I would consider myself a die hard Twilight fan- I loved the books, read them multiple times, went to the book party, read the Twilight Lexicon (religiously for months on end-- it's the Official Stephanie Meyer Fan blog)...
and now I've been to the movie.
I was expecting it to be bad. Of course the book is never as good as the movie. But- it was really really (let me add another really) bad. I cringe when I write this because I feel that somehow I'm turning my back on Meyer or the books that I love, and probably represent the minority of people who saw it this weekend... but it was shockingly terrible.
I think I agree with these reviewers 100%:
"Meyer is said to have been involved in the production of 'Twilight,' but her novel was substantially more absorbing than the unintentionally funny and quickly forgettable film," remarks Claudia Puig in her USA Today review. Justin Chang at Variety agrees, saying, "[Director Catherine] Hardwicke can't get inside the head of her young protagonist, Isabella 'Bella' Swan (Kristen Stewart); consequently, Bella's decision to get hot and heavy with a hot-and-hungry vampire, far from seeming like an act of mad, transgressive passion, comes across as merely stupid and ill-considered. The result is a supernatural romance in which the supernatural and romantic elements feel rushed, unformed and insufficiently motivated, leaving audiences with little to do but shrug and focus on the eye-candy."
Unintentionally funny is the key. I think the script was really poorly written- I don't think you could understand the movie at all without reading the book- it was extremely choppy, and one second Bella/Edward don't know eachother, and the next second, they are in love. The soundtrack didn't help at all either- who did it? It made everything 100 times worse than it really was.
So, the result was, people laughing at all the wrong spots (at least I didn't think the director was trying to make this a comedy?)
On the upswing- I thought Bella and Edward were great for what they could do with it. I just feel bad for both of them, because I know they are better actors than what they did in this movie.
And- even though I'm not a 12 year old that obsesses over Robert Pattinson (played Edward), he is a very good look'n fellow. He definitely was eye candy for the film and made it bearable.
What did you think?
6 comments:
Oh, you!! It was SO not the worst movie ever made. I actually liked it, because I read the book, and knew the whole story behind what was going on. The book is like 800 pages for heavens sake...so of course the romance is going to be rushed and a little choppy onscreen.
I went in with low expectations, and came out pleasantly surprised. Plus, RPat is the HOTTEST thing I have ever seen, so 2 hours of him is well worth the money. Anyday. I think I am going to go see it again in an hour. Yum.
wow! i'm glad you liked it :) i don't think i could handle another 2 hours... guess that's why we're all different!
I guess that's why some of us are cool, and other just aren't. You..cough-cough..
;)
I will be ready to share my opinion in 3 months, when Twilight is released on DVD. I only read the 1st book of the series (and disliked it strongly), but I do want to see the film. Thanks for the advance warning!
Miss you.
should have stayed in my camp & never entered the addicting realm.
It couldn't have been worse than that Dempsey movie we saw . . . or was it? Sorry for the big letdown.
Post a Comment