Game of Boners Returns! Series 7 Episodes 1 & 2 ('Dragonstone' & 'Stormborn')

Game of Thrones is back! Let's be having you.* (Content warning: Game of Thrones, so contains discussion of both rape and violence.)

...

DUM DUM da da DUM DUM da da DUM DUM da da daaaaaaaaaa and etcetera FOREVER (literally forever now that they've added lengthy 'previously on' bits before the credits, you fully have time to make a cup of tea). Oh show, I've missed you. The most problematic of the faves.

I feel like Arya's been very front and centre in the first two eps, so let's start there. First of all, I must reluctantly announce that Maisie William's woefully bad casting in the last but one series of Doctor Who has had a bit of an Emperor's New Clothes affect on me, so I'm not quite as on board with her as an actor as I have been in previous seasons, especially since her Tiny Badass routine has been usurped by TINY LADY MORMONT WHO IS THE TINIEST OF THEM ALL. But it's also the show's fault, because they do quite shamefully trade on how much we want to see a preteen psychopath Fuck Up Dem Lannisters. (Ed Sheeran cameo sidebar: just the worst. I at least thought Arya might kill him, which would then have made the whole thing instantly gratifying and completely justified, but no. She bonded with him instead, which I feel is the worst thing you can do with Ed Sheeran.) Secondly, every time she says "I'm going home", I become more convinced that the Starks are ♪never ever ever getting back together♪. Was this the purpose of the Nymeria cameo? Will being disowned by her direwolf, a hugely powerful symbol of her connection to her family and the north, change Arya's mind again and send her riding south for vengeance instead? I kind of hope so, and her entire role this season is just ping-ponging back and forth between the Cheery Humanising Lannister Soldiers and Byemeria the Direwolf until she gets dizzy.

Speaking of T'North, there's an untenable leadership situation a-brewing between Jon Snow and Sansa, as they continue to have massive public disputes about how to proceed in front of the entire CLP group of assembled Stark bannermen. Could they not have had these chats prior to the town hall? Are there no other rooms in Winterfell? Anyway, I'm default on Sansa's side on most of these because how is she not Queen in the North already? Surely her claim is more legit than Sad Jon Snow's? Anyway, I feel like Dark Sansa is being foreshadowed pretty heavily, which I am here for, so long as nothing tragic happens like she becomes an actual antagonist and Jon Snow kills her in battle. I don't think I could take that level of lip-wobbling woobie-age from Everyone's Favourite Secret Targaryan.

Down Saaf, Cersei is legit terrible at queening, and that is shame because she was at least semi-competent at some point (I think? It was all so long ago. I've done a whole degree since this show started.) I hope she gets some better stuff soon because Lena Headey is one of the best actors left on the show and she looks bored af. You can put it down to the natural entropy of a show in its seventh season but it's HBO. These characters should be getting *more* complex and layered, not walking across presumably still wet floor paintings of Westeros and wilfully misunderstanding what a dynasty is. I also may never get over how much the show has mangled Jaime Lannister, who I swear on my Star Wars posters is one of the books' most interesting characters. Any hope I had of them resurrecting his sort-of redemption arc is pretty much dead in the water by now. Thank god for Nikolaj Coster-Waldau anyway, who is manfully doing A Lot.

My jury is very out on Euron Greyjoy. On the one hand, it's always nice to have a villain on the show who actually seems to understand, nay, enjoy some of the requirements of being a villain (camp delivery and leather trousers, I guess), but on the other say with me now the sacred words of House Jane Shakespeare: No-one cares about the Greyjoys. Something something Batman.

HAVING SAID THAT, Yara is 100% going to die this season and I'm super bummed about that because it definitely discounts Dany & Yara: Sapphic Queens of All Westeros. What with their capture at the end of episode two, I think it's pretty clear that she and Ellaria Sand are going to suffer before they get strategically cut from the show to streamline the narrative killed off: I think there was a showrunner comment along the lines that Euron was going to make Ramsay Bolton look like a kitten so like oh good yay I'm sure we're all super enthused about seeing more women die horribly. (Serious side note: Are we still at this point, show? I genuinely think you believe you're doing something positive for women by constantly representing how shitty their lives are, but that's the least fantastical element of a fantasy show so cut it out, I come here for back-stabbing also front-stabbing ifyouknowwhatImean.)

At the other end of the map, Dany et all have finally arrived, having stayed in strict formation on that boat across the entire season break.

Loved the Varys scene, very sneaky rehabilitation of a character who mostly had skulk-offs with Littlefinger in the Dark Places of King's Landing in the early seasons. I guess there's a salutary political lesson for us all: despise the monarchy but work from within, you get a yearly bonus, despise the monarchy and try to bring them down, you get deaded with wildfire. We also had some fire of the in-the-pants variety with the consummation of several seasons of really lovely scenes between Nathalie Emmanuel and Jacob Anderson as Missandei and Grey Worm. You need someone to have a little fun sometimes, and I thought it was really well done, not to mention historically notable for maybe being the only instance of boobs on the show not to feel totally gratuitous. *fans self*

I haven't really talked much about Tyrion. Huh. Well, that maybe says a lot.

Who else? Sam Tarly, working' nine till five, what a way to make a maester. I'm not a huge Sam Fan but actually the scenes with Jim Broadbent have been pretty great and overwhelmingly gross. Good thing Oldtown Library has that Restricted Section, I think we've all been tired of waiting for a) someone to finally piece together that Dragons + White Walkers = crispy undead barbecue, and b) Iain Glenn to get his fine face back and take those gravelly tones off to Dany's side where he belongs so he can gloomily yet yearningly intone "Khaleesi" to his heart's content.

Elsewhere, RIP Sand Snakes, you were an absolute disaster from beginning to end, and that's all the eulogising I'm going to give. They died as they lived: confusing, superfluous, and tackily written.

The #GiveBrienneMoreToDo2017 campaign starts here. We all love Gwendoline Christie, we all love Brienne, she's one of the few truly honourable souls in a corrupt world going through a painful awakening yadda yadda yadda, GIVE HER MORE STUFF.  And by 'more stuff' - and I think this is my only legit *rant* thus far this series - I do not mean this Tormund eye-fucking disaster. I find it so uncomfortable, both in the way it's done and the response to it in reviews and on Twitter**: it's not sexy fun tension, she has repeatedly looked uncomfortable with his advances, Gwen Christie has said as much herself, and yet. And yet. Do you know why "Nevertheless, he persisted" would never become an iconic phrase? Because THAT'S WHAT MEN DO. (Also, yes, Brienne hearts Jaime 4evs and you can't take that from me.***) My worry is that it was originally intended as a bit of levity (though, again, I don't really find a huge dude making creepy faces that funny, even if Brienne can obvi take care of herself) but it's had such a weirdly positive reaction that the writers will just run with it and throw in something wildly out of character like a stormy we're-about-to-die battlefield snog, which would absolutely be the worst thing the show has ever done, including the Sand Snakes and entirely all of Ramsay Bolton.

Anyway, Christie's nailed it so far, obv, especially re Littlefinger, "Why are you still here?" She spoke for us all. Having said that, it's been rumoured that Littlefinger might die this season and please, show, no. He is a sad imitation of BookFinger but I would be so sad not to have him around anymore, even if his entire role this season is for the population of Winterfell to form an orderly queue to punch him in the mouth (yas Jon). As much as I know I should be grossed out by his Sansession, I am morbidly curious to see how far it goes.  I don't feel like there's a potential rape lurking down that avenue, not least because of the uproar the last time that happened to Sansa and how much it would derail the character she's being built into, but there is an interesting question over a character who has essentially managed to achieve everything he's tried thus far, so it would be great to see what happens when he's absolutely, finally denied the thing he wants the most. And maybe it would revive Aidan Gillen from the dead, because he's looking like he checked out two seasons ago.

...

So that's all for now. Will I do this every week? I have quite a lot of work to do, so probably. We are heading into the endgame now and some real heavyweights are going to start getting offed before we get to the Dragons v White Walkers smackdown next year. My predictions for this series: Cersei, Grey Worm, and yeah, maaaaybe Littlefinger. But, excitingly, it's still really anyone's game.


*I am trying to write a Moffat retrospective, which may encompass some kind of (excited) response to Jodie Whittaker's casting, but I keep getting sidetracked by peak This Blog shit like making dumb jokes about Littlefinger's accent.
**Also on Bafflingly Popular GoT Opinions: it turns out many people are rooting for Jon Snow and Daenerys to get it on. I know it's all but inevitable at this point (it's A Song of Ice and Fire, I get it George) but, like, she's his full aunt. Guess y'all are fine with it when it's not Lannisters, huh?
***Just to end on a more fun note than unwanted sexual advances, go and watch this four minute video of Gwendoline Christie and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau interviewing each other in actual real life and I defy you - I defy you - not to come out shipping Jaime and Brienne.

Laterblogs: Pew Pew: The Best Blowy-Uppy Films of 2016: A Careless List

Laterblogs #1: I wrote this AT THE END OF 2016 and then didn't post because I didn't know how to end it. I've just re-read it though, and I think it's solid.

...

Look, there's going to be a ton of film blogs and listicles out there right now telling you how Son of Saul was incredible and La La Land is going to sweep the board at the Oscars but honestly, I just want to watch things blow up and try to forget about literally everything that happened last year. 

So here, ranked worst to best, are some of those films. Spoilers.

8) Suicide Squad

Boo-icide Squad, more like, what a terrible - no, I didn't see it. No plans to. 

7) Batman vs Superman

Look, you don't need to me to list all the reasons why this film was bad. The internet has done that again and again and again. In fact, skip all of those links and just read this open letter to Warner Bros that poses the greatest question of our times: why are you still letting Zack Schneider make films? So I won't go into great detail on this one, but for god's sake, Batman branded people. They shot Martha Wayne IN THE FACE. Which feels like some kind of harsh metaphor.

6) X-Men: Apocalypse

Oh man, this film was so bad. I straight up laughed when Michael Fassbender's wife and child got killed. I did. I laughed right out loud in the cinema. I'm not proud of it. But I'm not ashamed either.

James McAvoy, heroically flying in the face of all logic, was still having the time of his life though, so for that simple bit of human joy it ranks higher than Bats vs Supes.

5) Deadpool

Billed itself as an "alternative" Valentine's Day movie, and it sort of was but, like, in the way that Hot Topic is "alternative". It was funny and Deadpool spoke to the camera and swore a lot, and there was lots of creative violence, and at one point Ryan Reynolds regrew his hand and for a while he had a little hand like a baby, but it obviously wasn't actually *subversive* in any way. It's still basically the tale of a white man trying to dude-punch another white man while a white-passing lady (Morena Baccarin) wears not many clothes.  Also there was this whole bit where Morena Baccarin wanted to fuck Ryan Reynolds in the ass because it was International Women's Day and truly, that is what the feminists want, and then he didn't let her. Like, come on Ryan, just let Morena Baccarin fuck you in the ass.

4) Captain America: Civil War - April 29

Cap Mur Civ War was, essentially, very entertaining filler in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It does a job. It gets us from A to B. From a united group to a disunited one. From a world of structures and binaries (SHIELD v HYDRA) to a world of chaos where anyone could be the bad guy, even when - psych - they think they're the good guy. 

AND IT'S ABOUT THE TIME YOUR GAY DADS HAD A REALLY BIG FIGHT. I think at least 60% of the film was just Tony Stark and Steve Rodgers looking at each other soulfully and sometimes shaking their heads a little in a manly, soulful, world-weary way. It's actually better to think about the film as a big old domestic because if you try to engage with the politics of it (Tony wants the Avengers to sign some accords saying they'll be accountable to the fictionalised UN and Steve doesn't want to do this because...'Murica? Idk. They do debate this. They debate this thorny, complicated, divisive issue for a whole scene before the punching starts. Again, feels like a harsh metaphor.) for one single second, you end up going "wha-bu-OBVIOUSLY YOU SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE. YOU HAVE LITERALLY KILLED INNOCENTS, HOWEVER INADVERTENTLY. EVEN NOLAN'S BATMAN USED HIS EXECUTIVE-POWER-BUSH-ADMINISTRATION-METAPHOR-PHONE-SATELLITE-SPYING THING VERY, VERY RELUCTANTLY." But don't think that, because Cap is the hero.

Anyway, it there was a scene where all the Avengers plus Spiderman just beat the crap out of each other, so it scores higher than Deadpool.

3) Doctor Strange

*surprised Jerry Seinfeld voice* This was really good! This was a really good movie! Because the trailer looked dumb af. Actually the things about the trailer than worried me were still the things that worked least well in the actual movie (casting of Bendytoots Cumberbritches, TSwints all dressed up in vaguely orientalist garb, Mads Mikkelsen as the same character he's played since Casino Royale) but it was also offbeat and wry and trippy and seemed to hold actual levels of, like, disdain for its main character before he enrolled on A Better You Through Tibetan Magics course. 

And tbh it was worth the price of admission for the stinger alone, which promises that in the future Bothering Cummenpatch will team up with Chris Hemsworth (Thor) and Tom Hiddleston (Loki) to find Antony Hopkins (Odin or maybe Loki pretending to be Odin so maybe Antony Hopkins doing an impression of Tom Hiddleston that I hope made him cry), and my soul rejoiced.

2) Ghostbusters

AKA THE GREATEST FILM OF ALL TIME THIS YEAR. *ducks* Oh man, I do not laugh out loud in cinemas (except when Michael Fassbender's family gets it, obvz) but I was doing my embarrassing Alone Laugh through the whole of this. Look, I'm not a diehard fan of the original - it's a classic and it's enjoyable and blah blah Your Childhood but it shits on its (two) female and (one) POC characters. I inevitably here have to say that the 2016 film's treatment of Leslie Jones, both onscreen and offscreen (a thundering silence surrounding the campaign of Twitter abuse she received, orchestrated by real life B-list Disney villain Milo Yiannopoulos) was shitty. And we shouldn't be afraid to hold things we love to account, and I did love this. I loved Melissa McCarthy, I loved the smart bundling of Kristen Wiig into a straight man role so she couldn't do too much damage, I loved the world discovering a whole new sexuality in Kate McKinnon's queer-coded maverick Holtzmann licking her guns. And I loved Leslie Jones too, and it breaks my heart that there will be no sequel because I think she would have got a more central role out of it. 

1) Rogue One

ROGUE M'FUCKING ONE. Eh? EH? Yeah. Let's end this shitshow of a year with the tale of a group of *forgotten misfits* who ALL DIE in the service of a greater cause. This film should be the model for your 2017: no-one gives a crap about you but you should do good stuff anyway because you might end up taking down the Death Star, inadvertently, after you have died. And then be the subject of a movie where people come out going, "That was really good but I really thought we were going to find out about the Bothans? Where were the Bothans?" In Episode VI, as it turns out, which I obviously knew and didn't have to Google because I'm a bad Star Wars fan. Anyway, Rogue One is probably the best war movie I've ever watched.

Death of/to the Author: Nine and Three Quarter Thoughts on the JK Rowling Shitstorm

A quick disclaimer here: I know most of you have lives.  I know most of you don't care.  I know the extent to which this story has been reported as 'news' is the most trifling bollocks ever.  However, I feel something along the lines of "oh god hold me my world is crumbling".

For those of you who don't have Harry Potter as a Google Alert (like what are you, some kind of nerd) the furore is thus: Emma Watson has guest edited Wonderland magazine and interviewed J.K. Rowling*.  Quel horror, you gasp in sarcastic French.  Wait a minute, judgey, because there's more.  A sneak preview of this interview has been splashing about all over the shop because in it - buckle up - JKR says she should never have put Hermione and Ron together as a couple, apparently also stating Hermione should have ended up with Harry instead. (I have marked the crazy parts in italics for your convenience.)

Naturally, I have some thoughts.

1) UGH FUCK YOUUUUUUUU JK ROWLING LIKE WHAT DO YOU KNOW YOU ONLY WROTE THE BOOKS - oh my god, down Fifteen Year Old Me, get down - WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO RUIN MY LIIIIIIIIFE - like seriously shut the fuck up, you have an undergrad degree, you are doing a masters - IT'S SO UNFAIR - GET BACK IN THE BOX.

2) Rowling states that she wrote the relationship as a form of "wish fulfilment fantasy"and "for reasons that have very little to do with literature".  Rowling has perhaps revealed more about herself than she anticipated here, given that she has previously stated how much she identifies with Hermione, for I look askance at the woman who looks at the sulky, immature, petty, ginger sidekick and goes "sigh I guess that was just wish fulfilment" and then at the dark, brooding, angsty hero and goes "yeah, much more realistic".** But then I shrug because, whatever, I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.  However, if literally all that is going on here is that JKR's tastes have changed in the last seven years and she no longer craves the flesh of red-haired men, then bad form, madam, that is not worth my heartbreak.

3) Buried within this flippancy is a sort of serious point: I bet a sizeable chunk of the female readership identified with Hermione.  I did.  I was a school girl and I liked books and I had bad hair and I located my self-worth in my intelligence and not my terminally disappointing appearance so I obviously did.   This is important for two reasons: a) most of the time, fans who didn't want Hermione to end up with Ron meant "I don't want to end up with Ron" and b) most of those fans didn't want to end up with Ron because he was (apparently) stupid and poor. (What I am giving you here is a précis of the internet in 2006.) No book should have a duty to send a message of any kind, but in a series that was all about fighting arbitrary elitism, I find the union of muggle-born go-getter Granger and pure blood dependable Weasley much more positive than heroine-marries-lost-prince-of-fantasy-kingdom.  And by the way, self-insertion is a completely legitimate teenage response to fiction (hello Twilight) because it helps you figure out how you feel about the world.  Odds on, those Harry/Hermione shippers*** will go on to have a lifetime of polite, slightly boring relationships where they die a little inside each day and the Ron/Hermione shippers will have sparky, challenging, often difficult but also passionate relationships.  (Look, I never said I wasn't biased.)

4) Having said that, I cannot actually find a quotation suggesting that JK thinks she should have hooked up Harry and Hermione instead but since that's the headline everyone is leading with, I am forced to accept it due to the infallible integrity of the press (oh, just make up your own punchline).  This is what I find most upsetting (if you are not on board with me using the word 'upsetting' to legitimately describe my feelings towards a fictional relationship between fictional people, I feel this blog is not for you).  After calming down from my initial shuddering nausea, I was able to hear the small voice in my head saying, "Do you really mind if Rowling thinks Ron and Hermione shouldn't have ended up together? Maybe she just means they probably realistically wouldn't have got married and Christ knows, we all regret the Epilogue." Which, actually, is fair enough.  I'm not a huge fan of the Young Adult Fantasy trope of meeting your spouse at the age of twelve or whatever, and it's particularly egregious in the Harry Potter series.  There are so many teenage marriages I wouldn't be surprised if the next 'revelation' is that Hogwarts is located somewhere in the Bible Belt.  Also I hear if you don't get hitched literally right on graduation day you immediately become a spinster and have to live with Mrs Figg in a state of quasi-Sapphic tension.

5) Anyway, what I'm saying is that there was a part of me that was always expecting Hermione to pack up her bags at the end of the series and go and study History or Law at Oxbridge because settling for wizard A Levels wouldn't be nearly enough of a challenge.  (And how much do you want to read the spin-off series 'Hermione Granger and the Cambridge Law Degree'? She battles Finals.)  And maybe while she's there she meets a nice muggle boy and they have two children, and one is magic and one isn't but they are both excellent at referencing and their footnotes are divine.  What I don't buy is that if you take Ron out of the picture then there is literally only one other option for Hermione, and that is Harry "Stop Trying To Help Me Hermione Oh No Wait I Really Need You To Help Me" Potter.  Harry, who always complained about Hermione being "shrill" and "bossy" and "dull as shit to hang out with" (one of these quotes is not real).  Who, every time he was forced to spend time alone with her, spent the whole time going WHERE IS MY MANLY MAN FRIEND RON OH I WISH RON WERE HERE I LANGUISH I PINE.  Like, if we're rewriting history here, maybe it's Harry/Ron we should be focussing on, if you know what I'm saying.  And I think you do.

6) Actually I could probably get my head around Hermione ending up with literally almost any other character in the series.  Any of the other Weasley children, including Ginny.  Pansy Parkinson.  Ernie Macmillan. Mad-Eye Moody, for frick's sake (it would be like Dorothea and Casaubon in Middlemarch).**** Just... not Harry.   From the ages of seven to seventeen I enjoyed Harry and Hermione's friendship immensely, and I enjoyed it all the more because it was safe and loving and uncomplicated and without bullshit, and because it was different to the usual female-lead-hooks-up-with-male-lead-and-sometimes-there's-some-other-comic-relief-guy trope.  Which is something that His Dark Materials (a far superior series in many respects) did not do, to my eleven-year-old chagrin.  I don't know who Ron would end up with though.  Oh wait.  I forgot.  Harry.

7) On that note, let us face it, there are other relationships we could be regretting in the series.  If Rowling really wants to revisit the past then let's embrace this opportunity to find out what in the holy fuck was Harry and Ginny about? She pretty much decided to marry him the first time she saw him when she was a child.  She wanted to be a child bride.  Run, Harry, run.  Then come back and try to explain to me how vaguely Oedipal thoughts about sunlight glinting off red hair constitutes the basis for a marriage.  And let's not even start on Remus "Totally Heterosexual" Lupin, shall we?  (Except to say Professor Lupin, teach me about grindylows, I will be your best student ever, you patchwork, chocolate-eating hero.) All this is ironic because, of course, Ron and Hermione's relationship does work and, as someone who has never quite given up on the tactic of saying "I find your arguments unconvincing and you smell" instead of "I fancy you", I also always found it to be by far the most realistic. (Having said that, there is no greater turn-off than a poorly conceived argument.  I have standards.) It's mostly comprised of huffy silences and irritable jealousy, which is exactly how polite British teenagers who are attracted to each other behave, with the occasional outburst of sniping and just a few moments that, though simple, are unbelievably tender.  Brainy, overly intense self-starter with a propensity towards merciless observation of the rules seeks combative, insecure but quietly selfless funny man for argumentative but mutually supportive relationship.  It doesn't have to work, but you know that it really really does.

(I'll leave it there because Fifteen Year Old Me is clamouring for me to write another four pages about how Hermione constantly expects more of Ron than anyone else does, and how Ron makes Hermione laugh even when she's at her most disapproving, and how Hermione goes pink around him like a million times and how Ron's compliments are always a bit adorably too extravagant and also how Harry and Luna Lovegood were meant to be together in a holy union of weirdo outsiderdom and caps lock rage and - BACK. IN. THE. BOX.)

8) I've see a quite a few comments on various articles talking about Rowling's 'right' to say what she said.  Let's be clear: of course J.K. Rowling has the right to say she would do some things differently if she could.  She wrote the series, I think she is allowed.  As a writer, it would be strange if she hadn't developed in the intervening years.  Even Shakespeare re-wrote King Lear, y'know? Dickens gave Great Expectations a whole new (sappier but better written) ending.  Rowling is invested in her work as  - I'm gonna say it - an artist, and I'm sure wanted to discuss her writing as an artist in that magazine interview.  BUT (because you knew it was coming), should she have?  I spent most of the Literary Theory sections of my degree drawing cartoons of Tony Harrison from The Mighty Boosh but I'm pretty sure some guy (was it Derrida? It's usually Derrida) said that once you put your work out there you cease to have agency over it.  It exists only in the minds of your readership.  The author ceases to have a say.  In other words, sorry JKR but you wrote Ron/Hermione so shut up and deal.  But that doesn't take into account the relationship Rowling has always had with her readers, which is to say she's active, she engages, and it's not the first time she's revealed information about the world of the series after the fact.  She knows that she can't comment on any part of the books without it having significance to the readership (in the interview she says she can "hear the rage and fury") - in the wake of 'Dumbledore is gay', Pottermore and the attendant books, Rowling has a track record of expanding her universe in interviews and more, building herself up as the divine (and perhaps only) authority on the series, and ultimately that just picks the pocket of the reader's own imagination.  So, knowing that anything she said about the series would have its own kind of truth to it, and knowing how loved her characters and their relationships are, I think yeah, it was a bit of a dick move.

9) And that's the big takeaway from all of this.  The word to describe the series that has come up most frequently in all the articles I've read is "beloved".  Harry Potter mattered to a hell of a lot of kids (and continues to matter to a hell of a lot of young adults).  I fell in love with those books not because they are perfect (spoilers: they are not) but because my reading experience of them was treasured and brilliant and intense.  I fell in love with them as they were, and though I may have grumbled about things here and there, it was with the affection that one uses to complain about a sibling.  I never really wished anything to be different - even the things I would have changed were part of my deeply unique relationship with the series.  For the same reason that I never wanted to see it on film, I don't want that world to shift.  And if Rowling says it, some part of me will take it as gospel, and it will change the characters and relationships I grew up with.  So I hope Rowling does not, in future, choose to share her doubts with us - or at least phrases them in a more equivocal way.  I hope she acknowledges that, whether she meant to or not, she has created something that has a life of its own, that means a lot to its readers, that was always so much more than a franchise, and that, in all its imperfection, is perfect to me, and to so many others.  And that, if you're looking for tips, Jo, is true love.


Three Quarters)
*I am lucky Internal Feminist Me has powerful slapping hands to beat down Jealous Bitch Me who frequently screams "GODDAMMIT WATSON GIVE ME BACK MY LIFE".
**Ron is one of my favourite characters, FYI.  Don't be all up in my grill.  I'm just saying it's whack, is all.
***Shipper = internet slang for a fan who is a proponent of two characters entering into a sexual or romantic relationship (the internet is clever this way).  Can also be used as a verb, as in "I kind of ship the Tenth Doctor and the Eleventh Doctor but don't tell anyone because I think that might technically be either incest or masturbation". Or "I very much ship Me/Ice Cream." Use it in a sentence today.  It'll make you feel better.
****I originally put a whole spiel here about how Dorothea and Casaubon's relationship plays out and then I realised that was major spoilers for Middlemarch, so if you have read it then high five, you know what I'm talking about, and if you haven't then now you'll have to in order to understand that joke, and I will have done a little bit of good today.  (Fred Vincy/Mary Garth = OTP.  You can look that one up on your own.)

The Blacklist: Five Films I Hate That Everyone Else Loves

When I was a young lass with barely a handful of overreactions and needlessly capitalised opinions to call my own, I had a school teacher who offered me this sage advice when it came to debating: "Don't rant.  When you rant, we stop listening." Which - don't get me wrong - was all well and good within the confines of structured debating competitions largely dominated by chinless male adolescents whose sense of self-importance was directly proportional to how much they wished their voice would just drop already.*  But this is a blog, so sorry Mrs Edwards, I am going to rant my little digital socks off.

In summary, the following films are abominations and deserve to be fire-bombed out of existence.

The Jane Shakespeare Blacklist: Five Films I Utterly Loathe That Everyone Else Inexplicably Loves (and Obviously Contains Spoilers For Those Films)

Now look.  Most of the time, I get by ok despite being an emotionally neutered wasteland of a human being whose ability to respond appropriately to the adult world has been unalterably decimated by years of learning my life lessons from TV. I grew up reading books and then I went to university to read more books and realised that watching shitty children's films on the internet was much quicker and less effort. I feel more strongly about television about than I do about some actual human relationships (when I started watching Orange is the New Black, I genuinely think I was more psyched to spend time with my Netflix account than I was with my first boyfriend). What I'm saying is that I watch a lot of stuff, good and bad, so I don't usually judge others on their choices (in fact I detailed my love of crap TV here). However, there are a few films, just a few, that I loathe and every time I say I loathe them, someone looks at me like I just expressed indifference towards a Youtube video of an ocelot forming an unlikely friendship with a penguin.**  They're both small animals, I get why it's cute, I just...god, don't you people have anything better to do with your lives? You could be writing blogs justifying your deep-seated aggression towards humanity. Anyway, here they are.

5) Titanic

Now this is an obvious choice to kick things off and maybe kind of a cheat because actually there are a lot of people that don't love it. It's just that the people who love it really love it. And I hate those people. I've also never actually seen it all the way through. I just can't. Every time it comes on TV, I think, “This time, this time, I will respond to this film that makes people cry their innards out through their noses.” And every time I have to stop watching because I can feel bile rising in my throat at the first few strains of that Celine Dion wankfestival of over-literal interpretation of the concept of undying love. It brings out the absolute worst in me. It only takes a few minutes and I'm treating human tragedy like it's the funniest thing I've ever seen (cf also: Forrest Gump). Also obligatory mention of get on the fucking door.

4) The Lion King

This is potentially where I lose some friends.  But actually let's be clear.  I do not hate The Lion King.  But I am happily indifferent to The Lion King.  But the world, as always, will not let me be.  "How can you not like The Lion King?" they gasp, as though I have expressed a neutrality towards breathing oxygen, and that incredulity has pushed me dangerously towards hatred.  Easily, is the answer.  Bloody easily.  Anthropomorphism has never been my thing, not ever, and when I watched Bambi as a kid I asked my mum whether Bambi's mum had just been shot and she nodded sadly with soft, compassionate motherly eyes ready to leap to the rescue of my tender psyche and I said "oh ok" and went back to wondering what exactly his dad had been doing all that time.  Nature is not cuddly, it is red in tooth and claw, and it will thank you for showing some respect (I mean you Ang Lee). Also if I want to read Hamlet I will definitely just read Hamlet.  So let me be, in my joyless, loveless bubble.  I'm not telling you not to enjoy it but I will not pretend I enjoy it either.  I am the Andy Murray of film watching, refusing to smile, and winning at Twitter.

3) 500 Days of Summer

I have been told so many times by so many folk that I just didn't "get" this film.  No, you see, it is a deconstruction of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope, the magical quirky girl who pinwheels into the life of the male protagonist and heals his damaged first world soul, it is a warning against projecting unmanageable expectations onto someone.  Is what they say.  Well, no.  Is what I say.  Because a) if that were true, why is the last thing we see in the film Joseph Gordon Levitt hitting on an identical woman (Zooey Deschanel just wasn't the right Manic Pixie Dream Girl! Keep searching, entitled white boy, there's a Manic Pixie Dream Girl out there for you too!) and b) even if the film was pointing out the folly of their relationship, so what?  The idea that putting women on a pedestal ends badly is not a blinding revelation.  I think most of us do not need a film to tell us that you cannot build a lasting relationship on shared love of The Smiths.

It is not a deconstruction of the trope because it does nothing to deconstruct the trope.  The story is still told from the viewpoint of the aforementioned lost boy who pursues a woman because she symbolises a meaningful existence and ultimately 'wins' her, despite her free-wheelin' ways and initial reluctance.  The fact that he loses her again means nothing for, as the film makes clear, he will do this again and again and again.  A deconstruction would tell her story, show her agency and inner life rather than just informing us that she totally has them, and focus on her choices because of what they mean for her, not as and when they affect him.  In the end, it still reinforces the stereotype that women's lives are plot points in men's stories.  No amount of non-linear storytelling and cutesy Expectations v Reality set pieces can disguise that.  It's hollow, it's twee, and it challenges nothing.  Mic drop.

2) Juno

It is not the miracle of central heating or the tender embrace of a lover that keeps me warm at night, it is my hatred of this film.  It nourishes my soul.  It gives me energy.  Why?  Because it's fucking annoying.  Basically.  But oh, such annoyance.  My intolerance of this film is nigh on Biblical.  The smug Dr Seuss dialogue, the lazy mumblecore performances, the appalling manner in which Michael Cera continues to exist, the vicious desperate straining towards being alternative (and yet at the same time so painfully afraid of offending anyone - no it's totally cool that you support abortion! It's just not for our did-we-mention-ADHD-but-not-in-a-way-that-is-ever-really-represented-as-anything-other-than-edearing-in-an-offbeat-way heroine!  Oh, and by the way, all abortion clinic picketers are also quirky and adorable!).  At no point does this film celebrate anything difficult or unusual or uncomfortable (spoilers: the baby ends up with sweetly middle class Jennifer Garner, bad Jason Bateman with his ephebophile tendencies is banished, and Ellen Page goes to the prom with Michael Cera, the poor, poor girl) and it pretends it does because it comes packaged in The Moldy Peaches***, ironic euphemisms for penises, and a fucking hamburger phone.  I really hate that fucking hamburger phone.

1) Love Actually

Ok, this is it.  The big one.  I don't want to overreact here but everyone involved in this film deserves to be put up against a wall and shot.  Even you Colin Firth.  Especially you, for trying to trade off against Darcy goodwill by jumping into a lake.  Every character in it is a borderline horrendous sociopath and every one of its hoard of dead-eyed paycheck-visualising actors has done a better performance than this at some other point in their careers, and for Kris Marshall, it was his mugshot when he was arrested for drunk driving.  This film goes out of its way to tell you that any option - literally any option - is better than just talking to a woman.  Hold up passive aggressive placards about how your entire existence has been destroyed by a woman having the temerity to marry someone else, learn to play the drums, buy a woman on the white slave trade market, decide you have no future together because she committed the heinous crime of electing to look after her brother instead of having sex with you, offer to have her ex boyfriends killed because they called her fat (because no woman of yours will bear the shame of being called fat) but for the sake of all that is holy, do not simply talk to her about your feelings, she will not respond to your simply and sincerely expressed feelings.

Oh Gentle Reader, I cannot truly express to you the depths of my antagonism towards this film.  I hate it with the gnawing, churning, all consuming darkness of a black hole, and were I possessed of ungodly  reality-altering powers, I would rip it out of existence itself and send it spitting and cursing back into the howling chasm from whence it came.  I hate the way, the truly tragic way, it takes actors that I like - Laura Linney! Andrew Lincoln!  forever to me to the most perfectly cast Edgar Linton there ever shall be, decent and strong-jawed and faithful! - and buckles them into this devil spawn of a roller coaster ride to hell.  Oh, I am sorry Linney, Lincoln, Firth, Ejiofor, Freeman and company (Not you, Knightley.  Never you.) but I cannot forgive your presence in this cynical money sink of a film (that does not - has never - really believed that love is, actually, all around but knows that you will believe it for long enough in your wine-addled Yuletide fugue of loneliness and existential despair to rent it off LoveFilm or add to the royalties by watching it on repeat) on the basis of previous and subsequent good form.

And the turtlenecks.  Dear weeping Jesus on a two-wheeled canoe, the fucking turtlenecks.


*I was actually really good at debate.  I once did a public speaking contest where they invented a prize to give me because I had written my speech the day before and not followed any of the rules about structure or having an actual argument but was apparently "utterly charming". But I am fucking charming, so you know.
**Actually that does sound fucking adorable.
***Who I liked before this film, goddammit.


A/N: Bonus Extra Episode of a TV Show I Hate That Everyone Else Loves, Incidentally Also Written by Richard Curtis: Vincent and the Doctor (Doctor Who, Series 5, Episode 10)

Snow Patrol is just the tip of the appallingly twee iceberg here.  No one - no one - can straight-facedly call someone "my friend" in continuous prose and not sound like a twat.  Just - just go and watch it again, and this time listen to the dialogue.  Consider the incredible crassness of the metaphor of Vincent van Gogh being haunted by an "invisible monster" (DEPRESSION THE REAL MONSTER IS DEPRESSION).  And ask yourself whether you actually thought it was good, or whether you just felt like you should because Matt Smith and Bill Nighy compared their bow ties.

(IT'S ABOUT DEPRESSION.)

No Contest: 'Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS' (Doctor Who) and 'Kissed By Fire' (Game of Thrones) Reviews

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Finally A Post About Batman

It's no secret that Batman is kind of the unofficial mascot of this blog.  It was described to me today by a friend as "Shakespeare surrounded by Batman".  And yet I've never actually done a post exclusively about everyone's favourite winged vigilante.  I'm seeing The Dark Knight Rises tomorrow, so there'll be plenty to come on that but before we plunge into - let's face it - the end of a Batman epoch (because seriously, who is going to touch it for the next ten years after Nolan?) I want to address the "original" Batman film franchise and what went so badly, badly wrong.

I say "original" because, as any good nerd knows, Batman has been around in various guises since 1939. (Mostly bat-shaped guises, though there was that one comic where he was a pirate.  No seriously, google it.)  Pretty much all of my Batman knowledge comes from screen adaptations.  Despite my penchant for all things geek-shaped, I've never picked up/illegally downloaded a comic from the D.C. universe, nor will I because a) too much continuity and b) I hear they recently rebooted the D.C. universe for the seventeen billionth time and apparently it - to borrow a vulgarism - sucks ass.  Also, beyond Batman, the characters of the D.C. universe/Justice League have never really appealed to me as much as Marvel for whatever reason.  Maybe because Marvel keeps being so obliging with the abundance of cheekbones in their films.

Tons has been written about Batman in various cultural studies journals, so I'm not going to pretend that I can add anything new to the pot here but I know why I like him: he's mortal.  Batman is the most direct descendent of the heroic archetype that we have today. Beowulf, Odysseus, Spring-Heeled Jack - all of them went into making this guy who doesn't have any superhuman powers, just a gym membership and a large disposable income.  He's also hugely adaptable.  As far as I can discern, Batman has three main modes: gothy, campy and gritty.  All of them have their pros and cons but the character is always unfailingly Batman.  Not just in essentials (Batmobile, Batbelt, Batarangs, Batsignal, any other noun you can add 'Bat' to) but in motivation: "you fucked with my parents and now I'm going to dress up like a large rodent instead of visiting a psychiatrist like I probably should."  For great justice.

So let's take a look at Batman B.N. (Before Nolan).

Batman (1989)
This is a classic for so many reasons, but it has some flaws.  The main reason to watch it is Jack Nicholson's Joker.  We credit Heath Ledger with turning in an Oscar-worthy performance as a comic book villain, and rightly so, but let's not forget that this guy did it first.  Nicholson's Joker is more affable than Ledger's and (often literally for those onscreen) rib-crackingly funny.  He has the volatility of the character down perfectly post-chemical dip and even before 'Jack Napier' becomes the Clown Prince of Crime, Nicholson pulls no punches letting you know that this guy is a psycho with a nasty sense of humour.  Also, I defy anyone not to enjoy the sequence where the Joker and his goons burst into the art gallery to deface famous works of art accompanied by a huge 80s style boom box playing Prince's 'Partyman', written specifically for the film (oh yeah, loads of the songs are by Prince because that's not at all bizarre).

It's maybe not surprising that the Joker is the main draw of this film, given that it was directed by permanent-outsider-teen Tim Burton.  I unapologetically love Tim Burton, up to about 2007 when the formula started to wear thin (but it took some people much less time, so no-one can say I'm not faithful). But in 1989 Burton was at the beginning of his glory days.  His only major film before that was Beetlejuice, which ranks as my favourite Burton film of his oeuvre, and being such a comparative rookie has its good points and bad points.  On the one hand, Burton is gloriously unafraid to break the mould, which is what his Batman does in the same way that Batman Begins did sixteen years later.  Like Nolan, he wanted to make something that would open up the potential of this universe to more than just comic book fans.  The focus is on the Joker because what Burton does best is freakish outsiders, and it's hugely successful here.  Also remember when Burton was a great satirist, and not just someone who made things look cool by adding spirals?  That's hugely in evidence here, with Gotham's middle-class elite taking a battering for their narrow-minded concerns, picking up from the 80s yuppies in Beetlejuice and paving the way for the candy-coloured houses of Edward Scissorhands.

On the other hand, he doesn't really know what to do with the man himself.  Michael Keaton is great, and remains a lot of people's favourite Batman, but his Bruce Wayne - nervy, awkward, bespectacled and, now I think about it, oddly reminiscent of Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner in The Avengers - is more successful than his Batman.  There's no origin story here (well, it sort of comes into the plot later but in quite a half-arsed way), no explanation of why he does what he does.  The nearest we get is "Because I'm the only one who can", which is profoundly unsatisfying.  You get the feeling that Burton already had his hands full with one costumed weirdo and didn't really know how to balance the two against each other.  There's a nice thematic parallel between the two throughout, as it is gradually revealed that each are responsible for the other's transformation, but really there could be a lot more angst is all I'm saying.  Never thought I'd say that about a Tim Burton film.  As a whole, the film feels vaguely unformed: it's not quite a blockbuster, not quite a Burton film.

For all that, it's so worth watching if you haven't seen it.  All due respect to Nolan, but he wasn't the first to make Batman mainstream acceptable.  And also Billy Dee Williams is Harvey Dent in an aborted sequel hook that never quite enters Two-Face territory.  For shame.

Batman Returns (1992)
This is hands down my favourite Batman film, Nolan trilogy included.  With one film under the belt, Burton is much more sure-footed here and it's an out-and-out gothic Burton-gold-standard freak-fest.  Once again, the focus is on the villains and once again they're classics: Danny DeVito's genuinely disturbing Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer's iconic Catwoman.  The Penguin is a villain straight out of Burton's own imagination - in fact, there's even a character in Burton's 'The Melancholy Death of Oyster Boy', a strange and excellent little book of poems and drawings concerning various deformed children, called That Hideous Penguin Boy.  And hideous he is too.  On my 153rd rewatch, I still find it distressingly hard to look at the Penguin full on so I guess bravo to the make-up department there, and also kindly go fuck yourselves for igniting a metric fuckton of Nightmare Fuel in my tender developing imagination.  Christopher Walken is also on good eerie form as Max Schrek, the shady industrialist who pulls the strings and, despite lack of animal-themed costume/deformity, is implied to be the real monster in Gotham.

Also remember what I was saying about Burton being a great satirist?  Pfeiffer's Catwoman is my favourite part of the whole film because of the way she gloriously deconstructs the idea of the sexy whip-toting dominatrix who just needs the love of a good man.  Don't get me wrong, she's still guilty of launching an entire generation of boyish masturbatory fantasies and I'd be lying if I said she wasn't objectified even a little bit (vinyl catsuit) but Burton and Pfeiffer make it gloriously clear that Selina Kyle is, y'know, brain-damaged.  In close up, she twitches, smears her lipstick across her face, her eyes lose focus and she occasionally tries to eat live birds.  She should probably be in a hospital ward but, like Bruce, she's decided to work out her problems by dressing as a furry mammal and capering across some rooftops.  Accordingly, the Batman/Catwoman/Bruce Wayne/Selina Kyle romance is done brilliantly and is actually integral to the plot too, unlike poor Kim Basinger's tacked-on romance in the first film.  The sequence where they turn up to a masquerade ball (as Wayne and Kyle) and are the only two not wearing masks is a great touch, as is Pfeiffer's deadpan delivery upon their mutual realisation of each other's alter-ego in the middle of the crowded dance floor: "Do we have to start fighting now?" Just two damaged, combative, highly secretive individuals taking turns to kick the shit out of each other and make out.  Move along now, nothing to see here.  In conclusion, Catwoman manages to be empowered and deconstruct the idea of empowerment-through-male-gaze at the same time.  And that was in 1992.  What happened?

Batman Returns is much tighter than its predecessor, and darker too - something which led to Burton's polite removal from the director's chair for the next one.  The design is superb, Gotham City re-imagined as an art deco nightmare with shades of film noir.  At the time, a reviewer called the film "the first blockbuster art film" (that's some great citation there), a trick which Nolan again repeated with The Dark Knight, and I think that's the perfect description for it.  The action is a little meagre and there's no fine delineation of heroes and villains, but that's not the point - it's a murky, gruesome, beautiful world in which it isn't hard to believe that deformed children are cast into the river to grow up in sewers beneath your feet and secretaries are pushed out of top-floor windows.  Not our own world by a long shot, but with enough resonances to make it uncomfortable viewing.

Batman Forever (1995)
And here's where the rot starts to set it.  Making good on their pledge that no bad decision go unmade, Hollywood decided that Batman Returns was a just a little too controversial and there was a whole audience of families whose wallets were going unemptied.  Enter stage right: Joel Schumaker and a sudden cold wind blowing through everyone's hearts.  Burton stayed on to produce, which is apparent in the final mix of the film: the universe is cartoonish and silly, but the tone is weirdly gloomy.  It's like the opposite of one of those kids who dresses in stripy tights and black eyeliner but then smiles all the time and says things like "I'm kooky!"  It's like Eeyore in drag.  (You're welcome.)  It's also famous for being the film in which Schumaker decided that subtlety was for pussies and rubber nipples were for men.

I won't lie, it's been a while since I watched it.  I do know, however, that as great as Tommy Lee Jones generally is (and he's an okay-ish Two Face here), I feel robbed of not seeing Billy Dee Williams in the role.  Robbed.  Val Kilmer is also an okay-ish sort of Batman but to me he will never ever not be the gay detective from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which is a) awesome and you should see it it now, b) not in any way an insult because Kilmer is great in it and c) this is the film where we get Robin for the first time so the homoeroticism is already dialled up to eleven.  Speaking of: ugh, Robin.  Chris O'Donnell is the kind of charmless charisma-vacuum that studios loved casting in the mid-nineties because for a very short space of time, that is apparently what women wanted.  On that note, let's bear in mind that they also apparently wanted Mel Gibson at that point too, so let's just write the whole decade off as a loss for relations between the sexes.  I would actually have loved to see Nolan's attempt at a gritty reboot of Robin, given that this is something that has actually been attempted in the comics, with the second (?) Robin, Jason Todd, becoming Nightwing when he was fired from being Robin on reaching adulthood (also I think he died or something).  Let's not dwell on the fact that Batman stops employing his sidekicks when they reach the age of consent.  I still have a secret hope that Joseph Gordon Levitt's role in The Dark Knight Rises actually is Robin in some way, given that my theory is that he's there to take over when Christian Bale breaks his spine or dies or generally stops being able to go Batmanning of an evening.

Shamefully, there is one thing that I like about this film a lot, which is Jim Carey as The Riddler.  That makes no sense to me even as I type it, but there it is.  He fits with the timbre of the new universe, being kind of a walking cartoon as he is, and The Riddler is a pretty classic villain (again, I was hoping he would make an appearance in the Nolan-verse but I can well imagine the Internet's ringing cries of "Joker knock-off!", only with more swearing and casual misogyny).  That is it though.  It's maybe worth watching because it's so bizarre, but on the whole you should just pretend the franchise died with Burton's directorial involvement.

Batman and Robin (1997)
There's little I can say about how bad this film is that you won't have heard before but do you want the truth?  You'll probably quite enjoy it.  It reaches levels of so-bad-it's-good so quickly that you almost suspect Schumaker of trying to make a cult film.  And then Arnie turns up with another ice pun and you realise that if anyone willingly put themselves through the making of this for art, then that person is a hero.  It's scraping the barrel so hard on the villain front, it's practically through to the floor.  As well as the inventively named Mr Freeze (he freezes things), we get an unnervingly dead-eyed Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy and some other bloke as her henchman Bane (man, I am so looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises).  In the first three films, we had a psychotic clown, a hideous deformed penguin-man, and a man with half his face burned away by acid.  The weapons threatening Gotham this time are frozen water, and plants.  Also Bane, who is supposed to be one of the smartest and strongest of the Batman Rogue's Gallery - he actually broke Batman's spine leaving him paraplegic in one story arc (oh my god, is it time for Dark Knight Rises yet?) - is reduced to an inarticulate luchador.  Also Alicia Silverstone is Batgirl and loads of people called her fat, which is really uncalled for when her performance is so horrible, you could just focus on that. (Also, she's not fat.)

So yeah, I could go through all the puns, all the nonsensical plot points, all the bizarre unintentional homoeroticism, all the torturous adolescent flirting, all the fucking BAT CREDIT CARDS, but I won't because you should just watch it with some strong drink and then a) you can say you've watched it and survived and b) you might even enjoy it a little bit.  Or just look at George Clooney's calming, symmetrical face.  Don't you feel better now?

But in the end, it's not enough to say that's it's a bad film, you have to ask why it's bad - because no-one sets out to make a bad film.  The answer is quite simple: money, dear boy.  Batman and Robin is a purely cynical money-spinning exercise from beginning to end.  It could have taken Burton's quasi-cartoon universe and pushed it into something more trippy and disturbing but no - Batman and Robin is the way it is because the producers wanted to sell more Happy Meal toys.  That's right, McDonald's did what the Joker never could.  It killed Batman.


And then along came Nolan in 2005 to resurrect our Bat-shaped hopes and dreams with a trilogy that has not only redefined Batman (again) but redefined what we're allowed to do with blockbusters.  It's the film that everyone will see this summer - they might not have seen The Avengers, they might not see The Amazing Spider-man, but they'll sure as hell see The Dark Knight Rises, and they'll enjoy it.  Unless, as I predict, Christian Bale ends the film shattered into a million tiny pieces and even then, it'll happen in an awesome way.  Just please, please, please, Christopher Nolan - don't fuck up Catwoman.

The Twilight Experiment: Part 3 - Eclipse

So after last time's downer of an instalment, the saga continues with Eclipse and, boy, was this an adventure in screaming silently for 90 minutes. Word on the supernatural grapevine is that they tried to make Eclipse a decent film with realistic dialogue and sensitive cinematography and moral complexity. All I'll say is that it's lucky somebody told me because I sure as fuck didn't get any of that from the actual movie. I mean, this is just horrible. I really suffered for this one. Really. You can thank me later.

Enjoy.

The Twilight Experiment: Part 3 – Eclipse

Much to my delight, we open with news of a serial killer on the loose in Forks. By this point, the Edward-has-a-fridge-for-the-bodies-of-young-women jokes are really just writing themselves, so just pretend I said something about that here, okay? But no, apparently this is an actual serial killer. Btdubs, this is, like, the third time Meyer has used the plot device of a mysterious threat that definitely isn't a vampire turning up corpses that we never get to see because that might actually be cool. At least in New Moon, we briefly thought the werewolves might have done it. (Yeah, I forgot to say because I was talking about Jacob's abs. Sue me.) Except they didn't because werewolves are rad and, as always, it is the vampires who both metaphorically and literally suck.

The serial killer stuff doesn't last, obviously, because there are conversations about marriage between a teenage girl and her 80-year-old lover to be had. I am initially surprised because Bella acts like she almost has a mind of her own for all of 30 seconds. Edward proposes again, she says no. I can only assume that whatever judgement-altering narcotics Edward has her under are starting to wear off. Presumably they are the same narcotics that Tom Cruise uses for Katie Holmes. Oh snap. Scientology burn.

Anyway, Bella then provides her flawless reasoning for not wanting to get married: 1 out of 3 marriages end in divorce. Wait, what? Bella, honey, there are plenty of reasons why you shouldn't marry Edward. I have them prepared in thirty-one page document. Colour-coded. With footnotes. This, however, is not one of them given that you literally want to spend eternity with him anyway. Eddie says he'll vampify her if she marries him. Okay, that's win-win, right? That's what she wants. No, that's coercion, she says. Honey. Much as I appreciate your attempts at becoming more than just a mindless dummy strapped to Edward's groin, coercion is what he's been doing to you for the past two films. This – and it so pains me to agree with Edward – is a compromise. Ugh. I hate you both.

Then we get a scene with Charlie, who I like more and more, because he doesn't like Edward and he does like Jacob. In fact, he likes Jacob so much that he ungrounds Bella so she can go see him. Yay! Jacob! Will Jacob be in this more? Soon? Yay! Jacob, however, does not pick up the phone so Bella straps herself into her truck to go find him. It doesn't start. Then she hears a thud on the roof. At last! Classic horror movie territory! And sure enough, BAM! Pale, overly-intense male with countless social disorders sitting in the passenger seat, asking in the husky tones of one who walks a fine line between sanity and throat-ripping if she was about to go and see her only other friend in the whole entire world.

Run, Bella. Run.

But she can't, because Edward disabled the engine. He explains that the werewolves are super dangerous and he has to protect – NO WAIT BACK THE FUCK UP. He disabled her truck? This is the tragic story, ladies and gentleman, of a promising young woman, her induction into a cult and eventual murder at the hands of her sociopath, abusive, controlling boyfriend. This. Is not. A love story.

On a side note, what is all this about the werewolves having no control? Since when? So there was the (rad) werewolf fight between Jacob and Paul (Paul the Werewolf. Really.) that I also kind of skipped over in New Moon because, hey, Jacob took his shirt off and it has been scientifically proven that neither man nor woman can retain basic cerebral functions when Jacob Black's shirt hits the floor. As I recall, Jacob leapt wolfishly to Bella's defence, preventing her from being flattened by an oncoming werewolf. Also he turned into a wolf in mid air, which was by far cooler than anything Edward has ever done. But still, they keep having all these conversations about how Jake could lose control and hurt Bella. We know that Edward apparently finds it a constant effort to resist Bella's super-delicious blood (probably it tastes like strawberries or that amazing sauce from the chinese restaurant round the corner from my house), but we also know that Edward, amongst his many other faults, is a hypocrite. We've seen him flip out when they were getting down with it (even if I do suspect it was more to cover up the fact that Edward is a colossal virgin). And Jasper's freak-out because of a paper cut made the Cullens move away (look, there was a lot of New Moon I neglected to mention). Not to mention every new vamp we come across seems to feel the need to dedicate their unlives to ripping Bella's head off, but that could just be a natural reaction. But werewolves? Nope. Apart from Paul the Werewolf, they have done precisely nothing to indicate that they could be threat to her. Vampire Threats: 70 billion and 2. Werewolf Threats: 1.

Bella goes to visit her mum, which is nice because her mum treats Bella like an 18 year old girl and not a toddler made of porcelain like a certain pouty sparkling someone I could mention. She also does a v good job of explaining why becoming a vampire is a bad idea. Actually, let's just take a moment to think about this: our main character actually wants to become a vampire. I'm confused. Maybe I'm thinking too much along the lines of traditional horror movie tropes, but aren't we always tying to, y'know, avoid becoming vampires? Isn't humanity always better, in the end? The sun on your skin, the taste of food, body temperature above zero? That kind of thing? What kind of effed-up mind wants a girl at the beginning of her life to freeze herself forever in time, locked in an eternity of attending high school with her high school boyfriend, incapable of having children or grandchildren, unable to get a job because she'll always be an unqualified 18-year-old, unable ever to see the only good friend she's ever had, cut off from her parents and loved ones because they think she's dead? Who would want to portray that as a good thing? Oh hi, Stephanie Meyer.

Ah. I've just found this, from the lady herself, on her website:

“I am not anti-female, I am anti-human. I wrote this story from the perspective of a female human because that came most naturally, as you might imagine. But if the narrator had been a male human, it would not have changed the events. When a human being is totally surrounded by creatures with supernatural strength, speed, senses, and various other uncanny powers, he or she is not going to be able to hold his or her own. Sorry. That's just the way it is. We can't all be slayers. Bella does pretty well I think, all things considered.”

Leaving aside the hilarious unintentional truth of the first sentence and the deluded falsehood of the last, this makes a lot of sense about Meyer. She's dreamed up this race of special, shiny, super-powered beings that no human can compete with; how terribly, terribly sad. Genuinely, I am sad for her that she has so little love for humanity. Humanity has a nuance to it that no monster we've ever come up with can beat – probably because monstrosity is always a distorted reflection of an aspect of ourselves. Even if your vampires are beautiful, strong, fast, immortal, can read minds, they just aren't...human. Can you imagine a vampire – especially ones as uptight and po-faced as the Cullens – on a bouncy castle? Failing a test? Getting dirt under their fingernails? No, because vampires exist in fiction to say uncomfortable things about who we are at night, in the dark – who we don't want to be. It's not a life we're meant to choose – at the end of Dracula, Jonathan Harker offers to become a vampire to keep his wife Mina company in eternity, even though it will cost him his soul and probably his sanity, and it registers as a sacrifice. Giving up your humanity is meant to be a sacrifice.

Besides, this fundamental misunderstanding of what monster fiction is for reveals how little understanding Meyer has of how to tell a story. In science-fiction, when the heroes are outnumbered by aliens with superior technology and numbers, do they shrug and go, “Yeah, you're right. We can't really compete with you guys.”? Does Buffy put down her stakes and go, “Y'know, I guess it would be better if the whole world was converted into immortal blood-suckers.”? Nope. Because that would make terrible drama. There's no conflict in shrugging and giving in. Sometimes, if you want a good story, you just have to fight. Besides, having your teenage everywoman, so bland that the average tween girl can easily insert herself into her place, turn around and talk about how much being 'normal' and 'human' sucks and she wants to upgrade to sparkly super-powered vampdom? And then actually letting her do that (uh, yeah, spoilers, I guess)? Houston, we have a problem. It's a horribly backfiring moral.

Yeah. Anyway. Back to the movie.

So the Cullens are chasing Victoria or something. Seriously? She is not a good enough villain for this to be her third movie. Also, I know I didn't mention in my New Moon review (like most of the film, then) but she really didn't even need to be in it at all.

And 18 and a half minutes in – it's Jacob! Yaaaaay! Edward asks Bella to stay in the car. She gets out. Yaaaay! Jacob is in the rain. Yaaaay! Jacob tells off Edward for lying to Bella and keeping information from her that concerns her. Yaaaaay! Bella agrees with Jacob. Yaaaaaay! Bella wants to talk to Jacob and he brushes her off. Yaaaay! Bella leaves Edward to hop on the back of a motorcycle and ride off with him into the sunset while Jacob flips Edward the bird and they have sex. On the motorbike. Because werewolves are awesome. Yaaaaay! Ok, that's not what happens.

Instead, Jacob takes Bella to wherever it is the werewolves hang out. I cannot overstate how much I prefer the werewolves to the Cullens. They tease each other. They kid around. They don't hold grudges. They don't respond melodramatically to paper cuts. Paul (snigger), who tried to kill Bella in the last film, greets her with a shrug and a “hey”. We also meet Leah, a girl werewolf who is bitchy and moody and is mean to Bella so that means a) she probably fancies Jacob because who doesn't? And b) we aren't supposed to like her. Too bad, Meyer. She's a bitchy, moody girl werewolf who is mean to Bella. So. Kind of shot yourself in the foot there.

Bella and Jacob have a conversation about imprinting, which is the werewolf version of love at first sight. I don't like this, mainly because it makes cool werewolves sound like Edward. Anyway, Jacob hasn't imprinted on anyone yet. Spoiler alert: when he does, it's going to make us all very, very angry. Bella tells Jacob she's going to get vamped after graduation. Jacob responds with “not in a month, not before you've even lived” and “he's got his hooks in you so deep”. Are they even trying to present Edward as a good thing at this point?

Speaking of which, back at Bella's house, we get some super-creepy shots of someone fondling Bella's bedsheets and sniffing her clothes. Turns out to be some other vamp but we're clearly supposed to think it's Edward. Edward shows up and immediately realises someone's been in there because when he smells Bella's dirty laundry, he always folds it back up neat so she'll never know. The Cullens once again rally round to protect Bella because they have nothing better to do. Bella points out that, thanks, but she has her own personal werewolf bodyguard. Naturally, Eddie hates this but vamps and wolves form some kind of alliance because Bella is so super-special, her safety is a greater priority than keeping a thousands of years old peace treaty.

So there's some kind of weird (symbolic) hostage-exchange handover where Edward (symbolically) gives Bella to Jacob, who is (symbolically) half-naked. “Doesn't he own a shirt?”snipes Edward. Oh Eddie, does the wind own a shirt? Do the trees? Does the moon? Jacob Black is a force of nature. A thrill ride through the howling, visceral but oh-so-alive forest on a starlit night. Baby, you can't stop him 'cos those abs just won't quit.

Scuse me, I think I need a shower.

So Edward does the douchey I'm-kissing-my-girlfriend-in-front-of-you thing (for a guy that's 110 years old, he sure does know how to do a very good impression of a seventeen year old) and drives off to hunt while Jacob enfolds Bella in his huge, manly arms and takes her to a werewolf party. Werewolf party. Bella Swan, I hate you.

At the werewolf party, we get the backstory on the originals of Werewolves v Vamps: Supernatural Smackdown – a long time ago, some vamps attacked the tribe, so the tribe shapeshifted into big fuck-off wolves and tore them apart. Fair enough. Also, some broad stabbed herself to distract the last vamp in time for her husband to kill it. Right, but why did she need to stab herself in the heart? We saw in the flashback thing that her dead son was in her arms, I know it's callous but couldn't she have sliced him up a little? He only just died. Or if it does need to be living blood, again, why the heart? We saw earlier than a paper cut would do it. Actually, if the vamps been attacking the village, shouldn't there be blood everywhere anyway? Whatever. Werewolves are still cooler than vampires because the entire point of their existence is to defend innocents from vampires. So tell me again, why is Edward the good guy?

Oh look, plot! More killings. Emmet thinks they should go to Seattle and deliver a can of whoop-ass. And he's mean to Bella. I like Emmet. He's practically a werewolf.

There is an Edward/Bella scene so boring it's not worth reporting.

It's Jacob! Yaaaay! This scene reads like a checklist of good and bad things to say to your girlfriend:

• I'm in love with you and I want you to choose me – kind of clingy but fine, whatever.
• I know you feel something for me, you just won't admit it – ok, let's not start getting Nice Guy about this, Jake.
• I'm going to fight for you – ok, not a problem.
• You won't ever have to change yourself for me or say goodbye to anyone – GOOD! GOOD!
• He probably can't even kiss you without hurting you – YEP!
• Feel that? Flesh and blood and warmth – I'LL SAY!
• Let me force myself upon you in a kiss that you clearly don't want - WAIT, WHAT?

Ugh. It's like SMeyer realised that she'd accidentally written a completely likeable character who had much more going for him than her pasty charisma vacuum of a leading man and went “Well shit, this is a pickle. WHAT CAN I DO TO RUIN HIM?”

Oh Jacob. And we were getting on so well. Mind you, Bella then tries to punch him in the face (lady, violence doesn't make you a strong woman. It makes you unhinged) and fails hilariously.

Jacob drops her home and Edward gets all angry because Jake tried to kiss his girlfriend. I find this hilarious that he's getting uppity about Jake kissing her against her will (“next time, wait for her to say the words”) when he only knows about it because he's reading minds left, right and centre (I mean, presumably?). Hey, hey Eddie. Next time you sabotage her truck, wait for her to say the words. Or, um, how about sneaking into her room and watching her sleep? Wait for her to say the words. Or forbidding her from seeing her friends. Wait for her to say the words. This is a fun game.

Anyway, Eddie and Jake have a bit of a fight and neither cover themselves in glory because they act like Bella isn't even there. Despite myself, I wait for Bella to say “hey guys, I think I kind of get a say in this”. Nope. It is to dream.

Daddy Cullen patches her up and Emmet jokes about Bella's clumsiness. I like you Emmet. Then she says she punched a werewolf in the face. No, Bella. You tried to punch a werewolf in the face. You failed hilariously. Emmet says “badass” and Rosalie walks out in a huff and I like Emmet a little less and Rosalie a little more. Of course, we then get Rosalie's backstory because Bella feels the need to confront the one person in the whole universe who doesn't think she's super-special and sparkly. Turns out Rosalie doesn't hate Bella. She envies her. Jeeeez. Turns out Rosalie was vamped back in the 20s (maybe? the flashback looks like a low-budget Gatsby remake) when her fiance and his friends apparently raped her and then beat her up which, I must admit, is pretty hard-hitting for Twilight. Or it would be if we didn't get a nice sanitised version where no actual pain is shown. Daddy Cullen was passing by and decided to vampify her because she was dying. Fine but – why doesn't he do that for everyone? He's a doctor. He must see dying people every day. Does he vamp them too? Why settle on one random chick in the 20s? Isn't it kind of worrying that the only dying people he's vamped were attractive teenagers? Anyway, we then find out Rosalie murdered her attackers horribly while wearing her wedding dress, which is so stupid and cliched, I have to laugh. But basically, Rosalie is sad because she can't have babies. Yawn.

Somehow it turns out that the Volturi – or at least Dakota Fanning – are behind this. Or something? They're there anyway. This plot is weak and confusing. I feel sleepy. And hungry.

Bella graduates and once again, Best Frenemy Jessica reinforces the idea that being a human with your whole life ahead of you is pretty great. Bella manages to miss the point spectacularly. Jacob rocks up at the grad party, apologises, and says he was an ass (when does Edward ever apologise for his actions? Like, ever?) - and then Alice takes over Jacob-cockblocking duties with a convenient vision.

It turns out the Seattle vamps are an army of newborns (i.e. new vampires) that are deadlier than the regular kind, so vampires and werewolves must team up to learn how to fight them because there is a special way or something and I don't really care because VAMPIRE WEREWOLF TRAINING MONTAGE. For some reason, Jasper is fight master and we get to see the cullers attempting to take him down one by one. I like Emmett, so obviously he doesn't succeed. I don't like Alice, so obviously she does.

We then get Jasper's backstory, which is marginally cooler than Rosalie's. Apparently he was a Confederate soldier (rocking the cowboy hat, I must say) who was vampified by some wandering women of the night in scandalously diaphanous gowns to take charge of a – shocker – army of newborns. Then he meets Alice and becomes good. Did I mention I dislike Alice? She foresaw their relationship or some such bollocks. Why? Did he decide it? Cute. Fuck off, Alice.

Bella has a dream and works out that Victoria was behind this all along. Edward says Alice would have seen it in her visions but Bella says she's hiding behind the army and letting someone else make the decisions. Wait, what? In what world does that make sense? I get that Alice sees futures when people make decisions about stuff. But didn't Victoria need to make decisions to come up with that plan? And if she's letting someone else make decisions about her little operation, how is she in charge at all? What if they make the wrong decision? This is stupid. Twilight is stupid. Jacob hasn't been onscreen for nearly ten minutes and I hate everything.

There's some kind of convoluted plan to keep Bella safe by getting Jacob to carry her around because his wolf scent will cover her Bella scent but I'm not really listening because I'm laughing at the plot contrivances that get Bella, once again, up close and personal with naked Jacob. Edward obviously isn't happy but a) he can't walk around shirtless because everyone would feel sorry for him, and b) Jacob is more capable of keeping his girlfriend safe than he is. While carrying Bella through the woods, Jacob talks about their relationship again, casually dropping the bombshells that a) he can sense how Bella feels around him (he uses the word “nervous”, presumably because “supremely horny” would endanger the PG-13 certificate) and b) he let alpha-wolf Sam become the leader of the pack because he's just that cool. Jacob Black doesn't need a pack. He's a lone wolf. He wants to run free, wild, alone through deeper and darker landscapes, experiencing fierce and savage joys no mere human could ever comprehend, as the moonlight shines off his biceps and lights his torso with a nigh-on godlike glow.

I'm going to take another shower.

Also Jasper comes back to report the success of the plan, only now he has an inexplicably Texan accent. Giss huntin' newborns jest brings the old country floodin' back, dun't it? (I don't know, I'm from Wimbledon.) Alice shows up and blithely tells Bella that she's tricked her dad (who she calls by his first name) into basically leaving Edward and Bella alone together in the Cullen house. “You're welcome,” she winks. Alice Cullen: Super Pimp.

But, of course, our chaste teenage heroes, take the opportunity, AGAIN, to talk about their relationship. Jeez. There are so many things wrong with this conversation, I don't even want to touch it but it ends with Bella begging for sex so much that she agrees to marry Edward, basically just so they can bone. Eddie does his best to outright condemn sex before marriage without ever saying the words “true love waits” by explaining that he is literally saving her soul. Oh man. This is hilarious. Wait wait, Eddie. Hey, Eddie. So it's cool that Bella stood by while hundreds of innocents were murdered in Italy before her very eyes (almost) but she can't hop on the good foot and do the bad thing with you, despite the fact that you're going to spend eternity forever anyway? Because that's going to send her to fiery damnation? By that count, she should looking forward to a good roasting on account of all the lying, not honouring her mother or her father, and she sure as hell has been indulging in a bit of coveting the local werewolf's...ass.

But wait, it gets better. He explains that he's from a different era. He wants to court Bella, and ask her father's permission to propose, and wait until they are sanctified as one in the eyes of God before indulging in sinful, lustful carnal embraces. Wait, what? THIS MAKES NO SENSE. Edward isn't even that old, for a vampire. He's 110, he says. So he was vamped some time around 1917. He only lived in that society for seventeen years before becoming, essentially, a fixed point in time, and thus fully capable of rolling with the changes of each new decade. He's not a time traveller suddenly dumped into the fast and loose ways of the 21^st century. For god's sake, the Roaring 20s started a few years later, and they weren't no church service. This is why Americans make crap vampires. They have no history to live through. Jasper's Civil War story is about as good as it gets.

Anyway, the upshot is that Bella agrees to marry Edward like we always knew she would, so all that wrangling about not wanting to be a teenage marriage statistic was pointless and token and really infuriating.

Anyway, none of this really matters because next comes my favourite scene in the whole thing. For some reason that I wasn't paying attention to, Bella is spending the fight in a tent way above the battleground. Does this mean we don't get to see the fight? BOO. Anyway. It's freezing and Edward, having the skin temperature of an ice lolly, can do nothing but watch as Bella slowly freezes to death. (On a side note – is cuddling Edward fun? Would having sex with be fun? Or just really, really cold?) But surprise, surprise, Jacob to the rescue because he comes in – shirtless, because werewolves scorn blizzards – and after a little face-off with Eddie, who has absolutely no moral ground to stand on here, jumps into Bella's sleeping bag to warm her up against his muscular, naked body. “After all,” he says to Edward, “I am hotter then you.”

Now, you;d think I might be nodding in agreement here - which I am - but mainly, this scene is just brilliantly, hilariously, unintentionally, smoulderingly homoerotic. Jacob Black, I am going to hold a ticker tape parade in your honour but you might want to stop staring at Edward with such animal intensity while you stroke Bella's hair. Things get even better when Eddie and Jake converse while Bella sleeps. “Could you please at least try to control your thoughts?” snaps Edward like a prissy vicar's wife. Jacob grins and calls him out on his mind-invasion things. Jacob Black, I love you. Stephanie Meyer didn't really write you, did she? Some poor editor who probably lives in a bedsit with two cats invented this glorious, decent, funny, strong character, and she has to sit back while you get all the credit. Poor thing. I think her name is Barbara.

They converse some more about super-sheshul Bella is and how hard it would be to lose her and yadda yadda yadda. Why? Bella has got to be the most undeserving heroine I have ever come across. I get that S Meyer wanted to create an everywoman character, someone with who the reader could easily put themselves in her place, but fuck's sake. Bella isn't even an empty frame, she's horrible and ungrateful and moody and manipulative and can't stand up for herself and apparently can't tell the difference between an abusive relationship and true love. Grrr.

Jacob insists again that she's in love with him too, she just won't admit it to herself. Jake, I don't like when you talk like this. You sound pushy. You sound desperate. You sound like Edward. Eddie admits that if they weren't natural enemies and Jacob wasn't trying to steal his “reason for living” (I thought you were dead), he might like him. Boys, boys, this sexual tension is unbearable.

Mercifully Jacob brings us back from insanity-land by telling him that even if Eddie weren't planning on vamping Bella, he still wouldn't like him. Because Edward is a whiny, fussy, uptight, over-protective, stalkery, controlling old man, and Jacob is a living god. Just so we're clear.

Next morning Edward really pulls off that gold medal in douchebaggery he's been gunning for by tricking Bella into revealing the engagement to Jacob. “He deserves to know,” he says unapologetically. Yep, it's definitely Good Ol' Jake's wellbeing that you're looking out for there. Then, just for extra credit, he tries to pull Bella back from going after him. Nice.

But then in a bid to stop Jake running off and killing himself (because apparently no-one in this series can handle a little teen heartbreak) Bella tells him to kiss her. AT LONG BLOODY LAST. And I don't even need to tell you how it's a million times hotter than Eddie's chaste fumbling, but I'll say it anyway. Because it is.

Thankfully, we do get to see the fight scene, and I have to say, it's pretty cool – even if they do manage to avoid real bloodshed by having the vampire limbs shatter like porcelain. Then again, I guess vampires don't have blood...but then where does the blood they drink go? I'm guessing they don't really have digestive systems, they don't seem to go to the bathroom or do anything too icky and bodily because then they wouldn't be so shiny and superhumanly perfect. So does the blood just sit there? Does it evaporate? Wait, how can Edward even have sex with Bella if – to put it delicately – vampires don't have circulatory systems? That's that moral dilemma solved, I guess. Huh. Vampire anatomy. Who knew.

Anyway, then Victoria and her sidekick – the one who was making all the decisions, so is technically the boss, remember? - show up and a slightly less cool fight scene occurs. A baby werewolf call Seth rips the arm off sidekick guy (it is honestly not worth learning his name), which is badass and Victoria goes to run away. Wait, what? How is this character even a villain? How is she worth three films of being the antagonist? She wants to kill Bella – Bella is right there! Edward has to goad her into coming back to fight him! For the 728^th time, this series makes zero sense.

Anyway, they fight and it looks like Eddie will lose (oh no) until Bella remembers her old campfire stories and stabs herself in the arm to distract Victoria. Well, at least she had her brain in gear for once and didn't go for the full heart-stabbing deal-y. Maybe the story woman was just super theatrical and in the moment it just felt right. So Edward rips Victoria's head off. He's still not cool though. Then he sets fire to her, which, if you recall, is the only way to kill a vampire truly and properly. Except what he does is just chuck a lighter (where did he get it? He doesn't smoke. He wasn't even supposed to be in the fight, so it's not like he was carrying it around on the off-chance he'd have to flame a vampire corpse, is it?) on her body – literally throws it through the air of a cold, windy mountaintop – and not only does it stay alight but her entire body goes WHOOSH immediately. Are vampires made of gasoline? Do they have petrol instead of blood? Is that vampire anatomy? I JUST WANT SOMETHING TO MAKE SENSE.

Alice has a vision of Dakota Fanning approaching and it sends a dread chill into her heart but then again, we all have bad memories of War of the Worlds. Then, out of nowhere, one last vamp shows up and Jacob gets half his ribs smashed. No! Use strained plot contrivances to inject some semblance of dramatic morphine into the turgid corpse of this film if you must, but leave Jacob out of it! The Volturi show up because...I honestly don't know. I think they're supposed to be some kind of vampire police but – and buckle up here, because I'm about to agree with Edward for the second time in the film – as Eddie points out, if they'd shown up half an hour earlier they could have, y'know, done their job.

Making up for lost time, the last of the newborn army gets flamed by the Volturi (the Cullens stand by and watch like the horrible apologists for murder that they are) and Dakota Fanning says the Volturi don't give second chances. Wait, what? Yes, you do! Edward – in a really stupid, half-assed way, admittedly – was prepared to reveal your existence to humanity and you let him waltz off with a coy smile and a promise to be good! You said that Bella had to become a vampire and she's still human! You – you – you are terrible antagonists! Jeeeeeeez.

Bella remembers that her best friend got half his bones smashed up for her and stops by to visit while Daddy Cullen patches him up. I'm hoping for another werewolf make-out session but instead we get – predictably – another conversation about relationships. “Edward isn't as perfect as you think,” says Jacob. “I know who he is,” says Bella. Oh, honey. I almost feel sorry for you. “I am exactly right for you,” says Jacob from his manly, sweaty bed of pain. “With me it would be as easy as breathing.” Jake, Jake, Jake, we know. We get it. But some people, y'know. It's like trying to reason with Creationists. My advice is forget her and move on. Maybe with someone with a slightly greater range of facial expression. Someone who writes a Batman-flavoured blog about pop culture and has her very own cat, perhaps.

So we finish with Bella and Edward sitting in a meadow of wildflowers talking about their wedding. Since you can probably imagine what it cost me to type that, I don't need to say much more. Edward tells her that she's giving away too much, trying to make everyone else happy. That's funny, because to me responding to queries about the guest list and reception with “who cares?” kind of suggests, I don't know, the exact opposite. Bella says that the choice between him and Jacob is "the choice between who I should be and who I am". Wait, what? THAT MAKES NO SENSE. Recognising flaws in your character is not a bad thing, Miss Bella Perfect-Special-Monster-Bait Swan, it really isn't. She continues to justify her terrible life choices by saying she's "had to face death and pain and loss in your world, but I've never felt stronger or more myself". Bella, why does everything you say make me want to hit you in the face? Here's a handy clue: if death and pain is making you feel stronger, it probably isn't really happening to you. What you mean is that a few random people you didn't really know died and now you get to make some pseudo-profound observations on life. Congratu-horrible.

“I want to tie myself to you in every humanly way possible,” says Eddie. Oh, just shag. “Starting with our wedding,” he reminds her. Jeeeez. Eddie, you've managed to cockblock yourself. You awful, awful, prudish, boring fictional creation.

And then it doesn't even end with them kissing. They just kind of...touch faces.

In conclusion, for a movie that's supposed to be the “good” one of the series, this is just horrible. It's not inadvertently funny enough to mock like the first one, nor does it have anything genuinely enjoyable about it like the second one. Great characters (Jacob) do contrived, horrible things and NONE OF THE PLOT MAKES SENSE. The fight scenes are pretty cool but they are few and far between because didn't you know? This story is about romance.

If you are acquainted with any young girls between the ages of eleven and fourteen, pay attention. Now, if you are over thirty and not related to any of them, go and take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask yourself some difficult questions. The rest of you, listen up. Do not stop your young children/sisters/cousins etc from reading and watching Twilight. It really isn't worth the sweat off your liberal, mature brows. But at the same time, try and slip them a copy of Little Women or Anne of Green Gables or Jane Eyre so that when they inevitably grow out of the franchise, good books that don't hate women will be waiting for them, along with Wuthering Heights which will deconstruct everything they ever thought was romantic.

And if, on the very small off-chance that they have not grown out of the series by the time they hit their late teens (for teenage girls are not stupid creatures, only full of hormones), if on that very small off-chance, they are seventeen and still taking the series at face value - kill them.