Monday, November 30, 2009

To discuss thoughts on "Twilight," the, uh, best movie this side of "Citizen Kane"

Capricorn and I finally did it. Is that:

A) Got engaged, to the delight of our parents who await grandbabies with the most bated of bated breaths.
B) Bludgeoned said babies
C) Watched Twilight

The answer is C.

Basically, we had to see what the mass gnashing of teeth and panties is all about, so we decided to watch the first Twilight. We're fans of True Blood, after all, and Twilight has trendy vampires, so it must be decent. And it's based on a book- book to movie adaptations always go well!


Here are the positives:
1) Bella's dad is kind of funny and lovable
2) Edward's dad is the dude from "Can't Hardly Wait," so that's 5 bonus points
3) They didn't make Bella super-popular her first day, like some teen movies, as that's totally unrealistic. And even after she got friends, they didn't show her being the center of the group, which, again, is a more likely scenario since she's an outsider coming in.
4) There was some cool music (I appreciated the Radiohead song at the end)
5) Bella doesn't escape a super-strong, super-fast vampire on her own, and instead gets her leg broken. That's plausible. Plus, they developed the Bella/Edward relationship in a more drawn out way, instead of just falling in love right off the bat. Actually, when they first see each other, it looked like Edward was going to vomit. Sure, it was probably from the sunlight, but let's just admit it's because Kristen Stewart is probably a little smelly.

Here are the negatives that I'll pare down in order not to have my house burned to the ground:
1) We understand everybody will broach vampire abilities differently. But there are two basic principles of being a vampire that are kinda necessary: They burn in the sun, and they must be invited into a building. Edward Cullen glows like pixie dust in the sun like the gayest My Little Pony, and these vampires enter any place they want. I'm not cool with that.
2) What was the budget for this movie? Are we in "Blair Witch Project" range*? Some of the camera work must have been done by the crew from "One Night in Paris." And Edward's sun glow was like watching bad 3D effects without the 3D glasses.
3) Edward is a total creeper. Sure, we get it, teen girls. He's got the crazy hair and the enchanting eyes. He also uses those eyes TO STARE AT YOU WHILE YOU SLEEP. He tells Bella he's snuck into her house to watch her sleep, because "it's beautiful." Capricorn: "What is he talking about? People are not sexy when they sleep."
4) The first 45 minutes was about Bella and Edward staring at each other in a contest to see who could brood the undies off each other. Lot of intense staring. Not a lot of action. In "True Blood," half the cast was naked by now.
5) The evil vampire has a pony tail and Spencer Pratt facial hair. I was more scared he was going to turn Bella into a douche than into a cadaver.

* Is that too dated a reference for teens reading this? Um, how about, Are we in "Paranormal Activity" range?"

So, are we out of line? I'd still watch the sequel, as I've heard there's more action in it, plus werewolves. And it doesn't hurt that Alice is on the cover of Maxim this month. But we're not sure what all the hysteria is about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was better, wasn't it? Twilight is a decent movie, but if that's the kind of thing that makes people fanatical, well, I'm worried. Of course, I got fanatical about Ace of Base, so ...

Thanks to my sister for finding that Twilight Moms poster.


Srg said...

It's true - New Moon definitely picks up the pace with more action. The whole transform into a werewolf thing has some good CGI effects. And you get a break from the creepy Edward since he disappears not long after the movie starts.

Anonymous said...

I too, watched the first Twilight movie just to see what the big deal was... and was sorely disappointed. Edwards sparkly skin looked like that feature on my DSLR that shows me when I've overexposed an area of the image. And after having also seen Wolverine around the same time, the crappy CGI when Edward "runs" up the mountain like an animal is just pathetic! It makes him look like he's miming the motion, and Bella's hair isn't even blowing backwards from the "speed" at which he's hijacking her up that mountain. They did okay with Edward stopping the truck, but didn't feel like putting any money into this scene?! WTF?! (They shouldn't have skimped on this, especially after viewers watched Sabretooth run in those war scenes.)

My sister wanted to see New Moon, so I went with her right before Thanksgiving -- HOPING that with a bigger budget they'd make a better movie. They tried, I guess, but no amount of money or screaming fans is EVER going to make Edward & Bella believable. She only looks like she's emoting correctly when she's running, and when they kiss he tucks his chin in and she arcs away from him as if she's repulsed.

When I walked out of the theater I was left wondering -- where are all the moms who were so up in arms over Beavis & Butthead?! Don't tell me they've all disappeared, because not one of them would EVER support a movie basically telling girls it's OK to be SUICIDALLY upset over a boy/breakup. I'm just sayin'...

Herding Cats said...

That's really funny. I just watched the first movie a few days ago. I've read all the books (which I think helps you understand the movie) but.....I was constantly distracted by several of the "cons" you mentioned in the film. I think the worst scene was when they were flying through the trees. It hurt my shame. I felt embarrassed for the producers. And although Edward is hot, I couldn't escape the fact that he totally creeped me out as well. He was....odd. But then again, I guess he is a vampire.

Soda and Candy said...

Ahahaha, great review.

I have no desire to watch these movies, thanks for taking one for the team, Andy!

I'm only thirty and the Twilight boys creep me out by being too young, what is up with the cougar set being into them?

P said...

I like "Twilight" and all, but it's all kinda vampiry crossed with "Wuthering Heights" or something like that. Kids aren't LIKE this when they fall in love . . . are they???

Give me "Buffy" (or, even better, "Angel") over it anyday...

Andy said...

Srg- Maybe it'll be worthwhile, then.
One- At least you're not bitter, cause that would suck. I'll have to take another look at the mountain thing; I was too overcome by confusion about why they had to go into the woods in the first place, instead of going into a parked car like normal teens.
Cats- Another embarassment: Does anyone think about the fact Edward is decades older than Bella, and that this is technically statutory?
Soda- I do what I can. That's why I read Cosmo. And I have no clue why cougars love this stuff.
P- Haha, oh well done. Any Wuthering Heights/vampire reference is gold.

Anonymous said...

Ha! I love it. You got more out of Twilight than I did. We rented it, appropriately from McDonald's for a buck. Think I made it maybe 30 minutes into it and the mute button came out and I narrated the rest. FAR more interesting. Great post!

gracie-mel said...

best comment I heard today, on Howard Stern: Just send in Wesley Snipes and take out all the vampires; THEN you've got a real movie!!

Rabbit: I dig your narration idea; makes most movies better!

Amy xxoo said...

I think the initial hysteria for the first film was from all the teenage girls who had read the books. I also watched the first one just to see what the fuss was about and it was ok, better than lying around my house doing nothing for the afternoon, but i didnt rush out to to buy the dvd when it came out.

And i gotta agree - some of the " special " effects in that film were just...well...crap. See the aforementioned running through the forest scene and sparkly in sunlight Edward.

bianca said...

New Moon is so much better. Twilight was pretty budget considering all the things they had to do and it showed. Plus I felt like New Moon didn't move as slowly even though it's over 2 hours long.

I definitely think the hysteria comes from everyone who read the books. I read all of them (yea I'll admit it) and Stephanie Meyer wrote Edward to be this incredibly romantic guy that makes every girl swoon and fall in love with him and makes every girl hate Bella for being with him.

Erin said...

Ugh. Sparkling vampires piss me off.

New Moon was better, but Edward and Bella were still in it, so it really wasn't that great.

Sam_I_am said...

I missed the fact that you were giving us a multiple choice. I was awaiting a proposal story, wondering how you were going to top the last one... :-)

I failed the test. Sorry.

I'm holding out on the Twilight movies. I'm good. I still haven't seen Harry Potter.

tracie said...

I own both "Twilight" and "Citizen Kane". HA.

Kellie said...

I heard the budget for Twilight was a pretty sad low number. I agree the effects were lame. I haven't seen New Moon yet to compare it to though.

And the book was better. Way better.

That picture is hilarious. :)

Anonymous said...

Twilight is...wretched. New Moon, way better.

Of course I'm a loser and I like the book series, so my opinions clearly can't be trusted entirely.

Jenners said...

I only watched "Twilight" on my little iPod Touch so I didn't get the full effect of the Edward sparkle scene.

And you forgot the other appeal of Edward ... his voice. That is what does it for me. God ... I'm a dork and a Twilight mom. Actually, I'm embarrassed by liking Twilight. I actually Google Robert Pattison sometimes. How lame is that? I got sucked into the books though ... thought I would hate them. Enough already. I'll shut up now.

Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin