No bad language. No drugs. No alcohol. No cigarettes. No sex. Can you believe it?????
I took my 12-year-old niece to see the movie this weekend and instantly became a fan of this series. It proves that you can have entertainment without all that stuff!
I rate it 5 stars. How about you?
6 Answers | Add Yours
Not once have I noticed what you have pointed out, but it is remarkable (and heartening) that the book/film has enjoyed such success without these elements. I resisted reading Twilight for quite a while, but I finally gave in so that I wouldn't be left out of discussions, oh, everywhere I went. I borrowed my tween granddaughter's copy and found I couldn't stop reading it. Then I gave it back to her and got the second one. And you know the rest of that story.
I then took two tween granddaughters to the movie, prepared to suffer in silence for two hours. Instead, I found the movie wasn't the snoozer I was expecting. I did think that parts of Twilight is to film as a garage band is to music, but I was surprised that it was entertaining, if not impressive.
I've spent some time trying to figure out exactly what is so appealing to so many about that book, and I think it is the combination of elements from other literary forms. There's the Cinderella story (plain girl snags school prince), and the Byronic hero story (Mr. Rochester, Heathcliff, Rhett, Edward), and the kinder, gentler Dracula story, and the opposites-attract-but-can't-stop-fighting-story. Then add to the mix some subtle sexual metaphors, teenage angst, strong, supportive family relationships (the Cullens), a broken home (Bella's), and ironic humor--or it could be a lot of other psychological factors. Whatever it was, it certainly worked.
Good point! I honestly never thought about it that way! I am usually complaining of the same list of vices you give in your first post. Ironically, I thought the movie was so badthat I forgot to notice those redeeming qualities. Ha! So, yes, I agree with you that it gets 5 stars for "watchability" of pre-teens, . . . but I'm afraid it gets much lower than that in regards to literary and cinematic quality.
I thought that the movie portrayed the elements of the book that it addressed very well. Many aspects of the book were left out, which is to be expected when a book of that length is turned into a two hour movie. My major disappointment was in the casting. Most of the characters didn't look how I had pictured them in my head, which made relating to them harder for me. Other than that, I enjoyed the movie.
I read all of the books over the Thanksgiving break. I have to say I was disappointed with the 4th one. Meyer asks us to suspend our disbelief just a little too much. I won't give any examples from the book in case someone is looking forward to reading it. I just think she makes her vampires too "good." And I can accept that most of the characters are supernatural, but I like a little less gray area between good and evil.
The author, Stephenie Meyer, is a Mormon and the book is as PG as the movie. Take note, however, that the last book does address some more adult themes (but nowhere to the extent of many young adult novels out there).
I do think the movie followed along pretty well with the book. There were a few things that were hyped up for the movies that wernt so in the book.
I agree, I thought casting was HORRIBLE. The girl playing Bella was not at all like the book. In the movie she had such a cocky attitude that was so not like the book. I felt like in the book she was somewhat submissive, a little naive, and just taken in by all the magic. I did NOT get the cocky attitude in the book.
As for the Cullens, they are supposed to be like the most attractive people. Not that any of the ones in the movie were ugly persay, they just were not like what was described in the book.
Thought the acting was a little bad too personally.....very corny in some parts.
Overall a good movie, but this comes from it being such a wonerful book!
We’ve answered 319,622 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question