Suddenly I was hit with the urge to see Twilight. I was going to wait until it didn't cost me any money, but I suppose my curiosity got the better of me. The audience was comprised of my friend Whitney, three other women and myself. Two women sat together (one looked as though she may have leapt from her seat at the screen at any moment) and there was one loner. I was ready. I now present for you my opinion.
Overall, it really wasn't good. You may be shocked to read that there were things about it that I enjoyed. For instance, Jessica and Mike. The only people in the film (and book, I suppose) who act like actual teenagers and very welcome comic relief. Right as I was about to take my last breath before boredom finally did me in, they popped up and (intentionally) made me laugh. The next two things that I liked really surprised me. First of all, vampire baseball was awesome. I really hadn't expected that part to be enjoyable, especially once I saw how stupid all the vampires looked when they'd do their fast running thing. But, miracle of miracles, this was a very fresh, exciting scene that this dull, dull film badly needed. And Muse! I cringed when I read that Stephenie Meyer liked a band that I also liked, but it all worked out in the end. Perhaps the most shocking thing that I liked was...deep breath...Edward.
I hate him in the book and I certainly don't care for Robert Pattinson (no matter how lonely and awkward Life&Style tries to convince me he is) but somehow I liked Edward. Don't worry; I'm not attracted to him. I don't see any "I heart boys that sparkle" shirts in my future. The only reason I can think of for this is because in the book we see Edward from Bella's eyes. This time I saw him from my own eyes. When he acted ridiculous, I could laugh without having to hear her stupid thoughts about it. Which brings me to the inappropriate laughter. It seems that every movie I go to, I let out a loud guffaw incontrollably at an unintentionally funny part. It came in this film after Edward spits that Bella can't get on their bus and then angrily pounds his fist on the bus door. It was just so ridiculous and Fonz-like, I couldn't contain my amusement.
Now for the bad stuff. It was ass-boring but I'm not sure how you could make a film from that book that wasn't since NOTHING HAPPENS but that's another post. First of all, I know its probably been said, but they're supposed to be crazy attractive. Alice? I mean, she's a pretty girl and all but gorgeous she is not. Her and Jasper are such a hair mess--I don't even know. I could understand if they styled all of them to look like what was attractive at the time of their change, but there is no excuse for Alice or the weird pointy monstrosity eating her head. Also, Victoria, James and the third dude are all fugly too. I can't help but think that if any of those people attacked me that I'd die laughing.
Jacob seemed so thrown in. I feel like they should've expanded his part or just not included him at all. And now they're not sure if they're going to use the same actor? What's the point of that? Charlie was awful. All the "awkward" moments between Bella and him were so manufactured. Oops! We both reached for the ketchup at the same time! Because it was in the script!
I did notice Robert's accent slipping in at some points... I mean, they are clearly cranking these out quickly to make the most of them, not trying to make good films, so can we blame the actors for phoning it in?
I enjoyed it more than I expected to but it was still a giant, smelly snoozefest. I remain baffled by the popularity of it. I have yet to read any reviews on it, so that's my next stop. I give it 1 out of 5 stars.
Oh, and Stephenie Meyer, don't make another cameo.
RIP Bob Saget
2 years ago
Posts
8 comments:
1 out of 5??? That's very harsh for a movie that entertained the majority of it's target audience.
I feel that this is a flaw of most movie reviewers. It's like when Margaret McGurk gave the first Pokemon Movie a 2 out of 10. I mean... was it bad? Yes. But what 8 year old opened up that paper and gave 2 shits about what McGurk said when all they wanted to do was to watch Ash catch Mewtwo?
On a side note, if you have a chance you should check out the TWOP American Idol recap where Jacob talks about Edward Cullen. You'd like it.
So? First of all, if I was seeing a sneak preview before anyone else in the entire world saw that movie, I would've guessed that it would've bombed. This is MY review and MY opinion. What kind of twisted logic is that anyway? Since when do reviews reflect what fans think? So I suppose all my BSB albums should've gotten great reviews just because me and all the other BSB fans loved them? You can make something that pleases both the fans and the general public, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
My point is this:
Some movies/Albums/TV shows/books are made for the masses. They aren't really designed to be broken down and compared to The Godfather/Some great album/The Sopranos/some great book.
Does that make sense? I'm certainly not begrudging your opinion, but my question is this...
Knowing who that movie was made for, do you think it was a failure? Because 1 out of 5 would indicate that it failed to deliver what it was trying to deliver, and I think it totally succeeded. I'm just saying when movies are reviewed out of context it always strikes me as funny.
That is not to say that it was a good movie. It wasn't. Just like the books weren't good. Just like we've already hashed out. I just think that it basically succeeded in pleasing the ridiculous teen girls that want to fuck Edward Cullen with feelings and angst.
Could it have been even better? Absolutely. Would those same ridiculous girls know the difference? Probably if you held the two versions up to eachother, but in essence I don't think they know what they're missing, and thus it was a successful creation.
I just think that the objective matters. It's perfectly reasonable to compare Crash and Brokeback Mountain because they both hold themselves out to be "Artistic and Important and worthy of consideration". It's not really fair to compare Brokeback Mountain to Hannah Montana in 3D though, because Hannah Montana doesn't seem to have the same pre-sets of goals. I dunno.. I could be wrong.
Yes, but you are completely missing my point and I think you've completely forgotten who you're talking to. Did you not see my movie list? It wasn't exactly a list of classics but all of those films would get 5/5 stars from me. Let me be crystal clear--I am judging the film purely on whether or not I liked it and what I thought of it. I'm not judging it by it reaching its target audience. Whether or not it succeeded there, I am not sure. I don't think just because its for teenagers that it can be awful, no. That is not a success. That's how teen films and teen novels get a bad rap. You know I like teen movies and teen books and I'm not a snob about it, so I really don't understand why you think I would suddenly become one when it comes to Twilight. I'm not a Twilight snob, it just SUCKS.
Well you ARE sort of a Twilight snob...or an anti-Twilight snob I guess... I dunno. That's not what I'm saying...
I acknowledge that Teen movies CAN be good, and CAN be held to a higher standard. Mean Girls is a good example, I think. Most of the Ferrell film lexicon are childish boy movies. I just think that Twilight succeeds at what it sets out to do, and therefore, deserves a higher score than a 1 out of 5. That's all.
I disagree. You keep saying that it delivers what its target audience wants. Ok, what is that exactly? Edward was laughably angsty and the acting really left something to be desired. Because I think the way that you mean it they could have just shown Robert Pattinson going through all of his daily activities and given the "target audience what it wants".
Yeah..pretty much. I don't think this is a difficult audience to please.
I also think that Edward is pretty much exactly as he's written in the books. The acting evokes the exact personalities in the books. If the issue is with anything, it should be with the source material. The movie did what it was supposed to do. (bad effects and ridiculous casting of the ugliest "gorgeous" people ever.)
Alright well now I'm lost. How is (bad effects and ridiculous casting of the ugliest "gorgeous" people ever.) what the movie was supposed to do?? Its really impossible to argue about something that neither of us really knows as neither of us is the target audience.
The real and original point is that I don't CARE who its intended for. I care about what I thought about the movie. And I hated it. Therefore, as far as me and my opinion are concerned, it earned ONE STAR.
Post a Comment