Due to its classic story of forbidden love, young rebellion, angst and a plethora of other feelings that run rampant through young people -- not to mention the fact that it's required reading (and sometimes viewing) in high school and/or college -- "Romeo and Juliet" is quite easy to spot when it's influencing some new work, be that on the page or small or big screen.
Most writers and filmmakers realize that nearly everyone will get the reference, homage, borrowing, theft or what have you of William Shakespeare's 400-year-old plus romantic tragedy and thus don't actually point out the original work. Perhaps figuring their target audience might be too young and/or distracted by their hearts going all aflutter, those responsible for the second installment of the "Twilight" teen vampire romance series include not one but two direct references to the Bard's story.
Screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg and director Chris Weitz (replacing Catherine Hardwicke who wisely bowed out of returning a second go-round, despite what presumably would have been a quite handsome payday) obviously do so in order to foreshadow, telegraph and (to keep up with the times) instant message the plot and themes that are about to be dropped in the laps of adoring and rabid fans.
Granted, they and anyone familiar with Hollywood as a business clearly know that our two lovebirds aren't going to end up dead due to tragic choices like their predecessors. After all, there are still two more installments to go and plenty of moola to be made in adapting Stephenie Meyer's series.
But those very fans clearly anticipate, expect and demand all of the related swooning, agonizing and such that's going to flow from these works until they're bled dry. All of which means most of the offering will be nearly unbearable if you're not a tween or young teenage girl or once were one.
With my review for the first film and its November 2008 release, I expected it wouldn't expand past the primary target audience, especially with all of the bad filmmaking that clearly should have driven away more discerning (read "adult") audiences. Well, I missed that prediction by a few hundred million dollars, but I remain true to my assessment of the film as an artistic and derivative mess.
I also didn't buy into the conflicted romance between the leads (Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson) or the modified and thus "lite" version of the classic vampire legend. With the latter thankfully out of the way now that the story has been set up, and with the overrated bad boy heartthrob out of the picture for big chunks of time, things actually start to look up a bit here.
Once Edward and his family pull up their stakes and vamoose, a more interesting story develops between Bella and her childhood friend Jacob (played by a returning Taylor Lautner whose now incredibly buff bod actually drew gasps from some girls -- and women -- at our screening). The fact that his feelings toward her turn romantic, not to mention that he also develops into a bad boy of sorts, creates a romantic triangle that should have the target audience divided over whom Bella should choose.
It also serves to add yet another layer of teen torment to the proceedings, not only from Bella getting dumped twice, but also Jacob discovering his true curse that yes - gasp -- he's actually a werewolf and thus mortal enemy of the vampires. None of that's as remotely deep as it barely sounds, and the vampire vs. werewolf thing has been done before (plus I'll take Kate Beckinsale in formfitting leather any day over the kiddies here).
Granted, the "Underworld" flicks didn't have the teen soap opera angle going for them, and that's exactly what drives these films. Amped up with overwrought emotions that never feel any more real than a Harlequin romance might offer, the proceedings are all superficial.
Weitz has to resort to Bella reading aloud her email composing to impart feelings any deeper than her constantly looking forlorn and conflicted, while a multiple spin around camera shot showing her depression from being dumped has to include the onscreen titles of the passing months for those too dim not to notice the changing seasons outside her window. And if that's not enough, there are plenty of songs heard throughout to do the same (not to mention help sell scores of the soundtrack).
It's ironic -- not to mention a misguided directorial choice -- when a minor character in the film complains about zombie movies all being the same, when these titillating but "safe" installments of the "Twilight" series suffer from the same curse.
Although it's a tad better than the first outing due to not being as sloppy, already having the basic story elements established, and jettisoning Pattinson and his bland character for most of the film, this is still nothing more than an overarching melodrama for girls as well as women who want to relive thoughts and repressed feelings about young romance and the related angst, longing and fluttering hearts for the bad boys in their lives.
While Gloria Estefan might have sung that such fellas make her feel so good, I'm guessing the likes of Shakespeare and Stoker might be whirling about in their graves thanks to the modifications of their classic tales. Maybe they'll get their revenge in installment number three, "Bram and the Bard Strike Back." Until then, and as crazed girls of all ages make it a likely hit, "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" rates as a 4 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](/images/underground_header.jpg)