'Twilight' movie doesn't meet fan's expectations

By: Marian Gaviola

Posted: 11/25/08

11/25/08 - "Oh. My. God. I can't believe I'm watching Twilight right now and this is the most awesome movie ever made and Edward is the hottest thing ever and Bella's so perfect for him and I can't wait to tell my friends how I went to the midnight showing and it was the best thing that's ever happened to me and oh, look, and the Cullens are so perfect and I love this movie!"

That's what I wanted going on in my head when I saw "Twilight". Instead, I thought, "This sucks. Is the book really this corny?"

Subtlety is obviously not director Catherine Hardwicke's middle name. Hardwicke created a movie version of a soap opera based on Stephenie Meyer's book series "Twilight." The movie was full of cheesy scenes that made me cringe because somehow, the storyline seemed so much more reasonable in the books.

The book series is certainly not something I'd call intellectual. It's about an awkward girl named Bella who moves from sunny Arizona to Forks, Wash. and somehow attracts the attention of the only single vampire in the area and there the adventure, angst and drama begin.

Bella is shown as the smart, socially awkward newcomer and yet everyone in the school loves her. One of them even tries to write a feature article about her! The "Twilight" world, it seems, is just a darker version of "High School Musical 3." Everyone's happy, or at least as happy as they can be, and no one's mean - other than that vampire trying to eat Bella.

So, what was so bad about it? I mean, for such a popular series and with all the hype that went with the movie announcement, what could possibly have gone wrong? So many little things that could go wrong did.

First of all, casting. For everyone who's read the book, the movie cast was not quite the perfect fit. Author Stephenie Meyer originally wanted Henry Cavill to play the part of Edward, but due to his age, (can't have him getting too old for the sequels) he was nixed. Bella's OK, but the rest of them leave a lot to be desired.

Let's just look at Edward. Played by Robert Pattinson, he certainly dresses very well and I'm sure many teenage hearts flutter at the very sight of his picture, but he just didn't do anything for me. The storyline is full of intense scenes with lots of emotions and Pattinson just could not deliver.

The intense stares almost always made him look like he was constipated and watching him try to come up with some sort of energy between Edward and Bella just looked painful.

Alice is cute and she's one of the few members of the cast I enjoyed watching. Esme, the foster mother of the vampires, fit her role perfectly. She wasn't too old, or too young or too perfect. If only she wasn't married to that sleazeball, Carlisle. Don't get me wrong - Carlise in the book and the movie is a wonderful person, but he looked sleazy in the movie with his hair all slicked back and that arrogant smile that I think he means to be welcoming.

Another crazy character in the movie is Emmett, another one of the sons. As a friend of mine described him, he "looks like he's from New Jersey." Emett is supposed to be big but he ended up looking like a dumb jock full of steroids. Good thing he's a vampire, otherwise there'd be no hope for him in the bedroom with Rosalie.

I just don't understand why they made the movie suck so much. I mean, they must have known that they'll make a ton of money out of this. Just look at Harry Potter! But somehow, they got scared, hired sub-par actors, and did very few retakes on scenes they should have. The movie looks rushed and cheap. I know it's fiction, but most movies aren't and they can still somehow share a sense of realism and wonder. "Twilight" has the sensibility of a chick flick gone wrong.

But all was not lost. If anything went right at all in that movie, it'd have to be the cute and funny scenes between Bella and Edward. Once the pressure of doing any serious acting was lifted off of their shoulders, the scenes turned out much better. I even came up with a chuckle or two for a few of them. I even felt like saying "awww" a few times, especially during the scene when Edward and Bella are dancing under the gazebo.

"Twilight" definitely could have been better. It's not the train-wreck I expected it to be after the first few minutes of watching it. It started out horribly, but it slowly picked itself up from the ground and ended on a decent note.

For all the little intellectuals out there - most of whom have never read "Twilight" - stop psychoanalyzing the people who read the series and stop analyzing the story. I know the movie sucks and you think the storyline is a blow to feminism, and it's cliché. But stop. People read books and watch movies to escape from the harshness of reality.

The movie was worth watching, and most people who've read the book loved it. Good news for those who are still fans of "Twilight:" on Nov. 22, Meyer announced on her Web site that the "Twilight" sequel, "New Moon", is officially in production. I really hope that with the success of this movie, despite it's many flaws, Hardwicke will consider spending more time, money and effort on the upcoming movie.