Twilight the Film: The Art of Film: Beaten, Raped, and Pillaged!

By lordofhats · Apr 23, 2009 · ·
Categories:
  1. Okay I know, another Twilight post, but I'm not talking about the book. I'm talking about the movie. Yes I actually watched it (mostly so I can rant about it :p). Needless to say, I am awestruck. No, it's not that its a film adaptation or an adaptation of a book I hate. The thing I hate about this movie, is it's utter destruction of film as a medium and just how horrible the basic fundamentals of cinema have been torn apart by it. I'm really not sure what's worse: The film adaptation for Eragon, or the film adaptation for Twilight.

    Ironically, I don't even have to touch the story (all I'll say is that they took a beaten horse, tore it apart, couldn't find the instructions to put it back together, and set it on fire). The fundamental aspects of gilm just seemed to me like they've been raped and torn to pieces into something so cinematically bad I have to determine it is one of the three worst movie adaptations ever created (along with Eragon, and Starship Troopers).

    Here's the problem: You've seen those documentaries that are thrown together and have really bad and fake reenactments? I think they took the people who made those, and decided to ask them to make this movie. The whole movie in every aspect feels horrible hollow, and horribly fake. The props look fake, the background feels fake, and the characters and the camera are so horribly handled. I could end it with that but I am so tired of people loving this movie and declaring Edward is the definition of sexy, that I'm going to keep complaining about it.

    It's my life, I'll waste it how I want :p.


    Point 1: Lighting

    The lighting in this film is so bad! Remember Blade Runner? You know where the film was so entrenched in darkness it was a real struggle to see anything at all? This is the opposite of that! Everything is so horribly white, and it makes the horrible make up for the characters faces all the worse. The lighting for the film just astounds me. Why would they make it that bright? I think it would have made more sense to go a little darker than normal, to tone done the awkward pale faces of the characters.

    Point 2: Casting

    The actors are not just horrible, they are bad. Only Billy, Charlie, and Rosalie seemed remotely real to me, and Edward and Bella were just horrible. Bella has this stupid look on her face the whole film, where you can just see her two front teeth and she looks like a beaver. Meanwhile Edward just has this stupid goofy look to him at all times, and his lines are so poorly delivered they feel like he isn't really trying.

    This just carries on throughout, compounded by several problems in the film which I'm going to complain about now:

    Casting Sub-point A: DBZ Hair GO!

    The hair stylist for this movie, needs to be fired. Twilight has won the award for most Ludicrous Hairdos. Edward looks like Goku, Alice looks like her hair got put through a washing machine, and Jasper looks like a corpse (In a bad way not a good "oh he looks like a corpse and he's a vampire, cool" sort of way.). Jacob looks like a really retarded throw out from Last of the Mohicans (Or Trunks, with dark hair and no bad a$$ level). Carlise looks like he's straight out of The Days of Our Lives or General Hospital, and Esme... oh I'm just going to stop here before I have a heart attack.

    The only character with remotely good hair, was Charlie, because he had one kick butt mustache. The downside? He looks like MacIntyre "Mac" Womack from Super Troopers.

    Casting Sub-point B: You thought the 80's was a fashion disaster?

    The clothing in this movie is as bad as the casting and makes the characters feel even more fake. All their clothes look like they're made of that really cheap material that they make holloween costumes and cosplay out of. Basically all the clothing feels fake save for a few outfits, and that just compounds how fake the characters feel.

    Casting Sub-point C: Makeup

    I'm not a make-up person. I'm a guy, and even if I was a girl, I doubt I'd use much of it. This movie, takes the opposite approach. Everyone looks like the freak'n Joker! You can even see where the white face paint everyone wears ends and their real skin tone begins. I'm sorry. I know they're supposed to be pasty white, but often times, when you take Anime and Book characters and try to translate them into a really live action environment, they just come out and make you wonder "I thought this was cool?"

    They all look like retards. When the lighting is so horribly bright, it just seems so incredible ridiculous how pale everyone is. They really should have toned down the lights to play down the make up, or just NOT USED IT AT ALL.

    Point 3: The Camera has Epilepsy

    Yes. It does. The camera shakes the whole film and in a very bad way. Not a cool way like the Bourne films. It seems like they were too cheap to afford a dolly, so they just filmed it all with a hand held. Watch the ending. Upon realizing this I found the films end incredible ironic, almost like some had the "brilliant" idea to do it on purpose.

    The camera shakes so bad that half the time it draws attention to itself. Then comes the really awkward sweeping camera views that further emphasize the really poorly done fake documentary feel I got the whole way. The scenic views look like someone either did some really poor CGI, painted it, or took a photo and slapped it on a billboard and hoped no one would notice.

    Then there's the really really bad angles that persist throughout the film. I don't think the film makers even thought about it. It's not to say they're the worst angles I've ever scene. The shaking is the real problem, but the angles feel to standard, to boring. Then they just switch it over to these huge sweeping shots out of no where and the whole situation goes from "meh" to "wtf?" Add on some horrible scene transitions and camera work than in general just screams "This is movie, we aren't trying to immerse you in the experience."

    In conclusion, this film is not just bad because the material it is based on is bad, but the film work in general is atrocious. It might actually be the perfect adaptation now that I think about it:

    Twilgiht (Novel): A horrible story that is poorly written and baffles even the most mediocre writers into what Meyer was thinking as she wrote that 500th "cringed."

    Twilight (Film): A horrible story that is poorly shot, with horrible casting, and overplayed lighting and character attire that feels like a really badly filmed documentary.
    Categories:

Comments

  1. Banzai
    I actually said this... Problem is, neither of the books are worth a damn, so the films could be just very accurate translations (as you concluded).

    Exactly! The first thing I thought when I saw Carlisle (yes, I did just have to look up the character's name) I could only think that someone had seen Heath Ledger's Joker, and thought "That would be much improved if it was a little more ****..."

    Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you've put here. All of the actors were trying far too hard to look depressed, and just looked stupid. That said, I enjoyed watching the film, because it was two hours of constant piss take :p
  2. lilix morgan
    I think I agree with you entirely on this.
    Kudos!

    LMAO.
  3. sophie.
    UGGGHHH Twilight.

    TBH adapting that was always going to be ****ty. I saw the ad (wild horses wouldn't drag me to the film..it's as bad as High Sch Musical) and fell about laughing.

    The 'doom' music, the dodgy camera work and terrible CGI...not even mentioning the robots that are the actors.

    The two main ones appear to have two espressions - 'soulfully staring into the other's eyes' and 'grim determination'...the first looks frankly a little scary and the second as if they are constipated. Nice.

    They tried to make a terrible book into a 'deep' film, and naturally it nose-dived. Overall though, for the fans it must be a triumph - it really mirrors the book exactly.
  4. marina
    You know, if you watch the movie with a sense of humor, it is fantastic entertainment for all of the reasons you posted.

    Aside from the Twilight story, the cinematic problems are...like the makeup and especially the ball of hair on top of Pattinson's hair...so over the top.

    They had a tiny budget (so low-budget director, screenwriter, makeup artist, etc), plus they were forced to stick to the book, so that pretty much sunk it right there. Also, Pattinson looks too weird when he's photographed from the sides, and he played the character too emo-ish.
  5. lordofhats
    I don't think they stuck to the book well at all. They added a lot of crap and cut out most of the better moments in the book and the dialgoue as almost as bad as how it was delivered. They even cut out one of it's more famous scenes and created a truly hilarious moment.

    I love it when he wants her to see what he really looks like and a you expect it too be terrifying, but OH NO! HE SPARKLES! OMG SAVE ME!

    The only other part in the movie I laughed at was when Charlie had his shotgun and said "Bring him in." I will admit to having a good amount of fun with that moment, and I think him looking like a character from Super Troopers was a plus for Charlie. Plus he was acted very well, and fits the stock dad character perfectly. He and Billy were the only people I liked in the film.

    There are good movies, bad movies, and movies so bad you can't help but laugh at them . This movie was just plain bad in so many ways and didn't carry itself in a way that would enable one to laugh at it. For a bad movie to be funny, it has to know that it is a bad movie and act like it. Twilight the film, like the book, is completely oblivious to just how bad it is, so it can't really use being bad to its advantage.

    The low budget does show though but I really have to wonder what was up with that. Its a book that's making more money than Jesus Christ, how can they not find it in them to have good special effects for running and to actually hire people intelligent to know horrible when they see it.

    A good bad movie? That's the Toxic Avenger! So awesome XD.
  6. marina
    I think it pretty much was true to the book. They added in some stuff, but not a lot. The key scenes were all pretty much there. What were some of the famous scenes they cut?

    And he sparkles in the book too. That's not added.

    I lol'd at that one scene w/Charlie too. The casting was good there. It was good with a bunch of the other actors too, but then they made them look like caricatures (a la the joker) instead of "other worldly/beautiful"; hence, the epic fail.

    The reason for the low budget (and I know more than I should about Twilight because I was in middle school when I first read it and was obsessed with the book) was that nobody knew what a potential blockbuster they had on their hands.

    It'll be interesting to see if the bigger budget and relatively better director can create a better movie.
  7. lordofhats
    When I say cut out I refer to the meadow scene which was cut up and nearly non-existant in the film. In the book they were in a meadow and they'd already rather developed the romantic aspect of their relationship in the book.

    In the movie, the sparkling part was presented completely differently, and the meadow itself almost didn't exist save for the one scene while there staring at each other in what I declare is: "The most sexually suggestive scene to ever appear in a film without actual sexuality." Its also the first kiss scene and major turning point for their relationship and about the only thing in the novel I'd dare call passable. They pretty much cut up the books high point and most famous moment and dispersed the events in a broken manner including the most ludicrous and stupid "I'm a monster" moment ever. yeah, sparkling is really monsterous (also, that wasn't why he showed her he sparkled in the book).

    I actually prefered the books arrogant smug Ed to the movies totally emo Ed. Almost all his moments were drastically overplayed in the film, which makes his character worse than it already is.

    That brings up another problem. Pacing. The film had horrible pacing. In the book you could at least believe they'd fallen for eachother at the snap of a finger but in the movie its more like it throws itself in out of no where because of bad pacing and presentation. Its also not to convincing either. Sort of like they only decide to go out for the heck of it rather than actual feelings for one another.
  8. Wreybies
    Now here's the perversely bizarre part...

    All of this negative billing is making me need to go and rent this movie. (From Redbox, 'cause I won't pay more than a buck for something I know is going to blow.)
  9. Banzai
    Do it, Wrey. It's a good laugh, if nothing else :p
  10. Anir
    I've never read the books, never seen the movie, and I don't plan to, because I have better things to do with my life than reading and watching about sex object angsty vampires angsting about how they can never be with their human love or whatever. It makes me want to puke. And people actually enjoy reading it. Blargh. I hate vampire novels, with the only exception of Bram Stoker's Dracula.
  11. Eoz Eanj
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice