Kevin's Review: Twilight - Do You Care That It's Bad?

November 20, 2008

Every now and again a movie comes along and is labeled as "critic proof", which basically means that despite whatever critics might have to say about it, fans will still see and enjoy it regardless. The last one that I know of was Sex and the City: The Movie. Not a great film, but I doubt many cared. The latest to join this impervious crowd is Twilight. You're probably aware of the extensive fan-base that surrounds Stephenie Meyer's books. It's impressive by all accounts, and downright scary to some. Given the immensity of fandom, I probably won't deter anyone from seeing the film by describing it as tedious, eye-rolling, clipped, and in some instances, downright poor. If you care to know why, then read on.

If you abstract the central story of Twilight, it's actually not a bad tale. A young girl named Bella (Kristen Stewart) falls in love with the dreamy, mysterious guy at her high school named Edward (Robert Pattinson), who turns out to be a near-century-old vampire. Going a layer deeper, Edward must battle his animalistic instinct to feed on the girl, because against all odds, he cares for her and she, knowing who he truly is, isn't afraid of him. Other layers to the story that also prove interesting include Edward's vampire-vegetarian family who exist out in the open; the small band of roaming predatory vampires; and the long history between the vampires and their American Indian neighbors, who just might be werewolves. As a package, this definitely isn't a bad story. Twilight is just executed in a way that muddles the intrigue and fun, and relegates the story to squarely a female, teenage romance and not much more.

Edward and Bella spend some sentimental time together down by the lake in Twilight.Twilight Review

And this what I was afraid of before even seeing the film. Obviously the books are targeted at this young adult, female crowd and perhaps, given that books leave some elements to interpretation (and you can skip pages ahead if things slow down), the romantic, sappy nature of the story doesn't come across as heavy-handed in print. But in the film, I don't know how any guy or girl above sixteen (and that may be generous) can stand the extended fumbling between Edward and Bella and the longing virginal stares. Sadly, this dance occupies about 75% of the film. When you hear Edward say things like, "and so the lamb fell in love with the lion," and Bella replies, "what a stupid lamb," you really are reminded of how unsophisticated and awkward these scenes really are.

Stewart and Pattinson seem so much better than this stilted dialogue. It's almost a blessing when they actually stop talking, but not by much. The looks and wooing body language are nauseating, especially one long scene where they're laying in the grass staring at each other. Or the odd scene of Edward playing a piano in a dark room that's lit like something out of a music video. Many viewers in the audience - yes, girls in their early teens and younger - seem to positively swoon at every move Edward makes. It started to feel like director Catherine Hardwicke knew the exact strings of these young adolescent hearts to pluck.

Before suffocating in the thick fog of flirtation (not unlike the fog that allows Edward to go out in the daytime), a group of three vampires come into the story motivated by the need to feed and cause trouble. This definitely upped Twilight's tempo, but how this plays out is another reason why the movie falls short. In the span of two minutes (maybe) following this troupe's introduction to the main plot, the film does a 180 degree turn and goes an entirely different direction, literally. Decisions are made, realizations come to light and acceptance of the new state of affairs all happens quicker than Edward can run.

Edward ends up in one hell of a fight with the ruthless vampire James in Twilight.Twilight Review

Equally sloppy are various parts of the film's editing. In one frame Edward takes a mouthful of neck, and in an immediate other his face is clean of blood. In another, Edward and Bella are talking and in the course of a short conversation they go from dry to wet to dry again. Edward apparently can't go out in direct sunlight because a vampire's skin sparkles "like diamonds" (according to Bella), but there are clearly scenes when his character is galavanting around under clear skies. I ordinarily wouldn't point out instances like this because all films have them, but in Twilight they're painfully conspicuous. And don't get me started on the "special" effects - defintiely not special by any stretch of the imagination.

If Twilight were a series on the CW, I think it would be a fine, if not good, production. Like I said, the premise (at least) has bite, and Pattinson actually edges into supernatural believability (thankfully outpacing his hair). But as a full-fledged, two-hour movie, the stakes are much higher, and Twilight simply comes across as amateurish, laden with eye-rolling tedium. Not that my criticism really matters, mind you. Fans will still flock to see the film, and I'm sure a good majority will somehow enjoy it. Meyer's franchise is as impervious to critiques as Edward is to dying. However good the books may be and however deep the fan-base may go, Twilight the movie is nevertheless a disappointing experience.

Note: To confess, I actually went into this film with an open mind and even a bit of excitement, despite earlier misgivings. And even though a fellow critic who joined me for the screening walked out after 20 minutes, I continued to give it a fair shot. In the end… well, you can see what I think about it.

Find more posts: Movie Reviews



Oh no you didn't haha. The wrath of a thousand fangirls will now descend upon you πŸ˜‰

Keith on Nov 21, 2008


Edward bit a VAMPIRE, ripping a piece of his neck and spitting it out...vampires don't have blood running through their veins so why wouldn't his mouth be clean? And not once did Edward "galavant" around in sunlight. As far as the "special effects"...let's get one thing straight. This was a LOW BUDGET movie by what has been considered an independent film company. What more do you want from these effects anyway? They way the crew condensed a 500 page novel and adapted it on-screen brilliantly is beyond me. The director knew the fans of this book couldn't have the story told any other way and she was true to that...and I've got to say - that is remarkable all in it's own right. You want special effects? The next movie will have a bigger budget...but my guess is that no matter how good the special effects are you will still hate the phenomenon that is Twilight.

Jandira on Nov 21, 2008


i agree with Jandira. The movie was so LOW BUDGET and nothing about it was AMAZING. it sucked. IT was a HUGE disappointment. They could have played around with it so much and made it so much better. Instead, they made it a pile of crap and crushed every girls dream of a sexy vampire. The special effects were terrible and the whole scene of the movie was terrible. I say don't waste your time or money seeing the movie. Just watch it in your head as you read the books--it's way better.

Kiki on Nov 21, 2008


I just saw me, it's a movie for fans only. It's not insufferable, but it's by no means a good movie. To put it another way, it's not a movie that you'd like if you haven't read the books. I do think the second movie will be better, just simply because the second book was better. The third movie should at least have a big vampire fight at the end, which will be cool.

jason on Nov 21, 2008


yeahh...if you read the books you would understand why hes mouth was clean. oh and the reason that they were wet then dry in the was to show that they were having a LONG conversation. the voice over we heard wasnt the entire thing. now i liked the movie, but i defiantly liked the books better. before you go putting down the plot i said the books and you will understand. thanks.

becca on Nov 21, 2008


I care. The concept of the story sounds kinda cool, and I would have seen it if I heard it was good, but I didn't, so I won't. Thanks for the review.

Reverend on Nov 21, 2008


I wish the movie Edward was hott :(... i am a big fan of this book but the movie was a stab in the heart!!!! Now when i read the books again i will put the acters faces with the real Bella and Edward and disapointment is all i will get ...this sucks

Rachel on Nov 21, 2008


i havnt seen the movie yet coz it hasnt come out here...but you cant compare the book [which is fantastic] to the movie! it is not going to be the same! and when i see the movie, i will try not to compare the book and the movie coz then i will think that the movie is crap because i am SO in LOVE with the books. I think it will be a good movie. If your a fan, then obviously you will like it. ALSO, they can not get Edwards skin in the movie to 'sparkle' like it says in the book. It will obviously not be the same.

lauren on Nov 21, 2008


Good review, though I'm hoping it isn't quite as bad as you say it is. To be honest, I'm really not expecting much, as film adaptions of teen books usually end up being mediocre. I'm still going to see it, as I enjoyed (most of) the books, however.

Josh on Nov 21, 2008


I walked into this movie thinking that it was going to be like Harry Potter and they were going to leave out important details... but I was so glad that they didn't. The flow of the movie was great and despite what one person says, there will be many people happy with this movie. Are Special effects really THAT important to a movie? The point of a movie is make the viewer feel like they were there when these events happened. This movie did that for me. I loved it!!

Lora on Nov 21, 2008


why so serious?

roflcakes on Nov 21, 2008


i cant wait for the second movie. one word: VOLTURI

funkyphresh, man on Nov 21, 2008


LOL @ the people making excuses already. They were wet & dry & wet because of a long conversation! LOL Give it a rest. The movie FAILS

Deez on Nov 21, 2008


Jandira and everyone here are stupid enough to fall fall this crappy story. no wonder the movie will suck...hahaha and it's funny that you guys are even talking about a sequel....... wishful thinking....hahaha

Edward on Nov 21, 2008


kudos to the reviewer! nice review right here......i feel sorry for the 2 hours that you wasted for this suck fest they call a movie..

Edward on Nov 21, 2008


Despite what some may think, the flow of a movie is not "great" if you actually have that moment where you wonder "how long have i been here?" I understand that the reason the movie took so long was to include as much of the book as possible, at least they included some action eventually. The jumping and running about seemed a bit poorly done, but other than that I wasn't bothered by effects. All that aside, I actually did enjoy this movie a hell of a lot more than I thought I would. The story and characters weren't as bad as I expected, which means that my real problem with this movie came from some of the fans. I guess I'm a bit surprised when even college age girls are so helplessly in love with what amounts to a fairytale. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, I just worry the younger ones will lose touch with reality.

That one guy on Nov 21, 2008


There will be a sequel on this based on the fact that it will be a successful money train. It doesn't have to be good, it only has to have the name of the novel plastered on the poster. As for the plot line, it seems pretty straightforward 1) Girl likes guy 2) Girl finds he is vampire and deals 3) Vampire like girl, despite urges 4) the 2 come to terms with each other 5) Ongoing struggle (include step 3 & 4 for however time necessary) 6) Repeat step 5, until money stops coming in Every vampire story has been done top to bottom. This is nothing new, it is nothing exciting. It is just a vampire story.... with estrogen

L on Nov 21, 2008


Meh. I thought this movie was decent. It didn't always follow the book though. That makes me mad. I thought the acting was really tight though.

Kristen on Nov 21, 2008


I hope the second one(if they make a second one) will be much better and have cool fight scenes.! πŸ™‚

Daniel F. on Nov 21, 2008


Some people are going on about how it's a low budget movie ($37 million), but thats no excuse for a movie to suck. Take a look at Donnie Darko (a great movie) which was made on a budget of $4.5 million.

Peter on Nov 21, 2008


Wow where did all these girls come from? lol

Diego on Nov 21, 2008


Forget all the people that wrote bad about the movie!!!!!!!!!! I thought the movie was awsome.....THE SCENES WERE FANTASTIC. OWWWW I WISH I WAS BELLA SHE IS SOOOOOO LUCKY FOR HAVING EDWARD......HE IS SOOO HOTTTTT......

jumana j. on Nov 21, 2008


You say you went in with a open mind, but It's hard to really try and like something when you already hate it. I trust ya Kevin but I do think that also played a roll in the very low score. πŸ˜€

Curtis G on Nov 21, 2008


"Twilight - Do You Care That It's Bad?" My understanding is that the books aren't terribly good either, so this is definitely going to be a case of people not caring that it's bad. It's like "The Da Vinci Code" -- not a great book and not a great movie, either, but people enjoy it despite its failings because sometimes it's enjoyable to watch a really, really bad movie.

Liz on Nov 21, 2008


Read the the movie..They left out so much important stuff..and Bella HIT HER HEAD in the book, but not in the movie..and for 37 millions--did they spend it on taking the actors out to eat after they did a horrible day of filming? I'm absolutely in love with the books, and I think they are awesome. I was just very disappointed in how the flow of the movie was, how "low budget" it did seem, and just the special effects weren't up to par. It is unfortunate that now when I read the books, I thought that the actors that were chosen were perfect for the roles, but the acting??? That was beyond belief...

Kiki on Nov 21, 2008


I don't usually leave comments on these things but I just have to point out something: VAMPIRES don't have blood! That's one of those "duh" things! Get your facts straight when you are trying to diss a movie because otherwise you just make yourself look like an idiot.

Brooke on Nov 21, 2008


Stellar responses from clear-thinking, mature adults. Fangirls? No...

JB on Nov 21, 2008


I will just continue watching True Blood for a great vampire tale. Hopefully Summit Entertainment will take some of the millions the movie will make and actually put it into the next film.

Bezelbub on Nov 21, 2008


oh lord, the fan girls are swooning...

rissu on Nov 21, 2008


In all fairness, these fangirls don't sound all that different from the fanboys who swoon at the various action blockbusters and comic book movies that come out.

Liz on Nov 21, 2008


Kevin, did you think that the lion/lamb dialogue was created for the movie? That's taken directly from the books. And it was horrible the first time around, too.

DK on Nov 21, 2008


hey, I imagined it was in the book as well, but reading it & seeing it (especially through Stewart and Pattison) are two *very* different things πŸ™‚ and in terms of vampires not having blood, are you folks speaking from just a Twilight perspective or in general? b/c many a vampire character I've seen on screen does (e.g. Interview with the Vampire....the whole feed from the master thing). plus, Alan Ball's interpretation of the creature (in "True Blood") has people getting high of vampire blood.

kevin on Nov 21, 2008


Wow....let the wrath of the fangirl strike with the wrath of a thousand raspberries. But, thanks Kevin. To be honest, i was on the fence of seeing this movie. Like you said the plot seemed interesting, but after seeing even a couple previews i was 'meh' about it. But, your review has prevented at least one person on Earth from seeing it. Once again, Thank You.

Trevor on Nov 21, 2008


That was one of the issues with 300: The cheeseball dialogue worked just fine in the comic, but spoken aloud it was rather stilted. While the lion and the lamb stuff isn't Shakespeare, just read it's merely cheesy. I couldn't imagine trying to deliver that line with a straight face. And a low budget is no reason to cheap out on the special effects. If you can't afford to shoot something and make it look good, you find another way to shoot it. The mechanical shark in Jaws looked awful, so rather than spending the money to try to redesign it, they just shot around it, and the movie was better for it. If your effects pull people out of the movie because they're really bad (or even really good), then you have failed as a filmmaker, and falling back on your budget is a flimsy excuse. Fan reaction seems mixed. I don't think there's going to be nearly as much of a repeat audience as people thought.

Lady Aerin on Nov 21, 2008


Thanks Kevin, the vampire blood was one thing i was going to bring up. Also, give Summit a break. This is really their first major movie of a total of seven or so, with the highest grossing of Never Back Down. A picture like this will put them on the map and hopefully allow them compete with some of the big dogs (especially FOX since almost every movie of theirs bombed this year). So give them credit for trying something big and actually sticking pretty close to the book, unlike other novels turned into movies (ie Eragon). I will admit that some of the actor choice was horrible, such as creepy looking Jasper. But hey, I guess they all cant get lucky and find a Daniel Radcliff right.

Ross on Nov 21, 2008


f'n vampire movies ,especially this book turned movie,4 books for a vampire ?! heres the d-low of the simple book 1.girl likes guy ,2."but wait you cant like me im a vamp i must eat you"3. girl: i dont care i need you ,we can make it work!'' ....jib,jab,jib jab,jib jab ...wheres the sex ,love making, its not a vampire story without the vamp beating cheeks then murdering her because shes been sedused sooo easily "ohh my god your soo ignorant its much more than that!!".......typical girl comment back at me for this comment i wrote, ohh title 9 how youve empowered women ,lol sexist ,no ,tired of cheap romance stories,yes

sigh on Nov 21, 2008


#2 "As far as the "special effects"…let's get one thing straight. This was a LOW BUDGET movie by what has been considered an independent film company. What more do you want from these effects anyway?" Get the fuck out of town. Hardwicke had a 37 million dollar budget. Let's take a look at some production figures shall we: Twilight - 37 million 30 Days of Night - 32 million Pans Labyrinth - 19 million Let the Right One In - I think it was around 5 million And Summit is considered an indie company? Really? The company that put out American Pie, Vanilla Sky, Mr. & Mrs. Smith and The Brothers Grimm is an indie film studio? For Gods sake, it's not like Troma put this thing out. Fucking fanboys.

MichaelBay on Nov 21, 2008


While the movie isn't horrible...saying it was AWESOME!!!! isn't realistic either. Lets be real people, this was...for all intensive purposes a movie made to get teenagers into the theaters and spend money. Especially females, considering all the male dominated movies(comics, GN's action, ETC)currenty ruling hollywood. and like Kevin stated, no matter the review, this movie will do exactly what it set out to do...MAKE MONEY. While i've read the series, as my wife loves the books...i find the books to be pretentious and HEAVILY reliant on Meyers ability to use wording that makes the story seem to be more than it is. This is not a bad thing, it shows her natural writing ability, but in relaity the novels are nothing more than dreamgirl fluff of some hot guy who happens to be a vampire vs a comic of dreamboy fluff of a cool superhero saving a hot chick... Also, as i'm sure alot of the girls that read these books relate to and admire is the love aspect...which ironically IMO ruins the story both from the book perspective and the movie's OVERLY used... It's not the best novel or movie ever, it's not the worst...let the fangirls have their respective movies and books...guys have theirs, so don't act like the street doesn't roll both ways fellas... As for the special effects, IF you as a movie studio are going to use special effects in your trailers and previews, then yes SPECIAL EFFECTS are important, as those moments are used to entice people to go and see this awesome vampire character who can move super fast and has super strength... Honestly, Jim Butchers Vampire series easily blows this out the water IMO...

Nicc on Nov 21, 2008


So I'm sitting here at work with a ticket in my pocket my wife bought about a week ago and wondering if I'll think the movie is "OK" or if I'll hate it. I have no biased or conceived notions of anything spectacular so I think that might save me and let me enjoy it.

Richard on Nov 21, 2008


I loved loved loved this movie!!! it was soooooooooooooooooo good!!!!! i cant wait till the next one comes out!!!! πŸ™‚

sarah danielle on Nov 21, 2008


I'm an older fan and I've been there and back with all of Anne Rice's books, all 1,599,434 of them and its very hard to keep a vampire tale going. As some of you older folks probably remember, Anne Rice had a little bit of a hand in the making of her 1978 novel "Interview with the Vampire" into a movie and she was horribly disappointed with the thought of Tom Cruise playing her galavanting, beautiful, unabashed main character, Lestat. Later, she made a public apology, but I think Tom Cruise forced her to. LoL. (Showing my love for TC, not) Anyhow, I was disappointed too after reading the novels. They took all of the fun little idiosyncrasies out and replaced them with famous actors and crossing the line with many of her plot points. It was not a very good movie, though Brad did look hot as Louis, the brooding vampire who thought for sure he was going to hell. I feel like they're crossing the lines with this movie as well and making it a little gooey for the older readers taste. Yes, the love story between Bella and Edward is very important, but its not gooey by any means. Its a battle of emotions. I think they could have done a much better job with Edward's edginess, but also his true tenderness (which doesn't come across as sap in the book). Bella should have been more plain, less dramatic. There were many things I thought needed changing, but I will continue to love the books and the faces I've given to the characters.

Samantha on Nov 21, 2008


If you wanna see a good vampire movie, there's always Blade. πŸ™‚

Mr. Wizard on Nov 21, 2008


well--i gotta tell you--this movie just looks horrible. whoever they got to play Bella looks like a brain-dead idiot who can barely utter a sentence--she literally spends half this movie with her mouth hanging agape beneath her dull, listless eyes like the village moron. the VERY SPECIAL effects are just beneath that of a made for sci-fi channel movie along the lines of "alligator" and "giant monster snail" i will say this--whoever they got to play Edward IS a hunka hunka burnin' love and ever so easy on the eyes but that's about it. not pulling off the "sparkle" is a cop-out--they could have sone it--remeber ben affleck and jen garner's scene in daredevil? see this movie to laugh at it and trust me you will get your money's worth and go home with with your cheeks aching and a side-stitch. sure to disappoint the book series' fans. πŸ™ the horrible acting, choppy editing, inattention to detail, rushed production, and lackluster script are what sink this ship.

elisse on Nov 21, 2008


I'm in the middle. I'm a fan and I can say that I liked it but it definitely had some big problems. I think I was most disappointed in Catherine Hardwick and Melissa Rosenberg. Some of the camera work and script choices seemed disjointed and just odd. Ugh...the special effects were painful to watch for me personally. I know they had a small budget but I was still surprised at the low quality of some of the stunts. I liked the ambiance of the film in certain parts with the blue tone to the movie and the music choices but I felt like it was inconsistent. I liked the music at some parts but in others I felt like it was really distracting. I thought the acting was good except I felt like Rob was kind of all over the place with his performance. I think there were parts where he had it and others that were lacking. I liked Anna Kendrick, Billy Burke and Christian Serratos a lot in their roles. Their performances really stood out to me. I don't see how anyone could really enjoy it if they hadn't read the books. This was definitely a movie for fans. I just hope that they fix the mistakes that they made with the first one when they do the sequel, which I really think is guaranteed at this point. It definitely could have been better but I didn't think it was awful either. I hope it does well for Summit because I would love to see an independent studio have a hit.

janet on Nov 21, 2008


I agree that the film is critic-proof, though I am totally uninterested in seeing it (theatrically at least)

Sean Kelly on Nov 21, 2008


This isn't meant for us (guys); it's a movie designed for tweens. A virgin romance to get teenage girls tingly in the loins.

avoidz on Nov 21, 2008


Stop calling it low budget. It cost $38 million to make.

Kevin on Nov 21, 2008


I'm glad you stayed and took time to do this review,Ken.Well,I believe fans of the books-who like this kind of cheesy,brainless stuff-will enjoy it at least.

twispious on Nov 21, 2008


38 million is low budget for this type of film.

Stacey J on Nov 21, 2008


Just like I mentioned! This film was not meant for us. WE are not the demographic. Ken, I'm not surprised by your review! As for those who did like it---cool. I have yet to see it, but 37 million and a no name brand director, c'mon, do we expect "Dark Knight" quality storytelling??? This movie will be successful and I'm quite sure if it is really bad then they will vastly IMPROVE the sequel. I'll still be seeing this.

Blue Silver on Nov 21, 2008


I wonder if the films cinematic value and production was so "bad" because of the budget. I can see the squeals doing better from a production stand point because of the fandom of this film. If this film makes a crap load of money like it should because of preteen girls then it's squeals should have a bigger budget. Meaning they can take away some of the old school ways to make F/X and change them in for new school F/X like CGI.

Orren Jensen on Nov 21, 2008


Oh for those of you who don't believe this movie isn't a low budget film because it had 38 million budget. First of all why don't you try to make a film that needs a high budget because of the type of F/X needed under 38 million dollars. Secondly just look at the company that place there name on the film, Summit is an independent American film studio

Orren Jensen on Nov 21, 2008


Everybody has different reviews of the movie, but remember guys this is not a hollywood movie,this is an independent film. And if you don't like the movie, then why talk about it.

sasha on Nov 21, 2008


I just finished the book and its pretty good. I think the movie will be a good because a vampire movie hasn't been out in a long time. Fans of the book and fans of vampire movies will like this movie because it has a love story between a human and a vampire

tory on Nov 21, 2008


#37: THANK YOU! I've been waiting for someone to finally come out and say that. Besides, a low budget does not excuse bad movies. Never has and never will. Pan's Labyrinth had a significantly lower budget than this. Have you seen the effects on that one?! It could easily blow the Narnia visual effects out of the water. $38 mill can go a long way if you use it wisely. Queen of the Damned got $ 35 mil and did better effects than this. Bridge to Teribithia got $25 mill and did better effects than this. Final Destination got $23 mil and did better effects than this! Underworld had $22 mil and did better effects than this!!! The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, in all of its visual genius, only had $20 mil. Finally, when MirrorMask's meesly $4 mil still looks better than have to wonder where all the money went.

Hyacinth on Nov 22, 2008


Utter shite.

mrbobbyboy on Nov 22, 2008


Kevin thanks for the review, you just convinced me not to watch it ;D

leah on Nov 22, 2008


i thought it was good. but i thought it was good becasue i found it funny. the mistakes they made, like jacob blacks wheelchair bound father driving an old chevey. it was funny. and the sparkly sunlight scene looked like edward had stripper glitter all over him. i saw it as more of a romantic comedy than anything else. if you look at this from the viewpoint of just a teen movie its not bad. its funny, cute, and just one of those movies for the younger crowd. its not like they tryed to point this at middle aged women and men. its for teens just take it with a grain of salt. the books were good,i loved them, but they were'nt well written and they had many typos and mispellings but if you can read a book and just appreciate the images that it gives you and the story it tells, that other stuff shouldnt matter. just relax and dont take it so seriously. i will admit though those little girlsin the movie theater are ANNOYING!

sara on Nov 22, 2008


Feels like I was raped in the face by Liberache's glitter covered and bedazzled emo children. WTF! This in not a vampire's a heavy handed Mormon AD campaign! Well with that said I am off to write the next big hit... I call it "11:43pm" it is the story of a Jewish Werewolf who falls in love with a.....oooohhhh look CAKE!

The Rambler on Nov 22, 2008


Wow! Twilight made $35 million yesterday.

bill on Nov 22, 2008


WOW!!! i have NO idea what alot of you dumb people were talking about, i saw it twice already and have a ticket for the third time to see it. The movie was AMAZING!!! so SHUT UP you retards.

Tyler on Nov 22, 2008


Movie was okay. I liked it for what I was expecting. But all the retarded girls screaming every five seconds was over the top. So bad. I couldn't get into the movie watching zombie zone from all the giggling around me. Grrr.

Manda on Nov 22, 2008


If you want to see a good vampire love story movie go find a theater showing Let the Right One In.

heckle0 on Nov 22, 2008


The book is amazing, the movie was funny but not at all consistant with the book which sucks. It was an absolutely gorgeous romantic thriller of a book and for a while i thought the movie was a spoof. They messed up things like how bella finds everything out about him ... in the movie he tells her basically everything... and they dont seem in love at all until she says it. It was good in a funny way but not a good example of the book. I agree that a tv series would be better, at least that way the detail of the relationships between everybody, the characters and everything that should have been but wasnt shown in the movie could be. I love stephanie meyers books ... and i liked the movies... just not if i connect the two because the movie was so wrong. Thats all. Everyone loves it because all the characters are hot... rosalie should be drop dead gorgeous... shes not... they should all be amazing, the only good ones were the casting for james and alice... and they all wore too much makeup. It made me sad. I think i'll just stick to the books because they are amazing, but the movies, i'll probably only see them once, but just for a good laugh:). Oh and i am not a tween, maybe thats why the movie didn't do much for me... the books did though.

girl on Nov 22, 2008


oh and i'd give it 2 stars out of 10... only because apparently they tried.

girl on Nov 22, 2008


i thought it sucked! and im a fan... :S

Yamika on Nov 22, 2008


ROSALIE:How hard is it to find a smokin' hot blonde? I heard the woman who played Rosalie only got the job because she was close friends with the director. She was good at playing the bitch, but other than that... CARISLE: looked like he'd been beat with a chalkboard eraser and bleached his hair himself. Carisle was supposed to be godly sexy, not really hard to look at. JACOB: was perfect, cant wait to see him with short, shaggy hair. His dad and his buddies fit the bill as well. His acting was awkward. Actually, everyones acting was awkward. The whole movie was awkward. EDWARD: didnt have to say much for every female in the theater to start screaming, but he could have said more, just know..act. JASPER: looked like some kind of moronic manikin with a frozen, stunned expression that ceased to relax. Did he even say anything throughout the whole movie? It was almost as if he was still getting over the fact that he'd been picked to be in a movie! I could just see him still lulling it over in his head..."me, wow, im really in a movie. me!! can you believe it?" CHARLIE: juuusssttt fit the bill. ALICE: was adorable. BELLA: 's acting was painful. Really, really painful. While James was attacking her, it was almost embarrassing. She yells like a man and her moaning was very, very unattractive. Not to mention the cross-eyed grimace which made her look retarded. Her expression was stuck in one of boring monotone the entire time. She blinked too much and was always shaking her head. It looked as though she was holding her breath the entire time. Her narrating sucked. Awful. Awful awful awful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The running and some of the stunts were boring and unrealistic. On a good note, I genuinely laughed in a few parts, and I though Victoria, Esme and Emmett were just about perfect. Overall I found it to be downright shameful. I did not like the "up in your face" way they shot it, or the ugly blue lighting in which the film took place. The angles were sloppy and uninteresting. It had a "reality show" quality that I didn't like. There wasnt enough emphasis of the passion between them and it happened too fast. Bah. Its a good thing the books captured so many hearts (I can still hear the teenage girls squealing and gasping as the theater doors opened) or else this movie wouldn't have a chance in hell.

Nym on Nov 22, 2008


"WOW!!! i have NO idea what alot of you dumb people were talking about, i saw it twice already and have a ticket for the third time to see it. The movie was AMAZING!!! so SHUT UP you retards." Convincing argument, and written like a young Oscar Wilde. By today's standards for a Blockbuster film, $37 million isn't much. But it wasn't a blockbuster film. Plenty of cult classic films have been made for fractions of that amount, many great examples being given in the previous posts. Hell, Kevin Smith made millions off of Clerk's and his budget for that was what? $15k? You can argue that yes, that was a completely different style of movie, but for that amount of money making ANY good film would be a daunting task. So saying it had a low budget is a piss-poor excuse - it all depends on using the money available to you to make the best movie possible. If the movie had had an intelligent director, they would've adapted the film from the book so that they wouldn't have had to use those terrible, terrible special effects. While it would've made legions of fangirls enraged that the movie wasn't a carbon copy of the book, at least the movie would have been...what's the word...good? Don't bother seeing it, unless you're a glutton for punishment.

Bill on Nov 23, 2008


If you want to see a good vampire love story movie go find a theater showing Let the Right One In. heckle0 on Nov 22, 2008 this guys got it right!!!! let the right one in is so amazing one of the best movies ive ever see. worth watching.

sara on Nov 23, 2008


seen* excuse the typo.

sara on Nov 23, 2008


$70 mill it made this weekend. 3.5/10 is a suprise being that Q.O.S. got a rating of 9/10 and it made less than Twilight.

big r on Nov 23, 2008


Why did I do, why did I do it, why did I watch this movie? It hurt my eyes and well to be honest I think I lost four to five IQ points. Best line: hold on like a spider monkey.

Dewbie on Nov 23, 2008


I'm a fan of the books, I really am. And I was excited to go see the movie. But honestly, the film made me want to shoot myself.

Someone on Nov 23, 2008


twilight is for undiscerning tween girls. period.

M on Nov 23, 2008


@ #71 So we are rating a movie's quality by how much it made these days? Great, now Beverly Hills Chihuahua will be up for an Oscar. Idiots.

Really???? on Nov 24, 2008


If you're a dude and you liked this, you officially have no balls.

avoidz on Nov 24, 2008


I'm so glad that I have a great girlfriend who wouldn't subject me to garbage like this. I agree with the other posters here that just because a film has a low budget (how $38 million is low budget is beyond me) doesn't mean it should have cheesy effect or horrible dialogue. This movie, from the very beginning, was aimed at one demographic only: tween girls. That demographic could care LESS about SFX, as long as they get cheese. In that regard, it seems that the filmmakers delivered.

AndyS on Nov 24, 2008


is there a director hell for directors who create purely money-making movies and do not produce something worth calling a good movie, solely because they don't need to, they just need to make the movie, on a low budget, to make a large profit? cause there should be.

dave13 on Nov 24, 2008


I'm offended about all this fangirl and fanboy talk. I'm female and totally perfer great "fanboy" movies like Iron Man over money-milking crap like this. I'm sure there are lots of women and girls out there that will agree with me. I want romances between characters I have an invested emotion in (like R/Hr from HP) and can't stand the cheesy crap that this movie beats me in the my face. Not to mention the stupid over used vampire theme! Watch Buffy girls. They did it well and they did it best. I feel that all these "fangirls" were taken advantage of but reality tv and Gossip Girl has dissolved their tweeny brains so much that they can't tell the difference. There are plenty of better books out there and better movies.

gogirlwonder on Nov 24, 2008


Good...bad..I'm the guy with the gun. Oh..sorry..had an Ash-Trip. Nah...I don't want to see it..I pass on this puppy.

Bry from Chi on Nov 24, 2008


Ok.....all the people who ask stupid questions like---why was there no blood??? this movie was not designed around what you like or dont like,or what oyu think a vampire should look like or not look like or for that matter ---weither they should bleed or not. lots of people(ie idiot critics) look at stupid little details that THEY think are wrong abt it and trash it, but arent we all thankful that critics dont produce movies! any hoo TWILIGHT was a fantastic movie and a great depiction of the novel, so anyone who thinks othewise, shove it

ErIc on Nov 25, 2008


I really did not like the movie. I did not think it was horrible in and of it's self but I was pretty much sitting in the theater rolling my eyes and wondering when it would be over. My thought when it was over was "that was cheezetastic!" I did like some of the flashes and some of the artistic images. I did not like that there was little to no story development, It was like someone summarizing the book. A few montages of Edward and Bella talking, and the most awkward on screen kiss I think I have EVER seen. It could be a bit awkward but after that I think I would have been like hummm maybe we are not supposed to be together. Another thing I did not like was KS as Bella, maybe it was partially the bad writing but she was so rude, and ticked off the whole movie. The lack of editing sucked-just after Bella asked if Edward was wearing contacts (it may have been a few scenes after) It flashes to Edwards eyes and you can clearly see the edge of the contacts he was wearing. I laughed and thought "couldn't they have fixed that or cut it?" All in all I did not think it was terrible - Robert Patterson made a cute Edward and I thought the Cullens were well cast. That said, I really did not think it was great, as I said before I thought it was pretty cheezy. I just don't like that this will be the face of Twilight for all the non-readers out there. I think it sheds a bad light on an enjoyable book. good review Kevin Powers. I think you gave it a fair shot and a fair review.

BlueM on Nov 25, 2008


I liked the movie and the books. I liked the book, Vrakluna:Origin of the Vampire better. It was more adult romance and definitely had blood in it. Shouldn't vampires actually feed on blood? I have an extra copy, hit me up or you can go to Amazon. The author's name is Benjamin G. King.

Lisa Lowry on Nov 26, 2008


Twilight should have been a TV series.

SS on Nov 26, 2008


Twilight is a ridiculous series without the movie. Its a crappy vampire-esque pre pubescent teenage girl novel, and thats being generous. The writer took a good concept, yes the concept is good, and turned it into sewage. If the same concept was written by anne rice or someone, it could've been good. Same with the movie. They could've made the movie better, but by doing that, they would've had to get rid of all the crap from the novel, and that wouldve pissed the fangirls off.

ridiculous on Nov 26, 2008


The movie was not what I expected. As I see it, the director just used the tittle and names of the characters. They edited so many scenes that fans wanted to see. I do believe that the second movie will be better, but not as our minds(of Fans) are expecting. Maybe Im wrong. ........Maybe Im not. I didnt judge the movie based on the books, because I do think the books are good. But I would like to see at least a good well done movie of this saga. Hope some of the fans speak out what they want to see in the next movie.

Danielle on Nov 28, 2008


The movie was funny. πŸ˜€ I enjoyed it.

SillySil on Nov 30, 2008


one word describes this cinematic monstrousity: EMO! this is the biggest waste of time. it looked like a Lifetime movie.

BRBomber on Nov 30, 2008


I wish they would of spent more money of making this movie and more details. I hope the second movie will be better. Yes, I will see it. I loved the books.

disappointed on Dec 1, 2008


I wish they would of spent more money on making this movie and more details. I hope the second movie will be better. Yes, I will see it. I loved the books.

rrrr on Dec 1, 2008


well i have really mixed thoughts on this.I thought th movie was ok.I think that catherine could have done better with it.The special effect actually made me want to leave the theatre.I mean and no matter what people say special effect are important especially when you make a movie that will most likely be seen by many.And they might not have had many expectations for the movie but alot of the fans would go see it and she does have many fans making all the books bestsellers.I have heard so many and not just the reviews but people in general say that it was low budget but that does not seem like the best excuse i'm sorry but why make a movie if you are not going to make it right don't waste poeple's time with crappy special effects.I did not like much of the casting i thought Emmett should hav been bigger but that was ok because he played the part to perfection.Rosalie is supposed to be the incarnation of beauty and sadly she is not and i mean there are many beautiful blond girls and they pick someone like that she is pretty just not pretty enough as for her acting it was not all that great either.Bella i will say i had my doubts and they were proven right she made me laugh in places that were not supposed to be laughed at.Her eyes were depthless and were not like the book Bella's at all.Her and Rob kind of looked like they were forced to make the film because it was just so awkward between them not real romance.Rob i think did the best he could he played him ok and he looks ok but that was the problem it was just so ok.I think that Carlisle was to pale that he looked kind of like a pasty freak but he played the part well its just his looks he looked way to pale.But Alice I thought was the best.I felt that even though she didn't play a major part she stood out with her performance and it was great.Jacob was perfect as was Charlie and Esme.I think Jasper was the worst next to Rosalie he kind of looked frozen or scared just he never said much i mean he was just around to be around i dont't think he said much during the whole film.

emmy on Dec 3, 2008


Edward didn't "galavant" around in the sunlight once!! And if he did he'd look pretty darn hot doing it. And while trying to prove a point(which you didn't) you shoud use proper grammer, you spell it "gallivant" .

isabella on Dec 6, 2008


I have not read any of the books and simply was interested in watching a modern vampire movie. Yeah all the actors need some work before the next one but same with the first Harry potter. I enjoyed the film but agree with the recent decision for a new director....someone with more talent for this type of film. For instance what an amazing director with a vision can lee wiseman! I believe the sequels will be more entertaining with better special effects where needed and the actores will have a stronger sense of their characters! Ps I went with my 41 year old husband who is a huge movie buff and he enjoyed it even though it wasn't his favorite! I will be buying it on blue Ray when it comes out! I give it 7 out of 10!

Nina on Dec 7, 2008


The story was good both in the book and the movie. But the acting and direction in the movie was one of the worst if not the worst of 2008

rizzy on Dec 10, 2008


haha, its funny to see all the comments the fangirls leave. it was horrible, hollow shell of a film, and the books were the exact same too. it was awful. i left the theatre about half an hour in. wooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.

monster on Dec 20, 2008


Come on, accept that no matter how good the special effects are you will still hate Twilight. From my point of view, it was a great movie. However there were some details that made the difference. I can agree with those who say that the film wasn't "brillant" but I will not agree with those people who affirm that books weren't good because that's not truth. I have read all of them, and they are my favourite. So be carefull, one thing is the movie, and another very different is the book. A hug from Argentina πŸ™‚

Carolina on Jan 5, 2009


Oh I forgot to say that I agree with this though "Critico de cine es aquel individuo al que le pagan por hacer algo que podrΓ­a hacer cualquier persona: ir a ver una pelΓ­cula, y al salir, decir que fue un desperdicio ir a verla". I'm sorry but this is what you have already done.

Carolina on Jan 5, 2009


Here's the thing: what I hate about this whole Twilight thing is the fangirls. Here's why: For a 17-year-old like me, most would expect that I would go ga-ga over Twilight. Well, I have to admit that the book is an absolute page-turner. But for the insanely out-of-control movie which has obviously much degraded the minds of young girls and the formality of Pattinson and Stewart, Twilight doesn't even deserve to have a sequel. You're right. If Twilight would've been a TV Series instead of a film, I would gladly restrain myself from babbling thoughts of how I hate narrow-minded girls who revolves around Forks, Washington. Not that I'm a feminist and all. It's just I can't take it when girls of my age are so preoccupied with not so important things when they should prepare for their future! Ok I'm in rage right now. I have to admit that the movie is FAIRLY good. It's very obvious that Robert and Kirsten were just forced to do the corniest lines ever written. If it wasn't for my habit of comapring and contrasting things, I won't bother myself for watching this "movie", if that's what you call it. Thanks Mr. Powers for this enlightening review.

Louise Linh on Apr 18, 2009


The movie sucked bad. A low budget is a good reason for crappy effects, but there's no excuse for the horrible acting! It's good to know that other people out there realize how horrible the movie is.

Ashley on Aug 12, 2009


i hate the new vampire and werewolf concepts in this movie. it's ridiculous, i mean vampire's crystalizing and being able to go out in the day cause its raining, and people changing into their werewolf form anytime they get pissed? what happened to vampire's burning into ashes once the sun hits them, and sleeping in their coffins all day. and people only changing into their werewolf form once the wolvesbane blooms and the moon is full and bright? thank God that we have The Wolfman coming soon to save us from all this new age bull shit.

guh on Nov 14, 2009


I saw this not long after it came out on DVD at the suggestion of my older sister, as she is a fan of the books. Her reasoning being that if I saw the movie first, I wouldnt go looking for/picking at stuff that wasn't in the books. At the end of the movie I was left torn trying to figure out what was worse between genuinely trying to like the film and being left largely disgusted with it (I *did* like the Vampire Baseball scene, though..Thought that was pretty cool) or knowing that I can never retreive the time I wasted on this crap. Of the two main actors, I felt Robert Pattinson was better. As much as his portrayal of Edward struck me as a total exaggeration of Anakin Skywalker from Star Wars Episodes 2 & 3, his performance was just barely tolerable enough to stop me from making for the toilet and vomiting uncontrollably. Kristen Stewart certainly *looks* pretty, IMO, but thats all she has going for her here. The entire time I was watching, she gave me the impression she was just reading off of cue cards and nothing more. To paraphrase one of the boys from the review site These movies are an embarassment that the actors are going to have to deal with for the rest of their lives. I own the first two books (got em as a birthday gift earlier this year) but have yet to read them. If the books are even slightly better than this waste of celluloid, I just *might* ease up on the Twilight franchise. As it stands, though, this story has been done to death, and its been done FAR better than what Stephanie Meyer has produced.

soul_reaver265 on Dec 3, 2009

Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram