Breaking Dawn: Big with box office, bad with critics
By 
On Nov. 18, Part one of the fourth installment for the Twilight Saga was released, and fans of all ages flocked to theaters in record numbers. Grossing upwards of $500 million worldwide and $30.3 million for the first midnight showing, “Breaking Dawn” has snagged the spot of fifth biggest opening of all time. Still, many critics are asking: is the financial success surrounding the franchise overpowering the fact that it was a mediocre film?
As a fan of the books, I was one of those crazy girls who waited in Slane at 8 a.m. the Tuesday before the film was released to get free tickets to the midnight showing. Thankfully, to my surprise, other “Twi-hards” had already arrived hours before – making me feel far less crazy for getting up early on a day when I didn’t have class. But was the movie worth sacrificing precious sleep? In my opinion, no it wasn’t.
If you asked any of the people leaving the theater, tweens, teens, moms, dads and reluctant boyfriends alike, most of them would have had high praise for the much anticipated film. Some may even have said it was the best one yet; but I walked away from the film a little indifferent.
Despite the efforts of the cast and the director to convey this chapter of the epic love story, I was expecting a lot more; particularly from Jacob’s character, played by Taylor Lautner. Yes, he is meant to be brooding and angry in the first half of the two part film, but how melodramatic can you be? I found him to be very amateur, and his hesitation to explore the complexities of this character hurt his overall performance. This surprised me, especially with the amount of work Lautner did, mentally and physically, to hold on to the role during the making of “New Moon.”
Another performance that surprised me was Kristen Stewart. With each film, her acting has gotten worse and worse. In “Twilight,” she played the awkward and quizzical Bella Swan very well; but in “New Moon,” her character slips into a deep depression that Stewart unfortunately takes too far, carrying it over into “Eclipse.” Her best scenes in that film, in my opinion, were the ones where she had no lines. But in “Breaking Dawn,” she finally breaks her streak of subpar acting; giving a pretty powerful and convincing performance.
Still, while watching the film I knew something was missing. What was it though? There were plenty of funny and adorable Cullen family moments. It was raining vampire and werewolf abs, and there was even a beautiful wedding – oh yeah, I know – the plot line was boring!
Yes they followed the storyline, but because Summit made the decision to split the movie into two parts, it cut-off at the key plot-point in the story; pretty much making audiences watch 1 hour and 45 minutes worth of background information. I may end up getting stoned by “Twi-hards” for saying this, but the best part of the film had nothing to do with the actual story – it was the production.
Looking at the film from a cinematic standpoint, I think Summit hit the nail right on the head. The CGI and special effects used really helped bring the story to life, especially considering the task at hand. Showing someone slowly deteriorating before your eyes isn’t easy; plus, adding a baby and a mythical species “battle-royale” into the equation doesn’t help. But hats off to the editing and production team! Stewart looked feeble, tortured and absolutely horrible – just as I had imagined.
To sum up, if you loved and read the books, you will probably love the movie; but if you don’t eat, sleep and breathe Twilight, think again, because this is not a movie to go to for the hell of it. But regardless of the critics’ reviews of the film, movie-goers are continuing to see “Breaking Dawn,” some even more than once. This movie critic would say: save your $11 and read the book instead.