Roger Ebert hated it.
The New York Times dismissed it as the “big tease that turns into the long goodbye.” (Gotta love the wordplay.)
And rottentomatoes.com ranked it 29% rotten.
Good work, “Twilight Saga: New Moon.” You are even less popular with critics than your predecessor, “Twilight,” which more or less confused journalists last fall, scoring 49% on the freshometer. (Edward actually glamoured the ones that hated it. Fact.)
Of course, “New Moon” wasn’t filmed, edited and released in less than a year to please the critics. It was rushed to theatres to capitalize on the pre-teen, teen and cougar crazies who were screaming for more. (I realize I fall within this group, although my self-awareness makes me a shade less scary).
But while I loved the “Twilight” movie and subsequently read all the books, I hated the “New Moon” book. I know many of my friends felt the same. Hated that Edward left after just a chapter or two. Labored through all the werewolf crap ’cause, seriously — Where the hell was Edward? Of course, I perked up at the end of the book, but if I had encountered Stephenie Meyer on the street at that point, we would have had words.
Director Chris Weitz of “New Moon” knew fans like me were out there, too. So he made a film that’s better than the book. No mistake — he stuck to the story more religiously than even the “Twilight” movie did, but his visual interpretation is more satisfying than Meyer’s original text.
How often does that happen?
Now, granted, I saw the movie at midnight at a theatre in my Upper West Side neighborhood, so you might think I’m a tad giddy. I was worried about staying awake or being coherent. But when 500 other people are watching a movie with you, and they are just as stoked as you are to be there, it makes for a great movie-going experience.
I had a blast. I loved the movie. Story aside, the cinematography, effects and makeup are head-and-shoulders above the original. It’s just a beautiful movie to watch.
Oh — and Edward doesn’t suck either.
Well, he does. But, he doesn’t.
The Twitter-sphere is all abuzz about today’s holiday of note —
The Sticky Egg 
What’s in a name?
I have devoted many a blog post to the all-too-short-lived series Parenthood on NBC.
You may have noticed.
But this weekend, an unrelated article in the Sunday New York Times has brought forth yet another question:
Why did the family name change from Buckman — in the 1989 origin film — to Braverman in the TV series?
I’ve done some research, and apparently I’m not the first to ask this question, but for decidedly different reasons.
Many viewers pointed out that “Braverman” is a surname of Jewish origin, but the Parenthood family is decidedly not so. Others surmised that “Buckman” sounded a bit too Midwestern — where the movie was located — and the name change was necessary to reflect the California setting.
Or was it a bit of an inside joke?
The Sunday New York Times article discussed the evolution of Doc Johnson Enterprises, the ‘first family of pleasure products.’ The family surname? Oh, it’s not Johnson; it’s Braverman. And it got me thinking…
Could one of television’s great family dramas have added this little Easter egg…just for giggles and grins?
Or maybe one of the creators is simply related to a Braverman, or it tested well…neither of which is as fun for me.
Leave a comment
Posted in Commentary, Entertainment, Humor, Life, Television
Tagged Braverman, Buckman, Doc Johnson Enterprises, Easter egg, Jewish origin, Midwestern, New York Times, Parenthood, Parenthood movie, Parenthood tv show