Twilight, The Movie [updated-now with music from the movie]
I can’t believe we haven’t talked about this yet, so I’m going to kick it off.
If you have a tween or teenage girl anywhere in your vicinity, you have probably been subsumed in Twilight-lore for what seems like ages now (WHO did they cast as Esme???!!!). But for the merely normal among us, you may have only recently heard (assuming, as usual, that you haven’t been living under a rock) that this odd teen-romance-vampire-saga (I like the Rolling Stone line: “uncool-girl-meets-undead-boy”) written by a Mormon mom from Phoenix was made into a film, which has now taken multiplexes and malls everywhere to ear-shattering decibel levels as its teen girl fans line up to see it (and, more importantly, its stars on the publicity tour).
So, is it a good movie? Well, first a disclaimer: I have not read the books and don’t intend to, so I can’t comment on the movie’s faithfulness to the book, except to say that my daughter, who is arguably the most qualified expert extant (having read the books countless times and seen the movie three times in quick succession), informs me that most of the movie’s dialogue is not found in the book, but the plot and characterization are apparently accurate. With that out of the way, I have to say that despite (or maybe partly because of) low expectations, I found the movie and the slightly-overheated love story at its center to be both charming and oddly believable.
The two stars, Kristen Stewart as Bella and Robert Pattinson as Edward, do a remarkable job of inhabiting these characters and getting the feel just right. These go-for-broke performances are reinforced by a great supporting cast led by Billy Burke, who is pitch-perfect as Bella’s monosyllabic dad, Charlie. Also good are the Cullen clan of vampires (with the possible exception of Nikki Reed as Rosalie — but only because she is supposed to be “the most beautiful person in the world” and let’s face it: that’s a tough gig), and the genuinely-intriguing Taylor Lautner as Jacob, the nascent werewolf (you know, he actually looks like a wolf!).
You may think this whole thing is a vast silliness, but if so, you’d be missing the point. Silly movies like this are the stuff that adolescence is made of, and this is one that is played with genuine skill and ends up being a lot of fun. I especially loved the baseball scene. Check it out and let me know what you think.
[...] movie thoughts – Oh! How Lovely! Watching TWILIGHT (review) « Calliope in Outer Space Kulturblog » Twilight, The Movie TWILIGHT awakens BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER? | Obsessed With Film Twilight movie | Watch Twilight [...]
Pingback by Rose di Cristallo — November 28, 2008 @ 2:11 am
I’ll probably see it next weekend. My daughter’s already caught it with her boyfriend (both of them are really into the books). I’ve read all the books and loved the ideas in them but thought the writing/execution was pretty lame. I still got sucked in, though, and can’t wait to see the movie.
When I saw you’d done a post on it I thought “I can’t read that, there will be spoilers!” Then I realized I already know the story backwards and forwards.
Comment by Susan M — November 28, 2008 @ 9:54 am
I admit it, I really liked it.
Comment by American Yak — November 28, 2008 @ 10:28 am
If anyone wants to know what the book is like without actually having to read it, I’m reading Twilight, so you don’t have to.
Comment by kuri — November 28, 2008 @ 10:37 am
I never understood the whole Twilight thing. I’d wake up at 2 a.m. and find my wife reading the books, something I’d only seen videogame geeks like myself do. I tried reading one of the books, and thought it was poorly written, I didn’t make it far before giving up. So I didn’t take it lightly when we left the theater and she said “That really sucked”.
The acting is pretty bad, the actress playing Bella seems to have one expression on her face the whole time scared/annoyed. And every time she says something it had a little laughing gasping sound. The guy who played Edward looked ridiculous with the sunlight scene. My wife says he’s supposed to be gorgeous, but he just looked like he was covered with cheap glitter. And that hair looks like he lost a fight with a bottle of hair gel. And what was it with him bouncing around tree branches as they talked about how he was dangerous for her? It was so weird, he’d say a sentence and then bounce to another tree branch. It looked really awkward, if it’s so important why wouldn’t he stand still and just speak to her?
The special effects were really cheesy, it looked very fake whenever he ran up trees or bounced around quickly, I hope this movie makes enough money that they can spend more money making the sequel look good.
There were a bunch of cheesy lines, which I blamed on the movie until my wife told me some of them she remembered coming straight from the book. Speaking of the book, there are things happening in the movie that I totally didn’t get, but it seemed like everyone in the theater understood, again my wife gave me some information from the book that cleared it up. Seems a bit dumb that you have to have read the book to totally get what’s happening.
Then the romance, again with missing information. After five minutes, and less than five sentences spoken between them, they’re totally in love. What? How does that make any sense? Maybe if they actually spoke more than once or twice in the book it might make sense, but in the film it just made them seem like stupid teenagers instead of people that are soul mates. Edward really just comes off as a creepy stalker going after a girl he barely knows, and Bella comes off as a dopey girl that’s falling for the first interesting guy she comes in contact with.
If the movie is anyone’s first introduction to the series like it was for me, I don’t see how it would make them interested in any more movies, or reading the books.
Even my wife said she thought it was pretty bad. She liked that she could see these characters she’s loved come to life, but she thought it came off as very cheesy, and had many of the complaints I did.
Comment by jjohnsen — November 28, 2008 @ 10:46 am
It can’t be any worse than the Notebook, which I just watched most of last night.
Comment by Susan M — November 28, 2008 @ 11:17 am
jj, like I said, I have never read the book but I enjoyed the movie. I don’t think you have to have read the book to know what’s going on. What, according to you, is so hard to follow? It’s a fairly simple story.
And Cheesy??? It’s a love story between a 17 yr old girl and a vampire! Cheesy is a given. From everyone I spoke to who read the book, the book is far, far cheesier than the movie. The cheesiest lines of dialogue were lifted verbatim from the book. As I understand it, though, most of the movie’s dialogue was not in the book.
The effects were sub-par, no doubt about it. If you’re judging this on those standards, forget it. But it’s a love story meant for teenage girls, so no, they didn’t spend a lot of money on the effects. My guess is they will have a bigger budget for the next ones.
Comment by MCQ — November 28, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Totally disagree. The acting is the movie’s bright spot, and Kristen Stewart is the best thing about the acting. If she were that bad, this movie would be a complete disaster, because she is literally in every single scene.
Again, this is a movie where she is supposed to fall in love (literally at first sight) with a vampire. It’s got goofy written all over it, but she pulls it off.
Comment by MCQ — November 28, 2008 @ 11:38 am
I think the soudtrack is pretty good too, so I have now supplied some clips.
Comment by MCQ — November 28, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
“It’s a love story between a 17 yr old girl and a vampire! Cheesy is a given.”
MCQ,
Seek out and watch “Let the Right One In.” It is a kind of love story between a 12 year old vampire and the shy and outcast 12 year old boy she befriends. It is truly haunting. Cheesy definitely not a given.
Just sayin. ~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — November 28, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Wow. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about this I think another actor in both major roles would have made a huge difference. They were just awful.
Comment by jjohnsen — November 28, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
>>“the most beautiful person in the world” and let’s face >>it: that’s a tough gig
I guess Nicole Kidman or Natalie Portman was too busy for this one…
*sigh* I really should just break down and read the book. I feel like I’m missing out on a big piece of pop culture by not reading it. (This is what got me to read the Da Vinci Code. And, hey, I really enjoyed that.)
Comment by FHL — November 28, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
jj: What other actor in both major roles? Kristen Stewart is already a pretty experienced actress with at least two major roles under her belt and some good reviews before she was cast in twilight. Pattinson is less experienced but he at least got some good reviews in the one role he had (as Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter). These are no rubes, but very talented young actors. Name someone else you think would have done better.
Most people who dislike this movie (and there are many) at least acknowledge the accomplishment the actors achieve in their perfomances. To say they are awful is just wrong. This is a great effort with very difficult material. These two have very promising careers ahead.
Here’s RS on the performance of the leads:
Here’s the LA Times:
Here’s the SF Chronicle:
Here’s the Boson Globe:
I could go on.
Comment by MCQ — November 28, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Thomas (#10), I have heard good things about “Let The Right One In” but I suspect that the emphasis in that movie is not on the romance, mostly because it’s about 12 yr olds. In Twilight, the love story is the only story and it’s written by a Mormon mom, who was writing primarily for teenagers, so it’s bound to be cheesy.
Comment by MCQ — November 28, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
Susan can I confess that while I normally dislike chick flicks I kind of liked the Notebook. Especially the ending which while manipulative and sentimental still got to me.
I didn’t see Twighlight. I made it about 1/2 way through the book before I just couldn’t take anymore. Too many forelorn looks across the classroom.
Comment by clark — November 29, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
Kristen Stewart was pretty good in Into the Wild which is a fantastic movie if you haven’t seen it.
Comment by clark — November 29, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
Agreed, Clark, I loved her in that and it was a terrific movie.
Comment by MCQ — November 30, 2008 @ 12:41 am
My husband liked the Notebook, too, because it made him all sentimental about us. I was laughing at him for it.
Comment by Susan M — November 30, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
I actually liked the Notebook. It was a well-acted movie with a good story, but I thought it was very predictable.
Comment by MCQ — November 30, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
jjohnson, this is just lolz! Were you ever a teen? If not, then did you at least read Romeo and Juliet? They were killing and/or dying for each other after like 2 lines of dialog.
Comment by sister blah 2 — December 1, 2008 @ 12:06 am
I watched Twilight last night, and I was shocked to find that I enjoyed it. I had very low expectations going in. I knew nothing about the book. I heard the film was a chick flick, which isn’t typically my thing. I almost always loathe vampire movies, and am at an utter loss to understand why they are so popular and ubiquitous in our culture. So there are lots of reasons why I shouldn’t have liked this. Yet I did.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — December 1, 2008 @ 2:40 am
Clark sayeth, “I kind of liked the Notebook”
*Nelson points*
Ha Ha!
*/Nelson* ~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — December 1, 2008 @ 9:09 am
I’d normally be too embarrassed to admit the following, but given the tenor of the hoopla surrounding the books and movie it seems appropriate (or at least forgivable): Kristen Stewart is, like, super hot. Seriously. Thought the same thing when I saw her jail-bait act in Into The Wild, and felt dirty for having such thoughts.
Sorry if I pulled a “reverse Pattinson” on you…
Comment by Matt Thurston — December 1, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
One of the best movies I’ve seen this year I saw on Saturday: Slumdog Millionaire. Wonderful.
Comment by Matt Thurston — December 1, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
I don’t think she’s ugly by any means, but she has a look about her that is wholly unattractive. It’s kind of a permanent sneer. It’s the same thing that bothers me about Mary Louise-Parker.
Comment by Tim J — December 1, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Bring on the sneer, then (though I don’t see it). Kristen Stewart and MLP are just plain awesome. I see them as sassy, not sneery.
Comment by MCQ — December 1, 2008 @ 11:44 pm