Movie Review Mary Queen of Scots

Mary Queen of Scots (2018) 

Directed by Josie Rourke 

Written by Beau Willimon 

Starring Saorise Ronan, Margot Robbie, Jack Lowden, Joe Alwyn, David Tennant, Guy Pearce

Release Date December 7th, 2018 

Published December 6th, 2018

Mary Queen of Scots is a handsome but mostly forgettable mid-centuries soap opera starring two of our finest working actresses. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie are incredible performers but there isn’t anything in Mary Queen of Scots that rises to the level of their talents. The film is not bad because Ronan and Robbie are too good for it to be bad but the story is far too thin and the film loses steam quickly given the amount of juice this story appears to have on the surface.

Mary Stuart (Ronan) is a fascinating historical figure. At a very young age, though she was heir to the throne of Scotland, she was forced to flee to France. While there, she married the French King but did not become Queen by marriage, she was 5 at the time she was promised to the 4 year old future King. When the King died young, Mary fled back to Scotland where she was welcomed back as Queen by her brother, the Earl of Moray.

Mary’s return was not welcomed by her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie). Ever suspicious, the Queen of England kept a distance from Mary that was as strategic as it was out of fear. The Elizabeth of Mary Queen of Scots appears concerned that Mary’s beauty eclipses her own and that any invitation for comparison between the two could lead to a confrontation over her legitimacy as Queen.

The flames between Mary and Queen Elizabeth were further heated by the growing tension between the Protestants and Catholics. Mary, being a proud Catholic and Elizabeth, a Protestant, each had factions to serve and keep at bay from religious leaders and members of their respective courts. The two maintained correspondence with Elizabeth acknowledging Mary’s desire to ascend to the throne if Elizabeth died but the succession discussion was as political as it was about whom God ordained as royalty.

Eventually, the two would come into more direct conflict when Mary rejected Elizabeth’s suggestion that she marry the Protestant Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, ineffectually portrayed by Joe Alwyn. Mary took things a step further by marrying Catholic and English subject, Lord Darnley, her cousin. That Mary proceeded with the marriage to a family member and English subject without the Queen’s permission was a significant slight.

Eventually, it would be the Protestant and Catholic factions that would be Mary’s undoing but not before we get a baby, a pair of murders, and a rape and finally a beheading. There is a whole lot of drama packed into Mary Queen of Scots but it doesn’t land because, though Mary and Elizabeth are deeply compelling, the men surrounding them wither in comparison. Schemers, toadies, and sycophants, the men of Mary Queen of Scots do little to deepen the drama of Mary Queen of Scots.

The script repeats the same beats in Mary’s life over and over again. She rises to power, she is challenged by a man and defeats him. She rises again, is challenged by a man and out maneuvers him until finally, her luck runs out. The timeline is confusing as well as we jump ahead months and sometimes years at a time with only a few minor visual cues to indicate such a change.

As I mentioned, the production of Mary Queen of Scots is handsome. The costumes look authentic and lavish, the hair and makeup are gorgeous even as they push the bounds of believability for the period, and the sets have a lived-in and worn down quality that suits the period. I have no issues with the presentation of Mary Queen of Scots, I just wish the story had been as involving as the set dressing.

As it is, Mary Queen of Scots is something of a pot boiler but a trifle of one. The film pretends toward seedy exposes and serious costume drama and never settles on which tone it prefers. A love scene between Mary and Lord Darnley prior to their marriage is intended as a moment of sexy excess but comes across as needless and awkward in execution. Rarely is the sex in Mary Queen of Scots anything necessary or titillating, it’s either uncomfortable, criminal or merely problematic.

So if the film isn’t sexy and it isn’t serious enough to rise to the level of the great costume dramas of the past, then just what is Mary Queen of Scots? At its very least, it is a fine showcase for Ronan and Robbie who bite down on their roles with gusto. If the script were better, the male characters more well-rounded as either foes or allies, and if the film’s shifting in time narrative were cleaner and clearer, perhaps Mary Queen of Scots would work. As it is, it’s messy and narratively unsatisfying despite the stars.

Movie Review: Atonement

Atonement (2007) 

Directed by Joe Wright 

Written by Christopher Hampton 

Starring Keira Knightley, James McAvoy, Saorise Ronan, Romala Garai, Vanessa Redgrave

Release Date December 7th, 2007 

Published December 25th, 2007 

Everything about the toney new feature film Atonement screams LOVE ME to the film lover. It has that classy British setting, those classy English accents, and it arrives with more fawning praise than Mike Huckabee on a Fox News show. Critics absolutely adore Atonement with more than 86% positive notices on Rotten Tomatoes, the ultimate tracker of critical opinion. And yet, I'm unconvinced. Everything tells me I should love this picture and yet I don't. I watched it and I was unmoved. Atonement is remote, emotionally distant, and disconnected.

Atonement features highly self involved characters acting in their own self interest with little to no reason for us to care for them. It begins when one character, young Briony (played as a youngster by Saorise Ronan and later by Romala Garai and still later by Dame Vanessa Redgrave), mistakes a bit of unusual flirting between her sister Cecilia and the family gardener Robbie as some sort of violent encounter. Later, when Briony interrupts a private tryst between the two her suspicions become dangerous. Another incident, this one involving a female cousin, offers her just the opportunity to compound her misunderstandings into a criminal matter that finds Robbie off to prison accused of assault.

Avoiding a jail sentence by leaping into the war effort in France, Robbie and Cecilia remain in love as he fights to clear his name and survive having been left for dead on the French countryside. Meanwhile, Briony has grown up and come to understand her misunderstanding and all of the pain she caused. She attempts to ATONE, ho ho, for her sins by leaving the life of privilege's to follow Robbie and Cecilia into the war effort, Cecilia is an army nurse having shunned family and privilege's for the love of Robbie and a shabby flat in the city.

It's quite a story and writer director Joe Wright is quite a storyteller. The problems come too often from how the story is told. Multiple flashbacks taken from different characters points of view are meant to illustrate the many misunderstandings going on. However, as filmed these elements feel like the filmmakers way of fucking with the audience. Twists and turns basically jerk you around until finally you just don't care anymore, or at least I didn't care anymore. I can definitely see where some might not be as ticked off by the many plot machinations of Atonement, but I was irritated.

I was also irritated by these self involved characters. Whether lounging in the idyll of British upper class malaise or suffering in silence during the war these characters are so astonishingly self involved that one can't help but be turned off by them. First you have Briony who even after growing up and understanding her own foolishness. Even after willingly giving up everything to atone for her sins, she remains amazingly self involved. She doesn't give up everything to make it up to her sister and Robbie, it's all about relieving her own guilt. And she is the emotional center of the film!

As for McAvoy and Knightley, they craft a shabbily threadbare romantic pair. These two are also all about themselves with little care for each other or those around them. It's all about their sadness and their suffering. Even as war and death mount about them they show care only for their immediate self interest. How am I supposed to care about them when they care about themselves enough for all the rest of us. The supporting characters only make things worse, especially the young cousin played by Juno Temple and a sleezy family friend played by Paul Marshall.

What is truly unfortunate is that irritation was the only feeling I had throughout Atonement. For as opulent, lush and beautiful as Atonement is, it's also remote and emotionally distant. The characters emotions are mostly interior and self referential and we are outside with little ability to identify or care about these people. Given all of the big emotions in play, love, betrayal, heartache, desperation and hope, we should be invested here. But we are not.

Atonement is far from being a bad film. Joe Wright's skill as a director is well demonstrated with the gorgeous, sweeping cinematography and grand settings and costumes, Atonement  is one of the finest looking, well crafted pictures in this decade. It's the emotion and the style of storytelling that I fail to connect with.

In the end, if you are going to watch the Oscars in February you will want to have watched Atonement. Given that my detachment from the film was far from the consensus I am convinced the film will be a major contender. I however, will not be rooting for the film. I will observe any nominations with the same distant appreciation these characters seem to have for each and inspired within me as I watched their stories play out.

Movie Review: City of Ember

City of Ember (2008) 

Directed by Gil Kenan 

Written by Caroline Thompson 

Starring Saorise Ronan, Harry Treadaway, Bill Murray, Tim Robbins, Martin Landau, Toby Jones 

Release Date October 10th, 2008 

Published October 9th, 2008

With humanity forced underground, two teens try to figure out why and how they can escape. She is Lina Mayfleet (Saorise Ronan). He is Doone Harrow (Harry Treadaway). Though they weren't aware of it, Lina and Doone's parents were close friends. In fact, they were part of a secret society that were the first to try to escape from Ember. Lina and Doone have the advantage of a map handed down by the builders, the scientists who created the underground city as their own society was crushed by some unseen force, either environmental or nuclear. 

The buliders created the map and instructions for leaving Ember and locked them in a time sealed box incapable of being opened for 200 years. The box was supposed to be passed from one mayor of Ember to the next but at some point it was lost along with the instructions for reclaiming the earth's surface. Lina finds the box in a closet in her grandmothers home. She takes it to her pal Doone and together they follow the instructions leading to an extraordinary adventure.

City of Ember was produced by the folks at Walden Media whose abundance of religious metaphors can be a little ham fisted. Here the Builders stand in for a belief in a higher power. They are even thought by the truly faithful to be returning someday. The metaphor is obvious and overblown but the director, Gil Kenan, is smart not to get bogged down in the overt demonstration. Using his exceptional cast, especially Bill Murray as the town's bumbling, inept mayor, Kenan never lets things get bogged down by metaphor. He also makes great use of action, especially near the end where a boat trip mimics Indiana Jones Temple of Doom coal chute chase.

Saorise Ronan is a lovely young actress whose big eyes never portray anything but earnest commitment to purpose. Her Lina wasn't looking to leave Ember, she in fact had just received the job of her dreams as red cape wearing messenger, a job that allows her to indulge her quick feet. However, with the town experiencing growing blackouts and food shortages, it becomes her mission to not merely save herself but the community of Ember that is her surrogate family. Doone's interest wasn't leaving either, he was compelled by something to believe he could fix the generator.

When he is assigned to work as pipefitter he hopes to use it's proximity to the great generator to get in there and solve the problem. Doone's arc goes from fearful and frantic to realistic and hopeful. When confronted with evidence of a world outside of Ember Doone abandons his grandiose plans for a more arduous journey with what he hopes greater results. Doone and Lina spark well together and their entirely chaste romance, expressed only in brief hand holding, is charming in an old school, kids movie kind of way. I like movies that manage to entertain while acting their age and that is what City of Ember does.

Gil Kenan knows he is making this movie for young children and avoids any humor or violence that might overwhelm the target audience. It sounds as if he is censoring himself but the film remains entertaining which demonstrates Kenan's talent, he doesn't need to be simpleminded or vulgar to achieve the film he wants to make.

City of Ember has it's flaws but in the end what mattered was my smile. I started smiling the moment Saorise Ronan came onscreen, arriving late at school with an important assembly already underway and she needing to be on stage, till the end. Kids movies that don't condescend or speak down to kids are in too short supply. City of Ember deserves your movie dollar for simply being that kind of thoughtful kids flick. Saorise Ronan is a young star in the making and I can't wait to see what she does next. Here's hoping it's as smart and fun as City of Ember.

Movie Review: The Way Back

The Way Back (2010) 

Directed by Peter Weir

Written by Peter Weir, Keith Clarke

Starring Jim Sturgess, Ed Harris, Saorise Ronan, Colin Farrell

Release Date December 29th, 2010 

Published December 27th. 2010

Sometimes a movie will place a critic in the odd position of appreciating the artistry and craftsmanship involved and yet leaves the critic almost entirely incapable of recommending the film. Director Peter Weir's The Way Back is a movie that inspires such a feeling. The work here is exceptional but it is exceptional in delivering a cinematic experience that I would not recommend to the average filmgoer trained on mainstream, Hollywood genre films.

The Way Back tells a remarkable true story in a fashion that feels intensely real. In 1942 three men emerged in India, then under the British flag, claiming that they had walked 4000 miles from a Siberian Gulag. The journey, if true, cost the lives of 6 other members of their party and had taken them across the frozen forests of Russia, through the Gobi Desert, and finally over the Himalayas 

In 1941 we watch as Janusz (Sturgess) is accused of treason by Russian military authorities who tortured his wife in order to get a confession. Janusz is sentenced to five years in a Siberian Gulag where the harsh conditions hold life expectancy well below Janusz's sentence. The prison is surrounded on all sides by unforgiving frozen wasteland and with few supplies to hoard and fewer places to hoard them; death would seem to be the only possible escape.

The forbidding forest however, doesn't intimidate Janusz who enlists several other inmates in an unlikely escape attempt. Among the prisoners is an American named Mr. Smith (Ed Harris) and a criminal, Valka (Colin Farrell), whose only appeal is that he has a knife that could be handy for hunting and protection. Several other nameless inmates come along but all seem to melt into one behind thick accents.

The names aren't important; it's the remarkable and unlikely journey that is the star of The Way Back. Escaping the gulag turns out to be the easy part. The trouble for these brave journeymen will be surviving the forbidding wasteland and getting out of Communist territories where, if they were caught, they could easily be shipped back to Siberia. This means getting to India, more than 4000 miles away. 

The Way Back is based on a book ghost written on behalf of a Polish World War 2 veteran named Slawomir Rawicz. However, Rawicz’s account was found to be false based on documents, some in Rawicz's own hand, which showed he had been released as part of a general amnesty in 1942. Then again, records from Russian prisons amid World War 2 are notoriously unreliable, especially after more than 50 years. 

In 2009 another Polish vet named Witold Glinski emerged to say that Rawicz's story was true but also stated that it was his story as he told it to Rawicz. Investigators and historians are still weighing the truth of Glinski's claim. Regardless of truth or fiction though, the story, as captured by director Peter Weir, is a grueling trek filled with death, despair, and triumph in heartbreaking detail. 

Jim Sturgess is a terrific star for The Way Back. With his soft face and warm, kind eyes, you can't help but feel for him and root for him. Ed Harris meanwhile is just the right stalwart second in command of this journey, a man so hard you are welcome to wonder if the freezing cold of the forest or the intense heat of the desert could penetrate his cragginess. Colin Farrell then, is on hand to give the film a little life beyond Sturgess's straight arrow hero and Harris's distant toughness. I can imagine many film financiers saying no to The Way Back without someone of Farrell's star power. Even under dirty makeup and crooked teeth Farrell is a charismatic presence. 

Director Peter Weir spares no image to demonstrate how difficult this journey was, as if merely describing a 4000 mile trek from Siberia to Tibet, over the Himalayas and ending in India were not enough. There is yeoman work on the part of the cast and the makeup department to demonstrate the physical toll this 11 month journey took on the seven men and one woman, played by Saorise Ronan, who made it. 

The Way Back is extraordinarily effective. Watching the film, it is as if you can feel the bone chilling cold, the burn of the sweltering heat, and the emptiness of starvation and dehydration. Peter Weir, not unlike Danny Boyle in 127 Hours, wants to give you some approximation of the physical toll being exacted on his protagonists so those feelings can underline the feeling of triumph at the end of this allegedly true story. 

I want to recommend The Way Back because it is so very well made. Peter Weir is a master director who gives this story a visceral, agonizing and yet triumphant feel. But, based on my description is this a movie you want to see? At well over 2 hours The Way Back is an extensive and exhaustive inventory of suffering even with it’s thrilling and cathartic conclusion. The poster for The Way Back could boast the word ‘Grueling’ and count it as a positive. 

Film buffs and historians perhaps will be rewarded with a comprehensive, fictional account of what may be the greatest single physical feat that a man has ever undertaken. The truth of Witold Glinski's story remains in question but history buffs may find the details of Weir's telling of this story revealing. Film buffs will surely be impressed with director Peter Weir's masterful direction but beyond the buffs The Way Back is a tough movie and one that I cannot recommend for a general audience.

The feel good ending is great but the journey to get there is agonizing and that’s not really the reason most people go to the movies. Unless you are someone who hears a movie described as ‘Grueling’ and ‘Agonizing’ and gets excited, I would recommend not seeing The Way Back. Perhaps as a primer, read Ronald Downing’s book, ‘The Long Walk, on which The Way Back is based. If you can get through that book and think you want to see that in a movie, then see The Way Back.

Movie Review Hanna

Hanna (2011) 

Directed by Joe Wright 

Written by Seth Lochhead, David Farr 

Starring Saorise Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, Olivia Williams, Jason Flemyng 

Release Date April 8th, 2011 

Published April 7th, 2011 

Hanna (Saorise Ronan) is a teenage girl living in the forest with her survivalist father (Eric Bana). Eric Heller has dedicated his life to teaching his daughter skills needed not just for survival in the wild but survival in a world where unseen forces are trying to kill her. Eric's motto, drilled into Hanna's brain daily, is 'adapt or die.' The incongruity of such harsh words coming from the mouth of a lithe blonde 15 year old girl is jarring as so much of the movie Hanna is jarring.

Directed by Joe Wright Hanna is an exercise in style and substance. Wright, best known for his Oscar nominated "Atonement," brings a great deal of action movie style to "Hanna" with long, uncut takes that have the camera following characters through complex choreographed fights that are refreshing compared to most other action movie director's affinity for  super fast edits that hide the action behind layers of trickery.

As I mentioned, there is also an experimental substance as well. Unlike the brainless titillation of "Sucker Punch," "Hanna" takes a teenage girl with unique fighting skills and examines the effect such disturbing ability might have on a girl rather than dressing her in fetish gear and exploiting her nubile flesh. This examination does not come with long periods of expository dialogue but rather plays on the extraordinary face and in the actions of star Saorise Ronan.

Matching Ronan's superb performance is that of Cate Blanchett as calculated C.I.A killer Marisa Wiegler. Wiegler was Eric Heller's handler on a black op that abruptly ended. Both Hanna and her late mother were part of this aborted operation and when Heller tried to keep them from being eliminated, Wiegler tried to kill him and did kill Hanna's mother. Blanchett's deep cold performance has odd nuance and a chilling resolution. This is a relatively small role for such a well known actress but Blanchett treats the part with the seriousness of a Bond villain and the complexity of the kind of part that could earn her an Oscar nomination.

The rest of the cast, including Jason Flemyng, Olivia Williams and Jessica Barden as members of a family who befriend Hanna on her journey from Morocco to Germany to the German thugs that Marisa hires to capture Hanna and kill anyone she comes in contact with, are exceptionally well placed within this unique story. Tom Hollander is especially chilling as the constantly whistling killer, Isaacs, whose ungodly creepiness leads to a pair of exceptional final act scenes.

Complex and exceptionally well directed, "Hanna" is a real stunner.

Movie Review: The Twilight Saga Breaking Dawn Pt 1

The Twilight Saga Breaking Dawn (2011) 

Directed by Bill Condon

Written by Melissa Rosenberg

Starring Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Billy Burke, Ashley Greene, Kellen Lutz

Release Date November 18th, 2011 

Published November 17th, 2011 

You have to be a fan of the Twilight books to appreciate The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 1. If you aren't a 'Twi-Hard' I very much do not recommend Breaking Dawn which, when looked at objectively, is a shockingly bad movie. We begin with the wedding of Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart). It's a lovely outdoor gathering that is beautifully shot and entirely forgettable. Weddings in movies tend to come at the end of the movie, it's incongruous to have a wedding at the start of the film and thus Breaking Dawn gets off on a strange footing.

From the wedding we are whisked briefly to Brazil and then off to the Cullen's heretofore unmentioned private island; just how rich are these vamps? Here is where we arrive at what was supposed to be a spectacular love scene; Twi-hards' have been buzzing about it since  Breaking Dawn hit bookshelves. As with most hype, reality cannot compete with the build-up. Edward and Bella destroy their marital bed with their passion but the naughtiest bits are off-limits because of the need for the PG-13 rating. What we get instead is the erotic power of a vampire love scene rendered as an adult contemporary music video.

The trailer has told you that Bella gets knocked up, though it's not on the first try. Director Bill Condon makes us wait through an interminable 15 to 20 minutes of Edward resisting his wife's sexual advances because their first encounter left her bruised and he doesn't want to hurt her. Here we have the erotic power of the vampire rendered moot while we watch two attractive young people play chess and engage in one of the least interesting bits of foreplay in movie history. When Edward finally does give in, that's when Bella gets knocked up and the story of Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 really is supposed to kick in.

No one, not Edward's ancient vampire dad, Carlisle (Peter Fascinelli), not random intuitive Brazilian women, or even caring pug nosed werewolf boys, knows whether a human can safely carry a vampire baby or, if she does carry the baby, can she survive the birth? Meanwhile, the werewolves decide, somewhat randomly, that a vampire baby is a violation of their peace treaty with the Cullen's and transform into their enemy. After having helped the Cullen's in previous movies and after beginning Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 wishing to maintain the peace, you can color me confused as to why the wolves suddenly found themselves itching for a fight.

I have a tendency to apply logic where it's not welcome and with that in mind here's a question: If the Cullen's can afford to buy an island off the coast of Brazil then why not just fly in their medical equipment to said island instead of bringing Bella back to Forks and risking the wrath of the werewolves? (It's a rhetorical question Twi-hards and if the answer is in the book, I don't care, it's not in the movie.) Fans of the book, I'm sure, can fill in the blanks. I however, am a film critic and from my perspective the random changes in motivations that these characters portray is sloppy and ill-conceived; it was as if the werewolves were drawn at random to be the bad guys in Breaking Dawn Pt. 1.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 is, in all honesty, for someone who hasn't read the books, a Razzie-worthy effort in which scene after scene tumbles on to the screen with a self-serious thud. The characters are humorless which, when combined with high camp scenes of Edward and Bella's romantic chess playing and a werewolf town-hall meeting in which ungodly goofy looking CGI wolves telepathically yell at each other, makes for cringe-worthy unintentional comedy.

Stay after the credits for the biggest unintentional laugh however, as one of the best actors working today delivers one of the worst line readings of the year. It's a line read so horrible that this moment alone should have an award waiting at the Razzies. (Sorry Michael Sheen.) If you are a fan of Twilight then nothing I can say about the film is going to matter to you. I am not trashing your favorite books; I've never read them. I can only critique the movie and objectively The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 is a lovely looking bad movie.

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.