The Moping Undead
While fans of the book will be pleased with 'Twilight,' the film baffled our poor reviewer
by Bob Grimm
Yeah, I know, it's a vampire movie for young adults, so throat-ripping is forbidden. But really: Why make a vampire movie when you can't see any real vampire action? It's like making a Star Wars movie with no space battles, or a Jaws movie without any shark attacks. As a result, Twilight is boring on a level that is unforgivable. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was on TV, and there was far more scary mayhem and action on that show.
The film is based on a series of novels by Stephenie Meyer. It tells the story of Isabella "Bella" Swan, played by Kristen Stewart as if she just drank a bottle of Tanqueray and chased it with four six-packs of Pabst Blue Ribbon. She's usually a magnetic actress, but here, she's lost in a drama desert with no canteen, and she can't find her way out.
Bella moves from Phoenix to be with her lethargic dad (Billy Burke) in Forks, Wash., where he's a depressed sheriff. After being a loner in Phoenix, she becomes the big story in the sparsely populated town--and she attracts the attention of both the living and the undead. It's no wonder the undead would buzz around her, because she plays the role of a high school senior with all the nuance of a zombie.
Still, her performance outshines that of Robert Pattinson, who plays lead vampire Edward Cullen. Edward is Bella's lab partner, and he doesn't like her at first, because, well, he wants to drink her blood, and he finds this bothersome. His family of vampires only eats animals, but Bella has him thirsting for human blood, which pisses him off. How dare she? Still, Bella is hot, so he falls in love, which poses the dilemma of him loving somebody he literally wants to eat on a cracker.
Pattinson, with his pale face and impossible eyebrows, is a drag in every moment that he is on the screen. It doesn't help that his character is ridiculous. "Say, I'm a vampire, and a brooder, but I'm totally gorgeous. So ... please love me and my big eyebrows back, even though I want to suck your blood. And, even though I want to suck your blood, please go to the prom with me, because I already rented a tux, and the deposit is nonrefundable."
Director Catherine Hardwicke made a decent debut with Thirteen, but she's been stinking up cinemas ever since. Apart from a few scenes in which Edward runs around and scales a tree or two, the film has no lively moments. A sequence in which the vampires play baseball is deadly dull, not to mention stupid. Apparently, vampires can only play baseball in the rain, which means these vampires can pretty much play ball 24/7, because they're in the Northwest.
Since this movie made a ton of money in its opening weekend, sequels are more than likely. They should can Hardwicke right now, and get somebody who knows how to direct an action sequence. The Twilight franchise certainly has a chance at being cool. I hated the first Harry Potter, but that series has grown into a very durable set of films.
For the uninitiated who have never read the books (such as myself), Twilight is the sort of cinematic sludge that will result in hair loss as you frustratingly pull strands from your head while watching. For those of you who love the books, you'll probably love the movie. It serves its purpose, and its purpose is not to please the likes of me--because I don't get it ... I don't get it at all.
Twilight
Official Site: twilightthemovie.com
Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Producer: Mark Morgan, Greg Mooradian, Wyck Godfrey, Karen Rosenfelt, Marty Bowen, Guy Oseary and Michele Stabile
Cast: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke, Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser, Nikki Reed, Ashley Greene, Jackson Rathbone, Kellan Lutz, Cam Gigandet, Edi Gathegi, Rachelle Lefevre, Anna Kendrick, Taylor Lautner, Michael Welch, Justin Chon, Christian Serratos, Gil Birmingham and Sarah Clarke
Showing 1-5 of 14
Add a comment | All comments »
I've read the books; I've loved the book. I hate the movie. I don't like the interaction between Stewart and Pattinson, it's just not believable (as believable as a movie can be anyway). I had hoped to see the sweet parts of the book portrayed on the screen and got a badly acted cutout that felt too rushed and incomplete to be based on the book that I love.
I wish is that they could get new leads, a new director, and for God's sake, a new screenplay writer for the second installment.
I Agree. I love the book, All four of them, But this movie is a weak attempt at portraying it.
The movie does indeed feel rushed. A good movie takes a Minimum of two-three years to film. And the filming is only announced around the end of filming.
The film was anounces a month before filming started and took less than a year to film (as will New Moon, expected to be in Cinemas Novemeber) and I seriously think they could have went WAY WAY better.
The script was also rather poor. I admit, Some parts were good...But a small amount.
I don't like the actors either. Kristen Stuart looks like she has two black eyes. And her acting makes us question two things: Does she really want to be in this role? Or is she just a really bad actress?
Robert Patterson looks like he enjoys the spotlight, but that doesn't do anything for his acting. He gives the image of a Rage-aholic and a Physcopath.
Overall, I think it's a Great movie...for Children. If I were to Summerise the entire movie to a friend. I would give one senetence.
"Full of uncomfortably close, close-ups"
I know others liked it, But I was extremely disappointed, I hope the new Directer changes something...
I think I'll stick to re-reading the book a few hundred times, at least until i have it completely memorised ;)
P.S. I loved Alice & Jasper, Emmett (The best Book characters ever) & Rosalie, Carlisle & Esme, Great choice of roles.
to rap it all up. THE MOVIE SUCKS!!!!!!!! THE END!!!
Even though I loved the movie (it was what inspired me to read the books - so for me it was the opposite way around for most), I just loved this article - full of laugh out loud moments which make complete sense and so true seen from someone else's perspective.
I have probably watched the movie at least 20 times, so I have had time to analyse it and watch the dodgy moments and the better moments, but my doubt never wavers that I love the film. Whether it's the corny way they share long looks, or just the total impossibility of the whole scenario, I find myself wanting more.
Aside from all that, it doesn't stop me from completely agreeing with Bob Grimm and congratulating him on a compelling article on a (for him, anyway) less than compelling movie.
Really, you can't watch this movie and be entertained UNLESS YOU'VE READ THE FREAKING BOOKS.
Comments (14) RSS