To say that 'Twilight' carries baggage is a dire understatement. The books' reputation precedes them, carrying questionable writing and strong themes of abusive relationships, and it's impossible to watch the movies in 2022 without being aware of much derided special effects, acting, and more. At the same time, one tries to approach movies with an open mind, and it's important to recognize in the first place that these titles were written for a "young adult" audience, and all the horrid awkwardness that immediately greets us with scenes of high school age characters is actually very fitting, for good or ill. And secondly - there are a lot of recognizable performers here that have more than proven their capabilities elsewhere, before or and or since; I think most viewers should be well-rounded enough to recognize that even the best actors, given poor material to work with, will look bad in a lackluster feature.
I don't think 2008 film 'Twilight' is especially great. However, I'm frankly astonished to find myself thinking it's not nearly as bad as everyone has made it out to be in the past 14 years. Here's the thing: all the ham-handedness, the overt and kitschy flourishes, the bluntness - and above all the stilted and gawky writing, acting, and otherwise execution - doesn't feel accidental. It's bewildering as a movie-goer, absolutely, and hard to swallow, and to whatever extent the approach here was intentional, I don't think it was pulled off with all due success. Yet this is a movie about teens, for teens, with supernatural elements forced in, and at the same time that the picture comes across as unnatural and inorganic, nothing actually seems out of place. It's a flummoxing, indelicate balance, distinctly imperfect, and I can't for one moment begrudge anyone who honestly engages with 'Twilight' and dislikes it. For my part, though, speaking as someone who has watched films of all possible styles, genres, quality, value, from silent classics to Asylum mockbusters - I see what this wanted to be, and what it could have been. I can understand and appreciate the ways in which this does work, and those in which it doesn't. If the series were produced not as feature films but as a program on The CW alongside 'Riverdale' or the like, no one would bat an eye. I don't know if it's totally correct to say I like 'Twilight,' but... I get it.
Hair and makeup, costume design, Elliot Davis' cinematography, Nancy Richardson's editing, the visual effects, Catherine Hardwicke's direction, filming locations, set design and decoration, the soundtrack - almost every possible aspect of the production design and art direction, more often than not, is painfully gauche, overdone, and a bit of a burden to bear. That's not to say that it's outright bad; sometimes a particular shot or scene is actually rather fetching, and were more care taken at large I can see where they would have fit in a title of greater repute. Artless as it may sometimes be, it's not sloppy.
Of course, again, much has been made of the acting. To be frank: especially knowing what the cast are capable of, what I see in watching this are actors who worked with what they were given. At risk of repeating myself, the overwhelming awkwardness that pervades the picture from the very start is built into the characters and their interactions, the setting, the scenario, and every little detail, for better or for worse. In a story about young love, new friends, uncertainty, and personal and interpersonal conflict, all the somewhat halting, forced, or artificial expressions, movement, or delivery don't seem entirely wrong - but instead, kind of appropriate. Director Hardwicke has some noteworthy credits to her name, and if occasionally her contribution here is lacking, when it comes to guiding her cast, I think she was rather on point. Once more, it's a very fine line the production walks, an uneasy balancing act of "just right" that ever risks slipping into oafish gracelessness. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke, Nikki Reed, Anna Kendrick, and everyone else on hand did their best with what they had. None of the performances here are great - but by no means do I think they're altogether rotten.
And that leaves the writing. Though I have certainly heard much about Stephanie Meyer's books, I freely admit I haven't read the source material, and I can only make assume that Melissa Rosenberg's screenplay is reasonably faithful. It's worth noting as well that Rosenberg has a considerable number of credits and indeed accolades to her name. The same facets I've described with 'Twilight' broadly certainly apply here, too, as the dialogue and characters vary between tawdrily brusque and direct, inelegantly clumsy and unrefined, and or what feels like is simply suitable. The scene writing, informed by Meyer's own, similarly has some bright spots, while at times struggles with contrivance. However, I also get a sense that this is just one of the difficulties of telling a YA-supernatural romance story; I find it hard to imagine there are many ways of showing scenes of Bella and Edward's blossoming love, or the demonstrations of his powers, that wouldn't come off as strained and cringe-worthy. And the overall narrative has problems in the small details, and above all treads murky territory with the questionably handled overtones of domestic violence and abuse. Yet the bare essence of the tale - a human mingling with "creatures of the night" - is classic, with familiar themes, and is no less worthy just because of the high school setting. In the wide strokes, I think the screenplay is just fine.
What I think it all comes down to is that this is a movie that, beyond the presumed target audience of teen girls, is best left for those viewers who are wholly receptive to all the wonderful, weird, wild, or woeful possibilities that cinema has to offer. I genuinely believe that 2008's 'Twilight' is quite far from a bad movie - but I also readily recognize that I say this from a place of having done my best to find the value herein. Apart from the thematic material in regards to relationships, the biggest issue I see are the special effects - done well such as they are, but not considered at the storyboard stage with particular mindfulness. Everything else, from writing, acting, and directing, down to the slightest rounding elements, are "okay" or "apt" but constantly border on tactless or unsophisticated. For what it tried to do, and be, I think 'Twilight' was more of a success than not, but it tripped over its own two left feet a little bit too much for it not to be noticeable. Color me surprised, though - I can't say I wasn't entertained.
I don't think 2008 film 'Twilight' is especially great. However, I'm frankly astonished to find myself thinking it's not nearly as bad as everyone has made it out to be in the past 14 years. Here's the thing: all the ham-handedness, the overt and kitschy flourishes, the bluntness - and above all the stilted and gawky writing, acting, and otherwise execution - doesn't feel accidental. It's bewildering as a movie-goer, absolutely, and hard to swallow, and to whatever extent the approach here was intentional, I don't think it was pulled off with all due success. Yet this is a movie about teens, for teens, with supernatural elements forced in, and at the same time that the picture comes across as unnatural and inorganic, nothing actually seems out of place. It's a flummoxing, indelicate balance, distinctly imperfect, and I can't for one moment begrudge anyone who honestly engages with 'Twilight' and dislikes it. For my part, though, speaking as someone who has watched films of all possible styles, genres, quality, value, from silent classics to Asylum mockbusters - I see what this wanted to be, and what it could have been. I can understand and appreciate the ways in which this does work, and those in which it doesn't. If the series were produced not as feature films but as a program on The CW alongside 'Riverdale' or the like, no one would bat an eye. I don't know if it's totally correct to say I like 'Twilight,' but... I get it.
Hair and makeup, costume design, Elliot Davis' cinematography, Nancy Richardson's editing, the visual effects, Catherine Hardwicke's direction, filming locations, set design and decoration, the soundtrack - almost every possible aspect of the production design and art direction, more often than not, is painfully gauche, overdone, and a bit of a burden to bear. That's not to say that it's outright bad; sometimes a particular shot or scene is actually rather fetching, and were more care taken at large I can see where they would have fit in a title of greater repute. Artless as it may sometimes be, it's not sloppy.
Of course, again, much has been made of the acting. To be frank: especially knowing what the cast are capable of, what I see in watching this are actors who worked with what they were given. At risk of repeating myself, the overwhelming awkwardness that pervades the picture from the very start is built into the characters and their interactions, the setting, the scenario, and every little detail, for better or for worse. In a story about young love, new friends, uncertainty, and personal and interpersonal conflict, all the somewhat halting, forced, or artificial expressions, movement, or delivery don't seem entirely wrong - but instead, kind of appropriate. Director Hardwicke has some noteworthy credits to her name, and if occasionally her contribution here is lacking, when it comes to guiding her cast, I think she was rather on point. Once more, it's a very fine line the production walks, an uneasy balancing act of "just right" that ever risks slipping into oafish gracelessness. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke, Nikki Reed, Anna Kendrick, and everyone else on hand did their best with what they had. None of the performances here are great - but by no means do I think they're altogether rotten.
And that leaves the writing. Though I have certainly heard much about Stephanie Meyer's books, I freely admit I haven't read the source material, and I can only make assume that Melissa Rosenberg's screenplay is reasonably faithful. It's worth noting as well that Rosenberg has a considerable number of credits and indeed accolades to her name. The same facets I've described with 'Twilight' broadly certainly apply here, too, as the dialogue and characters vary between tawdrily brusque and direct, inelegantly clumsy and unrefined, and or what feels like is simply suitable. The scene writing, informed by Meyer's own, similarly has some bright spots, while at times struggles with contrivance. However, I also get a sense that this is just one of the difficulties of telling a YA-supernatural romance story; I find it hard to imagine there are many ways of showing scenes of Bella and Edward's blossoming love, or the demonstrations of his powers, that wouldn't come off as strained and cringe-worthy. And the overall narrative has problems in the small details, and above all treads murky territory with the questionably handled overtones of domestic violence and abuse. Yet the bare essence of the tale - a human mingling with "creatures of the night" - is classic, with familiar themes, and is no less worthy just because of the high school setting. In the wide strokes, I think the screenplay is just fine.
What I think it all comes down to is that this is a movie that, beyond the presumed target audience of teen girls, is best left for those viewers who are wholly receptive to all the wonderful, weird, wild, or woeful possibilities that cinema has to offer. I genuinely believe that 2008's 'Twilight' is quite far from a bad movie - but I also readily recognize that I say this from a place of having done my best to find the value herein. Apart from the thematic material in regards to relationships, the biggest issue I see are the special effects - done well such as they are, but not considered at the storyboard stage with particular mindfulness. Everything else, from writing, acting, and directing, down to the slightest rounding elements, are "okay" or "apt" but constantly border on tactless or unsophisticated. For what it tried to do, and be, I think 'Twilight' was more of a success than not, but it tripped over its own two left feet a little bit too much for it not to be noticeable. Color me surprised, though - I can't say I wasn't entertained.