Although this isn't a silent picture, it acts like one. I even found myself saying, "Gee, I like a movie that reads like a book." Not just because it has the place cards like a silent film, but because it has characters reading from a book. Maybe 5 or 6 times we stop and read a page out of the vampire book with the characters. Maybe this was groundbreaking information -- Who the Vampires work for, what powers they have, how to kill them, etc. -- but reading a page of text on the screen is not the best way to use the film media. So, if you're not really into slow, 1930s pictures that don't know if they want to be silent, and don't know how to "show" more than they "tell," I wouldn't recommend this one. As one reviewer noted, it has absolutely no action. You will barely see a vampire. You will hardly see any blood. At one point, you will see a woman give a creepy smile. That's the extent of it. And I would be okay with that, but I...
After watching Part 1, I wasn't sure I'd be watching Part 2... but I'm a completionist. I needed to watch it, and to be fair, it was better... and not a horrible conclusion to the series. 1. Too many characters means no character development. They just become "The Amazon Vampires," "The Irish Vampires," etc. 2. Bella's narration. That's new, and I don't like. It's just a lazy way to give quick exposition for everything that's going on. Now, if it's Bella writing down the story for her daughter, I can almost give it a pass, but generally, that kind of voiceover is just weak. 3. Is it creepy that Jacob imprints on Bella's daughter? If he can't have Bella, and Bella's daughter grows up quickly, I guess it's okay. I suppose we should just ask Alice. At least in Part 2, I don't feel like we're waiting for stuff to happen. The pacing has picked up, and so I was into the story for the most part... nothing dragg...