Testing Grounds The latest industry being outsourced to India is clinical drug trials. And any number of tragic things can happen on the way to your medicine cabinet.
Friday Night Rewind It doesn't matter which team you cheer for. We've got video previews of every high school football program in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Hernando County.
By
Steve Persall, Times film critic
In print: Thursday, November 20, 2008
Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson star as Bella Swan and Edward Cullen in Twilight, based on Stephenie Meyer’s bestselling series of novels about vampires.
There's something to admire about the Twilight pop culture phenomenon, just not on the movie screen.
Anything that gets 'tweens and teens reading books is fine, even Stephenie Meyer's pallid yarn about high school vampires and an everygirl in love with one. Vampires have always inspired sexual allegories, so the fact that love-struck bloodsucker Edward Cullen refuses to bite mortal Bella Swan (although she really wants it) is refreshing.
And excitement among "Twilighters" — the preferred nomenclature for fans — can be contagious. Tuesday's audience, almost entirely composed of young women, was as energized as their mothers were for Sex and the City viewings.
So, why spoil the fun by showing the movie?
Twilight plays like a CW network series that lost its way to cancellation. Same kind of elemental dialogue wrapped around a generational hook, for viewers too young to realize what's missing. All that matters is for actors to look yummy portraying high school angst that's easily relatable. Once the anticipation of awesomeness is established, quality doesn't matter.
Some fans will insist Twilight meets expectations, since they were so invested in the anticipation.
But this is a bad movie; strenuously dark and tonally erratic. Director Catherine Hardwicke possesses a fine ear for modern teenage problems, evidenced by better results in Thirteen and Lords of Dogtown. Yet she treats Meyer's material as reverently as The Nativity Story treated the Bible.
Twilight works better with its tongue sliding past vampiric incisors into the cheek. Its humorous scenes: Bella (Kristen Stewart) meeting the Cullen family, trying to be on their best, nonbiting behavior; any scene with her blithely protective father (Billy Burke); and the scholastic twits Bella endures at school, driving her toward the dangerous Cullen clan.
Yet the movie leans toward drama that the cast — especially flavor of the month Robert Pattinson as Edward — can't play convincingly. Pattinson's pallor matches the dank Pacific Northwest landscape perfectly, which is a polite way of saying he blends into the background.
Hardwicke's movie literally needs more bite. Only two vampire attacks are shown, neither with any genuine sense of terror.
Watching Edward and his brood scramble up pine trees, or swoop like love bugs do into windshields isn't thrilling. So little occurs in Twilight that it seems Meyer could condense her four-book saga into two, maximum.
Twilight will likely make enough money to justify adapting Meyer's second book, New Moon. Hardwicke hints as much in her movie's final frames, none too subtly.
Two suggestions: Put any sequels on TV where they belong, or invite the High School Musical kids over for a bite.
Steve Persall can be reached at persall@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8365. Read his blog, Reeling in the Years, at blogs.tampabay.com.
Opening today
'Twilight'
Grade: D
Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Cast: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke, Peter Facinelli, Taylor Lautner, Cam Gigandet, Ashley Greene, Nikki Reed, Jackson Rathbone
Screenplay: Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer
Rating: PG-13; brief violence and sensuality
Running time: 122 min.
[Last modified: Nov 27, 2008 01:12 PM]
Comments on this article
by Ice
Nov 27, 2008 1:12 PM
First of all, I think you have to read the book first so that you can understand the movie. Twilight is a love story that involves vampires (Andrea's right). Also, no matter what Persall says, we have to remember that it's still a blockbuster movie!
by donna
Nov 24, 2008 8:42 PM
This man, and I speak lightly, doesn't know what he is talking about. Maybe he needs to step back. I went to see the movie with my 2 daughters and my niece and was pleasantly surprised to see older men/teenager guys there enjoying the movie. get it
by Paula
Nov 23, 2008 8:35 AM
Maybe all reviewers should have to read the books before seeing any movie if based-then they might understand more with the movie. I got to see the movie last night and loved and cant wait for the others on the big screen.
by Alejandra
Nov 23, 2008 8:15 AM
obviously the movie wasn't that good but the books are amazing! i already knew that the movie was going to be crappy compared to the books.but come on name ONE movie that is better then the book? i found the movie funny cause of all the mistakes.
by Twilight Fan
Nov 23, 2008 8:11 AM
It's obvious to me that Persall didn't read the books. However, I agree that the movie was a disappointment. I wasn't pleased with the Edward character. I think they could have picked someone better. I did like James. He was awesome!
by Greg
Nov 23, 2008 8:09 AM
Why do I feel that the Steve Persall made a negative comment about Twilight? This is simply because he wanted to get the attention of people. He wants to have a joy ride by becoming famous. Being odd to most of the people who love the movie and the book. Pathetic though, but let?s give him the spotlight. He deserves it since every single individual is entitled for their opinion.
by Bella Lugosi
Nov 21, 2008 7:35 PM
If Twilight supporters have read the book (or any others), why can't they spell better?
by Andrea
Nov 21, 2008 5:58 PM
I feel this film has been percieved in the wrong light. Many reviewers think of this film as a vampire movie which happens to have a love story, but in truth it is a love story that happens to involve vampires. Reading the books would have helped.
by Lisa
Nov 21, 2008 4:33 PM
The movie was truly awful. My entire row in theater laughed through most of it. And it wasn't supposed to be funny! At first, we were upset with your review, but we all take it back. The book is great. The movie was craptastic. But it'll make money.
by Jocephus
Nov 20, 2008 8:15 PM
Emmy, you'll probably feel differently after you grow up. Or hopefully, anyway - I suppose not everybody sees their tastes mature as they age.
by Shanze
Nov 20, 2008 8:14 PM
First of All Twilight duz not suk... its going to be very awesome... twilight is making ppl all around da world go crazy espeshully me. IDK WTF you are talking about so plz stop insulting the best movie/book of the whole freaking year.
by Emmy
Nov 20, 2008 5:13 PM
Twilight is a great story. In fact, I found it more absorbing than every 'classic' I read in literature class. I wonder if this grade is simply because you haven't read the book. Like Harry Potter, it only really makes sense if you read the book.
by tiffany
Nov 20, 2008 4:54 PM
i loved the thoughtful ness of this obserd story i love the part about the well if it gets the kids reading part but come on i think u can give it a little credit it was a great stroy i absolutely loved it i like obseded overit i read it everywhere
by Brad
Nov 20, 2008 4:41 PM
Sorry folks, writting style is is weak, plot done, and the relationship is poorly written, I will never under stand why this book is so loved.
by Lori
Nov 20, 2008 4:37 PM
From everything I have read on-line about this movie, it serves as a true adaptation of the book. You obviously haven't read the book or you wouldn't have written such a ridiculous review. There aren't more vampire attacks in the book idiot!
by Melanie
Nov 20, 2008 3:38 PM
Twilight: The High School Musical - sounds comical to me. I'd love to see Zac Efron portray Edward Cullen. LOL!
by Logan
Nov 20, 2008 2:21 PM
It is sad to hear that nothing new has been used in an already old and dying genre.
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.