Reviewing the “Twilight” movies has been an onerous task, mainly because it’s the rare film series in which I feel like an outsider looking in. I’ve never read the books, I have no interest in “Twilight” mania, and the films seem to have been tailor-made for fans.
Who else has been able to stomach the goofy melodrama, the silly dialogue, the doe-eyed romance of Edward and Bella, Jacob’s incurable teenage angst, the awful acting of the supporting cast, and the work of directors that have done everything wrong a director can do? I never felt like an interloper while watching the “Harry Potter” movies. I’d never read those books, either, or lined up at midnight to be the first to see a new “Potter” movie, but the series was so well made, and told such a lucid and captivating tale, that I didn’t feel as though I’d missed out on anything having not read the books.
And now the fourth “Twilight” comes, lugging the baggage of the first three movies like a weary traveler. As Warner Bros. did with “Potter,” the producers of the series have split the final book into two movies, no doubt to suck (ha-ha) as much money out of the franchise as possible before hammering the last nail on the coffin (ho-ho). From a business point of view, that was a smart move; “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1” grossed nearly $140 million its first weekend. That’s more than most movies ever make.
For those who are being dragged to see each new installment, the two-part conclusion is an unwelcome development. The idea of sitting through two more “Twilight” movies while dozens of teenage girls squeal each time Jacob rips off his shirt is untenable. So I was a bit of a grump as “Breaking Dawn” opened. And like a new episode of “The Young and The Restless,” it picks up where the last one left off, with no explanation of the preceding events. Bella and Edward are getting married, Jacob is in agony, and I’m wondering if I’ll miss anything important if I reverse my decision to skip buying popcorn and a Coke.
I wouldn’t have. Last week, I complained about the lack of a plot in “Immortals,” and the long, boring stretches during which nothing happens. Compared to “Breaking Dawn,” “Immortals” is cram-packed with excitement. I believe the makers of the “Twilight” series could have fit the entire fourth book into one movie, as little happens that a skilled writer and director couldn’t have compressed into an hour.
SPOILER ALERT: Skip this paragraph if you don’t want to know what happens. Basically, Bella and Edward get married, she gets pregnant and gives birth, and Edward “turns her” to save her life during the delivery. The werewolf clan of which Jacob is a part is all up in arms about the idea of a human-vampire baby, which extends the plot somewhat, but little else happens.
That said, I have to admit to enjoying certain things along the way. The actors that play Bella and Edward - Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson - seem comfortable in their roles and deliver good performances. Also, there are a lot of genuinely (and intentionally) funny moments in the movie, including a wedding toast during which Bella’s dad talks about owning a gun and knowing how to use it. The scene in which Bella and Edward consummate their union is also emotionally well done. I also liked the twist with Jacob at the end; it’s rife with irony, which is something the “Twilight” series has sorely needed. And Bill Condon’s direction is the best of the series so far.
Still, I’m confused. The “Twilight” movies make obscene piles of cash, so why do they feature computer animation that would barely pass muster in a cable series? And why are the werewolves angry with the Cullen vampire clan, who are all vegetarians and genuinely nice ... people? I guess we’ll find out in one year, when “Break Dawn - Part 2” arrives. I think I’ll get popcorn and a Coke.
Rated PG-13 for disturbing images, violence and sexuality. Two stars out of four. Email David Laprad at dlaprad@hamiltoncountyherald.com.