Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (2010)

Over the last decade or so, Hollywood has found that movies based on comic books are big business. Some of them are huge blockbusters, some aren't. But the vast majority of them still make plenty of money. But these are the ones based on American comics. The ones based on international comics are not only relatively rare, but they don't really do that hot either. Case in point: the 2010 movie Dylan Dog: Dead of Night. Based on the popular Italian comic series created by Tiziano Schlavi in 1986, the movie crashed and burned at the box office. But since I'm a sucker for comic book movies and have a friend who'd recommended it to me, I figured I'd at least rent the DVD from Netflix and see if its financial failure was a sign of the movie's quality.

Meet Dylan Dog (Brandon Routh), a New Orleans private detective who once specialized in cases involving the supernatural. But after his wife was killed by vampires, Dylan gave up paranormal investigations for more traditional ones. Dylan is so committed to putting the weird and macabre cases behind him that when Elizabeth Ryan (Anita Briem) attempts to hire him to hunt down the werewolf that killed her father, he promptly shoots her down. But when his devoted assistant and friend Marcus (Sam Huntington) is killed by another creature for what he believes are reasons similar to why Elizabeth's father died, he reconsiders and takes the case.

With a resurrected Marcus, who finds the transition into being a zombie a difficult one, by his side, Dylan's investigation takes him into the darker corners of New Orleans. He quickly discovers that Elizabeth's father's murder was connected to the "Heart of Belial," an ancient relic said to bestow immense power upon whoever wields it. Continuing to follow a trail of clues, he discovers that high-ranking vampire Vargas (Taye Diggs) is actively seeking the Heart of Belial, seeking to extend the reach of his power. And with many people after it, Dylan has to either find it himself or make sure the wrong person doesn't find it first.

Dylan Dog: Dead of Night bombed at the box office and has all but faded into obscurity since its release four years ago. I can see why, beyond the fact that the character of Dylan Dog is, in my experience, pretty obscure in America. And as far as the movie itself goes, precious little of it is actually memorable, and the whole thing has a feel that it should have been produced for the Sci-Fi Channel instead of being theatrically released. It has a weird sheen of "direct-to-video B-movie" all over it. But it's not a particularly bad movie either. At its very worst, it's not a bad way to spend a boring afternoon.

The movie was the second feature film directed by Kevin Munroe, who'd helmed the animated TMNT in 2007. And for someone with no live-action filmmaking experience that I'm otherwise aware of, Munroe holds it together well. The only catch is that he apparently can't decide whether he wants to make a cheesy monster movie or a noir-oriented detective story that just happens to feature supernatural creatures. He tries to have it both ways, and we end up with a silly movie that's just kinda there. Monroe, to his credit, does keep the movie flowing. It may not be a smart movie or the most original movie, but it's certainly lively. He does make sure that the movie is energetic and doesn't stick around for the dumb parts to really cause a problem.

But the script, however, is actually pretty dumb. While they do give the movie a certain sardonic humor to it, writers Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer appear to have just cobbled together elements from other vampire fiction to make up their script. Watch Dylan Dog: Dead of Night and you'll see bits cribbed from True Blood, Blade, and the Underworld movies. Even after that, the plot still isn't anything you haven't seen before, and the characters are mostly generic and unremarkable. And while I've never read or even actually seen any of the Dylan Dog comic, so I can't really compare the movie to the source material, but I'm sure the comics don't really resemble the movie. (Though I am aware that the Dylan Dog from the comics has a Groucho Marx impersonator for a sidekick instead of a zombie, so take that however you'd like it...)

The cast, meanwhile, is very hit or miss as well. Anita Briem is forgettable, and Taye Diggs doesn't really contribute much. On the other hand, Peter Stormare is decent enough, while Sam Huntington is rather funny as the movie's comic relief. But Brandon Routh is the best part of the movie. He's a likable, charismatic actor, and I've enjoyed him in the other movies I've seen him in. Routh's performance in Dylan Dog: Dead of Night proves to be no different. He plays Dylan as straight laced but with a sarcastic sense of humor, and it's largely because of him and his rapport with Huntington that the movie is enjoyable.

So yeah, Dylan Dog: Dead of Night is one of those movies. It's barely mediocre at best, but it has a certain charm to it. I found it hard to actually hate the movie, simply because I thought it was too goofy to dislike. That cheesy B-movie feeling I mentioned earlier is largely what I liked about it, because the movie honestly doesn't have a lot else going for it. It's a mostly forgettable movie that works as perfectly disposable entertainment, and really, that isn't always a bad thing. Just don't expect to actually remember anything about Dylan Dog: Dead of Night should you actually see it. If it hadn't been for the notes I took while preparing for this review, I wouldn't have remembered anything about it.

Final Rating: **½

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn ― Part 2 (2012)

The saying goes that all good things must come to an end. But what they don't say is that bad things end as well. Case in point: the series of movies based on Stephenie Meyer's Twilight novels. I'd never heard of the Twilight books prior to the first movie's release in 2008, but the media blitz surrounding the movies, along with the offensively bad quality of these cinematic adaptations, have made me vow to never read the books. All of the Twilight movies have been piss-poor, but after this review, I'll never have to watch or even think about them ever again. So let's jump into The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn ― Part 2 and get this mess over with as soon as possible.

Our movie begins where the previous one ended, with Bella Cullen (Kristen Stewart) awaking as a newborn vampire, having been turned by her new husband Edward (Robert Pattinson) in a desperate attempt to save her from death during childbirth. She quickly masters many of the new gifts and abilities that come with being a vampire, her only struggle coming in controlling the bloodlust that is natural to those of the undead persuasion. And she's far from thrilled when she learns that Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) has "imprinted" upon her days-old daughter, an involuntary reflex in which werewolves find their soulmate.

But as time passes, Bella comes to accept and overcome these problems, while her and Edward's daughter Renesmee (Mackenzie Foy) quickly matures thanks to her hybrid human/vampire heritage. Things will get a wee bit rougher for the happy Cullen family, though, as word of Renesmee's birth reaches Aro (Michael Sheen), the leader of the Volturi. Erroneously led to believe that Renesmee is an immortal child, something prohibited in vampire culture, the Volturi venture to Forks to eliminate the Cullens. Fearing a war and desperate to prove Renesmee is not who they think she is, the Cullens band together with a number of other vampire covens and the members of Jacob's werewolf clan to combat the Volturi.

It's like the brain trust behind this insipid franchise only wanted to prolong the torture of non-fans. Because instead of adapting Stephenie Meyer's final Twilight novel into one movie and getting it over and done with, they split it in half and made two. I guess they figured that if Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows can be made into two separate movies that each made a billion dollars worldwide, Breaking Dawn could try doing the same thing. I'm actually surprised they didn't take the full leap and convert the second Breaking Dawn into 3D to shake a little more money out of the audience. And it wouldn't have been so bad if either of the Breaking Dawn movies had been good. This one is a definite step-up from Part 1, but it's just so unbelievably dull that even the moments that aren't totally bad will have you wishing they'd hurry up and get along with it.

Director Bill Condon returns to for the second half of Breaking Dawn, and once again, he's making a respectable effort. He's made what is arguably the least worst out of the Twilight saga with this one, with some of the sequences actually being pretty decent. The climactic fight scene is really good too, but I'll get more into that later. Condon still still falls into some of the same traps that the rest of the movies have fallen into, however. There are quite a few sections that are boring and overlong, others are so hackneyed that one can't believe that someone would allow them to be in the finished product.

But then there's only so much Condon could do with the mediocre script and actors, and the CGI is so atrociously bad that I'm flabbergasted that anybody would allow the movie to be released with it looking the way it does. The CGI baby is especially awful, looking creepy rather than cute. I've seen behind-the-scenes pictures from the movie where baby Renesmee was represented by an ugly animatronic puppet, so the awful CGI is, in retrospect, the lesser of two evils. But the CGI baby is still really off-putting, with my first thought upon seeing it honestly being, "Oh my God, what the hell is this thing?" The one saving grace is that it didn't stick around for long.

The movie has some good elements, sure, but it's weighed down by so many of the bad ones. I find it amazing that Condon can come so close to directing what could have been the lone good entry in the Twilight saga, only to stumble over the same problems that befell three directors before him. It's like the franchise himself was daring Condon to try and make a good movie before pulling the rug out from under him as if it were Lucy Van Pelt holding a football for Charlie Brown.

But again, you can't polish a turd, and with Melissa Rosenberg once again writing the movie, that turd is pretty substantial. Thanks to Breaking Dawn being split into two movies, the material here is thinner than usual. It honestly feels like half a movie stretched out over two hours, with quite a bit of it (particularly the scenes where the Cullens start recruiting other vampires to help them fight) coming off like so much padding.

And then there's only one scene where they ever address just how weird the whole "Jacob imprinting on Renesmee" thing is. It feels rather pedophilic, and I'm not surprised that Bella would be righteously pissed off when she finds out about it. The problem is, though, that any drama that could come from it is diffused when the whole thing is dropped like a hot potato almost as soon as it happens. Jacob is pretty much treated like Renesmee's bodyguard after that and that's it. Rosenberg never delves into it or goes anywhere with it, and all it does is allow Rosenberg to resolve the Edward/Bella/Jacob love triangle in the quickest "let's sweep this under the rug" way possible.

And then there's the climax. That awful, awful climax. (Be warned, here be SPOILERS.) The movie ends with a truly awesome 10-minute brawl pitting the Cullens and Jacob's werewolves against the Volturi, and it's a sight to behold. It's the best thing to happen in all five movies, a climax that made slogging through all these movies absolutely worth it. I'm not joking, I actually did really like this sequence. But then comes the revelation that the whole thing was just a vision implanted in Aro's head. You know how mentioned Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football earlier? That applies to the climax too. It's frustrating to see that Rosenberg wrote a movie that spends two hours establishing that the Cullens were building a gang of vampires with superpowers to fight the Volturi like they were the X-Men, only to find out that the big epic fight scene technically never happened and that the whole movie was for nothing. It's just one great big cheat that slaps everyone that watches this movie in the face. But then I've come to expect disappointment from Rosenberg, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm also not surprised by how weak the cast is. For starters, Robert Pattinson seems like he's just there because of a contractual obligation. You really get the feeling that he doesn't care at all, but is happy that this is the last time he'll have to play Edward Cullen just he can get on with his life. Kristen Stewart, meanwhile, once again proves just how terrible an actress she is. Even when she's showing emotion, it feels like it's beyond her meager abilities. But then, considering how awful a character Bella is, I guess it makes sense that they'd keep an awful actress around to play her for five movies.

It's not all bad, though. Billy Burke and Michael Sheen are great, and many members of the supporting cast are decent despite not being very memorable. And while Taylor Lautner still isn't the most talented actor in the world, he's still the finest of the three leads. The guy does a decent enough job as Jacob, and he's likable despite how weird the whole "Jacob imprinting on Renesmee" thing is. Lautner's not awful, and has just enough charisma and charm to stand out from Pattinson and Stewart here. And with a little luck, he could end up becoming much better down the road. I hope that happens for his sake, because I don't think he wants any more repeats of his poorly-received 2011 flick Abduction in his future.

With this review coming to a close, I can now finally wash my hands of the Twilight saga. And it end not with a bang, but with a limp across the finish line. I've spent the last five years dreading the release of each chapter in this franchise, knowing that my masochism would kick in and I'd have to sit through them. Sure, I afforded myself the luxury of watching them on cable or downloading bootlegs off the Internet so I wouldn't have to spend any actual money on them. I just can't shake the feeling, however, that I was cheated out of something. Precious brain cells, maybe. My free time, certainly. But now that it's all over and done with, I can go back to pretending these movies never existed and I can return to watching bad movies that are actually fun, like The Room or Troll 2. Goodbye, Twilight, and good riddance.

Final Rating: **½

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn ― Part 1 (2011)

Sometimes I don't know why I bother. I've been able to draw at least a little entertainment and amusement from a lot of the bad movies I've seen over the years, but I cannot say that about the Twilight movies. Each and every entry into this damnable franchise has been the equivalent of a turd in the punch bowl, yet they are still met with the adoration of a multitude of tween girls who wouldn't know a good vampire story (or a good romance story, at that) if it hit them in the face. Being a tremendous masochist, I've subjected myself to all of these movies in a (so far) fruitless attempt to understand why these stupid things are so popular. And with the final Twilight movie seeing its release today, I figure I might as well keep going and visit one more entry into this media juggernaut. So please bear with me as I try to talk about Breaking Dawn ― Part 1 without completely losing my mind.

The wedding of Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) goes off without a hitch, and the happy newlyweds fly off to an isolated island off the coast of Brazil on their honeymoon. It is not long after they first consummate their relationship, however, that Bella discovers she's pregnant. And not only is she pregnant, but the baby is growing at an accelerated rate. Bella and Edward rush back home, where even the idea of Bella being pregnant with a vampire/human hybrid horrifies Edward's family.

And while her health rapidly deteriorates, Bella refuses to have an abortion even though carrying the child will lead to her own painful demise. The baby could also have potentially devastating effects on the tenuous peace between the Cullens and the local werewolf clan, as the werewolves will declare war once the baby is born. But Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) breaks away from the clan, vowing to protect Bella and her unborn child from his werewolf brethren no matter what.

I'd heard stories about this movie, tales told by online movie reviewers who sought not to critique the movie, but to warn others of its existence. "Surely they're exaggerating," I thought. Some online critics will do that for comedic effect, or to drive up page views. Besides, the other Twilight movies were bad, but this one can't be that bad. But the rumors were true: Breaking Dawn ― Part 1 really is that bad. It takes this awful franchise to an all-new low, something that I have a hard time believing that even the most devoted "Twi-hards" can defend.

The movie was directed by Bill Condon, an odd choice to helm the movie because none of his past efforts ― especially his acclaimed films Gods and Monsters, Kinsey, and Dreamgirls ― would make him seem like the right guy to direct a Twilight movie. But then I thought the same thing about the directors of the other three movies in the franchise, so maybe that was what the producers were going for this whole time. I'll applaud Condon for doing the best job that he possibly can with Breaking Dawn, but because he's basically stuck attempting to polish the world's biggest turd thanks to the terrible actors and ludicrous script, the movie ends up being a two-hour train wreck.

I actually feel a little sorry for Condon, much in the same way I pity the directors of the first three Twilight movies. Condon's made some great movies in the past and he does everything he possibly can to try crafting something watchable. But such a thing is unfortunately beyond him. I'll give Condon credit for bringing some pretty cinematography and fluid editing to the table, but he's forced to water down a lot of things in order to get a PG-13 rating and avoid upsetting the tender sensibilities of the tween girl crowd. Everything I've heard about the Breaking Dawn novel implies that it's far more intense than the other books, but a lot of that supposed energy feels like it had been toned way down. There's no passion, no spark, no life. There are a few moments that come close, like the scene where the baby is born, but the rest of the movie feels content to just shrug its shoulders and say, "What can you do, huh?"

Things aren't helped by the fact that the movie was the fourth Twilight movie in a row to be written by Melissa Rosenberg. Even if you think Stephenie Meyer's books all suck, I'm of the opinion that a talented writer could have overcome any flaws in the source material. Rosenberg has shown time and time again that she's unable to do that, and this movie is further proof that she's incapable of writing a good movie. The characters are flat and dull as dishwater, and she completely bungles any sort of approach towards the subject matter.

A lot of people have brought up the "pro-life vs. pro-choice" aspect of Breaking Dawn, and Rosenberg handles it with all the delicacy of someone with advanced Parkinson's disease would have while performing brain surgery with a pipe wrench. This is a really touchy subject that really should be approached with some tact. But it's instead treated as Jacob, the Cullens, and the werewolves being all, "That baby's a monster and it has to die," and Bella's all "I'll do what I want even if it means I'll be just a broken pile of meat and bone at the end of the movie." The whole thing even ends up being contradictory and a little confusing, as Bella goes for the stock "my body, my choice" argument while still being pro-life. It's like the movie wants to have its cake and eat it too. It just doesn't work that way, and I can't really say I blame people for getting a little upset with this particular subtext.

But as bad as Rosenberg's writing is, it's actually rivaled by the utterly atrocious acting. Every single person in front of the camera (with the exception of Billy Burke, who I thought was better than the movie deserves) is straight-up bad. The supporting cast is forgettable at best, while the three main actors are the worst offenders. And while I've praised Taylor Lautner in the past and will praise him here for at least putting forth some kind of effort, his performance here is still pretty bad. Lautner's heart is in it, something I respect. But he's simply not a good enough actor to make it work. At least he's trying harder than Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. They would obviously prefer being anywhere else on the face of the planet, and you can tell that they resent the fact that Twilight is the only reason they're famous at all. Pattinson and Stewart barely bothering to go through the motions here, and if neither of them can be bothered to care, why should I?

Today marks the release of the second half of Breaking Dawn and hopefully the end of the Twilight saga as a whole. And after having sat through Breaking Dawn's first half, I'm not really eager to see the franchise's grand finale. Not one minute went by where I didn't want the movie to just end. The direction was bogged down to mediocrity, the writing and acting are bad beyond worlds, and it's full of laughably fake-looking CGI, a cocktail that results in one of the worst movies to be released during the entirety of 2011. But at least there's only one move of these movies to go, right? Stephenie Meyer doesn't have any more Twilight books up her sleeve, right?

Final Rating: *

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

There are times when I think I've seen it all. Those are the times when something comes along and actually surprises me. One of those surprises appeared this past weekend, with the release of the new movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Just the title alone is an attention grabber. You look at the poster or see the commercials on television, and you immediately think, "Somebody actually made a movie when Abe Lincoln fights vampires? You have to be kidding." And it does sound like it should be one of the fake trailers from Grindhouse and not a real movie. But it is real, and it's spectacular.

At the tender age of nine years old, Abraham Lincoln (played as an adult by Benjamin Walker) watched in horror as his mother died, poisoned at the hands of the mysterious Jack Barts (Marton Csokas). Vowing to avenge her murder, Lincoln spent years tracking Barts, but a failed attempt at killing him leaves Lincoln battered, beaten, and bloodied. He's mended to health by Henry Sturges (Dominic Cooper), who reveals to Lincoln that Barts is a vampire and trains him in the ways of permanently eliminating these nocturnal bloodsuckers.

Settling in as a shopkeeper in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln has no trouble finding vampires to hunt. One by one, each vampire he kills leads him closer to Barts. The years pass, and he becomes a lawyer and eventually enters the world of politics while still battling the forces of darkness with his trusty silver axe. As he courts and eventually marries Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Lincoln ascends to the office of President of the United States of America. But he is not in office for long before he's hit with the one-two punch of the Civil War and a vampire with a personal vendetta against Lincoln.

Said vampire is Adam (Rufus Sewell), a 5000-year-old vampire whose slave trade is threatened by Lincoln's vehement opposition to slavery. Learning that Lincoln is a vampire hunter thanks to clues left behind at Lincoln's final battle with Barts, he declares a personal war against the President. He supplies the Confederate army with a team of vampire soldiers, aiming to turn the tide of the Civil War and make America a nation of vampires. And of course, Lincoln wouldn't be much of a vampire hunter if he just let this slide.

With this title and premise, you'd think that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter would be some kind of satirical tongue-in-cheek affair similar to Snakes on a Plane or Hobo with a Shotgun. But the movie bravely takes itself seriously and resembles something akin to a superhero origin story. And while it's been getting lukewarm reviews from critics who will try telling you that the movie is dumb, dull, and nothing more than a goofy title, I thought the movie was a hell of a lot of fun.

At the helm is Timur Bekmambetov, making his first American movie since his adaptation of Mark Millar's comic book Wanted in 2008. Bekmambetov approaches this movie as no stranger to vampires, as his prior credits include the successful Russian vampire movies Night Watch and Day Watch. I haven't seen Night Watch or Day Watch, so I can't really compare them to this. But I can, however, say that I enjoyed his work here. His direction is very good, working to make the movie as cool and as stylish as possible while still retaining a 19th-century feeling. The fight scenes are fun and exciting, and the slower-paced, more dramatic scenes are handled delicately. It's like Bekmambetov was trying to make a version of Jonah Hex that didn't suck. If that were the case, then maybe Warner Bros. should have hired him to direct that piece of crap instead of Jimmy Hayward.

The movie is in 3D too, which sounds like it could have been really cool. Unfortunately, the movie suffers from the typical sub-standard post-production conversion, thus rendering the 3D less effective than it could have been. There are some moments that look really cool, and the 3D is decent enough for the most part. But the whole thing comes off as unnecessary. The movie didn't need to be in 3D. All truth told, you shouldn't feel obligated to pay the extra surcharge on your ticket when the 2D version of the movie will suffice.

But enough about the 3D, let's move on. Next up is the script penned by Seth Grahame-Smith. I thought hiring Grahame-Smith to write the movie was a creative idea, because he actually wrote the novel it's based on. Published in 2010, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was the follow-up to his popular book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. (If you've never heard of that one, yes, he did indeed add zombies [and ninjas!] to Jane Austen's classic novel.) I've never read the source material, but I thought Grahame-Smith's script for the movie was give or take. There's a lot of it I did like, though. I especially liked how the movie took the bold step of never descending into self-parody. I've read a lot of reviews lately where the critics were upset that the movie wasn't as farcical as its rather preposterous title and premise might imply, but I thought it was refreshing. After a while, one grows tired of seeing so many movies that play their wacky concepts for laughs. I had a good time seeing one that played it straight for a change.

However, even though the movie clocks in at roughly two hours or so, I thought the script glossed over or rushed through some things. We spend quite a bit of time with Lincoln as he works as a shopkeeper and studies law. And after that, there are a handful of scenes at the beginning of his political career. And then we're suddenly dropped smack dab in the middle of the Civil War. I can understand skipping over a few years here and there, but it felt like the fast-forward button got stuck during the middle of the movie.

The movie also drags somewhat during the second act. The first 45 minutes and the climax are really great, but that middle portion struggled at times. I don't know what it was, but that segment of the movie is where you could get up and go to the bathroom during the movie and return without feeling like you missed too much.

And I know I sound like I'm ragging on the movie a lot, but there are parts of it I did genuinely enjoy, especially the cast. The actors and actresses assembled in front of the camera all do the absolute best they can do. This is none more evident than in Benjamin Walker, who plays the titular President and vampire hunter. Walker is likable and engaging, and he plays Lincoln with a strength and conviction that makes him very convincing in the role.

Dominic Cooper also plays the part he's given very well, approaching the "jaded mentor" role with a necessary earnestness. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is fantastic as she always is, but the role isn't as meaty as it could have been. She gets some awesome moments to shine, but I'd hoped for a little more from the character. The same goes for Rufus Sewell as the villainous Adam, who sadly isn't given a whole lot to do. But Sewell tackles the role like a pro and still puts forth a solid performance.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter balances some good elements with some bad elements, but never lets either side of this balancing act completely dominate it. And though it isn't a perfect movie, it's fun enough for what it is. So on my usual scale, the movie gets three and a half stars and a recommendation to check it out. The worst part of it all is that, since the movie ends with Lincoln heading to Ford's Theatre on the eve of his assassination, there more than likely won't be a sequel. But maybe somebody can start doing knockoffs with other Presidents fighting supernatural creatures. The Asylum has already released a mockbuster titled Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies, but I want to see something like "JFK: Werewolf Slayer" or "George Washington vs. Frankenstein." That would be awesome.

Final Rating: ***½

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

I often wonder why I continue to willingly suffer through bad movies and movies I know I'm not going to like. Many times it's pure masochism. Watching a terrible movie for the sake of having watched a terrible movie is nothing new for me. But other times, it's a case of pure morbid curiosity. I just have to know what the big deal with the movie is.

Such is the case with the Twilight franchise. I know that the Twilight movies are solely for tween girls and that I'll probably hate them as soon as the opening credits begin. But I'm compelled to watch them because I want to try and comprehend why the target audience loves these movies so much. And since I've already seen and reviewed both the first and second Twilight movies, I might as well aim for the third one. So join me as I try to figure out what The Twilight Saga: Eclipse is all about.

Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is faced with a conundrum. Her vampire boyfriend, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), has asked for her hand in marriage, a proposal that means she will have to be turned into a vampire should she accept. This doesn't sit well with Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), the hunky werewolf who hopes to woo Bella away from Edward. His insistence that he's the right guy for Bella puts the two male points of this love triangle at odds, especially when Bella realizes that she may be developing feelings for Jacob too.

But romance will be the least of their worries. A vampire named Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard), angry that her mate was killed by Edward and his family in the first movie, is hungry for revenge. To get it, she has created an army of powerful newborn vampires she plans to send after Bella and the Cullens. As the ever-growing vampire army raises hell in Seattle and begins moving closer to the town of Forks, the Cullens and Jacob's werewolf pack must put aside their long-standing animosity to protect Bella.

I've said in my reviews of both of the prior movies that I did not get the appeal of the Twilight franchise. And now, having sat through three of these damnable films, I still don't get it. What is there to like about this crap? Is it wish fulfillment? Do the devoted "Twihards" imagine themselves as the franchise's vapid heroine, being fought over by two exotic men? Are tweens so starved for entertainment that they're willing to accept and enjoy movies like these?

Eclipse shows a little promise, though, because it was directed by David Slade. I was actually a little excited to hear he'd directed the movie, as he'd previously helmed Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night, two flicks that I immensely enjoyed. And considering how well 30 Days of Night turned out, I entered Eclipse convinced that he knew how to make a vampire movie that didn't suck. However, the vampires of the Twilight universe are the polar opposites of those from 30 Days of Night. Comparing the Cullens to the 30 Days of Night vampires is like comparing the weakest kittens to the most vicious, blood-hungry beasts in the jungle. But Slade still manages to do as good a job as he can.

Slade's direction is not as flashy as what Chris Weitz tried with New Moon, nor is it as lifelessly gloomy as Catherine Hardwicke's work on the first movie. He makes the movie his own, however. And like Weitz's direction on New Moon, Slade's direction is way better than the material deserves. He benefits from some really good camerawork courtesy of cinematographer Javier Agirresarobe, and he keeps the movie's pace moving fluidly. Even when some of the secondary characters start having flashbacks about how their supernatural abilities came to be, Slade doesn't let that stop the flow of the movie. A lesser director would have let these flashbacks take the viewer right out of the movie, but Slade makes them feel like a natural part of the movie.

Unfortunately, Slade is still up against the flaws that have plagued the Twilight movies since the first movie's release. The first I'll mention is the screenplay, once again written by Melissa Rosenberg. While the story is a bit more solid, it suffers from some of the most pseudo-pretentious dialogue I've heard in a while. Rosenberg is trying so hard to make the movie sound deep, but the banality of it makes it painful to listen to. Seriously, do tween girls really buy into this? I honestly dreaded hearing every word, every syllable that the actors had to say. Part of that is the lame acting, sure, but Rosenberg's writing is just garbage.

And once again, the cast doesn't do much to rise above the material. While Ashley Greene and Billy Burke contribute likable, engaging performances, the rest of the cast fails to make a substantially positive impression. Robert Pattinson once again shows improvement in his role, but I really got the impression that he'd rather be playing any character other than Edward Cullen. I can tell that he's at least trying harder this time around, but it feels like he's just getting tired of the Twilight saga.

I can say the same for Kristen Stewart, who continues to be the worst actor in the Twilight movies. Like Pattinson, she does show some improvement. But she's still pretty bad, mostly due to her complete lack of charisma. There are some moments in the movie where it seems like she might break through and actually turn her performance into something good, but the disappointing moments far outweigh the good ones.

I will confess, though, that I did like Taylor Lautner. Nobody can accuse him of being the best actor in the world, but as far as Eclipse goes, I can't say that he's bad. Lautner is definitely trying his hardest, bringing a level of earnestness to the character that actually made his performance more impressive than I anticipated it being. One could make the argument that Lautner only stands out due to how middling the other actors in the movie are, but I still thought his contribution to the movie was a respectable one.

To Eclipse's credit, it's a substantially better movie than either Twilight or New Moon. It's still not that great, but it's a marked improvement over the first two entries in the franchise. Even at its absolute worst, it's still watchable, I guess. I mean, I didn't hate it as much as I did the first two movies, so it has that going for it. And with the first Breaking Dawn movie being released today and the second being released next year, does that mean we're almost done with all the Twilight frenzy? Because it's wearing me out, man.

Final Rating: **½

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

I've been writing these reviews for the better part of a decade. And in that time, I've seen quite a few bad movies. Some of them I went into with high hopes, only to be disappointed. Others I knew were bad from the outset, but I sat through them because I wanted to test my endurance. But of all the bad movies that have been reviewed since I began this blog, few have left me as puzzled as Twilight.

In spite of what the "Twi-hards" will try to tell you, Twilight is a truly awful movie. Everything about it seems purposely designed to torture non-fans. I could barely even watch it long enough to make fun of it. But the fans came out in droves to see it, so I shouldn't have been surprised when Summit Entertainment began production on New Moon, a sequel based on the second book in Stephenie Meyer's series of novels. And let me tell you, it's every bit as bad as its predecessor.

As the movie begins, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) has just turned 18, but this doesn't exactly fill our plucky heroine with glee. Her birthday only reinforces her fear of growing old while her vampire boyfriend, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), will remain a teenager for eternity. But while she doesn't want to celebrate, Edward and his adoptive family throw her a party anyway.

The party ends up having been a really bad idea. When Bella gets a paper cut while unwrapping a gift, the scent of her blood causes Edward's brother to lose all self-control and attack her. Afraid that being around his family will put her in further danger, Edward dumps Bella, and the Cullens leave town permanently.

With her beloved Edward gone, Bella falls into a deep depression for several months. She eventually tries coming out of it by reconnecting with her friends, but finds that by engaging in increasingly risky behavior, she can evoke images of Edward in her mind.

Bella also manages to find comfort in her blossoming relationship with Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner). She soon discovers, however, that he is a werewolf, the age-old enemy of vampires. And wouldn't you know it, Jacob's also a member of the Quileutes, a pack of werewolves who have long held a tenuous peace with the Cullens despite their rivalry.

The Quileutes have also sworn to protect Bella from a vampire that wishes to harm her, but problems far worse than that quickly arise. When a series of miscommunications leads him to erroneously believe that Bella has committed suicide, a distraught Edward chooses to provoke the Volturi, an ancient vampire coven, into killing him. Bella rushes to Italy to stop him, but is faced with an impossible choice that could result in either a war between the Cullens and the Quileutes or her own death.

I don't get it. I just don't get it. I don't see the appeal of the Twilight movies. The first one was bad enough, but New Moon is so dull that I cannot understand why the army of tween girls that adore this franchise so much can be so enthralled with such a bad movie. Are they so happy to see their favorite books turned into movies that they'll accept any crap that Summit Entertainment squeezes out?

The honest truth is that New Moon is just as bad as the first movie, and I have no idea why I watched it other than that I'm a total idiot. I'd have to be an idiot to keep subjecting myself to movies I know I won't like. Why else would I do so? But yeah, New Moon is bad.While Chris Waltz's direction is serviceable (and far better than the movie deserves), every other part of the movie is either laughable or cringe-inducing. The emo pop-punk soundtrack is annoying, the writing is atrocious, and the acting is so banal that it practically goes beyond words.

Let's get onto the writing for a second. I'm going to have to assume that screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg (and by extension, Twilight creator Stephenie Meyer) just doesn't care at all. The entire idea of the movie, the whole premise, could have been done in such a way that a good story resulted from it. But that's not what we get. Instead, we get some mentally disturbed child who is so obsessed with her boyfriend that when he becomes a non-factor, her co-dependency drives her to madness. This has been analyzed by reviewers far more talented than I, so maybe I'm just rehashing other people's points. But the whole concept of New Moon, and especially the character of Bella Swan, is so offensive to my particular sensibilities that I really wish Rosenberg and Meyer had more talent than what they do.

And I can say the same thing about the cast. I'd like a more talented cast, but the Twilight franchise is stuck with these goons until the last book gets adapted. The odd thing is, though, that all but the three main characters are so inconsequential that they might as well have just been extras in the background.

Robert Pattinson's performance as the sparkly-skinned vampire Edward Cullen is an improvement over what it was in the first movie, but he still felt really bland. He's so boring and uninteresting that I honestly cannot fathom why girls are so in love with Pattinson, an actor who apparently has the polar opposite of charisma. Taylor Lautner fares better, however. Lautner isn't great or anything, and the only thing really demanded of him is that he stand around with no shirt on. But he's obviously trying not to suck, which is a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the cast. The worst of the cast, though, is once again Kristen Stewart. She is terrible, doing nothing but look lost, stammering like she'd forgotten her lines. Stewart is awful to the point that I cannot believe anyone in the audience would be able to connect with her.

But it doesn't help that Stewart is playing one of the worst characters ever created. Bella Swan is a selfish, shallow bitch with borderline sociopathic tendencies and no regard for the feelings of anyone who cares about her. Why do people like this character so much? Why?! Can someone answer me? Yeah, everyone reading this was devastated the first time they got dumped. But you know what? I'm pretty sure we all eventually got over it and moved on, as opposed to Bella, whose self-serving obsession with Edward and apparent inability to be a functional member of society make her thoroughly irredeemable.

Now I know what you're saying: "Matt, why even watch the movie at all if all you're gonna do is bash it?" That's the thing. I actually went into New Moon hoping that it wouldn't be so bad. I mean, I didn't like the first Twilight movie, but maybe the second one would have been different. But no, all those hopes were dashed away when it proved itself to be nothing but junk. Outside of the most hardcore of "Twi-hards," you probably should avoid New Moon. It's not for regular people, just the fans. Those poor, pitiful fans.

Final Rating: **

The Lost Boys (1987)

This review is respectfully dedicated to the memory of Corey Haim.

With the recent success of the Twilight movies, vampires have become stylish. But while Stephenie Meyer's sparkly brood of emos gave them a shot in the arm in terms of popularity, vampires have always been around. Their roots go back centuries, and have been a part of pop culture for about the same time. Through books, comics, TV shows, and movies, vampires have been depicted in countless ways. Whether it's romantic, dramatic, horrific, or comedic, they've been a part of pretty much any style you can think of.

One of my favorite uses of vampires, though, came in 1987 with The Lost Boys. One of a series of movies that attempted to open vampires up to audiences of the '80s, it was also the first on-screen pairing of the duo that would become known as "The Two Coreys." And if you ask me, it's a heck of a movie, too.

Welcome to Santa Carla, California, a town whose reputation for violence and reports of missing people has earned it the nickname "the murder capital of the world." Among Santa Carla's newest residents are Lucy Emerson (Dianne Wiest) and her teenage sons Michael (Jason Patric) and Sam (Corey Haim), who haved moved there from Phoenix to live with Lucy's eccentric father (Barnard Hughes).

The Emersons aren't in Santa Carla for long before they're drawn to the town's thriving boardwalk. Lucy gets a job at a video store, while Sam wanders into a comic book shop. It is there where he is introduced to the Frog brothers, Edgar (Corey Feldman) and Alan (Jamison Newlander). A pair of self-appointed vampire hunters, the Frog brothers give Sam a stack of horror comics that they claim will teach him all he needs to know to stay alive in Santa Carla.

He rebuffs their offer, but the duo will soon have to come to his assistance. During a trip to the boardwalk, Michael meets and falls for a fetching young woman named Star (Jami Gertz). He ends up drawing the attention of the gang Star fraternizes with, a group of punks led by David (Kiefer Sutherland). David takes a quick interest in Michael and welcomes him into their gang.

The morning after his initiation, however, things are different. The family dog hates him, he's sensitive to sunlight, he's unusually aggressive, and oddly enough, he has no reflection. Sam puts the clues together and realizes that his brother is turning into a vampire.

Sam seeks out the Frog brothers, who immediately choose to kill Michael. Naturally, he doesn't want to kill his brother, vampire or not. The only other option is killing the lead vampire, which they think should return Michael back to normal. While Michael tries fighting off the bloodlust that comes with his developing vampirism, he, Sam, and the Frogs arm themselves to the teeth and prepare to do battle with David's posse of bloodsuckers.

A lot of movies have tried blending horror with comedy. Few are actually good, but I will go on record saying that The Lost Boys is one of them. The balance between its two major elements isn't precisely even, but neither the horror nor comedy is disappointing. And while I will admit that the movie is not perfect, it still hits all the notes it intends to and when it's all said and done, it's a genuinely entertaining movie.

Believe it or not, the movie was directed by Joel Schumacher. Yes, the same Joel Schumacher that would direct Batman Forever and Batman & Robin ten years later I know what you're thinking, but The Lost Boys does prove that he actually is capable of making a good movie. He actually does a respectable job at the helm, though he is guilty of going a little overboard with some elements.

At his disposal is practically every trick out of the "MTV circa 1987" playbook, all of which he puts to good use. Assemble the cinematography, the lighting, the set design, the costumes, and the editing, and you have a vampire movie that looks and feels like a music video of the era. It looks slick and stylish, with a lot of energy that makes the movie a blast to watch. I honestly can't argue with Schumacher's work.

The movie is not without its flaws, however. I'd actually say that the weakest part of The Lost Boys is the script. Rewritten by Jeffrey Boam from an original screenplay by Janice Fischer and James Jeremias, the script is awfully light, to the point where just about everything but style is secondary. There honestly isn't much in the way of story or character development, but I guess that's to be expected from a movie that puts style over substance. You don't really notice it until you start analyzing the movie, but everything else is so entertaining that it's not that big a deal.

It helps that the cast is so good that you don't notice the flaws during the movie. Playing the crucial role of Michael is Jason Patric, who spends a lot of the movie brooding and looking mysterious. I actually thought it worked in the movie's benefit, and if I could change one thing about The Lost Boys, I would have made the entire movie about him. The movie would have been much more intriguing if the whole thing had been a straight horror flick about Michael becoming one of the vampires and trying to regain his humanity.

The late Corey Haim also does a fine job in his role. He plays Sam exactly how you'd expect someone his age (at the time) to act. He tries acting all cocky in front of the Frog brothers as he adjusts to his new home, and when the whole vampire thing goes down, he gets spooked to no end. Haim is believable in the part, and I really enjoyed his performance.

And then there are the Frog brothers, as played by Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander. Both Feldman and Newlander deliver all of their dialogue in the same super-serious deadpan manner, making the characters much more entertaining. You get the feeling that they're playing the Frogs as trying to be tough even when they're not quite sure of what they're getting themselves into. If that's the case, then I totally bought it.

Playing the designated villain is Kiefer Sutherland, who had just started appearing in American movies when The Lost Boys was released. It was this movie that thrust him into the spotlight, and if you watch it, you can see why. Sutherland shows that it's possible to be both frightening and very cool at the same time. He's so damn good in the role that you almost want to become Michael, or at least understand why all the other vampires would want to hang out with him.

The rest of the cast also make their own contributions, even though their roles aren't so substantial. Dianne Wiest is likable and sweet in her role, while Jami Gertz's understated performance shows why the Michael character would fall for her in the first place. And while he sadly doesn't have enough screen time to make an impression, Edward Hermann (who plays Lucy's boss) is obviously doing his best. But of all the actors in the movie, the one I enjoyed the most was Barnard Hughes. He's hilarious, stealing practically every scene he's in. I double-dare you to watch this movie without laughing once at Hughes's jokes.

I must admit, though, that The Lost Boys isn't the best vampire movie ever made. And depending on your personal opinion, it might not even be the best one of the '80s. But it's one that is definitely worth watching. It's an enjoyable movie with some effective scares and some truly funny moments. I'd much rather watch a vampire movie like this over Twilight and its sequels. So if you're tired of the vampires that are popular nowadays, give The Lost Boys a shot. You can't go wrong with it.

Final Rating: ****

Twilight (2008)

I used to think I was up to date on modern pop culture. I'm not hip by any stretch of the imagination, but I at least thought I knew what was going on in the world. But then along came Twilight. I'd never actually heard of Twilight before the movie was released last fall, so I was amazed by the frenzy it caused. Teenage and preteen girls went absolutely bonkers for this movie, and I had no clue why.

It turns out that Twilight was based on the first in a series of novels written by Stephenie Meyer. The series got its start in 2005 and apparently developed a pretty rabid following, but again, I was thoroughly unfamiliar with them until the movie's release. Maybe it's because I'm not as much of a reader as I used to be, or because I'm not a teenage girl. I don't quite know for sure. But because both my sister and mother had read and enjoyed the books after the movie's hysteria started, I figured I'd see what the hubbub was all about. But in my case, I decided to skip all the books and head straight for the movie. And I wish I'd skipped the movie too, because it's a real stinker.

Most teenagers don't really enjoy having to pack up and move somewhere new. But sometimes, it's just one of those things that will happen no matter how much you fight it. And as the movie begins, it's happening to Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), whose mother is sending her from Phoenix to the small Washington town of Forks to live with her father (Billy Blanks). Her attempts to settle into her new life go smoothly, thanks to a group of classmates who befriend her as soon as she walks through the door of her new high school.

But it is the mysterious Cullen siblings that pique Bella's interest. Of all the Cullens, she is most drawn to Edward (Robert Pattinson) in particular. And despite his initial warnings that she should stay far away from him, the two begin bonding after he saves her from being hit by a car. But by the time they realize they've fallen in love with one another, Bella has put together a series of clues and deduced that Edward and his family are vampires. So it's good for her that the Cullens are the type of vampires that prefer animal blood over the human variety. But not every vampire has adapted that kind of diet, as three evil bloodsuckers have caught Bella's scent and want her as their next meal.

I wrote in the opening paragraphs that I haven't read any of the Twilight books. And if the movie is any representation of what Stephenie Meyer wrote, I don't think I'll ever read them. Why? Because the Twilight movie is absolutely dreadful from start to finish. The acting is terrible, the writing is laughable, and the direction is uninspiring. Every second of the movie is tedious to watch, and it took every bit of strength I had to keep myself from stopping the movie and abandoning this review. I'd rather watch sit and watch paint dry instead of watching the Twilight movie. I'd have rather had a conversation with Uwe Boll while he argued that his movies are timeless classics that rival Casablanca and Citizen Kane in terms of quality. I don't care if Twilight was made for teenage girls who love the books; that doesn't mean the movie had to suck so badly.

At the helm is Catherine Hardwicke, whose past résumé includes Thirteen, Lords of Dogtown, and The Nativity Story. Of her prior movies, I've only seen Thirteen, which I thought was actually rather well made. Twilight, on the other hand, is not so lucky. Hardwicke's inconsistent pacing makes it hard for the movie to find any sort of groove, and the whole thing is edited like a series of really bad music videos.

It doesn't help anything that Hardwicke seems to have decided that she wanted Twilight to have as little substance as possible. It's about a taboo love affair between a human and a vampire that the super-fans would have you believe is the strongest love to have ever been loved in the history of love, yet Hardwicke films it in such a way that there is no passion at all. She has cinematographer Elliot Davis shoot everything through an unappealingly gloomy grey filter, and constructs her scenes in such a way that they seem to have no life whatsoever. The production design looks like it's better suited for a teen-oriented drama on The CW, and the special effects are poor. (Regarding the special effects, Edward doesn't look "sparkly," as much as he does blurry. Was it so hard to just paint the guy head to toe in body glitter?) All in all, Hardwicke's direction is depressing to look at, irritating to follow, and just plain bad.

It doesn't help anything that she's working from such a bad script. It was written by Melissa Rosenberg, who had only written one feature film — the 2006 dance movie Step Up — prior to adapting Twilight. So basically she's written one lame movie, and followed it up by writing another. There are so many problems with Twilight's script that I'd be here all day if I wanted to really get into all of them. So let's hit a few of the big ones, shall we?

First off, the dialogue is total crap. The scene where Edward reveals that sunlight causes his skin to sparkle (instead of killing him, like it does in every other vampire story) is one of the worst offenders. The standout line of dialogue is, "This skin... this is the skin of a killer, Bella!" It's also the skin of a terrible actor forced to spout off dialogue that would get you laughed at if you said it earnestly. It's embarrassing to listen to, and I'm sure it was embarrassing for the actors to deliver.

And then there's the fact that there seems to be no plot at all. The whole movie basically seems to be, "Bella is a wallflower who likes to mope around and do nothing. Edward's a creepy, off-putting weirdo. She spends what seems like forever trying to figure out that he's really a vampire. They fall in love with each other despite the fact that she should be afraid of him and that he should be drinking her blood. There's a softball game in the woods. Some vampires fight. Bella and Edward go to the prom. The end." That's pretty much it for the whole movie. None of it is really all that interesting, but we're stuck with it.

There are characters that are introduced and promptly forgotten, as if they were just there so people would recognize them in the sequels. For example, the character of Jacob Black, as played by Taylor Lautner, shows up early in the movie. The love triangle between Jacob, Bella, and Edward is supposed to be a rather important part of the Twilight mythology, but all he gets are a handful of minor, practically inconsequential scenes before he's whisked away to Sequel City. Granted, I've been told that Jacob doesn't really become a major player in the books until the second one, but if the character isn't going to be put to any real use, why even include him? Was it just to satisfy the members of "Team Jacob" in the audience?

But we can't forget the characters. The stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid characters. The characters in this movie are some of the most pathetic, one-dimensional wastes of space I have ever seen committed to film. And I actually cannot get over the fact that the supposed hero of the story is basically two steps away from sticking Bella in a pit in his basement and telling her to rub the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose. Edward rambles on and on with his pretentious "what if I'm the bad guy?" nonsense, acting like Bella's presence makes him physically ill. And then at a certain point, he decides he's going to start stalking her. And I don't mean just following her around, watching her from a distance. I mean full-blown, super-uncomfortable, "make a person fear for their own life" stalking. Girls, let me give you a little bit of advice. If a weirdo that you've just met says that he "feels very possessive of you," then breaks into your house uninvited in the middle of the night and stares at you for hours while you sleep, that isn't romance. It's creepy and wrong and I'm pretty sure that breaking and entering is a crime in all fifty states.

And I honestly cannot judge Stephenie Meyer's writing due to my noted unfamiliarity with her books. But judging by the movie, Meyer has to be out of her friggin' mind. She's undoubtedly laughing her way to the bank as I type this, but how can someone possibly come up with such poorly done drivel and expect it to be taken seriously by anyone who can see through all the nonsense? Edward is a borderline psychopath who any sane female would have ran away from the moment he opened his mouth, Bella is quite frankly all air between the ears, and none of the other characters seem to have any sort of point. Even the villains are lacking a real purpose. I simply do not understand how this can be so popular. Maybe I'm not supposed to, I don't know.

Probably the worst part of this whole thing, though, is the acting. Holy crap, does the acting suck. I'll just come right out and say that with the exception of Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, nobody in the movie is worth talking about. They're complete non-factors, essentially background noise that you never pay any attention to. And really, we're not supposed to pay attention to the other actors, because the whole thing is all about setting up the stupid romance between the two main characters.

So what's so bad about the stars, hmm? The answer is just about everything. They're dull and lifeless, as if the director was happy to stick cardboard cutouts of the actors in front of the camera and run with it. Considering how much time is spent to having them stare at one another, that joke I made about cardboard cutouts probably isn't too far from the truth. Stewart is just boring to watch, never playing Bella as anything other than a blank-faced, emotionless twit whose sole hobby is sitting around moping all day. On the other hand, watching Pattinson isn't as much of a drag as it is with Stewart, so he has that going him. But his performance is so stiff and makes Edward so uncomfortable to watch that it makes me wonder why Bella would ever fall in love with a clown like him.

Before you "Twi-hards" start leaving me angry comments, yes, I understand that this movie was not made for me. It was made for the people who have read all the books from cover to cover a million times, treasuring each word on each page as if they were precious jewels. It was made for the people who are still patiently awaiting the publication of a fifth book in the series. It was made for the people who put on their homemade "Team Edward" or "Team Jacob" T-shirts and stood in line for hours to see the advance midnight screening of the movie, then started camping out for New Moon tickets as soon as they got back out to the theater lobby. In short, it was made specifically to pander to the shrieking, swooning teenage girls who eat, sleep, breathe, and bleed Twilight.

But as I said before, the fact that the primary fanbase is made up of people who won't care one way or the other is no excuse to make such a shoddy excuse for a movie. I'm sure a ton of boyfriends got dragged to see this, so why not make something would appeal to them too? I mean, take a look at J.J. Abrams's reboot of Star Trek from this past summer. It was practically a love letter to fans of the show, but it done so well that it managed to appeal to non-fans as well. Twilight doesn't have that going for it, which makes me even more depressed because I can't even say I was forced to watch it. I saw it of my own free will. If I'd been roped into watching it by a loved one, at least I would have had an excuse.

As a movie, Twilight is so shallow that you'll crack your skull open if you dive in headfirst. While teenage girls will be enthralled with all the cheesy melodrama and swooning every time Robert Pattinson or Taylor Lautner appears, it's practically unendurable for those who have yet to succumb to the madness that has enveloped the movie's target audience. I simply cannot imagine anyone who isn't already a fan of the books enjoying this movie. I certainly didn't. I wonder if it's too late for Blade, Buffy Summers, or even the Frog brothers from The Lost Boys to show up and slay these lame vampires for good.

Final Rating: *½

Blade: Trinity (2004)

Superheroes come in all shapes, all sizes, and with all kinds of special abilities. But none are quite like Blade. Instead of fighting megalomaniacs, aliens, insane clowns, or green goblins, Blade's enemies are those classic villains, vampires. Himself a half-vampire, it's Blade's job to eliminate every supernatural bloodsucker he comes across. Though Blade is a relatively obscure character in the Marvel Comics pantheon, New Line Cinema bought the movie rights to the character and released a live-action adaptation in 1998.

Though the movie was only a moderate financial success, its impact is still being felt ten years later. I spoke of this in my review of it, but Blade revolutionized the entire superhero movie genre. Bryan Singer's X-Men might get the lion's share of the glory due to both the Blade character's lack of notoriety and X-Men's genre-revolutionizing special effects, but Blade truly got the ball rolling. A sequel was released in 2002, which turned out to be even more popular than its predecessor. So reasoning that they should probably ride this money train as long as they could, New Line released a third movie, Blade: Trinity, in 2004. It might not be as good as Blade II, but it's not so bad.

Our story naturally picks up sometime after the events of Blade II, and the tireless vampire slayer Blade (Wesley Snipes) is continuing his seemingly unending war against the vampire race. Realizing that they're on the losing side of this war, a group of vampires have concocted a plan to turn the tables on their foe. As he tears through a vampire hideout, Blade is tricked into killing a normal human being used as bait. News footage of this is used to spin Blade as a psychotic serial killer, shooting him to the top of the FBI's most wanted list. The FBI manages to track Blade to his hidden compound, and although his sidekick Abraham Whistler (Kris Kristofferson) sacrifices himself in the ensuing fracas, Blade is defeated and taken into police custody.

But as certain vampire-sympathetic police officers prepare to hand Blade over to the vampire sect who set him up, they're interrupted by Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds) and Whistler's long-lost daughter Abigail (Jessica Biel). The duo breaks Blade out, rushing him back to their own hideout. There, they introduce him to their own ragtag group of vampire slayers, dubbed "the Nightstalkers." Though initially reluctant to join the Nightstalkers due to their relative inexperience, Blade agrees to partner with them after Hannibal reveals himself to be a former vampire who had been cured. During the following grand tour of the Nightstalker facility, they tell Blade of their discovery that Danica Talos (Parker Posey) and her posse of bloodsuckers have found and awakened the ancient — and the very first — vampire known as Dracula (Dominic Purcell), who now answers to the name "Drake." With Drake on their side, Danica hopes that they can finally eliminate Blade and instigate the vampire version of the "final solution."

To combat this newfound threat, the Nightstalkers have developed a biological weapon they've named the Daystar. The Daystar is designed to kill any and every vampire in the nearby area, but there's two catches. The first is that they need to add some of Drake's blood to the Daystar recipe. Because he is the progenitor of the entire vampire race, his pure blood could maximize the Daystar's potency. The second catch: Because of Blade's unique situation as a half-vampire, the Daystar could possibly kill him too. But that is a risk Blade is willing to take if it means another step towards winning his fight against vampires.

Since its release in 2004, Blade: Trinity has often been referred to as the weakest chapter in the Blade trilogy. And I can't really argue with that, because it's the truth. From both a critical and a financial standpoint, Blade: Trinity was the least successful of the entire trilogy. But I don't think it's the truly bad movie that critics like Roger Ebert and the like might have you believe. Sure, it isn't as great as it could have been. But I still thought it was a fun, enjoyable movie in spite of the flaws it may have. I liked it, and I'll make an attempt tell you why.

Let's start with the direction from David Goyer. Goyer steps into the director's chair after Blade II director Guillermo Del Toro passed on the job so he could make Hellboy, and I have to applaud him for taking a shot. He'd only helmed one other movie prior to this, and his inexperience shows. However, Goyer also shows signs of competence as a director too. He gets some fine camerawork from cinematographer Gabriel Beristain, and he succeeds in maintaining a relatively quick pace so that the movie never lulls for too long at any given time.

There are a few scenes that could have stood being trimmed or cut entirely, like the revelation of the "vampire final solution" and the scene where Drake kills two unassuming Goth kids just because they were selling crappy Dracula merchandise. But outside of that, I didn't think Goyer did that bad of a job as director. I also liked the music composed by Ramin Djwadi and The RZA from the Wu-Tang Clan. Their hip hop and techno-oriented score suits the movie well. Their music fits the tone that Goyer was aiming for, and really backs up the visuals.

Meanwhile, Goyer's script isn't too bad, but it isn't really as strong as it could have been. Could it be that after writing the first two movies in the trilogy, Goyer simply ran out of steam? It just seems that the jokes are way too plentiful (and in some cases, way too lame), some scenes don't contribute as much to the overall narrative as they could, and Drake doesn't really come across as the end-all, be-all of enemies. He just doesn't feel all that threatening. And why do they say he changed his name from "Dracula" to "Drake"? What's so wrong with just calling him Dracula? Was there some kind of copyright problem where they were only allowed to call him Dracula once or twice? If Buffy the Vampire Slayer can fight a vampire that's actually named Dracula, then why can't Blade? Sigh.

Lastly is the cast, most of whom do as fine a job as they can. Wesley Snipes is once again engaging as the titular vampire hunter. The character's evolution from stoic, emotionless badass to snarky tough guy — an evolution that began in Blade II — seems complete here, and Snipes handles the role with a certain enthusiasm. I know in retrospect that Snipes was less than thrilled with Blade: Trinity for reasons that include his screen time being cut in order to place more emphasis on the Nightstalkers, but that doesn't change the fact that they couldn't have asked for a better person to play Blade.

I also enjoyed Jessica Biel and Ryan Reynolds as Blade's new backup. Biel is credible as Abigail Whistler, giving the character a tough courageousness that makes her thoroughly likeable. And Reynolds... well, if you've seen practically any of Ryan Reynolds's movies, you know what to expect from him. The role was supposedly specifically written with his comedic talents in mind, so he's able to comfortably assume the role of Hannibal King and make it his own. The only really bad part is that virtually every word he says and every move he makes is some kind of wisecrack. After a while, you begin to think that the character is just a cheap one-trick pony, and you just want him to shut up for two seconds and be serious.

The rest of the cast is something of a mixed bag. Parker Posey and pro wrestler Triple H are both effective in their roles as members of the vampire clan trying to vanquish Blade, and Patton Oswalt is funny is what is essentially an extended cameo as the armorer for the Nightstalkers. And once again, I enjoyed Kris Kristofferson's performance, despite his glaring lack of screen time. I'm disappointed that Goyer felt the need to kill his character off, especially so early in the movie, but Kristofferson still plays the role like a champ.

But the only member of the extended cast who I wasn't really impressed by was Dominic Purcell as Drake. If his performance was a dog, they'd have taken him out behind the shed and shot him. Drake is perhaps the least frightening depiction of Dracula that I've personally ever seen, thanks to a combination of poor writing and Purcell's poor acting. Seriously, Leslie Nielson made a better Dracula in Dracula: Dead and Loving It than Purcell did in Blade: Trinity. And that's terrible.

David Goyer handles Blade: Trinity differently than the directors of the prior Blade movies. It isn't the gritty, no-nonsense action movie that Stephen Norrington made, or the would-be Brothers Grimm tale that Guillermo Del Toro crafted. Instead, Goyer gives us something that is style over substance, an odd amalgamation of elements of the first two movies with a glossier, mainstream sheen and a silly sense of humor. That's why Blade: Trinity is often looked at as the trilogy's redheaded stepchild. (But that's still better than the television series, which could be viewed as the franchise's answer to Cousin Oliver.) I still thought it was an amusing movie in spite of its flaws, so I'll give it three stars on my Five Star Sutton Scale. Now if only Wesley Snipes would stay out of legal trouble for them to make Blade 4...

Final Rating: ***

Blade II (2002)

There once was a time when superhero movies weren't the money-making juggernauts they are today. In that day and age, you could count the number of truly good superhero movies on one hand and have fingers left over. But times change. The superhero movie genre underwent a dramatic change at the turn of the twenty-first century, and it's all thanks to the movie Blade. The titular vampire slayer from the pages of Marvel Comics is neither a mainstream nor a traditional superhero by any means, but when the live-action movie he inspired was released to theaters in 1998, its success prompted movie studios to take a fresh look at how they adapted comic book properties into feature films.

And of course, the success of Blade meant that New Line Cinema wouldn't hesitate in approving a sequel. That sequel — the appropriately-titled Blade II — greatly improves upon its predecessor by not only trying to avoid Blade's flaws, but delivering more of what we'd expect: lots of vampires, exciting action, and good old-fashioned violence.

Two years have passed since the events of the first movie, time that Blade (Wesley Snipes) has spent searching for the missing body of his lost mentor, Abraham Whistler (Kris Kristofferson). He eventually finds his old friend in the Czech Republic, turned into a vampire and kept alive in suspended animation. Bringing Whistler back to his base of operations, Blade administers an accelerated version of the anti-vampirism cure developed in the first movie. The cure works, and while Whistler is grateful to be a human again, he isn't exactly enthused with some of the changes made to he and Blade's operation in his absence.

And by that, I mean Whistler is less than impressed by Blade's choice in a new sidekick, a disrespectful goon named Scud (Norman Reedus). But while Whistler and Scud squabble, a bigger problem presents itself when two vampires infiltrate their hideout and propose a temporary truce with Blade. He agrees to this truce, and the vampire pair escort him to the fortress of Eli Damaskinos (Thomas Kretschmann), an ancient vampire elder.

He brings to Blade's attention Jared Nomak (Luke Goss), an incredibly violent vampire who is spreading a new, evolved form of vampirism named "the Reaper virus." Nomak's bloodlust drives him to not only attack humans, but vampires as well. Nomak is slowly but surely infecting others with the Reaper virus, and its spread threatens both the human and vampire races. Damaskinos and his clan offer to temporarily suspend their hostilities with Blade and partner with him in order to combat Nomak and the growing number of Reapers he has created. Blade accepts, entering into an uneasy alliance with Damaskinos's daughter Nyssa (Leoner Varela) and a squad of vampire assassins known as the Bloodpack. But as Blade and the Bloodpack prepare to wage war with Nomak, secrets soon come bubbling to the surface that ally against ally.

I enjoyed the first Blade movie, but that didn't change the fact that it had its share of flaws. Blade II improves upon its predecessor's methods, operating with more focus, greatly improved special effects, and more imagination. Now that's not to say that this movie doesn't have its own flaws, but that doesn't stop it from being an entertaining piece of action cinema. Blade II might still just be your typical modern action movie, but it is handled in such a way that puts it at a higher quality than other movies such as this. It's also a stronger movie than Blade, so let's get into what makes it that way, shall we?

A lot of the movie's fantastic quality comes from the work of director Guillermo Del Toro. He's no stranger to vampires, as his debut movie — the 1993 Mexican flick Chronos — also delves into the realm of undead bloodsuckers. But Blade II is a much different beast than the other, more fantasy-oriented work that Del Toro is known for. It is, as I said, pretty much a straightforward action movie with vampires as the villains. However, Del Toro is a very artistic filmmaker, which means good things for Blade II. The movie is visually astounding, with stunning camerawork (thanks to cinematographer Gabriel Beristain), CGI and special effects that have vastly improved upon the original movie's, and a Brothers Grimm-like tone.

Blade II might not be the same kind of glorified fairy tale like Pan's Labyrinth or the Hellboy movies, but Del Toro's work here gives the movie that sort of vibe. There's a reason why Blade II is considered by quite a few people to be the best chapter in the trilogy, and I'd reason to bet that Del Toro's direction is the reason why. There's also some great music composed by Marco Beltrami that, when combined with the hip hop songs comprising the soundtrack, the movie boasts an auditory experience that greatly backs up the visual one.

Next up is the screenplay, penned once again by David S. Goyer. Goyer seems to have learned from the mistakes made in the first Blade movie by eschewing some of the cheesy, over-the-top dialogue and characters that were so prevalent. Goyer's script does include a joke or two that don't really work, a character who is quite annoying, and a twist regarding one character's allegiances that is both lame and obvious in retrospect. But other than that, Goyer's script is tighter and more streamlined, more focused. He actually works harder in order to create intimidating villains and characters you can root for.

But as I said, there are weak spots in the script, particularly the occasional gaping hole in the movie's logic. The biggest one is at the very beginning of the movie, when the two vampires deliver their message of a truce to Blade. They sneak into the building dressed like ninjas, then engage in a fight with Blade. I know it was done to add a little excitement to the movie, but for their own sake, wouldn't it have been easier for the two characters to simply knock on the door and deliver the message without having to be so sneaky about it? What if Blade had killed them before they could say anything? Then their whole mission would have been shot, and it would have blown the entire movie within the first twenty minutes. Maybe I'm looking too deeply into things, but seriously, it's the little things that get noticed the most.

Last but not least is the cast. As with the prior movie, the acting portion of Blade II is primarily dominated by Wesley Snipes. He's not as stoic nor as conflicted as he was previously. Instead, Snipes seems more focused on making Blade the ultimate ass-kicker. Through Snipes's performance, we get the impression that Blade is having fun hunting vampires, offering the occasional bit of sarcastic trash talk while reducing his bloodsucking foes to piles of ash. And because of his engaging, charismatic performance, Snipes draws us in and makes the movie as a whole more entertaining.

The rest of the cast, for the most part, do well too. Kris Kristofferson is once again amusing as Blade's perpetually grumpy sidekick and father figure, while Ron Perlman is fun as a member of the Bloodpack that finds great amusement in antagonizing Blade. I also thought Leoner Varela was engaging in her role as a potential love interest for our hero, while Thomas Kretschmann did a fine job playing the creepy vampire elder. And I would be remiss if I failed to mention Luke Goss as our lead villain. Goss's performance as the vampire's vampire is everything that Stephen Dorff wasn't in the first movie: intimidating, no-nonsense, and just plain scary. Goss is great, one of the movie's real bright spots.

However, I'd be lying if I said that I thought all of the cast put forth their best efforts. I don't know whether it's the actor's fault or Goyer's fault for the creation of such an irritating character, but every second Norman Reedus was in a scene, I wanted him to go away. That's one misfire that's managed to carry over from Blade into Blade II: the annoying sidekick. I don't see the necessity for that same character archetype to be used again, something that isn't helped by the fact that if I could have, I'd have reached into the screen and smacked the Scud character every time I saw him. Though I will admit that the character being such a pain in the neck makes his final fate that much more gratifying.

That aside, Blade II is quite simply a fun and entertaining movie from start to finish. The cast and crew should be proud of themselves for putting together such a solid movie. Sure, Blade isn't among the most recognizable characters in Marvel's stable of superheroes, but that doesn't stop Blade II from being a fun way to spend two hours of your time. It's everything that you could want to see in a movie cut from this kind of cloth. So on the patent-pending Five-Star Sutton Scale, Blade II earns a solid four stars. Go check it out, and you'll see what I mean.

Final Rating: ****

Blade (1998)

Comic books are a medium primarily dominated by superheroes. Anyone why tries telling you otherwise is either a fool or a liar. But while the majority of them wear spandex costumes and have fantastic powers like flight or super-strength, others deviate greatly from that mold. They might be called "superheroes," but the supernatural nature of both their origins and the enemies they face are what sets them apart from their caped brethren. Perhaps the most notable of these heroes is Blade, the resident vampire hunter at Marvel Comics.

Created in 1973 by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan, Blade was a frequent supporting character in Tomb of Dracula, while making semi-occasional appearances in Marvel's other horror comics at the time. His visibility dropped during the '80s after Tomb of Dracula was cancelled, but he regained into his share of the spotlight through a number of miniseries and one-shot comics published in the early '90s.

Blade has never been one of Marvel's A-list characters (or even one of their B-list characters, if you want my opinion on it), but that didn't stop New Line Cinema from purchasing the movie rights. And let me tell you, folks, if you want to know what got the ball started on the current superhero genre, you can point the finger directly at this movie.

We begin with a brief prologue in 1967. A pregnant woman (Sanaa Lathan) is rushed into a hospital's emergency room, hemorrhaging blood after being bitten by a vampire. The trauma ends up inducing labor, and she dies giving birth. Thirty years pass, and that baby has become a prolific vampire hunter known as Blade (Wesley Snipes). Thanks to a genetic alteration passed to him by the bite that killed his mother, Blade is known amongst the vampire underworld as "the Daywalker," a vampire/human hybrid with all of a vampire's strengths and only one of their weaknesses: the thirst for blood. Keeping the thirst at bay with a serum developed by his cantankerous weaponsmith and mentor, Abraham Whistler (Kris Kristofferson), Blade has made it his life's work to destroy every bloodsucker he comes across.

While tracking a vampire one night, Blade crosses paths with Dr. Karen Jenson (N'Bushe Wright), a hematologist whom the vampire had bitten. He brings the injured doctor back to his lair and patches her up, but can ultimately do nothing to prevent Dr. Jenson from eventually becoming a vampire herself. Not willing to resign herself to that fate, she begins working on a cure. Her work leads her to discover an anticoagulant that causes a violently fatal allergic reaction in vampires. So violently fatal, in fact, that it makes them explode.

Blade arms himself with darts filled with this anticoagulant to use as weapons, and he's going to need them. A brash, impudent vampire named Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) has grown tired of living in the shadows, believing that vampires should rise up and enslave humanity. And to achieve this lofty goal, Frost seeks to instigate his answer to the apocalypse. To do so, he plans on harnessing the power of an ancient god known "La Magra" so that he might wipe humanity off the face of the planet.

Prior to Blade, movies based on Marvel Comics properties weren't really all that great. Those that had seen production were awful beyond words. We'd seen Captain America with rubber ears, Johnny Storm depicted as cheesy animation, Lea Thompson making out with Howard the Duck, and David Hasselhoff in an eye patch. Dolph Lundgren's Punisher movie was the only one out of the bunch that was halfway watchable, and even that was no great shakes. Even DC's movies were struggling at the time, thanks to the one-two punch of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. But when Blade came along, that all changed. Sure, the first X-Men movie may get all the glory, but Blade was definitely the catalyst for the superhero movie genre as we know it today. The movie isn't a perfect one, but it's definitely a solid venture that's exciting and entertaining, which is exactly what it needs to be.

Let's hit up the direction first. Stephen Norrington hasn't had what you'd call a prolific career as a director, but he sure gives the impression of someone who knows exactly what kind of movie he wants to make. His work is slick and stylish, coming just a year before the Matrix trilogy turned the idea of fast-paced fight scenes pitting guys in sunglasses and trenchcoats against a big group of people into a cliché. Norrington (and his cinematographer, Theo Van De Sande) use long tracking shots, odd angles, and quick editing to help establish the tone of the movie, while utilizing shadows and a pale blue-gray color palate to enhance the atmosphere in many scenes. The enhancement of the atmosphere is also helped by the fine score composed by Mark Isham. I've made note in numerous reviews of my firm belief that, if used properly, music can go a long way in helping a movie in telling its story. Isham's music accomplishes that, helping to create an auditory experience that is equal to the visual one. Even the techno music used on the soundtrack works well too, but after a while, it kinda started to give me a headache.

But not everything about the production is aces. My main gripe is with the downright ugly CGI. Now I'll admit that for the majority of the movie, the CGI is relatively solid. But during the climactic final battle between Blade and Deacon Frost, there's two instances where it's so awful that it brings down the quality of the rest of the movie. It doesn't even look fake. It looks worse than fake. It looks... cheap. You know how a lot of supermarkets will sell crappy imitation versions of name-brand cereals? The CGI in that fight scene is the cinematic equivalent of those imitation cereals. Yeah, it might get the job done in a pinch, but it just doesn't have the same quality as the better stuff. The CGI looks half-finished, like they stopped working on it at some arbitrary point during the process. To sum it all up with another metaphor, the digital effects team could have used Photoshop and went with Microsoft Paint instead.

Next up is the screenplay, written by David Goyer. One of several superhero movies written by Goyer over the years, Blade doesn't really need much of a story. And truth be told, it doesn't really have much of one, either. The movie and its sequels are defined by their action sequences, not their writing. But that doesn't stop Goyer from doing as fine a job as he can here. Yeah, we do end up with some corny dialogue and a couple of characters who could have been removed with no major effect on the movie as a whole, but his writing didn't completely suck.

And I have to credit him with giving us a style of vampire that I personally hadn't seen before. The vampires of Blade are almost like the Mafia, an underground society making back-alley deals and getting involved with things like politics and law enforcement, all to further their grip on society. And there's also the familiars, humans loyal to vampires and marked with tattoos as if they were branded cattle. It's definitely a take on vampires that you don't see everyday.

Finally, there's Blade's cast. You really can't talk about the cast in any of the Blade movies without first talking about the franchise's leading man, Wesley Snipes. Snipes plays Blade with a certain macho ambiguity that makes Blade an intriguing character to follow. His performance gives off the impression that the character's outward appearance of a hardcore vampire killer is a cover for a deeper conflict within him. It makes it a little hard to connect with him since he isn't laying all his cards on the table, but Snipes's performance makes it easy to cheer for him when he's kicking all that vampire butt.

It's also easy to like Kris Kristofferson as Whistler, Blade's gruff, grizzled sidekick. Kristofferson is a lot of fun in the role, and he practically steals every scene he's in. Stephen Dorff, meanwhile, is watchable and suitably over the top in his role. Unfortunately, thanks to how the character of Deacon Frost is written, Dorff comes off not as an intimidating, ferocious villain, but as impetuous young punk trying to steal a little glory for himself. It isn't all Dorff's fault, though, and his work is acceptable in my eyes.

The fourth member of the leading cast, N'Bushe Wright, is... well... she's not all that great. Matter of fact, she's pretty darn bad. The character of Karen Jenson serves its purpose within two or three scenes, yet continues to stick around for the rest of the movie without any reason to do so. Yeah, sure, she's there so the necessary exposition could be explained to the audience, but I'm sure that it could have been handled in such a way that would have made it feel more organic. And it doesn't help that Wright has all the charisma of a wet mop, not to mention that her performance is so wooden, you'd think that they'd hired a tree to play the role. The more she was onscreen, the more I wanted a vampire to show up and tear her head off.

There is no deeper meaning to Blade. It doesn't have any sort of hidden social commentary or message. It doesn't elevate the cinematic discourse. But Blade is appealing because sometimes, you just want to see a movie where a character beats the snot out of as many people as he possibly can between the opening and closing credits. It works on a visceral level, and in spite of its flaws, the whole thing gels together to make a thoroughly energetic, entertaining experience. It is a movie that not everyone will find themselves liking, but those there do will have enjoyed themselves by the end of it. So I'm going to give Blade three and a half stars and a thumbs up.

Final Rating: ***½