(no subject)
Nov. 21st, 2008 10:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficI love Roger Ebert. From his review of Twilight:
And he still gives it 2 1/2 stars, because Roger Ebert, unlike almost any other critic, understands genre expectations and know that this will be candy for its target audience.
From other early reports, sounds like this will be a fantastically terrible movie to watch. Still won't pay to see it in theaters, though.
Come on now, what is "Twilight" really about? It's about a teenage boy trying to practice abstinence, and how, in the heat of the moment, it's really, really hard. ... If there were no vampires in "Twilight," it would be a thin-blooded teenage romance, about two good-looking kids who want each other so much because they want each other so much. Sometimes that's all it's about, isn't it? They're in love with being in love.
Edward is 114 years old. He must be really tired of taking biology class. Darwin came in during his watch, and proved vampires can't exist. ... He rescues Bella twice that I remember, maybe because he truly loves her, maybe because he's saving her for later.
Why do girls always prefer the distant, aloof, handsome, dangerous dudes instead of cheerful chaps like me?
And he still gives it 2 1/2 stars, because Roger Ebert, unlike almost any other critic, understands genre expectations and know that this will be candy for its target audience.
From other early reports, sounds like this will be a fantastically terrible movie to watch. Still won't pay to see it in theaters, though.