Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



lyrangalia ([info]lyrangalia) wrote in [info]fandom_lounge,
@ 2008-11-19 00:00:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:twilight lounge

The First Trickle... Twilight reviews (non-pro)
Hope this is okay, but someone on my LJ f-list won tickets to a Twilight advance screening, and here are some choice bits of her review of the movie that really rather amused me. (Don't want to flood her LJ)

Well, I did like the movie. It was a good movie. The book was way better, without a doubt better.

Well, I'm afraid already.

I did not like Edwards sparkles. They looked gross and freaky to me anyway, when they are supposed to be pretty and dazzling.

Sparkle Motion is gross and freaky?! BLASPHEMY!

Some of the (famous) quotes that we all love so much, sounded so weird when they actually said them out loud. The "Do I dazzle you" quote, never even happened.

Well damn

Jacob was freaking sexy as hell. Every time he came on the screen my sister tugged on my arm cause she had to tell me "Yum!" and I couldnt disagree with her. I think he looks better then Edwards character.

Cue shrieking from Team Edward.

Jaspers character was funny. Jessica descriped him as "He always looks like he is in pain." And he did. Throughout the whole movie. It was funny.

Too many jazz hands?

I think out of all the characters, Emmetts character was the only one that nailed, absolutely nailed his character from the book to the movie.

Growing Up Cullen, where are you?


ETA 1: Thanks to [info]shallow_kid for pointing out the lion_lamb review thread.
ETA 1.5: Thanks to [info]sistercoyote for reminding me that Rotten Tomatoes should be getting their reviews in soon.
ETA: 2: Reviews just keep pouring in. Will continue adding as time allows.

Chicago-Tribune says fwoopy!
Ebert thinks it's a metaphor.
Variety lays the smackdown.
The V247 thinks KStew's face was stuck on "sulk".
Defamer thinks it'd appeal to fans of cheesy Sci-fi.
(Oh Sci-Fi network, why didn't you sign the deal first?)
Village Voice swoons, then falls asleep

MetroMix Chicago says "meh".
Even Twihards aren't loving it?! Inconceivable!
Entertainment Weekly tries to gush. Fails.
The San Francisco Chronicle thinks watching the movie will help you understand the hype. (except not)
Nolan's Pop Culture Review confuses the Cullens with beer.
The Naperville Sun wants to laugh at inopportune moments.
Fangst calls a duck a duck.
Gawker introduces us to the mental image of Twihards' groin tingles. (DO NOT WANT)
Slant wishes Edward and Bella would drop dead.
The Examiner wants to sic PETA on the Cullens.
A TwiMom takes issue with RPattz. World implodes.
Montreal Movies is disgusted
sortofbeautiful (homebase of Team Jacob) also has a review thread.
Jam snarks about Edward's Volvo.
The New York Times: Doing its damnest to legitimize OMG.
The AV Club thinks Twilight suffers from an identity crisis.
Montreal Gazette disagrees with Montreal Movies.
The Arizona Republic proves that Phoenix has taste. (And that's why SMeyer moved away)
FlickFilosopher sez: AMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZING MOVIE.
Eric Snider doesn't think Twlight is a vampire movie.
ScreenIt decides to count the use of "boobs" instead of pay attention.
Salon thinks Edward Cullen's possessed RPattz.
Oregon Live is split on the subject.
Houston Chronicle tries to convert fangirls to the light. Fails.
Montreal Mirror says it out loud: Twilight is terrible.

Wank has already started in (surprise!) Twilight Lexicon
And [info]ilya brings us a clip of SPARKLE MOTION.

ETA n+1: Thanks to everyone for making my inbox explode for linking to reviews, especially [info]mariem_1, who is a review finding machine. RT's at 43%.

ETA n+2: I'll update links one last time on Friday, then collapse in a post-Twilight heap. Someone send my inbox some first aid? (Dear Gmail, I love you)

ETA the last: If anyone else wants to compile the monumental amounts of wank in the reviews' comments (there's some good stuff at RT), please do.

So, any bets on when the wank level reaches 9000 and f_w will have to step in? (My moneys on Friday morning)



Page 2 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]mariem_1
2008-11-19 11:21 pm UTC (link)
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/usercomments:

Author: ricedoll from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I'm an avid Twilight reader and stalker (yes I went to Hot Topic tour.) I can't remember a time when I was SO anxious and excited to see a movie. I just saw Twilight at a screening in San Francisco on 11/17. I left the theatre feeling…..indifferent.

First of all, I knew the movie was not going to be based exactly to the books but at the same time it kind of hurts me to say that it just wasn't good. ~sigh I felt that the director Catherine tried to bring her indie elements into the Hollywood style movie that just didn't work. The opening scene with the deer was alright, but I was just about to laugh out loud when the movie got to Edward and Bella finally acknowledging what Edward truly was. This was the biggest issue I had. I didn't think viewers were able to experience the intensity of Bella and Edward relationship. I wouldn't believe that Bella was ready to place her undying pledge to go vamp at the end. The scene was so choppy, where it felt like the scene was full of greatest hits of one liners all cram into this one scene. It wasn't the turning point as where it should have been. The movie was clearly not based on romance, which is the ultimate theme of the book. The movie hastily breezed through the courtship development to finally get to the lingering action sequence.

I like Robert but he just couldn't pull off a convincing Edward. His reaction to Bella in Biology class was just laughable. Again Catherine trying to pull the artsy camera cuts--- silly, silly. Jasper's reaction was humorous also.

Edward's showing Bella who he was in the sun was not remarkable. His body hardly glisten. Couldn't they get Britney's Swarovski body suit from her "Toxic" video? The movie nicely brought out Rosalie's dislike for Bella. Alice was very convincing and good. Carlise was attractive and fitting.

I was surprised by the diverse student body of Forks. I liked Jessica a lot. It was hard to see her as the small minded character as how she was written in the book.

All in all, this movie wasn't made for fans of the book, but to lure moviegoers into (hopefully) the film franchise.

Little things that could have been included in the movie to make the readers happy wasn't included. Such as why couldn't Bella wear the blue V neck sweater when meeting the Cullens for the first time? Why couldn't Bella attack Edward on the onset of their first kiss? Why couldn't Edward's couch be black? Why did James bite Bella on her forearm and not her hand?

As a Twilighter, I think I may go see it again just to see if my reactions change, but I wouldn't recommend this film to any non-Twilighters.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sheep, 2008-11-19 11:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilisliana, 2008-11-20 05:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 05:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilisliana, 2008-11-20 07:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 07:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilisliana, 2008-11-20 08:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xellos, 2008-11-20 10:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dawnswalker, 2008-11-20 02:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]heartsalliance, 2008-11-20 03:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]feenix, 2008-11-20 03:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilisliana, 2008-11-20 04:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2008-11-20 07:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 07:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]okalintu, 2008-11-20 10:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dico, 2008-11-20 10:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dico, 2008-11-20 10:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]r_a_black, 2008-11-20 11:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]da_angel729, 2008-11-20 11:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sparkysrevenge, 2008-11-20 01:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]splorch, 2008-11-21 04:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]elimination, 2008-11-21 12:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dawnswalker, 2008-11-21 10:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mania, 2008-11-23 07:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]r_a_black, 2008-11-20 11:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-11-20 12:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 06:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-11-20 06:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]r_a_black, 2008-11-21 03:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-11-21 03:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]salamandersam, 2008-11-20 04:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2008-11-20 07:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]salamandersam, 2008-11-20 09:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]anonyrat, 2008-11-21 11:20 pm UTC

[info]dico
2008-11-19 11:42 pm UTC (link)
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20241357,00.html

EW: That's the best review we can rightfully give it. Can we please go back to our families know Ms. Hardwicke? You can say we escaped, Stephenie will never know!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dico, 2008-11-19 11:43 pm UTC

[info]cat_mcdougall
2008-11-19 11:45 pm UTC (link)
USA Weekend blog:

Buffy: Does it ever get easy?
Giles: You mean reading Twilight?
Buffy: Yeah, does it get easy?
Giles: What do you want me to say?
Buffy: Lie to me.
Giles: Yes. It's terribly simple, the grammar is lovely and the descriptions perfect. The vampires always sparkle. The bad guys are easily distinguished by their hoods, and, uh, we always defeat them and save the day by talking out our differences with no violence whatsover. No one ever dies and... everybody lives happily ever after, especially after they read this wonderful book.
Buffy: Liar.

... And so much freaking more. I think I love it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dico, 2008-11-20 01:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]esther_a, 2008-11-20 03:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2008-11-20 04:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 05:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaina, 2008-11-20 05:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dico, 2008-11-20 06:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shylu, 2008-11-20 05:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilisliana, 2008-11-20 09:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2008-11-20 10:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 06:13 am UTC

[info]mariem_1
2008-11-19 11:56 pm UTC (link)
Movie review: Dreamy undead in 'Twilight':

"Twilight" will probably be a huge disappointment to those expecting a horror film, a lot of good special effects, a kinky, sexual vampire picture or any combination of the above. More time during this movie is spent talking about going to the prom than drinking human blood. The climactic battle takes place in a ballet studio.

"Twilight" has its Jason Patric and Jami Gertz, but it needs a Kiefer Sutherland. The bad guys are an afterthought in this movie, and when they show up they're only slightly more menacing than a class bully. The special effects are also borderline ridiculous - particularly when the vampires are either running super-fast (you'll want to fill in your own "Six Million Dollar Man" sound effects) or exposed to the sun.

Which brings us to the sparkling, a phenomenon that causes light-stricken vampires to suddenly look as if they've had a horrible accident involving a glitter truck and an angry mob armed with Bedazzlers. What may have seemed cool in the book looks like a human disco ball onscreen.

One more small note, which is very important for the future of our economy: Several characters in this film have George Michael's gravity-defying bird's-nest hair from the Wham "Make It Big" sessions, which looks only slightly less ridiculous now than it did in 1984. Invest any spare cash you have in companies that deal in hair gel. I have a feeling this film is going to be huge.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]keri, 2008-11-20 12:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]reeve, 2008-11-20 12:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ilya, 2008-11-21 11:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]reeve, 2008-11-21 03:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ilya, 2008-11-21 11:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitsune_wolf, 2008-11-21 12:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ilya, 2008-11-21 12:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]keri, 2008-11-21 02:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ilya, 2008-11-21 03:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]keri, 2008-11-21 03:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]miraba, 2008-11-20 01:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]platedlizard, 2008-11-20 01:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2008-11-20 03:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]feenix, 2008-11-20 04:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2008-11-20 04:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilan, 2008-11-20 02:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilan, 2008-11-20 02:25 pm UTC

[info]lilychan
2008-11-20 03:40 am UTC (link)
I really want to go to the premiere of the movie and take pictures of the festivities. :( Alas, it seems I'll be going by myself or I'll have to go on Saturday or Sunday. Baw.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 05:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2008-11-21 01:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-21 01:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2008-11-21 01:31 am UTC

[info]squeakthemouse
2008-11-20 03:54 am UTC (link)
Rotten tomatoes is up to 50% now... the only explanation I can give is that someone was handing out free crack at the theater.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]rose_tyler, 2008-11-20 03:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]squeakthemouse, 2008-11-20 04:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rose_tyler, 2008-11-20 04:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ichigatsu, 2008-11-20 05:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rekall, 2008-11-20 04:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]squeakthemouse, 2008-11-20 04:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 05:06 am UTC

[info]ichigatsu
2008-11-20 04:23 am UTC (link)
For some reason, it's warming the cockles of my heart that HSM3 had better reviews.

Hardwicke can’t get inside the head of her young protagonist, Isabella “Bella” Swan (Kristen Stewart)
Somehow I doubt that's Catherine Hardwicke's fault.

Bella Swan, the new kid with the "Daria" vibe
If Daria was a real person, she'd probably take none too kindly to that.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2008-11-20 04:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 04:57 am UTC
The sleep drugs are kicking in. I make no guarantee of coherence. - [info]sistercoyote, 2008-11-20 05:09 am UTC
Re: The sleep drugs are kicking in. I make no guarantee of coherence. - [info]ichigatsu, 2008-11-20 05:11 am UTC
Re: The sleep drugs are kicking in. I make no guarantee of coherence. - [info]sistercoyote, 2008-11-20 05:12 am UTC
Re: The sleep drugs are kicking in. I make no guarantee of coherence. - [info]shallow_kid, 2008-11-20 02:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pandabonzai, 2008-11-20 04:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bienegold, 2008-11-20 06:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pandabonzai, 2008-11-21 05:20 am UTC

[info]mariem_1
2008-11-20 07:00 am UTC (link)
Nolan's Pop Culture Review # 452:

Bella (Stewart) moves to the small town of Forks, Washington to live with her father (Billy Burke) the town's chief of police. Seems mom has gotten remarried to a baseball player and she’s leaving Phoenix and heading down to spring training with him. With a population of less than 4,000 people, the new girl in town draws the attention of her fellow classmates. But one student catches her eye, the very pale Edward Cullen (Pattinson). Made lab partners in biology, Bella senses that she makes Edward uncomfortable. Just as uncomfortable are the townspeople. Seems a few of them are turning up dead, apparently the victim of animal attacks. Did I mention that Edward was very pale?

I’ll admit here that I haven’t read “Twilight.” I have no idea if the book is just a hodgepodge of vampire tricks inter-spliced into a love story. I do know that the movie is exactly that. And though we as movie-goers have some idea as to how our vampires should act, the ones here bend the rules. Sunlight doesn’t kill them. It only makes them shine like diamonds. Though some vampires drink human blood, the Cullen clan (mom, dad and the “kids”) have learned to adapt with the occasional deer. And, when they have their little get togethers, they like to play baseball, the great American game. There’s a subplot about how the native Americans are descended from wolves and that they help protect others from “the cold ones” but once Bella and Edward meet proper that storyline disappears. When a curious Bella Googles “the cold one” she brings up pages and pages on the legend. Funny, you think when she typed “the cold one” into the search engine she would have gotten pages and pages dedicated to frosty beer. But not here. The worse thing about “Twilight” is that you need to put all common sense aside and take things as they are presented. Remember how I mentioned that Edward is pale? That was an understatement. He and his family are so white they’re almost luminescent. The last time I saw a kid this white on screen some baddie was pouring flour over his head in “Billy Jack.” I’m surprised Mr. Cullen didn’t name his kid Casper.

If there is one saving grace to the film it is the performance of Pattinson. A familiar face to fans of the “Harry Potter” films (he played Cedric Diggory), Pattinson gives Edward a quiet strength that someone in his position needs to possess. He loves Bella but knows that, because of what he is, it will be almost impossible for them to be together. In what could have been a performance full of clichés, Pattinson hits all the right marks. Burke and Facinelli do solid work as well. Stewart, probably best remembered as Jodie Foster’s daughter in “Panic Room,” does the best she can with what she has to work with. Unlike Edward, she is presented as a very one-dimensional character, and that doesn’t help the viewer really care about what happens to her.

As I wrote earlier, I haven’t read the novel. So please don’t send me any hate mail. Maybe the plot in the book is just as incoherent as in the film. If so, I hope the readers are happy. I disagree when I’m told “well, you had to read the book.” Why? A film is made for everyone, not just for the book club.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]vzg, 2008-11-20 07:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sheep, 2008-11-20 11:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2008-11-20 10:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]r_a_black, 2008-11-20 11:13 am UTC
GIP - [info]da_angel729, 2008-11-20 11:25 am UTC

[info]mariem_1
2008-11-20 07:01 am UTC (link)
Silly sexual tension turns 'Twilight' into camp:

Forget the hand-holding tweens in the audience - "Twilight" itself could use a chaperone.

Based on Stephenie Meyer's wildly popular novel about a teenage girl who falls in love with a vampire, "Twilight" is a heaving, heavy-breathing romance, a hilariously campy movie metaphor for the agony of abstinence.

Not having read the book, I don't know how closely to the vest Meyer played things. The film, however, hardly bothers with subtext. You'd have to go back to 1961's "Splendor in the Grass," with Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood as high-school lovebirds caught between their urges and their parents' disapproval of an early marriage, to find another teen movie as sexually frustrated.

From the moment the undead Edward (Robert Pattinson) gazes upon Bella (Kristen Stewart) in biology class, his pale face crumples into an expression of pent-up pain. Soon after, he's swooping up behind her in the cafeteria. "If you were smart, you'd stay away from me," he whispers, even as he sniffs her hair and shudders.
With that combination of devotion and danger, it's no wonder tween girls have been sent swooning.

For the first third of the movie, Pattinson looks like he has to go to the bathroom and Stewart bites her lower lip, all while director Catherine Hardwicke awkwardly establishes the book's basic narrative.

It turns out the tiny burg of Forks, Wash. - where Bella has recently moved to live with her father - is home to a family of "vegetarian" vampires. They only kill animals, even though Edward himself describes it as living on tofu.

You'd think this would be the town's worst kept secret, considering these folks look like roadies for the Cure, never eat or drink and skip school whenever the sun penetrates Washington's usual cloud cover.

Nevertheless, it isn't until Bella causes Edward's heart to flutter - and stomach to growl - that his family's true identity becomes threatened.

"Twilight" is a shoddy B movie - full of choppy editing, embarrassing special effects and unsteady performances. Yet it's ultimately doomed by the filmmakers' decision to turn what could have been a sexual undercurrent into a tropical storm.

Hardwicke, whose "Thirteen" and "The Nativity Story" were also unsuccessful explorations of teen sexuality, doesn't do her stars any favors by piling on the tight facial close-ups.

We need a little distance from Edward's lines - "I still don't know if I can control myself," he pants at another point - if we're not intended to laugh.

Credit Pattinson, who had a small part in the last two Harry Potter films, with a sense of commitment, if nothing else. When he stares at Bella, it's with that youthful, puppy-love intensity that can only be described as, well, hunger.

Unfortunately, he then growls, "I've never wanted a human's blood so much in my life!"

As far as romantic declarations go, "O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?" it's not.

(Reply to this)


[info]vitalitat
2008-11-20 08:27 am UTC (link)
LOL


LOL


LOL.

(Reply to this)


tree
2008-11-20 09:10 am UTC (link)
BRB MAKING POPCORN

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]r_a_black, 2008-11-20 11:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2008-11-20 06:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]r_a_black, 2008-11-21 03:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2008-11-21 04:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]r_a_black, 2008-11-21 04:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]salamandersam, 2008-11-20 06:45 pm UTC

[info]mariem_1
2008-11-20 09:51 am UTC (link)
Fangst:

Stephenie Meyer’s freakishly popular novel Twilight (the first in a series of four) is all about a perverse kind of wish-fulfillment: Average teenager Bella Swan falls madly in love with perfect, ageless vampire Edward Cullen, who sweeps her off her feet (often quite literally), protects her from harm and loves her unconditionally. Meyer’s extremely old-fashioned, pro-abstinence courtship story (vampire elements notwithstanding) has struck a chord with a large, mostly female, mostly young audience, people who long to play a damsel-in-distress role opposite a flawless, masculine rescuer rather than deal with the complications of real modern romance.

Studying the pathology of Twilight fans is key to understanding the appeal of Meyer’s overwrought, superficial novel, and in adapting it to the screen, director Catherine Hardwicke and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg have greatly improved the sluggish pacing of the book while making sure to retain its cardboard characterizations and gooey, romantic tone. What’s meant to come off as swooning and grandiose in print often sounds silly and uncomfortable when spoken out loud by actual people, and Twilight’s central romance thus has an even greater sense of falsehood onscreen than it did in print.

After moving to the small Pacific Northwest town of Forks, Bella (Kristen Stewart) meets the mysterious, brooding Edward (Robert Pattinson) in her high-school biology class. She soon discovers that Edward and his adopted “family” are all vampires, although they drink only the blood of animals. Bella and Edward fall completely in love for no apparent reason, and eventually Edward must save Bella from a pair of less friendly vampires who don’t share his qualms about attacking humans.

Compounding the inertness of the book’s Edward/Bella romance is Stewart and Pattinson’s complete lack of chemistry; they both give such wooden performances that it’s hard to buy their passion for anything, whether it’s love or blood or the lush greenery that envelops Forks. The creepy power imbalance that defines the story’s central relationship is that much clearer when we can see Edward spying on Bella as she sleeps or ordering her around with the excuse that he’s protecting her. Rather than a sweet teen romance or a love story for the ages, Twilight is a parable of codependency, and the movie version lays bare just how disconcerting that is.

Not that it does any better when it tries to modernize some of Meyer’s throwback style. Hardwicke has now directed four movies about teens, each equally clueless in its own way; here Bella’s non-vampire friends all speak in awkward, outdated slang, and the world of the high school is relevant only as a tool to bring Bella and Edward together (or to provide the magical romance of the prom that ends the movie). Twilight is devoid of intentional humor, although fans at the screening I attended tittered throughout, perhaps finding the story’s overwhelming cheesiness harder to take when seeing it enacted before their eyes.

It doesn’t help that Hardwicke still lacks nuance or sophistication as a director, and paints her themes as broadly as she did in her teensploitation debut Thirteen or her plodding Christmas fable The Nativity Story. The special effects look cheap, the action rudimentary. The acting is generally on par with an episode of 90210 (the new version). Meyer’s dunderheaded brick of a book may be poorly written pap, but it affords its audience a level of pure escapism as alluring as it is unrealistic and unhealthy. Twilight the movie brings all of that crashing down to earth, and inspires only nervous laughter.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]r_a_black, 2008-11-20 11:15 am UTC

[info]r_a_black
2008-11-20 11:00 am UTC (link)
I was skimming through some of the comments in lion_lamb. I think it's funny just how much these people don't get it, they keep saying things like that if the reviewer hasn't read the books, then the bad review isn't really valid. But these people aren't reviewing the books they're reviewing the movie, and that should be able to stand on its own, without the books. Clearly it's not good enough for that.

I also think it's funny that some of the reviewers think it's a metaphor for teen abstinence and what not. I wonder if it actually is? Hardwicke might have aimed for that, but we all know Meyer doesn't actually think when she's writing this stuff.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2008-11-21 01:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]r_a_black, 2008-11-21 04:21 am UTC

[info]caito
2008-11-20 12:09 pm UTC (link)
This is kind of how I imagine Twihards reacting as the critic reviews come rolling in.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sparkysrevenge, 2008-11-20 01:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_eponine, 2008-11-20 03:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]keri, 2008-11-20 05:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vzg, 2008-11-20 06:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 06:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]abharding, 2008-11-20 08:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]da_angel729, 2008-11-20 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]soy_latte, 2008-11-21 01:59 am UTC

[info]eilan
2008-11-20 02:19 pm UTC (link)
The sparkles are killing me.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]singe, 2008-11-20 05:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]boomchish, 2008-11-20 11:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pandabonzai, 2008-11-21 05:22 am UTC
Gawker says...
[info]caito
2008-11-20 03:01 pm UTC (link)
Ha Ha, The Twilight Movie Sucks.

(Reply to this)


[info]mariem_1
2008-11-20 03:39 pm UTC (link)
Slant Magazine Film Review: Twilight:

If only Twilight were more like its spiritual inspiration, Romeo and Juliet, then at least its lovebird protagonists would eventually wind up taking an eternal dirt nap. Alas, there's no reward for those who suffer through Catherine Hardwicke's adaptation of Stephenie Meyer's young-adult novel about human-vampire romance, only the incessant sight of 17-year-old Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) staring at undead Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) with such panting desire that it seems she's about to spontaneously, orgasmically erupt. Edward looks like a blank, pasty-faced, fire-haired Gap model (or like a zombie auditioning for a role in a Dragonball Z film), yet despite his ludicrously exaggerated brooding, Bella can't turn away, his supernatural magnetism turning her into a quivering, trembling bundle of charged hormones whenever she gazes into his golden, cartoonishly intense James Tween eyes.

Hardwicke has her leads go so overboard with the passionate gaping that the film soon appears headed for bodice-ripper territory, though parents need not freak, as Meyer's tale is by and large chaste, its backbone Edward's repression of his thirst for blood, which serves as a blunt metaphor for carnal impulses and, consequently, establishes the entire affair as a saga of self-inflicted vampiric blue balls. In essence, what we have here is a laughable, sex-free gothic tweener variation of those dime-store page-turners featuring Fabio on their cover. "Your mood swings are giving me whiplash," Bella tells Edward in response to his mixed signals, hokum to which Edward, whose supposed hunkiness is amplified by his torment over wanting to eat the one he loves, counters with the noble platitude, "If you were smart, you'd stay away from me." Prospective non-teen female viewers should heed this warning with extreme prejudice, lest they be subjected to a story of hysterical nonsensicality.

Relocated from Phoenix to the tiny Washington town of Forks, Bella claims to be a loner, yet by the end of her first batch of classes, has a close-knit group of friends, multiple suitors and the mysterious Edward swooning (because of her scent). A few days and countless breathless conversations later, the pair are soulmates, a relationship that engenders strange looks from both normal students and Edward's bloodsucker step-siblings—all of whom, as with their "dad" and "mom" (Peter Facinelli and Elizabeth Reaser), sport ludicrously loud dye jobs—and is cemented, irrevocably, when Edward shows Bella what happens if he enters into the rarely seen Washington sunlight. The answer? His skin glistens like diamonds, prompting Bella to gasp, "You're beautiful." That's not exactly the term I'd use to describe this epidermal condition ("ridiculous" would be far more appropriate), but hey, it's no more absurd than the rest of Twilight, which also features a corny Cullen family game of superpowered baseball and a tacked-on conflict involving vampires who, unlike the animal-eating "vegetarian" Cullens, want to feast on Bella's hide.

Hardwicke, meanwhile, dully drains color from her palette in order to make Bella look as ashen as her beau, as well whips, twirls and tilts her camera with such random, excessive ferocity that the film, on a compositional level, occasionally resembles that paragon of asininely askew direction, Battlefield Earth. Busy aesthetics, however, only slightly degrade what already inherently amounts to limp fantasy aimed squarely at the Tiger Beat demographic. That Bella and Edward's syrupy, star-crossed amour is more about stay-up-late talk than let's-get-physical intimacy seems like a grown-up's wishful thinking about preteen sexual attitudes and activities. Still, no measure of ostensible abstinence can alter the fact that Twilight ultimately hinges on a hilariously skeevy implicit suggestion. Namely, that if Edward, despite his youthful body, is in reality a 108-year-old man, then his lustful wooing of an actual high-school junior makes him, for all intents and purposes, a borderline statutory rapist and all around dirty old perv. Your move, Anne Rice!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]erinny, 2008-11-21 04:14 am UTC

[info]mariem_1
2008-11-20 03:44 pm UTC (link)
Twilight: You know if you want it, you know if you don't:

I have probably already explained too much of the plot. No one who is going to see this movie needs to be told the story. They likely know it by heart, and would be unmoved and perturbed if I bothered to point out how very creepy this Edward guy is - at one point he confesses to Bella that he often sneaks through her window and watches her sleep in her bed. Yikes. And they would probably be annoyed if I pointed out that a scene involving "vampire baseball" is just plain dumb, though I did appreciate learning why vampires can only play baseball during a thunderstorm. Silly me - I never even knew vampires played baseball. Manny Ramirez makes a little more sense now.

Nor would fans of the book appreciate if I pointed out how slapdash the movie seems, how shoddy it looks and how the performances are almost uniformly amateurish. Would they balk if I share that the story is structured poorly, that its ending feels rushed and that the dialogue is laughable - sample line "You're like my own brand of heroin"? No, they probably won't even notice, as they're too busy lining up to see it, or see it again, or thinking of sequels.

Twilight is a self-selecting movie if there ever was one. Those who want to see it, will see it and love it. Others are warned away.

(Reply to this)


[info]mariem_1
2008-11-20 04:07 pm UTC (link)
Twilight Movie Review, or An Open Letter to Robert Pattinson:

Dear Mr. Pattinson,

Did you read Twilight? I only ask because you do not seem to have a good grip on the Edward Cullen character.

For example, in the scene where Edward first meets Bella, he wants to kill her. It's because her blood smells so sweet to him. You obviously understood that his reaction had something to do with her scent, because you HELD YOUR NOSE?!? Really?

If you had read the book, you would know that Edward may be emotional, but he is very good at controlling his face. He doesn't react to things like a cartoon character.

Also, at the end of the movie where you're sucking the venom out of Bella's arm? You look awfully stupid. Kind of like Dracula, all cross-eyed and bug-eyed. My sister-in-law says you reminded her of her son when he drinks milk out of a straw. You see, if you had made it to the end of the book, you would know that Edward is determined to keep Bella alive and isn't crazed by the taste of her blood.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't all bad. The kissing scene, for instance, was very, very good. You did a wonderful job showing how difficult it was for Edward to kiss Bella and not kill her. Edward's first entrance in the movie--entering into the cafeteria--made me want to bounce up and down in my seat. You also were quite good at being awkward. The Cullens work hard to appear human and you made Edward seem a little awkward in his own skin.

The overall disappointment I feel from seeing Twilight is not all on your shoulders. It's not your fault that:

The guy who played Jasper looked wide-eyed and buck-toothed at all times. WTF?
The director decided to be so literal that when someone mentioned a pack of wolves, there were actually wolves shown on screen as if we didn't know what they were.
There was was too much climbing of and jumping between trees (aka "spider monkey action").
The script does not do an adequate job of setting up the connection between Edward and Bella and is basically a rushed version of the book.
The pivotal scene in the book--in the meadow, where Edward frightens Bella and then declares his love for her--is reduced to a musical montage.
A sparkling vampire sounds cool in a book, but is just going to look silly on-screen.
You didn't get to say the very best line in the book, "Do I dazzle you?"
But, the Edward character is what makes this series so darn popular. He's HOT. He's struggling with his desire to kill his true love. He's charming and very tender with Bella (because he could easily kill her). Your version of Edward seemed like a teenager whose secret slipped out, not a century-old man who just found the love of his existence.

Despite the fact that it's not very good, this movie is going to be incredibly popular because the books are incredibly popular. Most likely, you will have the opportunity to play Edward in the next three movies. I suggest you read the books and pay a little more respect to the character that is worshiped by Twilight moms everywhere.

Sincerely,

Motherpopper

P.S. My sister-in-law and I recorded this audio review after we saw the movie:

P.P.S. We giggle like teenagers.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]shallow_kid, 2008-11-20 05:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vzg, 2008-11-20 05:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2008-11-20 06:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarky_bix, 2008-11-20 07:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-11-20 07:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarky_bix, 2008-11-20 09:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 07:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarky_bix, 2008-11-20 09:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]da_angel729, 2008-11-20 11:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyrangalia, 2008-11-20 11:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilisliana, 2008-11-20 09:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2008-11-21 01:33 am UTC

[info]julesnoctambule
2008-11-20 04:13 pm UTC (link)
This is so perfect for today I am beyond words: http://community.livejournal.com/mspaint_lolz/33365.html

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2008-11-20 06:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]julesnoctambule, 2008-11-20 07:12 pm UTC

[info]_morrigan_
2008-11-20 04:32 pm UTC (link)
I knew this movie was going to suck ass. Yet, I'm going to see it anyway for the LOLz, since I never got around to reading the book.

I can't convince any of my friends to go with me though. Apparently the idea of mocking sparkling vampires isn't enough to convince them. *pout*

(Reply to this)


[info]mariem_1
2008-11-20 04:38 pm UTC (link)
Montreal Movies - Twilight: Movie Review:

These books are monstrous, yet chances are you haven’t heard of them (I know I sure hadn’t) and there’s good reason for that. Twilight is not Harry Potter. This is isn’t a classic children’s fantasy that is so well written that it will appeal to all audiences. No, this is a straight up teen girl fantasy that plays for a very specific crowd. It plays like gangbusters to that audience, but sadly anyone who is either over the age of 16 or has a penis will probably find themselves wondering what all the fuss is about (at least based on this first entry in the series. Perhaps the story gets more complex as the books progress. I just don’t care enough to find out).

The main problem with the film is how pussified the vampires are. Vampires are supposed to be badass creatures of the night who constantly hunt with an undying hunger for blood. In Twilight they can walk around during the day if it’s cloudy and are far too sensitive and emo to do anything like bite open the neck of a helpless young girl (I mean, it might mess up the perfectly combed hair and tastefully chosen clothing. No vampire can live with that). Granted, there are a few evil vampires in the story, but given the limitations of the PG-13 rating, they certainly aren’t frightening.

The film is directed by Catherine Hardwicke who is quite talented and fills the screen with exciting visuals. But since the story lacks that thematic depth of her previous movies like Thirteen, there’s very little she can do with the material beyond creating surface eye candy. Likewise the cast all do what they can with the limp characters, but since the script limits the actors to silently appearing tortured, there’s really not much to do. I’m sure this love story seems profound to young readers with only a vague understanding of the vampire myth, but anyone with even a basic understanding of the plot of Dracula knows that forbidden vampire love is a pretty damn conventional part of the genre that really offers nothing new. And at least in other pieces of vampire lore there isn’t nearly as much posing and pouting.

There’s not a doubt in my mind that the movie will be a huge financial success. After all, the established fan base is huge and emotional simplicity always sells tickets (Titanic, anyone?). It’s just a shame that the audiences who will be showing up at the theaters in droves will be satisfied by something so insubstantial. I hope that a few of the people turned away from sold out screenings on opening night will wander into Let The Right One In. If they do they’ll get the chance to see a vampire film that not only has an original take on the genre, but also features a tragic love story that is both believable and touching. Sadly, that won’t be happening. They’ll all probably just reapply dark eye shadow while rereading their Twilight novel for the 80th time instead. Sigh…

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]luzzleanne, 2008-11-20 04:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2008-11-20 06:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]julesnoctambule, 2008-11-20 07:13 pm UTC

[info]mariem_1
2008-11-20 04:54 pm UTC (link)
Official Twilight Movie Link Post on [info]sortofbeautiful.

(Reply to this)


[info]mariem_1
2008-11-20 09:12 pm UTC (link)
'Twilight' lacks bite:

Teen sad-sack Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) falls hard for hunky Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), who happens to be a 107-year-old vampire. Wow, that sucks.

OMG - I'm so totally not a teenage girl.

So keep that in mind when I stick my neck out and say Twilight the film left me feeling undernourished and underwhelmed. Not that it matters a lick. To the millions of devotees who have lapped up Stephenie Meyer's phenomenally-popular novels about vampire-on-mortal love, this will be, like, one of the most amazing movies EVER. It's critic-proof, parent-proof, possibly even peer-proof. But for casual filmgoers curious about what all the OMG-ing is about, a word of caution: Twilight will give you precious little to chew on.

That's too bad because the director is Catherine Hardwicke, whose Lords of Dogtown and Thirteen were as high-voltage as they were hard-wired into the adolescent mind-set. Here, though, she struggles with an anemic plot - fact is, very little happens until the end - and characters who are better realized in one's imagination than on the screen.

For those of you who've been nailed shut in a coffin for the past year, here's a recap: teenage sad-sack Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is a recent transplant to the cloudy town of Forks, Wa., a backwater that could probably use more animal control officers. Her dad (Billy Burke) is the sheriff and after a few years away from him and the town ? she's been living in Arizona with her mom - she's understandably awkward and lonely. Even in school, she makes friends but doesn't truly connect.

Enter: Edward, soulful Volvo owner. He's a mysterious, aloof object of infatuation and member of the awfully-close Cullen clan, a brood of chalk-white brothers and sisters who seem a little, well, Big Love-y.

Eventually Bella learns what we already know: Edward is a 107 year old vampire, transformed by his "father" Carlisle, who snacked on him in order to save the younger man's life. We can only assume he's lived by various other names throughout the decades. These may include Nosferatu and Fonzie.

In the Meyer-verse, the vamps don't have fangs. They also don't wither in the sun, but sparkle like diamonds. And they play a lot of baseball. Suddenly The Count from Sesame Street seems a lot scarier, doesn't he?

Like the rest of his family, Edward is a "vegetarian" - meaning they only consume animals, never humans. But that doesn't mean he doesn't crave it, and this informs much of his love-hate-smell-run relationship with Bella. Yes, they could have sex, but once he starts nibbling, will he be able to stop? So instead he gives her piggy-back rides up treetops, has her over for dinner (but not as dinner) and skulks into her room to watch her sleep at night. Creepy? Hey, no creepier than a 17-year-old dating a 107-year-old, is it?

More trouble looms though with the arrival of a trio of vicious blood-suckers looking to sample the local cuisine. What was I saying about the town needing more animal control officers? The promise of vampire vs. vampire action - emphasized in the advertising and clearly intended to lure in the guys - is short-lived, though. Worse are the special effects. Is this a movie or a Smallville blooper reel?

As for the two leads, they do well illuminating two highly-internalized roles. Stewart swoons with convincing gravitas, even though Bella is strangely underwhelmed by the revelation vampires exist. Pattinson, meanwhile, admirably digs for traction when only two expressions are really required: brooding and broodier. Or maybe he's just a serious dude mulling a future in which squealing hordes of Twilighters follow him to his grave.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - tree, 2008-11-20 09:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2008-11-21 02:39 am UTC

[info]miraba
2008-11-20 11:44 pm UTC (link)
The New York Time reviews is up! Link.

Based on the foundational book in Stephenie Meyer’s best-selling multivolume series, “The Twilight Saga” (four doorstops and counting), this carefully faithful adaptation traces the sighs and whispers, the shy glances and furious glares of two unlikely teenage lovers who fall into each other’s pale, pale arms amid swirling hormones, raging instincts, high school dramas and oh-so-confusing feelings, like, OMG he’s SO HOT!! Does he like ME?? Will he KILL me??? I don’t CARE!!! :)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]morwyn, 2008-11-20 11:58 pm UTC


Page 2 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map