 "Photo:")
This much is obvious about the newest sympathetic vampire movie to hit screens: it is critic-proof.
"Twilight" grossed around $35 million in its opening night, and finished the weekend at $70 million, far beyond other new movies such as the Bond flick "Quantum of Solace" or the animated Disney adventure "Bolt."
Fans of Stephanie Meyers' "Twilight" book series, most of them women and girls waited for hours in line to see the movie open at midnight.
There are three main reasons why "Twilight" will continue to enjoy wild popularity regardless of its artistic merit, or of how many critical thumbs point up or down.
First, fans of the book series (in which "Twilight" is the first of four) will go see the film adaptation.
Take it from someone who has both seen the movie and read the book - if you like the first "Twilight" book, you will like the first (and believe me, there will be three more) "Twilight" movie.
This is because the movie follows the book, about a dashing young vampire named Edward and a human high school girl, Bella, who fall in love, almost word-for-word. Dialogue in the movie is lifted directly from the book's pages on more than one occasion.
One example occurs when Bella (Kristin Stewart) fills Edward (Robert Pattinson) in on her theories about his superhuman strength; radioactive spiders, maybe?
In the book, they discuss this while sitting at a table in the cafeteria, in the movie it is discussed in a cafeteria line.
Also, the movie is interspersed with Bella's voice-over narration, which mirrors her inner-monologue that occurs throughout the novel.
Whether or not this helps or hurts the movie is your call.
Personally, I feel lines like "Looks like the lion has fallen in love with the lamb," delivered by vamp-stud Edward, sound decidedly less sappy on paper than when spoken dramatically on screen during close up of a white makeup-soaked English actor.
While such moments are more bearable in print, this does excuse the overall romance novel-like dramatics found in the "Twilight" books.
However, when reading a book, one can at least skim quickly over squishier moments, grimacing slightly.
On film, it can be downright painful to have such hyper-sentimentality spoon-fed to you on a 30-foot screen.
Yet, according to the box office, many women, especially young women, go for that sort of thing. Which brings us to the second and third reasons why "Twilight" is critic-proof.
Second, women like to see bad boys with hearts of gold. This is probably because in real life, there is arguably no such thing.
In "Twilight" however, Edward is a gorgeous "vegetarian" vampire (he eats only animals, not humans) with a blood-sucking past (this is explained in the books but merely hinted at in the movie), who falls dizzily in love for the first time in his 108 years with the clumsy, 17 year-old Bella. Oh yeah, and he is also a virgin.
The third thing that guarantees "Twilight" the spotlight is the fact that our society is obsessed with vampires. Ever since "Nosferatu," F. W. Murnau's silent classic from 1922, and "Dracula" in 1931, audiences have flocked to theaters to see vampires in all of their undead glory on the big screen. Those two films also represent the dynamic between the two main types of vampires still portrayed today. Either the vampire is a horrible, hideous, blood-sucking fiend (Nosferatu), or a debonair, handsome blood-sucking fiend (Dracula).
Although Edward Cullen of "Twilight" and his vampire clan/family lean toward the Dracula side, there is nothing fiendish about them. They even attempt to cook Bella an authentic Italian dinner in one scene, assuming naively that her name means she is of Italian decent.
If you do decide to go see "Twilight," go for the romantic aspect of the movie and not for the vampires. Expect to see lots of close-ups of Robert Pattinson and Kristin Stewart, and hear some corny lines, often backed with equally over-the-top music.
Truly, nothing about this movie is awful. It is glossy, well-produced, and smartly tailored for its target audience. The cast fits, too, especially Kristin Stewart as Bella. The vulnerable teen character could easily become mawkish and silly but Stewart never overdoes it. As a fellow audience member was overheard comment upon exiting the theater, "She did the best she could with the lines she was given."
The same can also be said of the director, Catherine Hardwicke, a self professed "Twilight" book series fan, as well. Hardwicke is the skilled director of other stylized teen films like "13" and "Lords of Dogtown". Here she succeeds, turning a book with material that is (at best) mediocre into a full-length film with more angst than fangs, and more gasps than gore
Be the first to comment on this article!