The Curious Halfbusters of March 2014

I came up with the cheeky term "halfbuster" a while back while covering a March War of the Months, when I struggled to come up with a term to describe studio attempts to launch a big tentpole picture at the dawn of Spring. Ever since 300 (2007) or so, March has tended to be this little Summer Preview-kind of month, where the occasional big film breaks and scores big. There's all these big-budgeted but really weird movies that come out here, usually not four-quadrant style pics, but big fantasy world-building fare like Alice in Wonderland (2010), The Hunger Games (2012), Oz the Great and Powerful (2013), and almost every Zack Snyder film ever.

The current March, however, seems peculiar. At first glance you'd think we didn't even have any halfbuster at all. We do, but we just have three halfbusters so pathetic that they're on no one's radar. Quarterbusters, if you will. I'm always looking for a big film that captures national attention in a big way, and I'm even more curious when the formula fails for no discernible reason besides an arbitrarily poor buzz that gets rolling.

I'm thinking of a film like The Lone Ranger (2013). Why did The Lone Ranger fail so spectacularly in every possible way? It was a bust critically, commercially, and culturally, despite an incredible marketing effort on the part of Disney and the standard serious treatment of tenuous but recognizable material that most tentpoles receive these days. The mystique of The Lone Ranger's failure haunts me and probably deserves its own post someday, but there's another film this year that seems to fit a similar bill: Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2014).

I think the best way to judge whether or not a big blockbuster-style film will succeed or not is to test the knee-jerk reaction to its subject material receiving the huge budget epic treatment. What do you think when you hear that the Transformers would feature in a huge movie? Pretty awesome, right? You can immediately picture the clash and clang of guns and metal, and in many ways Michael Bay, though assuredly superfluous, was the perfect director to place every 12-year old boy's imagination on screen.

What about The Lone Ranger? It's tougher to picture exactly what that would look like. Same with Noah's Ark. Same with freaking Jem. It's difficult to estimate fanbases, but it's also difficult to picture what these films could be like, possibly just because although the source material is recognizable, there is some disassociation with it. In these three cases, for me personally, this disassociation is due to distances derived from living in a different time from when the source material peaked in popularity, observing the religion too casually to care, or not being the optimal gender at the time of its peak in popularity.

Noah is not entertained.

That's the major issue with Noah, the first film we'll talk about here. Does anyone care about the tale of Noah's Ark on the big screen that wasn't satisfied with Evan Almighty (2007)? I'm actually quite sure that no one cares about Evan Almighty, but it presents a really strange audience. Supposedly, according to early reviews, Noah does things like omit any utterance of the word "God" and serves more as a survivalist, environmentalist psychological thriller than a Biblical Epic. Who the hell is that audience? Me? Yes, I am interested in that, moreso than just hearing the words "Noah," "Epic," and "Movie" in the same byline. I'm not sure, however, that either casual moviegoers or religious fanatics would be pleased with the outcome. Still, it's a hell of a way to spend $125 million. Just like The Lone Ranger, though, this huge experimental blockbuster was made for no one.

There are two other halfbusters this year that are worthy of our attention. We mentioned 300 earlier in this article, and it's only natural that we see it's long-awaited sequel, 300: Rise of an Empire (2014) debut this year. The thing is, though, everything groundbreaking about 300 (in a money-making, industry-influential sense, certainly not in a cultural sense through fostering greater insight into truth or the human condition), causes its sequel to inevitably appear more like just one of its many many copycats aping its visual cues and subject matter this year rather than a worthy successor to its ideals. It's the kind of film that seems to have been created and released only in facsimile to its inspiration, an even more egregious filmmaking error than Oz the Great and Powerful's relationship to Alice in Wonderland was.

Lastly we have this strange movie coming out this weekend called Divergent (2014). I feel constantly blindsided by YA adaptation releases and I have no idea how to determine what the genuine articles are. Box Office Mojo's weekend preview does a nice job of delineating the tepid recent releases that have tried to get some of that Hunger Games and Twilight gold. 2013 saw no less than three terrible YA bombs each trying to become the next big franchise, including Beautiful Creatures, The Host, and The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, as well as 2014's Vampire Academy. It's possible that these were more seen as all direct rip-offs of Twilight, especially the explicit use of vampires in a handful of these.

Ugh whatever

Where does Divergent fall, though? It's clearly some kind of Hunger Games knock-off, at least in the public perception, but rather than banking on Jennifer Lawrence, who has developed the rare talent to instantly legitimize anything she touches, it's banking on Shailene "Secret Life and The Descendants" Woodley, whose name I had to Google to verify its spelling. She's a lovely actress but I'm not sure she's carrying this one.

So this year we have a hollow sequel to the original halfbuster that will most likely be remember for its ship sex scene more than anything else, an intellectual, dark, epic Biblical adaptation that doesn't really appeal to the Bible belt, and a who knows kind of YA adaptation that could just as easily be forgotten as immortalized. The important thing to take away from this March is one simple fact: we aren't getting 300, The Lone Ranger, or The Hunger Games. We're getting mock-ups of these three. And none of those three were especially good anyway. It's an old mantra that the studio system seems allergic to hear - the real key to getting a big hit isn't to copy the past, but to push forward into the future. Isn't it more worthwhile to be the movie that everyone wants to copy rather than the copycat?

Divergent premieres today, Noah next week, and the atrocious 300: Rise of an Empire is in theaters right now. At least all three are better than Jack the Giant Slayer (2013).

The Road to a Blockbuster: Pot Smugglers, Ocean Monsters, Planes, and Matt Damon's Robot Arms

Here is a special Wednesday Edition of the Road to a Blockbuster. There are no less than four very disparate films dropping this week, and two today. They're all in crazily different genres and none are very likely to succeed financially. This column is not only focused on the films' commercial success, though, but also any potential for critical praise or more importantly, cultural cachet. Let's start with the Wednesday films:

At least it has that chick with the cute eyes from that Imagine Dragons video

First up is Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (2013), which is a sequel to Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010) that I did not realize was being made. Based on a popular series of young adult novels, the first film was a reasonable hit for a February release, although I'm not sure it deserved a Summer Sequel. Still, this is August, where plenty of crazy random movies are typically dropped and sometimes succeed (District 9 [2009]) and sometimes plummet (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World [2010]). So what kind of potential does Sea of Monsters have?

Although it's an established property that likely has a good number of fans who are eagerly anticipating the release, but the marketing campaign has barely registered with anyone outside its demographic. While the first one was competent enough of a tween-pleasing modern mythological romp, no one else really gave a shit about it. There's also a shitload of these books. Like eight of them, apparently. These tend to be to Twilight what the The Chronicles of Narnia to The Lord of the Rings - a much less successful adaptation that will fizzle out far before its time with very little cultural significance. Or perhaps we can see it as the children's version of Clash of the Titans (2010). Either way, this franchise is garbage.

Next we have We're the Millers (2013), a nice raunchy late summer R-Rated comedy. This is often a good launching point for these kinds of flicks, from Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) all the way through The Campaign (2012). We're the Millers features an exceptional cast, from supporting Ed Helms, Nick Offerman, and Katherine Hahn to the core of Jason Sudeikis and Jennifer Aniston. Aniston in particular seems to be finding a better niche playing against type than she ever did in forgettable roles that could have been played by anyone, like Bruce Almighty (2003) up through The Bountry Hunter (2010). Between this and Horrible Bosses (2011), though, she's really been playing the R-rated older sexcat pretty damn well.

Not bad for 44 years old...

If anything, We're the Millers ought to be remembered as that movie with the Aniston striptease scene, not unlike how a film like Your Highness (2011) is known for showcasing Natalie Portman's butt. It's a great achievement. As for Sudeikis, is there any other SNL alumn who is more desperate for leading man stardom? He's had a string of low to high profile flicks poised to be his breakout flick, his Happy Gilmore (1994), or his Anchorman if you will, but none have really caught on to become classics. Sudeikis just isn't terribly funny. He's more bland and snide than really likeable and relatable, even if A Good Old Fashioned Orgy remains underseen and underrated.

I'm not sure We're the Millers will break out and become the next huge comedy movie or even become a beloved cult classic, but it's got a decent premise, a measurable spin on the family vacation movie, and the kind of sardonic attitude it needs to become decent Netflix material. Speaking of films that are better at home viewing, let's move on to Disney's Planes (2013).

Planes is a spin-off of Pixar's Cars (2006), that was not created by Pixar, but rather Disney, originally for a direct-to-DVD release that suddenly got a nice theatrical release in one of the more crowded summers for Animation in recent memory. Hell, it's even been a croweded July for kids at the cinema. From EPIC (2013) to Monsters University (2013), Despciable Me 2 (2013), Turbo (2013), and The Smurfs 2 (2013), it's been a little overwhelming. And Cars was soulless enough without the blatant cashgrab Cars 2 (2011), much less the needless spinoff, Planes. I mean, the Cars franchise basically did the unthinkable, lowering Pixar's brand and reputation as a vaunted movie studio that effortlessly churned out hit after hit, critically and commercially. Planes is just further skewering their goodwill, although to be fair, all that is actually doing is bringing them down to everyone else's level.

There's no way Planes succeeds this weekend. Parents are already sick of dragging their stupid brat kids to every dumb movie this summer, and assuredly won't dish out more dough for a version of Cars in the air. There is also very little chance it catches on culturally in any way. If anything it will merely add to the hated legacy of Cars than build anything on its own. That's why Cars is so criticised. It's symbolic of Pixar finally failing and making subpar movie with the intention only to sell toys. Planes is a reflection of that and as a result, is ultimately hollow.

Is Matt Damon turning into Bruce Willis?

Finally, we've got the big hitter this weekend - Elysium. All this took was a cool name and a proven director - Neill Blomkamp and I was in. Of course, Blomkamp really only has District 9 to his name, which more built off what he had previously created. Who knows if he can actually make a decent big original sci fi film, but at this point, originality should be praised. This summer actually had a handful of original sci fi flicks, from Oblivion (2013) to After Earth (2013) to Pacific Rim (2013). It may be argued that Rim serves more as an homage, Oblivion as a pastiche, and  After Earth as a heaping pile of shit, but at the least, none were sequels. None of these films have exactly lit up the box office, either, which doesn't portend well for a future that is full of sequels and remakes ad nauseum.

There is hope with Elysium, though, right? There's no telling how the film will actually be or whether or not we'll by Matt Damon in his bald glory, but out of every film dropping this summer, this is about the only one that could really make the kind of cultural impact we've been looking for. This is the movie that will inspire the hipsters of 2035 - the ones who will wear ironic Matt Damon T-shirts and reminisce how they don't make movies like Elysium anymore. Those may be some steep expectations, but it's what we need in these dark times. Help us, Matt Damon, you're our only hope.

Which of these four insane movies will be you watching on Netflix 6 months from now?

The Road to A Blockbuster: Snow White & the Huntsman

Here we are, another Summer Friday and there's another film trying to win it big at the Box Office. More than that though, it's a film trying to completely integrate it into our popular culture. It's the kind of incessant marketing and advertising that doesn't just make the film look good but makes our lives seem incomplete until we see it. Does Snow White & the Huntsman (2012) pull that off? No, of course not. More people want to see this thing that you'd think, though, and it could be a bit of a hit.

First of all, this flick has a tough Release Date. It's saddled in between Memorial Day's Men in Black 3 (2012)  and Ridley Scott's intriguing (if you've avoided the trailers and commercials that are full of spoilers) space epic, Prometheus (2012). The only luck is that MIB3 isn't really doing all that well and there's absolutely nothing else getting a wide release this weekend. That mean the game is allll Snow White's. Well that seems kind of bizarre.

Since when is Snow White cool? Or hardass fairy tale adaptations at all? The answer is no, this was never cool. Maybe sometimes. This is all the fault of Alice in Wonderland (2010), whose visually innovative yet narratively hollow hardcore Disney Princess live action treatment rocked the hell out of the Box Office. Snow White & the Huntsman seems like this weird amalgamation of Twilight, Harry Potter, Snow White, and crack. It's all blended together in a big soup with some weird glass monsters and forest monsters and who the hell knows what else.

So again - is this cool? The film seems to be banking on it. There's a big Catch-22 at work here. The "Snow White" in the title seems to be a turn-off for any and all dudes, but without it it would just be a film about some random chick in the woods with no brand recognition. It's key that this is a revisionist re-imaging of the classic sappy tale that was once the highest grossing film in the world. That is, it banks on itself being edgy and different and full of youth fantasy appeal - something new and weird and wonderful for the whole world to enjoy. I'm not sure they've pulled it off.

Needless to say there's some kind of Twilight element here as well. The film is supposed to center around Kristen Stewart, who we've certainly shown some appreciation for, and she's again proving her status, quite literally, as the Anti-Princess. In the Twilight series Kristen Stewart is this socially awkward, terrible looking girl who finds the most maddeningly addictive sort of love - kind of a hope for brunettes everywhere. This is the same idea - it's brunettes vs. blondes all over again and that the plain Kristen can triumph and be an unorthodox princess is integral. She could very well carry plenty of Twilight fans into this and the film seems overtly interested in capturing this demographic. I still can't believe a world where she's fairer than Charlize Theron, but who am I to judge.

The marketing has tried desperately to appeal to men because the film exists in this weird space where it centers on women but has very traditionally masculine themes of war and woods and big ugly monsters. To me, the only thing that really sells it is that Thor plays the Huntsman. That and the inclusion of lots of weird creepy monsters who have no real place in a Snow White story. Or so it seems!

So this flick should do pretty well, all in all. The advertising, tho seemingly a mesh of tropes has also placed a distinctive Gothic spin on its influences. It actually has the attention of many males I know although I still think it looks stupid. Thank goodness Thor has that big shield to fight off the Queen's glass monsters! C'mon. June is sort of packed but really, who is going to see this that is also pumped for Prometheus? Or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)? I bet this is more of a hit than you'd suggest.

Snow White & the Huntsman opens today.

Trends: March is the New Summer

The sun is shining bright in the sky, the radios are pumping out the hottest jams of the year, and the box office is pushing every weekend with high-profile franchise blockbuster releases. And it's...March? How did this happen? It seems that in 2012 we've pressed fast forward on the calendar. This is normally the kind of feeling we're supposed to have on Independence Day, not St. Patty's.

Hot Hot Heat:

First of all, the literal temperature for most of the Northeast has been particularly unseasonably warm. The Snowfall Derby has been a meager trot this Winter, and we've seen more green around than the Chicago River this past Saturday. This week especially is projected to have a constant wave of sunshine and blazing heat. People are jogging half-naked, wearing shorts, shades, and rollerblading around. It's a perfect way to beat the summertime springtime heat. This is supposed to be the official start of Spring, but instead it looks like a nice day for a swim at Amity Island. It's bonkers.

Hot Hot Beats:

There were a flurry of tracks that dropped this week that seem well-suited for a Summer Jam. We've got B.o.B. on "So Good" and Flo Rida ft. Sia on "Wild Ones," both of which are no strangers to landing choice Summer Beats. We've also got all this low-level crap from random bands that have had trendy appearances on SNL like Karmin and Sleigh Bells with their singles "Brokenhearted" and "Comeback Kid" respectively. All of these tracks are perfect Summer Jam Candidates - fast, danceable, and catchy as hell. They all pale in comparison to Nicki's "Starships," which is one of the more perfect Summer-y songs I've heard in a long time. Since last Summer, really. Take a listen:



It's this sick combination of hip-hop, techno, and pop that is absolutely tailor-made for the zeitgeist. It's fierce, pounding, and displays the full extent of Nicki's talents, including the slight amount of AutoTune that makes her voice stuck in your head for days. It's a party song, it's a background song, you can focus in and out and dance your ass off to it at the end of the day. It's brilliant from a Summer Jam Standpoint. But it's March, honey. How did this happen?

Hot Hot Flicks:

March started with The Lorax (2012), which would seem like a more honourific re-telling of a beloved Ted Geisel tale if not for the shameless selling of the property for Mazdas. Anyway, the astounding success of this fuzzball surely represents one aspect of the typical Summer Box Office that has effortlessly been boiled into March, 2012 - the family-friendly CGI Animated film.

Looking at March's other weekends we see plenty more. We have untapped adaptations of works new and ancient, with plenty of box office potential in John Carter (2012) and The Hunger Games (2012). Okay, so one of those may be known one day as one of the bigger flops of all time, but it really shouldn't be ignored. The other one is landing this weekend, and by all rights it should blow the Teen Market out of the water. Apparently it's like a much less crappy and sexually confusing version of Twilight, which is always welcome. It's interesting that almost since we could see the light at the end of the Twilight / Harry P Cash Tunnel we've been looking for its successor. Why is The Hunger Games that successor? Who knows, but it was appointed that a long time ago. Maybe they can squeeze nine films out of the three books. That ought to last a while.

The Hunger Games is a perfect Halfbuster - the kind of unproven franchise that will likely land its subsequent adaptations some juicy Summer or Winter releases. There is an obvious fallacy here, though - if The Hunger Games does well enough in March, why shouldn't it stay there? Why not just start the Summer Box Office Season in the Month of Caesar?

In recent years April and March have proven themselves to be substantial release months for big movies, usually ones with potential the studios are wary about. As March takes off, April is getting compacted and it's really a matter of time until it's just one big block of continuous blockbusters. It's a crazy thought, especially in an age that increasingly cites the Blockbuster as dead. The numbers and trends (ignoring Summer 2010...) refuse to point in that direction.

March continues its assault with 21 Jump Street (2012), an upsurging R-Rated Comedy that really butt-fucked the Box Office last summer (see Bad Teacher [2011], Horrible Bosses [2011]). Two weekends from now we've also got Mirror, Mirror (2012), which I know nothing about really, but seems like a bingo chick flick that should tap an under-served market this month, and Wrath of the Titans (2012), a sequel to the surprisingly huge 2010 film. Without blinking it's an easy-to-read Summer Month in any other year. This is 2012, though, baby! We're all going down anyway! We got to get all our shit out there while we can. I'm pumped for Wrath, that big dog thing and then that giant lava thing should get their days fucked up, bro. Tight shit.

War of the Months: November

Well people, it's the Fourth Tuesday in November, which means the penultimate installment of the War of the Months, NMW's year-long look at the best and brightest flicks to ever premiere in each month of the year. Today we take a gander at November, the Month of Turkeys, Politicians, and Shopping. It's actually a pretty exciting month. It's also generally the month wherein some quality flicks return to the Box Office after the terrible October and September months. Let's take a closer look:

One of the long line of movies where Common's character isn't important...

November: Month of Christmas

It's a weird trend but more and more it seems that November is a month for preparing for Christmas. As Black Friday shopping hours get pushed farther and farther forward so that Thanksgiving Day is now basically a Shopping Day and with the advent of yesterday's Cyber Monday in recent years past, it's all about getting the goodies ready for Santa Day. At the same time it's a time for more and more Christmas movie premieres, which is bizarre and terrible in its own right. There should be no Christmas preparation until after T-Gives. The rest of the month really should be devoted to Thanksgiving Preparation, instead! Thanksgiving is such a wacky holiday. Why do we still celebrate this obscure gathering between Pilgrims and Native Americans? Because Turkey tastes amazing, that's why.

November is also a fairly traditional month. Not a whole lot has changed in the past twenty-five Novembers. 1988 featured broad, big family fare like The Land Before Time and Olivier & Company as well as a Christmas movie, Scrooged, and 1989 featured the franchise installment Back to the Future Part II. 1990 featured Oscar-primed Dances with Wolves, fulfilling the four distinct kinds of November movies: Broad Animation, Christmas Movies, Franchise Installments, and Oscar bait. It's really a month that has something for everyone, and that hasn't changed in decades.

November Box Office: Gaining Returns

November is a pretty decent month at the Box Office, averaging a bit above August and the second highest-non-summer Month of the year behind december. The greatest November on record is 2009, primarily because of The Twilight Saga: New Moon, but also with strong blockbusters like 2012 and A Christmas Carol, but also due to the huge sleeper hit The Blind Side.

It's November, buddy. Bundle up.

Twilight virtually rules November. How...has that come to be? It basically occupied a niche that Harry Potter had held for the past decade - that early holiday, family viewing come-together period of November. Of course, Twilight isn't really family viewing...at all. November works for these big franchises with many quickly released and sometimes simultaneously filmed movies. It's a good seasonal pit-stop before the Summer Months come around again. That is, it allows franchise follow-ups to be released with ideal timing that neither over-saturates the public's appetite nor lets them forget.

That said, seven out of the Top 10 November Releases EVER have been either Twilight or Harry Potter, the top again being New Moon at $142,839,137 back in 2009. Other big films in this month really demonstrate November's status as a Box Office Alternative to Summer. It's a bit cozier month and it's a bit friendlier for Family Releases such as The Incredibles (2004), Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008), and Monsters, Inc (2003). There are also a few big Blockbusters like the latest Bond Flicks, where November has become pretty traditional, as well as Charlie's Angels (2000), The Matrix Revolutions (2003), and National Treasure (2004). This trend is actually much older, incorporating films like Alien: Resurrection (1997) and Starship Troopers (1998) as well as the late Arnold films End of Days (1999) and The 6th Day (2000). Finally, November will occasionally see the big Blockbuster release that is trying to get some Oscar notice, because it fits in well with the season. This includes American Gangster (2007) and 8 Mile (2002).

November Quality: That's Super

November tends to be a pretty good month for critically appreciated movies. It's situated well for mainstream films to appeal to a wide number of audiences and gain buzz before the year ends. It's also a good opportunity to films that have done previously well on circuits or small releases to gain momentum through either wider releases or DVD buzz. November's Top 10 is, then, as follows:

#10: Plains, Trains and Automobiles - 11/25/1987
#9: Walk the Line - 11/18/2005
#8: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - 11/30/2007
#7: Toy Story - 11/22/1995
#6: Cape Fear -11/13/1991
#5: They Live - 11/04/1988
#4: No Country for Old Men - 11/07/2007
#3: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest -11/19/1975
#2: Raging Bull - 11/14/1980
#1: Network - 11/27/1976

It's a steep list when No Country for Old Men ranks fourth. Raging Bull here was released on this date in 4 theaters and had a wider release a month later, but it felt right here. Other Best Picture Winners that have been released in November include Rocky (1976), Terms of Endearment (1983), Dances with Wolves (1990), The English Patient (1996), Slumdog Millionaire (2008) and The King's Speech (2010). Other prestigious films include Finding Neverland (2004), Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), Cinderella Man (2005), I'm Not There (2007) and The Road (2009).

Buddy the Elf, what's your favorite color

Some of my favourite comedies of all time have also been released here that cannot go without mention. These include Space Jam (1996), Dogma (1999), Out Cold (2001), Just Friends (2005), Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (2005), Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny (2006), Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006), Role Models (2008), and of course, The Muppets (2011).

Like I said earlier, November is Christmas Month. It has seen the release of three of my Top 5 Christmas Movies to Watch Instead of Talking to your Family along with the aforementioned Scrooged, Home Alone (1990), The Santa Clause (1994) and Jingle All the Way (1996). Wonderful times.

Finally, other notables include one of the best Rocky Films, Rocky IV (1985) as well as what some consider one of the best films ever made, Babe: Pig in the City (1998). November also launched two huge revivals in the 1990s, the first was Disney Animation through Beauty and the Beast (1991) and Aladdin (1992) and the second was James Bond through the excellent GoldenEye (1995).

That's a lot of good movies! So cut open that bird and hit the theater this month - you won't regret it!

Profiles: Kristen Stewart, the Anti-Princess

With the first weekend since the premiere of Twilight: Eclipse (2010) upon us today we're looking at the only interesting part of the production, writing or ensemble, Kristen Stewart. Natural annoyance of the Twilight brand aside, I do respect Kristen Stewart as and actress and what she represents - as this brooding, moody brunette alternative to the typical Hollywood Blonde. Let me explain:

Kristen's been in a many many films actually, mostly to critical acclaim. The Twilight movies are her only real blockbusters and the rest of her resume is pretty impressive (well...besides The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas [2000] and Zathura [2005]...woof). She typically has this natural ability to star as this tough drama'd chick while also displaying a lot of hints and vulnerability and humanity. She acts this way in most of the major films of her oeuvre, to varying degrees of moodiness (Twilight) and rebellion (The Runaways [2010]).

So, she's in a ton of these little films, for the purposes of this article and Norwegian Morning Wood's insane obsession with popular appeal and culture, let's focus on her most notable, wide release roles - Panic Room (2002) (yeah she played Jodie Fisher's little boy...err...girl), The Messengers (2007), all the Twilight Shits (2008 - Forever), Adventureland (2009) and The Runaways. In Panic Room she played a little dying kid pretty well I guess but certainly was more of a MacGuffin than an important character. The Messengers is like, a whatever-Horror film, typical February release, who cares. So we're really only analysing a  handful of roles here.

Did You Remember to Wash Your Neck?

I've never seen a Twilight film, but like anyone else in our zeitgeist I've absorbed enough of the plot to understand what's going on. There's a cute vampire boy at school and this goth bitch wants to jump his bones. Cool. From my understanding this carries on for some time. I have my own issues with Summit selling sex to preteens through the films but whatever, they're the kind of cultural trash that has always existed in our society and nothing to really get up in arms about like some internets do.



This is one of the most brilliant Twilight Parodies I've seen. Somehow Taylor Swift absolutely catches the Kristen Stewart vacant stare, hair brush and brooding temperament. It's clear her mannerisms really are that easy to replicate and of course her actual performances in the Twilight films are relatively forgettable. What she represents in Young Hollywood is what should last.

Kristen has done a fantastic job creating Bella as this angsty twisted brunette in a field that only a few years ago might have starred a pre-meltdown Lindsey Lohan or a post-jailbait Brittany Snow in the role. That's what I'm getting at. She's not a nice, sweet angel girl. There's nothing innocent about her. Following some strong new Trashy Role Models, Kristen always looks dirty and used, perfect for Modern Princess that is no princess. She's got this awkwardness to her, an imperfection that is refreshing in a Hollywood typically filled with young starlets groomed to say everything expected of them. Just watch how dumb and awkward she appears on Letterman. Because Bella is such an icon (at least among girls under 16), it's really a treatise for how Hollywood could showcase its young actresses for the next decade.

Youths in Trouble

Kristen's best roles though have come in two films in the past two years, last Summer's vastly underrated Adventureland and her biopic with Dakota Fanning, The Runaways. She's got this great sweetness underlain by anger and distance in Adventureland. After so much schmaltz in Twilight it's neat to see her in a much more organic budding relationship with Jesse Eisenberg. She pulls off this "finding herself" innocence while simultaneously expressing a darker maturity beyond her years with Ryan Reynolds (who bar none is the best performance in that film). There's this part of her that tries to be very sinister and "grown up" while she really is merely ultimately still a kid like anyone else in the film. It's a complex character that Kristen nails.



In The Runaways she also shines as Joan Jett, rebellious but driven guitarist/singer of the eponymous band. While this film may really just live on as having a kind-of-ok Smooch Scene between Kristen and growing jailbait Dakota Fanning, her performance is the best part of the film. Like her other roles she just aces that tough front with a genuinely vulnerable side. She can get hurt but she doesn't want anyone, not even herself, to know it. Dakota Fanning is basically in "I want to grow up" mode (see also, boozing it up in Push [2009] and for some reason most of the Twilight movies). Kristen though, just flows, channeling a lot of her own rocker personality into the picture. Sweet.

If The Runaways can be a feminist "Girl Power" movie, Kristen is Susan B. Anthony. It's true Chicky Rock exemplified through girls who don't need men. Twilight can be argued both ways - while Bella keeps swooning over Lautner's abs or Edward's brooding stare, she's able to control both by manipulating their own obsessions over her. In Adventureland while Ryan Reynolds seeks to dominate her, her natural attitude gels better with a wiener Jesse Eisenberg who'd rather take her in partnership. While in these two films the "empowerment" is still defined by her relationship to men (positive or negative), The Runaways presents a much more fiery, truly independent girl that Kristen seems to really be able to run with.

As for her face and hair, still truly Rat-like. This isn't a girl worried about looking fake and pretty. She's a real girl for the iGeneration. Awesome.

It's Come Down to This: The Necessary Post Addressing Twilight

I tried avoiding this for a long time. But it must be addressed.

Today let's talk about Twilight.

Now, right off the bat you dear readers should know that I've never seen a Twilight Film, read a book or even drank out of one of their special cups at Burger King. Yet I can name all the principal characters, actors and piece together the plot mostly from commercials and sugar packets. What a culture. Anyway, I feel like covering it, maybe just briefly here (relatively), mostly due to guilt over reading this article. I'm always honest with you, dear readers.

Twilight's really actually pretty interesting, from what I gather the story is actually kind of ok, but the movies basically forgo all that in favour of catering to 12-year old girls. It's hard for 23-year old guys to understand that demographic, but ultimately you can imagine how pissed all those little girls must have been when the rest of the internet was buzzing about The Dark Knight (2008), Watchmen (2009)or countless other fanboy-phenoms (maybe not, they probably didn't care too much). Unfortunately, our demographic has had the spotlight for a real long time, it's not necessarily a bad thing for a new group of interested culture-obsessed idiots to undyingly follow a poorly run franchise. I do have a few issues with the whole shebang, though, so if you came for the real Twilight bashing here it goes, just know that I think it is a perfectly legitimate franchise if you are in fact, an imbecilic 12-year old girl. Start by watching this scene carefully:



That was from the South Park episode "The Ring" (S13;E1), an episode I didn't think too much of during its first airing but after merging deeper into the tweenie obsessive culture, it rings remarkably true. Replace "Jonas Brothers" from the clip with "Twilight," Mickey Mouse with Summit Entertainment, and purity rings with...I don't know, pensive hugging and the effect is identical. Twilight works by selling sex to little girls. Which is kind of fucked up and my main legitimate problem with it.

Vampires have always been about sex. That's really it. All the classical monsters usually had something behind them- Werewolves satisfied latent animalistic urges, Frankenstein was man's quest to become God, Dracula is always sex. Whereas werewolves kill you violently and savagely, vampires are crafty, luring and seducing young women to their pads and sucking on their necks, exchanging vital bodily fluids which ultimately lock the woman into servitude. Sounds almost like the plot of Knocked Up (2007), really. That might be a stretch, but hopefully you get the idea. The underlying theme behind most vampire stories is sex. Boo yah.

Twilight is no different. You've got the immortally uber-hottie Robbie Pattinson brooding over ratlike Kristen Stewart while uber-machismo werewolve Ty Lautner sulks and rapes when he's ready. It's pretty basic stuff, constant wish fulfillment for the ratlike teenage girl fans to gush over being taken away and boned by a swarthy little vampire. It's like the reverse of what happens to insecure 40-year old men watching 300 (2007).

Anyway, that's about all I have ever to say about Twilight. Unless they pull a Michael Bay and win the Academy Award for the 3rd installment, Twilight: Bonestorm (2010). In the meantime, get your necks clean and keep watching the skies!