For my own sake, in case I need to defend myself against any readers who violently disagree with me, I will tell you from the outset that I have never read any book from the Twilight Series beginning to end. I read a few pages of Breaking Dawn while killing time in a bookstore, but I have never, and doubt I will ever, read any of the books in Stephanie Meyer’s insanely popular series. But the films are a much different story.

As an entertainment journalist, film critic, and someone who takes pride in how many films I have seen in my lifetime (the number of votes I’ve registered on my IMDB account suggests I am nearing 2000), I found it impossible to resist the temptation to watch Twilight and New Moon (more later on the stupidity of the “Twilight Saga” moniker).The publicity and hype surrounding both films was incredible, and the reactions to the trailers in packed theatres were near unbearable. While I have yet to decipher just what it is about this series that has set the world on fire (it is not like the idea of a vampire or a werewolf is new to anyone), I can say they have made for two of the worst and most disappointing films in recent memory.

So where do I start? Well, the special effects are atrocious beyond telling--some of the worst put to celluloid in the past ten years. But that is far too easy an area to pick on, especially in the wake of Avatar. So thanks for spoiling us on that front James Cameron (not that there is anything wrong with that…)

The logical first thing to attack is the writing. It sucks, plain and simple. I have heard that the words being spoken are fairly close, if not the same as, those in Meyer’s novels, but that is no excuse for how awful they sound. A trademark of the series is how deadpan and serious everyone comes off. Practically no one cracks a joke, or yet a smile; even when some of the dialogue and situations become downright ridiculous, everyone stays straight faced. Never mind the fact that I almost ruptured something from laughing so hard when Bella tells Edward that he’s “beautiful” when he first shows off his glittering chest. I get the idea that it is supposed to be simple; that it is meant to be a romantic melodrama for impressionable teenage girls. As a book, this may have worked. But as a movie, a cutesy line like “Hold on tight, spider monkey!” just does not cut it. Just trying to remember some of these lines is sure to give me nightmares for weeks.

“I hate you for making me want you so much.”

I’m already starting to cringe, and here I was just getting over Jake telling Ennis that “I just don’t know how to quit you!”

Both films also suffer from being derivative, and frankly, rather boring. Twilight managed to keep me vaguely entertained despite this, but New Moon almost sent me into a coma with how agonizing parts of the film quickly became. Some would blame that fault squarely on the films being part of a longer series, and neither being a truly complete story. But is that an excuse for either movie to just go through the motions and merely act as a set-up for the next film in the series? Should they not be able to stand on their own, and not feel as if they need to be watched in succession? Very few films are able to stand up to this task, but a lot of series’ have quickly deteriorated by feeling the need to merely act as filler before the next episode comes along (see Iron Man 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, The Matrix Reloaded, and adaptations like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and The Two Towers for examples of what I mean). It just pains me to know the films need to act in this manner. That neither filmmaker – Twilight’s Catherine Hardwicke nor New Moon’s Chris Weitz -- could even attempt to make the movie able to stand on its own is yet another element of disappointment for this series (but I will note that New Moon suffers from this syndrome a lot more than Twilight does).

But the writing can only be blamed for so much. The acting is truly pitiful. Let’s leave out how insanely gorgeous Taylor Lautner is now that he had to push himself to ridiculous lengths to keep from being recast, and let’s look away from Robert Pattinson and his finely coifed mane. Can we actually say either of them can act? Sure, Lautner is the best and most interesting thing to come out of New Moon, but I would hardly call that emoting (unless taking off your shirt and putting it back on multiple times now qualifies for being the next Marlon Brando). In the original film, he had a few lines and was an otherwise throwaway character, if not for the fact that we all knew he had a bigger role in the series as it went on. In the sequel, he had significantly more dialogue, got a chance to truly brood and pine over Bella, and then sulk like a whiny child before being unceremoniously cut out of the majority of the final act. Yeah, I’m certain that is what everyone has in mind when they discuss an actor’s “range”.

Pattinson, on the other hand, just seems to get away with having dreamy eyes and no sense of talent whatsoever. He has no charisma or charm. He is lifeless in his role here, and never once does he make Edward’s “love” or attraction to Bella not seem forced by the confines of the storyline. I am certain that if the producers replaced him with a cardboard cutout for one scene no one would even know the difference. He is just so wooden -- so plain. There is no justice in a world where he can get away without the painful rejection and easy parody fodder that Hayden Christensen continues to deal with in the wake of the Star Wars prequels. And he actually tried! (I can only hope the new Jason Friedberg/Aaron Seltzer abomination Vampires Suck gives Pattinson his overdue comedic whiplash. But God help me if this is not the last movie Fox greenlights from these two plagiarists.) It is almost like Pattinson knows he is some otherworldly heartthrob to a plethora of females around the world, and knows he does not have to do anything to maintain their attention. I can only think of one scene in the two films where he shows some form of acting, even for a remote period of time.

Let me set the scene up for you.

Bella walks into the classroom for the first time, science class, I believe. He sees her and catches her scent. He goes crazy with what I can only imagine is hormonal rage, which appears to have still gone unchecked despite his having lived for over 100 years.

And then he starts humping and caressing the desk.

Now, this appears to be okay for Edward Cullen to do in the not so magical land of Forks. In real life, this guy would have been arrested, suspended from the school, expelled, or sent for a psychiatric evaluation whether this was his way of showing he was repulsed by her or not. That behavior just is not right from someone who is supposed to be 17. But somehow, this attracts Bella, and she eventually falls in love with him so hard that she cannot bear to even think about being with anyone else. She gets to the point in New Moon where she isolates herself from the world because she is so depressed about his leaving her, and then starts doing things that may end up killing her, just so she can live life on the edge with the minute possibility that he will come back for her (and let’s not forget the horrendously acted screaming nightmare fits on the part of Kristen Stewart). What does Meyer think she is teaching all of these young, impressionable girls who fawn over the series so much? Sure the chaste element to the story is great and all, but telling them to fall for one guy so hard that it is quits if you cannot have him? We really want to encourage that mentality?

I actually kind of dig Stewart in other films. She is great in the criminally underrated Adventureland, I really liked her in Into the Wild, and despite not being a fan of Panic Room, she was quite good in that too. So how can she have talent in all of those films, and just seem to be playing Bella without a shred of motivation outside of a paycheck? I blamed Pattinson’s wooden delivery and zero chemistry earlier, but Stewart is just as much to blame. She brings more intensity to the role, I will give her that. But that is about all she does for it. Oh, and she plays with her hair! Yes, we cannot leave that trivial detail out of a description of her mesmerizing acting abilities in these films. Every girl wants to be in her position, but her one-dimensionality is so emotionally disturbing that it borders on actionable.

Unfortunately, no one else up to this point in the films has gotten a chance to really make something of their supporting character in the series: Billy Burke is great in his small doses as Bella’s father Charlie; despite receiving an Oscar nomination and some form of credibility as an actor, Anna Kendrick (Jessica) continues to be underwritten and underplayed; Peter Facinelli (Carlisle), Elizabeth Reaser (Esme) and Ashley Greene (Alice) get some things to do, but are used more to move the plot along than anything else. I keep forgetting the enormously talented Nikki Reed (Rosalie) is in these films -- more on her in a moment -- but then, she could pass for furniture with how much she gets to do at any given time. I was genuinely excited for Michael Sheen (Aro) to join the cast and moderately excited for Dakota Fanning (Jane). But outside of what you see in the trailer for New Moon, neither of them really gets to do anything. I hope in the future films they get some sort of arc they can use to make something of their roles; otherwise, they too will be added to the list of talented, underused supporting stars.

Now the only reason I mentioned Reed in the same breath as the more recognizable names above is because of Thirteen. While it may have suffered slightly from being a tad exaggerated, the film was a wild, realistic and moving portrait of what it is like to be a teenager (and it was even semi-autobiographical, giving it that much more authenticity). She worked on the script with director Catherine Hardwicke, who ended up directing Twilight, but was later shoved off in favour of Chris Wietz, best known for helping give us American Pie and the rather underwhelming adaptation of Phillip Pullman’s The Golden Compass. I can only ask, what was the difference in making Thirteen in 2003 and making Twilight in 2008? Both are about the lives of teenage girls, the trouble they have growing up and the realization of becoming the person they want to be (which for Bella is apparently becoming an unemployed woman exercising her feminist rights to exist as the muse of a vampire and the unattainable crush of a werewolf). Yet one movie is so much better written, acted, directed and filmed than the other (I will give you a moment, but only a moment, to guess which one I am referring to). It is baffling, and makes for yet another shred of disappointment to add to the pile. (I do find it amusing and ironic to note that Reed’s co-star in Thirteen, Evan Rachel Wood, is now a vampire on the seriously addictive True Blood. Now, for all its faults, at least that show knows what it is and can adjust its tone quite easily.)

As I was writing this, the official announcement came in that Breaking Dawn would be split into two films, much like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. While it is obvious that Summit is merely copying Warner’s marketing strategy (I am curious already if the DVD/Blu-ray releases for either series will be separate, or added together to form one movie), it just illustrates the reason why the quality of filmmaking in New Moon or Twilight did not really matter in the end. The company knows they have a cash cow, and they want to milk it for every last ounce of it’s worth, and they want to do it as quick as physically possible. Why else are these films being rushed into production and released so quickly?

But I do digress. Despite the awfulness of the first two, I will watch the next three films (on DVD or Blu-ray, never theatrically) to see how David Slate and Bill Condon handle the reins of this unruly franchise. I already know that Condon will not do the reportedly horrific and gory elements of Breaking Dawn the way a professional like David Cronenberg, David Lynch or even Vincenzo Natali would. But then, I am already going into these films disappointed anyway, so I won’t be holding my breath hoping for miracles.

Finally, what’s with the Twilight Saga qualifier? Even though I never read the books, I knew what each entry was named, and would likely have no problem knowing which film is the next one. So why add the goofy subtitle? Does Summit really think anyone is going to mistake the next Twilight movie for something else? Do they really think they are going to lose out on any money by not instinctively referring to the next entry as part of the so-called Twilight Saga? Have you ever met anyone who had trouble remembering what the next preposterous film title was in the James Bond series? I have not, and I doubt anyone would do the same for Twilight.

If even I know the titles in this series then so too do the hordes of teenage girls who are its baffling target audience.


  -- David Baldwin

---

---