I'm a bit of a snob.
Theatre snob (I even spell it theatre now, thanks to Emerson), book snob (Jodi Picoult blows, people--she DOES!), grammar snob ("its" is the possessive of it; "it's" is a contraction of it is--yes, really), food snob (except for that occasional McDonald's meal), pop culture information snob (I only read classy things like People.com and EW.com, no Jezebel or TMZ or Perez Hilton for me!).
I am in no way, shape, or form, a wine snob. Give me your swilliest, sweetest, most grape-juicy tasting red wine. In fact, give me two glasses of it.
And sometimes three.
And I'll take any chocolate you might have on hand too.
I'm usually somewhat of a movie snob. Most of that, I think, is because of my training and outright judgement of acting and writing, etc.
However, I've also always called myself a pretty naive spectator. I can be swept away by even the silliest or schlockiest of movies.
Which brings me to my next point.
The Twilight Saga.
I was working with teenagers when the books came out and felt very old because I had no idea what they were about or why they were such a phenomenon. Then, I read some of one of the books over someone's shoulder on the subway once and was appalled. THE WRITING IS TERRIBLE!
"Bella said, 'You're beautiful.' Edward said, 'No. You're beautiful.'"
Monosyllabic sentences. No descriptive words.
I am not a fan.
Then...the movies came out.
And the world exploded with RPattz obsession and questions like "Will Kristen Stewart ever smile in public?"
It took me about a year, but I decided I had to see what all the fuss was about. This happened partly after talking to a good friend about how it's really about obsession and longing and unattainable love. She made it sound mildly interesting.
So, I watched the first film, which was terrible. Poorly acted. Poorly written. Poorly produced.
THEN, all that stuff about TAYLOR LAUTNER'S BODY started popping up. And I took notice, even though (vom!) he's only 18.
So...I watched the second movie.
And...I might be hooked.
Granted, I watched the 2 hour, 10 minute-long movie in about three hours because I could barely get through it. I needed frequent breaks because it was so boring in parts.
But also,
a) Taylor Lautner's body is pretty amazing, and I kind of loved how every time Bella saw it she couldn't help but do a double-take;
b) I also loved how every time Bella saw Edward, she couldn't keep the smile off her face--this seemed the most genuine of the acting between Kristen Stewart and Pasty Pattinson;
c) the chemistry between Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner is exponentially more powerful than her chemistry with Pasty Pattinson;
d) this film was far better produced than the first one.
I totally spoiled the next two movies for myself by reading the book synopses and I still don't plan on actually reading the books...but I might actually plan on seeing the movies.
Judge me, if you must.
Like a waterfall in slow motion, Part One
3 years ago
