Bitchin' Blog Posts
Twilight Reviews
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | November 21, 2008 | Friday at 8:36 pm | 63 Comments
Entertainment 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?
Marta Acosta said on 11.21.08 at 08:43 PM • [link]
Now, I love the snark more than I should, but I kinda have an issue with middle-aged male reviewers trashing on the longing and yearning in “Twilight.” These are the same bozos who will give raves to violent male fantasy crapfests because they appeal to their idea of cool. Surely there are young women reviewers who could have been assigned by newspapers to critique this film. Actually, I’ve always had an issue with magazines and newspapers because reviews are overwhelming dominated by men.
Nancy D'Inzillo said on 11.21.08 at 09:29 PM • [link]
I haven’t seen it, but I have a friend who’s a huge fan of the Twilight Series that went to see it at the midnight showing and the 2:30 am showing. She was supposed to get home around 6am. There’s a devoted reader base for you.
I can’t say I’m not somewhat intrigued to watch it, if only because I had a huge crush on Robert Pattinson in his incarnation as Cedric Diggory, but I guess I like my erotic tension fulfilled in more than just a kiss. Unless I’m watching something set in the days of Jane Austen or earlier (and even sometimes then sex is nice, because even then it DID happen), I feel like, “if a kiss is not just a kiss,” then why not make visible about what we all know is going on off stage?
Thanks for the Ebert link. I never thought to analyze a vampire’s resistance to bite a beloved someone as a metaphor for abstinence. Good stuff.
Jessica said on 11.21.08 at 09:36 PM • [link]
I agree with Marta Acosta’s point. Would like to see reviews from folks other than squeeing teens and middle aegd men.
SB Sarah said on 11.21.08 at 09:44 PM • [link]
I would love to go see it. Only problem: lack of available babysitters.
Joanne said on 11.21.08 at 10:07 PM • [link]
Oh, me too on the little Roger Ebert crush, because even though his reviews have pissed me off many times he’s just so freakin’ sweetly earnest about his work. But alas, many of us do prefer “dangerous dudes” when it comes to romantic fiction. Real life: nah, too much effort most of the time.
At my age there’s a certain “ick” factor for me about reading YA stories, it’s nothing about the authors or the books themselves, just that my choices for reading pleasure are more *cough* mature. So I didn’t read the books. I don’t want to read the books. I absolutely, positively don’t want to see the movie but I think Marta Acosta’s suggestion is right on the money.
Age and gender often color how we see certain entertainment….. personally I’m still trying to figure out the love-fest for Rap Music so I certainly couldn’t review it.
Tina C. said on 11.21.08 at 10:14 PM • [link]
As requested, a review from a distinctly squee-free woman:
http://movies.msn.com/movies/pmg/twilight-review/
Don’t miss the second page—it’s kind of hidden amongst other links at the bottom of the page. One of my favorite lines from the review?
“Without giving it away, one might wish Bella used a more effective deodorant. It would save all sorts of problems.”
Hee!
Meagan said on 11.21.08 at 10:18 PM • [link]
I dragged my best bud to a midnight screening last night. I was disappointed by the lack of crazy tweens in prom dresses. It’s bad. Really, really bad. Awesomely bad. Try not to sit next to a fangirl or she may kick you for laughing too much.
Edward looks like he’s going to puke the first time he sees Bella
The sparkly CGI made him look like he’d sprouted radioactive cilia all over his body
Jasper looks constipated every time he’s on camera
And the sexiest vamp in the whole damn movie is James, fer cryin’ out loud.
I really, really hope it breaks all kinds of box office records, because if the redonkulous birth scene from Breaking Dawn absolutely has to be immortalized on film
SB Sarah said on 11.21.08 at 10:20 PM • [link]
I’m particularly enamored of this last paragraph from the movies.msn review:
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. You have to learn to do that for yourself - to be your own biggest fan. Hard for girls in adolescence. Hell. Hard for girls in their 30s.
Tina M. said on 11.21.08 at 10:20 PM • [link]
I’m waiting to see it after the teens and their lovesick mothers have gotten over it, but my local radio station played a small clip of it and I don’t know…it sounded as if the actors were reading straight of the book. Sounded so flat and unemotional. I hope the movie has more flesh to it than that.
Tina C. said on 11.21.08 at 10:32 PM • [link]
I just found “Twilight”: The Lost Script! I am trying desperately hard to not roar from laughter, as I’m at work. It’s written by the same woman that did the review.
An excerpt:
“EDWARD: She is so wobbly! If I weren’t holding her like this, she would fall over. Do you think she has an undiagnosed inner ear infection? Carlisle could prescribe some antibiotics. I will ask him to do so immediately. Otherwise, Bella might die and then the rest of my immortality would be a prison of sorrows.”
SonomaLass said on 11.21.08 at 11:00 PM • [link]
I have had a little crush on Roger Ebert for a long time. He’s one of the few reviewers published widely who is usually able to judge a movie based on appropriate criteria—he takes each one on its own terms, and critiques it based on what it’s trying to do. I’m rather surprised that he didn’t take an adolescent girl along to review this one, as he often enlists kids for kids’ movies. Maybe he figured there would be plenty of them there, and he could probably tell whether or not they liked it.
In general, though, I agree with Marta that the real issue is whether this movie appeals to the demographic at which it is aimed, and that’s obviously NOT middle-aged men. If fans of the book like it, and if it attracts some people who didn’t read the book, then it will be a big commercial success.
My son’s girlfriend, 16, saw the midnight show last night with friends; I expect to hera her reaction after school today. My own teenage daughter is seeing it “later” she liked the first three books, and she likes Robert Pattinson a lot, but the movie’s not at the top of her agenda.
As for the Perfect Boyfriend fantasy, she assures me that she and her friends are all well aware that it’s just that, a fantasy. You know, like a lot of the books we read? “Duh, Mom, he’s a vampire!” So while there are obviously an unstable few who blur the line, I can testify that the teenage girls I know are well aware that there are no real boys like that, nor would they want one.
And if they DO end making all four books into films, maybe they can get the director of the Saw movies to help with the childbirth scene?
darlynne said on 11.21.08 at 11:13 PM • [link]
My respect for Roger Ebert went off the charts with this one review. I don’t always agree with him, but he understood this story, IMO, and the emotional excess so much a part of the teenage years. We don’t need to get into the way-back machine to remember what it was like to be in love with being in love. Or, something even more seductive, the idea that someone finds us deeply and desperately desirable. My problem with the book was what Joanne described above as the “ick” factor: Edward was too stalker-ish for this middle-aged woman.
Marsha said on 11.21.08 at 11:18 PM • [link]
I went to the midnight showing with a friend who didn’t want to go alone and found it to be a highly pleasant way to spend a couple hours. I haven’t read the books and so had no preconceived (or imagined) ideas about what I’d see. Moreover, I have a low tolerance for the handwringing and despair over What Twilight is Teaching Girls.
So. Yes, it was nice. I don’t believe every movie has to be a perfect symphony of effects as long as what I’m seeing supports what I’m thinking - in this the movie does well. Sure, in the cold light of day much of the plot is utter BS, but so is Star Wars, and I had no trouble suspending disbelief while in the moment. I read Edward as courtly and unsure of himself in this new territory of attraction to a mortal and Bella as a bit bemused at how her life’s been moving along and not shy about calling Edward on his crap even while she refuses any path but the one she alone chooses.
I’m trying to decide if I should read the book now.
points67 - I could probably make that many points, but I have a meeting in 15 minutes.
Meggrs said on 11.21.08 at 11:27 PM • [link]
OMG, Tina C.!
“Can’t hear you. Earbuds.”
Hee! That made my Friday.
Kathsan said on 11.21.08 at 11:48 PM • [link]
I only became an “adult” recently, within the last few years, but what I have to say about Edward is, again, that he was way too stalkerish for me. I understand the appeal that he and other alpha-male heroes have; I mean, it would be really nice to have a guy so completely head-over-heels in love with you that he hangs on your every word and does cheesy things for you that no actual human would ever dream of doing. It’s fun to read about, and there’s no harm there. But honestly, given the choice between Edward and a normal decent nice funny guy, I’d choose him over Edward any day.
I think my turning point was when Edward took the engine out of her car or something. If I were Bella I would’ve bitch-slapped him halfway to hell for that.
Marta Acosta said on 11.21.08 at 11:54 PM • [link]
I met Roger Ebert once at a shindig. He was very nice and funny. I don’t always agree with his reviews since he is so very nice, and I’m not.
Thanks, Tina C., for the parents review from the un-squeeful writer.
I found this assessment valuable: “It’s this sort of stunt (along with a constantly churning soundtrack and lingering scenes of Bella and Edward on their backs in a field of wildflowers) that makes this movie feel more like a marketing device or ‘80s music video than an artistic statement by itself.”
Perhaps I’ll just watch Robin Sparkles sing “Sandcastles in the Sand”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgBMFwVeIGIMarta Acosta said on 11.21.08 at 11:58 PM • [link]
Let me try that link again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgBMFwVeIGI
“Thought I could fly when you held my hand,
You’re good at pull-ups and have radical hair
I hate my dad, he’s so unfair.”
Hortense Powdermaker said on 11.22.08 at 12:07 AM • [link]
Tina C., thanks for the link! Great picture of the Cullen ‘do it all its reverse mullet glory. I suggest a name for that style: cullet. Because it’s a party-in-the-front, business-in-the-back kind of cut.
For more lulz see Growing Up Cullen
Marta Acosta said on 11.22.08 at 12:36 AM • [link]
Salon’s Stephanie Zacharek wrote an interesting, really smart review of the movie.
“The vibe of ‘Twilight’ is one of erotic innocence—which is not to say it’s un-erotic. When I was a little girl and just falling in love with the Beatles, I heard them sing the line ‘I’d rather see you dead, little girl, than to be with another man,’ in ‘Run for Your Life,’ and it horrified me…I don’t think the meaning of the line—a line that walks right up to the tiger’s cage of romantic obsession—was completely lost on me: Even then I could see that love was a danger as well as a pop daydream.”
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2008/11/21/twilight/index.html
Melissa said on 11.22.08 at 01:14 AM • [link]
Oh holy geez! I’ve never read any of the books, have no desire to see the movie, but this fake script had me laughing out loud repeatedly! Thank you very much for sharing, Tina C!
karmelrio said on 11.22.08 at 01:28 AM • [link]
Um… Edward Cullen totally swiped my ‘do.
This is too, too much.
Marianne McA said on 11.22.08 at 03:10 AM • [link]
It’s not out in the UK till December - school breaks up at lunchtime on the last day of term, so my daughter & her friends are planning to go to the cinema that afternoon.
Don’t think it’ll matter whether it’s good or bad - they’ve been waiting so long that they’ll just enjoy the event.
Lynn M said on 11.22.08 at 04:24 AM • [link]
I’m going to go see it with a friend on Tuesday, at noon, when the squealing fans are back in school. Doesn’t matter what movie it is, I never find it enjoyable when shared with a theater full of texting, talking, squeeing teenagers.
I’ve been readings scads of reviews, and I am surprised (I shouldn’t be) by how many negative reviews are the result of the critic being a male/non-teen who bashes the fan-girlishness of everyone so obsessed with this series and movie. These are the same “men” who glorify every form of male fan-boy fodder, yet they act like something girls/women get obsessively fannish about is so much garbage, and those who admit to liking it are simply stupid and silly.
I know movie critics have the job of watching every movie, regardless of genre or whether or not the movie is aimed at them demographically. But shouldn’t a good movie critic approach a movie with an open mind rather than predisposed to hate the movie because they found the source material not their cup of tea? It’s like me going to a Saw movie - and I hate, HATE, this genre with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns - and saying the movie sucks because it’s gory and scary. If they are unable to be objective, they shouldn’t review it. And if they find genuine fault - this movie isn’t perfect - they should be specific and not just condemn it for existing in the first place.
CharmedKim said on 11.22.08 at 06:16 AM • [link]
I really liked it! There was a lot of giggling, on my behalf, and some squeeing, also on my behalf. But, despite the silliness and cheesiness, it was fun and enjoyable.
Willa said on 11.22.08 at 07:26 AM • [link]
I don’t think anyone’s actually posted this link to the review on the Jezebel site yet:
http://jezebel.com/5095580/twilight-at-midnight-smells-like-teen-spirit?skyline=true&s=i
I’m pretty sure the reviewer is neither middle-aged nor a man, but I could be wrong.
(sorry if this has already been posted, didn’t see it anywhere)
Ehren said on 11.22.08 at 07:28 AM • [link]
There are redeeming features of this story. It’s brain numbingly stupid and the writing is substandard. Why the heck make a movie of it? I admit, the previews look all right, cool even, but previews do not make a good movie. I’m surprised they had enough plot to even make a movie! There IS NO PLOT WHATSOEVER. Not even from a teenage perspective can I understand how this would be entertaining unless the people reading it either just really really enjoy cheesy, old school Harlequins made for teens or they’ve all suffered from what I’ve been calling “the dumbing down of Americans”.
Seriously, all this fuss about the movie is grating on my nerves because they keep trying to claim it’s the “next Harry Potter” and SMeyer is “the next J.K. Rowling” and the girls that love this series seem to enjoy trying to put it up on a pedestal and call it a “saga” and claim SMeyer is a genius for writing it. No, she isn’t and quite frankly it’s insulting to think that these people think she’s a genius when I know amateurs who write better. Hell, I could write better, but then saying that is like saying I can write better than a seventh grader failing English class. Not that big of a leap.
My friends who have read it or are reading it like I am are disgusted with it and its popularity. :D Which is why I’ve taken to writing in the margins with a great big nasty red pen and underlying every thing I have a problem with or something to snark at. Which is a lot. Right now, Edward has gained the nicknames “Superman” and “Failed Jedi” for his failed Jedi mind-tricks in trying to convince Bella that she should stop asking questions and the fact that SMeyer conveniently makes her vampires not so much fast healers but completely indestructible. (Their skin is made of a crystal that is harder than diamonds and the cells are lubricated with venom, their internal organs are made of the same crystalline structure and lubricated with venom, their body fluids are fully replaced with venom, their eyes are crystalline and lubricated with venom… ect.) Even the most innovative of vampires is still possessing the same body qualities of a human before they were turned. This not only makes the WAH-mpires not vampires, but I have the theory that they are actually from another galaxy and they crash landed here and were mistaken for vampires. Thus the aliens breed through infecting others to be like them, their “venom” changing the complete cellular structure of the human being they infected and make them just like them.
Too bad SMeyer doesn’t have my brain, or she might actually make an interesting story.
Hazel Designs said on 11.22.08 at 07:39 AM • [link]
I’ll be seeing it tomorrow!!!! Finally!
Lyra said on 11.22.08 at 09:24 AM • [link]
There’s a Twilight clip floating around YouTube (six minutes culminating in the sparkling scene), and I have to say that the acting looks terrible. Purple prose sounds bad when spoken, but the actors seem to have the collective emotive capacity of a teaspoon.
Also, when Edward says “Say it… I want you to say it out loud,” I just keep thinking of Allyson Hannigan in American Pie going “Say my name, bitch!” and that just ruined the effect.
Personal favorite snark snippet:
If only Twilight were more like its spiritual inspiration, Romeo and Juliet, then at least its lovebird protagonists would eventually wind up taking an eternal dirt nap. - Slant
(I agree, the entire Twilight series could have benefitted with some actual loss and suffering on the protagonists’ part)
I also really love this review from Metromix Chicago, because while the reviewer specified that he was reviewing the movie and not the book, his complaints are exactly the problems I have with the book:
The term “meh” was added to the dictionary this week, and just in time. Hardwicke assumes audiences know everything about everything and thus never establishes the good or bad vampires’ agenda ...; if Bella has any personality outside of loving Edward…; or why the vampires play baseball…when tennis or soccer would be so much less of a hassle.
Shay said on 11.22.08 at 09:25 AM • [link]
Caught a matinee of “Twilight” with my teenage daughter. Marketed with teens in mind, I enjoyed it (although this enjoyment might have had something to do with my daily dose of Prozac). It is an angsty, but watchable film, with beautiful scenery, likeable cast, and easy, familiar story to follow.
Think Michael Mann’s cover of “Last of the Mohicans”, substitute gorgeous North Carolina mountain scenery with equally gorgeous Washington forestry, exchange heroine, Colonel’s daughter Cora of the long windswept tresses, for Sheriff’s daughter, Bella of the long windswept tresses. Exchange many prolonged close ups of yearning from hunky Hawkeye, with vampager Edward, and exchange pursuit and hand to hand combat with Mohawk and evil Huron warriors, to good vampire versus evil vampire. Finally, keep music video style filming, and that pretty much sums up the “Twilight” experience.
Unlike my teenager, I hadn’t read the books, so I could watch the movie without too many complaints (which were reserved for the special effects, which I found less Crouching Tiger, and more Roadrunner “meep, meep†cartoon).
Mel L. said on 11.22.08 at 10:48 AM • [link]
I saw it this afternoon-at an early bird rate or else I wouldn’t have gone. Look, I read the books and thought eh…. So I went into the movie not expecting great things…hey, if they weren’t there in the books, they weren’t coming from anywhere else…especially after seeing those cheesy, angsty trailers.
However, I was pleasantly surprised by just how awful this movie was. I mean, I was laughing through most of it-the effects, the awkward brooding, the stilted, cheesy dialogue. It was truly MST3K worthy- I went with a friend and we did our own version of robots in the corner of the screen. This movie was so bad-it was good. Don’t get me wrong, it had some awwww moments, but they were few and far between and the interesting characters…Edward’s family and Jacob and his dad…were not seen or heard from for more than a couple of minutes.
But, yeah, I recommend seeing this movie. You’ll have a ton of laughs, a barrel of eye rolls, and a general feeling of WTF-ish-ness. Definitely worth the 6 bucks.
loonigrrl said on 11.22.08 at 12:57 PM • [link]
I just saw it with a group of friends. I enjoyed it, but not because it was a good film. The acting was pretty wooden at times and the dialogue was just bad.
However, the two actors still managed to have some chemistry on screen and the kid playing Edward does know how to give those smoldering looks-sometimes in a way over the top and cheesy kind of way, but smoldering nonetheless.
And when Edward sees her in class and visibly flinches before holding his hand over his mouth and looking like he was going to throw up? Awesome. My group and I were roaring with laughter.
Treva Harte said on 11.22.08 at 04:14 PM • [link]
My cynical fourteen-year-old daughter saw it with a group of friends and said it was “Magik-licious.” She did enjoy the commentary of the audience as much as the movie, however, particularly that one loudly commenting guy stormed out after another guy screamed at him, “You think this is a effing joke?” And that the girlfriend trotted after the departing BF.
Also one lone boy went with her group of girlfriends to see the movie. Now THAT is love.
Marsha said on 11.22.08 at 04:38 PM • [link]
When I went? No squealing, no commenting, no texting…there was just old-fashioned watching the movie in respectful more-or-less quiet. This was the Thursday/Friday midnight showing when the theater filled up an hour and a half before the movie actually started. I’m starting to wonder if the reports of crazed adolescents gone maniacal might be a little embellishment to fit the social narrative that’s developed around the film.
ev said on 11.22.08 at 05:45 PM • [link]
According to Meyer, CGI isn’t good enough for the birth scene.
spamword-areas52-I think this thing belongs in Area 52, 51 or any where but where I have to see it.
Ann Bruce said on 11.22.08 at 09:04 PM • [link]
Not a middle-aged man and not a squeeing fan:
Bad hair = evilness.
Marta Acosta said on 11.22.08 at 10:01 PM • [link]
Okay, one of the reasons I was kinda hoping this movie would be better is because there are so few movies out there written and directed by women. I watched about 20 minutes of “300” yesterday and it was all CGI, bombastic pronouncements about dying and killing, and a lot of stabbing and blood. On the plus side, the guys wore TONS of makeup! Bodies were painted to the max, six-packs were drawn on, wild wigs were all over the place, and the guyliner and eyeshadow were fabulous. (I don’t recall any of the critics commenting on the makeup indulgence of this film, and, as a general rule, I support the overuse of makeup.)
However, for those interested in a very cool vampire flick directed by a woman, check out Katherine Bigalow’s dark cult classic “Near Dark.”
Susan/DC said on 11.22.08 at 10:13 PM • [link]
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/movies/21twil.html?scp=1&sq=manohla dargis&st=cse
The above review from the New York Times was written by a woman and is fairly negative. OTOH, the male reviewer in the Washington Post liked it. So gender isn’t an infallible predictor of whether or not a reviewer will like “Twilight”.
Susan/DC said on 11.22.08 at 10:22 PM • [link]
P.S. Just noted that Roger Ebert recommends “Let the Right One In” and says it’s a much better vampire movie than “Twilight”. Since I haven’t yet seen “Twilight”, I can’t do a comparison, but I definitely recommend LTROI as a dark and dangerous film that manages to be poignant and oddly sweet at the same time. I also think Annette Krause’s “The Silver Kiss” is a better vampire book than “Twilight”, but I know I’m running against the tide in this.
Jackie said on 11.22.08 at 11:30 PM • [link]
I saw it Friday morning before the crowd of teenagers descended on the theaters.
Despite my own problems or annoyances with the characters (the dramatic emotional excess already discussed by some), I still loved the story. The movie, I feel, entertained you—as it’s supposed to. So, I liked it. There were times I wanted to snort because the lines were so corny (how could it NOT be?) but for the majority of the movie I had a huge sappy smile :)
platedlizard said on 11.23.08 at 02:02 AM • [link]
I saw it last night with my sister, and over all I give it a 4 out of ten. Pretty much any scene that did not revolve around the Edward/Bella dynamic was okay, and there were a few that worked really, really well. However the ‘romance’ killed it. If the story had been focused on the tensions between the Cullens the nomadic vampires, the Indians, and the human community as a whole, with the romance secondary I think it would have been a lot better. Of course, that’s not what happens.
wanted15, well, I supposed a 15 year old would want this movie.
darlynne said on 11.23.08 at 05:51 AM • [link]
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.
Lynn M said on 11.23.08 at 07:34 AM • [link]
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.
Yumiko said on 11.23.08 at 08:26 AM • [link]
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
Gwynnyd said on 11.23.08 at 06:30 PM • [link]
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.
Erin said on 11.23.08 at 08:01 PM • [link]
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.
Ann Bruce said on 11.23.08 at 09:19 PM • [link]
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.
Yumiko said on 11.23.08 at 10:32 PM • [link]
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?
Erin said on 11.24.08 at 02:31 AM • [link]
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.
Alisha Rai said on 11.24.08 at 05:28 AM • [link]
My sister sent me this twilight spoof…I think this young actress actually emotes better than the wooden kristen stewart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dompotjTeIA
Dee Cee said on 11.24.08 at 06:17 AM • [link]
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. :)
Kell said on 11.24.08 at 06:51 AM • [link]
I also think Annette Krause’s “The Silver Kiss†is a better vampire book than “Twilightâ€
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.
Mistress said on 11.24.08 at 07:17 AM • [link]
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.
Robin said on 11.24.08 at 08:26 AM • [link]
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).
SB Sarah said on 11.24.08 at 04:38 PM • [link]
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.
Mistress said on 11.24.08 at 04:59 PM • [link]
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.
Suze said on 11.24.08 at 06:32 PM • [link]
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:
Alpha Lyra said on 11.24.08 at 07:45 PM • [link]
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.
Robin said on 11.24.08 at 07:59 PM • [link]
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.
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.
Lynn M said on 11.25.08 at 02:51 AM • [link]
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.
Ange said on 11.25.08 at 04:02 AM • [link]
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.
Lee Rowan said on 11.25.08 at 08:56 AM • [link]
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.
Lillie said on 11.25.08 at 12:38 PM • [link]
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.
Melissa S. said on 12.02.08 at 04:29 AM • [link]
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.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments