|Page 3 of 91:||            |
|Index||904 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie is one of the worst movies out there, even a low budget
B-movie is better, much better than this one. Or is it really a low
budget movie ? Cause most of the scenes are in the forest, anyway..
I couldn't even laugh at its stupidity. It made me sad and disgusted. They should pay us to see it, not we.
It has very bad acting. Some scenes don't have logics. Has cheesy romance. The special effects a 10 year old can make them better and the list goes on..
Here is the summary: Bella talks, talks, talks and does nothing, then Edward talks, talks, talks and then they go in the forest and they talk some more. Then he leaves and she starts crying. Jacob shows off his pecs and the girls start screaming, then he transforms into a giant wolf and goes all horny for Bella. Edward meanwhile thinks Bella is dead for some reason, whatever and wants to die, but Bella of course arrives just in time and saves him. They kiss and he asks to marry him. Suddenly the end.
Stay away from it! it will hurt, believe me.
So, I'm not going to insult the people who liked this movie but I have
to ask: What in the world do you like about this movie? OK i get it,
the books are good, I've read them but the movies are just awful. The
actors are really bad, the lines, everything. Kristen Stewart is a bad
actress. And Robert Pattison a horrible actor. I know you all are going
to say " go to hell you don't know what you're talking about" but this
comment is just my opinion. just like others wrote. I have some friends
that loved this movie and i still try to understand why? I thought i
was going to fall asleep at the cinema. It was SO boring. The actors
have no charisma. nothing. no facial expression. The lines are horrible
and I better stop here. So, I've learned my lesson,I'm not going to the
cinema to see the next movie. I've wasted good money on this one. I'm
not making the same mistake again next year or whenever it will be. So
people sorry if anyone got mad with this comment, not my intention,
just wanted to express my feeling towards this movie ( if you can call
it that ).
With respect, Raluca from Romania :)
If this is going to be the new norm in Hollywood, I'm going to stop going to the theater. I went and saw this movie with my wife, we just recently saw "Twilight" and have not read the books, so we were at a disadvantage next to the million's of other kids in line with us. The only good mark I can give this film is that it's a new spin on the old Vampire tale. Plus, it's a new spin on the "i'm a girl being chased by two boys, who will fight over me." This formula has been done thousands of times, and it won't be too long before there's another silly teen-craze movie that draws in the current generation of movie goers. The negative marks on this film are too numerous to mention. It's plain and simply bad. It rates up there with Manos: hands of fate, and From Justin to Kelly. This is an example of the junk movies that are made in today's age, and just like the recent Transformer's movie it's made a boat-load of money based on hype. If anyone actually watches this movie more than once needs to be screened for psychological problems.
Whilst I do not begrudge Stephanie Meyer on her success with the
Twilight series and the untold pots of money she's amassed; she's no
J.K Rowling either. To quote one of her critics, Stephen King: "while
both authors spoke to young readers, the real difference is that Jo
Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a
darn. She's not very good." I get the feeling Steph was a stay-at-home
soccer mum, whose only boredom was to reinvent a genre. Don't get me
wrong, it's nice to bring something different into Vampire folklore (as
Joss Whedon did with Angel and Ron Koslow with Moonlight. Both vamps
walked around in the day,whilst avoiding the sun; and displaying their
fangs-for-all menace at night). Angel was in love with Buffy Summers,
but their love was not cringe-inducing and much can be said for Mick
"Moonlight" St.John and his passion for Beth Turner. Sadly, if Twilight
was written in the 80s and turned into a movie in that period, we could
have had a different story in the Romeo & Juliet vein (which was sadly
alluded to in New Moon and possibly insulting to Shakespeare himself!)
Bram Stoker said the inspiration for Dracula came to him after
contracting VD, a BLOOD related disease. Does this mean that Steph
Meyers happened to get inspiration from her menstrual cycle? So, what's
wrong with the Twilight movies? First of all, why doesn't Edward Cullen
possess fangs? Can a Twilight reader explain this to me? The notion of
a veggie vampire isn't new and was seen in Supernatural's season two
episode "Bloodlust" - (featuring Buffy Alumni, Amber Benson) as a
vegetarian vampire with an impressive set of retractable fangs and a
new craving for Cow blood. She was a badass girl and yet, you liked her
nobility too. A very convincing storyline, thanks to the writers and
actors of the show (Eric Kripke, you're God! Jensen & Jared, you two
make Pattinson & Lautner look like real amateurs!)Steph Meyer has said
on Oprah recently that she avoided horror stories and it seems she
should have stayed away!
If you want decent, hardcore horror by a female author, look to Charlaine Harris and her Sookie Stackhouse girl, that inspired HBO's "True Blood", a sick, shocking and very funny vampire show with attitude. Tonight, I sat through New Moon, in a sea of giggling girls who just didn't know when to STFU! In fact, if Twilight was made as a comedy, it would actually work! Upon seeing Robert Pattinson as Edward, one girl shouted out: "Is that him? He's not all that!" I have to admit that was almost the highlight of sitting through the torture. I wanted to leave; but also remained seated to see if New Moon would conjure a surprise or two. Well, it did, most laughably that werewolves transformed in the daytime (the cute, cuddly, ferocious kind; not the tear-your-heart out muthas, mind you)and vampires going for long swims (WTF??)It even tries to be pop-culture clever in the form of Victoria, but the attempt was poor and looked smug and painful at the same time. Also, is Bella supposed to be a poor-girl's suppressed Goth? Watch Katie Holmes do a far better job in Disturbing Behaviour.
If you want wiseass remarks, look to Dean Winchester in Supernatural, the King as far as I'm concerned. Sadly, today's generation has no clue about anything, and the demographic for Twilight, clearly proves that. I miss the glory days of the 1980s, when films WERE films, and not concerned about "original" ways of enticing an audience. And how does someone like Chris Weitz go from directing American Pie to this???
If there are any redeeming qualities to Twilight, it's really underused actors like Billy Burke as Charlie Swan; Michael Sheen as Aro and Dakota Fanning as Jane. Michael's no stranger to the horror genre and cuts a convincing Lycan in the Underworld series. They could've given him fangs here, but guess they didn't want their audience to have nightmares (please!) Kristen Stewart is a good actress but struggles with the dialogue at times. Rob Pattinson (whose career will only last 2 more years)does a good American accent but is no Brad Pitt (who incidentally, played a great romantic fanged lead in Interview With The Vampire). The real horror here, is that Hollywood has been running out of ideas for years and this is the best source material they could find? Sit through and watch at your peril - and get the hell out while the screaming of prepubescent girls rings in your ears! You have been warned.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I can't even express into words how strong my distaste for the entire
Twilight Saga truly is. In my personal opinion Twilight is
prefabricated, poorly written, shallow, demographic-forcing tripe. When
I was a fourteen-year-old girl I was very obsessed with the vampire
anti-hero Lestat from Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles. And though
Lestat had many relationship issues he was still a better defined and
more well conceived character than that of Edward Cullen.
Edward and Bella are poorly thought out, two dimensional shells. This was a deliberate effort by the author so that every young reader could imagine themselves as the main characters but in the process she made them so superficial that the characters lacked any quality of definition. They did not feel like real people.
Not only is Twilight poorly written but it also hinders upon actual mythology. The notion of vampires glittering in the sun is laughable at best. It brings to mind the recollection of such toys as the My Little Pony dolls. The logic behind vampires sparkling in the sunlight is non-existent. A vampire burning in the sun has been a staple of Gothic fiction for many years. There are real diseases and disorders in the world that make sunlight harmful to certain individuals. Scientifically it's more plausible to be harmed by sunlight than to 'naturally' sparkle in it.
Another flaw in the mythos of Twilight is the definition of werewolf. I cannot tell you how many times I have come across Twilight fans who insist the characters who can turn into wolves are not werewolves. They say that these characters are shape-shifters. A shape shifter by traditional definition can take on multiple forms, not just one. Many Twilight fans also argue that within the mythos of the books a true werewolf only changes on the full moon and that's why Jacob and company are not actually werewolves. The parapsychology student in me winces at this. In many traditional werewolf folklore out of Germany and France there are werewolves that most certainly can change at will, are aware in their wolf form, and are not bound by the phase of the moon. The very word werewolf means man-wolf. It does not mean part man and part wolf. It comes from the notion of a man INTO a wolf. Most classic werewolf stories (before The Wolf-Man movie) had the werewolf changing from a person into an actual wolf.
The very first werewolf legend can be traced back to the Greek myth of King Lycaon. According to legend King Lycaon served human flesh at a feast for Zeus (the king of the Gods). Zeus was so offended that he punished Lycaon by turning him into a wolf. Only his eyes remained human. This myth is where the terms Lycanthrope, Lycanthropy and the more modern Lycan come from. I guess it's safe to say Stephenie Meyer does not do her research in regard to the occult before writing these stories.
Not only is Twilight poorly written and intellectually insulting to occultists (amateur and professional alike) but it also promotes very unhealthy relationships. Edward Cullen is abusive, stalkerish and obsessive. Edward has also had moments of physically harming Bella. Bella is equally so but that does not make it okay, nor does it make the relationship healthy. At one point Edward disables Bella's mode of transportation and has her kidnapped as a means to 'protect' her. If he was not a vampire this would be viewed as highly abusive of the character. There is a fine line between being chivalrous and sexist. Edward Cullen crossed that line miles ago. This sets a very unhealthy ideal of what defines romantic relationship for the young readers of Twilight. I am not saying not to read Twilight nor am I saying to burn the books. I am simply saying that it needs to be looked at in context for what it truly is and that there are far higher quality reads out there. If you want a chivalrous character who is NOT sexist, seek The Dresden Files novels by Jim Butcher. The hero, a wizard named Harry Dresden, is very chivalrous without being sexist.
Bella is what modern writers call A Mary Sue. In fiction writing and role playing games Mary Sue characters are strongly frowned upon. A Mary Sue is a character of shallow quality who is nearly flawless. The character is so perfect that even her so-called flaws are endearing.
I have run online text based role playing games since 1999 and I can tell you there are plot points in Twilight I would not have allowed in my game. A major one would be when Bella and Edward finally had their daughter toward the end of the book series the child aged extremely fast and by age seven or so she was involved with her mother's werewolf ex-boyfriend. To me this is disgusting. I would never have allowed this in my online role playing game. She might have developed with supernatural speed but she still has only had only seven-years-life experience and I feel that is certainly not enough time to be in a romantic relationship with a grown man. That was disturbing to me. Supernatural speed aging does not give her enough life experience for that sort of relationship. That was simply not right.
In short Twilight is not what I would consider a good read even for those who truly love supernatural romances. See out the likes of The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. Twilight is not worth the time. There are higher quality works of fiction out there.
Here is my definition of a vampire: A dark-haired savage that looms in
the darkness,leeching on the blood of the innocent,preferably with an
Here is my definition of a werewolf: A man who,at a full moon,becomes a menacing beast with huge claws and fangs.
Not a vampire: Gay emo kid.
Not a werewolf: Badly animated dog.
Bottom line: If you are a fan of vampires and werewolves in a true scary movie,see Underworld.This movie is a piece of garbage.The only people who like it are obsessed fan-girls.The only guys who like it have no idea what a vampire is supposed to be.I give it a 1/10. I'm disappointed IMDb doesn't have a 0/10 rating.Or a minus rating.
I can't even begin to describe how disappointed I was with this film.
The acting was horrible, the storyline was pieced together, and it was
just plain boring. I've read the books and enjoyed them. I was excited
to see the movie. I'm so sorry I spent the money to go see it.
The only reason I think it got so much enthusiasm was because of the teenage girls gushing about Taylor Laudner's bare chest throughout the movie. If it wasn't for frequency of that, I think even they might have noticed how bad the film was.
Don't expect to see me in line to watch the next two installments of Twilight.
I honestly cannot fathom how a sane person can sit through this movie
without swearing. And, no, it's not because you're rooting for
something good to happen to the characters, you're just there hoping
they'd all explode somehow.
Kristen Stewart may be a good actress, but you'll never tell from this series. She gives a very wooden, uninspired performance. It's like zombie Bella, unless that's what's intended. The writing is extremely cheesy and flows like a young child learning to write short conversations for the first time.
This movie is filled with BROODING and MOPING. It's not believable, entertaining angst, it's just annoying and sickening.
I know there are people who'll say a rating of 1 is unthinkable, when there are so many other horrendous movies out there. Granted, that's true, but a lot of those movies know they're ridiculous. New Moon pretends to be something of substance when in reality, it's plain ridiculous. It takes itself way too seriously and in so doing, bores viewers beyond measure.
This may sound sexist, but this a movie probably best enjoyed by
teenage girls. My guess is that anyone else is likely to find the film
a challenge. Phillips and Scott recommended the film on their show "At
The Movies" so I took my two kids who were back from college. They
laughed in all the wrong places and made fun of me for taking them to
see such an awful movie. The film takes itself too seriously and the
male characters were always taking their shirts off which made it seem
like a cheesy, exploitation film.
As you know Bella is a girl in love with a vampire. In New Moon she is dumped, becomes suicidal and then befriends a werewolf. Although, Bella is very pretty it's hard to understand why her two suitors are so attracted to her. She is constantly depressed and getting herself into life threatening situations and having to be rescued. Edward's sister Alice (Ashley Green)is smart, pretty and funny and is more my type of heroine. Some light relief was provided by Michael Sheen who hams it up outrageously as Aro, king of the vampires, he obviously needed the paycheck.
I couldn't understand why Edward at 109 was still in high school and chasing 17 year old girls. I would suggest that Bella is not a very good role model for young girls, she seems badly in need of psychological counseling. This film is so bad it's funny.
Somewhere in Middle Earth, Saron is shaking his head in disgust at this
latest addition to the genre that includes his own story.
Has anyone else noticed that most of the people who rave about this movie and the original Twilight tend to not be big scifi/fantasy fans? Only recent converts?
I am not surprised. The true fantasy fans knew better than to go see this film. All it really is is a love/action movie dressed up with vampires. Ha! I bet most of the viewers who liked this movie haven't even seen Lord of the Rings or the original three Star Wars movies. (Then again, I haven't seen Lord of the Rings, but I do not consider myself a true fantasy/sci-fi fan. Only a moderate one)
No, you can't just have werewolves and vampires and call it a high-fantasy (the true fantasy genre) film, just like how you shouldn't have a few aliens to call your film high-science fiction. (the REAL sci-fi)
Low fantasy drives me bonkers.
|Page 3 of 91:||            |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|