This comes with a warning. My humour isn't for everyone. Some may find this offensive. Some may find it not funny at all. Either way - I don't care :P
If I were to write and direct Breaking Dawn part 1: this is what the jist of it would be...
The honeymoon happens.
It begins just before Christmas in Barcelona in 1957, one year after Daniel and Bea from THE SHADOW OF THE WIND have married. They now have a son, Julian, and are living with Daniel's father at Sempere & Sons. Fermin still works with them and is busy preparing for his wedding to Bernarda in the New Year. However something appears to be bothering him.
Daniel is alone in the shop one morning when a mysterious figure with a pronounced limp enters. He spots one of their most precious volumes that is kept locked in a glass cabinet, a beautiful and unique illustrated edition of The Count of Monte Cristo. Despite the fact that the stranger seems to care little for books, he wants to buy this expensive edition. Then, to Daniel's surprise, the man inscribes the book with the words 'To Fermin Romero de Torres, who came back from the dead and who holds the key to the future'. This visit leads back to a story of imprisonment, betrayal and the return of a deadly rival.
As thrilled as I am at the prospect of another trip back to Sempere and Son and the cemetery of Forgotten Books, I dread it too.
Nothing can be as perfect as Shadow was. Nothing. The Angels Game failed. I think perhaps I could have loved it if I read it first, but I didn't. I read Shadow first and fell head over heels.
As we left it, we got (somewhat) the happy ending. I'm afraid if we go back, characters I love may be lost, or tainted.
Its such a double edge thingamajig.
First off, I was bored off my tits! Seriously, two fucking hours that could have easily been digested into an hour. During the honeymoon I was like "just get up the duff so you can get fucking home and things can actually happen. You know, plot. The thing all films, and books - take note smeyer, should have." Then they do get home and that's just as boring. I know see why they called it part one. Its let down ending of a battle that didn't happen is just the thing to remind people that the exact same thing will happen in part two.
Now I'm going to start at the beginning. The wedding. Seriously? Seriously? That is the way you're gonna have your hair for your wedding day? Rosalie's ultimate revenge, doing that. A poxy side plait and the rest just thrown back. Make a fucking effort. Christ sake.
The dress. Beautiful. It was. Shame in the after party it just didn't sit and look well on her. She is no Kate Middleton.
Honeymoon. Fine, but it reminded me of the big fucking annoyance I had in the book. Bella's happiness and Edwards whinging. Serious HOW THE FUCK DO THEY CONSIDER THESE TWO PERFECT FOR EACH OTHER??? They are NEVER on the same fucking page. When one is happy the other is moaning. When one says something, the other picks them up wrong. It's constant. Throughout the whole damn series. They just never convinced as a couple. The only thing that keeps them together is Bella's obsession with his looks, and Edwards insistence that he needs to protect her, even from herself, because as a frail human she doesn't know what she should and shouldn't do.
The pregnancy. Wow. How convenient it was that just at the moment Bella thinks she pregnant, the baby kicks. What a coincidence. And then Alice rings because she can no longer see Bella. What are the odds in that?
Then it's the homecoming and Jacobs little stubbly face. I "aww'ed" at that. So shuper cute! A few mean and moody poses at the camera. They fooled no one. He's a big cuddly tear bear!
I can't recall what happened next. I went for a snack. I was that bored! Oh Leah happened. I liked her. Thought she was so underused in the books. Which is probably just as well, I would probably have hated her if she was a favourite of smeyers. She has a tendency to ruin good possible characters.
The naming of the half beast. I'm not repeating it. You know how you read something, then the film or audiobook says the name and it's just not how you where pronouncing it? Well that didn't happen. It was exactly how I was pronouncing it, and it was just as fucking ridiculous!
The wolves. There was some silly bits as Jacob is running throught the woods, but I actually like the scene on the beach in wolf form. I like the hearing in their heads thing.
The birth scene. Need I say it? I like it. Ky, I know you said it was disgusting, and I see your point. But shit like that doesn't phase me much. I liked that Edward finally looked like a vampire and not a big pussy.
As I said, I disliked the whole "We're going to kill you!" "Jacob just imprinted." "Ok then, bye." ending. Another cop out in the worlds biggest fucking cop out of all time.
I know I'm sounding harsh. Perhaps I am? But I'm also trying to deliberately mention all the things I hated. But then again, I'm not. The hate is just coming to mind so much easier than the good. That was too far and in between, to be honest.
My general, overall view is this: it wasn't as bad as expected. It was long, boring, silly, but what else does one expect from a series based on those shit books? I did like Bella's transformation and how it was done, but hated that she stayed so still. Again, the book problem and smeyer breaking her own canon.
Either way, glad its over. And im glad i figured out how to get through part two - treat it as a comedy. Sound advise!
(I refuse to mention the Volturi scene at the end. Seriously, my darlings, what have they done to you? The ultimate camp panto villains. I am not impressed!)
I took lots of stills so I might do another post later in the week with them.
And P.S. if you're ever watching on a big screen tv and happen to be close to it as the credits roll - BACK THE FUCK AWAY. Really. Trust me on this. They would take your fucking eyes out!
There is a deal in my sisters local video store. Rent one movie, get another free for two nights. She got The Help and asked if I wanted to pick something because nothing else appealed to her. I, shamefaced, picked up BD1. I didn't watch it last night, I actually couldn't be arsed to, but now tonight is the last night. I got it free, I may as well watch because I knew I would eventually because I will be seeing part two in the cinema. Last chance of some Aro, I don't fancy missing that.
So bite the proverbial bullet I will. Wish me luck. I've heard it's dire.
Gay and want to marry for love? No deal. Want to molest young boys? Go ahead, we'll forgive that, an
I don't think I have to tell you that this stance was an anti one. Oh those Catholics! They make the rest of us sane ones feel ashamed. Very very ashamed.
Im not sure if it happened here - I seldom go to mass, mainly when it's for my brothers remembrance or Christmas. My parents do, I may ask them but mostly likely it'll turn into a "debate" with my father. I used quote signs there because there isn't much to debate about. He's borderline homophobic. I say borderline as he makes a disgusted face when he talks about gays, but he wouldn't be openingly hostile towards any. In fact he got alone well with my sisters friend Darren. But that was probably helped by Darren being a huge Manchester united supporter. Nothing like loving man u for my dad to like you! Men and their sports,eh? It's like women and...shoes...sex and the city...some other cliched crap.
Anyway, I'm getting off topic, as I do. I'm not sure it happened here in Ireland, but priests in Britain were told to read out the archbishops letter explaining how gay marriages were the devil and shouldn't be allowed (not his exact words, but that's the jist.)
Apparently, according to the archbigot, allowing it will "reduce it's [marriage] effectiveness and significance."
I don't know what he means by that. Marriage is effective in what way? It stops people fornicating? No it doesn't. It allows people to spend the rest of their lives with one person? No, it doesn't do that either. Seperation, divorce, still happen. It allows people to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law and allows them to have that whole what his is mine and what's hers is mine thingamajig? Yes, it does. But civil partnerships have been legal since 2005 and give that right.
And as for the significance. Let me break it to the walking dead that is the archbigot, this is the 21st century. It's also Britian. Yes, I know I'm not British. I'm Irish. We share a lot of things in common with regards our traits, trends, humour. A lot of what happens in Britian is happening in Ireland because we mosy along together more than we do with the rest of Europe. Oh those euro folk! They take the Eurovision seriously, we don't. We laugh at the silly Europeans and there mad music as we sit back and watch X factor or one of the other many tv shows we share a love of. What I'm getting at is this - marriage isn't that significant anymore. In the days of old people did it because they loved each other, they wanted to be together and have lots of sex and babies. Nowadays people do it because they love each other and they want a big fancy dress.
Thats it! The sex and babies can be got without marriage because there is no shame in it anymore. There is no fear you'll be thrown into a convent or a Magdeline laundry for it.
Most people have the kids in relationships, then go on to marriage. But often many don't as it's a lost of money as a married couple can earn less than two single people living together. (look that up, I'm pretty sure it's true?) or you just fall out of love with that person.
Another thing in that letter that annoyed the hell out of me was the insistence that marriage is for the "flourishing of the relationship and bringing up chrildren." "Marriage is intended for procreation and the education of children."
And gays, unable to have children the way a man and a woman can shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate. So basically, if a woman is barren, or a man has a low count, and neither can have children, are they not allowed to get married either because it's not going to lead to children in, what you may say is, the natural route?
That to me is what that sounds very much like. If you can't have kids, your not entitled to get married. Your not allowed to be loved. Piss off home, billy no mate.
As a Catholic it is apparently my "duty to ensure the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations."
Which gets me to the point of - who fucking gave the Catholics the sole right to marriage? Was it a concept that came to Jesus which he passed on to his disciplines? No it wasn't. It was a concept and an action that was used to YEARS before he was even born. It predates Christiany. Same sex marriages predate Christainity. Sure, they were rare in anicent cultures, but they happened. Yet we have this muppet of an archbishop who thinks that is was copyrighted by the Catholic Church. 'Marriage, it's ours. Don't you dare use it.'
Marriage has been around for longer than most of the worlds religions today - maybe even all, I'm not too sure on that fact either. Yet they all seem to think they have a right to own it exclusively. They don't. Marriage is for anyone who feels they love someone so much they can be with them forever. My hat goes off to anyone like that because I can't even commit to myself. Let them marry if they are human, legal and not being forced into it, is what I say. God knows we need a lot more love in the word to counteract all this bigotry and hatred.
1. One book that changed your life? Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.
2. One book you have read more than once? Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier
3. One book you would want on a desert island? The Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon
4. One book that made you laugh? The Commitments by Roddy Doyle
5. One book that made you cry? Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - from beginning to end.
6. One book you wish had been written? Wish had been written? What an odd question. One book I wish had been written is a YA series of ghost hunters in Edinburgh. It sounds like a good concept :)
7. One book you wish had never had been written? Twilight.
8. One book you are currently reading? The ABC Murders by Agatha Christie
9. One book you have been meaning to read? Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger
I will admit it, I suck at reading. I've books on my bookshelves that are over five, six or more years there and are still unread. Laser eye really set me back. An addiction to the Internet didn't help either.
Many times I started books just before the movie has come out, twilight springs to mind, I finished it in two days. The final day, that evening I had planned to go see it. Only reason why.
The same can be said for THG. I only out aside my Agatha Christie's and took out the first book in order to prepare for the film coming out in March. And to finally read the Empire and Total Film magazines when they've done features on the film. I wanted to remain as spoiler free as possible. I didn't want to know who was cast as who. Granted it was hard not to know Jennifer Lawrence was cast as Katniss, and I was spoilt by seeing Woody Harrelson as Haymitch.
I decided to read it now and get it done so I could read the mags without quickly covering the pages and saying "la la la I did not just see that. I did not just see that."
I liked Katniss. I didn't love her for some reason. I didn't love anyone really. But I am all ooh Peeta, or Gale, or Peeta, or Gale, and so on and so on.
Despite Peeta being a doll and me wanting one. I felt Gale was the one for Katniss. Though I have the feeling it'll be Peeta to win out in the end. But I'm not sure. Will have to see when I read the other two books.
And that's the nail on the head. I can wait.
I can easily wait until the next book's adaptation is approaching before I feel the desire to pick it up. And it will be for the same 'I want to read the film magazines' reason more than a need to find out what happens to these characters.
I think perhaps it is the future, dystopia aspect of it. I am a history girl. It's where my heart belongs. I am drawn and love stories set in the past more than I do in the future. In fact I'm trying to think of a book I love that is set in the future. I'm coming up empty.
Then the whole love triangle aspect too. I'm not one for those.
Another thing is, perhaps it's embarrassing, but I'm sure I'm in no way the only one who does this - I like to see myself in the story. Not as a character already in there. I don't like that whole 'ooh I do that too. That character is so like me' crap. But just as myself, my own little traits and flaws. And I think my flaws would get be killed in the Hunger Games within the first two seconds. (Actually in know my flaws would. My gammy ankle and asthma would see to that.)
Where's the fun and wishfullfillment in that?