TWILIGHT
**time to revive filmblogging!***
Most of the reviews I've read prior to watching Twilight shared a common bottom line: to lower one's expectations upon watching the movie adaptation. So I did lower them, and all I can say about Twilight? It's not bad at all, but it could've been a lot better.
IMO it would've been better if the producers had injected blockbuster/mind-blowing/effects-driven/action-packed elements in the movie adaptation or created a character-driven bold adaptation of the book to attract a wider crowd of moviegoers. Translating Twilight to the big screen was a difficult task because of two reasons:
1. The book itself is one hell of a borefest. I actually thought that Twilight was a modern day vampire saga with a romantic element on the side, similar to Anne Rice novels. How can teeny-bopper/romance flicks like this draw people, esp. to those who haven't even read or know nothing about Twilight?
2. It was hard to adapt novels like this into the big screen. Just like most adaptations, everything had to be condensed in a small amount of time. The book relied on wordy descriptions and the mysterious romance enveloping the two leads, which means everything becomes fast-paced in the movie, focusing on shallow grounds and leaving character development and those oh-so-romantic moments out the door. Again, what about those who don't know anything about the book? Will they able to easily catch up with the movie's track if it assumes that viewers have read the book? And for Twilight fanatics, will it still be able to captivate those breathtaking moments the same way the book did?
The answer: I guess it's a yes to fangirls who just keep on screaming everytime the two leads appear on screen together. (Gawd I cringe everytime they do that) But for me, it's a NO. Why? Two words: Robert Pattison. He just sucks at delivering his lines that most of the time it feels like platonic love that he's expressing to Kristen Stewart, who surprisingly fits the role of the damsel-in-distress lady. Stewart's a good actress despite her monotonous tone of voice and stoic facial expressions, and I think she'll go a long way. Pattison may barely pass the description given to Edward Cullen in the book, but he badly badly badly needs acting and speech lessons. And the make-up was horrible and amateur as it can get that it looked like Pattison was wearing excessive facial sunblock throughout the movie that he forgot to put some on his body. Supporting cast members were even better actors than Pattison.
On the brighter side of things, I do appreciate how the director crafted the movie that it feels like one giant MTV with lots of flimsy sequences but has that overlying tone/atmosphere the setting exudes- dark, mysterious and cloudy -- exactly how the author pictured the setting in the book. The setting and production, save the effects, were loyal to the book's descriptions. The musical score and soundtrack as well, alterno-rock music that was reminiscent of teen movies we're accustomed to, were helpful to the movie. I'd prefer it if Sophia Ford Coppola (Marie Antoinette, The Virgin Suicides) was the one in charge of this movie than Catherine Hardwicke (Lords of Dogtown, Thirteen). Coppola would have given us something more refreshing, unpredictable and out-of-the-boxish. However, I think Hardwicke still deserves props for her work.
It is no doubt that Twilight, both the book series and the movie, has generated enough hype for it to become overrated. But I guess this is a prime showcase of how pop culture of the new millenium is defined and molded. It's not a classic, but undoubtedly it will go down as one of those underdog phenomenon of the decade (like Legally Blonde). It's nothing really special since it's not the blockbuster type of movie, but if you're curious as to why the eff people have been crazy over Twilight, I guess it's worth the two-hour feed to your curiosity and a couple of hours of youthful and supernatural escapism despite the (forgiveable) amateur approach to the movie.
Most of the reviews I've read prior to watching Twilight shared a common bottom line: to lower one's expectations upon watching the movie adaptation. So I did lower them, and all I can say about Twilight? It's not bad at all, but it could've been a lot better.
IMO it would've been better if the producers had injected blockbuster/mind-blowing/effects-driven/action-packed elements in the movie adaptation or created a character-driven bold adaptation of the book to attract a wider crowd of moviegoers. Translating Twilight to the big screen was a difficult task because of two reasons:
1. The book itself is one hell of a borefest. I actually thought that Twilight was a modern day vampire saga with a romantic element on the side, similar to Anne Rice novels. How can teeny-bopper/romance flicks like this draw people, esp. to those who haven't even read or know nothing about Twilight?
2. It was hard to adapt novels like this into the big screen. Just like most adaptations, everything had to be condensed in a small amount of time. The book relied on wordy descriptions and the mysterious romance enveloping the two leads, which means everything becomes fast-paced in the movie, focusing on shallow grounds and leaving character development and those oh-so-romantic moments out the door. Again, what about those who don't know anything about the book? Will they able to easily catch up with the movie's track if it assumes that viewers have read the book? And for Twilight fanatics, will it still be able to captivate those breathtaking moments the same way the book did?
The answer: I guess it's a yes to fangirls who just keep on screaming everytime the two leads appear on screen together. (Gawd I cringe everytime they do that) But for me, it's a NO. Why? Two words: Robert Pattison. He just sucks at delivering his lines that most of the time it feels like platonic love that he's expressing to Kristen Stewart, who surprisingly fits the role of the damsel-in-distress lady. Stewart's a good actress despite her monotonous tone of voice and stoic facial expressions, and I think she'll go a long way. Pattison may barely pass the description given to Edward Cullen in the book, but he badly badly badly needs acting and speech lessons. And the make-up was horrible and amateur as it can get that it looked like Pattison was wearing excessive facial sunblock throughout the movie that he forgot to put some on his body. Supporting cast members were even better actors than Pattison.
On the brighter side of things, I do appreciate how the director crafted the movie that it feels like one giant MTV with lots of flimsy sequences but has that overlying tone/atmosphere the setting exudes- dark, mysterious and cloudy -- exactly how the author pictured the setting in the book. The setting and production, save the effects, were loyal to the book's descriptions. The musical score and soundtrack as well, alterno-rock music that was reminiscent of teen movies we're accustomed to, were helpful to the movie. I'd prefer it if Sophia Ford Coppola (Marie Antoinette, The Virgin Suicides) was the one in charge of this movie than Catherine Hardwicke (Lords of Dogtown, Thirteen). Coppola would have given us something more refreshing, unpredictable and out-of-the-boxish. However, I think Hardwicke still deserves props for her work.
It is no doubt that Twilight, both the book series and the movie, has generated enough hype for it to become overrated. But I guess this is a prime showcase of how pop culture of the new millenium is defined and molded. It's not a classic, but undoubtedly it will go down as one of those underdog phenomenon of the decade (like Legally Blonde). It's nothing really special since it's not the blockbuster type of movie, but if you're curious as to why the eff people have been crazy over Twilight, I guess it's worth the two-hour feed to your curiosity and a couple of hours of youthful and supernatural escapism despite the (forgiveable) amateur approach to the movie.