Why is the movie better than the book, in this case? Because there are so many bad puns and references in the reviews! This one doesn't quite make sense (the original phrase is a 19th-century euphemism for homosexuality, used at the trial of Oscar Wilde).
I loved the made-up dialogue between the two lead actors at the premiere here (courtesy of Bookshelves of Doom).
"Nothing to sink your teeth into," says my local newspaper. "The chaste romance might be appropriate, but it is also, well, bloodless."
Aurgh! "Appropriate" to what? Its PG13 rating? The IQ of its fan base? The gloom of my holiday season with no Harry Potter movie?
4 comments:
The IQ of its fan base...
Hey! I resemble that comment! (lol)
Now that I've actually seen the movie, I still think it's better than the book, which was too long-winded and ridiculously worded for me. It makes a good 2-hour movie, though.
"long-winded and ridiculously worded"
I will agree with this. Someone with editing skills should have assisted.
it is shorter than the book, which is a good thing, and I thought the high school scenes were appropriately, cringeingly awkward...but I guess I just didn't buy the Bella-Edward romance. Then again, I'm not sure I bought it in the book, so maybe it's not the movie's fault. I did like the casting and the setting quite a lot.
Post a Comment