Movie review: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn — Part 2

By Columbus Alive
From the November 15, 2012 edition

I like movies. It’s why I’m a movie critic. It’s why I don’t like “Twilight” movies. Because they are awful.

And, chances are, if you like “Twilight” movies, you don’t like movie critics. I’m not going to change your mind. I’m sure you’ll enjoy “Breaking Dawn — Part 2” just fine, as evidenced by the endless delighted squeals heard during the advance screening I attended.

I, on the other hand, don’t get it. “Twilight” movies are the Uggs of the film world.

“Part 2” picks up, uhhh, where “Part 1” left off, which is to say in the midst of a solidly incoherent (to me) mess.

You see, dear reader, I thought it would be fun to review “Breaking Dawn — Part 1” having never seen a “Twilight” film in its entirety. (I haven’t read the books, either, because I also like books.)

You may rightly say that this is unfair, but it does allow me to judge the film based on its technical and artistic merits, of which there are, well, none.

Look, Twihards, I know you like you seeing your favorite characters on screen. And I know they’re dreamy and all. I just don’t understand why you aren’t angry that these movies aren’t better.

The films in this series have averaged over $267 million per picture. I sure don’t see that on-screen. I still see sub-par special effects. I still see a terrible script full of exposition and endless reaction shots. And, dear baby Jesus, the acting!

But you don’t care. You just want one last chance to scream over one last shot of a shirtless Taylor Lautner. And you’ll get it. Enjoy.

(BT-dubs, does NO ONE care about the freaky subplot involving Jacob and Bella and Edward’s child? SRSLY? WTF?)

Don’t even get me started on the CGI baby face. Just don’t. You’ll see.

Meanwhile, we can count down to the next “Hunger Games.” At least they care enough to make real movies.