Dear Editor,
This year MLWGS Peer Mentors are working to build their community by reaching out to young people. To celebrate National Young Reader’s Day, students visited Highland Springs Elementary School, where they read children’s books to kindergarteners and first graders.
Ms Arnold, Ms. Davis, and I facilitated this activity, which promoted interaction among scholars of varying ages. Because of the generous influx from the MW student body, three barrels of gently used books were donated to young pupils, who were able to select titles that appealed to their individual interests. “Students are so excited about this,” commented the Highland Springs Elementary School librarian. To conclude the visit, Peer Mentors helped pupils create bookmarks, which included pictures of Maggie L. Walker, school namesake and one who epitomizes perseverance, education, and community involvement.
Note: a special thank you to Mr. Brown, Mr. Charles, Ms. Hawkins, Ms. Deck, Ms. Sheppard, and Mr. Zweerink for their assistance with this activity.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Lisa Williams, MLWGS English Teacher
Friday, December 5, 2008
Guy's Night Out
Coach Davis Honored by Former School, Henrico HS
In a ceremony before the MLWGS boys’ varsity basketball season opener at Henrico High School, Coach Guy Davis was honored by his former team.
Mr. Davis was called out onto the court before the game, and the announcer read off the laundry list of achievements that Mr. Davis accrued while at the helm of the Henrico High School Varsity Basketball team.
To commemorate Mr. Davis, Henrico High officially named their basketball court, Guy Davis Court.
“It was supposed to be a surprise,” said Mr. Davis. “But I found out.”
“First of all, it is very much deserved,” said Director Mr. Doug Hunt. “Hats off to them [Henrico High School] for recognizing him. He spent an unbelievable number of hours with students and parents building Henrico into a formidable basketball program.”
Many of Mr. Davis’ former assistant coaches and players as well as members of his family were in attendance and were called down from the stands to pose with Mr. Davis in a group picture. MLWGS was well represented, as former Assistant Coach Calvin Jamison was present, along with former players Max Hilterbrant (’08) and Ben Ashauer (’08).
“That was the highlight of the whole evening—seeing the players who had played [for me],” said Mr. Davis.
“It was cool to see how many people have been influenced by Coach Davis,” said Parker Kirwan (’10), co-captain of the basketball team. “He’s such a legend in coaching.”
It is not just in the school that he was admired, but in the whole Richmond area,” said Mr. Hunt.
Several members of the MLWGS faculty were in attendance, including Director Mr. Doug Hunt and Athletic Director Mr. Jim Holdren.
Mr. Hunt also had the distinction of being a teammate of Mr. Davis on their 1960 state championship basketball team from Highland Springs High School.
“It was fun for me because I had played [with Mr. Davis],” said Mr. Hunt. “Two of the other players from our team were there.”
Mr. Davis accomplished a great deal over his twenty-six year tenure as head coach at Henrico High School. He had an overall record of 358 wins and 227 losses for a sixty-one percent winning percentage. He was four-time Metro Richmond Coach of the Year and led his team to a total of thirteen district or regional titles.
Mr. Davis was the five-time coach of the Metro Richmond entry to the U.S. Youth Games. In 1979, his team won the U.S. Youth Games National Championship.
“We basically had the best fourteen and fifteen year olds to choose from in the Richmond area,” said Mr. Davis. “We could put five guys on the court that were just as good as the cities.”
Over the years, Mr. Davis has coached a wide variety of players, including those who went on to higher levels of basketball. He has coached for former NBA players, including Tim Legler from his Metro Richmond team and Alan Bristow for Henrico High School.
When Mr. Davis looked back over his coaching career, he said that his favorite part of it was the players.
“When you coach a long time you come across a lot of fine young men.”
Mr. Davis also said that he has enjoyed his time as head coach at MLWGS.
“Our kids are good kids. They are fun to be around,” said Mr. Davis. “As a coach, I just like going to practice every day.”
The MLWGS community also seems to enjoy having Mr. Davis as the head coach.
“He’s made me a better player in every aspect of the game,” said Kirwan. “He taught me to be strong in the briar patch.”
“Coach Davis and I have been friends since I was fifteen years old,” said Mr. Hunt. “I’m so happy that he accepted my offer to work with the kids here.”
In a ceremony before the MLWGS boys’ varsity basketball season opener at Henrico High School, Coach Guy Davis was honored by his former team.
Mr. Davis was called out onto the court before the game, and the announcer read off the laundry list of achievements that Mr. Davis accrued while at the helm of the Henrico High School Varsity Basketball team.
To commemorate Mr. Davis, Henrico High officially named their basketball court, Guy Davis Court.
“It was supposed to be a surprise,” said Mr. Davis. “But I found out.”
“First of all, it is very much deserved,” said Director Mr. Doug Hunt. “Hats off to them [Henrico High School] for recognizing him. He spent an unbelievable number of hours with students and parents building Henrico into a formidable basketball program.”
Many of Mr. Davis’ former assistant coaches and players as well as members of his family were in attendance and were called down from the stands to pose with Mr. Davis in a group picture. MLWGS was well represented, as former Assistant Coach Calvin Jamison was present, along with former players Max Hilterbrant (’08) and Ben Ashauer (’08).
“That was the highlight of the whole evening—seeing the players who had played [for me],” said Mr. Davis.
“It was cool to see how many people have been influenced by Coach Davis,” said Parker Kirwan (’10), co-captain of the basketball team. “He’s such a legend in coaching.”
It is not just in the school that he was admired, but in the whole Richmond area,” said Mr. Hunt.
Several members of the MLWGS faculty were in attendance, including Director Mr. Doug Hunt and Athletic Director Mr. Jim Holdren.
Mr. Hunt also had the distinction of being a teammate of Mr. Davis on their 1960 state championship basketball team from Highland Springs High School.
“It was fun for me because I had played [with Mr. Davis],” said Mr. Hunt. “Two of the other players from our team were there.”
Mr. Davis accomplished a great deal over his twenty-six year tenure as head coach at Henrico High School. He had an overall record of 358 wins and 227 losses for a sixty-one percent winning percentage. He was four-time Metro Richmond Coach of the Year and led his team to a total of thirteen district or regional titles.
Mr. Davis was the five-time coach of the Metro Richmond entry to the U.S. Youth Games. In 1979, his team won the U.S. Youth Games National Championship.
“We basically had the best fourteen and fifteen year olds to choose from in the Richmond area,” said Mr. Davis. “We could put five guys on the court that were just as good as the cities.”
Over the years, Mr. Davis has coached a wide variety of players, including those who went on to higher levels of basketball. He has coached for former NBA players, including Tim Legler from his Metro Richmond team and Alan Bristow for Henrico High School.
When Mr. Davis looked back over his coaching career, he said that his favorite part of it was the players.
“When you coach a long time you come across a lot of fine young men.”
Mr. Davis also said that he has enjoyed his time as head coach at MLWGS.
“Our kids are good kids. They are fun to be around,” said Mr. Davis. “As a coach, I just like going to practice every day.”
The MLWGS community also seems to enjoy having Mr. Davis as the head coach.
“He’s made me a better player in every aspect of the game,” said Kirwan. “He taught me to be strong in the briar patch.”
“Coach Davis and I have been friends since I was fifteen years old,” said Mr. Hunt. “I’m so happy that he accepted my offer to work with the kids here.”
How They Manage
by Karthik Ilakkuvan, Jabberwock Staff Reporter
It was 4:30 in the afternoon last Monday, and I started to think – why is the gym floor always so dust-free?
So I did a little of my fancy handy-dandy investigative reporting, and I reached an awe-inspiring conclusion.
Kris Kusnerik (’09). Yes, the man, the legend, the Kris with a ‘K’ himself.
Managers. We don’t give them enough credit. They carry the balls, they lug the equipment, they sweep the floors, they film the games, and they give encouragement. Yet, as fans, all we see is the game-winning shot, the last second save, or the bottom of the seventh grand slam home run (except not really because… who actually goes and watches a Maggie Walker baseball game?)
Yes, my friends, the managers are the ones behind the mask. They’re the ones who make the whole show run. The athletes and coaches are important, but the managers are what turn a team around. Let me provide a few examples.
We all know our field hockey team is one of the best in the state (top eight to be exact). Why exactly is that, though? It’s because they have something many of our other sports teams do not. It’s not the team unity they’ve built year after year, it’s not their drive to win and their passion for the game, it’s not their talent (okay… maybe, it’s a little bit because of their talent) – it’s the fact they have one of the best groups of managers the world has ever seen.
Zane Underwood (’09) and Hannah Gropper (’10) lined the field, set up all the equipment before games, kept score, ran the scoreboard, kept the equipment straight, and Underwood even went as far as making restaurant reservations for the state tournament. Gropper also made multiple six o’clock bagel runs for morning practices.
“Zane always skipped class because he was managing,” field hockey playerLindsey Elliot (’09) said.
Now, Girls’ Basketball has acquired three managers - Kusnerik, Lindsey Toiavao (’09), and Jamar Banks (’09) - for this season, and already, the team is on their way to a record number of wins. Standing tall at 1-0 after beating Armstrong quite convincingly 54-36, one has to think that it has more to do with the caliber of their managers than the actual players themselves.
“One of my goals this season is to be at least half as good a manager as Zane is,” Kusnerik said. “Zane is my managerial role model.”
Now, the opposite effect can be seen on other sports. Golf, wrestling, and baseball, to name a few, are all managerless, and coincidentally enough, they all also do not have winning records. But, it’s not as if these sports are lacking talent, have a dearth of team bonding, or are smelly (although wrestling kind of is) – it’s just that they don’t have someone cheering them on at every game, painting their fields, and recording their stats.
And it’s not that they’re not trying to find managers, either.
“We just want managers, preferably girls, who have to be able to bake cookies,” Lloyd Blake (’09), who is on the baseball team, said. “And they can’t do homework in the dugout – they have to enjoy watching us play. I don’t think we’re asking for too much.”
I don’t think so either. So invest in a winning tradition at Maggie Walker, and go become a manager!
It was 4:30 in the afternoon last Monday, and I started to think – why is the gym floor always so dust-free?
So I did a little of my fancy handy-dandy investigative reporting, and I reached an awe-inspiring conclusion.
Kris Kusnerik (’09). Yes, the man, the legend, the Kris with a ‘K’ himself.
Managers. We don’t give them enough credit. They carry the balls, they lug the equipment, they sweep the floors, they film the games, and they give encouragement. Yet, as fans, all we see is the game-winning shot, the last second save, or the bottom of the seventh grand slam home run (except not really because… who actually goes and watches a Maggie Walker baseball game?)
Yes, my friends, the managers are the ones behind the mask. They’re the ones who make the whole show run. The athletes and coaches are important, but the managers are what turn a team around. Let me provide a few examples.
We all know our field hockey team is one of the best in the state (top eight to be exact). Why exactly is that, though? It’s because they have something many of our other sports teams do not. It’s not the team unity they’ve built year after year, it’s not their drive to win and their passion for the game, it’s not their talent (okay… maybe, it’s a little bit because of their talent) – it’s the fact they have one of the best groups of managers the world has ever seen.
Zane Underwood (’09) and Hannah Gropper (’10) lined the field, set up all the equipment before games, kept score, ran the scoreboard, kept the equipment straight, and Underwood even went as far as making restaurant reservations for the state tournament. Gropper also made multiple six o’clock bagel runs for morning practices.
“Zane always skipped class because he was managing,” field hockey playerLindsey Elliot (’09) said.
Now, Girls’ Basketball has acquired three managers - Kusnerik, Lindsey Toiavao (’09), and Jamar Banks (’09) - for this season, and already, the team is on their way to a record number of wins. Standing tall at 1-0 after beating Armstrong quite convincingly 54-36, one has to think that it has more to do with the caliber of their managers than the actual players themselves.
“One of my goals this season is to be at least half as good a manager as Zane is,” Kusnerik said. “Zane is my managerial role model.”
Now, the opposite effect can be seen on other sports. Golf, wrestling, and baseball, to name a few, are all managerless, and coincidentally enough, they all also do not have winning records. But, it’s not as if these sports are lacking talent, have a dearth of team bonding, or are smelly (although wrestling kind of is) – it’s just that they don’t have someone cheering them on at every game, painting their fields, and recording their stats.
And it’s not that they’re not trying to find managers, either.
“We just want managers, preferably girls, who have to be able to bake cookies,” Lloyd Blake (’09), who is on the baseball team, said. “And they can’t do homework in the dugout – they have to enjoy watching us play. I don’t think we’re asking for too much.”
I don’t think so either. So invest in a winning tradition at Maggie Walker, and go become a manager!
Opinion: War on Christmas
by Mitch Caudill ('10)
In some countries the population cares so greatly about separation of church and state that the military will literally overthrow governments that become too religious in nature. While obviously that is a gross overstep for the United States, the truth remains that the society of this nation needs to do more to ensure our secular nature.
The simple fact is that any government, federal or local, should not condone, promote, or reference religion in any manner public or private. The sovereign face of the state should not be distorted by public appeals or recognition of a higher power. The authority and sovereignty of the United States government comes not from any religious divinity, but from the people.
To imply the power derives from a religious divinity, which is all that can be gained from holiday decorations of any sort, warps the very basis of the United States. Now, many will say that the Founders were Christian men, and that American law is derived of Christian values. I would remind them that the Founders were white, land-owning males and according their values, well over half the country would not have the ability to vote or own property.
The state should be impartial, and should derive from the people, not divine right; therefore this holiday season, the decorations should go.
In some countries the population cares so greatly about separation of church and state that the military will literally overthrow governments that become too religious in nature. While obviously that is a gross overstep for the United States, the truth remains that the society of this nation needs to do more to ensure our secular nature.
The simple fact is that any government, federal or local, should not condone, promote, or reference religion in any manner public or private. The sovereign face of the state should not be distorted by public appeals or recognition of a higher power. The authority and sovereignty of the United States government comes not from any religious divinity, but from the people.
To imply the power derives from a religious divinity, which is all that can be gained from holiday decorations of any sort, warps the very basis of the United States. Now, many will say that the Founders were Christian men, and that American law is derived of Christian values. I would remind them that the Founders were white, land-owning males and according their values, well over half the country would not have the ability to vote or own property.
The state should be impartial, and should derive from the people, not divine right; therefore this holiday season, the decorations should go.
Opinion: An Expression of Individual Freedom
by Logan Ferrell ('11)
Entering into another holiday season, most people are filled with excitement and joy. However dissenters always emerge around this time of year— those who feel that outside the home, celebration of holidays like Christmas should be conducted in a more universal and secular way.
The basis of such arguments of the latter, as cited by its supporters, is that officially sanctioned Christmas events defy the secular idea of American establishments and leave out those not celebrating the sanctioned holiday.
The traditional, and in my opinion inefficient, arguments brought against such a statement, is that America is founded on Christian beliefs and should retain a Christian character. Personally, I find several more logical arguments than that, none straying so close to authorizing a state sponsorship of any one religion.
Likewise, the celebration of any holiday, religious or not, always lies in the hands of the individual, who may express such celebrations as one likes as long as they do not infringe on the actions of another.
Some now say, that to endorse any holiday in particular, via celebration or greeting, is to discriminate against those who do not believe in the said holiday. The notion of celebration is not nearly so exclusive as it is made out to be. Celebration and belief lie within the individual, and it will always be one’s choice to take part in any celebration.
Holiday events, even if government-hosted, are not planned with malicious intent or to purposefully alienate those who chose to celebrate other the holiday. Nor do they represent a targeted trampling of American political principals.
Instead, those who don’t wish to participate in such a event have every right to decline, and even organize their own celebration. There is no censure and no retribution, for the broaching of personal religious beliefs.
When it comes down to it, public celebration of Christmas isn’t an a assault on a secular America; it is the ideal example of everybody’s inalienable right to choose. That is the true embodiment of our privileged religious freedom.
Even ignoring the religious aspects, the holiday offers some inherently good qualities in what it has become. In modern America, the season represents a time for giving to others and service to the community. At no other time of the year do we see those usually committed to selfishness suddenly devoted to generosity and charity.
For many in the world, the freedoms we take for granted are foreign concepts that will never become a reality. As opposed to bickering over the nature of celebration, and discussing the institution of a “war on Christmas,” we should remember the action truly appropriate during this season. That is giving thanks for all that we have.
Entering into another holiday season, most people are filled with excitement and joy. However dissenters always emerge around this time of year— those who feel that outside the home, celebration of holidays like Christmas should be conducted in a more universal and secular way.
The basis of such arguments of the latter, as cited by its supporters, is that officially sanctioned Christmas events defy the secular idea of American establishments and leave out those not celebrating the sanctioned holiday.
The traditional, and in my opinion inefficient, arguments brought against such a statement, is that America is founded on Christian beliefs and should retain a Christian character. Personally, I find several more logical arguments than that, none straying so close to authorizing a state sponsorship of any one religion.
Likewise, the celebration of any holiday, religious or not, always lies in the hands of the individual, who may express such celebrations as one likes as long as they do not infringe on the actions of another.
Some now say, that to endorse any holiday in particular, via celebration or greeting, is to discriminate against those who do not believe in the said holiday. The notion of celebration is not nearly so exclusive as it is made out to be. Celebration and belief lie within the individual, and it will always be one’s choice to take part in any celebration.
Holiday events, even if government-hosted, are not planned with malicious intent or to purposefully alienate those who chose to celebrate other the holiday. Nor do they represent a targeted trampling of American political principals.
Instead, those who don’t wish to participate in such a event have every right to decline, and even organize their own celebration. There is no censure and no retribution, for the broaching of personal religious beliefs.
When it comes down to it, public celebration of Christmas isn’t an a assault on a secular America; it is the ideal example of everybody’s inalienable right to choose. That is the true embodiment of our privileged religious freedom.
Even ignoring the religious aspects, the holiday offers some inherently good qualities in what it has become. In modern America, the season represents a time for giving to others and service to the community. At no other time of the year do we see those usually committed to selfishness suddenly devoted to generosity and charity.
For many in the world, the freedoms we take for granted are foreign concepts that will never become a reality. As opposed to bickering over the nature of celebration, and discussing the institution of a “war on Christmas,” we should remember the action truly appropriate during this season. That is giving thanks for all that we have.
Quantum of What?
by Melanie Burks, Jabberwock Staff Reporter
Ian Fleming is a pretty spectacular guy. It is simple as that.
He created two of my all-time favorite things: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and James Bond. The classy 007 we all know and love would be lifeless without the ingenuity of Ian Fleming.
However, it is the actors’ interpretations that give James Bond his unique personality. Portrayed by six notable actors, the character of James Bond has accumulated many traits.
Sean Connery, hands-down the best Bond actor in my book, had the smooth moves of a landed gentry.
Roger Moore used his humble brilliance as his star trait, while Pierce Brosnan, my least favorite, was perhaps the polar opposite of humble.
Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby were “the in-betweens” that appeared only in a handful of the James Bond movies.
Daniel Craig, the current Bond and my runner-up favorite, is just downright sexy. How a womanizer such as himself remains so classy is truly beyond me.
As for the new movie, Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig was probably the best part– and not just for the apparent reasons.
In his Casino Royale debut performance, Craig proved himself as definite Bond material. Fans were not disappointed by his second Bond film.
The plot of Quantum of Solace made as much sense as the title. Most would agree that at first glance, Quantum of Solace, is virtually meaningless. What is a quantum? What is a solace? And more, importantly, how do they relate?
I have personally scrutinized the movie, and I am still not sure. All the intricate details and complex twists left me baffled. I will try to explain the plot as best as possible but I am still a little wary of the fine print. So here it goes…
James Bond (Daniel Craig) was on a mission to expose a classified plan when M (Judy Dench), his head honcho, pulled him off the case.
This “classified plan” was so complex, I don’t know if I could explain it if I tried.
Disobeying those orders, Bond embarked on a personal mission. It so happened that a man involved in the “secret plan” also murdered his love interest Vesper Lynd (Eva Green).
Bond decided to kill two birds with one stone: take revenge for his lost love and expose the “top secret plan”.
I was outraged at the thought of a vengeful Bond. The incentive of a classy guy, such as Bond, should not be revenge. It is simply not in the rulebook.
Thankfully, Bond decided to be the bigger man and not kill Vesper’s murderer. When it became clear that Bond was not going to take revenge, I felt like a proud mother whose child just said no to drugs.
My biggest concern with the film was its incoherent plot. If I viewed the movie ten more times, maybe I could fully understand it...maybe.
Quite frankly, no one walks into a movie theater wishing to decode the producer’s tangled message. For me at least, seeing a movie should be more enjoyable. However, I should emphasize that I found Daniel Craig very enjoyable.
The supporting actors, on the other hand, did little to contribute to the integrity of the movie.
Ian Fleming is a pretty spectacular guy. I stand firm in that declaration. I think the mediocrity of Quantum of Solace can be traced back to the directors, not the writer.
James Bond is…well … James Bond. Not even I can undermine the infamous character. Daniel Craig kept it classy. I suppose that is all that matters in the end.
Ian Fleming is a pretty spectacular guy. It is simple as that.
He created two of my all-time favorite things: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and James Bond. The classy 007 we all know and love would be lifeless without the ingenuity of Ian Fleming.
However, it is the actors’ interpretations that give James Bond his unique personality. Portrayed by six notable actors, the character of James Bond has accumulated many traits.
Sean Connery, hands-down the best Bond actor in my book, had the smooth moves of a landed gentry.
Roger Moore used his humble brilliance as his star trait, while Pierce Brosnan, my least favorite, was perhaps the polar opposite of humble.
Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby were “the in-betweens” that appeared only in a handful of the James Bond movies.
Daniel Craig, the current Bond and my runner-up favorite, is just downright sexy. How a womanizer such as himself remains so classy is truly beyond me.
As for the new movie, Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig was probably the best part– and not just for the apparent reasons.
In his Casino Royale debut performance, Craig proved himself as definite Bond material. Fans were not disappointed by his second Bond film.
The plot of Quantum of Solace made as much sense as the title. Most would agree that at first glance, Quantum of Solace, is virtually meaningless. What is a quantum? What is a solace? And more, importantly, how do they relate?
I have personally scrutinized the movie, and I am still not sure. All the intricate details and complex twists left me baffled. I will try to explain the plot as best as possible but I am still a little wary of the fine print. So here it goes…
James Bond (Daniel Craig) was on a mission to expose a classified plan when M (Judy Dench), his head honcho, pulled him off the case.
This “classified plan” was so complex, I don’t know if I could explain it if I tried.
Disobeying those orders, Bond embarked on a personal mission. It so happened that a man involved in the “secret plan” also murdered his love interest Vesper Lynd (Eva Green).
Bond decided to kill two birds with one stone: take revenge for his lost love and expose the “top secret plan”.
I was outraged at the thought of a vengeful Bond. The incentive of a classy guy, such as Bond, should not be revenge. It is simply not in the rulebook.
Thankfully, Bond decided to be the bigger man and not kill Vesper’s murderer. When it became clear that Bond was not going to take revenge, I felt like a proud mother whose child just said no to drugs.
My biggest concern with the film was its incoherent plot. If I viewed the movie ten more times, maybe I could fully understand it...maybe.
Quite frankly, no one walks into a movie theater wishing to decode the producer’s tangled message. For me at least, seeing a movie should be more enjoyable. However, I should emphasize that I found Daniel Craig very enjoyable.
The supporting actors, on the other hand, did little to contribute to the integrity of the movie.
Ian Fleming is a pretty spectacular guy. I stand firm in that declaration. I think the mediocrity of Quantum of Solace can be traced back to the directors, not the writer.
James Bond is…well … James Bond. Not even I can undermine the infamous character. Daniel Craig kept it classy. I suppose that is all that matters in the end.
All Bark, No Bite
by Gabriella Cifu, Jabberwock Staff Reporter
Our fine, fanged friends are finally on the big screen, bringing with them overwhelming excitement.
Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is the new girl in town. After moving from Phoenix to Forks, Washington, her adaption to her new life includes a new school, new friends, and a dramatic change in weather. In school, everyone seems friendly, except Edward Cullen (Robert Patterson). At first cool and unresponsive, Edward suddenly takes an interest in Bella. As she begins to know him, she realizes that he possesses certain peculiar qualities that can only be explained in one way: he is a vampire. As a romance sparks between them, Bella begins to learn about Edward’s life.
The book? Great. The characters? Well developed. The literary Edward? A dreamy vampire. The movie? Terrible. The character development? Non-existent. The televised Edward? An average looking, overly-forceful vampire.
The expectations were high. Millions of fans had been long awaiting what they expected to be a great recreation of one of their favorite books. They were sorely disappointed. Fans who had read the book had their own perception of the characters, and with four books of the characters, they had plenty of time to form their opinions.
As it turns out, those characters that fans had the greatest expectations of did not even come close to meeting them, while some secondary characters turned out much more entertaining than we expected. Point in case: Edward. While we all knew he wasn’t the warmest guy (literally and figuratively), he maintained the same level of high, uninviting intensity throughout the entire movie. Viewers didn’t immediately fall in love with Edward as they were supposed to.
The other main character, Bella, also did not make as great an impression on us. Her character development was non-existent, and she showed very emotion. Kristen Stewart’s acting was nothing spectacular and left readers bored with her monotone personality.
On the other hand, such characters as Charlie, Bella’s dad, and James, the evil vampire, were much more likeable in their televised versions. Charlie was not with a sense of humor in the books. In the movie, his subtle jokes added a hint of humor, especially with his insistency that Bella always have a can of pepper spray with her.
James played the part of vicious vampire with much more conviction than any other actor had in portraying their characters. I enjoyed his sniff as he caught a whiff of human scent. While certainly not a prominent character, viewers all remember his excellent acting.
The vampires in general did not fit the description Stephanie Meyers provided. None of them seemed as inhuman (in the sense of being noticeably different) as described in the book, nor were their personalities as developed as Meyers intended. Readers were drawn into the lives of vampires, but viewers were left unfulfilled by the impersonal vampires they saw on screen.
The script was poorly written, and made many important scenes awkward. The scene where Bella’s suspicions of Edward’s true identity were confirmed was one of the worst in the movie. Rather than a moment of understanding between the two of them as the book describes, the scene seems forceful, as Edward demands she say what he is, and then forcefully tells her about his life. Edward has much less of the gentle grace we associate with him, and seems more like a violent killer, which he proclaims to be over and over again.
Even the special effects did not attract fans. The unique abilities given to the vampires could only be described as corny. Also, the camera seems to switch from one odd angle to the next. While switching the view is ok, the camera doesn’t need to constantly circle the characters.
Twilight grossed over $69 million on the day of its release. Herds of screaming fans waited in line, having bought their ticket weeks in advance, to see the opening of Twilight on Friday at midnight. Many experienced a letdown . We probably should have expected it. Movies based off well-loved books rarely meet our expectations. And yet, though we know we are going to be disappointed, fans, myself included, cannot resist seeing these films, and will see as many sequels as the producers can make. It looks like Twilight is no different.
Rating: 2/4
Our fine, fanged friends are finally on the big screen, bringing with them overwhelming excitement.
Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is the new girl in town. After moving from Phoenix to Forks, Washington, her adaption to her new life includes a new school, new friends, and a dramatic change in weather. In school, everyone seems friendly, except Edward Cullen (Robert Patterson). At first cool and unresponsive, Edward suddenly takes an interest in Bella. As she begins to know him, she realizes that he possesses certain peculiar qualities that can only be explained in one way: he is a vampire. As a romance sparks between them, Bella begins to learn about Edward’s life.
The book? Great. The characters? Well developed. The literary Edward? A dreamy vampire. The movie? Terrible. The character development? Non-existent. The televised Edward? An average looking, overly-forceful vampire.
The expectations were high. Millions of fans had been long awaiting what they expected to be a great recreation of one of their favorite books. They were sorely disappointed. Fans who had read the book had their own perception of the characters, and with four books of the characters, they had plenty of time to form their opinions.
As it turns out, those characters that fans had the greatest expectations of did not even come close to meeting them, while some secondary characters turned out much more entertaining than we expected. Point in case: Edward. While we all knew he wasn’t the warmest guy (literally and figuratively), he maintained the same level of high, uninviting intensity throughout the entire movie. Viewers didn’t immediately fall in love with Edward as they were supposed to.
The other main character, Bella, also did not make as great an impression on us. Her character development was non-existent, and she showed very emotion. Kristen Stewart’s acting was nothing spectacular and left readers bored with her monotone personality.
On the other hand, such characters as Charlie, Bella’s dad, and James, the evil vampire, were much more likeable in their televised versions. Charlie was not with a sense of humor in the books. In the movie, his subtle jokes added a hint of humor, especially with his insistency that Bella always have a can of pepper spray with her.
James played the part of vicious vampire with much more conviction than any other actor had in portraying their characters. I enjoyed his sniff as he caught a whiff of human scent. While certainly not a prominent character, viewers all remember his excellent acting.
The vampires in general did not fit the description Stephanie Meyers provided. None of them seemed as inhuman (in the sense of being noticeably different) as described in the book, nor were their personalities as developed as Meyers intended. Readers were drawn into the lives of vampires, but viewers were left unfulfilled by the impersonal vampires they saw on screen.
The script was poorly written, and made many important scenes awkward. The scene where Bella’s suspicions of Edward’s true identity were confirmed was one of the worst in the movie. Rather than a moment of understanding between the two of them as the book describes, the scene seems forceful, as Edward demands she say what he is, and then forcefully tells her about his life. Edward has much less of the gentle grace we associate with him, and seems more like a violent killer, which he proclaims to be over and over again.
Even the special effects did not attract fans. The unique abilities given to the vampires could only be described as corny. Also, the camera seems to switch from one odd angle to the next. While switching the view is ok, the camera doesn’t need to constantly circle the characters.
Twilight grossed over $69 million on the day of its release. Herds of screaming fans waited in line, having bought their ticket weeks in advance, to see the opening of Twilight on Friday at midnight. Many experienced a letdown . We probably should have expected it. Movies based off well-loved books rarely meet our expectations. And yet, though we know we are going to be disappointed, fans, myself included, cannot resist seeing these films, and will see as many sequels as the producers can make. It looks like Twilight is no different.
Rating: 2/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)