It’s hard to write a review for “Twilight” objectively since, hopefully, about 95 percent of the perspective audience will have read the novel before seeing the film.
There was a lot of hype about making sure certain scenes were in the movie, or whether or not the characters were acted out properly or how director Catherine Hardwicke would be able to pull off making Edward’s skin sparkle in the same beautiful way it was described in the book (which she didn’t).
What was lost in all the fan-promotion and debate and hysteria that surrounds Stephenie Meyer’s vampire universe was what it would take to make a good movie out of the story; not as an adaptation but as a film.
“Twilight” had its moments. About 50 percent of the film was good, 20 percent was spot-on perfect, and 30 percent was just terrible. And not terrible in the way the romantic Naboo meadow scene in “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones” was terrible, but “Doom” or “The Scorpion King” or “Gigli” terrible. Terrible like the type of acting you expect out of inexperienced middle-schoolers performing the first rehearsal of “Scrooge.”
The effort was there, and for a fledgling movie studio like Summit Entertainment, who produced “Twilight” and has signed on for the next three installments in the series, “Twilight” was a valiant effort. It’s going to make them the money they need because fans of the series will ignore the acting and instead swoon over Robert Pattinson and pretend that they are standing in Kristen Stewart’s shoes (which is easier when you’re reading the book and a lot harder when you see how gorgeous they gloss Bella up to be in the movie).
People are going to go see “Twilight” if only because they’re loyal. Unfortunately, as far as movies go, the 30 percent of the movie that was downright awful irrevocably polluted the other decent parts of the movie.
Kristen Stewart did an impressive job as Bella, the protagonist of the movie who moves to Forks, Wash. on behalf of her mother to live in the always-raining town with her father and then discovers that the boy she is enamored with at Forks High School is really a vampire. Some dialogue scenes, like one towards the end where she is recovering in the hospital, ruin the movie’s illusion by Stewart’s awkward delivery, but Stewart proved herself again as one of the stronger teen talents coming out of the MTV generation.
Robert Pattinson, however, did not like up to the buildup. In fact, I doubt that few followers of the progress of the film ever even considered that Pattinson might not pull off the character of Edward, the vampire who Bella falls in love with. Most of the focus on the choice of Pattinson as the male lead was on his looks, not his capabilities.
Sure, Pattinson looked pretty, and there were a couple moments in the film where he absolutely nailed the charming an irresistible creature that Edward was supposed to be. He was nearly unbearable the first half of the movie, though. Pattinson said in an interview with Blast that he had strived to portray Edward as a tortured character who was feeling everything all at once for the first time and it was destroying him. The idea was a good one if it had been executed correctly. Instead it was just annoying watching Edward act insane throughout the first 40 minutes of film – inexplicably insane.
I think Kristen made a horrible Bella.
Other than the bad typos and lack of proofreading, this was a spot-on review. I do disagree with your assessment of Rob Pattinson’s acting, however. He was good but the DIRECTING was really, really BAD. RPattz could have been soooo much better with a good director. He nailed the emotional makeup of the character, just not the execution of it on film. Bad directing, bad screenwriter. Good actors.
Okay so i love the twilight books. i thought the movies were okay but would have been a lot better if they followed the book. the movie made me very angry it was out of order and they skip a lot of important stuff, for example they did not tell you at all about the cullen family, so u wont no how they became a vampire. also they didnt tell u about how carliel became a vampire and y he is the way he is.they also didnt even add the scene the explains why the book it called twilight .the movie would be good if u didnt read the book, it also gets better they more times u watch it. please dont pay attention to my spelling errors.
Dane, almost all of them were absolutely horrid actors. And the ones who were good actors were given the smallest and dumbest parts.
i thought the twilight movies were crap. They have destroyed the book for me. The actors looked like they have never acted before. I hated it !!! and i know hate is a strong word but is it true.
I never even heard of Twilight until my son bought all four books for his girlfriend for Chritams. Not having read the books and only seeing the movie less than a weeke ago I must say I enjoyed it. I thought the acting from both main characters were good. “Bella” was awkward and most teenagers at that age are, although I did not like the hospital scene where she gets all tongue tied becasue he “Edward” wants her to leave Forks. Edwatd of course seemed more mature, well hello he was much OLDER. LOVED the prom scene at the end where he kises her instead of bitting. I am going to go out and buy the books and read them before I see the next movies. I hopw that dosnt dpoil it for me
I like Robert Pattinson’s Edward. Edward is hard on himself, of course, also in the books, if you read them. Robert has skill to portray multiple faces in one shot, just like Edward should (ferocious, gentle, stale, humorous). Edwards brain doesn’t work on one level only.
Robert is not only a pretty boy. If you look at his face, think of him when he is 70-80 years old. His face would be perfect for a Vampire even then: it’s so sculptural and unperfect and characteristic with the twists – maybe even better Vampire then, when he is older. He can display huge emotional scale, unlike many people of out times.
I love movie and book, i LOVE KRSIETN STUWART AS BELLA