Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > November > 21 > Entry
In a good ‘Twilight’ zone
Watching Twilight reminded me of seeing High School Musical 3: Senior Year about a month ago. And that’s not a bad thing.
No, these two mega-franchises don’t have a whole lot in common. There’s a lot less singing in Twilight, and Twilight spurts a lot more blood - or at least as much blood as a PG-13 rating will allow. And Twilight does have a broader fan base than HSM does.
However, the audiences of High School Musical and Twilight are both fueled largely by females swooning over the male leads, Zac Efron and Robert Pattinson, respectively. (God help my eardrums if the two of them ever make a movie together.) And, like High School Musical 3: Senior Year, Twilight is a well-crafted piece of entertainment I enjoyed even though I’m not exactly in the target audience.
Quick lowdown for all of us who are new to the phenomenon created by author Stephenie Meyer: Lonely teen Bella (Kristen Stewart) moves to the Pacific Northwest, much to her chagrin. Her hormones kick into overdrive when she meets the surly, sultry and steely-eyed Edward (Pattinson), who happens to be a vampire.
Edward is far from the only one. He has a family that, like him, does not feast on humans. The same cannot be said for a creepy-looking group of rogues who do like to drink human blood. The nastiest one of the lot, James (Cam Gigandet), develops a dangerous taste for Bella.
I cannot speak to how faithful the movie is to the book, not having read it yet. As was the case with the Harry Potter series, I wanted to see how much I liked the movie before reading the book. I don’t know that I’m any more eager to read Meyer’s novels, but the movie does exactly what it sets out to do - stoke the passions of its intended viewers. For that, director Catherine Hardwicke deserves much of the credit.
It wasn’t so much Hardwicke’s visuals that intrigued me, it was her knack for working well with young actors. Her previous films, including thirteen and Lords of Dogtown, both featured strong casts, and Twilight’s best feature is its youthful players.
Since I am of the wrong orientation to be persuaded by the earthly charms of Pattinson (best known as the ill-fated Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), I can only judge his acting skills. His is not a performance of any particular depth - he broods very well, and that’s about it. Still, there’s no denying he has charisma.
Stewart impressed me more. She underplays many of her early scenes, making Bella’s passion more palpable when it kicks in. She’s an actress of impressive range. It took me a while to reconcile her appearance in Twilight with her very different performance in Panic Room, as Jodie Foster’s daughter.
I wish Hardwicke were as good with a camera as she is with actors. Her visual style is too self-consciously flashy here, with an excess of swooping cameras, fast cuts and Dutch tilts, though her action scenes were more coherent than those in Quantum of Solace. Sometimes, though, the dialogue lays it on even thicker.
I know a story about vampires is bound to be overripe, but I had to stifle a laugh when Edward tells Bella, “You’re like my own personal brand of heroin!” I’ll have to tell a girl sometime that she’s my kind of line of cocaine and see how far that gets me.
In the end, any distaste I had for Twilight had less to do with any actual flaws than the fact that vampire chick-lit isn’t my particular vial of blood. I can’t say I’m dying to see the sequels, but I’m intrigued enough to want to know what happens next - on screen.
GRADE: B
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By Lea
November 24, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
I didn’t mention the TV show because I don’t watch TV. The fact is that these books span generations. I’ve now seen the movie and while I think it was weak, I can still see its appeal as an indie. I guess if I hadn’t read the books first, I’d like it better. However, it upsets me when someone puts down ANY book before they read it. The authors write for themselves, primarily, so if you don’t like it after reading, fine. But judging a book by its readership…By Alice
November 24, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
Agreed, Allie. Maybe I’ll see the movie when it comes out on DVD and I doubt I’ll ever read the books. I enjoyed the Potter movie, but it didn’t make me want to go buy the books. It seems to be reaching for the same “Charmed” audience and that makes me want to gag. I work with a woman in her late 30’s and she loves that stuff… I think it has less to do with chronological age and more to do with emotional age. I am surprised that in all posts about Twilight (previous thread too) no one has mentioned the vampire show True Blood. Now that’s entertaining! When I heard about a new vampire show, I immediately rolled my eyes at the thought of any attempt to find a new angle on the vampire genre (as a fan of Interview, the series seemed to eventually drive the nail into the coffin for me) but I have been blissfully entertained until the finale last night… not the average romanticized vampire story! Maybe Twilight will turn out to be good… but hormonal teenage vampires in love? Further, I don’t even see the appeal of Pattinson. He’s not unattractive, but he looks like he could be a member of the Backstreet Boys or something. I’ll wait until he grows into a full-grown man before I get bothered.By Lea
November 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
Allie, my daughter begged me to read the books for six months. I wasn’t interested. I finally agreed when I ran out of reading material. Thursday & Friday after work and on lunches - Twilight. Saturday - New Moon. Sunday - Eclipse. Sweated & re-read for 4 months waiting for Breaking Dawn, got it at a midnight release and was done by 5 AM. I can understand the hype, and they WERE an underground secret. But they are GOOD!By Allie D.
November 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Is it wrong to want to avoid seeing this movie because SO MANY PEOPLE are going nuts over a series of books that I didn’t even know about until I started seeing advertising for this movie? LOL Granted, I am a bit intrigued because it has some local flavor for me. I love seeing anything set in the Pacific Northwest. Heck, I love setting my own stories here. It’s kind a good setting for melancholy stuff. Go figure… But here’s the thing. It’s marketed directly at teenagers. Usually things that are marketed toward teens have a way of making me throw up in my mouth a little. Have you seen the stuff on Nickelodeon lately? Yikes. Maybe that’s another thing that’s drawing me back a little. However, I remember being a teenager and loving vampires. I was all about Anne Rice’s vampire books from the time I was 15 on up. But her stuff was written for adults. Big difference. I guess I’ll hold back on judgment until I can get a book. I’m sort of the opposite in that I prefer to read the source material first. I don’t doubt that I would enjoy it. I loved Harry Potter more than life itself, and I never expected to. lol But for now, I’m going to hold back on joining the herd. Mostly for fear that I would be trampled. ;)By Lea
November 21, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
Aww, you can’t judge the story on the movie! If you read the book - and believe me, I bet a lot of stuff got left out, you can’t make a book that spans months work in 2 hours without cutting something - I would be willing to bet you’ll be hooked. My 38-year-old husband is. Save yourself some money and buy two of the box sets. You’ll need them when the first set falls apart from over-reading.