RSS
Home
'Twilight' great for fans, decent for others
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Twilight
There were shrieks. I wouldn't really put them on the level of, say, The Beatles, but their were definitely shrieks. The audience behind me at the screening for Twilight was composed of more late teen to mid-twenties women than I had seen in one theater since I began reviewing films over three years ago. Having never read the books I was prepared for schmaltz, I got quality romance, which always has a little schmaltz in it anyways.
In case you have been avoiding the female gender for the last two years Twilight is the film adaptation of Stephenie Meyer's book of the same name, which is the first book in the four part Twilight series. It's about two highschoolers in a rainy Forks, Washington, who fall in love and one of them, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattison), is a Vampire. This makes things a little complicated for his love Bella Swan (I told you it got a little schmaltzy), who is playd by Kristen Stewart, as she learns of Edward's unique vampire "family" and that hanging around him will most likely put her life in danger. In case you missed out on the rampaging fans news stories and endless hype, don't worry yourself, the shrieks will tell you all you need to know about how popular this is.
But popularity and quality don't always go hand in hand, despite what the worlds PR people want you to believe. So how is this movie that every teen girl is waiting for? Well it ain't so bad. Far more teen romance than vampire flick, the film dives head first into a pretty long book and pulls out the basics to make an entertaining movie that should please fans and not bore newcomers. Not exactly a resounding review, I know, but by the end of the film I was actually interested in Bella and Edward's romance and the vampire universe that surrounds it. Any movie that is targeted at tween girls and can get a 25-year-old action junkie into it has something going for it.
I'm told, by those in the know (read: my girlfriend), the casting for the film is perfect, with the two leads falling easily into their roles. I'm inclined to agree that they both deliver solid performances, though I could have stood for a bit less lip biting and deep breathes before dramatic decisions. For those worried, the entire supporting cast is also brilliantly cast, again, according to my sources in the know.
The person who wasn't chosen properly was director Catherine Hardwicke whose need to constantly keep the camera rotating around her actors led me to beliee that she was raised on a carousel and thus thought that constant rotation was indeed normal. She clearly has a knack for capturing motion as the sparse action sequences are actually well done, but when the film stands still her camera refuses to and it actually ruins what should be some decently emotional scenes. Her constant cutting and moving during Bella and Edwards first romantic interlude only jars the viewer away from the moment instead of getting them inside it.
Over directing aside the film runs along at a solid clip and those that are fans of the book should not be dissapointed by the films adaption, which hits all the main points and sets up the next book film perfectly. In fact Twilight is good enough to warrant a sequel that delivers even more fully. Vampires and romance are nothing new, but Twilight gives them enough of a twist to make it interesting and the film delivers enough on that twist to make it far better than its outlying plot makes it sound. In short, the shrieks are deserved, but let's hold off on all out hysteria.
Related Articles:
Comments
