Tag Archives: Twilight movie


Finally — truth in advertising!

That’s the unusual approach Reelz Channel is using to promote The Kennedys miniseries premiering April 3rd.

No promise of great performances or exacting historical detail.  Nothing about the content of the program at all, in fact.

Reelz strategy?

Simple exclamations of surprise that the darn thing is airing at all.

“The mini-series  you thought you’d never see on television…”

The most controversial mini-series of our time…”

Yep…that sounds about right.  After the miniseries was deemed “unfit for the History Channel brand,”  it looked like it might languish on a shelf somewhere sight unseen.  But Reelz, whose desire for new subscribers outweighs any pesky ideals, snatched it up.

And now their ads reflect what the audience is no doubt thinking…which is kinda brilliant really.

It makes me wonder:  what would some movie trailers sound like if they took the same tact — honestly over hyperbole?

Films like…

  • Red Riding Hood — “The director of Twilight brings you this shot-by-shot rip-off of Twilight…hoping that the fans of Twilight will come see this classic fairy tale be retold Twilight-style.  There is a wolf, after all.  And Gary Oldman.  He’s scary.”
  • Jane Eyre “Yet another version of the classic you’ve no doubt seen several times already.  Except these actors are even better looking, and we’ve made them look even plainer. Come see the makeup.”
  • The Adjustment Bureau — “Matt Damon.  Emily Blunt.  Men in cool hats.  Lots of running in New York City.  We don’t have to work too hard to sell this film because you’ll come anyway.  Did we mention the cool hats, right?”

I don’t know.  I just spent only a few moments on these tag lines, and I’m kinda liking them.

Can this the start of something honest??

A critical difference

Poor film critics.  Where’s all that popcorn-fueled power today?

Pretty much every one of you trashed “Sex and the City 2” — the plot, the puns, the performances, even the Patricia Field ensembles — and that garment bag of a movie still looks to rake in the big bucks.  Deadline Hollywood reports “SATC2” took in $17 million in its first day alone and predicts a $75 million haul for the holiday weekend.

That’s with only a 16% ‘fresh’ score on rottentomatoes.com and some of the most ridiculous looking trailers ever.

What were they thinking taking “SATC” out of New York City?  Manhattan is the fifth major character in the franchise; setting a majority of the movie elsewhere is like leaving Samantha to dry hump the West Coast.

And why the deserts of Morocco?  Did they see “Ishtar?”  (If they didn’t, here’s a hint:  sucked.)

No, “SATC2” will prevail, critics be damned…for the very reason that films like “Twilight”  set box office records after being dismissed as the lowest form of dime store drivel.  “SATC2” comes with a ready made fan base from the TV series  just as “Twilight” had its base of teenybop readers.

Even if the girls trip and skewer themselves on their stilettos in “SATC2,” their fans wanna watch.  Hell, I’m not even a fan, and I wanna watch….maybe even more so.

Don’t worry.  You can ruin some really good film’s chances one day very soon.

Should you?

I went to see “Remember Me” this morning….but you knew I would.

The question is — should you?

Actually, there are several reasons to see this movie….really.

First, RPatz looks amazing.  They slam Robert’s face into fists, city streets, walls, floors — you name it — and no matter how bloody and bruised and battered he becomes, the camera still loves him.  Even without his Edward Cullen ‘perfection complexion,’ it is a pleasure to spend two hours looking at him on a really large screen.

Second, despite a too familiar poor-little-rich-boy storyline, the movie is well-acted.  Pattinson and Emilie de Raven have nice chemistry, and while Chris Cooper and Pierce Brosnan’s roles are predictable, you can always count on them to give as good as they get.

Third, if you’ve ever lost someone way too young, the movie’s message does ring true.  How the producers chose to drive it home, however, is highly questionable, and probably one of the biggest complaints that the critics have lodged against it.  They went for shock value, but at what a price.

Am I glad I saw it?  Yes.  Was it better than I expected?  Actually, yes.

Would I recommend to my friends?

Are you a girl?  Absolutely.

Trailers no more

Remember movie trailers in the olden days?

They promoted future movies to the captive audience waiting for the feature to begin, of course.  But they also gave the people who were running late another good 15 minutes to get to the theater.

Then the movie theaters added commercials before the trailers to make some extra dough, and suddenly movie audiences had a 20 minute window…which just made them later.

But today, movie trailers are become more and more the featured entertainment — a vehicle to get audiences in those pricey theater seats.

I’ll use “Twilight” as an example (sorry, but they do this stuff pretty well).

The “Eclipse” movie — third in the “Twilight” saga — is scheduled to hit theaters June 2010.  On Tuesday, Summit Entertainment released a 10 second “Eclipse” trailer as a “teaser” online.

Today they released the full 90 second trailer, and audiences who go see Robert Pattinson in “Remember Me” — opening this Friday nationwide — will see this “Eclipse” trailer on most prints.

Brilliant.  Summit is using the “Twilight” mania to drive audiences to “Remember Me.”  I’m sure a lot of these same people would have seen the movie anyway — since RPatz is the star — but the promise of footage of the upcoming “Eclipse” movie pretty much seals the deal.

My local AMC theater even advertises on their marquee when “Twilight” trailers are attached to films.  It’s whack…but it works.

Other films with equally rabid fan bases should pay close attention.

Those 90 second shorts can get butts in the seats.

Back, then forward

Today is the last day of the year — heck, the last day of the decade — and everyone appears to be taking a look back before jumping into 2010.

Now, I’m not one for nostalgia.  I enjoy throwing things out more than most people.  But there is much to be learned from the past, so let’s review the few brief months of The Egg’s existence and see what we can see in its stickiness…

  • Readership has increased steadily since the Egg’s launch in August, but always takes a bit of a dip over the weekend or a holiday. I am so pleased to know that the Egg is a workday distraction!
  • You prefer the shallow to the deep — when I go deep, you go away.   (No worries there…I am so rarely deep.)
  • The topic that is consistently popular?  Posts about my dog Rory.  That is not surprising at all.  He’s a people magnet…and apparently a traffic magnet as well.
  • The most commented on blogs of the year?  Fantasy leagues and little girls’ obsession with the color pink. It is reassuring to be deemed controversial by both sexes.
  • The blogs that nobody wanted to read?  Those related to the movie “Twilight”…and they meant the so much to me.  (I’m going to have to work on bringing you guys over to the dark side.)
  • The most requested blog topic?  Movie reviews! Thank you — I’m at the theater pretty much every week and promise to post my sticky point of view here.

A friend tweeted the other day that blogs were “so 1999.”  Well, I have enjoyed being 10 years behind the times with all of you.

Let’s keep eggin’ each other on in 2010!

Resistance is futile.

Okay, haters — it’s time to admit the world has succumbed.

Taylor Lautner is hosting “Saturday Night Live” this weekend.

Anna Kendrick — Jessica in the “Twilight” saga — is getting much-deserved Oscar buzz for going toe-to-toe with George Clooney in “Up in the Air” (and stealing many if not most scenes in the process).

“Eclipse,” the next installment in the “Twilight” saga, announced this week its simultaneous IMAX release in June, 2010.

And in the ultimate sign of surrender, Uma Thurman, Robert Pattinson’s co-star in the 2011 movie “Bel Ami,” broke up with her fiancee as the movie begins pre-production.

Ya just can’t fight this thing, people.  Better men (and women) than you have tried.

In the words of the Borg — that’s a Star Trek reference for those less geeky than I — well…just read the title.

I object

Why do I have to be wrong for you to be right?

I’ll tell you why.  At our core, we are all judgers.  That’s judgers, judgers, judgers.

From the first moment we see someone — whether in person, in a photo, or in a Youtube video — we dissect their looks, voice, dress and actions, and in a matter of seconds, decide whether they are worthy of our time.

It’s a wonder we have any friends at all.

Now, obviously, there are some people who pass our test. The men featured in the 2009 Sexiest Man Alive issue of People magazine were judged exceptionally attractive by a national panel of editors.  There has also been an obsessive frenzy surrounding the stars of the “Twilight” movie franchise. Those actors have been judged worthy of their fans’ time, attention and somewhat scary mania.

But probably most fascinating to me is how quick people are to judge other people who like something that they don’t.

The “Twilight” movies are a great example. The fans of this franchise have been practically demonized by those who haven’t read the books or seen the movies.  The Comments page of this week’s New York magazine was brutal.  One reader said of the Twilight moms: “Their poor children, and their poor husbands! I wish they’d get some perspective and see how sad they really look.”

Wow.  There’s some judging going on there.

Why can’t people just be different?  Or think differently?  Or, god forbid, like different things?

Why do they have to be inherently wrong?

We say ‘live and let live,’ but as a society, we don’t practice what we preach.  What we really mean to say is,  ‘let me live the way I want, and you live my way, too…’cause if you live or think differently or enjoy different things, that’s wrong.’

Now, “Twilight” isn’t the most important issue in the world — believe me, I know.  But it’s also not the most deadly, god-awful, dangerous book ever written.  Teenage girls and their families are exposed to more controversial things on episodes of “Gossip Girl” — can you say three-way? — so I find it interesting that people are trash-talking a very old-fashioned romance with vampires.

If you don’t like the series, that’s fine.  That’s your choice. But other people liking it isn’t wrong…it’s simply their choice.

So, stop your judging.  That’s right.  I’m looking at you.  Judger.

That’s judger, judger, judger.