Link to the thread on the books.

Jeffrey Wells and Nikki Finke say the film is already selling LOTS of advance tickets ... three weeks before it comes out ... and 95% of the people who responded to a Fandango.com survey were female. Hoo boy. Sounds like the Hannah Montana phenomenon all over again.

I can attest that among those 95% are a number of college-age girls--my students are breathlessly advising each other via Facebook to get their Twilight tickets now, before they're all GONE.

Saw the trailer. Not impressed--the girl seems wooden and the guy is even less attractive than David Boreanaz as Buffy-season-1 Angel--though I suspect that may have been the look they were going for. But obviously I know nothing about the appeal.

I found out that portions of Twilight was filmed at my old high school. While it is supposed to take place in Forks, Washington it was filmed in Kalama High School. My Dad informed me that the schools wrestling room was converted to look like a hospital room. My gym (Kalama) is used as the Forks gym.

That there is enough for me to see it.

My wife went to Stadium High School in Tacoma, the locale of Ten Things I Hate About You. Now we can both say our high schools were sights of film shootings.

Last summer, I was working as a security guard at Borders when one of these books came out. Time and time again, tween girls rushed passed me squealing to the display, snatching it up and oozing superlatives about how the books are, like, OMG, the best things ever.

So yes, I am predisposed to make fun of anything related to Twilight. Sorry. Can't help it.

The larger question is, why do our tween girls have an obsession with the occult? Sounds like a case for the sledgehammer of Ted Baehr! ::

I'm seeing it on Tuesday.

I will be working very, very hard to have an open mind.

Well, it is directed by Catherine Hardwicke. Are you a fan of hers? Whether you like her stuff or not, she's respected by some, and not merely a studio hack.

If memory serves, Jeff was a big, big fan of The Nativity Story...

I was writer-in-residence at a Mennonite high-school this past week, and the (female) students in one class were surprised to hear that I didn't really know all that much about Twilight apart from the fact that there was a movie coming out soon.

They were also very keen to know what I thought of High School Musical. (And I was rather happy that, when I gave my standard reply about the second movie having the opposite theme to the first movie, and thus there being a sort of paradox there, one of the students seemed to stop and think before she said, "Oh, I hadn't thought of that..." I loved her reaction not so much because she had "learned" something from me, but because she, a true fan, seemed to confirm that my impression of the first two movies, as an outsider to the franchise, was not entirely off the mark.)

Anyway. I hear that Twilight has been outpacing High School Musical in the advance-ticket-sales business.

I'm in a theater surrounded by nervous young teen girls and giggling women. I've heard the name Edward 20 times in ten minutes. SEND HELP. I haven't been in this kind of a crowd since I was dragged to a Dogstar concert and was nearly crushed by tiny, screaming Keanu fans.

You have my sympathy. I am just watching Wall*E on Blu-Ray.



(Was that really cruel of me? )

Oo oo! Wall-E on Blu-ray also!

Pixar films are ideal for Blu-Ray, I find. I may double dip and get a few of them when they finally get released (Toy Story 1 & 2, the Incredibles and Finding Nemo most likely).

I wonder what Pixar would do with the tired cliche of vampires?

Yeah, the audience burst into applause, and laughter, at moments when I wasn't sure what the big deal was.

I know that women are the target audience, and that Edward is the New Hunk, but I thought the female lead was a more interesting character and actress, FWIW. Typical male response, probably.

Jeffrey Wells:

Due apologies to those middle--aged male journalists making smart-ass cracks outside the theatre after it ended, but they're wrong. They're living in their own world -- blinded, blocking, reactionary. Because within its own emotional teenage-girl, imagining-and-longing-for-the-ideal-boyfriend realm, Twilight... should I say this? I don't want to anger Vivian Mayer. But what publicist would be upset if a guy like myself, an unregenerate adult-movie, classic-movie, indie-movie, Pasolini-admiring, Kubrick-worshipping fan who hates sitting next to giggling groups of women in cocktail bars -- what if a guy like me said that this sucker works?

Because it does. On its own attitudinal terms and given what it's addressing and saying. And you can take that to the bank and put it in your IRA account. I've been in this racket for nearly 30 years and I know when a film is working so don't tell me.

I'd say "it works" is a mushy statement -- on what level(s)? -- but I can see where Wells is coming from.

• Girl meets boy.
• They stare at each other with deeply constipated expressions.
• Boy saves girl's life. (No spoilers here, folks. This is ALL in the preview.)
• Girl pledges herself to boy, knowing nothing about him
• Boy glowers at her with freakishly exaggerated features, as if auditioning for a David Lynch film. I haven't seen such an intolerably sulky male character since the laughable James of Twin Peaks.
• Girl says she loves him "unconditionally," which must be true since she knows absolutely ZILCH about him.
• Boy keeps saying ominously that he doesn't know if he can control himself.
• Girl says she doesn't care.
• The love story in this film makes Jack and Rose in Titanic seem like a mature adult relationship.
• A great deal is made of the fact that when vampires step into the sunlight they're "beautiful." That's his dark secret? That he glitters like diamonds in the sunlight? (Yeah, THAT'S what I'd want my kids to learn: When someone opens their shirt to you, THAT'S when you'll know that you're really in love.) Poor, poor vampire! Having to live with the curse of having a chest covered in dollar-store glitter!

I enjoyed exactly one moment of this film. It's the scene where Edward shows up to meet Bella's dad, and dad is preoccupied with a certain prop. You'll probably laugh too. It's a good joke.

Yeah, funny moment. I wonder how many of the target tween girls have heard Rodney Atkins on Country radio this past year. He had a big hit song about the sort of thing seen in that scene, but if I were to name the song, it would give away the joke.

I think you're going to be much harder on the film than I'm going to be, Jeffrey. I didn't leave angry. Not happy or excited either. But I didn't feel penalized for having to sit through the film.

I ran into a local print critic who expressed some enthusiasm for the film.

EDIT: Oh, and as for those "constipated expressions," yeah, there's a lot of emotion in this movie that's just assumed, presumably because the guy is so dashing that no explanation is needed for the girl to fall hard for him. This happens in movies with young male protagonists, too, when they pine after a drop-dead gorgeous girl at school, etc. It's a fair criticism, but I just sort of bought into the story on that level. Maybe I should've been tougher. My criticisms have to do with other elements of the plot.

Mmm, probably not. The film was workmanlike in its craftsmanship. I wasn't upset by it. I just think that an episode of Buffy or Moonlight has as much substance as this whole film. I just don't see that the story is doing anybody any good, except giving awkward teen girls a sense of hope that they will be loved unconditionally... and that's healthy. (Of course, that's undercut in the film by the fact that this awkward, social-outcast girl is totally freaking gorgeous.)

Even an episode of Moonlight has more substance than this film? Man, that's saying a lot. Or not much. I just had a student (male) recommend the books to me "because you like vampires and stuff." No, I don't like vampires; I like Buffy. Be that as it may, a number of my students are going to be asking me what I think about this movie. Do I have to see it?

Hah! Yeah, it's tough to be the new girl at school and be asked out by two different guys (the first guy starts to ask her, then stops, so I don't know that it officially counts; but the intent is there) in quick succession.

Beth: Yes, you should see it. Don't know about "have to," but sure, it'll be discussed and you'll want to know what they're discussing. Maybe you should read the books, if you haven't already (I haven't, but I don't have to talk to any students).

Those afraid of posting "early" reviews should know that the Washington Post ran its review in this morning's paper. I'm not sure if other major publications have followed suit, but I see that CT Movies has posted Todd Hertz's review.

The review is pretty brave toward the end, I think:

[F]or me, what holds the whole thing together is Kristen Stewart's performance as Bella. She grounds the movie and gives us genuine emotion and personality. (I agree with this, but I don't think I'm in agreement -- fully -- with what follows...)

But as good as Stewart is, I think Pattinson (who was solid as Cedric in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) as Edward was a casting mistake. Or maybe it was how he was directed. He's wooden and emotes with unchanging facial expression of brooding eyebrows, deep breathing, and body language that communicates that he really has to go to the bathroom. These scenes lead to unintentional laughter in even the most serious moments.

What Pattinson does do well, though, are the tender, loving moments with Stewart. This is maybe what the movie does best: quiet moments of intimacy—not sex, but more innocent intimacy like when the infatuated Bella and Edward lie in the grass with their hands barely touching, or when they share their first kiss. These are electric moments, but the rest of the film pales in comparison.

"Wooden ... brooding" -- I think he has a James Dean quality to him, and that's not a bad thing, although I admit to chuckling at a few of his more pained expressions.

Interesting, but I really wish people, including Hertz, would stop saying things like this movie has "a twist right out of Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Please. There's nothing twisty about a vampire going for a human girl or vice versa, unless the twist is that he's trying not to bite her neck. Whatever. The real twist in Buffy was that she was the Slayer--the vampire is in danger from the girl. Bella is just a supremely incompetent Mina Harker who keeps asking to be bitten.

OTOH, the "brooding, wooden" reviews of Pattinson's performance, plus his extreme hairstyle, seem bound to recall comparisons with David Boreanaz's performance in Buffy, season 1. Eventually, however, he did learn to act, got his own show, and even became an FBI agent...

"Brave" as in he had the guts to say what you didn't?



A brilliant FBI agent. His comic timing is admirable.

Overheard: "The reason so many middle-aged and married women are crazy about this show is that it isn't about sex. It's all about foreplay. Meyer has set up a situation in which the story provides plenty of the very thing these women want but never get."

Good question. Brave in the sense that the movie feels like -- to steal a political phrase -- a referendum on Pattinson's performance. Because the movie will be a huge hit (I think), the view that Pattinson's performance is a problem might not go down so well with many of Hertz's readers. But that's the critic's job.

This is funny. I thought you meant brave as a euphemism because he said the following, which could just as easily be in an Onion review of Twilight:

"What Pattinson does do well, though, are the tender, loving moments with Stewart. This is maybe what the movie does best: quiet moments of intimacy—not sex, but more innocent intimacy like when the infatuated Bella and Edward lie in the grass with their hands barely touching, or when they share their first kiss. These are electric moments, but the rest of the film pales in comparison."

As someone who's written -- and continues to write -- my share of Onion-worthy "reviews," I tend to cut critics some slack.

As someone who doesn't even write reviews, likewise. I just had a hard time reading you there because you are seldom snarky.

John "Dirty Harry" Nolte's first gut reaction:

Dude, I’ve just come out of the most subversive film since … who knows when. This isn’t a vampire flick, it’s a total piece of cinematic propaganda disguised as a vampire flick and aimed right at your children. Only — get this - it’s subversively upholds traditional values.

Not only is it a high school movie set in a small town filled with likable characters of different races where race is never mentioned but the whole film is about restraint and discipline; the teenage girls aren’t sexualized, the boys are chivalrous, and the parents caring and real.

Hell, the the good family of vampires even play baseball because it’s “the American pastime,” and on a shelf in a bookstore owned by an American Indian sits Rush Limbaugh’s first book.

We know none of this stuff happens by accident and I’m still processing it.

Nolte's friend responds: It's because Stephenie Meyer is a Mormon (or was raised that way).

Yeah, this is no secret. Sounds like "Dirty Harry" needs to get out a little more often.

Yeah, I was just struck by how he says the film "subversively upholds traditional values", given how much hubbub there has been in conservative-Christian circles over the film's more problematic elements.

Meanwhile, Nikki Finke says: "The first box office record has already been broken by girl power: this is the biggest opening for a female director. Catherine Hardwicke is easily beating Mimi Leder's $41.1M for 1998's Deep Impact."

And if Twilight really does gross over $60 million this weekend, then it will have automatically outgrossed all of Hardwicke's previous films combined:

• Thirteen, 2003, $4,601,043
• Lords of Dogtown, 2005, $11,273,517
• The Nativity Story, 2006, $37,629,831
  -----------------------------------------
• TOTAL: $53,504,391

For whatever that's worth.

Nikki Finke:

I'm told Summit Entertainment to contain costs is considering making sequels #2 and #3 back to back like other successful franchises have done -- i.e. Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings, also the upcoming Hobbit.

David Poland:

I believe that the Passion of the Christ had the previous record for the best all-time day by an indie release with a $33 million first Saturday. That film opened on a Wednesday, softening their Friday... but that doesn't mean much when looking at just how huge this Twilight opening is. History would suggest a significant Saturday drop, but as I always point out, with numbers like this, everyone is guessing. At least one of Harry Potter's November opening weekend records ($102.7m) is safe... but the other two ($88.4m and $90.3M) could be in danger. The best non-Potter start in November - The Incredibles' $70.5m - seems like dead meat.

28 Reasons the movie is better than the book

Jeffrey Wells:

I think it's fair to call Twilight the most effective covert-conservative-values movie to be released since Four Months, Three Weeks and Two Days, which made me feel an allegiance with the right-to-lifers. Because it makes sexual abstinence seem like a fairly hot, pure-of-spirit state of being. And I say this as something of a lifelong libertine.

If you buy this interpretation (or even if you don't), Twilight can be seen as selling the exact opposite abstinence mentality as the one portrayed (and made stupid fun of) in 40 Days and 40 Nights, the '02 Josh Hartnett sex comedy.

Is Twilight a sexual right-wing movie in sheep's clothing?

Can you elaborate on the "hubbub" and "more problematic elements"? I'm not sure what those might be.

I doubt I'll find a more insightful interpretation of Stephenie Meyer's books, or the film's appeal, than this one by Laura Miller. Wow.

Christian wrote:
: Can you elaborate on the "hubbub" and "more problematic elements"? I'm not sure what those might be.

Well, the vampire stuff alone makes it problematic for some people. But two weeks ago, I was writer-in-residence at a Christian high school and I got the distinct vibe, from reading their high-school newspaper etc., that there was some debate over whether or not this franchise was harmful, for lack of a better word: lusting after the guy and all that.

Oh, lust. That'd work both ways, though, wouldn't it. He lusts after her, not just her after him. Or does it not matter as much when we're dealing with vampires?

No matter. I asked because a couple of commenters under my review have said things along the lines of, "This is a door into a dark world. How dare you review it!" and I thought there might be something more to the Christian critique of why the movie is supposedly evil. I couldn't muster any outrage over this film, but wondered what the theological argument against it might be. Often I can figure these things out ahead of time, but this film got sprung on me at close to the last minute and I never boned up on all the controversy from a Christian perspective. If it's the sex angle, however, I don't see how one could argue that the film is more about lust than the ability to fight it, ya know? In that sense, I think those concerned about that sort of thing would be relieved by this film, and would support it.

Maybe this one by Sarah Seltzer, who refers to Miller's review, and puts the film in context of vampire-lit. hist. Her perspective is more on the "girls will be girls" side, though--and if you click the link and see where she's publishing, that becomes understandable:



Oh, here's the summing up from that Dana Stevens' Slate review:

I bit the bullet and went to a matinee. Theater was about 2/3 full of mostly teen girls (I don't know if today's a school holiday or not.) As a movie, it could have been worse. As a movie about a human in love with a vampire--meh. But I'm coming from a jaded perspective of knowing way too much about that kind of thing. If this were my first such movie and I were 14 or 15, I'd probably be all over it. I'd be an idiot, but that's pretty much the definition of most 14-year-old girls when it comes to romance. So Carlyle Cullen (where does she get these names?) is a doctor, and doctors' cold hands are proverbial, but surely people have noticed that his are extreme?
Anyway, I've seen it.

I think it was the stunning revelation of why Vampires do not go into the sunlight that made me go "eh...I'll pass." I am all for differing approaches to vampires. I don't mind the subtle differences...but really, if you are going to change stuff, don't make it so outlandishly goofy.

I just came across David Edelstein's thoughts on the movie, and thought the mention of a Morman screenwriter for Milk (I wasn't aware of that) was interesting:

Hardwicke jacks up the stakes with a swooping camera and a romantic-grunge soundtrack, but the most vivid thing in the film is Kristen Stewart. She was the leggy hobo-camp teen in love with Emile Hirsch in Into the Wild, and she’s better at conveying physical longing than any of the actors playing vampires. She alone suggests how this series was born, in the mind of a young Mormon girl who had to sublimate like mad with thoughts of having her blood sucked. Duncan Lance Black, the screenwriter of the gay-rights activist Harvey Milk biopic, Milk, opening next week, is also a Mormon, and it makes me wonder: With characters that veer between implosive sexual repression and explosive sexual liberation, are Mormons the new Catholics?

I'm inclined to think that after the passage of Proposition 8 in California, anyone who's a Morman will be blackballed from future work -- unless they're on board with the gay rights agenda, or they're ... Stephanie Meyer.

Some thoughts on the Twilight phenomenon (shout-out to Gina).

FWIW: My reading of the books has been sporadic, so let me know if there are any glaring errors/omissions/etc.

I thought your review raised some interesting points. It's not really an error or omission, but a number of comments I've seen by people who've both read the books and seen the movie note how much more interesting and lively the movie's Bella is than the character in the books (as much as "500% less whiny and passive-aggressive" says Cleolinda, in her "Twilight in 15 minutes" parody, which is much more amusing than the movie itself).

I haven't read the books or seen the movie, but have read enough about them to think that Cleolinda is a genius! Thanks so much for posting the link, Beth. I'm dazzled.

Finally saw this yesterday. I have two complaints:

One, it happened at least three or four times that I found myself thinking, "But wait a minute, shouldn't Bella be asking [fill in the blank] right now?" -- and then, about 5 or 10 or 15 minutes later, someone would happen to do or say something which answered my question, but Bella herself never got around to asking the question that she should have been asking. Case in point:


So, to whoever it was who complained that Bella herself is far too passive: Yeah, no kidding.

Two, I can almost, sort of, buy the movie's explanation for why a 100-year-old guy like Edward might continue to pose as a high-school student. What I have difficulty accepting is that a 100-year-old guy like Edward would continue to ACT and THINK and BEHAVE like a high-school student. It's a far, far cry from Kirsten Dunst's performance in Interview with the Vampire, which was so creepy precisely because Dunst was only 12 or 13 years old, yet she acted like a woman ten times that age.

Speaking of which ...

If Box Office Mojo is to be believed, Twilight is now one of only three vampire movies to gross over $100 million, the others being Interview with the Vampire (1994, $105.3 million) and Van Helsing (2004, $120.2 million). And by tomorrow, Twilight should be at the top of that particular heap.

Oh, BTW, I don't want to be COMPLETELY down on this film. I actually kinda liked the dad character, and his relationship with his daughter, such as it was.

Hardwicke Fired Off 'Twilight' Franchise
So the rumors are true. I've confirmed that Summit Entertainment is taking Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke off the sequel in this big new franchise. No doubt my posting this will speed up the studio's announcement, and Summit will surely try to spin this as all going down amicably. But that's only true between Summit and Hardwicke's CAA agent, not with the director herself. Worse, this terrible news for Hardwicke comes just as she and the Twilight cast are on their European press tour. No doubt, tomorrow's interviews in France will now focus entirely on what, if anything, Catherine did to deserve this treatment. This also could blow up into a scandal for Summit if it chooses a male director over Hardwicke, whose Twilight easily beat Mimi Leder's 1998 Deep Impact box office gross as the biggest opener for a female director. That was a record embraced by Hollywood feminists as a sign of growing gal power. Now Hardwicke's career will surely be damaged by this very public firing. Summit already has started preparing the Twilight sequel New Moon, based on Meyer's second book in the series, and, to contain costs, the studio is considering making Meyer's third book Eclipse back to back). . . .
Nikki Finke, Deadline Hollywood Daily, December 7

- - -

I find this fascinating, since the film was produced, in part, by the same producers who worked with Hardwicke on The Nativity Story; SDG and I interviewed them all in the same room (though not at the same time) on the junket two years ago. So clearly there are SOME people who don't mind working with Hardwicke on more than one film. I wonder who, exactly, at the studio made this decision -- assuming that Finke is, in fact, correct about this.

Focus on the Family under fire for praising Twilight.

Yes, you read that right.

Quick! Call Ted Slater!

"Plugged In Relishes Human Blood"?

A cursory read suggests that the Plugged In review is about as mixed as Camerin Courtney's SatC review was.

As for any comment on the Twilight phenomenon itself, I can hardly add to what my pal Tonio K. had to say many years ago.

The name of the linked blog is classic. I think I'll start a blog called "LilPieceofPergamum."

Slices of Sardis?
Thirds of Thyatira?

Caryl Matrisciana, the same gal who's criticizing the Plugged In review, also takes the CT review to task for, of all things, having discussion questions in the "Talk About It" section at the end. She doesn't address the content of said questions; she's just upset about the fact that they are there at all:

Except by Caryl, it would seem.

I agree that Hegelian dialoguing is a problem. I'd much rather engage in Heiglian dialogue. She's much prettier than Hegel ever was.

In other news ... will Golden Compass director Chris Weitz take over the franchise?