This Twatlighter is (mildly) impressed
Nov. 24th, 2008 01:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
azuriteOkay, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
guardian_kysra, you asked for it. And atlantian_magic, I owe you an apology: (Sorry about railing on you for Twilight. But there's a qualifier to this apology, so read on.)
I saw "Twilight" tonight at the Marina Theatre with Steph and Crystal. And... it wasn't that bad. Not just for a movie, but for an adaptation of a book. And not just a book, but a YA novel (or whatever Meyer's marketing it as these days). And... not that bad for something that, in print, was as godawful as the "Twilight" series was.
So yeah, that's my qualification, Atlantis: love the movie, fangirl the movie, but hate the books, please? Because the books are trash and I firmly believe that anyone with a literary education ought to realize that (but of course that's my "high and mighty" opinion, so folks can disagree).
What I liked:
* The cinematography. Very lovely. Impressive that they filmed it IN FORKS, which is awesome-- few movies ever get filmed where they say they are taking place. Sometimes that's due to budgetary constraints and sometimes due to impossibility (Iron Man being filmed in Afghanistan? Pshaw!). But I want to dock a few points here because there WAS stock footage used, and while that made the movie as a whole cooler, it didn't improve upon the story at all. As for other cinema-like matters, the special effects were decent enough, esp. for the fight scenes. The tree-climbing scenes looked a bit... weird, but then again, whoever heard of a vampire that speeds up trees, anyway?
* The music. The music actually may have made that movie for me. Music is a major factor in a movie for me-- not just its presence or even its quality, but its selection. I looked at the soundtrack in Borders and didn't recognize too many names or know the songs by memory, but hearing them in the movie made them all seem to fit perfectly (though I would have picked another Muse song; if they were so damn inspirational to Meyer, why not use more of them? I personally like "Sing for Absolution," "Endlessly," and "Butterflies and Hurricanes" as "Twilight-esque" songs). Also, VERY impressed withRPattz Spunk Ransom for singing a song for the OST! *applause* I liked it bunches, Mr. Bedroom Eyes (or so some magazine Steph had calls him)! Basically, the songs fit the moments in which they were used, and the moments without music or sound were right, too.
* The acting. With few exceptions, I liked the actors picked. Atlantis and Kysra, you're right-- Stewart and Pattinson have chemistry rolling off them in waves. I was surprised myself when I realized it-- I was actually tense in my seat! I could easily see all of the actors AS the characters they were portraying, even if the characters themselves are somewhat two-dimensional. I loved Stewart's chemistry with the two girls playing Jessica and Angela as well-- surprisingly Jessica more than Angela, even though Jessica is supposed to be the one we end up disliking a bit in the books. But all the talk about how Jessica's dress made her boobs look great? So a teenage thing I've done. So while the script-writer might get credit for that, the girls get credit for making me BELIEVE it.
* Eric. Played by an Asian guy! Totally unexpected, but somehow so perfect. I loved this guy, even though he was barely there in the movie, and super-annoying in the books. The other guys were good too, mainly because the script-writer and Hardwicke didn't insist on Mary-Sue-izing Bella to the nth degree that Meyer did: two boys might have attempted to ask Bella to prom, but they weren't as persistent and pathetic about it as in the books, and it didn't seem as if everyone was so totally IN WUB with her. They seemed more... well, teenager-ish! Even Mike was fairly realistic, dummy that he was. The actor made me believe he was Mike!
What needed work:
* The script. While I was thrilled that it cut out much of Meyer's pathetic purple prose (and added some great humor and attitude), I didn't like how there seemed to be more time dedicated to sweeping nature shots than character development. But the action sequences were okay, vividly bringing to life the emotion that Meyer DID manage to do well. But there are sometimes when a movie should attempt to answer questions that a book didn't. Even if a book can be as long as it wants, a movie's got to convey things in a particular way and within a particular timeframe... and even if the movie does damn well just by the virtue of it being a "Twilight" movie, it still didn't answer my one vital question:
WHY IS BELLA IN LOVE WITH EDWARD?
Invalid Answers Include:
* Because he thinks she smells/tastes good
* Because Alice saw it would be so in a vision
* Because he can't read her mind
* Because he dazzles her
etc. because all of those are about Edward and why the poor boy might be deluded and in love with her.
But why is BELLA suddenly in love with EDWARD? I mean, at the start of the book/movie, we've got this girl who's got a bit of a maturity complex thanks to her "airheaded" mom (who actually came across as fairly mom-ish in the movie, but still in a not-stern, "fun" kind of way-- not an immature mom, though; I mean she DID have to be mature enough to have raised Bella as a single mom). She's also a klutz and kind of a martyr (but let's be honest, unless you were raised by an asshole, wouldn't you die for someone you loved, too? You probably wouldn't think twice about it if you had to make the choice in a split second), but why did she change her mind from "this handsome, reclusive guy who's been a jerk to me from the start" to "he is suddenly irrevocably the guy I'm destined to die to be with forever and ever"?
Answer me that and you get a cookie. A pumpkin cookie.
* The dazzling. Seriously, the most laughable effect of the books was severely understated in the movies. I can't take Edward SPARKLING as a threat if all we see is something akin to a mild body glitter applied a bit liberally, or something like he's been sweating by "working out" at a Frederick's of Hollywood. It wasn't that much. And sorry Bella, hun, it wasn't "like diamonds" or even "beautiful." Maybe "pretty." But "beautiful" is too strong a word, and besides, wouldn't Edward feel a bit emaciated being called "beautiful" anyway? If it were me I would look at him, blink, and go "You're... sparkly." Frankly, there's no other way to put it. It doesn't make him freakish, he just SPARKLES.
But for folks that know the books, how is what we saw in the movie supposed to lead up to what we know happens in later books? That sparkle is NOT threatening. Hell, it's not really enough to truly keep them out on a regular day in Forks! They should have made them more of an eyesore for me to take that sparkle seriously.
* The makeup. Handsome or as beautiful as all the vampires are supposed to be, Carlisle looked too much like a plastic Ken doll than I thought he would. Esme also didn't... look like Esme to me. I think I was expecting a much taller, thinner, blonde woman (for some reason???). And Victoria was supposed to be a flaming redhead, not a strawberry blonde, dammit! In part, that could be casting selection, and partly special effects (esp. where the vamp eye color is concerned; there was one close-up of Edward's eyes when I could see the contact lens).
So, overall... I would have liked to have seen it in a bigger theatre, and possibly even with some of the annoying Twitlighters. I didn't see anyone wearing any Twilight shirts or squealing when RPattz came on screen. Maybe it's 'cause we saw the 9:40pm show in a fairly nice district-- we saw it with other Twatlighters or just "normal folk" like myself (heh!). No tweens or teens in sight.
I laughed a bit obnoxiously at (likely) inopportune moments, but no one SSH!d me or anything. I didn't do it to be annoying, but there were parts where eye-rolling simply wasn't enough of a reaction. I had to smother myself at certain times in the movie, because the CHEESE was just too much.
I'd give the movie a B- or a C. I don't know if I'd see it again, but I might buy the soundtrack. I wouldn't buy the DVD or any other products. But I'd see the other movies-- they seem like they might be good, provided the actors stay the same. Hardwicke might have done a decent job, but I think the screenwriter here deserves the most credit for adapting Meyer's trash and turning it into a nice, sparkly trinket.
I'm not crazy enough to 'ship anything (seriously, that is; I mean, I know it's all Edward/Bella and, during the later books, a touch of Jacob/Bella), let alone get into the fandom. It's more fun to laugh at from the outside than dare to tread the murky waters from the inside. Actually, I'd say the "Twilight" fandom is akin to rip currents at the beach-- you can get sucked in and DROWN, washed under by the insanity and asshattery if you don't know how to find the right path and SWIM, SWIM FAR AWAY!
If future movies are made, I'd hope "Eclipse" and "New Moon" get combined, and someone completely revises "Breaking Dawn." I think three movies for the series would be solid, feasible for the actors, and better for the series as a whole. But of course, nothing could save the series if some of the sheer stupidity of "Breaking Dawn" got left intact. (Hell, that's why I want to revise "Only 16:" I looked back on some of the stupid shit I wrote and honestly asked myself wtf I was thinking. I wish Meyer would do the same so she doesn't place the burden of work on the screenwriter that might have to adapt that tripe.)
Oh, and "Midnight Sun"? Well, let's cross that bridge when we get to it, okay?
guardian_kysra, you asked for it. And atlantian_magic, I owe you an apology: (Sorry about railing on you for Twilight. But there's a qualifier to this apology, so read on.)I saw "Twilight" tonight at the Marina Theatre with Steph and Crystal. And... it wasn't that bad. Not just for a movie, but for an adaptation of a book. And not just a book, but a YA novel (or whatever Meyer's marketing it as these days). And... not that bad for something that, in print, was as godawful as the "Twilight" series was.
So yeah, that's my qualification, Atlantis: love the movie, fangirl the movie, but hate the books, please? Because the books are trash and I firmly believe that anyone with a literary education ought to realize that (but of course that's my "high and mighty" opinion, so folks can disagree).
What I liked:
* The cinematography. Very lovely. Impressive that they filmed it IN FORKS, which is awesome-- few movies ever get filmed where they say they are taking place. Sometimes that's due to budgetary constraints and sometimes due to impossibility (Iron Man being filmed in Afghanistan? Pshaw!). But I want to dock a few points here because there WAS stock footage used, and while that made the movie as a whole cooler, it didn't improve upon the story at all. As for other cinema-like matters, the special effects were decent enough, esp. for the fight scenes. The tree-climbing scenes looked a bit... weird, but then again, whoever heard of a vampire that speeds up trees, anyway?
* The music. The music actually may have made that movie for me. Music is a major factor in a movie for me-- not just its presence or even its quality, but its selection. I looked at the soundtrack in Borders and didn't recognize too many names or know the songs by memory, but hearing them in the movie made them all seem to fit perfectly (though I would have picked another Muse song; if they were so damn inspirational to Meyer, why not use more of them? I personally like "Sing for Absolution," "Endlessly," and "Butterflies and Hurricanes" as "Twilight-esque" songs). Also, VERY impressed with
* The acting. With few exceptions, I liked the actors picked. Atlantis and Kysra, you're right-- Stewart and Pattinson have chemistry rolling off them in waves. I was surprised myself when I realized it-- I was actually tense in my seat! I could easily see all of the actors AS the characters they were portraying, even if the characters themselves are somewhat two-dimensional. I loved Stewart's chemistry with the two girls playing Jessica and Angela as well-- surprisingly Jessica more than Angela, even though Jessica is supposed to be the one we end up disliking a bit in the books. But all the talk about how Jessica's dress made her boobs look great? So a teenage thing I've done. So while the script-writer might get credit for that, the girls get credit for making me BELIEVE it.
* Eric. Played by an Asian guy! Totally unexpected, but somehow so perfect. I loved this guy, even though he was barely there in the movie, and super-annoying in the books. The other guys were good too, mainly because the script-writer and Hardwicke didn't insist on Mary-Sue-izing Bella to the nth degree that Meyer did: two boys might have attempted to ask Bella to prom, but they weren't as persistent and pathetic about it as in the books, and it didn't seem as if everyone was so totally IN WUB with her. They seemed more... well, teenager-ish! Even Mike was fairly realistic, dummy that he was. The actor made me believe he was Mike!
What needed work:
* The script. While I was thrilled that it cut out much of Meyer's pathetic purple prose (and added some great humor and attitude), I didn't like how there seemed to be more time dedicated to sweeping nature shots than character development. But the action sequences were okay, vividly bringing to life the emotion that Meyer DID manage to do well. But there are sometimes when a movie should attempt to answer questions that a book didn't. Even if a book can be as long as it wants, a movie's got to convey things in a particular way and within a particular timeframe... and even if the movie does damn well just by the virtue of it being a "Twilight" movie, it still didn't answer my one vital question:
WHY IS BELLA IN LOVE WITH EDWARD?
Invalid Answers Include:
* Because he thinks she smells/tastes good
* Because Alice saw it would be so in a vision
* Because he can't read her mind
* Because he dazzles her
etc. because all of those are about Edward and why the poor boy might be deluded and in love with her.
But why is BELLA suddenly in love with EDWARD? I mean, at the start of the book/movie, we've got this girl who's got a bit of a maturity complex thanks to her "airheaded" mom (who actually came across as fairly mom-ish in the movie, but still in a not-stern, "fun" kind of way-- not an immature mom, though; I mean she DID have to be mature enough to have raised Bella as a single mom). She's also a klutz and kind of a martyr (but let's be honest, unless you were raised by an asshole, wouldn't you die for someone you loved, too? You probably wouldn't think twice about it if you had to make the choice in a split second), but why did she change her mind from "this handsome, reclusive guy who's been a jerk to me from the start" to "he is suddenly irrevocably the guy I'm destined to die to be with forever and ever"?
Answer me that and you get a cookie. A pumpkin cookie.
* The dazzling. Seriously, the most laughable effect of the books was severely understated in the movies. I can't take Edward SPARKLING as a threat if all we see is something akin to a mild body glitter applied a bit liberally, or something like he's been sweating by "working out" at a Frederick's of Hollywood. It wasn't that much. And sorry Bella, hun, it wasn't "like diamonds" or even "beautiful." Maybe "pretty." But "beautiful" is too strong a word, and besides, wouldn't Edward feel a bit emaciated being called "beautiful" anyway? If it were me I would look at him, blink, and go "You're... sparkly." Frankly, there's no other way to put it. It doesn't make him freakish, he just SPARKLES.
But for folks that know the books, how is what we saw in the movie supposed to lead up to what we know happens in later books? That sparkle is NOT threatening. Hell, it's not really enough to truly keep them out on a regular day in Forks! They should have made them more of an eyesore for me to take that sparkle seriously.
* The makeup. Handsome or as beautiful as all the vampires are supposed to be, Carlisle looked too much like a plastic Ken doll than I thought he would. Esme also didn't... look like Esme to me. I think I was expecting a much taller, thinner, blonde woman (for some reason???). And Victoria was supposed to be a flaming redhead, not a strawberry blonde, dammit! In part, that could be casting selection, and partly special effects (esp. where the vamp eye color is concerned; there was one close-up of Edward's eyes when I could see the contact lens).
So, overall... I would have liked to have seen it in a bigger theatre, and possibly even with some of the annoying Twitlighters. I didn't see anyone wearing any Twilight shirts or squealing when RPattz came on screen. Maybe it's 'cause we saw the 9:40pm show in a fairly nice district-- we saw it with other Twatlighters or just "normal folk" like myself (heh!). No tweens or teens in sight.
I laughed a bit obnoxiously at (likely) inopportune moments, but no one SSH!d me or anything. I didn't do it to be annoying, but there were parts where eye-rolling simply wasn't enough of a reaction. I had to smother myself at certain times in the movie, because the CHEESE was just too much.
I'd give the movie a B- or a C. I don't know if I'd see it again, but I might buy the soundtrack. I wouldn't buy the DVD or any other products. But I'd see the other movies-- they seem like they might be good, provided the actors stay the same. Hardwicke might have done a decent job, but I think the screenwriter here deserves the most credit for adapting Meyer's trash and turning it into a nice, sparkly trinket.
I'm not crazy enough to 'ship anything (seriously, that is; I mean, I know it's all Edward/Bella and, during the later books, a touch of Jacob/Bella), let alone get into the fandom. It's more fun to laugh at from the outside than dare to tread the murky waters from the inside. Actually, I'd say the "Twilight" fandom is akin to rip currents at the beach-- you can get sucked in and DROWN, washed under by the insanity and asshattery if you don't know how to find the right path and SWIM, SWIM FAR AWAY!
If future movies are made, I'd hope "Eclipse" and "New Moon" get combined, and someone completely revises "Breaking Dawn." I think three movies for the series would be solid, feasible for the actors, and better for the series as a whole. But of course, nothing could save the series if some of the sheer stupidity of "Breaking Dawn" got left intact. (Hell, that's why I want to revise "Only 16:" I looked back on some of the stupid shit I wrote and honestly asked myself wtf I was thinking. I wish Meyer would do the same so she doesn't place the burden of work on the screenwriter that might have to adapt that tripe.)
Oh, and "Midnight Sun"? Well, let's cross that bridge when we get to it, okay?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-24 09:37 am (UTC)But if you want to see it again, I wouldn't mind seeing it if it's out in like a month...provided we get dolled up for the occasion in our Team Jacob/Team Edward shirts so we can be the ones squealing in lame delight. Eva actually had an interest in seeing it.
Good post, you're on the money.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-24 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-24 10:00 pm (UTC)I'm not going to defend the movie/book/series/author/etc. really, but I am curious about people's varied reactions.
That said, if you look at it purely from a story perspective, yeah, it still sucked. The characters sucked. But they have teeny-tiny dimensions of them which I kind of liked or can relate to; it's really on the later books that the suckage starts to come in more chunks (more often, bigger chunks o'suck).
no subject
Date: 2008-11-25 02:13 pm (UTC)I guess I like my characters to have more than 1 dimension and be a wee bit more complicated than your average tween.
Between Meyer and Rowling, I think they took the women's movement back a couple decades or so.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-26 06:35 am (UTC)But yes, my major concerns with Bella, as previously mentioned-- just why does she fall in love with Edward? And why does she want to change for him? Sure, if she kept aging and he didn't, at some point, it might feel/look awkward, but still, that doesn't mean giving up ALL experiences humanity offers. Meyer has attempted to justify Bella as a feminist heroine, but she obviously doesn't grasp the difference between feminine and feminist. Bella's "choice" to be a young wife and mother (and a vampire one, at that, doing whatever it is vampire people do: travel, hunt, etc.) is only presented as such because we see no other alternatives. Meyer makes it look like THAT OR DEATH.
Which sucks. I think I mentioned I'd rewrite "Twilight" if I thought I'd make the money Meyer did-- Bella would be wry, sarcastic, cynical, and not believe in love. She'd be a klutz, but it'd be intentional to a degree, and more of a psychological klutziness than a physical one. Her eventually coming around and falling in love with Edward would be a VERY gradual thing, especially because, at first, they both resist it!
...Ugh, I don't want a potential plot bunny for that series to take over my brain.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-26 02:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-27 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-27 05:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-27 08:05 am (UTC)(Sad thing? I've got a few scenes in my head already. As if I don't have enough on my plate.)