Twilight Reviews

Book CoverEntertainment Weekly has a round up of reviews from all over. But I was taken with finding the most snarky element of each one. Two of my faves:

The Star-Ledger’s Stephen Whitty: In turning Meyer’s words into images, however, the movie sometimes makes them a bit absurd…. The special effects—with the undead leaping about like something from “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Vampire”—are more silly than surreal. The spiky dyed hairdos suggest metrosexual monsters who live not on blood, but styling gel. 

I have a little crush on Roger Ebert thanks to his review of Twilight: “She has questions. “How did you appear out of nowhere and stop that truck?” Well might she ask. When he finally explains that he is a vampire, he goes up from 8 to 10 on her Erotometer. Why do girls always prefer the distant, aloof, handsome, dangerous dudes instead of cheerful chaps like me?”

[Thanks to Darlynne and KatieBabs for the linkage.]

Time’s Richard Corliss: “There’s an audible shiver as they first spy the teen vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), his impossibly gorgeous face caked in a mime’s pallor, sitting in biology class next to young Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart). When he holds an apple in his hands to present to her — the novel’s cover image — the girls emit an awestruck sigh, as if they’d just seen Zac Efron in the flesh or a puppy on YouTube.”

I wish Corliss hadn’t been so quick to dismiss the cinema version as a pre-dose of “chick flick,” pairing the retro film elements of focusing on the about-to-kiss faces with the youth of the audience as some sort of rebirth of innocent cool – then tossing that rebirth into a pejorative slam against “movie estrogen.” If he hadn’t slid into sexist derision, I’d be hollering with glee about Corliss’ point, made at the end of the film: “It rekindles the warmth of great Hollywood romances, where foreplay was the climax and a kiss was never just a kiss.”

So, did you see it? What did you think?

 

Comments are Closed

  1. darlynne says:

    My sister and I saw Twilight this afternoon so she could decide whether to let her young teenagers see it. Others have mentioned the lack of any plot, the long stares and halting dialog, so all I’ll add is that it didn’t suck (ha!) as much as I expected. Also, that it was occasionally funnier than all the angst would seem to allow. My problems with the book were less noticeable in the movie, although I think adults should take a drink every time a teenage boy tells a teenage girl, “Stay away from me, I’m too dangerous, you could get hurt,” yada yada yada. Those sentiments are the crazy glue of adolescent relationships, the sure-fire-guarantee to keep ‘em coming back for more. My rating: just OK.

  2. Lynn M says:

    Well, love it or hate it, looks like the movie is successful enough that they are going forward with New Moon. Hopefully, they will get a bigger budget so the cheezy special effects problem will go away. Also, if they listen to the reviews and take to heart some of the valid criticisms, maybe the next one will be better received by the critics.

  3. Yumiko says:

    First of all, I would like to say, I loved the book.  Love love love love loved it.  I understand that it is a bad book, but I love it anyway, dammit!  It makes me happy.

    That said?  The movie was boring as all fucking get-out.  Bad acting, bad special effects, and bad directing.  Lines from the book were spouted out verbatum in emotionless monotone, wierd blur trails followed vampires running at normal speed, Edward found his inner spidey powers, and the hair and makeup artists (if you could call them that) need to be dragged out to the street and shot.

    A more elaborate review is on my blog if anyone cares to look xD

  4. Gwynnyd says:

    My bright and cynical 16 year old daughter read the book and declared it, “Silly.”  She saw the movie with a group of friends on Saturday.  When she came home, I asked her how she liked it.  With the dismissive eye-roll and shrug that only a teenager can manage, she said, “Stupid.”

    Sometime around Wednesday, I think she will cease being monosyllabic about her opinions and get garrulous.  I’m looking forward to it.

  5. Erin says:

    I know I’m the minority here, but my my friends and I loved it.

    We loved the books, not because they’re great literature, but it’s just a fun, romantic story.  We were so excited for the movie, but we didn’t have high expectations.  We knew that everything from the book couldn’t be included, so we were just hoping to see some of our favorite scenes brought to life.  And in that aspect, it didn’t disappoint.  I thought the acting was great; the characters were exactly as I’d imagined. 

    Of course there were flaws.  The hair and makeup, the way Emmett had like, one line- but like I said, we didn’t expect it to be perfect.  I do think that you shouldn’t waste your time seeing this movie if you haven’t seen the book.  I read a review somewhere that mentioned how the romance between Edward and Bella was so poorly developed.  Looking back, I can see that.  Having read the book, I knew about all the conversations they had and how their relationship slowly evolved.  But if I had just seen the movie, I wouldn’t understand why they fell in love.  There are lot of things about the movie that don’t make sense if you don’t have the background knowledge.

  6. Ann Bruce says:

    Also, if they listen to the reviews and take to heart some of the valid criticisms, maybe the next one will be better received by the critics.

    Kind of hard to do if they want to stick closely to the source material.

    works13 – I guess it does work for 13-year-old girls.

  7. Yumiko says:

    Erin:  I, personally, thought the acting was emotionless, but there really is one scene that drives that home for me.  It was the scene with charlie, before the flee from james.  Me?  I read that scene and saw Bella frantic with worry and emotion, screaming at charlie, slamming doors, stomping up the stairs in a way that any teenage girl in a high-stress situation would act.  Even the quiet ones.  In her room with Edward, I expected rushed frantic packing, her concern for him, his for her, guilt at what she was going to do, and if her words would be the last she said to him before he died….

    What did I get?  Flat, boring “acting” that had me half expect the actors to pull out the book and start reading it out loud word for word with no emotion.  That was one of my favorite scenes, because of all the excitement.  It was severely SEVERELY disappointed with it.

    But that was just me.  What was your take on it?

  8. Erin says:

    Yumiko, I agree with you about that scene; it could have been much more dramatic.  Although I remember thinking that the last thing she said to Charlie before she left was good.  I felt the same way about the part where she slips away from Alice and Jasper to go to the dance studio.  It was so boring in the movie.  It would have been much more exciting to see her race through the airport, trying to get away before Alice has a vision of her doing it.  There were a lot of things I wasn’t crazy about, but like I said, I was just happy to see some of my favorite parts from the book come to life.

    I should have been more specific in my comment about the acting.  I thought Robert Pattinson was great.  That look on his face during biology, where he looked like he was going to throw up when Bella walked in?  Hilarious.  My friend commented today that Kristen Stewart was just kind of twitchy and boring, and I kinda agree with her.

  9. Alisha Rai says:

    My sister sent me this twilight spoof…I think this young actress actually emotes better than the wooden kristen stewart.



  10. Dee Cee says:

    I read all the crappy reviews and knew what to expect. I liked the books and like Erin said, not because they were flawless masterpieces.

    So when I watched it this morning…I didn’t have any expectations of grandeur. I loved it. Every single cheesy line (which sounded cheesy in the book to), the crappy acting, awful directing/editing, terrible music, hilarious glitter and missing pants. 🙂

    I’ll probably see it again when it hits the cheapo theaters, and will most likely buy it when it hits WalMart. 🙂

  11. Kell says:

    I also think Annette Krause’s “The Silver Kiss” is a better vampire book than “Twilight”

    Susan, I totally agree.  I read “The Silver Kiss” in Junior High when it first came out.  Best angsty teen vampire book ever!  Haven’t seen the movie and not planning on it.  I couldn’t even get through the first book.

  12. Mistress says:

    Just got home from twilight and had to give you guys the scoop on the flick while it was still fresh in my mind. The best description of this movie are these reactions I overheard from the gaggle of tween fans sitting in front of me dressed in their vamp prom costume finery .So with out further ado I’ll quote their comments during the film :
    1)wtf… why? ewwwww
    2)OMG they all look like zombie crackheads
    3)tween A: wait he wasn’t gay in the book..
    tween b: nope, wait…. are they playing with string.this sucks.
    4) dont touch her!!!! ( shrieked during a kissing scene)
    5) Ok I know he’s dead and all; but eyeliner much!
    6) he needs to not do that with his face ( my personal fav)

    Now for my review:
    They changed the events sequence, how they happened, and where so they could hit every signature moment and phrase that the fans loved.. and in a a few instances just made some sh$t up,lmao. The film was sloppy, badly edited, & retarded. Now on to the music..ah the music, I have never seen so many sappy music montages in one film….. oh and btw in addition to the gratuitous montages; they also constantly play M. Night Shamalan tinged disturbing dramatic music super loud out of the blue coupled with these random creepy staring shots . Every attempt at tension filled romance is just absurd and laughable. Throughout Edward comes off as a sociopath stalker. Personally I wouldn’t sit next to him on the train. Carsile looked like he was a living marshmallow, his face had this odd puffy & pasty thing going on. Emitt seemed fine enough but I only lack material to poke fun because he was only allowed to speak once. Where poor jasper had a blue steele constipated face the whole film.. I don’t remember him being allowed to speak at all. Also somehow in a town of 3,000 in north bubble f#ck Forks is now magically as ethnically diverse as NYC . Oh yeah and all the teens in this nowhereville town are dressed in designer clothes, all have perfect blindingly white cookie cutter veneers, and 400 dollar haircuts. So in short twilight is above and beyond horrible but highly enjoyable because of how awful it is.

  13. Robin says:

    I’ve been talking about this with a friend who is also disgusted by the condescending tone to a lot of the reviews (especially by the male contingent).  I suggested that the problem is that as we grow up we are encouraged to sublimate that yearning to be recognized as special despite our ordinariness (as well as feeling omnipotent), and perhaps there’s a certain resentment in the way Meyer has tapped into that sensibility like a vividly pulsing vein, a recoiling from that overt emotionalism. 

    One question I’ve been contemplating, though, with the finale of True Blood tonight (which has both transcended and failed Harris’s series, IMO), is how much Sookie and Bella are similar in some ways—both wanting to be recognized as special, to be valued as “The One” by “The One,” both going through an adolescent phase (both virgins and both de-virginized by a vamp).  But as Sookie moves through her experiences with the vamps et al, she gains a great deal more personal agency, while Bella seems to lose personal agency (how many important decisions are made without her conscious acquiescence?). 

    Is that a difference in genre (Romance v. fantasy), or is it that Harris has adopted more the male-centered quest story for Sookie, or is it something else?  Whatever the case, I have to say I’m fascinated by the whole dynamic in Meyer’s books and the way they are IMO such clear examples of paranormal inspy Romance—and I wonder if they bring some things about the genre into relief in ways that both appeal and unsettle.  Even as I’ve gotten increasingly bored by the books themselves I’ve found the phenom more and more compelling (especially the morality tale that develops and IMO starts to take over everything else in the books).

  14. SB Sarah says:

    I suggested that the problem is that as we grow up we are encouraged to sublimate that yearning to be recognized as special despite our ordinariness (as well as feeling omnipotent), and perhaps there’s a certain resentment in the way Meyer has tapped into that sensibility like a vividly pulsing vein, a recoiling from that overt emotionalism.

    I think that’s fascinating – I’m like you, Robin. I’m more fixated on the reaction and the fan culture than the narrative itself. I stopped reading after book 1, knowing from reading reviews of book 4 that I wouldn’t like where the story went.

    But in looking at that one specific quote I highlighted above, doesn’t romance as a genre tap into that Yearning for Specialness over and over again? Fantasy, too? I’m not nearly caffeinated enough to fully articulate over here (and HOLY DUDE IT IS EARLY FOR YOU WTF) but perhaps it’s not just the romance and the emotions and the sex that make romance such an easy target, which they do, obviously. Perhaps romance and the fantasy genre take it on the chin over and over because they also tap into that repressed desire to be distinguished and allow a venue for re-experiencing it.

    What also strikes me are the venues which are socially appropriate for that distinguished Specialness, i.e. achieving or accomplishing something extraordinary is one thing, vs. the ones that are not so acceptable, judging from the snide tone you referenced. That’s Specialness by Just Showing Up, and smelling like delectable vampire catnip. Bella’s specialness is akin to royalty – an accident of birth that makes her More Special than everyone else. I think the fascination with the series is similar to the fascination with all royal families for that reason.

    more caffeine now.

  15. Mistress says:

    Hey Robin,
    first I have to say I’ve never seen the True Blood Series described in a more apt way.Hmm in terms of male discontent in general twilight the novel isn’t a book I’d suggest to any of my male friends. Less because it’s a love story more because it’s whiny = ). Meyers did capture the subtleties of youthful infatuation and love. But twilight the movie is a whole different beast. IMO the film itself has made almost any genuine positive review impossible. None of those magical elements Meyers created were present in this reincarnation. And when you surgically remove all the complex feelings and story building you’re next with just a frightening codependent almost pedophilic emotionally abusive relationship. As a woman who’s been awaiting this movie for a year and has read all the books and owns all the audio books; this film provokes anger in me because it’s insulting to the intelligence of us fans. To the non fans this is just further proof that we fans are mental. Like they feel if this is the epic love story we’ve been mooning about for years, that were in desperate need of a Rhett Butler style slap to bring us back from the abyss. IMO they mean well.

    Other than having their cherries popped by children of the night, Bella and Sookie couldn’t be more different. Bella is just a normal girl who falls in love with a dangerous boy/man ; loses her virginity after being sucker into marriage at 18 = /. Where Sookie is a 24 year old woman who was sexually abused as a child & has never been able to experience intimacy because of a disability; who finally finds a “type” of men she can date and have relations with.. everything after is her growing up, rolling with the punches of life, and the consequence that her interracial/interspecies dating brings in it’s wake. Though it’ not the difference between romance and fantasy , because both of these books are in the same fantasy genre. Meyers fantasy just comes from a more helpless to the winds happenstance perspective. For me it raises questions of the P.C. morals she force feeding teens that sex before marriage has no place in “real” love, that’s some parents gobble up with a spoon. But in so doing gave a how to manual for young girls to lose their sense of self and legally bind themselves to the first tom, dick, or harry they have a crush on as a romantic litmus test. That less the difference of genres;more author perspective.

    But Urban Fantasy in particular have it’s own genre subsection trademarks . Romance heroines can be any type ( Infamous Mistresses, naïve virgins, recovering ex wives, scheming regency match makers) no matter the sub section the characters and stories can run the gamut; from the projectile vomit of” Whitney, My Love” by Judith McNaught ( btw no offence to anyone who liked this book but constant mind f#cks, abuse and rape did not make me squee with joy) to the brilliance of “Your Scandalous Ways” by Loretta Chase. In (Urban)fantasy there is a definite tend toward strong women with special skills or abilities grabbing life by the balls (literally or metaphorically) and in the process stumbling over a delicious male specimen that is then absorbed into “her story” and life goes on. Which done well is the ultimate exciting escapism experience and done poorly sucks harder than anything should ever be able to suck.I guess the biggest difference btwn Bells and Sook is that hough Bella narrates the novels, This story never was hers. It’s a poetic retelling of everything that brought her to, consumed her about, and kept her with Edward. She was absorbed and assimilated into his collective and then they lived happy after.

  16. Suze says:

    Here’s a review from a male (Scott Mendelson) on Huffingtonpost.com:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mendelson/sure-twilight-may-be-sexi_b_145871.html

    (Sorry, I have no linky skills)

    Here’s the (lengthy) money quote, as far as I’m concerned:

    The problem, and the key to understanding why the story is offensive to some people, is that the core of the romantic drama revolves around two contradictory and troubling connotations. On one hand, Edward keeps telling Bella that he cannot control himself around her, that she is putting herself in danger. Thus the sexual wiles of Bella is endangering all around her, because Edward may or may not be able to control his own lethal desires. But, wait, he is also protective of her, and the movie seems to imply (by her constant run-ins with lethal danger from outside forces) that she cannot take care of herself and must be guarded and watched at all times. Edward states both of these notions outright during the course of the movie.

    There are two main classic cultural myths of females, two false assumptions that have been used as the definitive excuses to subjugate and disenfranchise women for centuries in all manner of societies. The first is that women are devious and reckless creatures who tempt men who can’t control themselves. As a result of these fiendish seducers, the weak but noble men do all manner of vice and corruption, deeds that without the temptation of the women they would not have even considered. But, wait, they are also weak-willed and emotionally fragile creatures that cannot care for themselves and must be protected from peril and shielded from emotional complication (‘the fairer sex’). Whether accidentally or intentionally, Twilight revolves around both stereotypes.

    Ok, so assuming that the narrative of Twilight is sexist and does play into classic myths that have excused female domination, does that make the film sexist, or merely the very sort of fantasy that it wants to be? As I discussed a few months back (when discussing Sex & The City: The Movie), the core elements of female fantasy is the idea of shirking responsibility, throwing caution to the wind, and living out all of your selfish desires without major consequences. Comparatively, the male escapist fantasy involves immature boys who man up just a little bit, take responsibility, and use their talents to save lives, make a difference, and win the girl without having to make any true concessions to their character and personality (think Iron Man).

  17. Alpha Lyra says:

    Suze, thanks for posting. That review was really interesting, as was his review of “Sex and the City” where he talks at length about male and female escapist fantasy and why they are so different.

    For what it’s worth, the fact that “Twilight” is a female escapist fantasy is not what bothers me about the book; after all, “Pride and Prejudice” and many other romances I love follow the same pattern. What bothers me about “Twilight” is its misogyny.

  18. Robin says:

    But in looking at that one specific quote I highlighted above, doesn’t romance as a genre tap into that Yearning for Specialness over and over again?

    Yeah, which is why we see a lot of the same condescension from those who see the genre as infantalizing or as adolescent in its idealism, IMO.  We just don’t see many mainstream reviews of Romance the way we do of Meyer’s film—reviews from those who may understand the genre of film, but not Meyer’s books, to which the film is apparently *extremely* faithful.  I suspect there’s a similar phenomenon, too, from all the women who claim they’d *never* read a Romance but who are mainlining Meyer, lol.

    Hmm in terms of male discontent in general twilight the novel isn’t a book I’d suggest to any of my male friends. Less because it’s a love story more because it’s whiny = ).

    I know it’s technically fantasy, but IMO the series is *pure* Romance—inspy Romance, in fact, whereas Harris’s series IMO conforms much more faithfully to UF.  But in any case, YES on the whininess, especially as the series moves into the second and third books, when Bella is rushing headlong into these decisions she’s nowhere near mature enough to make. 

    I still think there’s more to be mined in the Sookie/Bella thing, but right now I’m more fascinated by the double bind I think Meyer was in.  If Bella is to be completely fulfilled in her wishes, she must give up her humanness, but to do that risks her humanity and all the values (IMO Christian values) pushed in the story (embodied in the Christ-like Carlisle).  So IMO what Meyer has to do to get around the loss of Bella’s immortal soul is two-fold:  elevate the vamps in Carlisle’s family to *exceed* human goodness (sanctify them, basically) and make Bella a somewhat passive participant in receiving what she wants most.  It’s IMO the reason Bella’s whole being is this giant wish-fulfillment fantasy, a synergistic effect of the Romance and the religiosity.  Consequently, Bella’s turning becomes part of the sacrificial imagery around Carlisle’s group and an elevation into something *better* than what she’s lost by becoming non-human.  I’m trying to resist the imagery of LDS vampires, here, but I guess that’s generally where I’m going here.

  19. Lynn M says:

    I saw it today. I wrote some extensive thoughts here, but net, net, I enjoyed the movie for what it was. I wasn’t expecting an Oscar contender, just as I wasn’t expecting a Pulitzer prize winning experience when I picked up the books. Both books and movie satisfied my need to escape into a fantasy story for the length of time they lasted, and given the movie’s limited budget, I think a lot was accomplished.

    Since I haven’t delved too deeply into the psychology of Bella and Edward’s dysfunctional relationship, I haven’t been bothered by it. I take this story with the same grain of fantasy salt as I do when I read any other fiction, especially romance. I have no idea what Meyer’s intentions were, but in the end, I often wonder if we readers are attributing a lot more to her characters than she ever intended. Granted, much of the fun is digging deep and having these fascinating discussions. But in the end, I see it all as harmless entertainment.

  20. Ange says:

    Robin, I had never thought about Twilight in that way before but I was wondering when someone would liking Stepheine Meyer’s writing to the bible. It was only a matter of time and it makes sense. Carlisle is God, Edward is Jesus and Bella is the Cullen’s “flock” waiting to be baptized (turned into a vampire) and accepted into Carlisle’s (God’s) heaven.
    From another perspective, Edward and Bella could be replacement for Joseph and Mary, Bella being anointed by Edward and having the holy (vampire) child.

    …Interesting indeed.

  21. Lee Rowan says:

    Didn’t see it, won’t see it – no interest in vamps.  Also, I’ve read that the author is Mormon, and is planning to donate 10% of her proceeds to the LDS church as part of their required tithing… and Prop 8 has made me conscious of where the money comes from that is used to deny folks equal rights.  Even if this is not the case, well… sparkly vampire stalkers? not my cup of … wine.

  22. Lillie says:

    That’s Specialness by Just Showing Up, and smelling like delectable vampire catnip. Bella’s specialness is akin to royalty – an accident of birth that makes her More Special than everyone else. I think the fascination with the series is similar to the fascination with all royal families for that reason.

    Harry Potter is the same, though – not only is his being a wizard in the first place an accident of birth, but he is a Very Special Wizard only because he happened to be in the right (or wrong) place at the right time and got that scar on his forehead. But what makes HP different is that Harry not only IS Special, but he fights a long and arduous battle to deserve his Specialness (though not necessarily for that reason). I suppose the disappointment and anger directed at Breaking Dawn have a lot to do with that. Unconsciously or not, people were expecting Bella to prove her worth. Show her inner nobility. Since time immemorial, the most uber-passive drippy special-because-they-smell-good heroines have at least proven their inner nobility by being capable of great saintly sacrifices… which Bella obviously isn’t.

    It’s not enough for royalty to be Special, just because; if we recognise someone as royal – or as vampire catnip – we (again, unconsciously or not) expect that inner worthiness to shine through at some point. I mean, that’s what we expect from real royal families, too. Their behaviour is held to an impossible standard by modern standards: they’re reviled for any minor public faux pas, for failed marriages, and even for marrying girls who have ex-boyfriends (the horror!!!) when statistically speaking it’s a wonder so many of them stay married for so long and don’t check in and out of rehab.

  23. Melissa S. says:

    I saw it and the only part that made me really think about how against the book I am was when Edward made the comment that he’d been in Bella’s room watching her sleep. All the girls tittered with laughter and I was just creeped out. Most of what I didn’t like was just the movie on its own without the connection of the book. The shakey camera, Bella heaving and Edward looking constipated for the first part of the movie really just made me laugh obnoxiously.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top