What To See And What To Avoid

I know it's been a while... I've been very busy lately. I'll post full reviews soon but I want to give you a quick list of DOs and DONTs specially since one great movie seems to been getting bad reviews for some reason. So let's get down to it;

• The Hobbit. Go watch it now! This movie is getting bad reviews but I think it's even at Lord Of The Rings level. I know it's kind of the same but... who doesn't want more LOTR movies?! And for me it's even better at some points. So, I'll write a full review but you.... Go... NOW.
• 007: Skyfall. Also loved it. Also a bit more than the first one. I has a lot of flaws but as a James Bond movie it works really well. I didn't really liked the villan though (but movie critics say he's really good).
• Rise Of The Guardians. Very good. Another good excuse to take your kids to the movies.
• The Expendibles 2. It's not a good movie but it's a bit better than the first one so, if you liked that one, you'll like this one.
• That's My Boy. Avoid like the ebola virus! I'm a big fan of Adam Sandler (exception being Tropic Thunder) but this is for me his worst movie ever. It's one of those that think that "grose" equals "funny"... why? Dunno. (But I blame a very funny movie for this: Scary Movie).

Hollywood's creativity

Some years ago Hollywood started re-visiting anything instead of basing new movies in new ideas. I was happy to hear that Transformers was being made a movie and even happier when all the comic book heroes were getting movies again (and even great ones this time).

But it's now getting to a point that can only be described as ridiculous  They have just released Judge Dredd, Total Recall and the likes... but when I see the pipeline I just feel sick:

Carrie
Frankenstein
Godzilla
Highlander
The Lone Ranger
Mortal Kombat
RoboCop
Scarface
Short Circuit
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
The Twilight Zone
Dune

And the list goes on and on...

Hollywood PLEASE STAPH!

And I'm not even counting sequels:

Girl in Progress

---

Should you go watch it?

Yes. Specially if you liked Spanglish.

---

Spoiler free review.

Let me first tell you how I arrived to this movie. For months I've been dying to see Brave with no luck. When it was released, my kids went to their grandparents' for the summer. They watch it there and told me not to watch it since they wanted to watch it again with me, so I waited. Then, when I went to pick them up, we went to the movies but with their cousins (who had already seen it too) so we saw Batman instead.

When we were back, we went to the movie theater again but the family vote overruled my attempt to watch Brave (or Batman again) and we went for Ice Age 4 instead. When I tried again, I had multiple 2x1 passes so I took my neighbors' kids with us and one of them had just seen Brave so we watched Paranorman instead.

This weekend everything was perfect for Brave... nothing else that my kids would want to see was showing and we headed there. The problem is that we arrived late and all the seats to see Brave were taken by the time we arrived (and I didn't buy them beforehand because of the 2x1s). So I asked the cashier what else was good for children and she said "Girl in progress" is for 12 year olds up. The name in Mexico is something like "Training mom" which sounded like "Training Dad" which is the Spanish name given in Mexico to The Game Plan which my kids loved so I bought them without a clue what the movie was about.

Let me start by saying that the Spanish name for the movie is misleading since:
1) It's not really about a girl training her mom.
2) It's nothing like The Game Plan.
3) It's not really suitable for kids.

But let's review the movie: I really liked it. I did suffer a little since my 8 years old daughter was watching a movie where "losing virginity" is not only mentioned but... (won't spoil it).

So it's not really a comedy or a kids' film but the funny thing is that both my daughter and son loved it (not sure why) and it was in English!

The movie is really about a girl with a somewhat irresponsible mom. The kid decides to "become of age" by forcing herself through common adolescent events.

The acting of both is great and the story, although not 100% new is really touching. Both my wife and I cried (which means that you really get into the movie), but that probably can only happen to parents. Did you cry in Spanglish? Almost same scene here.

This is a movie obviously written by a female author since the protagonists are all women and the men are side stories, dumb, jerks or just feeling-hiders that need women to open their eyes. But this is not a bad thing, it is a very nice turn from the latest common type of movies.

Note-worthy is the fact that Eugenio Dervez has again a somewhat important role that is not really funny but interesting (go rent Under the same moon if you don't know what I'm talking about).

So, go watch this movie instead of The Expendables 2 and wish me luck on watching Brave!

The Dark Knight Rises

---

Should you go watch it?

Yes. Specially if you liked the previous ones.

---

Spoiler free review.

I must first clarify that I have only seen it once, doubted to Spanish in a theater with less-than-usual screening quality. I was planning for my second visit, this time in English but there were so many kids in my car that I ended up seeing ParaNorman instead (sadly). But this still gives me an opinion on the voices: Batman's is for sure better in Spanish (since I don't think it changed from the previous 2 movies). Catwoman's, Bruce Wayne's and the rest are probably pretty well doubted but I'm dying to see it in English hoping Bane's better that the one I experienced at that crappy theater.

So, the movie is good. I really like the fact that it closes a circle with the previous two. The plot is good. If I hadn't heard on the radio that it was almost 3 hours long I wouldn't have guessed it. It's such an entertaining film that it doesn't feel long at all. It feels 2 hours long (or even shorter since it starts 8 years after the previous one and you wished they showed more story there).

It's not a problem free movie and it's not the best of the 3. Everybody is going to like the second one best (because of the Joker of course) but for me it's better, worse and the same in many respects. The first one gave us the first great Bruce Wayne (but no Batman). The second one gave us a great Joker (even if not completely based on the comics' essence) but the third one doesn't really add much to those two. At the same time it has more characters, interesting connections to the comics and great action scenes. I'll tell you why it's the same in the spoilerish section.

One question you may have if you haven't seen it is: "do Anne Hathaway or the kid from 3rd Rock From The Sun (great show BTW) ruin it?". It's a fair question and I know I had it. The answer is, amazingly, no! Anne is good as a Catwoman (that is never called that name) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is almost the main character in the movie and he does a great job (and no, he's not Azrael).

Now, I think everybody is finding Anne as a great Catwoman but I'm not. I really think she didn't ruin the movie but she's not great. She's not a femme-fatale to me. If Catwoman hadn't been drawn as she has been all these years and if Michelle hadn't played the Selina Kyle that she played, maybe I could buy Anne's role. So I don't like her as Catwoman but at least she didn't mess up the part as Katie Holmes did in the first one.

And the movie is far from great. I didn't like the twists, the stupid ways Gotham citizens act, Batman's uncomfortable suit and lack of screen time, Bruce Wayne's lack of screen time, or the fact that they had one of the best story arcs in comic history as basis and took almost nothing from it (just threw a bone or two for us comic book geeks). They still haven't brought Batman to the screen (that includes all the old ones). But the worst part is Batman's fighting skill. It's just wrong. The suit doesn't help but there seems not to have been any martial arts consultant around to explain how Batman survived that long with the worst fighting technique (was he trained by Kung Fu Panda?).

So, the best adaptation of comics to a movie is still the Avengers, the best Batman movie is still The Dark Knight (though I'm still waiting for a real Batman movie), the best Bruce Wayne movie is still Batman Begins, the best Catwoman movie is still Batman Returns and no-one has come close to bringing Knightfall to screen yet. But the movie is the best of the summer and a fun film to watch more than once.

Now, someone please tell me... how the hell does Christian Bale change his body so drastically?!

---

Spoilerish review.

Ok so why is TDKR the same as the previous one (The Dark Knight)?... Show/Hide the rest of the spoilerish review

...Well it almost seems that they wrote this film thinking about The Joker... the villain is not Bane from the comics (and at least not Bane from Batman & Robin) but is actually The Joker. Does the same thing and for the same reason. I know that one of the twists explains a different reason but it's really not: he just wants to create chaos and make the citizens do harm to the city by themselves for some weird (insane?) reason. So, it's like watching the previous movie again: the villain threatens the city and forces them to behave stupidly and a couple of heroes have to show how good people should behave. It's like these movies are propaganda against revolution: anarchy is BAD, it's CHAOS and makes YOU the terrorist!. The previous one was worst in that sense since Batman even had to become The Big Brother to save the day.

Another thing I hated about the movie was how stupid the "Harvey Dent was good" lie was, how important it was for Gordon and what big impact it had in the city (to the point were Batman was not needed anymore). So Bruce Wayne was not Batman but also not Bruce Wayne for not good reason. And yet, nobody notices that Batman and Bruce seem to appear and disappear at the same time.

There is one amazing comic in which Batman becomes an addict (with Bane's venom, by the way) and he has to cure himself by... well, I won't spoil it, read it! (this is the one). The point is: why having such amazing comics nobody seems to be able to make a closely-great movie?

The Double

---

Should you go watch it?

No. Another good idea gone Hollywood.

---

Spoiler free review.

Hollywood has just been about money for a long time. When something gives them money they copy it over and over. One good example is "The Double" (and thousands of other movies like this). Since the James Bond films were blockbusters they just copy the formula. Even with the bad things. Even if they insert a new idea.

This movie has a very interesting idea for a story but it has 3 really major issues:

1) They want to make the Russians the bad guys again. Why don't just place it in cold war times?
2) The very common even-expert-assassins-cannot-hit-the-good-guy-2-meters-away-with-a-shotgun problem (James Bond inheritance like the bad-guy-never-kills-the-good-guy-when-he's-caught-him-and-then-tells-him-the-plan-giving-him-time-to-escape problem). I'm tired of this happening in every spy or action movie.
3) The also common problem of forcing a twist even if it doesn't make sense with everything else that happened. This is too big of a problem to ignore.

It also has 2 other problems:

1) The trailer spoils an early twist... why the hell did they do that?! It's revealed early in the movie but it's still a twist in the plot that may have surprised me had I not seen the trailer. If you want to see this movie, avoid the trailer.
2) Topher Grace. He's not Venom. He's not a spy. He's that's 70s show kid... give him something funny or at most romantic to do!

Richard Gere is ok as a spy actually.


So the film is entertaining (and even good?) if you ignore all of the above but I cannot do that anymore... 

Cowboys & Aliens

---

Should you rent it?

Yes. It's quite entertaining.

---

Spoiler free review.

For some reason I postponed watching this movie for a long time. I love science fiction movies but I consider this movie not science fiction but SciFi... This is probably not an official differentiation but that's how I do it: movies with both science and fiction I call them science fiction. And then the movies about space, aliens, time travel and other topics often refer to in science fiction movies but without any good science I call SciFi. Here's an easy way to differentiate: if they never try to explain how the things happens or they give a bad shallow explanation: it's a SciFi flick.

So if you haven't seen any of these science fiction movies, do it soon: Gattaca, Star Wars, Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Total Recall, Contact...

BTW... I even consider science fiction some technically SciFi movies like The 6th Day because they at least imagine a different way in which some common day appliances would work in the future.

But back to Cowboys & Aliens: I was saying that I postponed watching this movie because the mixture of cowboys and aliens sounds a lot like SciFi (fiction but not science) and it doesn't make a lot of sense since, if you agree aliens as legitimate science fiction material, why not in the days of the old west? It may have more to do with the fact that I don't believe aliens have ever visited us and that they surely must exist but very very far away with no real way to reach here considering even the closest starts are light years away and that mass cannot really reach light speeds... unless Higg's field can be manipulated to... I think I digress again :)

But the movie is good. Daniel Craig is an amazingly badass cowboy (and to think I didn't like the idea of him becoming James Bond before that movie came out) and Harrison Ford is kind of a cute badass... like a puppy that you're supposed to be afraid of but just can't. Olivia Wilde is sexy as hell even with the unrevealing dresses she wears all the time.

Obviously it's not an eye opening movie with a deep message, it's just an action film with, well, cowboys & aliens. And they even bothered to show you what the aliens look like (unlike Contact by the way). The thing is: I was really enjoying the cowboys movie and the aliens kind of ruined it for me. I wish the "monsters" would've been something else and it could have become more than an action flick... something closer to the great movie I consider 3:10 to Yuma to be (if you haven't seen that one... leave work right now and head to blockbuster... I said now!).

So, a popcorn worthy movie that luckily spends most of the time on the cowboys and with good visual effects... go rent.

The Grey

---

Should you rent it?

Hell NO.

---

Spoiler free review.

This is where I totally disagree with Movie Bob. In his review he speaks wonders of this movie. For this  reason, I rented it as soon as it was available in Blockbuster (a couple of days ago). But as I watched it, I couldn't help but wondering if I remembered wrong about Bob giving it a good review because for me is one of the worst movies I've seen lately!

The thing about me is that I like to get into a movie and live it, so I hate when movies remind me (by bad acting, forced scenes, breaking the laws of physics, etc) that it's just a movie. When a victim in a horror movie acts in a stupid horror-movie-cliche way it takes me out of the character and I stop being afraid.

The Gray is about tough guys after a crash accident in the middle of nowhere. The toughest of them is Liam Neeson. And we can all agree that Neeson can play bad-ass characters (e.g. Zeus, Aslan, Qui-Gon Jinn, etc).

And who doesn't love survival movies with a though guy? I love them for sure.

The problem is that it never makes any sense. Specially since the villains are wolves. As soon as you see the clearly-computer-generated wolves behaving like monsters instead of wolves you can't enjoy the movie. Wolves would never behave in the way they do in this movie. I won't tell you what they do in it because I don't spoil even bad movies. But there's not one scene with a wolf or more in it that makes any sense. The wolves are even way bigger than they really are with no explanation.


So I tried to get passed that and assumed they were some kind of different monsters that the movie just failed to explain about and try to enjoy as a pure action/horror/survival/badass film. Still, I couldn't enjoy it.


The human characters are forced and stupid. They are not developed. Even Liam's character is supposed to have some important past that, when revealed, it's not shocking or even important to the story as I believe the director intended to be. 


And as if that was not enough, there was not survival guide either! Liam starts running the show but does nothing useful! Well, a thing or two, but not enough to really survive in a real-not-movie-set environment. You won't learn a thing about survival in this movie.


So better go rent Alive if you haven't seen that one.


I really hated this movie and it could have been a great one. I can't still believe the good score in IMDB and Bob's review. Just can't. If you see it, it's probably a good thermometer to learn if you have similar taste to mine.

---

Spoilerish review.

There's still one way to have SOME fun with this movie... Show/Hide the rest of the spoilerish review

...see, as you'll probably guess really early into the film (if you see it), a lot of the guys will die. And they will die one by one (believe me: no big spoiler there). The only fun you can get out of this movie is by trying to guess:

1) Who will be alive at the end of the movie.
2) Who will die next (as someone dies).

Actually it would be a great betting game.

I won't give you an example of un-wolf-like behavior but I'll give you an example of how useless Liam was... there is a scene where someone is stuck in a river and about to drawn. Liam does 1 smart thing to keep him alive but never tries to help him get un-stuck!

And then you don't get to learn how to survive after being wet in a -10 degrees weather... it seems you just get out of the water and survive as if it was the beach!

Save your money...

Oh, and if you have seen it, you probably didn't stay through the credits (I know I didn't) and you missed a bit more of the ending. No surprise there. We all knew it was going to be a good fight... so what?

A Dangerous Method

---

Should you go see it?

Yes, but read this review first because this movie is not for everybody.

---

Spoiler free review.

This movie is really good. I loved it for 3 main reasons:

1. The acting of the four main characters is amazing.
2. I love historic films.
3. When I was young I studied a lot of psychology, and I read Jung back then (and this movie is about Jung, by the way).

But... the truth is that it is a slow movie. If you are not into non-Hollywood-like movies and you're not studying psychology you may not like this film. You can still amaze at Keira's acting as a very crazy but intelligent woman, but you may find the story boring at times.

Even if you are a Cronenberg fan, you'll find that this is no usual Cronenberg (if there's a thing as "usual Cronenberg"). But for me is one of his best films (almost as good as The Fly or Spider) because it really takes you into the life of Jung, his friendship with Freud and his interesting relationship with Sabina Spielrein (unknown to me before this movie, but important part of Jung's story).

So if you happen to know who Carl Jung is; go see this movie immediately. It's still showing in some theaters hidden by Not-Amazing-Spider-Man.

Note: the trailer is a bit misleading. It kind of shows a different type of movie.

Dark Shadows

---

Should you go see it?

Yes, but don't expect it to be the best Burton ever.

---

Spoiler free review.

It is hard for me to review this movie because I want to like Tim Burton really bad but every day I part further away from him.

From Burton I really like Big Fish and 9 (that last one not being directed by him). I also like Batman, Batman 2 and Bettlejuice (and now Dark Shadows). So how come I have a hard time liking him? Many reasons:

1) I suspect that if I watch Batman, Batman 2 or Bettlejuice today I won't like them that much. I watched those as a kid and they were scary at the time.
2) He made some movies I hate: Mars Attacks! (yes I know it's a parody but I still can't enjoy a second of it), Planet of the Apes, Corpse Bride (yes, it's not that bad but it's a waste of money).
3) Even some movies he's praised for I really don't like: Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Alice in Wonderland.
4) The best Burton movie I've seen, was not made by Burton! (long story).

So, I'm a tough target for Burton movies but I really don't want to be. I love the idea of mixing comedy and horror.

Back to Dark Shadows... Bob said it was kind of bad and I believed him so I was not going to go see it but recently a friend told me it was really good and she even told me it was going to win me back.

I then convinced my wife to go check it out in hopes of coming back to the Burton fan-base (again, I really want to).

I did like the movie but it didn't win me back. It has a lot of failures that Bob covers really well so go check out his review instead.

Don't get me wrong: it's a beautiful environment, great acting, funny lines (a few) and an appealing story but it just doesn't add up to a complete really good movie. A lot of things don't make sense and feel forced and it should be either funnier or darker.

---

Spoilerish review.

For example, I just cannot see the main character... Show/Hide the rest of the spoilerish review

...having sex with the witch that did REALLY bad things to him. It's supposed to be a funny scene but it's not. The family member characters are never built and then you are supposed to get shocked when one of them converts to... let's just call it "a furry thing". The love everybody feels towards Barnabas just doesn't make sense. I really agree with Bob: this movie is just about having 3 great actors having unrestricted acting fun.

The Artist

---

Should you rent it?

Definitively! It is a great movie.

---

Spoiler free review.

You surely know that this movie won best movie  at the Oscars this year but maybe, like me, you hadn't seen it. Was it the best movie of 2011? Probably not. But the "best motion picture" rarely are, but they are never really BAD (Titanic being the only exception I can remember). And this movie is really good.

It starts a bit slow but the story is amazingly well written and put together. The main character and the story evolve as the film industry evolves so you get 2 good stories for the price of one. If, like me, you liked the second part (2nd inner-movie?) of Hugo you'll love this one.

The acting from unknown-to-me-before-this-movie Jean Dujardin is amazing. He can pull off an old-time gentleman like a magician. And you'll really love this character and root for him and suffer with him... trust me.

---

Spoilerish review.

If you know anything about this movie you already know... Show/Hide the rest of the spoilerish review

...that it is a silent black and white movie. And it's not really a problem but, as the story progresses (and the film industry in the movie does too), it seems that the movie is going to change into a talkie movie. And it is kind of annoying at the beginning to watch a silent movie in 2012 so when that scene makes you believe the actor is going to talk you're really grateful. But then he doesn't.

You tend to rationalize this because the character itself doesn't move on with the times but I can't help but wonder if the real reason is that the actor is french and his accent would've ruined it...

Madagascar 3 / Ice Age 4

---

Should you see them?

Yes, they are both good. And I know that taking your kids is just the excuse, you want to go anyway... If you have to choose between the 2: choose Madagascar.

---

Spoiler free review.

I'm reviewing these movies together because they are both good, they are both funny, none of them is as good as the first one, both have new characters, new adventures, new jokes, old jokes, etc.


Madagascar's story seems forced and it's nowhere near as good as the first one but it's just really funny. A lot of jokes from beginning to the end so you'll have a great time. My preference is now: Madagascar 1, then 3, then 2.

Ice Age 4's story is also somewhat forced and back to the same but it ends up begin a better story than Madagascar 3's. And it also has a lot of good jokes, the problem is that it starts with very lame jokes at the beginning (when building up "the story") so it takes it a long time to be funny. My preference is: Ice Age 1, then 3, then 2, then 4.

The Tree Of Life

---

Should you rent it?

Yes, but only to test your high definition TV and maybe your home theater sound too. I would buy this blu-ray just for this reason.

---

Spoiler free review.

If you have to sum up this movie in one word it will probably be "beautiful". It's like watching somewhat animated HD photographs, or those videos from national geographic (but with music instead of Morgan Freeman narrating). Actually, I'm convinced that all convenience stores should replace their Sony HD demonstration videos and use this movie instead. This is what I'm talking about.

Yes, I kid you not. This movie is practically a very long HD demonstration video and as such it has it all: classical music, space videos, nature, landscapes, amazing buildings, etc.

Oh, and it is a movie too, with a story and everything, but as you can probably guess, the story is too slow. The acting is great (specially the kid's and Brad Pitt's) and the story intriguing. And I love the idea of mixing a good story with beautiful scenes, but they spent so much time on the other scenes that the story is never built properly.

At some point the extremely slow story reaches an almost normal speed and you get really invested in it (specially since the acting is so good) but it's a little too little too late.

So I do recommend you to rent it but more to awe at how good your 1080p screen is (and maybe have as a background) than to see the story...

---

Spoilerish review.

The biggest problem with the story is... Show/Hide the rest of the spoilerish review

...that it doesn't have a proper ending. Or even an explanation (unless I fell asleep during the nature scenes and missed it) of how the only thing that really happens in the movie happened in the first place! I could've tolerated the lack of speed in the story if it had beginning, climax and ending but it's just about feelings and "the loss of innocence".

A Little Bit of Heaven

A Little Bit of Heaven

---

Should you rent it?

Yes. Definitively.

---

Spoiler free review.

This movie is a mixture of a comedy, a romantic comedy but also a drama and it's surprisingly good. The story is good, the acting from Kate Hudson even better and is one of those movies where you really get into the story and feel it with the protagonist.

Kathy Bates (the woman that freaked you out by keeping James Caan hostage in Misery) is great in the role of the mother and there are some interesting appearances. For example: Whoopie Woldberg and Peter Dinklage (the cool short-person from Game Of Thrones <- a must see by the way).

The only downside is the casting of the co-protagonist Gael García Bernal... I have nothing against him and I think it's great that Mexicans appear in Hollywood movies but he's just not a good match for Kate... and you just cannot buy the idea that he's a handsome Doctor.

But anyway you'll laugh and cry at some point or another with this movie so go rent it.

Snow White And The Huntsman

Snow White And The Huntsman

---

Should you go watch it?

Yes, but only if you want to take your kids. If not, better rent it or wait for it to air on TV.

---

Spoiler free review.

I wasn't expecting much when I saw this movie. I was just expecting great acting from Charlize Theron and some Lord of the rings kind of scenes. And I got all of that but still didn't like it. Actually I even got a little more than that because some of the scenes are very well put together, and there's more good acting by Thor, the dwarfs, and many more.

So why did I not like it? Well, you could guess that Kirsten Stewart's expressionless acting has a lot to do with it, and you would be right. But that is not all, or even the main factor that kills the movie. I didn't like many things:

1. The one-face-to-say-it-all snow white is indeed a problem.
2. The obvious "Kirsten is in no way prettier than Charlize" argument everybody is commenting. But to be fair: who is? who could have they cast as Snow White?
3. Too many other movie rip-offs.
4. And most importantly: lack of a cohesive history and closure on many things.

Let me expand on those last two points: the movie is so many rip-offs it becomes annoying. They not only rip-off Twilight (thing that should be illegal) and Lord Of The Rings as you expected, the rip-off Robin Hood,   Stardust, Braveheart (horribly done by the way) and many more. They even rip-off a scene from Princess Mononoke! If you haven seen THAT movie. You should. Immediately! And that's the worst rip-off of all because it doesn't make sense, it doesn't add anything to the story, it doesn't fit, it just sucks. 

Oh and they also include some Snow White in the story.

So what really kills the movie is that all those (borrowed) pieces of stories are never put together in a good way and the fact that several "important" ones are never carried to a close or just end in a bad way.

In summary: is a good looking movie, that won't make you leave the theater, that has some interesting parts but that won't leave you satisfied and won't let you connect with any character.

---

Spoilerish review.

As I mentioned, they do rip-off something out of Twilight. It's not hard to guess what: the love triangle. Hollywood is showing these twilighted love triangles in many movies. This was not the exception. And this one has the same exact Bella (Snow White), a better Edward (The Prince) and a better Jacob (Thor, I mean, The Huntsman)... Show/Hide the rest of the spoilerish review

...the difference lies in the fact that in this movie Snow White never decides between the two! I mean you can guess, but they just don't care to tell you what happens after they, surprise!, win. Same with the mononoke thing...

Finally about the Braveheart scene: they show a Snow White giving a speech motivating a crowd to fight against the evil queen... but it plainly sucks! When Mel Gibson did it, the speech was so good that you were ready to leave your seat and fight besides him. Now imagine a poorly written speech given by expressionless Bella... it's those kind of scenes that ruin an otherwise interesting movie.