Sunday, September 29, 2013

Twilight VS City of Bones - Books/movies review



I have to start this review by asking a question: "What would've happened had the 'Mortal Instruments' come before 'The Twilight Saga'?" Well, let's start with the books and then move on to the movies, shall we? To answer this question (spoiler alert) if you're a "Twihard" you might not want to read this post, your bible of teenage romantic fantasy is about to get trashed!

"Twilight" written by: Stephanie Meyers, published October 5th 2005: I only read the first book because my sister wouldn't stop going on and on about it and she let me read her copy. What did I think of the book? It was badly written with some good characters, not including the lead lady Bella, who lacked personality, gumption and any real appeal. Despite this somehow Edward, one of the more interesting characters, still found her irresistible. The only thing remarkable that Stephanie Meyers did was write a story where an exceptional man falls in love with a non- consequential woman. The kind of thing that only happens in a cheesy romance. Also, she watered down Vampires till they were barely recognizable of their Dracula ancestry so she could sell them to a YA audience which isn't remarkable in the least. Not to mention that Meyers can't write an ending to save her life. Every single one of the books ended with an anti-climax. That's bad writing, people, not worthy of world-wide aclaime.



Mortal Instruments, "City of Bones" written by: Cassandra Clare, published March 27th 2007: I wish I had read this book a long time ago. Why? Because it's unbelievably good! Cassandra Clare is an exceptional writer. She develops three dimensional characters, all with their own strengths and weaknesses. Builds worlds of fantasy that are so detailed and rich they seem almost real. Also, she can write a great plot, and a fantastic ending! Obviously I loved this book. Grant it, I was a little angry with the author for how she ended book one, but not enough not to keep reading the series. I loved Clary Fray who was realistic and worth cheering for. Also, I found her relationship with the two male love interests believable, and her allure wasn't written or forced  but deserved. Honestly, I couldn't say more good things about this book and its author!

The Movies:

Twilight: bad, bad, bad. I remember seeing a preview for "Twilight" before it came out and it looked like a really lame music video from the 80's. Sadly when I actually watched the movie it wasn't much better than the preview. Bella who was terrible in print was even worse on film because of the stale performance of Kristen Stewart. Not to mention that the script was cheesy and the plot paper thin to begin with. Robert Patterson's not bad, but even he had some awful moments in the film. I've enjoyed him in other movies since, so I'm glad this catapulted his career and all, but his portrayal of Edward was stiff in the first movie and only got slightly better throughout the series (books and movies). This movie tried too hard to be hip and just comes off as comical. Bad, very bad!



City of Bones: I had just started reading this book when I heard they were making it into a movie. I was really excited for this film. Naturally I was really sad to hear it was getting such bad reviews when it finally came out. Then I saw the movie last night. Yes, the first half of the movie is a little slow, despite the script's aggressive attempt to condense a complex plot and making it work for a film. The second half, however, was very entertaining. They did some very clever things with the book, and adapted it into something of their own. So even if you've read the book, the ending will pleasantly surprise you. The actors were all fantastic. I'll admit I had my doubts about Jamie Campbell Bower who portrayed "Jace Wayland" but by the end of the film I was sold on him. I thought he and Lilly Collins (Clary Fray) had great on-screen chemistry. Simon, Clary's best friend, was just as good in the movie as he was in the books. I came out of the movie wondering what on earth all those critics were thinking. I thought it was terrific. A great adaptation of a fantastic book!


So now that I've shared my thoughts on the books and the movies, let's answer that question now. "What would've happened had 'Mortal Instruments' come before 'Twilight'?" The world of Urban Fantasy as we know it would be a better place! Vampires wouldn't have become watered down, poorly-written characters like Bella who fall in love with a guy whose basically a stalker, wouldn't be idealized by teenage girls everywhere (honestly what message is that sending to young girls?). None of the terrible "Twilight" fan fiction would be out there to plague the world such as "Fifty Shades of Grey". Instead, young girls would be idealizing Clary, a strong, independent, clever, and sweet teenage heroine who fights for a greater cause and doesn't just fall all over the first guy to show up in her bedroom in the middle of the night.

In conclusion: "Twilight" didn't invent the Vampire, it didn't invent star-crossed lovers. I'm saying that just because "Twilight" came first doesn't mean it's superior, in fact, it isn't. Cassandra Clare is an original and she borrowed nothing from Stephanie Meyers. "City of Bones" stands on its own and needs not be compared to "Twilight" or any other.  I'm saying that everyone ought to give the movie "City of Bones" a chance. Forget what the critics say. If you loved the books chances are you'll enjoy the movie. But hey, don't take my word for it. Go forth, read the books and see the movies, make up your own mind and share your thoughts here with us.

Some say that Vampires and magic has all been over done. For the die hard Fantasy/Paranormal enthusiast the genre never dies or gets old, it just takes on new shapes and new faces. Until next time...

R.J. Craddock