This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
of the Twilight series. I watched the movie with a few die hard fans who I talked to after the movie, and I will work some of their thoughts into the review. Another much loved book series has been brought to life in the form of Twilight, which despite having nothing in common with the Harry Potter series, will undoubtedly draw comparisons because of the furor and craze surrounding it. The main difference between the two, however, is that the Harry Potter films are generally good and solid films. Twilight, despite having done a couple things right, is not. As a story, I will admit, Twilight is very catchy and interesting. Now I see what all the hype is about. If I was a young girl, I would go nuts over this stuff too. It's not just a vampire and a human falling in love with each other, but because of the two leads, it's one of the best on screen romances of the decade. This, however, is severely hurt by the fact that Twilight boasts easily some of the worst writing and editing I've ever seen. Let's not forget about the horrid VFX and pasty makeup, either. It's one of the cheesiest films of the year, and can definitely be put in the category of "so bad it's ALMOST good". Yes, I just invented that category. The 'allure' of the film appears to be the character played by Robert Pattinson, who ironically was previously known for his role in the Harry Potter series. Pattinson succeeded there and he more than succeeds again, as he more than fit the bill for what he needed to do with the character. Most actors would believe the only requirement of the character is to be good looking, but Pattinson takes it a step further and makes Edward Cullen very likable, trustworthy, and in the end, a good hero for the audience. Kristen Stewart is sort of the queen of not showing facial expressions, so she's perfect for the role of the awkward teen Bella Swann. However, there were sometimes where her lack of emotion bothered me. Our supporting players...Well, none of them are noteworthy like Pattinson is. The villain of the film is lame, cheesy, and played by an actor I can't take seriously. Nikki Reed is probably the best as Rosalie, Edward's 'sister', and the antagonistic vibe felt from her adds a different side to the movie. Okay, I don't really know what possessed the writer of this screenplay to make it so horrible (was it the source material?), because the dialog is just so bad that I laughed at serious moments. There's a lot of intentional humor, mostly in the beginning when Bella and Edward feel like awkward teens in love. I guess the movie moved along okay, because I wasn't bored at all. I was either laughing at how stupid the dialog was, laughing at some of the mildly funny jokes, or getting pulled in by the electric chemistry between Stewart and Pattinson. That, folks, is the reason most people will be able to sit through this movie. The chemistry between the two leads, romantically and sexually, is amazing. In this respect, Pattinson and Stewart are perfectly cast and it makes me wonder if they could end up together in real life some day. I was very surprised by how
much I liked seeing their one on one scenes, as cheesy and bad as the VFX and editing are. As far as these visual effects go, I've seen a few vampire movies in my day. I'm going to assume director Catherine Hardwicke has seen a few. Well, she needs to watch a few more. Her fight scenes are horribly choreographed, terribly shot, and lack the intensity required to successfully rouse her audience. I could almost notice the wires the actors flew across on. I noticed a ton of errors with the editing as well, such as basic stuff like mouths moving and no words coming out, and words coming out when no mouths were moving. The fight scene at the end has wicked bad editing too, as the sound mixing also suffers as well. All in all, with Twilight, as bad a movie as it may be, I couldn't help but stay interested in it because of the electric chemistry between the leads. That alone kept me in the seat the whole time. It is technically one of the worst films of the year, but the entertainment factor in the above respect keeps it out of the company of movies like Disaster Movie and College. I was actually lucky to see it with some of the fans of the book, and all of them (5) described the movie as a 'disappointment' and that the film went 'half way' with some subplots, either starting and dropping them, or randomly starting them halfway through an individual subplot. They were not happy at all with this movie, but agreed on one thing: Robert Pattinson was the perfect Edward Cullen. I'll agree with them on all those points and say that Twilight is exactly what I thought it would be: so bad it's ALMOST good. REVIEW 2 Twilight would be the same movie with or without vampires. Edward is attracted to Bella because she smells delicious, but he could just as easily have been attracted to her because she s really super-hot. Bella on the other hand, is attracted to Edward for the same reason all teenage girls seem to be attracted to bad boys. I don t know what that reason is, but the female lust for jerks is something of a universal constant, and it s on full display here. This is a story of a nice girl attracted to a brooding, edgy, asshole. The vampire stuff is there only to provide a little extra eye candy, it s almost a gimmick, but the shallow romance themes in play are timeless, ageless, and they work well enough. It s a film sure to make 16-year-old girls and women who think Matthew McConaughey is sexy, squeal with delight. Bella is the new girl at school, having moved to the gloomy, rainy state of Washington to live with her father. Her relationship with dad is something of a footnote in the film, but it s more realistic than you d expect. Family is something Twilight seems to understand, whether it s a human father and his daughter or a coven of friendly vampires. It s not long before Bella falls in with a crowd of those blood-suckers, living right out in the open. These vamps don t seem to have fangs and sunlight is only a problem because it reveals their true nature. When hit by a sunbeam, their skin looks like someone went crazy on them with a bedazzler. Or at least it s supposed to, the movie s limited effects budget makes it more of a half-hearted twinkle. Edward Cullen is Bella s window into the vampire world. When she meets him he s her lab partner, and
he treats her like garbage. This of course makes her extremely interested, so she pursues him. Soon we learn that he s been avoiding her because he s a vampire, and she smells so delicious he s not sure he can keep from eating her. He s from a family of vampire vegetarians, blood suckers who do their best to avoid chowing down on humans, sticking to animals instead. Bella finds this all terribly romantic and she s instantly in love with Edward. Edward returns her affections, perhaps a victim of his own vampire compulsions since it s hard to see any reason for him to fall in love with her. Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson seem perfectly suited to their roles, that is to say they re good at playing pale, besotted, empty-headed teenagers. Pattinson even manages to pull off being a teenager with bite. Before long there s strife, less friendly vampires come to town and Edward must protect Bella from becoming someone else s meal. That s not really the point of this movie though. It s not an action flick or a vampire horror movie so much as a brooding romance film. When it does attempt action the pic s limited special effects budget isn t up to it, and they re forced to find ways around doing anything too ambitious. The movie s best scenes instead, seem to happen when Bella and Edward are simply hanging out with his pale, vampiric clan. A vampire baseball game provides something of interest, and getting a feel for how the Cullen s survive undiscovered yet out in the open is worth your time. Director Catherine Hardwicke deserves a lot of credit for keeping Twilight away from the crash and burn it probably deserves. This is fairly shallow material which, with an oversized blank check budget might have been massaged into a legitimate movie. Unfortunately Hardwicke didn t have a bigger budget and is forced to do the best she can with what she has. The result is a film which feels more like the pilot for a television series than a cinematic experience. There s just not enough going on here. On television Twilight could have been the new Beauty & the Beast and critics might have hailed it as one of the best things on TV. As a movie it s merely not terrible. Fans of the book series on which it is based will no doubt throw themselves at it with energy and lavish it with praise, for anyone else it s forgettable but not particularly painful. REVIEW 3 The only reason I decided to read the Twillight saga, even though it is a book clearly geared towards the female audience, is because it was recently made into a motion picture and I like reading the books before I watch the film. At the heart of it, Twilight is a story of forbidden love, this fact is reinfoced by the image of an apple on the cover of the first book. The story revolves around Bella, a self sacrificing young girl with a penchant for getting into dangerous situations and being clumsy. Bella moves to Forks to be with her dad, because she wanted to give her mum and her new boyfriend some space (told you she was self sacrificing). While in Forks, she meets and falls in love with a vampire (Edward Cullen) and as if that was not bad enough, she also becomes friends with a werewolf (Jacob Black who we find out in the final book "Breaking Dawn" was actually a shape shifter and not a proper werewolf). The Cullen family, of which Edward is a part, are a family of vampires who have decided not too drink human blood and instead feed on animal blood, jokingly referring to themselves as vegetarians. Edward,
who also falls in love with Bella, has to learn to balance the his desire for her blood with his desire for her; a job not made easier by the fact that Bella seems to seemingly have no regard whatsoever for her own safety. There is some debate as to the morality and appropriateness of the book. Some reviewers believe the book teaches abstinence as Edward insists on no sex till they are married. While others feel their young daughters should not be reading books about love affairs between vampires and humans, and no matter how 'good' Edward might be, he is inherently evil by nature. In my humble opinion, I feel that reviewers that are debating the morality of a girl dating a vampire are all being pretty narrow minded and should all get over themselves. It is a fantasy fiction book for heavens sake and I am pretty sure the books fan base know this as well. In my opinion, what makes the book a must read is the fact that is a story of a love that is not meant to work out. Everything seems to be working against them from the start; Edward being a vampire, Bella being a human, Bella's best friend being the mortal enemy of vampires.... yet inspite of all this, they still find a way to make it work. Maybe it is the hopeless romantic in me this appeals to, but it does, so there you go. Stephanie Meyer has succeeded in created gripping characters that you can identify with, even if it is just silently cringing and some of the situations that Bella always seems to get herself into. Anyone who has had their heart broken will be able to identify with the destructive spiral Bella fell into in book 2 when Edward left. Stephanie Meyer also seems to have mastered the knack of suspense and once the series gets going, you will be hard pressed to put it down. However, sometimes having Bella describe everything that makes Edward perfect can get tedious after a while and it takes the first book a while to get started. Despite all this, it is still a good book and I will heartily recommend it :) . NEW MOON REVIEW I've read all the books. I know what happens. This never ruins a film for me.
I didn't want to see this film because the previous one was lacking in... well... everything. But girlfriend wanted to see it. I went in and was instantly surprised to see the demographic had widened past 12-16 year old girls who instantly swoon at any even remotely hot guy so that was interesting. It's not relevant to how good the film was- it just reaffirmed to me (and should to all of you) that hating a series on principle or having preconceived notions of how bad something will be is unfair on it. Not in this case. It was still bad. BUT worth the money I payed to see it because though it most definitely not intended to be entertaining in the way I found it. It was full of melodramatic dialogue and bad acting which, if you take ANY Drama classes at school- Which Robert DIDN'T- you'll notice certain things about how people deliver lines. You notice how they're SAYING lines they have memorised with unnatural and stylised emphasis on the key words in the sentences without giving the (cheesy) dialogue depth or
realism. Quite simply, it was so terrible I found myself resisting the urge to burst out laughing in a room full of fans who were probably misinterpreting the melodrama as "Good, emotional drama." No. This film is ridiculous. As it goes further on it gets less tightly stitched together and I had to become reliant on my knowledge of the books to fill in and pick up the slight gaps in dialogue and plot. They would say things that are based on something that didn't happen on screen (probably deleted scene for time) or their dialogue would just be terrible unrealistic lines that are work as standalone ones for a trailer but in conversation it seems like they're jumping slightly just to get to say something that is dramatic without it actually making too much sense. BUT! It does have SOME redeeming qualities! The melodrama wasn't nonstop hilarity so thankfully something else held my attention. There was actual effort put into this film. The fight scenes actually used REAL special effects (something the first film was a bit cheap on) which actually looked kinda impressive. Any action was short lived unfortunately but what little there was, they did a reasonable job with. I was impressed at the presence of transition. The previous film jumped and skipped and the next plot point just WAS without having been caused. This film (until near the end, of course) actually had a pace and a coherency to it that allows you to understand it without reading the books. This is a bonus. Certain things you'd think would drag on as the director tries to give you time to let the "emotion" "sink in" thankfully didn't take forever and the entire movie fit almost snuggly into its 2 hour length. Too bad it fell apart more and more it went along. The film also shares the semi-awkward character interactions that create the same humour as the first one. Not as deliberately funny as the first one (though, as I said, it was pretty hilarious when it wasn't meant to be) though. Though it was many failings with only a few things to back it up as being a reasonable film it will definitely make all you little teenage girls out there desperate to see Jacob's hell tanked up body very happy. You can HEAR the audience's reaction the first time Jacob takes his shirt off. He's got all you need: Pecs, biceps, ABS OF STEEL and minimal clothing. Too bad he lacks depth and real character. (Girls love obsessively devoted Zombies, they don't think enough to complain) It is NO WAY even NEAR one of the best films of 2009. NO ONE should say this ridiculous claim. Really tossing up between 3 and 4 stars. Mmm. I guess a movie's highlight shouldn't be how low it sinks. 3. ECLIPSE REVIEW BREAKING DAWN REVIEW
Reception of Breaking Dawn was, at best, "mixed". Lev Grossman wrote, "First, since there's a lot of one-star reviews up on Amazon, let me say up front: I loved Breaking Dawn." Cara von Wrangel Kinsey of School Library Journal responded with a positive review, describing the book as "captivating" and noting, "While this novel is darker and more mature than the earlier titles, Meyer's twists and turns are not out of character."The Charlotte Observer agreed and called the book "pretty darned good", but criticized the book's length saying, "I wish [Stephenie Meyer] hadn't felt compelled to pack so much into one volume. It should have been two books." Mary Harris Russell of the Chicago Tribune also responded with a positive review and hailed the book as a "fun read", noting that Stephenie Meyer "continues to produce witty writing about families, teenagers and popular culture",while Time called the book "a wild but satisfying finish to the ballad of Bella and Edward" and gave it a rating of A. An article in The Daily News Tribune said of Breaking Dawn, "Some of the dialog is a bit stilted,... but, if you stay close to Meyer's rich and prodigious narrative, you too might fall in love with its suspense and moving sensitivity". Publishers Weekly stated that the main problem with Breaking Dawn was that, "Essentially, everyone gets everything they want, even if their desires necessitate an about-face in characterization or the messy introduction of some back story. Nobody has to renounce anything or suffer more than temporarily in other words, grandeur is out."In an article by The Associated Press, journalist Sara Rose wrote on NewsOK.com that fans of the series would love "engaging characters, great humor, a distracting obsession with beauty, focus on the minutiae of emotions"; however "casual readers may be disappointed with a lot of build-up and little action."The Independent called the book, "shockingly, tackily, sick-makingly sexist" and said that "Bella Swan lives to serve men and suffer." Entertainment Weekly graded Breaking Dawn with a D, criticizing the birth scene and Bella's "unwavering passion for Edward" and having no other goals. The Washington Post also responded with a negative review, making comments such as, "Meyer has put a stake through the heart of her own beloved creation," and "Breaking Dawn has a childbirth sequence that may promote lifelong abstinence in sensitive types." In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Meyer responded to the negative response of many fans to the book and called it the "Rob Effect"; she said that the fans need time to accept the ending of Breaking Dawn, just as they needed time to accept Robert Pattinson playing the role of Edward in the Twilight movie.[
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.