Saturday, November 22, 2008

I don't know about you...

... but I thought Twilight sucked. Am I missing something here?


I have not read the book, though I have it. As soon as I get over my disappointment over the film, I might go ahead and read the book to see what all the fuss was about. Because frankly, the film version did not deliver.

Overall, I found the movie to be painfully slow moving, taking forever to set up the relationship between Bella and Edward, but falling way short of evoking the sense of deep connection between the two. Are we to take the many long, awkward looks between the two as the sign that their very souls were connecting? For all their tree-climbing and baseball-playing, Bella and Edward did not seem like the star-crossed lovers in their portrayal. Mina and the Count successfully displayed a much more authentic connection in Bram Stoker's Dracula, and did so with less screen time.

It did not help that Kristen Stewart, who played Bella, seemed incapable of any facial expression other than the scowl she had on. She literally looked like she was in varying levels of pain the whole time.

Did anyone else find the Cullens' almost ridiculous level of paleness distracting? You don't even have to look too closely to see the layers of white foundation heaped on the actors' faces, especially Peter Facinelli, who played the family's patriarch.

To me, the real appeal of any vampire flick lies in its particular take on the vampire mythology. Where do they come from? What can they do? How can you fight them? In Twilight, we got little by way of the Cullens' backstory. There was a mention of an interesting history with the Quileute people, who supposedly descended from wolves. But it stops there.

Worse, these vampires seem impotent, even ordinary, shredding any ounce of vampire mystique that the film might have had going for it.

Any good film adaptation of a book needs, at the very least, to be able to stand on it own, to be able to tell its own story. Viewers shouldn't have had to read the book to understand the nuances of the characters, nor the intricacies of their story.

Overall, Twilight left me feeling unsatisfied, with a sneaking suspicion that perhaps there was something else there that simply ended up on the cutting room floor. But to blame the film's weaknesses on the harsh reality of filmmaking also does not suffice. The movie could have been a fresh re-telling of the age old story of ill-fated love. It could have been our introduction to a modern day vampire, a contemporary Dracula, dashing and young. But it was neither. Instead, Twilight is a sappy love story told at a turtle's pace resulting in a film that is altogether unimpressive.

I'll take an episode of HBO's True Blood over this any day.

3 comments:

  1. Got here from Sassy's blog. Am glad I am not the only one who felt this way about the movie. Now I warn you about the book. If you are thinking book writing a la JK Rowling, you're looking at the wrong book. This is amateurly written with a lot of grammatical and typo errors. I read through books 1 & 2 smoothly enough but then I read book 3 was weird but nothing close to the abomination that book 4 was. I was so upset at what she had done to the series that I went ahead and returned all 4 books to Amazon and got my money back. I just couldn't fathom contributing to her bank account with the ridiculous crap that I just read. You have been warned.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. prematurely hit "post" on the previous comment.

    i feel like i gave the movie a fair shot, not having the book to compare it to. but it was just not a good film!

    i'm about 40 pages into the first book and i'm having a hard time pressing on. thanks for the warning though, mia. typos? that's just inexcusable. i heard there's some crazy stuff coming, something to do with broken beds and what not. ugh.

    ReplyDelete