Breaking Dawn: Part 1 (4th Twilight Movie)

[Shlup]

Yes I went to the midnight show. Bed-breaking sex, demon pregnancy, blood-filled sippy cups, spine breakage, babies that bite--I've been waiting for this movie for years.

While the quality of the story will always be up for debate, the film is an excellent adaptation of the book. The director knew what the fans wanted, and I daresay it's both sexier and more gruesome than the text.

All of my favorite moments were in it. There was tons of awkward giggling. And the wigs finally looked like actual hair.

I liked this movie much more than the book.

[Jessweeee♪]

Part one got past the spine breaking part? So uh, does this mean Part 2 will actually have some sort of conflict besides the bad guys going "oh okay I guess we'll all just go home then." Because as I recall that is literally all that happens afterwards xD

[NorthernChaosGod]

I liked this movie much more than the book.

I don't see how anyone could not; they cut up all the bad parts of Meyer's writing and leave only the important elements.

Were you surrounded by giggling teenage girls?

[chionos]

Yes I went to the midnight show. Bed-breaking sex, demon pregnancy, blood-filled sippy cups, spine breakage, babies that bite--I've been waiting for this movie for years.

While the quality of the story will always be up for debate, the film is an excellent adaptation of the book. The director knew what the fans wanted, and I daresay it's both sexier and more gruesome than the text.

All of my favorite moments were in it. There was tons of awkward giggling. And the wigs finally looked like actual hair.

I liked this movie much more than the book.

By this do you mean that the movie is nothing like the book? Because that's the only thing that could make the movie an excellent adaptation. And I'm not just a hater. I tried.

[Shlup]

Part one got past the spine breaking part? So uh, does this mean Part 2 will actually have some sort of conflict besides the bad guys going "oh okay I guess we'll all just go home then." Because as I recall that is literally all that happens afterwards xD

It ended where everyone seemed to assume it would end. In fact, it ended with the exact shot I guessed that it would when they first announced they were splitting it into two movies. (SPOILER)A close-up of Bella's eyes opening red.

I didn't think they'd put in the spine breaking, but they did, and it was far more brutal than I pictured it in the book. My face, it was horrified.

There's a scene in the middle of the credits that sets up the next movie. I still can't imagine anything interesting really happening in the next movie, since nothing interesting happens in the book, but the director managed to take the best parts of the first half and turn it into something pretty good sooo...

I liked this movie much more than the book.

I don't see how anyone could not; they cut up all the bad parts of Meyer's writing and leave only the important elements.

If you read the first three books and watch the first three movies, you will see exactly how several people could not. The first movie was bad, and the second and third were probably about as good as the books.

Were you surrounded by giggling teenage girls?

I was surrounded by giggling adult women. Though I couldn't much hear them over my own giggling.

By this do you mean that the movie is nothing like the book? Because that's the only thing that could make the movie an excellent adaptation. And I'm not just a hater. I tried.

I didn't say that the movie was good, I said that it was an excellent adaptation of the book. There's a distinct difference there.

[chionos]

I've read the books (because I was a librarian and felt it necessary) and seen the movies so far (because I like exploring how books translate to the screen) and each time I was disappointed that the movies didn't stray further from the books. I don't know how I would take the movies without the context of anti-twilight hatred touted by most guys (whether honest or a product of social inertia). Meyer's vampires aren't any more melodramatic (the element of the books/movies other than sparkliness most often cited as evidence of poor quality, and I choose to ignore the sparkling as non-existent as darkness in the hearts of man) than Anne Rice's vampires. From your description of the movie, it sounds like it's darker than before, so it may happen that I don't retch upon seeing it. I honestly hope so. Spine breaking and babies that bite are always cool. As is bed breaking sex. And only one of these things I can experience on my own.


Yes, babies that bite.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I liked this movie much more than the book.

I don't see how anyone could not; they cut up all the bad parts of Meyer's writing and leave only the important elements.

If you read the first three books and watch the first three movies, you will see exactly how several people could not. The first movie was bad, and the second and third were probably about as good as the books.

I happened to think the first movie was far superior to the first book. It took out all the troutty writing, a lot of the awkward dialogue and most of the smurfing descriptions of Ed's Adonis-like physique. I think anything would be better when you cut out the purple prose.

Were you surrounded by giggling teenage girls?

I was surrounded by giggling adult women. Though I couldn't much hear them over my own giggling.

It was one or the other.

[Shlup]

Okay, one could consider the first movie better than the first book. But only because the first book is so bad. The special effects in the first one are unbearable.

[Miriel]

I thought this review of the movie by Entertainment Weekly was hilarious: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn--Part 1 Review | Movie Reviews and News | Fall Movies - Calendar, Trailers, Movie Photos, Movie Clips, Movie Guide | EW.com

How bad are Kristen Stewart's facial tics/verbal stuttering in this movie? I want to see the birth scene, but I don't think I can handle an entire movie of Stewarts, lip chewing and mumbling.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Okay, one could consider the first movie better than the first book. But only because the first book is so bad. The special effects in the first one are unbearable.

Lol. So are the effects a lot better now?

[Chris]

I hate how I will most likely force myself to go see this one, as I did with the others - liking it in the process.

[Shlup]

She's still all constantly flustered and mumbly, of course, but there's definitely less frantic blinking, and her mouth is closed a higher percentage of the time than in previous movies.

I read the review you posted, but, honestly, I can't stand it when reviewers get all high-horse about "messages" and "morals." Yes, the overall moral of the Twilight Saga isn't dandy, but tit like "this series teaches girls that having a baby will kill you" is such a gross exaggeration that it's just irritating. For such a shallow interpretation of a story to not make me want to slap the author, it has to be a lot more humorous than that wank.

Okay, one could consider the first movie better than the first book. But only because the first book is so bad. The special effects in the first one are unbearable.

Lol. So are the effects a lot better now?

Yeah, I thought the effects in the second and third ones were fine too. It's hard to make a character move all super fast without it looking stupid. And I like it when fight scenes do the fast-slomo-fast-slomo-fast-slomo thing, which they did a lot in the second one.

[Miriel]

Eh, I agree 100% with Lisa Schwarzbaum (whose reviews I generally agree with). The moral messages in Twilight ARE overt, and on almost all levels, disturbing.

I mean, I can read these books and watch these movies with the knowledge that all this is just SO screwed up and be able to laugh at the ridiculousness. But it creeps me the smurf out that my little pre-teen cousins gobble this stuff up and don't view Bella Swan and Edward with the appropriate level of disgust.

[Shlup]

I think their relationship in general is a horrible thing to idealize. It's this part that bugged me:

What we learn in this all-pain/no-pleasure episode is that marriage feels like a life sentence, weddings are miserable events, honeymoon sex is dangerous and leaves a bride covered in bruises, and pregnancy is a torment that leads to death in exchange for birth. Also, during pregnancy, families fight like werewolves and vampires.

Those kinds of shallow over generalizations, where the reviewer ignores every moment that contradicts their cynical view, bug me. Unless it's funny, and not just snarky. At their wedding they were all happy and kissy and in love. The honeymoon sex was dangerous because he's a fictional creature with weird control issues. That kind of pettiness discredits the actual poor moral of the story: Bella and Edward's extreme co-dependency issues being treated as hot and romantic. Which they are, but kids certainly don't need to be internalizing that as having anything to do with reality.

It's stupid and it bugs me. Just like when people go off on movies like Beauty and the Beast with "Oh, just another movie about a guy falling for a girl just because she's pretty--soooo sexist," and neglecting the part where Belle is kind and patient and well-read and wins him over by demanding better behavior of him. Yeah, it's still smurfed up that she falls in love with a guy who's holding her prisoner, but people would rather being nit-picky bulltroutters than pay attention to what's actually happening.

You hit one of my pet peeves, Miriel.

[Miriel]

I don't want to live in a world where ANY level of snarkiness towards Twilight isn't applauded.