Spokane7
48°Quick links: NCAA tournament • Gonzaga hoops • Easter photo contest • Washington Legislature • Idaho Legislature
As long
as I’ve been watching movies, there still are things that I simply don’t understand. This is one. The fact that so many people would want to go see the sequel to a lame film such as “Twilight” is a mystery that even David Blaine couldn’t solve. What’s amazing, other than how well the Hollywood publicity machine has invented stories about the cast (Who’s Robert Pattinson dating this week? Who cares?), is that the New York Times in a story claimed that “Twilight” co-star Kristen Stewart “is considered one of the most promising actresses of her generation.” Really? Are we rating her on her abilities to pout? To sulk? To mumble? To mope? If so, then the Times just might be right/Dan Webster, Movies & More. More here.
Question: Do you think the ‘Twilight’ movies are lame? Ditto for co-star Kristen Stewart as an actress?
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2010, The Spokesman-Review
Sisyphus on November 24 at 9:35 a.m.
I certainly didn't think the first movie was lame, just heavily romanticized. The story worked. I'm not very impressed with the actress and Dan's criticisms are well taken in that regard.
Flag as inappropriate
nic on November 24 at 9:44 a.m.
Consdering the source material for the movies, it's unfair to expect much more than “lame.”
Flag as inappropriate
sue on November 24 at 9:51 a.m.
It's likely you're not the target audience. I saw it this weekend with 7 friends and family, ages from 12-86. My mom (86) didn't quite get it either, but still enjoyed being with everyone. It's mostly a love story with some scary vampires and werewolves, and some great bare-chested buff young guys. Gosh, what's not to like.
Flag as inappropriate
nic on November 24 at 10:03 a.m.
“Gosh, what's not to like.”
1. Poor writing (again, I blame the source material. I have no lofty expectations for the scipt when the books were horribly written)
2. Stiff acting
3. Batardized vampire mythology
4. bare-chested buff young guys (this might work for some guys… just not me)
5. anti-native American undertones
6. the whole team Edward vs team Jacob thing. I don't get it. If you've read the books you know who wins. Why root for the loser if you know he's going to lose?
7. machina ex deus
8. I've been to Forks Washington. It's not as glamerous as the books/movies make it
9. Am I the only one who thinks Edward looks/acts like the creepy stalker type?
10. And I realize I'm not the target audience… I'm not a teenaged mormon girl.
I could go on if you really want me to.
Flag as inappropriate
JamesBond on November 24 at 10:13 a.m.
I just think it's frightening that so many of our women are obsessed with vampires.
Flag as inappropriate
Kendramama on November 24 at 10:13 a.m.
Although I do fit the “female” criteria, I am most certainly NOT a juvenile, hunk-seeking, mooning (pun intended) New Moon fan.
Saw Twilight, only out of curiosity. The book series, after all, WAS quite well-written, especially if you go for that genre. I don't, not really, I'm just such a voracious reader that when my aunt offered several thousand pages in hardcover to me, I passed a week or so in pseudo-vampiric romance. But still, I'd grade the books a B-.
As for the movie (Twilight, that is- I took a pass on joining the shrieking teens in line for hours to see the sequel) I have to offer a resounding BOOOOOO.
Cheesy, overdramatic, and just like that reviewer said, I was disgusted by Kristen whateverhernameis's acting… she really does keep this perpetual half-stoned pout of confusion on her face thoughout the WHOLE film! Yeesh.
New Moon, no thanks.
Flag as inappropriate
idawa on November 24 at 11:23 a.m.
can't speak of the movies (as I haven't seen them), but I have read the books and can understand that actress may have a tough time with the Bella role. Bella, as a character, is pretty much a non-entity, not a strong character at all. I think this works in the books because it allows the young female readers to project themselves on her easily, but, as an actress, it must be tough to reenact such a dud…
I agree with Nic about the quality of the writing and source material, a D-, her prose is so plundering at times it is nearly unreadable. Yet, I still read and bought the books, so I guess she (the author) has the last laugh…
Flag as inappropriate
idawa on November 24 at 11:26 a.m.
btw … I am a fan of Slate's spoiler special podcasts and they seem to like the Twilight movies. The panel, all three of them, agreed that this was a rare case where the movies are much better than the source materials … I guess I'll have to see them eventually (my wife is waiting to watch until she read the books, but she hasn't even started yet).
Flag as inappropriate