Our ultimate expectations of a romance film are hypocritical. On one hand, we expect a grounded film: real people in real relationships with real feelings doing not necessarily sane but at least rational things in the name of love. On the other hand, we relish in fairytale depictions of love and the idea that true love finds a way and other poetic notions such as soul mates. “Crazy, Stupid, Love” fights this battle longer and to more extreme degrees than anything before it. Those with the fairytale soft-spot will take to it instantly, but even those who tip their scales in favor of believable romance will find something that resonates.

Heartfelt and natural performances from a range of excellent actors yanks this out of the rom-com nebula and into something seemingly more tangible. With talents lesser than Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, this would not only be a rom-com, but also the flamboyant marshall of the rom-com parade. Although powerless against the cliché moments and improbable romantic gestures of Dan Fogelman’s script, they add incredible emotional realism to his smaller, more intimate moments.

Carell stars as Cal Weaver who in the opening seconds learns that his wife, Emily (Moore), wants a divorce. After throwing himself from their car when learning she had an affair with David Linhagen (Kevin Bacon), he goes home and prematurely squeals the news to his babysitter, high schooler Jessica (Analeigh Tipton), who happens to have a crush on him. His 13-year-old son, Robbie (Jonah Bobo), also overhears — and he’s got a crush on Jessica.

Once again, with generic rom-com mainstays in place, bringing a sense of realism to this convenient and nearly farcical romantic chaos would’ve been almost impossible. Carell has his character on lockdown, blending his “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Dan in Real Life” characters into an earnest yet loony portrait of a middle-aged man learning to float after his lifelong stability gives out on him. Moore deftly navigates the territory of a woman in midlife crisis who’s emotionally unsatisfied but completely unsure how to handle it. In contrast, Robbie is so completely far from a typical 13-year-old boy it’s insulting. If his relentless pursuit of Jessica ever finally clicks in any form of the word, it’s not until the very end and the fact that it basically works at that point is nothing short of magic.

Then there’s Jacob (Gosling), the handsome (I’m underselling him) womanizer who takes a dejected Carell under his wing and teaches him the ways (“Karate Kid” references abounding) of the bar pick up. He’s such a smooth natural in his role he could pick up someone watching this movie despite their knowledge of being played. Jacob’s backstory (why he’s at this bar every night picking up women) ends up a casualty, which was really a big mistake, but Gosling has such a strong way with transparency that we believe all Jacob says or does. There’s no doubt that he actually feels something for Hannah (Stone), even if it materializes way faster than it should.

Quickness and exaggeration are two of the chief factors of “Crazy, Stupid, Love” that threaten to derail it in the eyes of those looking for grounding to their romance. Cal’s gut reaction to his wife’s divorce request, not trying to rectify the situation instead of bailing for the bar, seems hasty. After learning well from Jacob and becoming a ladies’ man himself, his attempts to get Emily back don’t gel, perhaps because they come at the ushering of his unrealistic 13-year-old son. Especially when the film reaches it’s big revealing climax, the rash reactions and failures to communicate get really frustrating.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” dashes willy-nilly between moments of emotional realism and romantic exaggeration and realistic humor and comedic exaggeration, enough to make your head spin. After all, this was directed by Glen Ficarra and John Requa, the team behind “Bad Santa” and “I Love You, Phillip Morris,” both of which go extreme and dark places for laughs yet try to stay human.

So how does it all — for the most part — ever manage to unscramble? The performances are truly the key, but the film’s success comes down these intimate, down-to-earth moments throughout, like when Emily calls Cal without knowing he can see her from the backyard. These quieter moments give the actors a chance to shine and Fogelman’s dialog has some real bright spots too. These moments help build support for the characters, a support and general liking that mostly doesn’t tear apart throughout the absurd and unrealistic moments. It’s a completely wild ride between two drastically different approaches to romance, but considering that all the contrast and paradox only bolsters the title “Crazy, Stupid, Love,” it has to be considered a success.

3.5/5 Stars

Crazy, Stupid, Love
Directed by Glen Ficarra and John Requa
Written by Dan Fogelman
Starring: Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone

“Four Weddings and a Funeral” had some pretty amazing competition for Best Picture at the 1995 Academy Awards: Robert Redford’s “Quiz Show,” Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction,” “The Shawshank Redemption” and the winner, “Forrest Gump.” To say the least, this little British comedy was way out of its league. As unorthodox and interesting of a romantic comedy as “Four Weddings” can be, the comparison stops there next to those all-time greats.

But that’s not to diminish the British talents that emerged with this film: director Mike Newell, star Hugh Grant and screenwriter Richard Curtis, all of whom are held in high esteem today. Together, they put together a non-traditional droll comedy with a unique approach that muses about love, life and marriage.

The events of the film are indeed as described in the title. A group of friends with non- conforming and/or non-existent love lives attend various weddings of their other friends (and a funeral of course). The focus is Charles (Grant), a bit of a clumsy fellow trying to sort out his feelings on marriage having burned several past lovers as he could never commit. At the very first wedding of the film, Charles meets Carrie (MacDowell), an attractive, flirty and slightly domineering American who hooks him in. After a one-night stand, they find each other three months later at the next wedding, only it turns out Carrie is engaged.

Curtis, creator of Rowan Atkinson’s (who has a hysterical cameo) character “Bean,” makes the better moments of this film with his Oscar-nominated screenplay. You can never completely get a pulse on the humor: one minute he’s dry and the next more slapstick, but it works. The romantic subplots — of which there are many — could have used some work, but “Four Weddings” never feels typical. Curtis’ construction of the story, though odd, keeps the film running at an amusing tempo.

With the exception of Charles, no character receives a complete portrait, but each receives a strong attribute or context with which the actors can work. Fiona (Kristen Scott Thomas) is a victim of unrequited love that tempers the wedding experience for her and Gareth (Simon Callow) has a joyful “everything’s a laugh” mentality at weddings. We never see into who these characters really are, Curtis provides enough detail for them to feel real and to enhance the running dialogue about love that makes up the meat of the film. Ever since this film, Curtis (“Love, Actually” and “Bridget Jones’ Diary”) has specialized in the multi-character romance because he’s adept at character design.

The fact that “Four Weddings and a Funeral” tries to play in both dramatic romance and comedic romance prevents it from ever finding footing. Newell excels at directing both, but both don’t exist in harmony in this case. The dramatic moments in particular hurt from lack of character depth and the comedic moments — there aren’t enough. The film is memorable, but the identity crisis keeps it out of the conversation of great romances.

—

3/5 Stars

—

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
Directed by Mike Newell
Written by Richard Curtis
Starring: Hugh Grant, Andie MacDowell, Kristen Scott Thomas, John Hannah, Simon Callow

“Chocolat” sounds like a gooey foreign love story, but it’s actually a fable with classic story archetypes and a hint of magic, all of which finishes pleasantly with a tender morsel — err, moral.

It’s about as sophisticated as chocolate, which is not very sophisticated, so “Chocolat” is as easily digested as it is open to criticism for a lack of heady drama. Nominated for five Oscars, one would think it dwells in intellectual territory, but “Chocolat” comes from the heart — and possibly the stomach. “The Cider House Rules” director Lasse Hallstrom sees these charms and wisely makes them the focal point of this likable film.

Juliette Binoche stars as a mysterious but likable woman name Vianne who comes to a small, bland and morally rigid French town run by the Catholic church and opens a chocolate shop with her imaginative young daughter. We know only that “the wind brought her” to this town — her past remains a mystery, which creates that slightly magical tall tale effect. Within the first fifteen minutes her shop is open for business and she’s successfully predicting what each customer’s favorite treat will be. Binoche exudes the charm the role requires but never sacrifices sophistication despite not having a clearly established back story.

On the opposite end of the spectrum sits Alfred Molina as Comte de Reynaud, the moral authority figure who immediately sees Vianne’s shop as an affront to his town and its Catholic principles. Cold on the outside but clearly soft on the inside, of all the Oscar nominations, somehow Molina’s performance — in my opinion the film’s best — was overlooked.

Vianne’s chocolate creates quite the stir, improving one couple’s love life, inspiring a wife (Lena Olin) to leave her abusive husband and reuniting a old woman (Judi Dench) with her grandson. In a more serious film, this would all seem quite convenient and unlikely, but few viewers will fail to notice that chocolate is a metaphor here for something bigger. It embodies that blurred line between what is temptation and what is healthy possibility.

That metaphor provides a strong moral fiber for “Chocolat” which turns out to be what makes it a fine film. It has a tendency to dull a bit in the middle and the entrance of Johnny Depp late into the run time despite his high billing confuses more than helps the story, but overall “Chocolat” is rich in its simplicity. When the young priest, Pere Henri (Hugh O’Conor) delivers the closing words of the film at Easter Mass after appearing as a peculiar and weak character throughout, the story’s message becomes abundantly clear and the intention and wisdom of the film shine through.

“Chocolat” could easily be construed as critical of organized religion, Catholicism in particular, but Pere Henri’s speech beautifully connects the film’s call for embracing life with Christian philosophy. It’s a timeless message with timeless components, but the unique premise and setting make “Chcolat” a fresh tale of great wisdom.

—

4/5 Stars

—

Chocolat (2000)
Directed by Lasse Hallstrom
Written by Robert Nelson Jacobs, Joanne Harris (novel)
Starring: Juliette Binoche, Alfred Molina, Johnny Depp, Judi Dench

“Marley & Me” does not prey entirely on our soft side for dogs, nor does it aim for laughs caused by animal hi-jinx. It’s a touching film with a warm spirit that manages to shake off any tearjerker stereotypes that most people would be quick to slap it with. That’s better than at least 75 percent of current films with the labels “romance” and “comedy” associated with them.

It tells the story of a dog, but “Marley & Me” is equally about the start of a family. The film covers a lot of chronological ground and quickly. John and Jenny (Owen Wilson and Jennifer Anniston) start the film married and an hour later have three kids and a dog. That dog would be Marley, a yellow lab the couple got on clearance when they were still wavering over whether to have kids. Marley is a terror of a dog when it comes to behavior, but “Marley & Me” never fully mutates from romance to dog shenanigans comedy. Writers Don Roos and Scott Frank refuse to cave in to making this a film about a crazy dog and “The Devil Wears Prada” director David Frankel supports them fully. When Marley has some kind of episode, it’s quick and punchy, leaving only the effect that Marley adds to the struggle of making a family work.

What neither Frankel nor the writers can overcome in adapting John Grogan’s book, however, is the challenge of putting so much physical time into a two-hour film. They find a way, but the story rarely has a chance to breathe or take root in the mind because so much happens in the course of ten or even five minutes. Films that span a lifetime usually end up in the two-hour plus time category for this reason.

Consequently, Wilson and Anniston never seem to age. (“Jenn’s held up well” says Eric Dane, the best friend, to Wilson when they encounter each other toward the end of the movie.) Your empathy will grow for Marley, but the characters don’t quite have enough time to germinate. Missing are the little moments that really show great character because the film is too busy passing through time.

Both stars are at their best in “Marley,” with Wilson getting to be a toned-down and mature laid-back joker as opposed to an immature laid-back joker. Anniston gets to combine her romantic comedy quirkiness with the occasional flip-out as well, which she’s executed numerous times before.

I did have a personal beef with Wilson’s character being able to support three kids and his stay-at-home wife on a journalist’s salary (which is doubled at one point in the movie), but the film is otherwise logical and transitions exceptionally well. Roos and Frank write in a number of clever montage alternatives that are attention grabbing. One such scene is Wilson doing voice over and reading single phrases one after the other about what is happening in his life and another shows how Marley torments the baby sitter as John and Jenn vacation to Ireland and Jenn’s voice over is of the instructions they left behind.

The family and dog elements blend in nicely, but missing from “Marley & Me” is some resonance. It all makes sense and sure, the dog was family and dogs love unconditionally, but the film leaves itself no time to show instead of tell about what Marley taught them. Another example of this is Jenn yelling at John about how difficult it is to watch their kids and Marley and how she never realized it would be so hard. The trigger is pulled too early with use of dialogue when some effectively drawn out scene writing would’ve captured that idea easily.

Nevertheless, “Marley” remains a sweet-natured and likable if not lovable film that captures true moments of romance, family and pet ownership without ever giving in to a single convention that most “dog comedies” employ with reckless abandon.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Marley & Me (2008)
Directed by David Frankel
Written by Don Roos and Scott Frank, John Grogan (book)
Starring: Owen Wilson, Jennifer Anniston, Eric Dane, Alan Arkin

I was surprised to learn that “Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day” was based on Winifred Watson’s novel. That’s because it feels so much like a play. It wears all the charms of a play or musical with a high-society cast of people involved in music or theatre and whimsical characters bearing distinctive traits. Even our titular character experiences a 24-hour Cinderella-style transformation using the classic rags-to-riches archetype so often found on the stage.

Near-farcical at times, “Miss Pettigrew” is a fun romance, an escapist period love story that takes place at the doorstep of World War II, an ever-present reminder that life isn’t always as magical as the story makes it out to be. Although it would thrive more on the stage, colorful performances from two versatile actresses — one a veteran and the other one of film’s biggest up-and-comers — keep the attitude fun and the story from feeling stale.

Frances McDormand stars as Miss Pettigrew, a poor woman working as a maid who is fired and told by the agency that sends her out that she can’t be trusted anymore. Facing complete poverty, she steals a job as a social assistant to an aspiring American actress (Amy Adams) named Delysia LaFosse, an un-tamable young woman juggling three men in her life: one who gives her all the money she has, one who could put her in a starring role and one who of course who loves her for who she is.

Adams plays Delysia with delightful camp, clearly having so much fun pretending to care and be a charming little ray of sunshine despite her obvious attempts to manipulate others. Miss Pettigrew is the woman that helps her pull it off and for this she gets her own little makeover and the chance to see life with different eyes. McDormand subtly makes her moves as the script calls for her to be surprisingly and comically assertive in situations despite her reserved manner. She’s quite literally a peach though she’d much rather eat one given she doesn’t eat but scraps on a regular basis. Director Bharat Nalluri doesn’t let us lose sight of this, but with a 24-hour film, it’s hard to see Miss Pettigrew as more than a comical character portrait.

The romantic comedy farce aspect meets the status quo quite pleasantly. “Miss Pettigrew” does not reach for a new bag of tricks; the only things fresh about it are these performances along with a little British flair. It’s much more enjoyable to watch Delysia and Miss Pettigrew than it is to actually follow what happens to them in the film.

“Miss Pettigrew” offers some witty, classic ’30s romantic escapism and might even prompt you to buy some theatre tickets.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day
Directed by Bharat Nalluri
Written by David Magee and Simon Beaufoy, Winifred Watson (novel)
Starring: Frances McDormand, Amy Adams, Mark Strong

Brave are the filmmakers who go out and try to capture the plight of the middle class, aka relationship drama. James L. Brooks’ “Broadcast News” is a romance twisted up with a career that’s all about constantly proving yourself and rising to the top. In reality, it’s just co-worker romance with the heated pressure of a field where selling yourself and journalism ethics don’t always play nice. Brooks soundly portrays this corner of Americana despite the film’s minimal conflict, which comes with trying to make a film about reality.

Our lives aren’t interesting enough to make great films, that’s why we never tell entirely true stories. Even the “based on” kind are just that — based on. “Broadcast News” is far from true, but it might as well be. There isn’t a far-fetched concept in this entire movie. Brooks wants 30-something unmarried professionals looking for success and love, but because they’re already 30-something looking for success and love, that’s tougher than you think.

Jane (Hunter) is a quick-tempered D.C. news producer who can’t help but tell people what they should do, Aaron (Brooks) is the under-appreciated reporter and Jane’s closest friend who can’t go a minute without cracking a joke and Tom is the new anchor trying to prove he’s not just likable, but actually good at his job.

Peel back that layer and you have Jane, who has crying fits every 30 minutes because she doesn’t know what she wants though it might be Tom, Aaron who is madly in love with Jane and Tom who is attracted to Jane but has trouble dealing with her critical attitude.

The performances are all genuine, but of course much of that credit goes to the legendary Brooks. One could guess a lot of this film was drawn from either leftover or would-be ideas for “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”

Being real and truthful to human essence, however, while laudable, is just not what makes a great film. Certain people are bound to appreciate the sincerity and complete avoidance of cheeseball romance, but others will wish it had the intensity of a more daring plot.

—

3.5/5 Stars

Broadcast News
Directed and written by James L. Brooks
Starring: Holly Hunter, William Hurt, Albert Brooks

As a movie-lover, I had to see what all the fuss was about, so I watched “Twilight” despite minimal knowledge of Stephenie Meyer’s books. I didn’t like it, but felt it could be done better, so with Catherine Hardwicke switched out for Chris Weitz, I decided to see if the franchise could back-up its hundreds of millions in revenue earned from “The Twilight Saga: New Moon.” Weitz improves the action, but the romance is maybe even worse and the story still all over the place.

For one thing “New Moon” is a long three-parter for a romance-centered story. To its advantage, you come in with knowledge of the characters, but the movie begins with a lack of momentous conflict. Edward (Pattinson), our vampire, tells Bella (Stewart) he’s leaving because she’s “not good for him,” aka he’s a vampire somehow she’s gonna pay for that. As this happens we’re slapped with Romeo & Juliet references, which for tweens is effective symbolism/analogy usage, but not for anyone over the age of 16.

Weitz could have cut 15 minutes at least from “New Moon” by virtue of erasing the pauses between lines of romance dialogue. If Edward and Bella spoke to each other like normal people do and without this weird attempt to understate the melodramatic tension through emotional sucker punch lines such as ” …(pause)…you’re not good for me,” then “New Moon” could go under the two-hour mark and manage to feel like one film instead of three.

When Edward leaves we’re treated to indie-music montages of time passing and Bella being depressed and seeing blurred visions of Edward everywhere and wanting a “rush” because she’s so completely devastated by his choice. It’s too much internalized conflict for the beginning of a film. The franchise’s constant, writer Melissa Rosenberg, probably had to fight over book loyalty or drawing out parts that would make the movie flow better — not an enviable position, but either way “New Moon” is structurally terrible.

The middle act is then Bella’s budding relationship with Jacob (Taylor Lautner), her washboard abs Native American friend who also has his secrets: he’s a werewolf. Poor Bella, she always attracts the late 19th/early 20th Century literary monsters. At least at this point the action starts to pick up when Bella realizes she’s being hunted by the bad vampires from the last movie and werewolf Jacob tries to protect her. The movie lets go of the romance for about 45 minutes which is a breath of fresh air.

But before all is done the story rockets back to Edward and fast-forwards at lightning pace through the final act that takes Bella on a plane ride to see the Vampire leaders, the Volturi. It’s the dessert we have to cram down before we get kicked out of the restaurant because we’ve sat down for too long. “New Moon” really is a three-course meal that has one or two good items but regardless, lacks anything tying it all together as a “meal” until the final five minutes.

Most importantly, Weitz manages not to do one thing Hardwicke did in “Twilight”: make me laugh at the movie. I didn’t find anything so cheesy that I rolled my eyes and that, as a total outsider to the Twilight books and Twi-hard fandom and such, is a huge victory in my opinion. The action, while abusive of slow-motion, at least has a sense of style, though certainly more budget flexibility existed with “New Moon.”

A lot more work would need to be done to give the Twilight Saga a film it could hang its hat on critically speaking, but money talks louder in this case, so what does Summit care? I still think there’s a good movie in this franchise somewhere, but guessing about the books and knowing what Rosenberg has done adapting them, anything more than tolerable would be a surprise.

—

2.5/5 Stars

The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Directed by Chris Weitz
Written by Melissa Rosenberg, Stephenie Meyer (novel)
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner

“Julie & Julia” is not about food so much as it is about setting goals and creating opportunities for personal achievement. In this way, famous television chef Julia Child (Meryl Streep) and foodie blogger Julie Powell (Amy Adams) have more in common than a passion for cooking. Acclaimed romantic comedy filmmaker Nora Ephron juxtaposes both womens’ stories to illustrate this in her film and though it’s a conclusion that doesn’t require two long hours to cook, the life-like ups and downs and feel good moments of “Julie & Julia” make it an affecting and personable film.

Thriving on the performances of Adams and even more so Streep, Ephron’s vision to interweave two equally interesting story lines works despite the extra minutes consequently tacked on. Objectively, this is Julie Powell’s story as without her the story of Julia Child is irrelevant in this film, but Child is a compelling figure and Streep playing her makes it even more so.

Powell is a recently married woman with a desk job who gets the idea to start a blog about cooking, specifically trying to cook more than 500 of Julia Child’s recipes from her famous book “Mastering the Art of French Cooking,” all in just one year. Ephron then takes pieces from Child’s aforementioned tome and tells the story of how she came to be a cooking expert and publish what eventually became that book. Ephron tames these equally magnetic stories, splicing them at great commercial break cliffhanger moments to keep our attention.

I personally found the Julie story a bit more dynamic and interesting. There’s some bias there as I’m also a blogger trying to establish myself as a writer, but I think anyone who feels or has ever felt bogged down by a job that they’re not passionate about who needs to own something and find something to succeed at whether as a hobby or something more will find interest and certainly some comfort in Powell’s story.

On the other side of the coin is Streep’s performance and Julia’s relationship with her husband, Paul (Stanley Tucci). It’s certainly not your average on-screen romance, but “Julie & Julia” is all the better for it. Finally a film where love does not factor in as much with the plot. Both these women were inspired or supported by their husbands and their relationships were an integral part of their success in this way. Streep and Tucci have a playful and adorable chemistry. They have fun together — they’re partners — and that’s all too often lost in cinematic romance.

Streep as Julia, however, is the focal point of that whole side to the story. It’s very much Streep being Julia more so than Julia. You notice that same sense of humor we’ve seen more recently from her in films such as “Mamma Mia!” but she takes it to Julia’s level. It feels very natural yet it’s also a complex portrayal. You can feel her fear and her fearlessness alike in Streep’s performance and the way she responds to life in general including its challenges.

“Julie & Julia” is foremost a story of how when passion and dedication meet, wonderful things happen because no adversity lasts for long in the face of that combination. These women found their passion in cooking and stayed dedicated because of their personal relationships and both found lasting fulfillment from it.

—

4/5 Stars

Julie & Julia
Directed by: Nora Ephron
Written by: Nora Ephron, Julie Powell (book), Julia Child (Book “My Life in France”)
Starring: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina

The ’60s was the decade of the movie musical with “West Side Story,” “The Sound of Music,” “My Fair Lady,” and “Oliver!” all taking home Best PIcture. It’s fair to say “Funny Girl” might’ve been on that list had it not came out the same year as “Oliver!” But the Academy had it right in giving this musical romantic comedy’s one Oscar to its best attribute and greatest asset: Barbara Streisand.

Only in her mid-20s and in her big-screen debut, Streisand plays like a veteran. She brings the film to its highest points, makes it bearable through its lowest, is responsible for all of the laughs as well as all the touching moments and she does it while defying the “standards” of beauty in Hollywood.

Streisand’s nose might be the most famous body part in movie history, yet she holds her head high confidently and gives the mirror a smile as she utters the film’s first line “hello, gorgeous.” She’s an average Jewish girl from Brooklyn but here she is — and that’s what makes her perfect as Fanny Brice, the famous Zigfield Follies comedienne.

“Funny Girl” is a typical musical love story only its main character is a famous (and wealthy) musical performer and there’s a bit more attention on the dramatic aspect of her relationship with Nick Arnstein (Omar Sharif). As she sings about people who need people being the luckiest in the world, the story becomes less about her rise to fame and more about finding the right man and making him part of her life.

Keeping the focus on Fanny is legendary director William Wyler in one of his last pictures. Wyler keeps us focused on the talented Streisand and together they keep our attention on Fanny’s story — what’s going on in her head. The love story can get awfully bland at times, but its Fanny that keeps our interests and brings the film its few poignant moments.

Streisand has many faces in this film and that’s why she’s so good. She’s not necessarily deeply moving or able to give a truly affecting performance, but she’s believable and she’s honest with the part while also giving it some comedic zing with the over-the-top Jewish New Yorker routine. There might not be any notable epiphanies in her performance, but she clearly guides us through Fanny’s emotions and realization of her own flaws.

—

3.5/5 Stars

Funny Girl (1968)
Directed by: William Wyler
Written by: Isobel Lennart
Starring: Barbara Streisand, Omar Sharif

I come from the group that has never read the Stephenie Meyer books and knew little about them other than the general idea of love and vampires and such. I had put off watching “Twilight” based on reviews, what I heard and my gender, but finally — nearly a year later — gave in to my curiosity over what the craze is all about.

Now, I understand it. I don’t like it, but I understand it. “Twilight” and the book it’s based on is romance — melodramatic dialogue-filled romance about dangerous/forbidden love, something that’s been a major literary force for centuries. Combine that with human infatuation with vampires and there’s perfect reason for “Twilight” to be a success.
That said, the storytelling of “Twilight” is not all that good, speaking about the film at least (still haven’t read the book). Bella (Kristen Stewart), moves from Arizona to the Pacific Northwest to live with her dad. At her new school, she develops a quick crush on the mysterious Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a pasty-faced TD&H beaux from a family that is equally strange and equally as covered in distracting pale make-up. Bella, however, is a little odd herself. For reasons we never totally understand, she’s drawn to him and willing to trust him a bit quickly as she discovers he’s not exactly human. Edward, however, is much the same. The on-screen chemistry of Stewart and Pattinson gets an A, but the chemistry of their characters in the story gets an F for fake.

Once things get rolling and we get over the fact that we don’t fully understand why they’re suddenly in love with each other, “Twilight” becomes more interesting. Until then, however, it’s all sorts of awful. Never mind the low-budget visual effects and shoddy stunt work that look like something I’ve seen on the WB — that’s a whole other issue.

The problem is there’s no source of antagonism in the story for the first hour and change. Edward keeps telling Bella she should stay away from him and be scared of him and Bella wants to know why. Then she figures it out and he tries to scare her off some more. The conflict is inner tension entirely. People’s thoughts only make for good conflict in books — it doesn’t translate onto the screen the same way. Melissa Rosenberg, who wrote a few episodes of hit teen show “The O.C.” and the dance flick “Step Up,” doesn’t seem to have generated any creative ideas to make this story work more visually. I can’t speak for her adaption of the source material, but I can rightfully say the movie is not inspiring or captivating until an external force (a few bad vampires) enter the picture.

So “Twilight” has to sell hard on romance, which is what it’s all about anyway. This is the specialty of director Catherine Hardwicke, who directed the intriguing teen drama “Thirteen.” The intimate scenes between Edward and Bella, which are supposed to have a tentative, awkward feeling to them given the nature of their relationship, is really felt in her work. She’s definitely keen on the whole connection between vampires and sensuality. Stewart and Pattinson are both great selections for the film. Both weren’t just lucky casting choices — they have definite careers ahead of them.

What the movie needed to actually be entertaining to a bigger audience is a director with a better sense of action and suspense. Edward climbs a fair amount of trees with Bella on his back and it’s more reminiscent of Brendan Frasier in “George of the Jungle” than anything released in today’s visual effects era.

“Twilight” ultimately takes too much time establishing itself and the rules of its world, not showing them to us quickly in creative visual ways that give us a sense of the fantasy we think we ought to be enjoying. It’s like the “Mad Max” films with Mel Gibson: the first film ends just as it gets interesting and the second film is the one most fondly remembered. You only get a sense by the end of the film what the “Twilight” world is all about. I imagine “New Moon,” the second installment, will be somewhat better by this same concept (and also with a fantasy-grounded director in Chris Weitz). Problem is, “Twilight” didn’t convince me any future films will be better enough.

2/5 Stars

“Twilight” (2008)
Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke
Written by: Melissa Rosenberg, Stephenie Meyer (book)
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson

“Romancing the Stone” is a writer’s fantasy about a writers’ fantasy that comes true. Screenwriter Diane Thomas must’ve been something of a hopeless romantic herself to create Joan Wilder and have her live out a story similar to her books. Wilder is a single woman in her 30s living with her cat who finds out her sister has been kidnapped and that the ransom has been sent to her randomly in the form of a treasure map. Joan flies to Colombia where another man interested in the map sends her off into the jungle instead of straight to her destination where Indiana Jones more or less in the form of Michael Douglas as Jack Colton finds her and helps her begrudgingly.

The film certainly capitalizes on the popularity of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” only targeting itself at women. Joan is a naive and hopeless beauty-in-waiting and Douglas the rebellious adventurer who helps her for initially selfish reasons that turn into romantic ones. Their chemistry is a bit forced, but each fits perfectly into his/her role that we easily approve.

From an action sense, director Robert Zemeckis, in his first major film, keeps the film light but suspenseful enough to keep our interest. Considering the writing calls for cat and mouse the entire time as Joan and Jack run from the corrupt the Colombian police officer Zolo and his men as well as Danny DeVito, a lot hinges on Zemeckis’ creativity to keep the constantly recycling scenes of fleeing from gunfire feel more pressing each time until the climax. He also brings a healthy sense of humor that makes the movie easier to enjoy, knowing that even its maker wants this to be nothing but light-hearted entertainment.

“Romancing” is predictable adventure with even more predictable romance, but Zemeckis finds a way to make it inherently more likable than even Turner or Douglas as talents do. In a film where there would be plenty to role our eyes at, Zemeckis graciously spares us the trouble.