Change Your Image
Irisheyes0717
Reviews
Twilight (2008)
Good supplement to the novel; doesn't stand on its own as a film.
I'd like to preface this review by saying that, being an avid fan of the series, I really enjoyed this movie. That being said, I have to admit that this is a very bad film. Sound contradictory? Let me explain.
Much of this movie will be inaccessible to people who have not read the series. Many of the facial expressions, much of the dialogue, and some of the plot makes sense only when supplemented by Stephenie Meyer's text. The director leaves out (perhaps necessarily due to time constraints) much of Bella's inner monologue, and many important confrontations between Bella and Edward. Those who have read the novels understand that the two main characters are fated to be together, but those members of the audience who lack the context of the books will perhaps find the amorous relationship between Bella and Edward underdeveloped and unsatisfying. When Edward tells Bella "you are my life now," fans of the book will sigh with contentment while newcomers to the Swan/Cullen dynamic will feel uncomfortable with the rapid progression of their story.
Of course, as my audience at the midnight screening on opening night proved, fans of the series will not be disappointed by this film. Sure, there are a few times when unforgivable CGI work (Edward in the sun) or poor dialogue ("remember who you are," which sounded more like Mufasa than Carlisle) threaten to undermine the fantasy love-story that is "Twilight." But admirable acting from the cast (particularly Pattinson, Stewart, Burke, and Facinelli), fantastic cinematography, and a competent score save this film from becoming a teen story more comparable to "High School Musical" than "Romeo and Juliet." This is, after all, a love story, scripted though it is in a world inhabited by vampires, and fans of the series will be thrilled, as I was, to see that story come to life on the screen.
Yet, herein lies the problem with the film, and also the explanation of my inability to rate it above a 5: films are not novels. Films should be able to stand on their own, and reading the source text should not be necessary, even in an adaptation. This movie, as much as I liked it, is little more than a supplement to the novels, and does not work on its own as a film. In my opinion, this is why it is getting such consistently poor reviews, which are, while unfortunate, most likely accurate.
The good news (and yes, there is good news!) is that the fan base for this series is so devoted and so forgiving, that the actors (at least, at the time of this review, the director had not yet been announced) have been given a second shot to make a truly good film, since "New Moon" has been scheduled for production. "New Moon" is far and away my favorite book of the series, not because I love Jacob or enjoy seeing Bella get her heart ripped out, but because true love can only exist in a world that also holds the possibility of pain, and nowhere do I see this paradox articulated more clearly than in "New Moon." I do hope that those involved with the production of the next film will learn from their mistakes and produce a richer, more beautiful film than we were given in "Twilight." I hope for this, not because I'm disappointed with the effort put forth here (remember, I honestly liked this film!), but because by creating a film that stands on its own, people who are not big readers, or who don't have access to the series, will be able to see, on screen, what amounts to a very touching story of innocence, sacrifice, and love.
Dying Young (1991)
A film that takes off -- but forgets how to fly
To put it simply, the opening third of this film is intense. Quite intense. Campbell Scott's Vincent is a tortured young man who only wants to live enough to prepare himself for death. Julia Roberts' Hillary is essentially her Vivian from Pretty Woman (I hope everyone who sees this film is as unimpressed as I was with the shameless allusion to Pretty Woman when Hillary steps off the bus in -- gasp -- a red suit), but it suits the film well. But the passionate acting from Roberts, yes, but mostly Scott absolutely rends one's heart. When Hillary declares that she thought "this guy was going to die," the audience is right there with her. Scott's performance is so rare and so special during these opening minutes because he is not self-pitying. He is aware of his disease, and he's trying to fight it. He's beyond emotional pain, and as he struggles through the physical pain, we start to feel it too. By the time Victor announces that his treatment is finished and he's ready for a vacation, the audience is ready for one too--it's really too much to watch a character we're instantly so attracted to come so close to death so many times.
However, with the change of scenery comes a change of momentum. This is not surprising considering how emotional the opening third of the movie is--I'm not sure any movie could sustain that degree of intensity for the length of a feature film. Sadly though, the couple's time in the beach house becomes, as one critic put it, a kind of music video which features long shots of "endearing" moments between the two main characters. I would have liked to see more *real* discussions, interactions, etc. between the two than the endless close-ups of their pretty faces. The townsfolk are superfluous--essentially they're stock characters, cut-outs of real people that serve no real purpose in the film. Vincent D'Onofrio's Gordon is the most confusing character of all. He seems to have some sort of flirtation with Hillary, but this is never developed, explained, or resolved. A shame, as it could have added more drama to a section of the film that was sorely lacking in any sort of dramatic effect.
The ending of the movie isn't bad, but it never quite recovers the momentum of the earlier section. However, I find that no matter how much I dislike the middle part of the film, I keep thinking about the film as a whole, and really really liking it. If you're prone to it, this film will probably make you cry. If you're not interested in tears, it's still worth watching because at the very least it will make you appreciate how lucky you are to not be going through what Vincent goes through--not having to make the decisions or sacrifices he makes each day.
I recommend watching it at least once and forming your own opinion.
Jane Eyre (2006)
Reader, beware...
For those of you who love Bronte's novel--her craft, her language, her characters--you will be sorely disappointed by this most recent adaptation. Rochester and Jane's relationship is reduced to a mere Gen X copy of an outstanding original. The deep, heartfelt passion that Rochester and Jane share at the end of the novel is replaced with primitive sexuality. The original language is likewise stripped of its passion and replaced with a trite script that completely lacks life or love. I was constantly reminded of the projects I used to have to do in high school where we were asked to put Shakespeare's words into "plain English." The result is invariably disastrous, and this adaptation is no exception. Both leads are miscast, as are many of the supporting characters (Bertha for instance, is almost beautiful in the film, despite being described as having an ugly "purple" face in the novel).
And yet, for all that, it's not the *worst* adaptation I've seen. The cinematography is far better than any previous version. Blanche Ingram is portrayed splendidly, and the first proposal scene is actually slightly moving (despite the language). And, if nothing else, all the press this version is getting will undoubtedly provoke many young girls into reading the far superior novel, which will undoubtedly touch and continue to touch their lives forever.
If you're looking for a version that's true to Bronte's original work, I suggest the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton. Although no version quite has it right (I am not a fan of Zelah Clarke's portrayal of Jane in the Dalton version), this is the closest I have seen. Because of its running time, it allows for a convincing and faithful representation of the novel. And, best of all, it retains Bronte's original language and passion better than any version to date. However, if you're looking for what basically amounts to a four hour chick-flick complete with "pretty" actors and "sexy" language, then stick with this 2007 version.
Better still, read the book.