Showing posts with label twilight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twilight. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Picky, Picky


Ah, the great feeling of finding an article about movies that I can simply write about instead of having to think of my own original idea. That's the good stuff. More specifically: “How We Transformed Into Nitpick Nation”, an editorial by Dalton Ross, published in Entertainment Weekly in the February 22 issue.
“HWTINN” describes that, in the past couple of decades, television has gotten way more prolific and original. America can't just go back to Father Knows Best and Three's Company for their weekly entertainment (although the latter is some great shit) because they've already seen The Sopranos and Lost (and you can never unseen Lost). We're now programmed to watch these hard-hitting dramas and others like them and pick apart everything and find flaws and then comment on message boards so that everyone else will see the flaws too.
Now while Ross focuses on television dramas such as The Following and The Walking Dead, I can't really go further into that because (1) this is a blog about movies and (2) the only TV I watch includes tight clothing and Derek Hough (well those are the only things I pay attention to anyway).

But take, for instance, the dark days of my sixth grade year of school. Before Twilight was an ill-acted movie with an annoyingly-large fan base of emotionally-unstable preteens and middle-aged women, it was just an semi-popular book among middle-schools (oh my God, sorry for all the hyphens), one of which was me. I mean, I liked the series until half-way through New Moon, when it just got so Goddamn boring that I skipped a few hundred pages and got to the part with Edward and an unconscious Bella in the Volturi's lair in Italy. As the couple is leaving, Bella notices a group of tourists coming down and it's obvious (except to twelve-year-old me because I had to reread the freaking thing like three times before I got it): the evil Italian vampires pretend to give tours to attract people whom they then kill and feed on.
Once I understood this, I couldn't get over how ridiculous it was. What? Nobody had reported a loved-one missing, gone on a trip to Europe and never come back? Left the hotel for a tour and didn't make it to breakfast the next morning? These disappearances haven't been investigated with no correlation found between them that all of the people who are missing went such after telling someone they were going on some tour in the deep depths of Italy? But then I realized that the whole freaking story was ridiculous. I mean, Twilight centers around a girl who found love with a freaking vampire and must keep his and his family's secret, along with her friend's, because oh guess what he's a wolf.

A year or so ago, Young Alec Baldwin sucked me into watching Beetlejuice. The title character lives in Netheworld, and to be summoned his name must be said three times. When he and a young girl named Lydia first meet, she asks his name but Beetlejuice is like, “I can't tell you because then you might tell your friends and they'll be running around, shouting it everywhere.” So then he goes on this whole shebang, acting out his name with charade-like gestures, until Lydia finally guesses correctly.
Like, okay? So this chick can still tell all of her friends what his name is and they can summon him themselves. Why did he have to act it out? If he's that concerned with it then maybe he just shouldn't tell people his name. But yeah, it's a movie about “a recently deceased young couple who become ghosts haunting their former home and an obnoxious, devious 'bio-exorcist' named [Beetlejuice] from the underworld who tries to scare away the new inhabitants permanently.” (Wikipedia and sorry I'm so lazy).

Ross ends his article with admitting that he “should be happy that the medium offers so many exciting alternatives” and declares that he'll “do better” with ignoring some of television's discrepancies. I say that these writers need to get their shit together and also that I should've never read Twilight.

Monday, October 15, 2012

What I Don't Get About Anna Kendrick


Blogger's note: When I first started writing this post, there were a lot of numbers that I didn't want to deal with, so I combined my laziness with my love of graphs and made a few that analyze the numbers so that I didn't have to.

There are many roller coasters one can have in their lifetime: emotional, the literal, amusement park, kind. Also, apparently, one that applies to movie success.
I've been aware of actress Anna Kendrick since probably around when she was nominated for Best Actress in a Supporting Role for Up in the Air in 2010. Since then I've sort of followed her and what movies she's been in, only to be really confused because of such. Most actors and actresses have a diverse range of movie success, but Kendrick has been involved in almost polar-opposites. It's not just that a seemingly-good movie of hers does poorly, but every one that does so looks awful to begin with (I'm talking about you, Twilight Saga).
Anna Kendrick got her start in two low budget films, Camp (2003) and Rocket Science (2007), but no one really cares about those two because, like I said, low budget. Then in 2008, you could say that she got her break-out role in Twilight.
Since then, Kendrick has been on a critical roller coaster, moving from critically-acclaimed, Academy Award-nominated films to The Twilight Saga (I like to think that she was under contract and had to star in the remaining Twilight films, but I really have no idea) and a few others that tanked.
It's not only that, but some of the good movies she's been in have also starred some of Hollywood's dreamiest men (and I'm not talking about Robert Pattinson, you guys). It started in 2009, almost two years after her breakthrough; the role she was nominated for an Oscar was also the role where she costarred with George Clooney (there's a reason he was named People's Sexiest Man Alive twice).
After more hills, she starred in the 2011 comedy-drama, 50/50, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. You know the deal: hot costar, awesome reviews, more fame, goes back to sucky movies the next year. (Realize that when I say "sucky movies", I mostly mean The Twilight Saga, but she was also in What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) and that bombed, too.)
This past year, Kendrick has been pretty good. With the exception of WtEWYE, she's starred in three well-received movies: ParaNorman, End of Watch (hot costar number three: Jake Gyllenhaal), and Pitch Perfect. Don't hold your breath, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn-Part 2 comes out later this year and she'll take a dip again. (Update: Hey, well it turns out that she isn't in the final Twilight film. Good for you, Kendrick. You made it out alive.)

Another thing that I noticed is that there seems to be no middle-ground with her movies; either they do really well critically and gross less than one hundred million dollars or they are the worst of the worst and gross hundreds of millions of dollars (I'm talking about you, Twilight Saga). It's an unfortunate correlation.

I really just think that Anna Kendrick needs to get out of Twilight. I mean, yeah, she already is. After this year, she'll be free and hopefully stay away from these freaking teen-romance films and stick with her critically-acclaimed, Academy Award-nominated, hot guy-costarring films that seem to do her well.