Anyone who has ever met me knows of my ridiculous obsession with movies. However, my movie criticism is of less note. Josh would always tell me I like every movie, but that is not necessarily true, though I do tend to love the "bad" ones from time to time. I guess I am a more forgiving critic. I may hate the acting, but love complexities of the character or I may not like the plot, but enjoy the scenery. I generally just love good stories, which is probably an overflow of my obsession with books. I suppose I'm a bit too forgiving in that regard as well, because I tend to enjoy some unusual books as well. I don't like to be too critical, it makes me feel mean. I'm Miss Positive and I try to find good in everything, though I don't think I'll ever find it in rap music so I abstain. This all leads me to my recent viewing of Twilight.
Again, I don't want to be too critical, but when I can't control myself - this happens. My entirely selfish review:
Stephanie Meyer's books have been at the top of the best seller charts going on 3 years now, and it seems it's the adolescent female response to the Harry Potter phenomenon. These "series" books are the new boy bands, and with stunners like Rob Pattinson, Jackson Rathbone, and even Daniel Radcliff coming into his own right as a teen heart throb, it is understandable the obsession factor. I was once a pre-teen, I understand fully when I think of my embarrassing lust for Leonardo DiCaprio.
The movie is intoxicating, and not like Hemingway's cognac, but maybe Doc's home brew of malt liqueur on the Row. It gives you a hangover when you leave, the headache being Kristen Stewart's acting and the fond, yet embarrassing memories of the night-before being Rob Pattinson's portrayal of Edward. You leave with the bitter taste of angsty behavior and a new crush on a up and coming English man. In comparing to the book, it pales... literally. The plot follows decently, but is very slow in building. Then it peeks suddenly and falls just as so. The action is all in one area, but you don't have the fear of the predator vampires to make it all that emotionally moving. The book does a great job of making the "hunt" seem more like a hunt, and it actually makes you fear James. Though, I'm trying not to build up Meyer's writing too much. It's actually quite poor, but still addicting. It seems like it could have been written by any day-dreaming high school student. I've read papers with better prose from my 10th graders.
So Bella moves to a new place and tries to orient herself to her new surroundings. New, beautiful, green Pacific Northwest surroundings, of which she is entirely ungrateful for. All she wants is the beauty of Phoenix. Wait a second, did she say Phoenix? You've got to be kidding me. Not only that, but everyone at school wants to be her friend and all the boys fall in love with her. Boo fraking hoo, Bella, you already have the best possible circumstances for a new student in high school, what more could you want. Enter Edward Cullen.
Now, the book and the movie match up very well in the story telling of the Cullen family. Have I mentioned yet that the Vampires were cast perfectly? Kudos, casting director! I can't even decide on my favorite one, they are so perfect. However, the movie leaves out all the interesting character traits of Alice and Jasper. Alice is my favorite character due to her quirky, perky personality. I wish the movie would have developed that little more. Edward's character is the most intriguing character I have read in quite some time. His emotions are quite complex and he is the epitomal gentleman revisiting his teenage years, therefore losing a bit of his gentlemanly control. Naturally, he has some lust issues, which give him mood swings the likes of manic depressive. It's all very understandable, though. I would not have been able to help myself if I finally met the one I was meant for after 98 years of searching! This brings me back to Bella.
I really don't like this character, but my dislike is not her fault. Meyer created her to be the very "typical" cliche' high school girl with all the social awkwardness and weakness that comes with that type. My point is, I cannot identify with her at all. I was not at all like her in high school and I didn't really have any friends like her either. She is just too weak! She's incredibly clumsy, faints at the sight of blood, is afraid of needles, loses her hormonal control at times (forgiven due to it being Edward, naturally), is hopelessly void of athletic ability, and is codependent to a frightening degree. By the way, the codependency in this novel frightens me. How is codependency remotely romantic? Not exactly the role-models for the upcoming teens. Her weaknesses can't exactly be her fault entirely, though. She surpasses the maturity level of her mother and has an incredibly absentee father, so she doesn't exactly have a huge support base for a good family system. That aside, she is an English person and is pretty scholarly. She reads Austen and Shakespeare, and has a slight feminist streak (remember her paper on whether or not Shakespeare's treatment of women in Macbeth is misogynistic?) which doesn't really fit into her personality at all. Alas, Meyer's poor character building (or my hatred of the character?). Yet, Bella does her homework... good girl!
So, Bella falls in love with Edward and vise versa and he begins stalking her. Yep, there is an incredibly high and scary amount of voyeurism. Even with Jacob and the wolves, "We'll be watching" pretty much sums it all up. Again, teens find this romantic?! However, I find myself kind of liking the idea of my beloved with me all the time... then again, that could get really, really old fast. So back to the movie, the whole thing goes really fast. One of my friend's descriptions of it was that the entire thing revolved and built up to this one scene, then resolves just as quickly. Like I stated, this is exactly true. In comparing to the book, I would have appreciated a longer development of the Bella/Edward relationship... it was all too fast. Like Anne Rose said, it could have been easily (and cheaply) done with just a two minute montage of the time passing and them getting to know each other. It seems like a lot of movies could use a montage to explain a few more things. I would have liked that little addition, also due to the likelihood of Carter Burwell's compositions being added and extended. I love his music! He's a fantastic composer (Blaire Witch, Fur, Burn After Reading, Gods and Monsters) and his music mixes minor keys and rock guitar riffs which is incredibly fitting. I absolutely loved Bella's Lullaby from the movie. Haunting, poetic, and romantic (and I mean Mary Shelly romantic, not Daniel Steele romantic).
The most appealing aspect of the movie was, in addition to the music, the fantastic tribute to the Pacific Northwest. No, it wasn't really filmed in Forks, but in Oregon. This movie affirmed my undying love for trees, moss, ferns and forest. You see why I can't identify with her and her hatred of the area? The entire area was absolutely gorgeous. The house that the Cullen's lived in was exactly how I'd imagined it in the book. The sweeping scenes over the tree tops and the mountainous regions of the base of the Cascades looks like it could be a dream. Maybe I'm just projecting my desires here, but I'll see the movie again for the scenery. Oh, and the baseball scene! FANTASTIC!
Long have I waited for Muse's Supermassive Black Hole to be featured in an action scene. This was a quite appropriate use of the song. Add an American pastime and we've got a hit! With the lightning striking, thunder rolling, bats cracking... what a fantastic tribute to the scene in the book. It was much more than what the book described and an awe to witness on screen. If an Oscar could be given to a scene...
So, for the movie and the book I am on the fence. I don't mind being a fence sitter, it means I'm thinking and criticizing and arguing with myself and I like it. I hated them both as much as I loved them, so there you have it. Now I just have to read New Moon.
Quite honestly, this book is just unfair. It's going to make a new generation of women create a standard for men that men will never be able to meet. Edward, the demi-god in all his pale, muscular, amber-eyed beauty, is not and will never be embodied. Rob Pattinson does a wondrous portrayal, but Edward is still confined to the books. Meyer claims she had a dream that lead her to this story line and to the creation of this character. Personally, I think Edward is just her sad attempt to create the perfect human being that neither she, nor anyone else could ever be with. His skin sparkles, for goodness sakes. She created a trap and lined it with diamonds - we all know how women can't resist diamonds!
The most pathetic thing is I fell for it. I cannot believe I am admitting it here, but I have found myself a few times the last couple of days day dreaming about this angelic creature that is the embodiment of eighteenth century manners, whole-hearted worship of the woman he loves, and is breathtakingly gorgeous. I have to mentally slap myself to the present, "Snap out of it, Elizabeth! Your literary IQ is dropping!"
Damn her, that Stephanie Meyer! Living my life in complete ignorance of this character's existence in film or literature was just fine for me... but now I know Edward does exist in those pages and its painful. I'm going to have to stop myself from unfairly comparing men I meet to this "perfect guy" that now exists and is paining the hearts of a teenage girls, twenty-something women, and all their mothers.
I feel sorry for men with all these "women" novelists about. Meyer wasn't the first to create this scale. Jane Austen and her Mr. Darcy's, Mr. Ferris', and (my personal favorite) Mr. Tilney's, have dashed all hopes for men. Men can't live up to these expectations, but of course, I'd gladly be mistaken. Men did feel threatened by all of this back when the "Women" really were beginning to surface. The term "The Women" was developed during the early nineteenth century over brandy and cigars when the gentlemen of the ages realized that these women novelists were creating characters that they simply could not live up to, but their wives reading the novels were beginning to expect them to. The men felt threatened and started convincing people to ban the novelists, which is why we end up with pseudonyms like George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) and A lady (Jane Austen). Being the slight feminist I am, I am stunned at myself to be thinking like this. Men have made women's lives miserable for ages but you see, I am forgiving.
I have known some great men in my day, my "young" day. Men that, to some women, may be the Mr. Darcy or Mr. Tilney they seek. Friends I have are in fact, I believe, these essentially and inherently "good" men - Jason, Jeff, Thinh, Josh, Brent, Mike, Matt W, Matt H, and so on. All good men, but none of them for me and none of them Edwards. And nobody ever will be.
Please, I want opinions on my selfish opinion. Criticize me, tear my analysis apart. I just want to know what other people thought of the movie and books.
