Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Preteens stampeding autograph sessions. Millions of dollars in revenue. Five hundred sold-out shows. It’s official – “Twilight” has replaced the Jonas Brothers as this year’s largest pop culture phenomenon and may be on its way to putting “Harry Potter” to shame. But is the magic of “Twilight” as bewitching on the silver screen as it is on the page?
It’s the usual story of the good girl falling for the bad boy, although the 2005 novel gave the traditional plot enough individuality to gain a horde of loyal followers hoping for a film adaptation. Prayers answered, they gathered last weekend to watch “Twilight” come to life.
Bella (Kristen Stewart) is a clumsy, average teenage girl. In a time of family tumult, she moves to Forks, Wash., to live with her police chief father, Charlie (Billy Burke).
Always cloudy and raining, Forks is the prime location for heartthrob vampire Edward (Robert Pattinson) and his family. Self-proclaimed “vegetarians” – they don’t feed off humans but rather animals – the Cullen “kids” attend Forks High School in an attempt to blend in with the crowd. Edward has no trouble keeping to himself until Bella comes along. They are drawn to one another. Although everything that could go wrong does, the two find love amidst the bloodshed.
Cutting a novel down to fit the length of a film is a game of chance: cut too little and you’re looking at a four-hour film; chop too much and you leave those unfamiliar with the book trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Screenwriter Melissa Rosenburg and director Catherine Hardwicke attempt to shove a 500-page book into a 120-minute film. Bad idea.
The film winds up feeling rushed. An additional half-hour would have left devoted fans delighted to spend more time with their favorite fictional friends, while “Twilight” virgins would have left eager to dive headfirst into the book series.
“Twihards” will follow the plot every step of the way, but newcomers may be baffled by the speed Bella and Edward fall in love. Meyer devoted more than half the novel to the progression of their relationship, but on screen, the duo goes from strangers to soul mates before Bella has a chance to unpack. When Edward asks, “Do you know how long I’ve waited for you?”, moviegoers will feel like responding with, “Eh, about 35 seconds.”
While the raw material of “Twilight” is sans frills and beautiful in its simplicity, the film’s special effects and editing teams got a little carried away. Where the super fast vampires go, tacky blurring and “whoosh” sounds follow. When Edward’s luminous skin is exposed to sunlight – which isn’t harmful in Stephanie Meyer’s re-imagining of vampire folklore – twinkling Tinkerbell sounds reverberate. Sure, the series is supernatural in theme, but the cartoonish effects detract from what is at the heart of the film – heart itself. It’s a love story and all the bells and whistles get annoying after a while.
The performances are hit and miss. Edward is described in the novels as nothing short of a Greek god physically, but quiet and broody in person. With the help of sexy music and a bit of slow-motion camera action, Pattinson successfully embodies Bella’s beau.
His costar is less than successful bringing her character to the screen. Instead of bringing to life the shy, clumsy Bella fans love, Stewart transforms her into a bumbling, annoying mess. There are glimpses of the character readers expected to see throughout her performance, but unless Stewart learns to tone down her overacting by the time the next installment is filmed, glimpses are all audiences are ever going to see.
Grade: C+
Additional “Twilight” premiere reporting on page 13.
