‘Twilight’ is Nullified by Poor Filmmaking
-----The immensely popular teen fantasy romance novels known as ‘The Twilight Saga’ have sold millions of copies. This of course begs the question of how Summit Entertainment got a hold of the properties, and why they didn’t spend any money on what was already a guaranteed hit; and that’s a fact, not an opinion, because as the film proves, preteen ‘Twilight’ fans will love it regardless of how good that actual movie is. Guilty by association works in the advantage for this ridiculously executed film.
-----‘Twilight’ follows Bella, who has recently moved to Forks, Washington to live with her dad while her mom travels around with her new husband. Just as Bella is starting to fit into the school, she hears of the mysterious Cullen family, and comes into contact with Edward Cullen in particular. Obviously hiding something, Bella then deduces that Edward is a Vampire, and the forbidden romance clichés roll on.
-----This film is terribly acted by the leads, Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson. Stewart seems capable of only about two expressions, sad and nonchalant. One has to wonder just why she wants to be with Edward when she rarely seems happy whether in his presence or not. Her tone is consistently a monologue, save when she stutters out surprise in what is very poor performance. Eventually her independence is lost completely as her decisions gain further stupidity as the story moves along. As for Pattinson, many will recognize him as an ample Cedric Diggory in the fourth ‘Harry Potter’ film. For whatever reason, Pattinson is a statue here. Some of his lines come off as bad as they possibly could, mixed fatally with the cheese-filleted source material from author Stephanie Meyer. Together, somehow, the two manage chemistry, one bad performance to another. Many of their scenes are unintentionally hilarious, and the more their relationship develops, the more downhill the film heads. There very first meeting is particularly riotous, as Pattinson shields his nose from her attractive fragrance. This scene is so overdone it looks more like they’re making an over-the-top spoof than any sort of legitimate romance. One has to wonder just what the editors, and especially Director Catherine Hardwicke, were thinking.
-----The supporting cast is actually quite enjoyable, and many of the scenes the leads share with them are surprisingly entertaining. Billy Burke gives the film’s only strong performance as Bella’s loner dad with a sense of humor, providing a number of scenes that prove to be the film’s best. Also solid enough are Gil Birmingham and Taylor Lautner as Billy and Jacob Black respectively, in bit roles. Playing the Cullen family are Kellan Lutz, Ashley Greene, Jackson Rathbone and Peter Facinelli among others, all providing a consistent and likable chemistry with their costars. Bella’s other friends are also played well by Anna Kendrick, Christian Serratos, Michael Welch, and Justin Chon. The lot has some familiar faces, but all of them aid the entertaining first half of the film. Unfortunately, despite many strong supporting roles, Hardwicke makes sure the villains are, like much of the film, overdone. Rachelle Lefevre and Cam Gigandet are particularly goofy in their evil-Vampire-couple motif. In the end, the true imbalance of the cast has to fall on the head of Hardwicke.
-----The first half of ‘Twilight’ is entertaining enough. A new girl in a new school, not too original, but entertaining enough thanks to the strong supporting cast. There’s even a sense of mystery to the whole Cullen family, despite the fact that pretty much everyone on Earth already knows they’re Vampires. Unfortunately, as the film progresses, Hardwicke proves she can’t handle effects work or one-on-one intimacy, along with making the supposedly epic conclusion laughable and dull. The visuals, the acting, the pace; everything seems to fall apart the more the effects take over and the leads find themselves stranded in each other’s incapable arms. And what is with the stare-downs? Having seen the film a second time now in preparation for the promising sequel, I made an effort to count the now infamous stare-downs as I sat in the theater. You’ll no doubt take it in stride that there were no less than six generous stare-downs between the leads, and that’s without counting the little stuff.
-----‘Twilight’ may be likable enough if not for some of the worst effects ever considering the year and exposure the film was made in. You can practically see the wires and harnesses. Whether it’s running in a straight line up a rocky hill about two feet from the ground (basically a hover with their legs kicking), jumping on to a tree and swinging on their harness before landing, or even scurrying up that same tree like a squirrel (looks a lot like frantic dogpaddling), the effects completely destroy any dignity the film had left. They remove the audience completely from the story, inducing laughs in otherwise serious scenes. Equally ridiculous are the hair and makeup departments. Pattinson’s hair is consistently bizarre, gelled straight up, neutralizing any cool factor the actor had on his own merits. Gigandet’s hair is likewise silly, making the bare-chested villain look even goofier than he already did. As for the makeup, Pattinson’s lipstick is redder than Bella’s, with unchanging grey tones only encouraging the firmness of his already statuesque performance. As for the musical score, it’s inconsistent and often mediocre, ranging from reasonably intriguing piano pieces to cliché and tiresome background sets for the action sequences.
-----At its worst, ‘Twilight’ looks a lot like a Movietickets.com advertisement, with a cheap production that occasionally seems to have been filmed in someone’s backyard. At its best, ‘Twilight’ is enjoyable, if cheesy, escapism. The problem: Director Catherine Hardwicke. I’ll admit to having an extreme prejudice to the film after having seen its trailer. It looked terrible. But even a year later, the fact remains that the film collapses under its own weight, showing its weakness in every step it attempts to take towards a visually fulfilling production. However, I can also say that with a new Director and a promising trailer, the sequel looks good. When watching this original a year later, it’s also easier to endure the film’s flaws, for you already know when and where they will occur. Nor will they be quite as painful this time around because your memory magnifies their direness. And ultimately, the film still doesn’t deserve very much credit for being anything beyond an occasionally likable endeavor; one that will at least be bearable for the sake of the story, providing that the sequels turn out to actually be good. On its own though, ‘Twilight’ boasts some of the cheapest production values, worst acting, and lamest effects ever for a widespread event film, the collective blame falling on the person who oversaw all of these departments, Catherine Hardwicke. Fans of the book will no doubt endure many of these flaws in their love of the source material, however as the dust settles many will also be more intensely upset than most viewers at this debasing of their beloved novels, which, while probably cheesy, are surely better than this film. As for everyone not sold on the books…don’t see this film if you can avoid it, instead see 2008's dark and haunting foreign Vampire romance, ‘Let the Right One In.’ It’s not too comparable given its somber mood and dark themes to ‘Twilight’s crowd pleasing ambiance, but it’ll do the job for Vampire fans and film enthusiasts who want to see low budget effects and intimate acting done right; and it’s leads aren’t even teenagers yet!
|
