ijustworkhere
Blueblood
Posts: 1,260
Jun 16, 2006 11:56:38 GMT -4
|
Post by ijustworkhere on Jul 11, 2010 22:34:17 GMT -4
We were made to sit through this movie at a drive-in on Friday because the original screening order was Get Him to the Greek, then Twilight, but so many parents brought their kids for Twilight and were suitably horrified at the language and sex humor in GHttG that fifteen minutes in they switched it to Twilight. We had already paid our fifteen dollars for the car, and wanted to finish GHttG, so we stayed, figuring a movie series that makes this much money can't be THAT bad.
We were so, so wrong. The biggest mistake of our lives. I don't know what people are talking about when they say this movie is entertaining--maybe the other two are just so bad that this one can't help but compare favorably? Either way, this was hands down the worst, most boring, most cheap-looking, lame, pointless piece of crap film I have ever, ever seen. I lost count of how many times we screamed at the screen for something to HAPPEN ALREADY. Seriously, these characters just stand around talking about random stupid narcissistic crap the WHOLE movie, and then there's a two-minute fight scene at the end, and then it's OVER? The only vaguely entertaining part was when Bella punched Jacob and broke her hand. Bahahaa.
The acting is SO BEYOND TERRIBLE. I guess there's supposed to be a love triangle between the three leads, and Bella is supposed to have feelings for Jacob? But Kristen Stewart has so little chemistry with anyone, and plays all of Jacob's advances like she couldn't be more disgusted or annoyed by him, so Jacob really just comes off as a crazy stalker boy who tries to force himself on her. GOD. IT SUCKED.
Poor Anna Kendrick. Poor, poor Anna Kendrick.
Oh, and guess what I really wasn't expecting halfway through the film? Oh yeah a gang rape. I mean Jesus. What the fuck. Just out of nowhere like that.
I'm not trying to be one of those people who doesn't read the book or see the previous movies and then complains that they don't know what's going on, but seriously, a film adaptation should still have some semblance of followable plot. The people who make these movies really just say "fuck it" and remove all the parts of the book that don't involve Lautner shirtless, don't they? Or can that possibly be all the plot there is in the book? No. No, it can't be. There was barely enough plot in that film to fill a Seinfeld episode.
Oh, and I've stayed out of the debate because I'd never seen him in a film, but Taylor Lautner? Gay as sunrise. He clinched it when he called "Hey beautiful" to Bella. My gaydar exploded in my brain like the top of a mercury thermometer. And then the whole rest of the movie, all I saw was gay gay gay. His publicists must be brilliant to have successfully thrown people off the scent.
What was most perplexing about the film was that everyone seemed to love this Bella creature for no discernable reason. She's dull, a perpetual damsel in distress, useless in almost every way, mean, uncaring, stupid. I DO NOT understand the appeal. I do not understand why all these vampires and werewolves and assorted mysticals would put their lives on the line for her. It makes no sense.
So ends my one and only experience with Twilight. In eye strain from all the rolling, and mild nausea.
|
|
|
Post by angelaudie on Jul 11, 2010 22:58:56 GMT -4
OMG ijustworkhere! Your review gave me such a fit of giggles! Actually, the film followed the book plot pretty well. That's how much the book sucks. You want to know the even scarier part? The film is actually better than the book. Seriously! Bella, Edward, and Jacob are actually much more likable in the films than they are in the books (especially Bella). That's probably one reason so many find the films entertaining. The books are so awful they make the films good in comparison! This is a point Spill.com's review hits (review's language NSFW). All these people are in love with Bella yet there's nothing special about her. She's not charming, funny, or amazingly beautiful. The reviewers feels Bella is a pretty girl but not pretty enough to drive these two guys into such a tizzy. I've fanwanked the reason why the other werewolves are willing to risk their lives to save Bella is because they feel it is their duty to protect humans from vampires (the previous film kinda touch on this). So, they would do this for any human a vampire was targeting. Plus, they may have feared the newborns wouldn't have stopped with Bella and attacked other residents. Not to mention the idea of listening to Jacob sulk over Bella dying would be enough to make anybody want to save her. Same thing with the Cullens. No one wants to listen to Edward get all emo sulky. Oh and Spill's reviewers were right on one other issue. If Edward and Jacob said, "Screw Bella!" and hooked up suddenly these films would be interesting! It's kinda a shame this was your introduction to these films ijustworkhere. The first film is filled with so much unintentional LOL moments. It's so cheesy that it's entertaining! The success of the first one ruined the rest. Now, the studio is actually treating these films like they are something serious instead of the cheese fests that they are.
|
|
scarlett210
Blueblood
Posts: 1,223
Nov 6, 2005 23:54:37 GMT -4
|
Post by scarlett210 on Jul 11, 2010 23:03:22 GMT -4
Unfortunately the books are that bad and plotless. The majority of the books are nothing but angst and emo bullshit and Bella whining and mooning over Edward and then about a third in Meyer tries to dredge up some kind of plot that ends up going nowhere. And this happens in every. single. book in the series. And since Meyer is heavily involved in production, I guess the filmmakers have to stay faithful to her 'vision'. So you get a movie of bad dialogue, and a plot that never seems to materialize. And to add insult to injury, you have 3 wooden, lifeless, charisma free actors who turn out some of the worst performances I've ever seen on screen. I know the scripts are shitty, but I think good actors could have made it somewhat bearable. Lautner, but especially Stewart and Pattinson actually make the dialogue seem worse. Stewart conveys zero emotion and Robert looks perpetually constipated. And no, zero chemistry. And this is supposed to be the swoon worthy love story for our time?
The first movie was so bad it was funny, but at least it was somewhat entertaining. But after it made a bundle at the box office, it started taking it's self so seriously. NM was so horribly boring, I found myself checking my blackberry every 5 minutes. I stayed away from Eclipse because I just knew it would be more of the same. And now they are splitting up the 4th book into 2 movies, when there's only about 15 minutes of actual plot in the whole damn book. That's pure greed right there Summit.
One thing that still puzzles me though is why after 3 directors and millions of dollars, they still can't at least get the hair and makeup to look above what you would find on a low rate soap opera. This is considered the biggest franchise outside of HP and they can't afford some wigs and proper makeup?
|
|
regencydrama
Guest
Oct 6, 2024 0:21:58 GMT -4
|
Post by regencydrama on Jul 12, 2010 0:02:37 GMT -4
You know, for someone who hates the books, I'm in this thread an awful lot. I wonder what that means? Anyway, Ijustworkhere: *slow clap*. Your review was a thing of beauty. And to echo what everyone else has been saying, the plotline of the third movie is actually an improvement over the book itself. They're really just that bad. Word. If we took away the romantic triangle and the clumsy behavior, Bella has very little depth or content as a character. We're told she's an old soul who likes Jane Austen and can cook, but other than that, she's bland as hell. She's not especially intelligent, she doesn't seem to have any hobbies outside of Edward, or even future goals outside of being a vampire. When Edward tries to convince her to go to college, she's more preoccupied with having sex. We're supposed to like her.... why? I think a good character to compare Bella to would be Elena from The Vampire Diaries. (Yes, I watch the show... shut up. ) Elena's also caught in a vampire love triangle, in a weird world full of magic and mythical creatures. Yet outside of her relationship drama with Stefan and Damon, she still lives a very full life. She has hobbies, friends, and goals. She doesn't always react in the best way when presented with staggering issues (e.g. paternity drama), she still deals. Bella couldn't be half the woman Elena is. I suspect, but can't be certain, it's because Summit = cheap bastards. They often have quality projects on their hands - e.g. Letters to Juliet, that band movie Vanessa Hudgens was in, and do a terrible job of paying/marketing/guiding the project through. Both Juliet and the band movie could have made shitload more money if Summit had spent more time working on them.
|
|
|
Post by incognito on Jul 12, 2010 9:19:43 GMT -4
Elena >>>>>>> Bella.
I saw this movie over the weekend. Parts of it were unintentionally hilarious - the entire theater started cracking up when we first saw Jacob with that ridiculous music in the background - but the only parts that I genuinely enjoyed were the scenes between Charlie and Bella.
Also, wtf happened to Esme? There was this one part where the camera panned over the Cullens as they waited in the clearing for the fight to start. At the very end you see Esme, only she looked so different and busted that I didn't recognize her at first. I noticed a couple of people sitting in the row ahead of me snickering when the camera panned over her.
|
|
scarlett210
Blueblood
Posts: 1,223
Nov 6, 2005 23:54:37 GMT -4
|
Post by scarlett210 on Jul 12, 2010 10:42:21 GMT -4
Bella is a text book Mary Sue. She's an insert of the reader. There's nothing definitive about her, other than she has brown hair, she's inexplicably clumsy and everybody loves her for no reason. You get endless paragraphs about the sparkly perfection that is Edward, but Bella remains vague. She's the most annoying, bland, idiotic character ever. And I actually think she's worse in the books, because you can hear her constantly annoying thoughts. She's beyond obnoxious.
It's kind of sad that we went from girls looking up to Buffy in the 90's to Bella Swan in 2010. Talk about a step back.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 0:21:58 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2010 16:50:47 GMT -4
Word. If we took away the romantic triangle and the clumsy behavior, Bella has very little depth or content as a character. We're told she's an old soul who likes Jane Austen and can cook, but other than that, she's bland as hell. She's not especially intelligent, she doesn't seem to have any hobbies outside of Edward, or even future goals outside of being a vampire. When Edward tries to convince her to go to college, she's more preoccupied with having sex. We're supposed to like her.... why? I would think that was part of the appeal for teenage girls - a lot of them haven't defined their characters or hobbies. I remember when I used to read the Babysitters' Club, although I loved reading about the girls' interests, I always felt really lame because each of those girls had a 'thing' (ballet, art, really healthy food) and I didn't - there really wasn't anything I'd discovered I was good at or liked doing. So Bella's probably a non-threatening presence for girls that age. That's one of the interesting things about Twilight, IMO. The idea of 'the male gaze' has been turned around completely and it's the boys who are the objects of desire and their physical appearance is obsessed over.
|
|
scarlett210
Blueblood
Posts: 1,223
Nov 6, 2005 23:54:37 GMT -4
|
Post by scarlett210 on Jul 12, 2010 16:56:33 GMT -4
That maybe true for teens/tweens, but all of these crazy Twilight Moms who think Bella is their avatar are truly sick. At that age, don't you want to read about female with some depth? Not some vague Mary Sue cut out that you can insert yourself in. This whole franchise has brought out the creepy in a lot of people that are old enough to know better.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 0:21:58 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2010 17:01:09 GMT -4
That maybe true for teens/tweens, but all of these crazy Twilight Moms who think Bella is their avatar are truly sick. At that age, don't you want to read about female with some depth? Not some vague Mary Sue cut out that you can insert yourself in. This whole franchise has brought out the creepy in a lot of people that are old enough to know better. I don't think the Twilight books are much different from the Harlequin/Mills & Boon romances those women would read anyway. Those books also tend to have really passive heroines. *shrug* It's a sexual fantasy, at the end of day, 'passive woman' is one of the milder things that get people hot.
|
|
ijustworkhere
Blueblood
Posts: 1,260
Jun 16, 2006 11:56:38 GMT -4
|
Post by ijustworkhere on Jul 12, 2010 18:44:25 GMT -4
Right, but in Twilight, there's not even any sex. That was another thing we were flummoxed by--it's a vampire story, where was the sex? I guess they have sex when they get married?
|
|