The Twilight Movie

Recommended Videos

Tomdoodle

New member
Sep 4, 2008
62
0
0
Adapted from Stephenie Meyer's popular romance novel, Twilight had a variety of reputations to live up to, and to shake off. Cited by some for capturing the true essence of romance, and others for being over rated and repetitive literary dross, director Catherine Hardwicke had some huge challenges to overcome. Could she silence the doubters, while simultaneously giving the die-hard fans the film they so desperately wanted?

Twilight opens with Bella, portrayed by Kristen Stewert, voicing over a scene in which a lonely fawn is chased through the forest by an unknown predator, unsubtly conveying the outline of the film's plot. The symbolism is tragically obvious; the fawn resembling the innocent and vulnerable Bella, whilst the feral predator is her love interest Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a vampire.

The plot advances at a snails pace, as we see Bella and Edward go through all the trademark awkwardness of a high school relationship. There's the awkward glances across the lunch hall, the awkward conversations in classes, and the awkward silences that usually follow with Edward and his gigantic coiffure storming out of the room. Everything, from the movement and expressions of the characters to the lines and their delivery, is over dramatised to the point where it all becomes laughable, apart from the occasional moments when it crosses the line into being painfully embarrassing to watch. Don't be surprised if you end up missing a lot of the film from burying your face in your hands. Don't worry though, it's likely that all you're missing is an extreme close up of someone's eyes.

Twilight doesn't really kick into gear until the last thirty minutes, when Edward's family of humanitarian vampires are confronted by a trio of more typical, bloodthirsty vampires. When they pick up Bella's scent, an obsessive hunt begins, as Bella is chased across the country by James (Cam Gigandet), a tracker vampire. By no means is it good, it still suffers from most of the flaws of the first three quarters of the film, but the added pace and action leave you feeling at least slightly entertained.

On top of this, Twilight is yet another example of a shoddy book-to-film adaptation. While the outlines of the story remain the same, there's the usual case of scenes from the novel being scrapped, or replaced with scenes that never happened. But, to be fair, it's easy to see why things were rearranged, as some of the lines that do make it into the screenplay are simply woeful, including a hilariously bad pun, when Edward describes Bella as being "like a drug, my own personal heroin", a line which better belongs in a badly written Harry Potter fan-fiction. The concept of vampires glittering like diamonds in sunlight, as opposed to the traditional combustion, is reduced to a couple of brief scenes, where Edward looks less like a glittering diamond and more like he's got a sticky vampiric sweat on.

Twilight is poor, as an adaptation and as a film. There are so few saving graces you'd have to amputate both hands if you wanted to count them on your fingers, and it's certainly not going to silence any critics of the novel, or satisfy the average film goer. But, if you're a fan, then this is worth checking out. A little plot meddling isn't going to ruin the greatest romantic epic of our time, is it?
 

CZTM

New member
Dec 20, 2008
40
0
0
Very nice. I was impressed (as Zen stated) at the unbiased nature of the review, especially considering the garbled amount of hate the book/movie seemed to generate around here. I was actually capable of reading through it, and never once did I think you simply hated it because of what it was, but rather what its flaws were. Very nice in that regard. Granted, it was a tad on the short side, but sometimes less is more, and considering the source of the review, that was probably a very good thing.
 

Jamanticus

New member
Sep 7, 2008
1,213
0
0
superpandaman said:
The book/movie is the decline of human civilization
Yes, but what about the review?


On that subject, it was quite short, but it still gave an excellent summary of the film and associated, well, badness.

It also had a sharp wit to it, and that above all makes me say, 'Well-done!'
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
It's also a terribly shoddy book that has a "fawn" with an attitude problem and a "feral predator" with no backbone, suffers from one of the worst Mary-Sue's since Torchwood, and is seemingly created purely to give an outlet to pubescent female fantasies. (I was half expecting a unicorn to appear at one point)

I mean, at least the "Da Vinci Code" had a good bad guy.

But again, a damn good review Tomdoodle. Cookie for you.
 

JWAN

New member
Dec 27, 2008
2,725
0
0
nice review but I still wont pay to see it because:
1. its a chick flick
2. Im not gonna pay $6.50 to watch a romance movie
3. If I have to go my date, whoever she is better pay. then we need to see a better movie right after it.
 

blackcherry

New member
Apr 9, 2008
706
0
0
I have to say I'm silently impressed (if that makes any sense at all).

A very unbiased review and as CZTM said, it looks like you have taken the time to both read the book and watch the film and consider its negative points, rather than just spew bile over the review in general, knowing you will get instant hi fives from the community.

Very good, regardless of my feelings on the matter myself.