The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

I'd like to kick-start this review by openly stating that I, hand on heart, am an enjoyer of the first three "Twilight" movies. Now, notice I used the word "enjoyer" and not "fan;" there is a difference between the two. You see, yes, it's true, I have indeed enjoyed the opening three chapters of the increasingly epic movie saga about sparkling vampires and topless werewolves (I believe "Twilight," "New Moon" and "Eclipse" to be rather decently made, albeit as corny as a cornfield). However, I am by no means a "fan," a term which would undoubtedly give you, dear reader, the distinct impression that I am a squealing, swooning, tweenage Twihard who is proudly and loudly positioned in either Team Edward or Team Jacob, although if forced to pick between the two I would probably route for the former - Jacob's a mopey little twerp.

I'm saying this because I have already witnessed several professional film critics being viciously attacked by "Twilight" fans for having the audacity to review (and tear to shreds) the series' fourth instalment, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1," when it apparently "wasn't made for them." Going by this logic, twisted as it is, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" was made for me; I am the "correct" age, I am a mumbling teen and, in spite of my gender, I have thus far enjoyed the "Twilight" saga, cheesy as the series may be. As such, I believe it to be my privilege and my right to inform you, dear reader, that "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1" is, well, not particularly good.

I know, it's shocking - the trailers and TV spots made it look so amazing, didn't they? Hold on a tick, no they didn't. "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" is unquestionably the weakest of the fantasy film saga thus far, which, judging by the decidedly mixed opinions surrounding Stephenie Meyers' original "Breaking Dawn" novel, I think even the most dedicated of fans were predicting. However, I believe that many of the series' fans will nonetheless leave the theatre satisfied, regardless of the film's cavalcade of foolish faults and perplexingly preposterous moments - as long as there's the romance, the brooding and the all-important male hotness on full display, their needs will be fulfilled. As for the rest of us, we'll just have to roll our eyes, slap our foreheads and glumly suffer through it all.

You may remember right at the end of the third "Twilight" instalment, "Eclipse," that vegetarian vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson, "Water for Elephants") finally proposed to his one true love, human Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart, "Adventureland"). Well, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" shows us the long-awaited wedding of Mr Cullen and Miss Swan in all its cheesy glory, in fact spending almost half an hour covering the damn thing. Awkward speeches aside, the wedding is a success (they both say, "I do," squee!) and the newlyweds fly to beautiful Rio for their romantic honeymoon.

Inevitably, the prospect of lurve-making comes up, and it turns out vampires are right kinky buggers in the bedroom - they cover their partners in bruises, tear apart the bed's headboard and completely destroy the room. Well, that's what 100 years of abstinence will do to you. It also turns out that their testicles contain super sperm, because after just fourteen days of consummating their marriage, Bella discovers to her horror that she is pregnant, and the fast-growing baby sitting inside her might turn out to be a monstrous vampire-human hybrid that could kill her before she can even give birth to the little bugger. Looks like someone forgot to use protection. Tut tut, Edward.

Edward smartly wants the demon baby taken out of his new bride, but Bella, being the stupid bitch that she is, decides she wants to keep the bloodsucking monster growing inside of her. When Bella's totally-jealous werewolf friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner, "Abduction") learns of this, he's furious and, like, kicks a motorbike across the ground and has a very angry face (arrr, angry face, Lautner! Arrrr!). Jacob informs his tribe of the existence of the baby; the tribe, who loathe vampires, decide they must kill the unborn abomination, regardless of Bella's well-being. Upon hearing this, Jacob decides to protect Bella, though he's still got a sour face over the whole demon baby thingy. Meanwhile, Bella begins wasting away at the Cullen home as the monster baby growing inside her womb feeds away on her nutrition.

There are certain things about "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" that I liked. The first thing that springs to mind are the special-effects and make-up work used on Kristen Stewart to make her look frail and skeletal during the film's second half; they're rather convincing. There's also the fact that the film does manage to be mildly engaging from start to finish, the loose narrative able to hold one's interest in spite of its notable lack of thrills and the audience's likely knowledge of where the story is going. But holding one's interest is sometimes just not enough; a film must of course be a satisfying experience for it to be worthy of the price of a ticket, and I can assure you that "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" is certainly not a satisfying experience.

This might be because the film essentially covers only half the plot of its source material, much like "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1" did last year, though to much, much more success. As such, the film ends on a cliff-hanger, teasing us that something epic is about to happen, or, in other words, shit is, in all likelihood, about to get real. I was interested in seeing that, but alas, the end credits burst onto the screen and I walked out of the theatre rather unsatisfied. This is unlike in "Deathly Hallows - Part 1," where, when the end credits burst onto the screen, I walked out of the theatre not only incredibly eager to get my mitts on "Part 2," but also a happy and appeased moviegoer having seen “Part 1.”

Keeping in line with its three superior predecessors, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" contains a plethora of unintentional comedy. This time round, we've got CGI werewolves angrily yelling at each other without moving their mouths, Bella drinking blood through a straw attached to a polystyrene cup, the messy aftermath of Edward and Bella's ferocious lovemaking (how on earth did they manage to break the doors at the other side of the room?), a birthing scene that's at times a David Cronenberg body horror and at others a Mel Brooks parody, the peculiar naming method of Edward and Bella's baby, and, last but not least, Taylor Lautner's acting. Sad face, Lautner, do your sad face!

And there is also the fact that the story at the centre of the film is absolutely, positively demented, specifically the plot concerning the evil demon fetus; it’s like one of the chest bursters from the “Alien” franchise. Of course, the film itself cannot necessarily be blamed for this - the blame goes mostly to author Miss Stephenie Meyer for writing such stupid tripe. But still, the fact is that the film does revolve around the evil demon fetus and suffers as a result; it comes across as a bad soap opera crossed with a revolting horror flick, and is not only a little bit silly but also a little bit off-putting - honestly, I'd rather go back to the Edward-Bella-Jacob love triangle than have to watch any more of this baby parasite malarkey.

Look, if you're going to see this movie, you already know you are going to see it; nothing I can say will stop you, but then again I don’t really want to stop you. But what I will do is warn you: as an enjoyer (not a fan, remember) of the first three films, I did not particularly enjoy "Breaking Dawn - Part 1." It's a silly, goofy, unintentionally hilarious fantasy film containing a bizarre story that's unsatisfying and, for the most part, unexciting. Whether or not "Part 2" will be any better I don't know, but seeing as to how it was filmed back-to-back with "Part 1," I'm not counting on it.

4/10