Escape to the Movies: New Moon

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

The_root_of_all_evil:

And J.K.Rowling was a working mum who wrote Harry Potter for her kids while "struggling" on the dole. And Paris Hilton never had a push other than her video. And the moon is made of green cheese.

Although J.K. Rowling is also a terrible writer. I vaguely remember being a teenager, and I'm pretty sure your books don't need to be dumb to be appealing to kids. Harry Potter isn't dumb because it is for youngsters, it is dumb, period.

Noelveiga:

The_root_of_all_evil:

And J.K.Rowling was a working mum who wrote Harry Potter for her kids while "struggling" on the dole. And Paris Hilton never had a push other than her video. And the moon is made of green cheese.

For the record, J.K. Rowling is also a terrible writer. I vaguely remember being a teenager, and I'm pretty sure your books don't need to be dumb to be appealing to kids. Harry Potter isn't dumb because it is for youngsters, it is dumb, period.

The Phantom Tollbooth, A Wrinkle in Time, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, The Gruffalo, Where the Wild Things Are, Alice in Wonderland, Charlotte's Web, Harriet the Spy, James and The Giant Peach, Peter Pan, The Wind in the Willows, The Diary of Anne Frank.

All extraordinary kids books that don't talk down to kids, don't spoonfeed messages and can still be enjoyed by adults.

AliciaPeck:

As far as the review specifically, you mention Stephenie Meyer's chosen profession, and as I'm sure you haven't done any research on her or the series past reading/bashing them, I'll give you a little insight. Mrs. Meyer's "chosen profession" was stay at home mom. (yeah bet ya didn't know that) She had a dream one night (won't go in depth) that she wanted to remember so she wrote it down (chapter 13 of Twilight). From there, she just kept writing, she never went to school to be a writer, she never intended on being a writer, so YES her writing style isn't popular among so called "avid" readers or even more "basic" readers...

Actually, I did know that. I also know that one CAN have more than one profession (I've got two, possibly three by certain measures.) I'm sure she's a fine mother (though I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall if the creator of Edward Cullen happened to have a dating-age daughter who came home with an ACTUAL dark/mysterious/violent guy with "serial abuser" written on his forehead "but he says he WORSHIPS me!!!!!") but since she's publishing these books that makes her a professional writer, and not a very good one. And I'm not talking about the story, I'm talking about basic Jr. High creative-writing class stuff here: Obvious foreshadowing, atonal dialogue, dangling plot threads, ham-fisted metaphors, finales where nothing happens, etc.

There is so much more I want to say, but I'm going to end with this. You talk about these actors (Pattinson, Stewart, Lautner) and you say that they'll have to live with the fact that they were in this series for years. You have it backwards, how much money, how much fame they are getting for having the opportunity to be a part of a World-Wide phenomenon. People are wanting them for their movies more and more already.

You might want to ask Jaleel White how that worked out for him. Or Macauly Culkin. Dustin Diamond. The Olsen Twins. Any of those kids from the "Power Rangers" shows. Have you heard from Jake Lloyd lately? Hayden Christensen? Hell... how many 'new' actors with onscreen roles in even "Star Wars" went on to much? ONE: Harrison Ford. Carrie Fisher fell off the face of the Earth, Mark Hammill spent decades slumming in B-movies before finding his calling as a voice-actor. It doesn't even "only" apply to movies: Only Michael survived The Jackson Five, only Timberlake is still a star after the 90s 'boy band' bubble burst. "That 70s Show" was on for YEARS, huge hit... the only member of the main cast who's currently a bankable actor is Mila Kunis, since even Kutcher has moved mostly into being a commercial pitchman and Mr. Demi Moore.

Frankly, looking at it objectively, I mostly see the "Twilight" alumns breaking on similar lines. As of right now, the only one of these kids I can virtually garauntee you you'll still hear from once this has wrapped up is Anna Kendrick, ("Jessica,") because she has a co-starring role in a fantastic George Clooney movie called "Up In The Air" that'll be out later in the year (probably nominated for a bunch of Oscars too) and she's going to blow the hell up after that. Lautner has some kind of martial-arts background in addition to being a not-terrible actor in these, so if he hooks up with some cheap action vehicles or maybe a superhero franchise he could make it (though maybe not after all the mind-bogglingly stupid stuff he'll be made to do onscreen in "Breaking Dawn.")

Stewart IS a good actress, but this series is going to haunt her - people making the kind of "quality" movies she'll need to build a solid reputation won't want to risk the blowback of putting "someone from Twilight" in the cast. Hell, she probably can't even get other "GENRE" work - every other actor in her generation is trying to hook-in with superhero/scifi franchises as a safety net, but she probably wouldn't be able to: Can you imagine if there was even a RUMOR that she was up for, just as an example, "Batgirl?" The comic fans would RIOT at the idea of anyone from "Twilight" 'tainting' their stuff. It's unfair, and it sucks, but it is what it is.

Pattinson, on the other hand? You're NEVER gonna hear from him again six to ten years from now (and you can tell he knows this - hence why he's such a tool about Meyer and the fans when caught off-guard.) He's not an especially good actor, and after this his "likability" is shot to hell. He has some wannabe-edgy urban-crime thing coming out soon, just watch: It'll do a HUGE opening weekend then fall off the radar. He'll be LUCKY to end up like, say, Scott Baio - probably more like Willie Ames. A decade from now he'll have "Found Jesus" or somesuch ;)

VAmpires dont mother fucking sparkle!!! Rage!!!

Incidentally, this didn't really "belong" in the review proper since it doesn't necessarily connect with "is the movie good or not?", but I figured I might as well put it out there while the putting's good...

When you look at it objectively, the "moral" (or "lesson," if you prefer) of this story for it's young female audience kinda boils down to: "If the guy you want doesn't reciprocate and/or breaks it off, the BEST response is to repeatedly attempt suicide to PROVE how much you love him... people will pay attention to you again AND you'll get him back!"

Yikes.

Now, my observation of this isn't necessarily a condemnation of the author's motives (Bella, under analysis, is a classic codependent sexual-submissive, but it is fiction after all) but I do think that it goes to explaining some of the voracious enthusiasm the series generates: Like it or not, that's the way A LOT of emotionally-unstable teenage girls see the world. In other words, it can be safely concluded that Meyer writes from about the same "headspace" as most of her teenaged target-audience. Now, you can call that PRAISE... but if you do I imagine you don't actually know many teenagers ;)

And don't even get started on the Werewolves, who're even closer to a straight-up romanticism of "the surrendered wife"-style domestic abuse. The "top" wolf guy's wife has a big gnarly scar running down half her face because he "lost his temper" one time; but instead of taking off and/or stocking-up on silver bullets this experience only convinces her to be MORE committed... and, of course, a more docile and obedient housewife - her main "role" in the series is making sure big, hearty meals are always on the table whenever he and his boys turn up. But he loves her, so it's okay. Yeesh...

Simply no.
I mean, why even bother? A while back it was High School Musical, now it's vampires, next thing it will be the new movie with Vanessa Hudgens School Rock Band, and then rockers will be popular.Something I have mixed feelings about. I mean, I sure as hell like attention, but when I do somehting to earn it.

Just shoot silver bullets at the screen at it will goooooo awaaaaaay

I feel sorry for you bob, no one should have to endure that flying piece of shit. EVER!

Noelveiga:

The_root_of_all_evil:

And J.K.Rowling was a working mum who wrote Harry Potter for her kids while "struggling" on the dole. And Paris Hilton never had a push other than her video. And the moon is made of green cheese.

Although J.K. Rowling is also a terrible writer. I vaguely remember being a teenager, and I'm pretty sure your books don't need to be dumb to be appealing to kids. Harry Potter isn't dumb because it is for youngsters, it is dumb, period.

And you are a dick. Anyone who calls the worlds fastest selling novels that are now used in English class, in schools, now widely loved by the adults who were kids at no. 1 and mature at no. 7 its a dick.

WTF is wrong with you? How could books that made a lady richer than the British Queen, thats inspired generations of kids and provided a thoroughly good read to adults be dumb?

But let me guess your one of the morons who hasn't read them? Or you've read the first 3 which were more for kids than the latter ones. Or you live in a cave a spend all day watching anime and reading online comics...yep that'd be you. Your a real champ.

shit book = shitty movie... doesnt have to be... but hey, this shit sure proves that rule XD

I'll just save my money for a proper movie :P

DalekJaas:

Noelveiga:

Although J.K. Rowling is also a terrible writer. I vaguely remember being a teenager, and I'm pretty sure your books don't need to be dumb to be appealing to kids. Harry Potter isn't dumb because it is for youngsters, it is dumb, period.

And you are a dick. Anyone who calls the worlds fastest selling novels that are now used in English class, in schools, now widely loved by the adults who were kids at no. 1 and mature at no. 7 its a dick.

WTF is wrong with you? How could books that made a lady richer than the British Queen, thats inspired generations of kids and provided a thoroughly good read to adults be dumb?

But let me guess your one of the morons who hasn't read them? Or you've read the first 3 which were more for kids than the latter ones. Or you live in a cave a spend all day watching anime and reading online comics...yep that'd be you. Your a real champ.

"Inspired generations of kids"? What the hell are you going on about? It has barely had time to inspire one generation of kids and to mildly amuse another generation of adults, at best.

And I honestly don't see your point. The porn industry makes billions but nobody claims the movies are good. Harry Potter is yet another version of pseudofolk fantasy revolving around vulgarisations of a mishmash of myths and legends without any particular research or knowledge of the source material rooting the concepts. TV is full of this crap, and so is the list of best sellers, which in turn are adapted to cinema.

Or, let me put it in another way: any piece of media about mages that uses spells in pseudo-latin is automatically crap.

I give them that they are definitelly a comercial hit, and for good reasons. It is a book about going to school, only everybody has superpowers. It is your tried and true hero's quest coming of age story, only stretched beyond any reasonable scope. Sure, it works. It's worked a bunch of times before, and it will keep working.

That doesn't mean it's good literature. Not even good literature for teens and young adults. Somebody posted a pretty decent list of good literature for kids earlier in the thread. It shouldn't be too hard to spot the differences between the likes of Twilight or Harry Potter (which are two takes on the same thing) and, you know, proper literature.

And one last thing. In my experience, the audience for Harry Potter overlaps quite a bit with people living in caves watching anime and reading online comic books. I have nothing against fantasy books, anime or online comic books, but there are good fantasy books, anime and comic books and bad fantasy books, anime and comic books.

My friends have been trying to get me to watch it for weeks now, i knew why i wouldn't like it but i couldn#t put it into words. Thank you Movie bob for doing that for me.

You know until I watched the film "Let the Right one in" last night, the most recent film I could think of that last did vampires any sort of justice was probably Coppola's Dracula, and even that had its share of cheesy lines, but at least Gary Oldman go the character down.

I don't think I have it in me to sit through another Twilight flick though. The only reason why I watched the first one was simply to have an opinion on what I didn't like about it.

Anyway, Good review Moviebob.

A lot of people have been using the phrase "porn for women" in reference to Twilight. I have to assume that's what it is. I mean, porn isn't good in a directing or acting sense, but lots of people watch it, y'know?

But you know what is WORSE than this movie being over 2 hours? That BOTH Transformers movies were over two hours. Movies about NOTHING approaching the 3 hour mark? Excuse me, but when your movie is longer than Once Upon a Time in America (or about as long), and that movie was about a man's ENTIRE LIFE, there is something seriously wrong here.

what is with the obnoxious bleeping? new Escapist policy?

anyway, I'm glad you took the time to explain what makes it bad, and the few good things about it. good to hear Taylor Lautner is at least a decent actor. moreso when he actually smiles, unlike SOME characters we could mention >.<

I'm not trying to say that it doesn't happen to actors. What I'm saying is all of your assumptions (and that is what they are currently) are based in the fact that YOU believe these are bad movies/books with bad actors, which in my opinion is a vastly undeserved bias on your part, it's not something you (and other people) like, but it is something that a VERY significant group people (yes mostly girls) are enthralled and addicted to. The movies will work, just because of that group of people. Yes Anna Kendrick is a great actress, and I can't wait to see Up In The Air. And on another note, (not important, not like any of this is really) is that Breaking Dawn is not definite in any way, and that if it does happen, it will likely be 2 movies.
My main way of trying to explain the draw of these books is, it's a "romance" and no romance story would be good if there wasn't something to throw a wrench into things, that's all the vampires are. I'm sorry that you don't like her writing, but I do, and SO many other people do. I'm not saying everyone has to love it, but I don't like all the hating on things just because it's not their style. I don't really like action movies, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna say X action movie is shitty just cause I don't like action movies in general...

Samurai Goomba:
Quoted for truth

Yes, there was a time where movies over two hours long were considered a bad thing. I remember those days. Those are the days filmgoers typically remember as the days with all the good movies. Maybe there is a connection there.

You consider Mario romance? how often do the people playing those games think about saving the "princess" because they love her, no they either want to win the game or in cases when she is "hot" they want to see her naked... I'm just saying that the likelihood of a man appreciating a book (or movie) about romance is significantly less than the likelihood of a woman.
I never said the movie was bad, I love it I think it's great, I'm just saying it's not Perfect, but what is? (And I have yet to see New Moon)
I am aware of what Pattinson (yes there are two n's in his name) is going through. I understand and I wouldn't begrudge him that opportunity if that is what he honestly wanted to do. I like actors who enjoy their work, you can tell when they don't.
And I'm not quite sure where you assume I'm lying about Stephenie... She's spoken many times, and even has on her website, that it was just a dream, she never intended on making it a book, until with the push of her sister she decided to see if people would even want to read it.

Oh you best believe I never said the book was crap, and yes I do love the book. I'm just saying that it's not a popular style. oh and I shed a tear for you because you liked something with romance in it one time... did that hurt for you?

I didn't need the review to tell me how bad it was. But thank you Moviebob for suming up my main feelings on it. The only thing that you didn't seem to mentioned(which may have been mentioned in pages before) but wouldn't a "werewolf" be "manwolf"? Meaning being half man, half wolf? It seems in twilight they just go straight to wolf or man. Also they can do it when they please, when they can only do certain times and not at their choosing.

Well, anyway, nice review.

Trivun:

I do and I'm a nineteen year old guy. I was planning to see it tonight except a friend (also a guy) who saw it last night said that although it was decent, the amount of screaming fangirls made it less enjoyable, so I may wait until an adult screening is done at the local cinema (i.e. 18 and over only). Have you actually seen it, or made an attempt to see it? If so then your opinion is fair and noted. If you haven't made an attempt to see it then what right do you have to criticise it?

And yes, I do like things like Dracula as well. I simply don't agree that Twilight 'ruined' vampires. Although for all the things I like about the series, I still don't like the 'sparkly' vampires idea.

It only takes one trailer to see that the movie was made for idiots.

Look, let's pretend that your favorite type of music was heavy metal. If a new heavy metal band came out where all the dudes in the band do is run around on stage with their genitals out, rubbing them against each other and crying while they put on lipstick and make out with each other, don't you think you might not like this band?

Same thing with Twilight but with vampires instead of heavy metal.

awsome117:
The only thing that you didn't seem to mentioned(which may have been mentioned in pages before) but wouldn't a "werewolf" be "manwolf"? Meaning being half man, half wolf? It seems in twilight they just go straight to wolf or man. Also they can do it when they please, when they can only do certain times and not at their choosing.

Technically, werewolves don't really have a single original "rulebook" like vampires do as mythic creatures go - there've been stories of beast-men in almost all cultures, "lycanthropy" usually meant people who only ACTED feral, and the Medieval European concept of "werewolf" often WAS a human who magically transformed into a wolf or being half-wolf all the time (like Saint Christopher, a non-longer-recognized Catholic Saint who is depicted with a wolf's head in some early artwork.) What we tend to think of as the "everybody knows" version of Werewolves - i.e. changing with the moon, vulnerable to silver, able to transfer the curse via a bite - only goes back to the mid-1930s when it was made up for Universal Pictures' original "Wolf-Man" movie.

To be fair to "Twilight," I'm using "werewolf" because that's the general idea. In the movie/book, only Bella and Jacob ever use the word "werewolf" and only as shorthand - everybody else just says "wolf." The guys in question are aware that they aren't werewolves in the classical mythological sense, their powers are specific only to certain bloodlines within this one specific Indian tribe and has to do with an ancient medicine-man soul-swapping curse centuries back (so no full moons, silver allergies or bite-transferance) that gets explained in Book #3. In Book #4, there's some throwaway dialogue between the bad guy vampires suggesting that there ARE actual "real" Werewolves elsewhere, but that's all that's ever said of them.

Noelveiga:

Samurai Goomba:
Quoted for truth

Yes, there was a time where movies over two hours long were considered a bad thing. I remember those days. Those are the days filmgoers typically remember as the days with all the good movies. Maybe there is a connection there.

You know Hero is barely 90 minutes, and tells a story THREE DIFFERENT WAYS? And it is great?

I'd like to meet the director who thought longer movies equated to better films. To me, any movie longer than 2 hours had better do a freaking excellent job of justifying why it is that long.

Nimbus:

Trivun:
...so I may wait until an adult screening is done at the local cinema (i.e. 18 and over only)...

Can they even do that? I'm fairly certain that ageism for no reason is illegal.

Private property, and no limit on the ability of a person of the younger demographic to see the money. It falls in the same category as a Ladies' Night at a club or bar.

You know I disliked Twilight from the moment I heard about it, but my hatred for it continues to grow. In fact, when I heard about it was when I liked it most.

This review reinforces that. Thank you (I guess).

Buhuhu ... I enjoyed this review, censors aside. I haven't bothered to read ten pages of comments but I only assume it was for any young Twilight fans who may stumble across it. Or something.

Dakota Fanning was also in Cat in the Hat.

I suppose the appropriate reply to this would be I HAVE FURY!!!!

DalekJaas:

Noelveiga:

The_root_of_all_evil:

And J.K.Rowling was a working mum who wrote Harry Potter for her kids while "struggling" on the dole. And Paris Hilton never had a push other than her video. And the moon is made of green cheese.

Although J.K. Rowling is also a terrible writer. I vaguely remember being a teenager, and I'm pretty sure your books don't need to be dumb to be appealing to kids. Harry Potter isn't dumb because it is for youngsters, it is dumb, period.

And you are a dick. Anyone who calls the worlds fastest selling novels that are now used in English class, in schools, now widely loved by the adults who were kids at no. 1 and mature at no. 7 its a dick.

WTF is wrong with you? How could books that made a lady richer than the British Queen, thats inspired generations of kids and provided a thoroughly good read to adults be dumb?

But let me guess your one of the morons who hasn't read them? Or you've read the first 3 which were more for kids than the latter ones. Or you live in a cave a spend all day watching anime and reading online comics...yep that'd be you. Your a real champ.

i love the harry potter books first off

second off way to go you made an ass of yourself cause someone else had a different opinion.

OT: I just saw this movie with my girlfriend...i thought it was really bad: acting, effects, action, story, ext. I did really like the whole like hidden Vampire community with the val'somethings' and what not,i thought that was really cool, do they expand more into that in the future books? the whole love thing was EXTREMELY corny and over dramatic and somewhat embarassing (im 18). The movie is also insanely predictable...all in all a waste of money.

Ranooth:
Im doing my best to stop my girlfriend from seeing this but im running out of options. It ethical to chain your girlfriend up outside of the bedroom?

I'm glad my girlfriend has taste, she'd only go see it for the "cute" (pale) guys though. At least thats what she said...

After watching this review, I'm glad I went to go see 2012 and The Blind Side instead.

Holy crap I haven't laughed this hard in a while. Never have I heard such a fervent obliteration of the series. I will say that I didn't hate the books (I disliked them, but hate is too strong a word), but the first movie was terrible and this one doesn't look any better. I will still probably see it though, if only to get it the f*ck over with and add one more movie to my vote history on IMDB.

One thing I will say is that I feel bad for Cameron Bright. I was looking forward to him becoming a star in the movie world (especially for his performance in Thank You For Smoking) but if this is how he becomes a genuine household name then I feel terrible for him.

VanityGirl:

EcksTeaSea:

VanityGirl:
I saw it today. It was pretty bad.
The only good thing in the movie was the vampire fights and the werewolf fights.

So basically, I just liked seeing people get the crap beat out of them.

I think you would enjoy Fight Club if you haven't seen it yet.

OT: Glad to know I can sleep through it if I ever have to go see it in theaters. Was going to anyways, but the reinforcement is nice.

Of course I've seen Fight Club. It's a beautiful cult movie, I love the concept.
I try to watch as many movies as I can so that I can add to discussions my friends/other people may have.

I also enjoyed 300 because it was violent and awesome.

But that's not even on topic

Bloody/Gory movies with fighting in them are always a good time for everyone and awesome.

Cliff_m85:
[quote="Trivun" post="6.156638.3858457"]

Did you enjoy the last book where Edward 'makes love' to Bella so hard that he breaks bones? Or that she literally got pregnant from a being that has no blood flow so no erection is possible? Or that the author states that the baby has an extra chromosome that allows for the baby to be a hybrid vampire-human when really an extra chromosome = down syndrome? Or how about that Jacob will be 'tapping dat' baby when it's 6 years old because vampires age faster, yet lore absolutely states that they never age?

SO confirmation that the books are soap-opera grade material AND illogical.

If you want to see a sexual, distrubing, well-acted vampire movie, rent interview With A Vampire. Handsome cast, amazing effects, Gothic scenery. Enjoy.

This is the Jonas Brothers of movies(Emo/appealing to wussies). But whatever makes ginies tingle.

Edit: Harry Potter the early books, are about child abuse, politics, and the bearings of power.
The latter books are about facing adulthood, politics, and death.
Don't confuse the books with the Disney films.

And Mrs. Rowling's prose is sufficient enough to allow a wide range of age groups to actually read books that contain 300+ pages...she is talented.

You know what the twilight series needs? Fucking Crispin Freeman as Alucard busting in and killing the whole fucking cast. That would have made this series more fucking bearable.

I've seen the first movie once, and it didn't interest me in the least. However for some reason all the girls who watched it became thrilled and excited to very extensive levels. I tried to concentrate, but saw only most of the time shallow characters along with strangely put up plot-twists and overall direction.

From what I understand the movie was mainly focused around a feminine perspective. In this case a teenage girl who gets... Ahem. Her more exotic dreams come true. Which is perhaps why it is appealing to many girls in that age. I guess they mostly picture themselves in the main character's role and become more immersed despite the lack of story-quality.

Actually... I get the feeling that the main character deliberately throws herself into depressive and unhealthy situations in hopes of attracting a fantasy-hero.

...When I think about it, this could be a useful way to understand the mindset of females in their younger years. I'm sure you could come up with a good concept making you ponder on the Human mind as it tries to escape from reality and into dreams beyond the horizon. Sadly this story does not focus on anything like that which could grant it depth, instead playing around with apparently common girl dreams for temporary entertainment.

A shame, in my opinion.

However for some reason all the girls who watched it became thrilled and excited to very extensive levels

Try for their whole god damn lives. Women are, by nature, psychotic hosebeasts.

Moviebob, I love your reviews, and this one was no exception. However, I'm really tempted to start a fund to get you a better microphone for Christmas.

MovieBob:

Twilight fanboy...
image

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here