O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / November 30, 2008
My friend Merinda Pearce said it best when she explained, “Even though ‘Twilight’ is a love story about teenage vampires, it’s a lot better than it sounds.” Despite my initial skepticism, Merinda was correct. “Twilight” is adapted from Stephenie Meyer’s book of the same name, an addictive series that has seduced many female readers (including my wife).
Though I haven’t read the book, the movie is intriguing — without a doubt — and the film’s success (and presumably the book’s) lies in its ability to make us increasingly anxious about what will happen next. We’ve all heard numerous vampire stories, which makes “Twilight’s” fresh appeal somewhat surprising.
While her mother and step-father travel to Florida for spring training, 17-year-old “Bella” Swan (Kristen Stewart), of Phoenix, moves to the tiny town of Forks, Washington (population 3,120) to live for a time with her father, Charlie Swan (the uncannily likable Billy Burke), who serves as Forks’ chief of police.
At Bella’s new high school, she encounters the mysterious, pale-faced Cullen kids, who turn out to be vampires, unbeknownst somehow to everyone else in the community. A mutual and eventually romantic intrigue befalls Bella and one of the Cullens named Edward (Robert Pattinson). But when a blood-sucking vampire and a human fall in love, things become dangerously complicated.
And the precarious circumstances of the unlikely couple’s relationship comprise the bulk of the film. Edward hungers for Bella’s blood, but he is well aware of the magnitude of such a dating faux pas. Edward’s family also finds his new girlfriend … tempting. Then there are other local vampires who aren’t so well mannered.
The best aspect to “Twilight” is its ability to make us as curious as Bella is about Edward’s vampirism. A remarkable incident occurs that initially tips Bella off that Edward is very different from the boys down in Arizona. But at the risk of evoking the wrath of die-hard “Twilight” fans, I was disappointed by the way the movie breaks its own spell when we’re shown poorly depicted demonstrations of vampiric power.
Unfortunately, “Twilight’s” portrayal of a vampire’s physical abilities (which is precisely when we need Hollywood’s illusory magic the most) is ridiculously unconvincing. Watching Edward leap about, scaling trees is comparable to a high school stage production of “Peter Pan.” I kept looking for the wire.
The worst aspect to “Twilight” is its performances. Perhaps the actors are not the ones to blame. I have read excerpts of dialogue from Meyer’s book, and at times, the cast may have had little to work with. But I suspect the real culprit is director Catherine Hardwicke, who also directed “The Nativity Story” (2006), “Lords of Dogtown” (2005) and “Thirteen” (2003).
For instance, during Bella’s first few encounters with Edward, poor Robert Pattinson’s performance is laugh-out-loud ludicrous — again, something I blame on Hardwicke’s instruction (or lack thereof). I’m sure the book describes a similar scene, but Edward just keeps staring at Bella — “real hard.” Honestly, I was worried the kid was going to pull something from straining so much. … And incidentally, shooting a person’s movements at a slower speed so they’ll playback in fast-forward, merely looks like fast-forward, not super-human speed.
Otherwise, the film’s casting works. The Cullen vampires are beautiful people, as the book prescribes. Kristen Stewart, who is somewhat reminiscent of the “Gilmore Girls’” Alexis Bledel, makes a fine Bella. Pattinson’s Edward is a faint mix between Jason Priestley and New Age pianist Paul Cardall — especially during his piano scene. And Cam Gigandet’s (“Never Back Down”) James is genuinely unsettling.
Vampire movies have been around a long time; the German film, “Nosferatu” (1922), is the earliest one I was aware of, but according to a vampire history Web site, a British film called “The Secrets of House No. 5” (1912) was the first one. (Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula” didn’t come out until 1931.)
In any case, vampires have been in the cinema for decades, and their attributes have been fairly consistent, until recently. The overlooked “Cronos” (1993) throws a different spin on vampirism, for example. And “Twilight” is quite liberal with its vampiric “rules” and limitations. But much like zombies, who have become frighteningly fast in recent years, I guess vampires have to evolve, too.
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Kristen Stewart / Robert Pattinson / Billy Burke
Romance / Thriller 122 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and a scene of sensuality)
U.S. Release Date: November 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 327
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Classifying a Movie as a "Rental"
by Jason Pyles
How often do I disagree with Roger Ebert? Not very often.
But in Ebert’s Oct. 23 Answer Man column, he said that recommending a movie as a rental (as opposed to seeing it in the theater) is terrible advice. Ebert said when someone tells you to “wait for the video,” that usually means don’t see it, but he thinks it should mean see the movie. After all, Ebert reasons, two hours of a person’s life are the same whether they’re spent in the theater or at home.
I submit that the deal-breaker between recommending a theater viewing and a video rental is whether a film is worth paying $8 to see, or is it only worth $3? (Yeah, yeah, I know, when considering matinee prices versus evening shows, exorbitant Blockbuster video prices, reasonable Netflix prices, etc., it all depends. Indeed, the cost of watching movies can vary wildly, but generally speaking, I hope we can agree that renting a movie is typically less expensive than seeing it in the theater, all things considered.)
Many people I know only make it out to the theater on special occasions, meaning, a few times a year. So if I encourage them to go to the theater and sit among texting, talking, seat-kicking strangers, instead of watching it in the comfort of their own homes, which also have surround sound and big-screen TVs, then it had better be worth it. My friend Andy Howell immediately comes to mind.
There are four reasons to see a film in the theater:
1.) The audio-visual experience and being part of that week’s big, pop-culture event
2.) For a date
3.) If it’s truly excellent or has big surprises that could be spoiled by overhearing too much buzz
4.) Simply because you like going to the theater
And if you’re a movie critic, 5.) Because you have to review the movie asap.
Of course, there are some films that should be seen in theaters first: The six “Star Wars” episodes are good examples, because of the spectacle, the event itself, and the monster speakers. (When I heard Jango Fett’s “depth charges” (or whatever those explosive devices were called) that he unleashed while being pursued by Obi-Wan in Episode II, it was unforgettable. In fact, I saw “Attack of the Clones” a second time in the theater, just to be enveloped again in those two overwhelming sounds.)
But there was no reason to catch “Dan in Real Life” in the theater (even though it’s a good movie), when it was cheaper and more comfortable to snuggle up with my sweetheart and watch it at home.
However, whenever going out to the theater is part of a date-night itinerary, then the theater’s a fine (albeit unsociable) choice.
I realize that box-office figures send production companies “messages” from the public, which means avoiding the theater could potentially hurt the making of future, similarly good films. But DVD rentals and sales also send a message.
And as a movie critic (or a friend giving an opinion about a movie to another friend), it seems like it’s my duty to be an advocate for my trusting inquirer’s “movie allowance.” After all, we only have so much money we can spend on seeing movies. In addition, I also realize that movie critics should also be advocates for great films, which brings me to my final point.
Besides experiencing an audio-visual extravaganza or seeing a fine flick on a date, the only other reason to invest in theater prices is because the movie is so good, you shouldn’t wait for it to hit video. A good example of this would be “The Sixth Sense,” which also has a big secret that you wouldn’t want to risk being spoiled for you in the passing months until it hits DVD.
And don’t forget the people who see movies at the theater just for the experience of going out to the movies. That’s OK, too, of course.
In my rating system — Masterpiece, Excellent, Good, OK, Mediocre, Avoid — oftentimes there’s a fine line between Excellent and Good, and Good and OK. But to be clear, when I say a film is Excellent, that means it’s worth seeing in the theater and will always be a good rental choice. But when I say a movie is a rental, that means it’s good — but not $8 good.
How often do I disagree with Roger Ebert? Not very often.
But in Ebert’s Oct. 23 Answer Man column, he said that recommending a movie as a rental (as opposed to seeing it in the theater) is terrible advice. Ebert said when someone tells you to “wait for the video,” that usually means don’t see it, but he thinks it should mean see the movie. After all, Ebert reasons, two hours of a person’s life are the same whether they’re spent in the theater or at home.
I submit that the deal-breaker between recommending a theater viewing and a video rental is whether a film is worth paying $8 to see, or is it only worth $3? (Yeah, yeah, I know, when considering matinee prices versus evening shows, exorbitant Blockbuster video prices, reasonable Netflix prices, etc., it all depends. Indeed, the cost of watching movies can vary wildly, but generally speaking, I hope we can agree that renting a movie is typically less expensive than seeing it in the theater, all things considered.)
Many people I know only make it out to the theater on special occasions, meaning, a few times a year. So if I encourage them to go to the theater and sit among texting, talking, seat-kicking strangers, instead of watching it in the comfort of their own homes, which also have surround sound and big-screen TVs, then it had better be worth it. My friend Andy Howell immediately comes to mind.
There are four reasons to see a film in the theater:
1.) The audio-visual experience and being part of that week’s big, pop-culture event
2.) For a date
3.) If it’s truly excellent or has big surprises that could be spoiled by overhearing too much buzz
4.) Simply because you like going to the theater
And if you’re a movie critic, 5.) Because you have to review the movie asap.
Of course, there are some films that should be seen in theaters first: The six “Star Wars” episodes are good examples, because of the spectacle, the event itself, and the monster speakers. (When I heard Jango Fett’s “depth charges” (or whatever those explosive devices were called) that he unleashed while being pursued by Obi-Wan in Episode II, it was unforgettable. In fact, I saw “Attack of the Clones” a second time in the theater, just to be enveloped again in those two overwhelming sounds.)
But there was no reason to catch “Dan in Real Life” in the theater (even though it’s a good movie), when it was cheaper and more comfortable to snuggle up with my sweetheart and watch it at home.
However, whenever going out to the theater is part of a date-night itinerary, then the theater’s a fine (albeit unsociable) choice.
I realize that box-office figures send production companies “messages” from the public, which means avoiding the theater could potentially hurt the making of future, similarly good films. But DVD rentals and sales also send a message.
And as a movie critic (or a friend giving an opinion about a movie to another friend), it seems like it’s my duty to be an advocate for my trusting inquirer’s “movie allowance.” After all, we only have so much money we can spend on seeing movies. In addition, I also realize that movie critics should also be advocates for great films, which brings me to my final point.
Besides experiencing an audio-visual extravaganza or seeing a fine flick on a date, the only other reason to invest in theater prices is because the movie is so good, you shouldn’t wait for it to hit video. A good example of this would be “The Sixth Sense,” which also has a big secret that you wouldn’t want to risk being spoiled for you in the passing months until it hits DVD.
And don’t forget the people who see movies at the theater just for the experience of going out to the movies. That’s OK, too, of course.
In my rating system — Masterpiece, Excellent, Good, OK, Mediocre, Avoid — oftentimes there’s a fine line between Excellent and Good, and Good and OK. But to be clear, when I say a film is Excellent, that means it’s worth seeing in the theater and will always be a good rental choice. But when I say a movie is a rental, that means it’s good — but not $8 good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
