Well, I finally saw it. I know you're happy for me.
I love this series (in book format) because of the characters. So I was pretty excited about the movie. Overall it was... okay. Kind of at the same level as Highlander for me. Not that I dislike Highlander. (I won't say how many times I've seen it, as that might discredit what little authority I have, but let's just say it's been more than once. Voluntarily.) But like Highlander, I think Twilight could have been a lot better.
In case you've been living in a cave and have no idea what I'm talking about, Highlander is about a group of immortals who cut one another's heads off and have an orgasmic-like "Quickening" in which they absorb the other immortal's power. Oh, you wanted to know about Twilight... that's about a shy human girl who falls in love with a vampire and I can't believe you didn't know that.
So the movie was pretty hilarious. I'm actually kind of bummed it was such a success, because this is exactly the kind of thing I'd enjoy torturing people with by recommending. ;) Kristen Stewart has "teenage angst" down to a science, I'll give her that. None of the teenagers look like actual teenagers, the special effects are terrible, and it's way too long.
But none of that really bothered me too much. What did really bother me was Robert Pattinson, aka Edward. He is not how I imagined Edward at all. Creepy stalker much? Lordy lordy who thought it was a good idea to cast him in this role? Actually, he reminded me of James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause--he would have been great in that movie! This one, not so much.
Uhg, seriously, what is up with that guy? Okay, message to RPatt: I know that for some guys (if you're a total pussy), playing Edward as he's supposed to be (re: a gentleman--you know what that is, right? RIGHT?) might be seen as a threat to one's masculine integrity. But if that's the case, the least you can do is play him with some dignity instead of going for the total creepazoid factor.
On to the special effects--HORRIBLE. I was so disappointed with Edward's sparkliness; it just looked like he was covered in sweat. I was really looking forward to the sparkly skin, too. And the running through the forest made me lawl.
And I think this is the perfect example of what is wrong with this movie (besides weirdo RPatt): the running through the trees was kind of cheesy even in the book, so why in the name of his holy Edwardness would you put it in your movie, especially when you clearly don't have the budget to do it anyway? Why not take all the good things from the book, throw out the not-so-great things, and then throw some imagination into the mix? There is a total lack of imagination in this movie. I mean, the vampires don't even have fangs. I want my vampires to have fangs, dammit! You followed ye olde rule of bad vampires dressing in ridiculously flamboyant outfits (that's where the term "vamp" comes from, fyi... not really), so why not the fangs?? Hmm? Why. Not. the Fangs.
So the movie was okay. I think I might need to watch it again, actually. Maybe it's better the second time around...? I'm glad I saw it, anyway.
I love this series (in book format) because of the characters. So I was pretty excited about the movie. Overall it was... okay. Kind of at the same level as Highlander for me. Not that I dislike Highlander. (I won't say how many times I've seen it, as that might discredit what little authority I have, but let's just say it's been more than once. Voluntarily.) But like Highlander, I think Twilight could have been a lot better.
In case you've been living in a cave and have no idea what I'm talking about, Highlander is about a group of immortals who cut one another's heads off and have an orgasmic-like "Quickening" in which they absorb the other immortal's power. Oh, you wanted to know about Twilight... that's about a shy human girl who falls in love with a vampire and I can't believe you didn't know that.
So the movie was pretty hilarious. I'm actually kind of bummed it was such a success, because this is exactly the kind of thing I'd enjoy torturing people with by recommending. ;) Kristen Stewart has "teenage angst" down to a science, I'll give her that. None of the teenagers look like actual teenagers, the special effects are terrible, and it's way too long.
But none of that really bothered me too much. What did really bother me was Robert Pattinson, aka Edward. He is not how I imagined Edward at all. Creepy stalker much? Lordy lordy who thought it was a good idea to cast him in this role? Actually, he reminded me of James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause--he would have been great in that movie! This one, not so much.
Uhg, seriously, what is up with that guy? Okay, message to RPatt: I know that for some guys (if you're a total pussy), playing Edward as he's supposed to be (re: a gentleman--you know what that is, right? RIGHT?) might be seen as a threat to one's masculine integrity. But if that's the case, the least you can do is play him with some dignity instead of going for the total creepazoid factor.
On to the special effects--HORRIBLE. I was so disappointed with Edward's sparkliness; it just looked like he was covered in sweat. I was really looking forward to the sparkly skin, too. And the running through the forest made me lawl.
And I think this is the perfect example of what is wrong with this movie (besides weirdo RPatt): the running through the trees was kind of cheesy even in the book, so why in the name of his holy Edwardness would you put it in your movie, especially when you clearly don't have the budget to do it anyway? Why not take all the good things from the book, throw out the not-so-great things, and then throw some imagination into the mix? There is a total lack of imagination in this movie. I mean, the vampires don't even have fangs. I want my vampires to have fangs, dammit! You followed ye olde rule of bad vampires dressing in ridiculously flamboyant outfits (that's where the term "vamp" comes from, fyi... not really), so why not the fangs?? Hmm? Why. Not. the Fangs.
So the movie was okay. I think I might need to watch it again, actually. Maybe it's better the second time around...? I'm glad I saw it, anyway.
Powered by ScribeFire.
