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.

ETA 1: Thanks to shallow_kid for pointing out the lion_lamb review thread.
ETA 1.5: Thanks to 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 ilya brings us a clip of SPARKLE MOTION.

ETA n+1: Thanks to everyone for making my inbox explode for linking to reviews, especially 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 3 of 3 << [1] [2] [3] >>

(Post a new comment)

	morwyn 2008-11-21 12:02 am UTC (link)
	Onion A.V. Club Review! While the movie attempts to find an compelling middle ground between gothic supernaturalism and teenage romance, it usually winds up stumbling into the inane territory implied by both descriptions. (Reply to this)

	justjenn 2008-11-21 03:27 am UTC (link)
	The Montreal Gazette gives it 4/5 stars There's lots of action; fine acting by two generations of players; nice, no biggie ethno-cultural rainbow thing; superbad vampire-on-vampire aggro; and chemistry between the leads that needs a licence. Great music, effects and visuals, too. (Reply to this)

From The Arizona Republic kitesareevil 2008-11-21 04:50 am UTC (link)

Don't know if this is posted yet, but from Stephenie Meyer's home town of Phoenix, they're giving it 2 1/2 stars. Both risk much for love - he risks discovery by revealing the family secret to her, and she risks, well, becoming dinner. There are glimpses of how that might have worked better - in the scene where Edward first admits what he is to Bella, for instance. But that's undercut by an awkward sequence in which he shows her what he looks like in the light. He's supposed to sparkle; instead, he looks as if he's covered in blond fur. Other scenes fall short, as well. The less said about the Cullen family baseball game, for example, the better. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: From The Arizona Republic tree 2008-11-21 09:45 am UTC (link)
	Oh god I want to see that sparkling scene so bad. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: From The Arizona Republic - kitesareevil, 2008-11-21 06:10 pm UTC

mariem_1 2008-11-21 05:35 am UTC (link)

OMG! Best Movie Evar!: Wow, I feel like I so have to Twitter everyone in the world and tell them to See. This. Movie. And not just because Robert Pattinson is the best Edward there could ever be. (I never even heard of him before, it’s not like he’s superfamous like Zac Efron or anyone, but I hope he wins an Oscar now, he’s that cute!) Because it’s not like this is only for people who read Stephanie Meyer’s book of Twilight -- although who didn’t! It’s like an actual grownup movie, all serious and important. Like you can tell how beautiful the vampires are supposed to be because everything gets slow and sparkly when they walk by -- and I mean even when they’re not in sunlight LOL! (Edward looks amazing when he sparkles in the sunlight! I always thought that was very clever of the book writer to invent a whole new thing about vampires and why they don’t go in the sun.) Or sometimes when other important things are happening, everything gets slow and the music gets real loud and Edward looks like he’s gonna cry. Those are the best moments ever, because then it’s like the director can’t even move the camera from him, he’s that gorgeous. But the director is named Catherine Hardwicke, which is a girl’s name, and what else would you expect! Twilight is all about Bella, who is a junior in high school, so she’s pretty grownup already LOL! She’s smart and beautiful and super nice and everybody loves her at her new school in Forks, which is in Seattle-Washington, not White-House-Washington. She’s also really deep and thoughtful, which you can tell because she talks to us through the movie, like a voiceover, and tells us her feelings and explains things that are happening, which is really nice of her so we can keep up. You can tell this is more grownup because of things like this. It’s clever, like how when Bella sees Edward in science class for the first time and discovers she has to be his lab partner, her hair blows around all dramatically and importantly, but there’s a fan behind her, so there’s like two things going on, like it’s not just a fancy thing the director did but it’s also, you know, really there in the room. And when Bella says in her voiceover, “Edward was a vampire,” it totally sounds like something from a Jane Austen book. That’s literature. Ooo, this word I remember: ironic. That’s when things are different than you expect, and it’s surprising and also makes a theme. Like how one regular kid who doesn’t know that Edward is a vampire says to Bella, “He looks at you like you’re something to eat.” But Edward doesn’t look at her like that, Edward would never do that because he’s like a vegetarian vampire who only drinks animal blood, not people blood. It’s ironic because Edward is supposed to be dangerous -- he thinks he’s the “bad guy”! -- but he isn’t at all! He says all romantic things to Bella like “Your scent, it’s like a drug to me. You’re like my own personal brand of heroin.” *sigh!* But Edward is not scary like other boys are who want to, you know, do stuff. I don’t mean in the movie -- everyone is super nice to Bella! -- but like, in RL. Edward can control himself like nice boys do, not like other boys with their “vile repulsive thoughts.” That is in the movie! But don’t worry, Edward rescues Bella from boys like that. He’s like a knight in shining armor. Maybe he’s a knight in sparkly armor LOL! Even though he’s a vampire. That’s deep. It’s like so totally romantic and perfect! Edward is even the best lab partner ever -- he knows all the answers to stupid biology questions so you can totally just let him do all the work. But it’s not like Bella is dumb. She uses Google to figure out all the stuff about Edward being a vampire. (Though I think everyone else in town and at the school might be a little stupid, because how could they not have figured out that all those weird but beautiful and very pale people are vampires LOL!) And it’s exotic, too, because Bella’s Indian friend Jacob is here too. He has Indian wisdom for her about vampires and stuff, and it’s so cool. Of course we all know what happens with Jacob in the next book and OMG the next movie please! (Reply to this)(Thread)

	keri 2008-11-21 05:46 am UTC (link)
	I think...I think that may be the best review yet. The parody is spot on! I can't even pick out a favorite part, unless it's "She’s smart and beautiful and super nice and everybody loves her at her new school in Forks, which is in Seattle-Washington, not White-House-Washington." Or maybe it's the part about science class and the fan? or the entire first paragraph? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	miraba 2008-11-21 05:02 pm UTC (link)
	I want to have that reviewer's babies. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	dawnswalker 2008-11-21 10:17 pm UTC (link)
	I'm ashamed to say that I was fooled for the entire first paragraph. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - dico, 2008-11-22 01:46 am UTC

keri 2008-11-21 06:53 am UTC (link)

Eric Snider's got his review up and also here (B-) Look, I know the drill. If any element of the "Twilight" movie varies even slightly from the way you pictured it in your head, then it is the worst film ever made and you hate it and Catherine Hardwicke has ruined your childhood. Or, alternatively, you've built up so much anticipation for the movie that you're going to love love LOVE it no matter what, even if it's bad, you don't care, you refuse to listen to any criticisms LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I know how it goes. The book's most devoted fans are seeing the film anyway, so I guess I'm talking to everyone else -- those who haven't read the book, or who (like me) read it, mostly enjoyed it, then didn't give it another thought. Is the Twilight movie of any use to those people? Or, as a friend asked me, does it work purely as a vampire movie? Oh, heavens, no. Noooooo. This is not a vampire movie. This is a somber teen romance that happens to have some vampires in it. Little attempt is made to establish the mythology of the bloodsuckers, and the supernatural elements are downplayed -- a wise move, since the special effects, when they are necessary, are at about the level you'd expect from a movie that is more focused on romance than sci-fi action. ... One of the reasons I only liked Meyer's novel rather than loving it was that it felt bogged down by endless descriptions of how beautiful Edward was. Don't get me wrong -- I love hearing about hot 17-year-old boys as much as the next person. But the continual mooning and swooning made me impatient. In the film, of course, this is mostly eliminated. There is no need to tell us about Edward's beauty when he's right here in front of us and we can see for ourselves (assuming we are not distracted by his tall, disorderly hair, that is). But in the process, the film has trimmed down Edward and Bella's interaction, or at least it feels that way. Their love seems to be assumed rather than demonstrated, and there's some stilted, clunky dialogue in their early scenes together. It doesn't help that Pattinson's version of "awkward" looks and sounds like most people's version of "stoned," or that he is required to say things like "I don't have the strength to stay away from you anymore" and "You're like my own personal brand of heroin." (Reply to this)

mariem_1 2008-11-21 08:20 am UTC (link)

Wank about negative reviews in Twilight Lexicon comments: you can't see me kay?: it says twilight is repetative. :[ Jenny: THEY GAVE TWILIGHT A “B” RATING?!?!??!??!?!?!?! THOSE JERKS!!!!!!! latuacantante: agh the review sucks.. well the ones posted on EW and the people posting comments on it are very annoying. can we all PLEASE comment positive on it cuz i hate seeing all those negativity. w.e. if they dont liek it thats their problem as long as we like it, thats all that matters im still excited for it!! XD CKitsune: Rotten Tomatoes gave the movie a 50 Percent…but as I was reading the comments Iwas like “These reviewers just don’t understand!” This movie was made for the FANS…it would be great if non-fans loved it and I’m sure some will but c’mon read the darned book sillies! Not to mention a lot of the reviewers who gave it a negative rating I’ve never even heard of! (Except for Ebert but how is that guy anyways? XD) A lot of BIG movie Critics gave the movie a GOOD rating so I think everyone needs to chill ’sides the FANS will decide if the movie is good or not right? Who CARES what they say it’s what YOU think! I think I will LOVE this movie… So again those critics don’t have lives they probably go into a movie expecting to hate them… and seriously that’s just stupid. Jovanna: omg EW said Twilight was too dull and repetitive to really soar! and they they gave it a B :(. If this movie stinks my heart will literally break :’( CKitsune: People who hate the books say the same thing, Don’t worry! If we all love the book, I’m sure we’ll love the movietoo!!! (I’m not kidding,Twilight haters say the book sucks because it’s too repetitive… XD) WHAT DO THEY KNOW ANYWAY! imbettingonalice: so i was looking at the rotten tomatoes user reviews… its at 21%. I could almost bet that 90% of those people have not even seen the move.. They are just giving it 0% cause they are really lame people and have nothing better to do with their time. Its really annoying. CKitsune: oooh just they wait… Come Friday that user review will be more UP Clarabella: There are those of us who will go to see the movie, and love it no matter what; those of us who will go and accept it for what it is and enjoy two hours of fluff and angst. There will be those who expect to see an absolute copy of the book and be disappointed. And there will be those who are going to give it a low rating because its aimed at teens and because of the hype. I really hope it’s good. But hey, if it’s not, it’s not. I’ll still go to the midnight screening, no matter the reviews. I’ll still love Rob & Kristen. And I’ll hope that the next one (with the bigger budget) is even better. Lisa: guys, lets try and prove thses people wrong, ok. Ifthe reviewers don’t like it, let us like it. And besides the movie doesn’t come out till friday. arielkid78: I noticed that some people is (are) giving bad reviews to (twilight) the movie is not out yet. they are just repeating the talking points from their hate website. We know the movie will be a little bit different from the book. Anyway I am ready to enjoy it, my friends and family are very excited! we are going tonight 12:02 ! forksgirl: Please try not to get upset about reviews, or even pay them much attention. What do critics know? They often trash good movies (IMO) and praise movies that wasted two hours of my life. I’m so looking forward to this weekend! ImBettingOnAlice: yahoo has changed their movie main page to a Twilight shrine. It made me so happy! There are 5 midnight showings at one theater in my town. That’s a lot! (Reply to this)(Thread)

	sparkysrevenge 2008-11-21 01:07 pm UTC (link)
	Because Dark Knight was TOTALLY like, not made for, like, the fans, right? And like, EVERYONE loved it, anyway! Dude, just because a movie is made "for the fans" doesn't mean it's not shit. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(no subject) - abharding, 2008-11-21 03:09 pm UTC

Review Wank Part II mariem_1 2008-11-21 08:21 am UTC (link)

Nostalgicmiss: Okay, I just watched the Today thing with Ron and Kristin, it’s posted on youtube! That was such an honest moment between her and Rob when they were walking outside it made me laugh. They didn’t realize the camera was on and they were live Too Funny!!!! What bothers me though is the silly answers people give when the stars of the film give them a direct question, it’s just so . . . so . . . I dunno!!! As far as critics go, my opinion is opposite of theirs 90% of the time, so I make my own opinions, I watch the movies and decide for myself how I feel about it. I’ve just started ignoring their comments completely. Off to see Yahoo movies, thanks ImbettingonAlice, for the heads up kristina: I also just watched the Today Show interview and I felt so embarrassed for them out on the plaza with all of those people. Crazy fanatic people aren’t fun…. Kyra: Awesome. I like non-spoily reviews … and those seem positive enough… As long as you like it yourself then it doesn’t matter about critics, right? Has anyone else been running around all day going “TOMORROW! TOMORROW! TOMORROW!”?? I have a good feeling about the movie, of course it won’t be like the book, but if the adaptation is being compared to the Potter films then it won’t be so bad, because as a huge Potter fan even I admit that the movies are pretty dang close. TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW!!! Janie: DO NOT WORRY!!! Nothing these sourpusses say matters because it’s the MONEY it will make that will prove them wrong! We all know that with all of our support this movie is going to be huge! We can laugh then! So just get out there and have fun and love our movie!!! PS - B is a VERY good grade anyhow! CKitsune: cha I’m just noticing that all the haters probably hated the books too.. I read a review about the guy complaining about how Edward Watches bella while she sleeps… O.o he TOTALLY misunderstood that part of the book.. *shrugs* I know this movie is going to rock and when I hear critics say “Fans will love it…” I stop reading and say “Thats all I wanted to know KTHNX!” XD Critics are stupid, what do they know? They are stuck up snootie booties… who get their kicks by trying to look all cool and act like their opinion matters. Last time I checked the fans’ opinion mattered and WE PAY to see the movie so they can just chill XD besides the reviews arent’ ALL bad…and they probably don’t understand the complexity of the books anyways. and don’t get me started on the Today show thing XD those fan girls are silly expecially the one that was asked “Why do you like Edward so much?” by Rob and she was like “Well..umm… I dunno.” Laaame!! Also here: Mollie Kate: I cannot wait for this movie. Despite what some of the reviews say, I think its going to be good. Half the people who comment on those reviews are the typical twilight/fad bashers who seem to think they are better than everyone else just because they like this and that yet HATE something that other people do just because its soo popular. D: its getting old people. Suck it up and get on with life. This crazy obsession isn’t going away anytime soon. Besides, the movie isn’t even out yet, so how do the commenters even KNOW if it sucks? Bah, I’m going to avoid any reviews until after I see the movie so I don’t get all biased or whatever. ><;; and KSTEW=AMAZING. She’s just…shy and doesn’t like to be interviewed by interviewers that don’t seem to fully grasp what the heck it is they are talking about. (Reply to this)

disdainful_soul 2008-11-21 10:44 am UTC (link)

Anyone had a look at this? http://www.screenit.com/movies/2008/twilight.html OUR WORD TO PARENTS: The following is a brief summary of the content found in this dramatic horror/romance film that's been rated PG-13. Profanity consists of a slang term for breasts, while a handful of other benign expletives and colorful phrases are present. Some sexually related comments are made, a teenage couple (he fully dressed, she in a t-shirt and panties) briefly fool around on her bed, and a teen girl shows a lot of cleavage in a prom dress. Violence consists of vampires killing humans (seen from a distance) and vampires battling each other, resulting in one's death and a human being injured, with some bloody results. Those scenes and moments of potential peril (and the overall vampire content) might be unsettling, suspenseful and/or scary to some younger viewers and/or those with low tolerance levels for such material. Bad attitudes are present, as is some tense family material, while some behavior might be enticing for some kids to try to imitate. Alcohol is present in several scenes, while a drug comment is made as a metaphor. ALCOHOL OR DRUG USE - basically, Charlie drinks a lot of beer. Often in the company of Billy Black. IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR Phrases: "I'm down with the kids," "You're the bomb," "You're news baby, front page," "Butt-crack Santa," "Chick thing," "It sure as hell is not," "Freaking out," "Seriously dude, it's creepy," "Your mood swings are kinda giving me whiplash," "A freak," "Let's not play with our food," "Just keeping it real," "You better hold on tight, spider monkey" and "I suck." PROFANITY At least 1 slang term for breasts ("boobs"), 1 hell, 3 uses of "Oh God" and 1 use each of "Oh my God" and "Swear to God." So no "Holy crow"?! SEX/NUDITY Edward states he can read minds, but not Bella's, pointing out those around them in a restaurant are thinking about money and sex, repeating that, and then says "cat" for a man (possibly meant sexually referring to a slang term for female genitals). Edward shows up in Bella's bedroom, they passionately kiss on her bed and then lie back on that (with him on top of her), but he then leaps backwards off her, saying he can't continue (she's in her t-shirt and panties -- we don't see the latter, but see a lot of bare leg). They then end up cuddled on the bed, with her falling asleep on his chest. Hee! (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - cleolinda, 2008-11-21 10:51 am UTC

(no subject) - disdainful_soul, 2008-11-21 10:52 am UTC

(no subject) - anonyrat, 2008-11-21 11:35 pm UTC

(no subject) - cleolinda, 2008-11-22 12:05 am UTC

(no subject) - chibikaijuu, 2008-11-23 09:00 am UTC

	SPARKLES! ilya 2008-11-21 11:13 am UTC (link)
	OMFG...LOLOLOLOL... Leak of the sparkling and some of the more ridic lines. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=688St4KNv1w (Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: SPARKLES! - cleolinda, 2008-11-21 02:03 pm UTC

Re: SPARKLES! - ilya, 2008-11-21 03:10 pm UTC

Re: SPARKLES! - lyrangalia, 2008-11-21 06:39 pm UTC

Re: SPARKLES! - jedi_dwh, 2008-11-24 03:32 am UTC

octavia 2008-11-21 04:44 pm UTC (link)

Stephanie Zacharek at Salon is not too negative, though she takes it for what it is (= not too seriously): I saw it at a promotional screening that included a mix of critics (not fun) and the aforementioned teenage girls (totally fun), and I think I need to see it again in a critic-free zone, if only to experience, once again, the wave of embarrassed titillation that rippled through the crowd when the movie's vampire heartthrob, Edward Cullen -- played by English actor Robert Pattinson -- strode into view, a vision of erotic suspended animation. Did the girls giggle because they found Edward impossibly good-looking? Or because he looks flat-out ridiculous? I couldn't tell you, because this Edward Cullen, with his brooding eyes and mile-high blond quiff, is both. Part Elvis, part Simon Le Bon, and a direct descendant of both Heathcliff and the Leader of the Pack, the movie version of Edward Cullen -- who's 17 going on 1,700 -- is a pure pop creation, a fantasy who's taken up temporary residence in the body of an actor. When this Edward speaks haltingly to the love of his (eternal) life, new girl at school Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), his diction is stiff, Victorian. Yet it's the opposite of mannered: "I can read every mind in this room except yours," he tells her, in what would be the hokiest line of this or the last century, if he hadn't painstakingly removed all the quotation marks from it. Edward Cullen doesn't care if he makes you LOL or say OMG. He's a miracle of early 21st century cinema: He's completely irony-free. Note that I didn't say what Pattison does is good acting. But the performances in "Twilight" -- some of which, most notably Stewart's, are admirably solid -- are beside the point.[...] Still, the movie hits one of its most exhilarating beats when Bella, in voice-over, utters the movie's (and the book's) thesis statement: "About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was a part of him -- and I didn't know how dominant that part might be -- that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him." Then she looks out her bedroom window and sees Edward below, standing next to his car. He's come to pick her up for school. I saw "Twilight" with a male colleague, who was disappointed in it: Unlike me, he'd finished the book, and he wanted to see a more gradual and nuanced development in the romantic relationship between the two characters. "Whaddya mean?" I asked him, waving my arms. "He picked her up in his roadster! I mean -- that's awesome!" Mars wants more development, Venus is perfectly content with the romantic gesture: Let's call the whole thing off. But then, "Twilight" is, by its very nature, all about unfinished business, the story of a brooding, caring romantic hero and the woman who cannot -- although she wants to -- yield to him. Only his eyes penetrate her. For now, that's enough. (Reply to this)

	bookbug87 2008-11-21 05:47 pm UTC (link)
	One reviewer from my local paper didn't like it. Another liked it well enough to add it to his top five current movies - which is seriously breaking my brain, given the other movies on the list. (Reply to this)

	justjenn 2008-11-21 06:42 pm UTC (link)
	Christmas comes early for teens and emos alike with much-hyped but terrible vampire flick Twilight Still, Twilight is a terrible, hyper-stylized movie that had me laughing at it and not with it. (Reply to this)

	justjenn 2008-11-21 07:08 pm UTC (link)
	don't hit me! here's another link: Did you hear? Vampires are in! click on the video link. (Reply to this)

justjenn 2008-11-21 07:47 pm UTC (link)

Last one, I PROMISE!!!! Perez Hilton asks: Did you like the movie? And the fans reacted: The Good: I LOVED it! Rob Pattinson is the PERFECT Edward… Unbelievable movie! The Bad: I thought it was the most terribly awkward movie I've ever seen. I laughed the whole time it was so bad. The Ugly: That movie shit, throw up and peed on the book. What a JOKE of a movie. Don't see if you actually like the book. Worst acting I've seen since Cameron Diaz in The Holiday. Added Bonus: You can vote in the poll as well. Over and over and over again! (Reply to this)

	disdainful_soul 2008-11-21 09:23 pm UTC (link)
	And ilya brings us a clip of SPARKLE MOTION. That's sparkle motion? I do that in the sunlight! It's called BEING MOTHERINGFUCKINGPALE. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - lyrangalia, 2008-11-21 09:50 pm UTC

(no subject) - disdainful_soul, 2008-11-21 09:50 pm UTC

(no subject) - justjenn, 2008-11-21 10:59 pm UTC

squeakthemouse 2008-11-22 12:23 am UTC (link)

The Honolulu Advertiser chagrins the dazzle of Buffy fans everywhere You can almost feel the anticipation in the air for "Twilight." Fans have devoured the novels by Stephenie Meyer with a blood lust. They also have burned up the Internet with good and bad comments. Advertisement Now the speculation can end. The fans can see what director Catherine Hardwicke has done to their beloved book. Stop worrying. Hardwicke's is a very loyal big-screen version of the lengthy book. A few minor scenes have been deleted. A couple of sequences got condensed. But overall, the film unfolds the same way the pages turn. That's not necessarily a great thing. More on that later. Hardwicke tenderly builds the love story of the emotionally lost Bella (Kristen Stewart) and BVOC (Big Vampire On Campus) Edward (Robert Pattinson). Their relationship develops under cloudy skies. That's not being metaphorical. It seems vampires have blingish skin that sparkles in direct sunlight. Meyer's book is divided into two distinct parts. The first three-quarters depicts the growing relationship between the two. He meets her family. She meets his vegetarian (they drink only animal blood) vampire family. They go to school. They date. And eventually Edward overcomes his deep desire to drain her blood so they can be the ultimate star-crossed lovers. The action picks up in the last fourth of the book, when Bella becomes the blue-plate special for a group of vampires who prefer to dine from the human menu. Hardwicke's biggest change of direction from the book is to sprinkle some of the action through the early part of the film. Purists may beat their chests. But it does make the film move at a better pace. And it should be more appealing to the male dates who have agreed to sit through "Twilight." Debates have raged over the casting of Pattinson and Stewart, but their work should silence many of the critics. Pattinson makes brooding a science. And Stewart finds the right blend of strength and vulnerability to play Bella. The supporting cast is strong, especially Nikki Reed as the headstrong Rosalie and Rachelle Lefevre as Victoria. And the non-vampire high school students are the best supporting cast in a vampire tale since the days of "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer." And now for the problem of making such a loyal adaptation: The special abilities of the vampires, such as super speed, look gimmicky. Scenes in which Edward races or flies through the forest come across as bad puppet theater. And there is something about the pale skin of the vampires that seems less bland in the book. These are relatively small flaws in what is a production that should soothe the savage "Twilight" beasts. And it is soothe the savage breast, not the savage beast. /English major (Reply to this)

wallflower 2008-11-22 01:09 am UTC (link)

I was having fun reading the ridiculous comments from outraged fans on Rotten Tomatoes, but then I stumbled upon some misogynistic fail from other commenters ("Of course its gonna have 50% because intelligent men are going to see its cheesy retardedness and.. well.. like women are intelligent?.. haha." and "Typical woman. Read some actual literature."), and now I just want to punch someone in the face. ...which is basically how I felt reading the Twilight books, so nothing new there, I guess. (Reply to this)

squeakthemouse 2008-11-22 01:34 am UTC (link)

Film Threat is both dazzling and dazzled Too long to place in one comment, but I shall copypaste choice quotes: "Q: When is a vampire not a vampire? A: When it goes out in daylight, sees itself in a mirror, doesn’t drink human blood, and still manages to suck." "The release of “Twilight” achieves two significant objectives; not only has Stephanie Meyer’s ponderous salute to teen abstinence and patriarchal supremacy been given physical form, but it also marks the endgame for what has been a decades-long castration of the vampire genre. Anne Rice could pause to savor her flawless victory if she hadn’t turned her back on books about bloodsuckers, and indeed “Twilight” is something Rice herself might have created had she returned to religion in 1978 instead of 1998 and never actually learned to write." "This first adaptation of Meyer’s Sweet Carpathian Valley High series introduces us to awkward teen Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), who moves from Phoenix, AZ to live with her sheriff father Charlie (Billy Burke) in Forks, Washington." "Bella has some strange pheromone/hemoglobin combination that turns the normally non-murderous Edward into the wolf from those Tex Avery cartoons." "With his yearning eyes and tortured past, Edward is the romantic ideal for most 13-year old girls (and some boys): he’s androgynously gorgeous, has a dope ride, and doesn’t want to do anything but talk about your feelings and snuggle. It would appear that in addition to robbing his brood of their need for blood, Carlisle also removed their balls." "The action finally picks up in the second act, primarily due to the Cullens’ blunder (hey, we outnumber these guys 7 to 3... let’s split up!), leading to a climax that might have been satisfying had the audience not been lulled to sleep by 90 minutes of soporific direction and eye-rolling dialogue. There’s no doubt “Twilight” will satisfy rabid fans of the book, but it isn’t likely to make converts of anyone else." This may be the best review I've read ever. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - cleolinda, 2008-11-22 01:43 am UTC

	chibikaijuu 2008-11-23 08:57 am UTC (link)
	AHAHAHA I JUST SAW IT. WE HAD BACARDI SILVER AND POURED IT INTO OUR COKES AND OMG IT WAS THE FUNNIEST GODDAMN THING I HAVE SEEN IN BASICALLY FOREVER. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - erinny, 2008-11-24 06:26 am UTC

	disdainful_soul 2008-11-23 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	Kellen Rice (of "Twilight Sucks... And Not In A Good Way" fame) has posted her review. (Reply to this)

---

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