Auto boutiques-francophones Simple and secure cloud storage giftguide Kitchen Kindle Music Deals Store SGG Countdown to Cyber Monday in Lawn & Garden

Customer Reviews

3.7 out of 5 stars77
3.7 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-8 of 8 reviews(2 star).Show all reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on December 20, 2009
Hot actors, check. SFX, semi check. Evil Vamps go good cliche plot line, check.
My first mistake was sitting down to watch the movie. My second was actually sitting through the entire thing, constantly hoping it would get better. My third was not demanding a refund.
Twilight was drawn out and just plain boring. Sure, lots of eye candy, if you can get past the teenage emo that resonates throughout the entire thing. The plot was just one cliche after another.
The one or two not exactly thrilling fight scenes were probably the highlight of the movie. Which isn't saying much. The acting was absolutely terrible.
I'm not usually so harsh in my reviews, and generally tend to find at least one good thing to put in. Twilight has left me with no options. It's a snorefest from beginning to end. I can't even say it's worth watching once.
My fourth mistake, as it turns out, was going to see the second movie, New Moon. I wanted to be fair, knowing Twilight was number one in a series, and those can sometimes be tiresome as they have a lot to set up for, characters to establish, plot lines to deliver. My faith was misplaced.
This movie definitely falls into my 'Rent First' category if you are 16 or under. Any older and you might as well save your money for something that won't send you into flashbacks of all the reasons you're so very glad high school is behind you.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 22, 2001
Usually, my guess as to how a film ends is wrong. But viewing the detective flick TWILIGHT, I was correct in solving the mystery.
TWILIGHT deserves credit for trying. Director Robert Benton succeeds in creating a 1940s-style feel in what is a modern who-done-it. Unfortunately, the film's awkward pacing occasionally rattles that mood.
You would expect TWILIGHT's climactic moment, where our hero private eye unravels the mystery, to be exciting. Instead, the film ho-hums into the conclusion.
Further distraction: lingering female nudity, namely Reese Witherspoon and what appears to be a body double for Susan Sarandon. Sorry, I just can't pay attention to the story with a fetching lass such as Ms. Witherspoon romping around topless. (Ms. Sarandon sure has done her share of nude scenes without a body double, though. In her 1970 debut movie, JOE, she was completely undressed within two minutes of her first scene. She's worked hard for the money ever since.)
Then there's Paul Newman and James Garner playing retired cops who moonlight as private detectives. If you read the TWILIGHT script, you would expect men in their 50s in the role. But Misters Newman and Garner look their 70 years of age.
Nonetheless, lead actor Paul Newman carries TWILIGHT. His famous blue eyes and soft-spoken demeanor command attention. Actress Stockard Channing, strong in a small supporting role, also helps you forget some of TWILIGHT's flaws.
I'd rather recommend TWILIGHT for its effort than knock it for its shortcomings.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 23, 2010
This movie is alright if you haven't read the book. I didn't find a lot of comparisons to the book and it seemed like even the slightest detail was changed. I found the movie rather dissapointing considering how into the book I was and how fast I read it. There was a lot of awkwardness in the movie and I found some of the scenes didn't fade into the other smoothly. I watched the deleted scenes and then rewatched the movie and I found that some of those scenes shouldn't have been cut out as they smoothed out some of the plots. I liked it better the second time around but still didn't enjoy it as much as I would've liked to. New Moon was done a lot better and I would definatley give that 5 stars but as for Twilight 1-2 stars since it could've been done a lot better then it was.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 27, 1999
This is like a "Barnaby Jones" episode, with a scene showing Reese Witherspoon's boobies tacked on(Thus the half-a-star bump). This scene will make viagra unnecessary for this movie's core demographic, on the day they view this movie.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Like Harry Potter and "Eragon" and other such younger-reader literary phenomena, Stephanie Meyers' bestselling vampire romance "Twilight" has gotten the big-screen treatment.

Will its countless fans love it? Undoubtedly. Will the rest of the world love it? Ehhhhhhh... probably not.

Basically liking "Twilight" all depends on whether the idea of teenage vampire/mortal romances with no sex and lots of longing looks appeal to you. It's essentially a teenage fantasy about finding the Perfect Hot Immortal Coverboy Who Longs For You Alone, and as such, it's neither amazingly good nor hilariously bad -- just sort of blah.

On her first day at her new school, klutzy Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is struck by the ash-pale, vaguely incestuous Cullen family -- an especially by the Hawt and Brooding Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). Edward doesn't seem to like her much -- but when Bella is nearly killed by a runaway car, he somehow manages to zip across the parking lot and knock away the car.

Bella does some speculation about how Edward did this particular trick, throwing off some Superman/Spiderman comparisons. "But what if I'm not the hero? What if I am the bad guy?" he asks. Of course Bella believes he could never be, because he's hot. Er, because she trusts him because he's hot. Umm... never mind. Anyway, Bella eventually figures out that he's a vampire-- a "vegetarian vampire" with the power to read thoughts... except hers.

Despite his fears that he'll hurt her, their smoldering chemistry (and Bella's "heroin" smell) draws them into a relationship... at which point, since the plot has had zero non-teenybopper tension, three two-dimensionally evil vampires enter the scene, intent on hunting Bella. The Cullens whisk her away to keep her safe from this trio -- but they have more than one way to find her.

The book "Twilight" is essentially the eroticized fantasies of a teenage girl, purple of prose and taking itself hilariously seriously. Director Catherine Hardwicke and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg thankfully remove most of the sentimental drippiness and damselly distress, but Hardwicke's "Twilight" focuses more on the stars' pretty faces than on their personalities. Or the plot.

Hardwicke paints the whole movie in dreary shades of misty grey and blue, which has a certain appropiate visual prettiness. Too bad about the choppy, jerky fight scenes and appalling CGI, including a unintentionally silly "vampire baseball" scene. Think supersonic pitching. Add that to some oatmeal-bland dialogue ("This kind of stuff just doesn't exist!" "It does in my world"), and you don't exactly have a winner.

The biggest problem is the plot: it goes nowhere fast. "Twilight" is your basic teenage romance -- angst, whining and OMG-does-he-like-me-does-he-hate-me? -- except that the Hawt Guy is a vampire, and the only real obstacle to their Eternal Luv is that he can't make up his mind about whether to date her or not. This is not terribly riveting as a story, especially since it's glaringly obvious whether they'll get together or not.

To make matters worse, the main source of tension is the cliche sex = bloodsucking formula, where Edward is constantly shying away from Bella's virginal neck (what does that imply about sucking blood from animals?). Hardwicke wrings a few pretty moments from the movie -- such as Edward and Bella in the Northwestern pine treetops -- but her skills seem to be stifled. You can only wring so much interest from "Meet the Vampire Family."

The talented Pattinson is undeniably a beautiful guy, and he has the bad boy thing down to a fine art. Unfortunately Edward doesn't call for much more -- Pattinson broods, smolders and stalks Bella as a sign of how he loves her. Stewart does a passable job as the rather flat Bella Swan (whose main ambition in life seems to be eternal undeadhood with Eddie-boy), but it's hard to forget that that she's basically playing a self-insert for the masses.

Those who adore the works of Stephanie Meyer and dream of eternal love with an Immortal Hottie may find "Twilight" a delight, but it's no more than a thin, flat guilty pleasure at best.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on July 27, 2009
I was disappointed. First of all, I hated all the actors except for Charlie and James. Atleast, they did their characters well. I read the series first, so I pretty much had a decent expectation of what the movie would be like, except I was shocked at how much it sucked. I know that usually the movie can't compare to the books (excluding Harry Potter) but this is just a joke. The Cullens were hardly introduced at all and I don't know how girls can fall flat on their heads for someone like Robert Pattinson. Sure, he's gorgeous (when he actually takes a shower and combs his hair) but he just wasn't my Edward Cullen. Kristen Stewart probably was the worse match though. Bella is supposed to come off as sweet but all I get from her is krustiness. Now that my rant is over, I want to say that it was pretty hilarious. The speical effects, I mean come on! Anyone can put on body glitter! My verdict, you can watch it if you want, but it's definitely not an Oscar.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on April 5, 2009
Started off good .. but something went wrong mid way and it got boring .. I guess being a vampire fan I was expecting more. Not my type of movie.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
0 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on May 25, 2009
I am not one who leaves negative feedbacks with ease. And being a little older then the targeted majority readers/viewers of this series, I hope that my review may be useful for some. That being said, I have read all four novels of the Twilight saga and let me tell you that the movie was a BIG disapointement!!!

I basically looked like an idiot when i finally convinced my husband to watch this movie with me... after reading the novels, i was sure he would at least enjoy it a little!!! WRONG! Like my husband said, this movie was corny, boring and long for nothing...

1) Bad directing. The director missed a great opportunity to bring out the Twilight magic... the actors looked like they barely knew how to say their lines(Edward, please stop mumbling!), or even how to interact with the camera...

2) Appart from the actors playing Esme, Carlisle, CHarlie and Bella's mom, all the rest of the actors were less then convincing... Bella looked like she was more scared to lose her lines then showing her true emotions....

3) I am not a writer, and i am sure its a hard job, but for this movie, it was AWEFULLY done... i know there's never enough time in a movie to really capture a novel, but there was soooooo much useful legendary info that was left out which could have brought this movie ALIVE!!!! WHAT HAPPEN GUYS!!!???

I truly hope that the sequel will be better directed with another director and that the main actors will take an intense acting course before hand!!!
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Twilight Saga: New Moon [Blu-ray] (Bilingual)
Twilight Saga: New Moon [Blu-ray] (Bilingual) by Kristen Stewart (Blu-ray - 2010)
CDN$ 7.96