Twilight: Innocent Bullshit or Invading Parasite

Can I has my MTV Movie Awards Back?

I get it I'm no longer a teenager. No, no, I really do get that but here's the trouble. I love the films where I get to hear Jonah Hill ask people about his weiner, see Seth Rogan get high, and watch Jason Biggs lovingly fuck a pie – no rhyme intended (honest). And I'm afraid the truth is I'll never grow out of it. And I adored the MTV Awards that honoured my guilty pleasures and celebrated clever people who helped make 'Films for Friends'.You can't watch an Oscar winner in a room with six or seven other people. You need a film that requires a short attention span, provokes laughter rather than tears and is quotable so that the next time your having dinner at your friend's house you can turn to them and say, “Not at the table Carlos”, burst into fits of laughter and make adults present think you're an alien species. Face it, Jason Segal's penis is never going to win an Oscar, neither will Ken Jeong's penis, or Ben Stiller's penis... But you bet your penis they can win a MTV Movie Award!

Well not lately...

Which brings me to the demise of MTV, specifically, but not limited to its Movie Awards that were once such an important part of my adolescence, and one night even saved a dear friendship of mine... MTV, as a mate of mine recently pointed out, used to play Music Videos. Now it plays a never ending number of cringe-worthy, barrel-scraping, vomit inducing, cretin breeding reality shows. Which in effect has rendered the channel unwatchable in my opinion... But to make matters worse my beloved Movie Awards have been high jacked by the worst kind of tat I could ever have imagined – The Twilight Saga.

The latest phenomenon to bask in 'middle of the road crapness', Twilight, is the tale of a young girl who, after starting a new life in the Pacific North West, falls in love with a vampire who is on a knife edge about whether to be with her, or eat her. The films are based on a series of novels by Stephenie Meyer: Mormon, Conservative and all round sexist nutbag.

Watched out of curiosity, I didn't know all that much about Twilight when I watched the first film. Within minutes of watching I began to develop an ill feeling that was eventually confirmed sometime after Bella and Edward had 'fallen' so madly 'in love'. I felt like I'd missed something.

Often dialogue can seem silly when taken out of context. Observe some gems courtesy of IMDb:

1.Edward Cullen: And so the lion fell in love with the lamb.
Isabella Swan: What a stupid lamb.
Edward Cullen: What a sick, masochistic lion.

(Oh please...)

2.Edward Cullen: I don't have the strength to stay away from you any more.
Isabella Swan: Then don't.

(Who says that...)

3. Edward Cullen: I hate you for making me want you so much.

(Tosser...)

Individual snippets of dodgy dialogue string together in this film to provide hours of unending cringe worthy inane babble that somehow feels forced and contrived, and at times so unnecessary it makes a mockery of story-telling. The saccharine lines build one upon the other. Sometimes I wonder whether the acting actually fails the dialogue. But that’s really like posing the chicken/egg issue. The scene in which she researches and confronts him about being a vampire just seemed so unnecessary to begin with, but to then drag it out and allow the actors to give the most awful performances of the film was just painful to watch.

Much like the dialogue, so many of the scenes felt strung together with no flow to them what so ever. Many of them could have come from completely different films. The slow, droning beginning, the irrelevance of the base ball game, and the sudden quick paced fight just didn’t click into place with each other. On the subject of the baseball scene, it seemed clear, more than at any other time in the film, that director Catherine Hardwicke was indeed an amateur when it comes to directing. The scene is played over a lively track, Muse’s Supermassive Black Hole, however the action on screen is not fast paced enough to fit the rhythm of the song and there’s dialogue running over it at times which is odd. There's no choreography what so ever. Poor use of what would have been a fantastic soundtrack.

The plot and the dialogue failed to such an extent that in every scene the screen writer took it upon themselves to just keep hammering it home to you that the ‘love-struck’ couple shouldn’t be together, when to be honest you probably came to that conclusion without having to be told. He is a blood sucking vampire after all. Bella, appears so emotionless throughout the film, and it is hard to even believe that she could fall in love. Regardless of the heart throb status of Edward, played by the conventionally attractive Robert Pattinson, she just doesn’t look all that in love with him. Her lingering looks of love would look more at home in the final shot of a blackmail scene in some horrendous American soap opera.

At what point are we supposed to think they’ve fallen in love anyway? At the beginning of the film if she’s not looking like a vacant doll she’s angry, or frowning, or screwing her face up.

The film is without a doubt one of the most abysmal and patronising pieces of cinema I have seen in some years. Its greatest moment, the action-packed fight scene towards the end of the film, seemed out of place and lacking a climax. In fact the entire film lacked any kind of climax. Quite fitting for a film where chastity seems to be the underlying subliminal message being pumped into teenage minds. At the end I laid back in my seat dissatisfied and angry with myself for even daring to ignore my instincts and watch a film I had already assumed would be awful. The only thing to amuse me during the film was its poor execution, and the appearance of a stuffed armadillo that was subject to continuity errors in the classroom scene some where in the first half of the film.

Even more irritating than the actual film was the hype around it. It seemed like most critics were frightened to say what they were really thinking, in many cases avoiding the obviously awful directing. Some critics even praised it, with ‘heat’ sighting the only bad thing about it was the fact that the fight scene didn’t seem relevant to the rest of the plot. Really, 'heat'? Most scenes weren't relevant to the plot... The Telegraph almost sings its praises, justifying its thin plot because it appeals massively to teenage girls. It is after all a romance more than a supernatural drama as such. Is this what appeals to teenage girls? Being patronised and made to feel self-conscious about their sexuality, their relationships and ultimately misguide them on the role a 'boyfriend' plays in their life.

The only thing that people who love this film seem to tell me is that its, and I quote, “Sweet”, “Cute” and “Robert Pattinson is sooo hot”. There’s no substance. It’s an awful film trying to take itself seriously, and I find that insulting. The books have obviously made a huge impact but to be honest, I really don't want to even go there. I would never have picked the books off a shelf at a book shop because I'm usually in the adults section anyhow. I did however sit through Twilight. I'd like a refund on my two hours. I won't even sit through the other films for the purposes of this article. Hey, life's short people!

I would also like a refund on the last 3 MTV Movie Awards that have been sodden with Twilight's actors, preview clips and worst of all, gong winners. In almost every category they win, and with what logic? I know its not Kristen Stewart's acting ability, or screen presence... Even fans of the book have expressed their hatred for her with as much venom as myself. Excrable is a word that often comes up. And I get it, Pattinson is good-looking, and Lautner has a six-pack – who in hollywood doesn't? Is it the story? The lame arse, forced, overworked love story? The importance of not being single? The importance of fearing your sexuality because if you have sex your partner will actually kill you and eat you? No drugs, no real violence, no swearing???? What kind of fucking MTV is that????

I'm just... I'm angry... I'm not going to change the world's opinion. But now that Breaking Hymen... I mean Bella... Sorry, I mean Dawn... Poor Dawn... She wasn't in the first film so I don't know how bad the actress that plays her is, so I will sympathise with her coming of age which I assume will be forced, and end with her getting pregnant and leading a miserable existence but one where hope, and further gravy train sequels, will continue to live on.. Any way! Now that the final film has come out, I will, when unprompted, stop informing the world of how shit and over hyped it is, if please, please, please, pretty please... Can I has back my MTV Movie Awards???

P.s: As of two nights ago, i.e. after I had finished the article and it was awaiting editing, I was just looking at my facebook feed when the following status turned up:

“Just back from seeing Breaking Dawn Part 1.”

PART ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's another fucking part. So no MTV Awards back until 2014??? Still, its not all bad. Last night I had a peak at this years Scream Awards hosted by Spike TV... I think I might be sliding on over to the dark side of Geek...

The Smoking Debate: Arse and Ash

Arse and Ash

I read an interesting article in the Guardian that was published yesterday about the smoking ban. New legislation is allowing its grip to further grow and mutate until, as one concerned reader put it, they will eventually begin censoring the internet! First of all, the internet is already censored in many places around the world – please don't bring in the irrelevance of your fears that one day Facebook won't be free into this. Also, people have lived for millennia without the internet and still managed to launch revolutions if that's your concern. And second of all, lots of other pieces of legislation affect our civil liberties but you rarely hear people talk about those rights that have been taken away over a couple of pints at the local put, unless there happens to be a group of us left 'extremists' in there. Smoking seems to touch a nerve like nothing I've ever known.

The new legislation is calling for a ban on smoking in cars where children are present, which people speculate will lead to a complete ban on smoking in privately owned cars. The government has already stopped people from doing lots of things in their cars; making phone calls, texting, drinking alcohol, and from what I understand, lewd behaviour. No one seems to have trouble with these laws – except those that break them obviously, but the general consensus seems to be that these activities can kill on the road. From the debate that carried on at the end of the article, people keep regurgitating the idea that regardless of empirical statistics that suggest smoking, and indeed second hand smoking can kill, there is not hard evidence to suggest that smoking imposes enough of a risk to enforce this breach of civil liberty. I'm sure that lots of people use their phone illegally in cars, drink and text – in fact I've seen people do all those things while driving – and never get caught, never kill anyone, never even come close to causing an accident. But it doesn't make it ok for them to do those things in the eyes of the law, nor the public's. So again, why is smoking any different?

Smokers feel they are under attack. They feel as though the non-smoking world is on their case about it every second of every day. The trouble with smoking is that even most casual smokers eventually go hardcore at some point in their lives. I know plenty of people who can have a couple of drinks and stop. I don't know quite as many people who smoke a couple of cigarettes once or twice a week and not think about smoking the rest of the time.

Well here's the ugly truth, when I was growing up in the nineties everywhere I went there were people smoking. In restaurants, on planes, on transport and my parents were both smokers. My father, at his peak, smoked 80 strong cigarettes a day around me. In fact I don't have many childhood memories where he's wasn't holding a cigarette... Just a few weeks before he passed away earlier this year from CAD (Coronary Artery Disease) he told me that he couldn't muster a 5 minute bath without lighting up while he was soaking. A man that addicted doesn't care about the discomfort and damage that they are inflicting upon their children, let alone anyone else.

I have met considerate smokers – I live with one – and I can't accuse them all of being ignorant but that doesn't change the many people I've encountered over the years who have become so frustrated with everyone else's right to breathable air that they have gone on the offensive at every non-smoker who only wishes for them to refrain from smoking until we've finished our dinner, which incidentally wasn't served with a side of arse-ash smell...

People trying to be 'helpful' have tried to find alternatives to the ban in cars while children are present. My favourite appeared in the main article itself, suggesting that people 'open a window'. He was cut down to size almost immediately by someone making the point that driving on the motorway with the windows down is impractical for obvious reasons. One alternative I can think of is to grant a child the legal right to request that a cigarette be extinguished in their presence. But what parent suffering from nicotine withdrawal will listen to a child? And what child would make a formal complaint against their parents for harming them in a way they can't entirely understand yet.

The biggest problem is that smokers feel this chastisement will continue until smoking is banned from all walks of life. The truth is I think the buck needs to stop in peoples houses. I know lots of people who won't smoke in their own home anyhow, and not just because they have children. Some people smoke but are aware that they are damaging their furniture, stinking up their house and yellowing their walls. That said, I live with a smoker and I don't mind him smoking in the house, if only because the cigarettes he smokes aren't that strong and the thought of him walking in and out of the house constantly is more annoying than putting up with the smoke his roll-ups give off. Sometimes, when a lively conversation is cut short – or I'm left in a restaurant or a bar alone – or someone misses a song we could have shared together – I briefly wish that the smoking ban had never be put in place. And then I remember the smoke, the smell, my eyes and lips stinging and the one time someone burnt my nail polish narrowly missing the skin on my thumb...

And sometimes I feel like it shouldn't stop there... this last year I have had to dodge being burnt by countless cigarettes held by people standing in office door ways, coughed my through clouds of smoke created by people standing at bus stops, put up with people puffing away while I dine al fresco and been attacked by streams of ash and smoke trailing behind people walking in front of me. In fact I even had to change my route home from work to avoid the gauntlet of Smoker Alley outside Farringdon tube.

Perhaps its your right to damage your lungs, stain your teeth and smell like a bonfired pile of arse, just as it is my right not to witness, or smell, or inhale it. The politics of a subject like smoking are clear to see. Politics is organic, and it grows and is shaped by those who are granted power. A law can be instated and it can just as easily be removed. This has happened many times in our two-party system but the truth is, no one is backtracking when it comes to smoking legislation I'm afraid – My advice is get on the winning side, or indeed stay on it, because this is one fight smokers are going to lose.