I’m glad I saw “Twilight” for one reason: It made the phrase “jump the shark” obsolete, to be potentially replaced with “The vampires are playing baseball.”
It’s tough to make any sports scene look dramatically convincing on film, and when superpowers get involved it’s just about impossible. If you were unlucky enough to see “Catwoman” you’ll surely never forget the part where Halle Berry goes all “Space Jam” and dunks on Benjamin Bratt. The offending scene in “Twilight” – which turns out to be pretty important to the plot – is just as painfully funny.
It starts with an explanation that vampires, who secretly have always loved baseball because it’s “America’s pastime” (that they subscribe to such a notion is proof enough that they’ve lived for hundreds of years and haven’t kept up on current events) but can only play during lightning storms because they hit the baseballs SO FRIKKIN’ HARD that people would get suspicious so they need the thunder to cover for them.
And boy, do they jack that ball. Vampiric superstrength and sensitivity may not do much for a player’s pitching ability – the fellas toss Byung-Hyun Kim style meatballs, but they sure can handle the stick. A chick hammers the first pitch several hundred yards, causing vampire wannabe heroine Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) to stare up in wonder and exclaim that it must be a home run. But no, her vampire love, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) chases down the rock and throws the runner out from maybe a mile away. Guy is almost as good as Torii Hunter. Bella has the pleasure of making the call, because measly humans aren’t allowed to play but they are allowed to ump.
And that’s only the beginning of the madness. My favorite part had a couple fielders doing slow-mo pirouettes 20 feet off the air to snag pop flies, only to collide as the ball trickled to the ground. Then three other vampires come out of the woods and ask to play. As Jason Mewes says in “Mallrats,” this is one wacky gameshow.
That’s about all I have to say about the movie, which as a whole isn’t bad in that old WB channel sort of way. Basically “Dawson’s Creek” with people who are a little bit more pale. Bella, a Phoenix transplant who’s moved to rural Washington to live with her dad and court the undead, has got it bad for Edward Scissor-fangs. So bad, she wants to spend forever with him. Edward, though, holds off on vampiring her, not because he’s chivalrous, nor because he’s afraid he’ll violate a statutory rape law that disallows 107-year-olds from romancing girls of 17, but because I think he’d like to spend a few decades with her, throw a nice Christian funeral, and then, you know, be single again.
I don’t understand the “Titanic”-like frenzy over this movie, but then, I don’t understand women. Nor have I read the book.
Which I’ll need to do now just to see how Stephenie Meyer inspired the baseball scene that turned into comic gold on film. And I definitely, DEFINITELY want to play a “Twilight” baseball video game now. 2 stars
ONE CRITIC CALLED IT RIGHT:“DRACULA MEETS GOSSIP GIRL”. MY QUESTION IS,WHERE’S BUFFY WHEN YOU REALLY NEED HER? AND ABOUT THAT BASEBALL SCENE:DIDN’T OCCUR TO THE COACHES OR THE UMPIRE THAT THE KIDS MIGHT HAVE BEEN DOING STEROIDS? IT WOULD HAVE MADE IT MORE CREDIBLE HAD THEY TESTED POSITIVE AND BEEN BOOTED OFF THE TEAM.
— JEREMY 11/21/2008 08:47 PM #
Phil: love your reviews. Totally disagree w/ your review of Twilight. Read the book. You’ll have a better understanding of the actual story (baseball scene is important, but it’s not the be-all, end-all of the story) and maybe even a better understanding of women since it’s told from a woman’s perspective. I will tell you that women of all ages are enchanted by Edward because he’s a gentleman who truly loves Bella. That’s something we all want…
Respectfully,
Shannon
— Shannon 11/22/2008 09:27 AM #
I also do love your reviews and I agree that Twilight could have been a lot better but I did read the books and you certainly do not know what you are talking about, if you read the books you would know that edward doesn’t want to turn bella because he doesnt want ‘to take her soul’ but he gives in because he loves her so although you usually have every good reviews you probably shouldn’t talk until you know what you’re saying.
— Jessica 11/22/2008 10:01 AM #
I don’t understand why everyone who defends this movie uses the defense that “you’re not getting it, because you didn’t read the book”. It’s a movie! Not a DVD that came with the book when you purchased it! So many books have been adapted to film, and have been great to people who never picked up the book. Jurassic Park, Kite Runner, I am Legend, Lawrence of Arabia, etc etc. The story is just kind of cornball-ish, and it’s very obvious who the direct audience is: pre-teen/teen girls. I got dragged to it by my girlfriend, and had all my years of avoiding WB programs gone to waste by one movie that felt three hours long.
— Joe the Plumber 11/22/2008 10:44 AM #
Who cares if critics don’t like it, it’s always the buying public’s opionion that really matters! So enough of us like it, it becomes a hit. Most of the movies critcs rave over totally suck in my opionin and I am 40 years old!
— Wendy 11/22/2008 11:15 AM #
I heartily agree with your review, and I’d just like to let you know that I’m an eighteen year old girl, and I couldn’t understand the appeal of the series either. I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s a widespread sexual fantasy among women and teenage girls that I don’t have. Anyway, it’s definitely not all women who love this series. I personally detested it.
— Ilana 11/22/2008 12:30 PM #
Jessica the main problem with your point is that this is a movie. So its the movies job to portray that to us. If we have to read a book before watching a movie to understand the plot then that is a sign of a poorly made movie.
— Jason 11/22/2008 01:25 PM #
If you need to watch a book to appreciate its film adaptation, then the film has failed.
Also, Phil, don’t feel you don’t understand women. I’m a woman and I don’t understand the Twilight hype.
— Kelsey 11/22/2008 01:37 PM #
Learn to write a decent review my friend. You cannot trash a movie due to one part that upsets you. Plus, this is a MOVIE review so when you are reviewing a movie based off a book, it is not correct to really criticize the plot unless you have read the book because when you criticize the plot, you’re reviewing the book more than the movie. How was the direction? the acting? the effects? you cannot pull apart every plot detail since it wasn’t rly written by the creators of the movie. Be more professional
— Daniella 11/22/2008 02:40 PM #
Phil –
I LOVE this review.
I read Twilight, and as a woman, I didn’t think Edward was gentleman. I thought he was kinda stalker-ish and manipulative. And I just don’t get the hype.
I now want to see this movie, though. Because it sounds to be just as cheesy as the book. And while I don’t generally enjoy reading cheesy books, I love watching cheesy movies.
Also, I’m gonna agree with the first poster – where’s Buffy/Joss Whedon when you need him? The whole Buffy/Angel tortured vampire romance concept was handled much better in his hands.
— Chasmosaur 11/22/2008 03:12 PM #
As an eighteen year old girl, I have to say that all of my peers who swoon over this drivel really, really need to get a life and stop crushing on your daddies. Also, learn how to ATM. It will get you much further in life.
— JustWow 11/22/2008 03:33 PM #
Daniella:
“you cannot pull apart every plot detail since it wasn’t rly written by the creators of the movie.”
As I recall, Mrs. Meyer had, in her contract, basically full executive rights over the movie and its content. She had the power to veto things, to force things to happen… She wasn’t a passive participant in this. She seems to have declared it “faithful.”
Again, a movie based upon a book should not require reading the book to “get” the plot. Harry Potter movies you can watch without having ever picked up a book, and still enjoy them. The Count of Monte Cristo you can watch without having ever picked up the brick that it was based on, and enjoy. I am Legend you wouldn’t need the book to enjoy, and many don’t even know that it was based upon a book (the book’s ending was different, as I recall). Lord of the Rings was understandable without having to read the trilogy. Iron Man was understandable without having read the series.
Catch a theme here?
Twilight, obviously, through many reviews, both from people who’ve read the travesty and those who have not (see: RottenTomatoes, 44% Rotten) don’t quite “get it.” The problem isn’t that they haven’t read the books, or bought into the hype.
The problem is the movie is inadequate, and fans themselves (of which I am not one) realize this too (most are griping it was poorly cast, at the very least).
Instead of trashing this informative and clever review because you don’t like its views on your beloved Twilight; perhaps it should be taken as a sign that perhaps they should do better for the next movie to make something good, rather than explaining away inferior work with “OMG U DONT UNDERSSTAAAAAAAND, it’s ALL IN THE BOOK.” He said he’d be reading the books, perhaps he’ll then see just how creepy and abusive Edward is, and just how hilarious and bizarre this whole phenomenon truly happens to be. (Not that the book makes this make any more sense. Sparkly vampires? Bwahaha. Way to perpetuate bad movie stereotypes, Mrs. Meyer. Vampires used to be able to go out in the sun in literature… Perhaps check out Dracula sometime?)
Kudos to the great review, made me laugh. :)
— J 11/22/2008 03:39 PM #
Twilight (the novel) does a disservice to women, vampires, single parents, people who think…
I could go on and on. I mean, really, Meyer, who wants a man who’s so hard you could chip a tooth on him? Also Edward? More stalker than romantic figure. Really.
As for the review, thank you. I may have to see the movie just for the yucks.
— Stephenie 11/22/2008 05:20 PM #
“The vampires are playing baseball” is a brilliant replacement for “jump the shark,” but unfortunately for you that has already been nullified by the phrase, “ate the Fonze.”
— Riley 11/22/2008 05:27 PM #
I think it became obsolete with Indy 4. “Nuke the Fridge”
— Joe 11/22/2008 10:54 PM #
Believe me, reading the book, though possibly explaining more of the story, will not make it any better. Instead you’ll spend a week smashing your head against a wall from the repetitive, artsy descriptions and wondering why Bella’s internal monologue sounds like that of a woman from the 1800s. I think I could live without ever hearing the phrase “marble skin” again. There are other synonyms for pale, you know. Not only that, the love story seems forced, Bella seems to have been made special for no reason, and the anti-social vampires sitting undisturbed and gossiped about in their world of apathetic isolation just seems unrealistic.
I can see where folks can fall in love with parts the love story; some of the lines in there had me when I first read it. Still, with proper observation it seems too forced, Bella only hungrily obsessed, unhealthily codependent and masochistic, and Edward after Bella because for no apparent reason she’s “special”. Those miraculous lines almost made me forget how horrible the rest of the book was. I was seventeen and eighteen while reading it, too. Twilight would probably be the greatest literary trick. When you stop following the lovey-dovey-dreams of the book and actually pay attention to what you’re reading, you feel like you’ve been date-raped by a book.
I love how you relate it to a pale Dawson’s Creek, that’s exactly what it is. You have it perfect there. And Kelsey is right, if the movie doesn’t explain the story enough without reading it, it fails. Though, even if it had explained most of the story, it likely would not have been any better. Great review, sir.
— Kira 11/23/2008 01:11 AM #
Difficult to be all things to all people.
The films job is to make money in the end and deliver it’s goods to the 17 million buyers of the book.
Does it fulfill the dreamy eyed youthful dream of dangerous & impossible love that haunts the corridors of tornado-swirling hormone injected minds & bodies. I suspect it does. Job done!
— Sofia Esteben 11/23/2008 05:12 PM #
Haha! I read the book and it was awful but addictive. As someone who normally avoids poorly-written literature, I cannot explain to you why I read it to the end, and why I want to read the followup novels. The movie was hilarious and all the people in the theater I saw it at laughed hysterically, all of us in on the joke, it seems. Also, correction: SPARKLY vampires playing baseball. ;)
— Carmen 11/23/2008 08:35 PM #
I actually really enjoyed the movie. I didn’t think I would. There were some pretty cring-worthy moments, but they weren’t really all that bad. Not like Narnia 2 bad or anything that extreme, at least.
I think the worst part of the movie was the excessive voice over. This is a common mistake made when adapting a book into a movie. I think they were doing a fine enough job of visually letting us know what the characters were feeling, so we didn’t need to hear Bella’s thoughts read to us… which is what it feels like, especially when the VO/narration uses colorful language that’s only found in novels and never in the inner-most thoughts of teenage girls.
— Phillip 11/23/2008 09:54 PM #
Me being a 16 year old girl, obviously I’ve read the whole Twilight saga. However, I have to say the only book I’ve actually liked was the second one, the one with only Jacob in it becuase he is an amazing character whereas Edward is a little creepy and stalkerish with his “I watch you sleep”. That line worked better in the book; on screen it was just weird and scary. I completely agree the movie is cheesy and there are so many awkward moments that the movie seemed more of a comedy really. I guess this story is difficult to adapt into film but there were so many bad cuts and edits in the film. The scene where Bella is in the hospital I can tell which scenes were edited in. I think this movie could have been fantastic but I guess the book was just soo long and the director wanted to pack as many events into the movie as possible the movie adaptation of the book really just turned into a narration of events targeted at the young girl fans rather than an ACTUAL movie.
— Jen 11/24/2008 01:47 AM #
True Blood (not the Sookie Stackhouse books) but the show. Took this same tired “Sympathetic Vampire Romeo Juliet” story and handled it much better.
Vampires, Aliens, Creatures of the Unknown are supposed to be walking talking metaphors with opinions.
They aren’t supposed to be plot devices.
What I think people aren’t getting about this review is that when an audience sits in a movie theater there is one major question they ask: WHY?
Why are 100 year old creatures of the night playing baseball?
If the answer is: Because the two main characters need to demonstrate something really important.
Then the story fails.
— Fablewriter 11/24/2008 03:43 AM #
I’m a 27 yr old adult who has read all the books and loved them. It’s great when a book comes along that gets kids to read. The movie however was terrible. It’s the only movie I have ever seriously considered walking out of. Only my morbid curiosity as to how much worse it could get kept me in my seat. Where to start? Absolutely awful acting from 85% of the actors (the only good acting was from the small supporting roles, such as Charlie, Mike Newton, and Jessica Stanley), the horrible over the top and as my husband put it dizzying camera work, the cheap effects, the hurried story that lacked depth and left room for no character or plot development…I could go on forever. And as others have commented, a movie goer should not have to read the books in order to understand the movie. I give the movie a big fat F.
— Crystal 11/24/2008 08:37 AM #
Ok Ok Ok – Phil is totally right. A movie – not the book – a movie should stand on its own. There should be no prerequisite for seeing the movie. Just like Harry Potter, who has a following of people who love it that have never read past chapter one of the book.
— Anthony 11/24/2008 10:46 AM #
J…you bring up an excellent point and after posting that comment i thought more into it and did realize that the movie should stand alone. on a side note I had not seen the movie when posting that comment so i really shouldn’t have been talking.
For the record I was not defending the movie just because I am a fan of the book. As I have been emailing the writer of this review I think the issue isn’t comparison from book v. movie, but keeping in mind the targeted audience. certainly no movie is for all people, and Twilight is no exception. I admit after seeing the movie and reading the book it is awfully cheesy, pretty flawed, and distant from the legends of vampires we all know (or SHOULD know) and love, but I am a teenage girl who loves my good juicy romances and if I’m lyin’ I’m dyin’ if that’s not what twilight is for. I find the point of reviews is so people debating on whether to watch or read or see (or whatever the review is about) something or not, so you should really include all audiences.
So basically: Men and anybody who is not into cheesy romances, this IS NOT FOR YOU.
Teenage Screaming Girls That Dig Skinny Jeans and the Jonas Brothers? I’m with you and I say Go TWILIGHT!!!!! Not NEARLY the best movie but it sure satisfied my taste.
Back to you J thank you for not taking just an unintelligent jab at me I hate those, and thank you for finding my review, “entertaining”. I have to say your response was quite entertaining as well.
— Daniella 11/24/2008 12:10 PM #
What??? An entire review of a two-hour film billed as as supernatural romantic thriller devoted to a five-minute BASEBALL SCENE? Did you think you were reviewing a sports film?
Twilight isn’t likely to win any awards (save “best kiss” from MTV), but it, and your readers, certainly deserve a more cogent, thoughtful review than this.
Maybe you should ask your wife or girlfriend what she thought about Twilight. If you have one, that is.
— Dahlia 11/27/2008 02:24 AM #
ok so we got Dahlia there with here snide remarks but if you ask me its more likely for a romance crazed girl to be alone then a person who knows a bad movie when he see’s it.
Regardless I want to adress something here with Daniella there. I can see this movie doing well with the demographic that likes cheezy romantic movies but myself oddly enough being a fan of movies like that have to say that this is a not a very good one.
I mean if I really wanted a movie like this Id rather watch 10 things I hate about you, 16 Candles, Breakfast Club, Love Actually, Run Fatboy Run, About a Boy, The Bridget Jones movies…ect. Yes those are all cheeze but there still better then this.
And my god Dahlia instead of trying to insult somebody for not agreeing with your narrow opinion perhaps you should get a life. Funny story my girlfriend thought twilight was horrible but shes more of an action comedy fan oddly enough. How is it that Im the fan of romance and comedy something must be wrong with me.
— Jason 12/02/2008 12:13 PM #
Me and my friends found Twilight the movie to be hilarious — we laughed through the whole thing.
For those people who claim that the book is far better than the movie… you must have never read a real book in your life. I worship those who haven’t read it. Word of advice: DON’T.
The book is the same as the movie except longer, more gag-inducing, and far less entertaining (unless of course you enjoy reading 400 page-long fan fiction.)
Twilight is sappy dialogue, boring imagination, and pale barbie dolls wrapped up in a sparkly (oops, I meant bloody) bow.
Now this comes from a fifteen year-old, the unfortunate targets of the young adult series. Unfortunately for SMeyer, some teenagers and tweens actually have brain-cells and common sense, unlike our beloved Bella. Unfortunately, the majority of Twilighters don’t.
If Twilight was a novella or a short story (which it SHOULD be), I would be in love with it. Too bad greed and the need to write like an over-dramatic twelve-year-old got the best of SMeyer.
— Shirl 12/09/2008 11:28 PM #