Why are Twilight and Harry Potter compared?

Because of immense buzz for this first film adaptation of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series of novels, some have compared this tween and teen phenom to Harry Potter. Like the last two Potter movies, this vampire romance film made Fandango.com's top ten list of all-time advance ticket sales—thanks to a rabid fan base whose hearts were set on swoon ever since they first saw images of the vampire and werewolf dreamboats they've fallen for in the books.

Well, I think most Twilight fans will eat this up like vampires at a blood bank. The movie, directed by Catherine Hardwicke (The Nativity Story, Thirteen), is very true to the book in telling Meyer's soap opera of forbidden love and angst with passion. I saw the film at a public screening with many young girls sporting Twilight shirts and even vampire regalia. I overheard them saying things like, "That was amazing," "I wish it would have gone on forever," and "It was everything I hoped for."

But on the flip side, the adults nearby were saying things like "That was horrible" and "I thought it wouldn't end." I'm somewhere in the middle. While I think the adaptation has some great touches, I don't think the film does much for the uninitiated or adults. Boys will really only like the big fight at the end—if they're still awake.

In the book, this is an interesting look at dealing with temptation and boundaries, but the movie's love story is pretty much all about sexual attraction. I'm also not sure why the movie's Bella is fascinated by Edward. He's hot, he's a bad boy, and he wants her. Well, he wants her for dinner. But for this lonely girl, being wanted at all is enough. And of course that idea of being wanted, being known, and being passionately loved has really tapped into the desires of the books' teen audience—and the movie does that too. After all, the film seems tailor-made to showcase how good-looking and tempting Edward is. His over-the-top, slow-motion, and dramatic entrance could be accompanied with subtitles reading, "Swoon now

While I think most fans will be happy with the film, I think the movie proves that books can sometimes get away with sappiness and clichés that movies don't; onscreen, they are pretty groan-worthy. Also, while the book captures girls' hearts, the movie's love story without Meyer's description is kinda mundane. Another issue with the change in medium is that a movie doesn't let one's imagination work as a book does.Meyer's fantastical narratives are very detailed and create great mental pictures.On screen, they sometimes can't compete with what's in your head.In one popular portion of the book, for example, Edward dramatically shows why vampires don't go in the sunlight.On the printed page, the description is thrilling. In the movie, flawed special effects make it look like he's just really sweaty.

Almost all the special effects (save for that great ending fight) are almost laughable—like the vampires' super speed, which looks more like what I call "Muppet Running." You know how when Kermit would walk, you could tell he was hung by wires and his legs didn't really hit the ground with each step? That's what happens here, defying the laws of physics. In addition, the make-up of the pale Cullen family can seem very caked on and fakey at times. Plus, the vampires are asked to say silly things like, "Hold on tight, spider monkey!"


But as good as Stewart is, I think Pattinson (who was solid as Cedric in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) as Edward was a casting mistake. Or maybe it was how he was directed. He's wooden and emotes with unchanging facial expression of brooding eyebrows, deep breathing, and body language that communicates that he really has to go to the bathroom. These scenes lead to unintentional laughter in even the most serious moments.

What Pattinson does do well, though, are the tender, loving moments with Stewart. This is maybe what the movie does best: quiet moments of intimacy—not sex, but more innocent intimacy like when the infatuated Bella and Edward lie in the grass with their hands barely touching, or when they share their first kiss. These are electric moments, but the rest of the film pales in comparison.

Honestly, they are completely different. I'm a huge fan of both, though I'm more a Harry Potter fan. I think Harry Potter is bigger, anyway. Ask nearly anyone in the world who Harry Potter is and they'll know, but not the same for Twilight. I'm not trying to compare them here, but Potter is more complex and they're is really no getting around that. Though they are both Fantasy sort of, but Harry Potter is more fantasy and Twilight is romance. Harry Potter is more for all ages and genders, Twilight is forcused towards teenage girls. Can you truely and fairly compare them at all?