Reviews

The primary goal of a film is to elicit emotion. Daybreakers did an amazing job at this. I was so disturbed by the film that I had to take a walk outside in the sunshine after seeing it to calm my nerves. I'm no lightweight when it comes to dark movies or horror films, I frequently watch them alone, I had no problem swimming after seeing Jaws, or going home and turning out the lights after Paranormal Activity, but this movie got under my skin in a way most other horror movies have failed to do. For that alone, I give the filmmakers a huge amount of credit and classify it as a great movie.

The other awesome thing about it was Willem Dafoe.

The previews, while quite intriguing, didn't even hint at how funny he would be. He lent an amazing amount of charm, comic relief and wit to what would have otherwise been a too depressingly dark movie. Ethan Hawke was fine, but he was, as his character demanded, so whiny and self-loathingly tortured and brooding that if it weren't for Willem Dafoe the movie would have been a complete downer.

I'm a sucker for vampire movies (pun intended), and I also find post-apocalyptic movies fascinating. The premise alone of this film was enough to make me want to see it, and I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Spierig brothers brought this imagined future to life. The special effects weren't perfect, but they weren't bad enough to be distracting. The makeup was great, and all of the actors did a good job. The filmmakers didn't spare any detail and took their time painting the picture of the brave new world that might exist if we had all become vampires-the school zone time was changed from 2:00 AM-3:00 AM, everyone chain smoked, since lung cancer was no longer a concern, and cars were equipped with special shields to allow the vampires to go cruising during the day. The dark utopia presented at the beginning of the film was fascinating enough, and the way the story unfolded kept me on the edge of my seat, with what were sometimes predictable turns that nonetheless worked and served to continually challenge the hero. There were no dull moments and nothing came easy. It also offered some interesting, though not wholly original, social commentary on class warfare, the use of limited resources, and how quickly a society can turn on its own once it allows itself to classify certain people as outsiders.

realize this post comes a little late, but I resisted the Twilight phenomenon for as long as I could. Partially because I tend to be a bit of a literature snob and didn't want to get involved in such a trendy book series, and partially, because I'm at least 12 years older than the target demographic of the series. But, like Edward, I could only resist temptation for so long, I really wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I ordered the books on Amazon (so I wouldn't have to face the checker at Barnes and Noble judging me for my immature purchase), and started reading.

I finished Twilight quickly, and while my sarcastic side was rolling it's eyes at all the angsty-teenage romance that is like crack for teenage girls, I also had to admit it was a good story, full of suspense and romance. That, along with the fact that it was at about a fifth-grade reading level, meant that I finished the 400-odd page novel very quickly.

Now it was time to get to the movie. It's a shame that I waited so long, because while reading, I wasn't able to envision my own versions of Bella and Edward, but instead had to picture Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, who were well cast, I guess, I just wish I could have judged that for myself. It's one of my favorite parts of watching adaptations-analyzing casting. I was curious how the screenwriters would be able to adapt such a dialogue-heavy, melodramatic book into a movie and keep it dynamic and visually interesting, when the bulk of the book involved Bella and Edward talking to each other in rather boring locations-her bedroom, a meadow, and their cars.

I was pleasantly surprised with how good the adaptation was. First off, a defense of adaptations. No real fan of a novel ever thinks the movie was as good as the book. It's a given. Because no movie can ever get as far inside the character's thoughts and minds as a well-written book. Reading a book is personal, it's just you and the page, you create the story in your mind and therefore feel deeply connected to your version. The mediums are drastically different, and it's important to realize this and judge an adaptation differently, not expecting it to move you in the same ways as the book.

This movie, however, was adapted very well. It changed a few small details, but they only served to make the story more exciting. The book completely lacks conflict during what would be the second act. The two get together so soon and are instantly professing their love. The only conflict is the tension created by ever-present danger that Edward might kill Bella at any moment. But, like Bella, we trust he won't. With nothing else hindering their love, and Edwards super-human abilities making it much easier for them to sneak around and spend time together, they are able to lounge around and bask in the glow of their love endlessly-in the book.

The movie upped the stakes right away, by introducing the danger and the conflict early on. The three evil vampires that show up much too late in the book-causing the central conflict and the exciting climax of that story-are out and about very early in the film. This creates anticipation, a sense of danger, and gives Bella's father something to do besides watch baseball. Most of the endless pillow-talk scenes were shortened, combined, and moved outside, giving the film a dynamic, visually stunning look that the book didn't have, or need. Scenes, revelations, and events were combined, allowing the adaptation to progress quickly enough so that it wouldn't have to be a seven hour saga that it would have been if they had remained completely faithful to the book. These changes did not take anything away from the story but enhanced it, and made it more visually impactful, a better fit for the screen.

Small changes, such as giving Bella the goal of going to the bookstore to find a book on vampire legends in Port Angeles, not just aimlessly wandering, made the scene in which Edward rescues her from the gang of would-be rapists much more interesting, and puts Bella in charge as an active hero. Taking the dinner scenes out of their home and into the diner worked well to show-since the film couldn't tell as the book did-how painfully strained Bella's relationship with her father was, and it gave them a chance to interact with the townspeople so that we could see (rather than be told) how big of a deal it was to have a newcomer in Forks, and how scared everyone was over the "animal attacks." Overall I'm quite impressed with the adaptation. Certainly this wasn't the best film ever made, and it's success is due mainly to the popularity of the books, but I always give writers enormous credit for a successful adaptation of a book, and in this case, a very challenging book. If you think adaptation is easy, try writing one, and watch the film Adaptation, to give you a glimpse into how difficult successfully translating one medium into another can be.

Despite reading a few negative reviews, I had high hopes for Amelia. Of course, the critics were right and it was not good. The best thing about this film was the cinematography. With grand, sweeping aerial shots of all the gorgeous land and sea Amelia flew over, there's no denying it was stunning visually. That and the fact that Hilary Swank looked just like Amelia Earhart are the two things I could say were done well. The rest was a mess.

There were little things that were irritating about the film. Hilary Swank's weird accent bothered me. I don't know anyone from Kansas, so I'm not sure what women from Kansas in the 1920s and 30s would have sounded like, but if they truly sounded as irritating and awful as Hilary Swank did, then the acting coaches should have taken poetic license and allowed her to speak normally. Her accent was so odd, it was distracting. It was also inconsistent and drew attention to itself, taking me out of the experience of the film.

The chemistry between Amelia and George Putnam, played by Richard Gere, was entirely lacking. While Richard tried his best to feign love, and said all the right things, I just didn't buy it. And Amelia was cold and completely unlovable towards him, which I assumed was just part of her character, since when he proposed marriage she responded with a grimace and a promise that she would not be faithful nor would she expect him to be. Because she was so honest, it was not dramatic, interesting or exciting when she began her passionless, short-lived affair with Gene Vidal.

The only thing keeping me awake through most of the film was my popcorn, but I perked up slightly when I thought perhaps they were hinting at Amelia being gay. This at least, was a new take on her life that I hadn't heard of yet. While at a bar, she pointed out that a woman nearby was very attractive. That, her masculine appearance, and her support of other female pilots, particularly the mentoring of an attractive young competitor combined to make me wonder if maybe the filmmakers were going to explore that side of her story. But no, it was just an idle comment used to explain why Amelia always wore pants, she admired the other woman's legs and thought her own were inadequate. Yawn.

The primary problem with this film goes back to the script at its very basic level. There was an utter lack of conflict that made the story incredibly dull. Biographies are hard to do well, as most people's lives are meandering and episodic by nature. We all know the fascinating story surrounding Amelia Earhart's disappearance. This story should have brought us into her life, engaged us so thoroughly that we were on the edge of our seats and calling out "No Amelia-don't get on that plane!" as we watched her take the fateful voyage. Because if we had cared more about her and been brought into her world by an exciting, conflict-driven look at her life, we would have been emotionally attached and deeply moved at the thought of her demise. We all knew how Titanic would end, but were nonetheless moved to tears when we watched Jack sink to his watery grave, because the writers of Titanic did what the writers of Amelia did not-they got the audience emotionally involved with the characters so that we cared whether they lived or died. Watching Amelia was like watching a historically accurate documentary which included all the dull parts of a real person's life. There was little focus on the obstacles and conflicts Amelia Earhart no doubt faced in doing what she did at that time in American history. Instead, everything seemed relatively easy for her. The main conflict arose from her feeling like a sell-out while endorsing product after product, but this too was explained and accepted as necessary, and didn't create any real drama or conflict for the hero.

When the ending we all saw coming finally arrived, it was just that, the end of a story we already know, no less exciting after watching this uninspired portrayal of a woman who truly was groundbreaking and inspirational. It's a shame that the writers did not craft a more engaging Amelia for Hilary Swank to embody. The real woman was a passionate pioneer whose life was interesting, dramatic and groundbreaking. This bravery and zeal could have been captured by an actress as talented as Hilary Swank if the writers had given her a story to work with, rather than this dull retelling of facts.