sunset

I went to see Twilight on Sunday -- you might even say I saw it at twilight. I was there one-quarter out of interest to see what had been done with the book, one-quarter out of a desire to experience the newest fad to hit the pre-teens, and one-half out of amusement for the whole thing. I met a friend, just as amused as I, at the $3 theater, and we giggled and crunched on popcorn through the entire movie.

But not everyone noticed my proud detachment from the experience. When I went to buy my ticket, the man in the ticket booth asked me, "How many times have you seen it?" A little taken aback, I stumbled, "Um. Once. I mean, this is my first time." I smiled guiltily. He, surprised, said "Really?" and smiled hesitantly. I walked quickly to meet my friend (who had seen it more than once). Do I look like a pre-teen? Maybe. Will I see the sequel? Probably. (If not only to see Edward again. Actually -- I was more taken with Dr. Cullen. His appearance on screen for the first time caused me to gasp, my friend to look at me with embarrassment, and both of us to break into a fresh round of giggles.)


I am not a film critic, nor am I a book critic. Not to belittle Stephanie Meyer's attempt at the Great American Novel; the world she created was quite original, but her execution was less impressive than, say, J.K. Rowling's. I wholeheartedly embraced the Harry Potter phenomenon. And, where Harry Potter was charming and well-written, Twilight is awkward and choppy. Where Harry Potter's plot was intricate and interwoven, Twilight's is little more than a complicated love story (though I found the book sexually charged, the lovers appropriately don't have sex until after they're married). There are worse things for kids to read -- or watch. In fact, I thought the plot lent itself quite nicely to a Hollywood movie, and the special effects weren't half bad. Maybe it's unfair of me to compare it, or anything else, to Harry Potter, but that still doesn't change the laughingly awkward first half of the movie.