2 of 3

While I think most fans will be happy with the film, I think the movie proves that books can sometimes get away with sappiness and clichés that movies don't; onscreen, they are pretty groan-worthy. Also, while the book captures girls' hearts, the movie's love story without Meyer's description is kinda mundane. Another issue with the change in medium is that a movie doesn't let one's imagination work as a book does.Meyer's fantastical narratives are very detailed and create great mental pictures.On screen, they sometimes can't compete with what's in your head.In one popular portion of the book, for example, Edward dramatically shows why vampires don't go in the sunlight.On the printed page, the description is thrilling. In the movie, flawed special effects make it look like he's just really sweaty.

These types of things won't impress new audiences the way the book grabbed readers. Like Hardwicke struggled with in The Nativity Story, her integration of the supernatural into the natural world can come off cheesy and overdone. Almost all the special effects (save for that great ending fight) are almost laughable—like the vampires' super speed, which looks more like what I call "Muppet Running." You know how when Kermit would walk, you could tell he was hung by wires and his legs didn't really hit the ground with each step? That's what happens here, defying the laws of physics. In addition, the make-up of the pale Cullen family can seem very caked on and fakey at times. Plus, the vampires are asked to say silly things like, "Hold on tight, spider monkey!"

The romance thickens

Other than the bloodsuckers, the rest of the film is pretty good. The Pacific Northwest scenery is lush and beautiful. The characters are right out of the book—as is the soft humor and endearing relationships like that between Bella and her dad. And, for 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.

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.

Talk About It

1. Why is the "bad boy" image sometimes attractive to girls?
2. In the end, Edward is caught up in revenge against James when Carlisle says, "Remember who you are." He stops his attack, only for the other Cullens to finish the job. Why is it OK for them, but not for Edward?
   
   
3. Read Mark 7:21-23, Matthew 4:1-11, Romans 7:14-24. What do these verses say about our desires and temptations? How are Edward's attempts not to give in to his evil desires like the life of a Christian? In what ways does the movie show Edward setting boundaries—as Christians often do—to avoid temptations?
   
   
4. Some say that Deuteronomy 12:23-25, which forbids eating blood, is reason enough for Christians to avoid vampire stories and movies. Is that an appropriate application of that verse? Why or why not?
   
   
5. What do you think of Bella's desire to become a vampire so she can be with Edward forever? Would it be worth it? Read Matthew 16:26.
   
   

next page... |  2 of 3