Monday, May 18, 2009

Sorry, but yech

I finally had a night to myself this weekend, and got to watch whatever silliness I wanted to, so I rented Twilight, just because there is so much buzz about it, and I like to be informed on these issues. Especially when they involve vampires.

I was very disappointed.

First of all, dude was creepy, and not in the usual illicitly sexual way that most vampires have. Just plain ol' creepy. Really, what did she see in him? What does anyone see in him? He wasn't even good looking. He looked better in the Harry Potter movie, but even then he was incipid. Really, all of the vampires left something to be desired. not one was nearly scary enough. the one who was supposed to be scary, "the tracker", was as scary as they got, and even then, you got the giggling undercurrent of "I have seen you as an awkward teen actor!"

Can you tell I didn't like it? I don't even remember any of the character's names!

There really wasn't enough character development, or even plot development, or even the usual "This is how vampires are made in this reality" explanation. Except the bit when he is shiny and then he abandons her at the top of the mountain. I would not have gone up in a tree with him after that for fear that he would go off in a huff and leave me 200 feet up! but apparently girly doesn't think that far ahead. and what was up with her? she looked a little "slow" sometimes.

anyway, the group of normal kids was the best part of the movie really, but the poor kids didn't get any character development.

Oh well. Sorry Twilight, I'm just not that into you.

****Update: Lynn Crosbie has written a rather scathing opinion on the cult of Edward in the Globe and Mail this morning****

3 comments:

Queen of West Procrastination said...

Thank you, and I agree. In spite of, seemingly, all the women around me disagreeing with me. (Chris and I've spent a lot of time lately mocking sparkly vampires.)

Ky said...

Have you seen the "In Three Words" blog? They did one for Twilight, and I think my favourite was "Vampires Don't Sparkle."

I actually do agree with you that the secondary characters are better than the main ones--the funny thing is that the director completely changed them from how they'd been written in the books, where they were essentially cardboard cut-outs.

And I agree about the lack of scary in the "bad" tracker vampires. Especially the main one. I was all, "Nice ponytail. You used to smoke at the back doors of highschool while listening to heavy metal, didn't you?"

And yet, I completely see the appeal of Edward the Vampire. Daaang. I think he's got the dangerous-but-still-poncey aspect of vampiredom, but translated into twentieth century teeny-bopper. And I see the appeal of the romance, even though it's completely ridiculous and has vomiticiously bad lines.

But Maryanne, can you can fully agree fully Christina? You haven't seen the movie, so you've got nothing to base your opinion on other than trailers and commercials.

Garry & Mari-Linn said...

C
My friend told me to read the book before I went to see the movie, for me that helped because then you aren't seeing it for how bad it is you are comparing it to the book and the images you have in your head of the story. If I hadn't I probably would have thought the same