posted
I never planned to see "Twilight". I knew it was going to be terrible. I mean, the book sucked, so what could I possibly get out of the movie? But, randomly, a friend invited me to go this evening, with a huge bonus. We would be accompanied by teenage fangirls. I couldn't pass it up.
It probably wasn't meant to be a comedy, but I don't think the audience knew that. We laughed as one at all the most inappropriate moments. It been a long time since I've had that much fun.
Was the movie good? Of course not. But I'm confused by the reviews I've seen. Given the "plot" and subject matter of the book, I thought Hardwicke did a darn good job. I don't know why people seem surprised that the movie is "lackluster" or whatever other terms they use. Have they actually read the books?
The action scenes were fun but way too short; the goopy love scenes were campy and painfully drawn out. Once again, an accurate depiction of the novel.
Not sure why I'm bothering to write this, as I'm sure no one was planning to see it. But I just had to say, I actually enjoyed myself. The best part was the intentional baiting of the fangirls.
"Isn't Jacob supposed to be blonde?" "I'm pretty sure the guy that plays Edward is gay." "Is this the part where he bites a baby out of her uterus?"
Yep. Good times had by all.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And here I was hoping it'd be "High School Musical 3."
So... I hate to actually be seen pondering this, but would it be worth seeing (in order to make fun of it, of course)?
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the lolfactor, I'd say it was well worth it. That's assuming you have at least one lolfan friend that could go with you. But prepare to be elbowed in the ribs repeatedly. Wear padding.
And see the matinee. (My ticket was four bucks. Cheaper than renting.)
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine invited me to see it with her yesterday, but she enjoyed the book so the more humorous appeal may have been lost. I haven't decided if I will even bother to get the movie through Netflix yet, let alone the theatre. The book was not good on so many levels! Your description of it (movie and book) was very much my impression of he book. Long, boring "romance" scenes (I'm actually somewhat partial to romance in my stories and have even been known to read a straight romance genre novel.), lackluster action sequences, thin plot, terrible main character...
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay: Things about Twilight that were positive, whether or not you plan to laugh at it in the theater.
1. The movie had more of a plot than the book. Not by much, but instead of waiting until three-quarters of the way in to introduce it, they give hints of it here and there throughout the movie.
2. My personal opinion is that they did a damn good job casting. Bella's thought processes still made me angry, but I never actually screamed out loud at Kristen Stewart, as I did at the "real Bella". She was a little more believable. Despite the rabid fangirls' opinions, I thought Robert Pattinson was a good choice, and did the best he could with Edward. I mean, really. The things I hated most about Edward is that he has no personality and is too possessive. Pattz acted that out just fine. Jacob (Taylor Lautner) was good (even if he is short and only marginally Native American) because, at this point, he's just an average kid with a hint of a crush. I have no idea how Lautner will do when presented with actual acting challenges, but I have high hopes for him. He's very natural. And the Cullens were great. Their makeup: not so great.
But, ultimately, I think the casting was the thing they put the most effort into, because that's about as deep as their main fan base was going to look into it.
3. It was fun to get to see some of my favorite "action" scenes on the screen. Both the baseball and ballet studio scenes were well done and exciting, and I think they actually did well representing the speed and super-human strength of the vampires. The "vampire stuff" might bring me back one day. *gasp* But, then, I may just feel that way because the rest of the movie sucked so bad.
Major problems with the movie:
1. Shoot whoever was in charge of the soundtrack. It was terrible, and didn't match the scenes at all. Only at one point did I think, "Hey, good music choice," and that was during the credits. Not to mention: I've never seen a movie that had a voice over over the soundtrack, except during transition scenes. It was frequently difficult to understand what Bella was getting at, because loud music was playing at the same time that she was talking.
In other words, sound = bad.
2. What can I say? Even the rabid fangirls were laughing through most of it. Use your imagination.
3. Once again, the major problems with this movie were the places where they faithfully recreated the novel.
Mind-numbingly drawn out scenes of romantic angst? Check. Melodrama? Check. Unbelievable love story based on nothing but physical chemistry? Check. Stupid situations and stupid human/vampire reactions? Check. Awkward, stuttering scenes with no real transition between them? Check.
I have some friends* who saw the movie last night, and walked out. Those were people who really enjoyed the books and didn't see anything wrong with them. They hated the movie. I honestly believe it is because they created a "fantasy Twilight" in their minds, somehow giving themselves the impression that it was good writing, giving Edward the personality that they wanted him to have, and missing the novel entirely for what it was. When they saw the novel accurately depicted, they got angry. "That's not what Edward is supposed to be like! Waaah!" Totally missing the fact that Edward was never interesting or sympathetic in the first place, they just wanted him to be. I think Pattz has seen this coming for a long time. I'll be really surprised if he chooses to portray Edward in future movies.
The feeling I got while watching Twilight is that Hardwicke and company were trying to create something of a parody version of the novel, making the goofiest parts the most glaringly obvious. I'm sure that wasn't their intention, but I, for one, had a lot of fun MST3K-ing the whole thing.
*I have to quote one of them here: "I loved the first three books, but I thought the last one was a terrible bit of writing."
What? WHAT? As a matter of fact, in terms of actual writing, "Breaking Dawn" was a good deal better than "Twilight" and at least as good as the other two. The story was ridiculous, but I find it interesting that it took chewing a baby out of uterus to get those people to realize that we were dealing with crap.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the review, I think I'll be giving this a pass.
I almost read the books on my own, but then my friends starting describing the plot, and I quickly decided against it. Angsty teenage romance is not my idea of a good read. And then I started hearing clippings of the writing itself, too much use of 'cold' and 'perfect' to describe Edward.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went, in spite of myself. A bunch of friends were going, my husband could babysit and I never get to go to the movies anymore. It was a very faithful adaption of the book. Since the book was pretty painful...
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: I kind of want to read the book now, it sounds just awful enough to be worth it.
I was kind of hoping this when I read the book, but a combination of disgust and boredom made me stop about 3/4 of the way through. They had just met the bad vampires and I guess that was supposed to be interesting but by that point I'd read over a hundred pages of info dump spewed forth by a twidderpated juvenile and I couldn't bring myself to care.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. Twilight was the worst of the four, in my opinion, followed closely by Breaking Dawn. The only reason I made it through the first book and onto the much more fun and ridiculous books two and three is because I read cleolinda's reviews on Livejournal and they made me twinkle with joy.
posted
Crikes, every teenage girl in the city was at the theater I went to lined up for Twilight. The Regal near my house was playing it in SEVEN theaters to Bolt's three.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I liked it. Actually I loved it. I didn't expect much but thoroughly enjoyed it even though a few things were changed from the book. But then again, I loved the book so much I read it twice in 3 days.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awwww, Wendybird. We could have torn up El Con theater together. You know, if I wasn't all in Texas now. ARGH.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it last night, and it was AMAZING. In the sense that I laughed so hard I cried and cried and cried. That scene? Where he kept inexplicably climbing and perching in trees to talk to Bella? Though my favorite line, actually, was "Your rage will make for more interesting sport." Classic.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That scene? Where he kept inexplicably climbing and perching in trees to talk to Bella?
That was hilarious! Or what about the scene where he first sees Bella and has to keep himself from...hurling? What?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I honestly believe it is because they created a "fantasy Twilight" in their minds, somehow giving themselves the impression that it was good writing, giving Edward the personality that they wanted him to have
Full disclosure, I haven't read the books, but from talking to many people who have, this sort of seems like the point of the character.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE] Or what about the scene where he first sees Bella and has to keep himself from...hurling? What? [/QUOTE
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and then that part where he makes insane lunatic face towards the end when
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
(The film's so bad I don't know why you'd care, but I don't want anyone to be spoiled against their will, so SPOILERS)
when he's sucking the venom out of her wrist and making crazy eyes and Carlisle's standing behind him going "Edward, no! Stop, Edward! Edward, have the willpower to stop!" What a nauseating line of dialogue. Although it did make me think of that time the vastly superior Angel didn't need anyone to yank him off of the vastly superior Buffy even though he was all delirious and crazy in the head; and then once I had thought that thought, I spent the rest of the film enjoying myself by imagining that Buffy was about to run in and stake Edward. How pleasing that would have been.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it with a girl and we basically spent the whole time poking fun at it. Afterward we walked and and were like "You know, normally after a movie you ask how the other person liked it... but I'm pretty sure we got that taken care of during the film"
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen it - not my cup of tea - but I noticed from the ads on TV that Edward has what seems like truly ridiculous hair. Am I just getting old and out of touch with what the kids are doing hairwise? Or is it as silly as it looks?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm twenty-two, and it's as silly as it looks. Like someone cut him long bangs and then held them straight up and sprayed gel at them until they stood up straight. Though why anyone would feel that was a good idea I simply can't imagine.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
scifi, his hair wasn't quite like that in the movies. It was more like this. I mean, yeah, it was silly. But *tiny font* also kinda cute.
quote: Full disclosure, I haven't read the books, but from talking to many people who have, this sort of seems like the point of the character.
Yeah, see, this statement would be giving Meyer way more credit than she deserves. He was personality-less by accident. Trust me.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...Edward has what seems like truly ridiculous hair.
I'm convinced the current teen hair fad was invented by folks who admired Flock of Seagulls but didn't have the guts to go all the way with it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:2. My personal opinion is that they did a damn good job casting. Bella's thought processes still made me angry, but I never actually screamed out loud at Kristen Stewart, as I did at the "real Bella". She was a little more believable. Despite the rabid fangirls' opinions, I thought Robert Pattinson was a good choice, and did the best he could with Edward. I mean, really.
....
Major problems with the movie:
1. Shoot whoever was in charge of the soundtrack. It was terrible, and didn't match the scenes at all. Only at one point did I think, "Hey, good music choice," and that was during the credits.
I agree about the casting. Kristen Stewart, for one, made Bella into her own person instead of allowing her to remain a 'Mary Sue' (as a friend of mine likes to accurately call her). The casting and the performances made up for some of the sappy lines. Not all, but some.
And just an FYI about the music. It took me about halfway through to finally realize this, but that whiny guitar and all that made up most of the filler music is actually in the same vein as the music used in the audiobook versions of Twilight, New Moon, etc. For those of us who have too many other good books to read in paper form and who have listened to these in audiobook, that was a kind of nice connection between the movie and book. Did it make it great music or a great soundtrack? Ah...no. But at least there was an attempt to remain consistent musically.
I got a huge laugh out of the "Supermassive Black Hole" playing during the baseball game, though.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That would have been fun!
