ease. Howard is the focus of our hatred as the virulently racist Hilly and while it would have been easy to make Hilly a racist punch line, Howard invests Hilly with truth and life.

The revelation of "The Help," however, is not Stone or Davis or Howard but Jessica Chastain. In a role that really doesn't need to be in this movie in terms of plot, Jessica Chastain plays Celia Foote, a reputed gold digger who is desperate to be accepted into high society. Celia begins as a caricature of Southern flightiness but as the film goes on her pluck and spirit become so delightful that you wish she had a movie of her own to show off in.

This is Jessica Chastain's second Oscar worthy performance of 2011 following her stunning turn in the Terence Malick epic "Tree of Life." Chastain's work in "The Help" is such a transformation from "Tree of Life" that I didn't know it was her until I checked the credits after the movie; a demonstration of Chastain's amazing range.

"The Help" is one of my favorite movies of 2011; a smart, moving, funny and warm movie that features one of the most talented casts we've seen assembled in a long while. Emma Stone is about to be a huge star and Jessica Chastain is the next big thing while Viola Davis is the pillar of strength on whom the performances of others are built and find firm foundation.

Movie Review: The Twilight Saga Eclipse

The Twilight Saga Eclipse (2010) 

Directed by David Slade 

Written by Melissa Rosenberg

Starring Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Bryce Dallas Howard, Elizabeth Reaser

Release Date June 30th, 2010 

Published June 29th, 2010

The Twilight movies are about sex. Sex is why the Cullen family, and indeed all Vampires are so damned Gap model attractive. Sex is why Taylor Lautner’s Jacob, and the rest of his Wolf pack are shirtless for most of the movie. The denial of sex from Edward to Bella, from Bella to Jacob, is the driving force of the plot of the latest Twilight chapter “Eclipse” and it makes for one exceptionally irritating tease. Not to mention one truly irresponsible and outdated morality play.

As we rejoin the “Twilight Saga,” a young man in Seattle is being menaced in the rain. He is soon bitten and will become a Vampire, the first in an army of newborn Vamps under the control of the evil redhead Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard). She is building an army to attack the Cullen Clan and especially Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), the love of Victoria's mortal enemy Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson).

Bella and Edward, reunited after Edward tried to runaway in “New Moon,” are now in the full blossom of love, as demonstrated by the two of them reading poetry in a flowery meadow together. How else would you know they were in love? Bella is still pestering Edward about becoming a Vampire while Edward talks of marriage.

Meanwhile, Bella has drama with her pal Jacob, yet another of Edward's sworn enemies, who happens to also be in love with Bella. Bella has feelings for Jacob and this love triangle is supposed to be a source of deathly, primal, tension that smolders off of the screen but as written and played it comes off much more like two boys fighting over a favored toy.

Bella and Jacob haven't spoken in the months since she chose Edward over him but, when Victoria returns to their tiny corner of Washington State, Jacob wants to know that Bella is protected and that he and his wolf pack are ready to do the protecting if Edward and his vampires can't do it. Victoria’s army leads to a truce between the Cullen clan and the Wolf pack and some newborn vampire heads get crushed in the film’s best sequence.

The battle scenes staged by director David Slade have a crisp, professional look that was desperately lacking in the first two Twilight movies. Slade's experience on the vampire flick “30 Days of Night” definitely pays off here even as he is restrained by a bloodless PG-13 rating. Did you know that Vampires are made of marble? I’m not kidding, freaking marble, like tabletops. Goofy as that sounds, the visual of marble crushed by Vampire fist and Werewolf teeth is pretty cool.

As an action movie, this is certainly the best of the Twilight brand of action. But, “Twilight” is not about Vampires and Werewolves punching and biting one another in some CGI universe. No, “Twilight” is about sex, more to the point, it's about spreading a fear and loathing of sex. Stephanie Meyer has crafted a morality play in which Vampirism and the Werewolf version of eternal love, known as ‘Imprinting,’ are merely poorly veiled metaphors for sex. The pain of turning into a Vampire, the fear of Edward’s uncontrollable ‘blood’ lust and Jacob’s animal sexuality are Meyer’s way of making sex dangerous and foreboding.

In the “Twilight” series sex is threatening, mystical and frightening unless you are married. It’s the Purity Ring of movie franchises, clinging desperately to an outdated idea of chastity as the only way to live. Teens are sexually active and the more society attempts to frighten them away from sexuality the more dangerous teen experimentation becomes. Instead of teaching teens the joy of safe, responsible sex, “Twilight” preaches abstinence through fear and encourages ignorance in the form of outdated moralism.

If you must send this chastity/abstinence/purity message then at least do it better than this. In The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, the message is delivered with Ms. Meyer and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg employing undercooked analogies, juvenile romantic fantasy, and groan inducing monologue that run page after page apparently communicating what the writers felt could not be communicated by the cast through that talent known as acting.

Like the first and second film in the saga, “Eclipse” is for fans only. Those who love the books are blind to the immature romance, the stolid monologues, and the attempt to push an abstinence message in the guise of a Vampire movie. I’m sure if Twi-hards would pull their eyes away from Edward’s gleaming skin or Jacob’s rippling abs they would see this series for what it is; but trust me that is never going to happen.