Smells Like (Undead) Teen Spirit: "Twilight"--The Movie
(Warning: this post contains lots and lots of spoilers. But then again, why are you seeing this movie if you haven't read the book? Like, duh. ::eye roll, gum chomp::)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Okay, so, like, you know.....I went this afternoon, and managed to get in probably the last singular non-teen showing of this film for the weekend ( seriously, it wasn't even crowded, there were about 6 tweeny girls in there with mom). I was summarily spared any noise when I didn't want it, save a few random squeals for Edward when he first showed ( can I call it or what? I had that predicted the moment I found out there would be a film) and James as well ( that surprised me. Y'all are gonna go "ssquee!" for the Bad Guy just 'cause he's hot? No. Totally uncool.). There were some odd giggling noises at some sections I thought were NOT funny, but then....whaddya gonna do. I got lucky, reallllllllllllly lucky.
So here's my take:
THE BAD:
1.) It was tough to watch.
It was tough to watch because I totally knew what was going to go down, and very little of it was a surprise. When a film that's based on a book I know already fails to keep me riveted, I consider that poor filmmaking. ( EX: Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet" comes to mind; everyone knows the story, but you're on the edge of your seat the whole time, AND the thing is in Shakespeare's words. Damn, that was tough to pull off, but Baz did it!) I really think the director was probably between a rock and a hard place on that one: everyone wanted to see the book translated properly, and were trying so hard to be true. Still, people felt that way about "Harry Potter" and those movies were/are excellent. I know those are kids' books that deal with slightly less complex themes ( I said SLIGHTLY; don't get your knickers in a twist. The inspiration for "Twilight" according to the author, was "Wuthering Heights". THAT kind of content never makes its way into Harry's world.) , but this isn't the first book that had a film made in its astonishingly successful wake, and it won't be the last. While I admit that that's a hard act to follow in any case, I felt this was unexceptional. It had its moments, but perhaps in someone else's hands it would have been more deft. I don't know.
2.) Both my friend Cherry and I hated, hated, hated Kristen Stewart.
She LOOKED perfect, but her lackluster performance simply didn't match with Rob Pattinson's. She has a lot of tics as an actress ( blinking, sketchy eye movements-- all of which undermine her veracity on screen. When you blink or fail to keep eye contact on screen, it throws away the strength of your lines. Fact. ). That COULD have been overlooked had she in any way looked like Edward was indeeed the Love of Her Life. But she just didn't. Hardly ever. And her voice-overs were so one-note, there were points where I wanted to shake her and say, "Sweetie, he's the dead one here, so WTF?" Ugh. I found her distracting and infuriating, mostly because....
THE GOOD
1.) Rob Pattinson IS Edward.
He just HAD it. Every face, every line reading, every expression, and angst, and his love and passion and love for her just bled through everything. ( My Only Bitch-- SPOILER!!--: the first scene when she walks into Bio, he covers his nose like he's going to hurl, and that was too unintentionally hilarious. I was like, "Oh noooo. I hope the director told you to do that and you didn't choose that on your own, because subtletly? Not happening! Wrong!" ) Even though Kristen kills every connection they might have had as actors onscreen with her craptastically flat delivery of important lines like "I know you won't hurt me" and "Stupid lamb", which is truly sad, her committment in the kissing scenes redeem her, and they were HOT. (He'd be a pretty hard monster to resist on a good day, I gotta say. ) I loved him before I saw the movie, and I love him even more now, because he clearly did the work ( actor-prep-work) and works his ass off in the film.
I'm happy to say that Edward was....absolutely perfectly Edward. And you'll completely fall in love with him all over again. He's that lovely. There were points where I was sitting there tearing up a little because he had this look on his face that just breaks you in two, because you see this struggle through this immense beauty and love. He's the beating undead heart of that film, and they cast it perfectly. I can't wait to see what Mr. Pattinson does next.
2.) The Cullens on the whole were great.
I love Alice! She's just like Alice should be- tiny and ballerina-like, and Esme is eternally maternal and kind, also just as it should be. Carlisle is indeed his paternal soap-opera doctor perfect and Emmett this big hulking teddy bear, too. Rosalie's probably the only one who doesn't look *quite* right to me, even though she reads perfectly and her characterization is dead-on ( no pun intended). She's supposed to be this smokin' hottie, and .....no. Oh well. Jasper looked a little weirded out most of the time, which is true to the character, but frankly, that read on screen like he'd just crapped his pants ( Cherry's words! LOL! I don't know-- maybe if a delicious-smelling human came walking into your vampire home, you WOULD crap your pants. It's a tough call, I suppose.). Again, oh well. It's not big enough to get too ruffled over it, since all in all, the depiction of the family was excellent. The house ( the grad caps--(SPOILER)--: "we matriculate alot. It's sort of a family joke."-- had me cracking up), the clothes, the trying to make her food, baseball, everything. Awesome.
THE DEBATABLE
1.) $$$ and ??? I think that perhaps poor director Catherine Harwicke didn't get enough footage,and definitely had a budget that was way too tight, since it seemed like many, many things got condensed down . It's clear she had to make some difficult choices in where to spend her money; anything that required CGI was going to cost big, even though so little of it was used, for example. That's fine, but unfortunately, it means less filming time which she has stated in interviews she lost a great many days to anyway due to weather complications ( apparently, it really DOES rain/snow/sleet in The Olympic Peninsula as much as Meyer suggests in the book.). Because it really is time=money in filmmaking, this meant that other important story anchors, like Bella's conversations with Edward that cement their relationship, and her friendship with Jacob that becomes so pivotal in later installments (thank goodness for Tyler Lautner ; he brought a lot to his screen time.) fal by the wayside. In this sense, I find more things wrong with the film than right with it and that makes me sad. Alas.
2.) Edward's "reveal" was, to me, not dazzling enough.
I know Catherine said they had ALOT of problems with how this should look, and there were alot of things they tried and cast aside. Given that, they probably came up with a reasonable solution, one that was interesting enough and not so fantasy-like it wouldn't be unreal. But it wasnt as brilliantly beautiful as that moment deserved to be, at all. This is supposed to be the moment where Bella sees the "real" Edward, for the monster that he is, only to find that he's truly an amazing creature of nature instead. --(SPOILER)-- What we get on film is this strange CGI sheen-like haze over the surface of Pattinson's skin, so yeah, he looked sparkly, but also.....kinda sweaty. With maybe some MAC glitter paint mixed in..... and unfortunately, that scene's set up is condensed into several other big events ( like Bella's announcement of her discoveries and his confirmation of her suspiscions) , most of which, yeah, SHOULD seam together as a screenplay nicely.....but doesnt. It all happens a bit too quickly, and this segment in particular comes at you without much build up, which felt very off. To me, anyway. --(END SPOILER)
3.) Too much teen drama?
Cherry said she felt the film was very angsty, too much so. I don't agree so much, because let's face it- Edward is kind of a downer kind of guy, and having a BF who's undead can really kill your mood. However, I wish, again, that more happiness in their being together could have been conveyed. Cherry also mentioned that she felt it was more feeling than substance, and that I would concur. Which would be fine with me, as the book works on that level as well, but as a film it makes for problems. A great deal of attention is given to getting certain things--primarily the way things appear-- absolutely correct, and leaves some things-- like how we're meant emotionally connect with this world through this very visual medium-- more to chance. This could be more of #1, but overall, it just leaves things uneven.
4.) Finally, I don't like James with a ponytail. I just don't. They should have left Cam Gigandet's hair buzzed short like it is in real life, and THEN he'd have been the perfect James. Cam does a great job at being menacing, and it's technically, a minor detail, but it made a serious difference in how seriously I could take him. THAT'S not a good thing, Makeup and Hair Dept.! What were you thinking?
At the end of the day, I'll probably see it again in a week or two, to a.) go look at Robert Pattinson some more and b.) reassess my take on it. This time I was so busy holding my breath and examining everything, perhaps my first impressions weren't the best. We'll see....but I did have a good girlicious day with Cherry and getting excited over the whole thing. Ah, youth....wasted on the young ( even if they do get to live forever).
(Warning: this post contains lots and lots of spoilers. But then again, why are you seeing this movie if you haven't read the book? Like, duh. ::eye roll, gum chomp::)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Okay, so, like, you know.....I went this afternoon, and managed to get in probably the last singular non-teen showing of this film for the weekend ( seriously, it wasn't even crowded, there were about 6 tweeny girls in there with mom). I was summarily spared any noise when I didn't want it, save a few random squeals for Edward when he first showed ( can I call it or what? I had that predicted the moment I found out there would be a film) and James as well ( that surprised me. Y'all are gonna go "ssquee!" for the Bad Guy just 'cause he's hot? No. Totally uncool.). There were some odd giggling noises at some sections I thought were NOT funny, but then....whaddya gonna do. I got lucky, reallllllllllllly lucky.
So here's my take:
THE BAD:
1.) It was tough to watch.
It was tough to watch because I totally knew what was going to go down, and very little of it was a surprise. When a film that's based on a book I know already fails to keep me riveted, I consider that poor filmmaking. ( EX: Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet" comes to mind; everyone knows the story, but you're on the edge of your seat the whole time, AND the thing is in Shakespeare's words. Damn, that was tough to pull off, but Baz did it!) I really think the director was probably between a rock and a hard place on that one: everyone wanted to see the book translated properly, and were trying so hard to be true. Still, people felt that way about "Harry Potter" and those movies were/are excellent. I know those are kids' books that deal with slightly less complex themes ( I said SLIGHTLY; don't get your knickers in a twist. The inspiration for "Twilight" according to the author, was "Wuthering Heights". THAT kind of content never makes its way into Harry's world.) , but this isn't the first book that had a film made in its astonishingly successful wake, and it won't be the last. While I admit that that's a hard act to follow in any case, I felt this was unexceptional. It had its moments, but perhaps in someone else's hands it would have been more deft. I don't know.
2.) Both my friend Cherry and I hated, hated, hated Kristen Stewart.
She LOOKED perfect, but her lackluster performance simply didn't match with Rob Pattinson's. She has a lot of tics as an actress ( blinking, sketchy eye movements-- all of which undermine her veracity on screen. When you blink or fail to keep eye contact on screen, it throws away the strength of your lines. Fact. ). That COULD have been overlooked had she in any way looked like Edward was indeeed the Love of Her Life. But she just didn't. Hardly ever. And her voice-overs were so one-note, there were points where I wanted to shake her and say, "Sweetie, he's the dead one here, so WTF?" Ugh. I found her distracting and infuriating, mostly because....
THE GOOD
1.) Rob Pattinson IS Edward.
He just HAD it. Every face, every line reading, every expression, and angst, and his love and passion and love for her just bled through everything. ( My Only Bitch-- SPOILER!!--: the first scene when she walks into Bio, he covers his nose like he's going to hurl, and that was too unintentionally hilarious. I was like, "Oh noooo. I hope the director told you to do that and you didn't choose that on your own, because subtletly? Not happening! Wrong!" ) Even though Kristen kills every connection they might have had as actors onscreen with her craptastically flat delivery of important lines like "I know you won't hurt me" and "Stupid lamb", which is truly sad, her committment in the kissing scenes redeem her, and they were HOT. (He'd be a pretty hard monster to resist on a good day, I gotta say. ) I loved him before I saw the movie, and I love him even more now, because he clearly did the work ( actor-prep-work) and works his ass off in the film.
I'm happy to say that Edward was....absolutely perfectly Edward. And you'll completely fall in love with him all over again. He's that lovely. There were points where I was sitting there tearing up a little because he had this look on his face that just breaks you in two, because you see this struggle through this immense beauty and love. He's the beating undead heart of that film, and they cast it perfectly. I can't wait to see what Mr. Pattinson does next.
2.) The Cullens on the whole were great.
I love Alice! She's just like Alice should be- tiny and ballerina-like, and Esme is eternally maternal and kind, also just as it should be. Carlisle is indeed his paternal soap-opera doctor perfect and Emmett this big hulking teddy bear, too. Rosalie's probably the only one who doesn't look *quite* right to me, even though she reads perfectly and her characterization is dead-on ( no pun intended). She's supposed to be this smokin' hottie, and .....no. Oh well. Jasper looked a little weirded out most of the time, which is true to the character, but frankly, that read on screen like he'd just crapped his pants ( Cherry's words! LOL! I don't know-- maybe if a delicious-smelling human came walking into your vampire home, you WOULD crap your pants. It's a tough call, I suppose.). Again, oh well. It's not big enough to get too ruffled over it, since all in all, the depiction of the family was excellent. The house ( the grad caps--(SPOILER)--: "we matriculate alot. It's sort of a family joke."-- had me cracking up), the clothes, the trying to make her food, baseball, everything. Awesome.
THE DEBATABLE
1.) $$$ and ??? I think that perhaps poor director Catherine Harwicke didn't get enough footage,and definitely had a budget that was way too tight, since it seemed like many, many things got condensed down . It's clear she had to make some difficult choices in where to spend her money; anything that required CGI was going to cost big, even though so little of it was used, for example. That's fine, but unfortunately, it means less filming time which she has stated in interviews she lost a great many days to anyway due to weather complications ( apparently, it really DOES rain/snow/sleet in The Olympic Peninsula as much as Meyer suggests in the book.). Because it really is time=money in filmmaking, this meant that other important story anchors, like Bella's conversations with Edward that cement their relationship, and her friendship with Jacob that becomes so pivotal in later installments (thank goodness for Tyler Lautner ; he brought a lot to his screen time.) fal by the wayside. In this sense, I find more things wrong with the film than right with it and that makes me sad. Alas.
2.) Edward's "reveal" was, to me, not dazzling enough.
I know Catherine said they had ALOT of problems with how this should look, and there were alot of things they tried and cast aside. Given that, they probably came up with a reasonable solution, one that was interesting enough and not so fantasy-like it wouldn't be unreal. But it wasnt as brilliantly beautiful as that moment deserved to be, at all. This is supposed to be the moment where Bella sees the "real" Edward, for the monster that he is, only to find that he's truly an amazing creature of nature instead. --(SPOILER)-- What we get on film is this strange CGI sheen-like haze over the surface of Pattinson's skin, so yeah, he looked sparkly, but also.....kinda sweaty. With maybe some MAC glitter paint mixed in..... and unfortunately, that scene's set up is condensed into several other big events ( like Bella's announcement of her discoveries and his confirmation of her suspiscions) , most of which, yeah, SHOULD seam together as a screenplay nicely.....but doesnt. It all happens a bit too quickly, and this segment in particular comes at you without much build up, which felt very off. To me, anyway. --(END SPOILER)
3.) Too much teen drama?
Cherry said she felt the film was very angsty, too much so. I don't agree so much, because let's face it- Edward is kind of a downer kind of guy, and having a BF who's undead can really kill your mood. However, I wish, again, that more happiness in their being together could have been conveyed. Cherry also mentioned that she felt it was more feeling than substance, and that I would concur. Which would be fine with me, as the book works on that level as well, but as a film it makes for problems. A great deal of attention is given to getting certain things--primarily the way things appear-- absolutely correct, and leaves some things-- like how we're meant emotionally connect with this world through this very visual medium-- more to chance. This could be more of #1, but overall, it just leaves things uneven.
4.) Finally, I don't like James with a ponytail. I just don't. They should have left Cam Gigandet's hair buzzed short like it is in real life, and THEN he'd have been the perfect James. Cam does a great job at being menacing, and it's technically, a minor detail, but it made a serious difference in how seriously I could take him. THAT'S not a good thing, Makeup and Hair Dept.! What were you thinking?
At the end of the day, I'll probably see it again in a week or two, to a.) go look at Robert Pattinson some more and b.) reassess my take on it. This time I was so busy holding my breath and examining everything, perhaps my first impressions weren't the best. We'll see....but I did have a good girlicious day with Cherry and getting excited over the whole thing. Ah, youth....wasted on the young ( even if they do get to live forever).
posted by Jessica @ 11:53 PM
<< Home