Twilight Film Review.

Based on Stephanie Meyer’s vampire novel, Twilight centres on Bella Swan (Kirsten Stewart), a young teenage girl who has had to move back to a town called Forks, following her parents’ separation. She attends a new school and is quickly engaged by another student named Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). He is very cold towards her and seemingly aggressive with his hard stares. When Edward saves Bella from a car accident she becomes determined – much to his distress – to find out who he is. She remains unafraid of him and eventually they form a unique relationship.

Twilight seems like a fitting continuation of director Catherine Hardwicke’s career. Two of her previous films were Thirteen and Lords of Dogtown, which were also movies about young teenagers. Fortunately for fans of the vampire novel, Hardwicke has done a considerable job in her adaptation, showing high fidelity to Stephanie Meyer’s novel. Many of the scenes between the novel and the film are the same and some of the dialogue has been kept intact too. The film was shot in both California and Washington and as a result the town of Forks looks both suitably damp and dark throughout. Details such as this – as well as the consistent characterisation of many side personalities from the novel – will please fans with Hardwicke’s faithfulness and respect to the source material. As a visualisation of Meyer’s work the film provides an atmosphere and an poignancy at times only possible in this medium.

Kirsten Stewart and Robert Pattinson are quite competent as Bella and Edward, without ever being brilliant. Stewart is seemingly fragile and occasionally clumsy, as Bella should be. One may suggest that Bella’s engagement with Edward is a result of her cold relationship with her father and the absence of her mother. She needs someone to love her, no matter who or what they might be. Pattinson is not quite as charming as one would imagine Edward to be though. Instead he plays him as rather weird, awkward and angrier in the early scenes. His staring is somewhat silly but at the same it’s almost intentionally comical. At least the film is absent of Meyer’s tiring and repetitive attempts to place Edward on a pedestal because of his looks. Much has been made of the supposed poor acting by other critics. Regardless of what one might think though, there is no denying that they are both very beautiful and in their likeness they look very well suited together. There is a real sweetness and tender poignancy offered by the beautiful leads that wasn’t as effective in the novel.

Some have also criticised the film for the relationship being too sudden and too spontaneous. Yet to understand and be immersed in their passion it is advisable to read the novel the first. There is more description of Edwards hunger and thirst as a vampire and his frustration at not being able to ignore Bella’s interest. In this regard, both the novel and the film act as companion pieces, allowing you to see perspectives and different interpretations of this same story.

Both the film and the novel have their own strengths and weaknesses because of their mediums. The structure of the story seems to be paced more effectively in the film though and less naive. Almost half of the novel is devoted to Bella guessing about what Edward is, when we obviously know he is a vampire. In the film however, this is accelerated to move to move to the crux of the story. There is also a much more visceral and action packed climax than what the novel offers - which will certainly please fans - and a lovely moment where Edward gracefully plays the piano.

Cynics may detest the seemingly clichéd premise and simple love story. Granted some of it may seem slightly silly – the doctor looks far too young and good looking - but it’s all purely fictional and it is a film aimed particularly at those who loved the novel. They will be very pleased with the way in which Hardwicke has visualised many of the key moments from the novel and provided them with both poignancy and romanticism.

3.5/5.

Based on Stephanie Meyer’s vampire novel, Twilight centres on Bella Swan (Kirsten Stewart), a young teenage girl who has had to move back to a town called Forks, following her parents’ separation. She attends a new school and is quickly engaged by another student named Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). He is very cold towards her and seemingly aggressive with his hard stares. When Edward saves Bella from a car accident she becomes determined – much to his distress – to find out who he is. She remains unafraid of him and eventually they form a unique relationship.

Twilight seems like a fitting continuation of director Catherine Hardwicke’s career. Two of her previous films were Thirteen and Lords of Dogtown, which were also movies about young teenagers. Fortunately for fans of the vampire novel, Hardwicke has done a considerable job in her adaptation, showing high fidelity to Stephanie Meyer’s novel. Many of the scenes between the novel and the film are the same and some of the dialogue has been kept intact too. The film was shot in both California and Washington and as a result the town of Forks looks both suitably damp and dark throughout. Details such as this – as well as the consistent characterisation of many side personalities from the novel – will please fans with Hardwicke’s faithfulness and respect to the source material. As a visualisation of Meyer’s work the film provides an atmosphere and an poignancy at times only possible in this medium.

Kirsten Stewart and Robert Pattinson are quite competent as Bella and Edward, without ever being brilliant. Stewart is seemingly fragile and occasionally clumsy, as Bella should be. One may suggest that Bella’s engagement with Edward is a result of her cold relationship with her father and the absence of her mother. She needs someone to love her, no matter who or what they might be. Pattinson is not quite as charming as one would imagine Edward to be though. Instead he plays him as rather weird, awkward and angrier in the early scenes. His staring is somewhat silly but at the same it’s almost intentionally comical. At least the film is absent of Meyer’s tiring and repetitive attempts to place Edward on a pedestal because of his looks. Much has been made of the supposed poor acting by other critics. Regardless of what one might think though, there is no denying that they are both very beautiful and in their likeness they look very well suited together. There is a real sweetness and tender poignancy offered by the beautiful leads that wasn’t as effective in the novel.

Some have also criticised the film for the relationship being too sudden and too spontaneous. Yet to understand and be immersed in their passion it is advisable to read the novel the first. There is more description of Edwards hunger and thirst as a vampire and his frustration at not being able to ignore Bella’s interest. In this regard, both the novel and the film act as companion pieces, allowing you to see perspectives and different interpretations of this same story.

Both the film and the novel have their own strengths and weaknesses because of their mediums. The structure of the story seems to be paced more effectively in the film though and less naive. Almost half of the novel is devoted to Bella guessing about what Edward is, when we obviously know he is a vampire. In the film however, this is accelerated to move to move to the crux of the story. There is also a much more visceral and action packed climax than what the novel offers - which will certainly please fans - and a lovely moment where Edward gracefully plays the piano.

Cynics may detest the seemingly clichéd premise and simple love story. Granted some of it may seem slightly silly – the doctor looks far too young and good looking - but it’s all purely fictional and it is a film aimed particularly at those who loved the novel. They will be very pleased with the way in which Hardwicke has visualised many of the key moments from the novel and provided them with both poignancy and romanticism.

3.5/5.

To some its cliched. I didn't mind really. It follows the conventions of vampire stories, etc.  Have you read the novel and seen the movie?

i think the movie is for 12 year old girls so therefore it is shit, havent seen it never will and i am not open to discussion

Well written review, however the movie isn't worth any more then a  0.5/5

I have not, but the more I hear about it, the less interested I become. I am almost at the point of revulsion.

Uuuugh. One of the worst films I've ever seen. Dreadful acting, godawful story with enough plot holes to rival swiss cheese...just horrendous.

lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend.

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

I thought the movie was okay given the material. The concept is still an interesting one, even if many of the later scenes degenerated into the two leads staring at one another.

I'm not a fan of the book either - I did read it, and buried underneath the terrible writing is an interesting story, but it's saddled with descriptions on par with an eight-grade essay. Plus, I lost track of how many times the author referenced Edward's chest.

"TheGTAVaccine: What were some of the holes in the story? And also how would you have directed the leads to act? What could they have done different do you think?

"

The best part of the movie was when Edward was sitting in the classroom and Bella walked over to him. I think the dude was trying to come up with an expression equivalent to whatever was written in the book, but instead it looked as if he was trying to squeeze one out right on the chair.

We're missing the most important part of any Twilight review.







Was there any hot jailbait trim at the theater?

I haven't seen the film and I really don't think I will but I have to say, Robert Pattinson is genius casting for a vampire because he looks incredibly strange and has a really odd voice too. Or at least, he sounds like he does in the trailers and adverts.

"I haven't seen the film and I really don't think I will but I have to say, Robert Pattinson is genius casting for a vampire because he looks incredibly strange and has a really odd voice too. Or at least, he sounds like he does in the trailers and adverts."

"I haven't seen the film and I really don't think I will but I have to say, Robert Pattinson is genius casting for a vampire because he looks incredibly strange and has a really odd voice too. Or at least, he sounds like he does in the trailers and adverts."

It would be even better if he did actual vampire stuff though. You know, like sucking blood. What vampire doesn't suck blood and kill people? It's like zombies not eating brains, or a werewolf not losing control of himself at night. He just gets really big and hairy, and he's like "sorry guys, this happens during a full moon, but we can still go to the bar and cruise for chicks right?""

"Bulldog19892 said:

It would be even better if he did actual vampire stuff though. You know, like sucking blood. What vampire doesn't suck blood and kill people? It's like zombies not eating brains, or a werewolf not losing control of himself at night. He just gets really big and hairy, and he's like "sorry guys, this happens during a full moon, but we can still go to the bar and cruise for chicks right?""

Save your cynicism and actually read the novel and see the film. Its not relevant to the main narrative to show us him sucking blood etc. That would probably detract from our sympathy and likability of him. Its a love story really, not a horror flick."

I realize what emotions and urges he was trying to contain, it's just something that doesn't translate well to film. I also realize they had to keep it in, as it's a relatively important part of the book, but it's less painful to imagine what expression Edward might be giving than seeing someone else's brief interpretation of it.

I also didn't like how they showed the vampires move. Again, it's something that is better imagined, since it looks hokey on screen. Edward flapping his arms while being hoisted up by an obviously painted out cable is just silly - Buffy-quality special effects in a movie that shouldn't require anything of the sort, as it's not the focus of the story.

My last gripe is the same issue I have with the book - it's not a full story. The climax is forced and the ending is rushed and the entire thing serves as little more than an introduction to something more rather than being a self-contained book (or movie .

"Bulldog19892 said:

It would be even better if he did actual vampire stuff though. You know, like sucking blood. What vampire doesn't suck blood and kill people? It's like zombies not eating brains, or a werewolf not losing control of himself at night. He just gets really big and hairy, and he's like "sorry guys, this happens during a full moon, but we can still go to the bar and cruise for chicks right?""

Save your cynicism and actually read the novel and see the film. Its not relevant to the main narrative to show us him sucking blood etc. That would probably detract from our sympathy and likability of him. Its a love story really, not a horror flick."

"biggest_loser said:

"Bulldog19892 said:

It would be even better if he did actual vampire stuff though. You know, like sucking blood. What vampire doesn't suck blood and kill people? It's like zombies not eating brains, or a werewolf not losing control of himself at night. He just gets really big and hairy, and he's like "sorry guys, this happens during a full moon, but we can still go to the bar and cruise for chicks right?""

Save your cynicism and actually read the novel and see the film. Its not relevant to the main narrative to show us him sucking blood etc. That would probably detract from our sympathy and likability of him. Its a love story really, not a horror flick."

But that's the exact reason why I personally hate it, the mood of it.

It just doesn't flow and really make sense.  It's basically a love at first sight story and a vampire, something that should be more of the darkness, becoming sweet and sappy. 

You do a love story with things like this the way the Darkness did its love portion, not a sappy love film.  ANd seriously, people will like the more serious version more as proven by Batman 2.
I had to see the film by the way.
"

"I realize what emotions and urges he was trying to contain, it's just something that doesn't translate well to film. I also realize they had to keep it in, as it's a relatively important part of the book, but it's less painful to imagine what expression Edward might be giving than seeing someone else's brief interpretation of it.

I also didn't like how they showed the vampires move. Again, it's something that is better imagined, since it looks hokey on screen. Edward flapping his arms while being hoisted up by an obviously painted out cable is just silly - Buffy-quality special effects in a movie that shouldn't require anything of the sort, as it's not the focus of the story.

My last gripe is the same issue I have with the book - it's not a full story. The climax is forced and the ending is rushed and the entire thing serves as little more than an introduction to something more rather than being a self-contained book (or movie ."

"biggest_loser said:

"Bulldog19892 said:

It would be even better if he did actual vampire stuff though. You know, like sucking blood. What vampire doesn't suck blood and kill people? It's like zombies not eating brains, or a werewolf not losing control of himself at night. He just gets really big and hairy, and he's like "sorry guys, this happens during a full moon, but we can still go to the bar and cruise for chicks right?""

Save your cynicism and actually read the novel and see the film. Its not relevant to the main narrative to show us him sucking blood etc. That would probably detract from our sympathy and likability of him. Its a love story really, not a horror flick."

But that's the exact reason why I personally hate it, the mood of it.

It just doesn't flow and really make sense.  It's basically a love at first sight story and a vampire, something that should be more of the darkness, becoming sweet and sappy. 

You do a love story with things like this the way the Darkness did its love portion, not a sappy love film.  ANd seriously, people will like the more serious version more as proven by Batman 2.

I feel almost as if this movie is an entirely cliche story and something rather poor to adapt to film (granted, I havent read the book, but I shouldn't have to in order to see the film).

I had to see the film by the way, not something I wanted to do."

"DJ_Lae said:

"I realize what emotions and urges he was trying to contain, it's just something that doesn't translate well to film. I also realize they had to keep it in, as it's a relatively important part of the book, but it's less painful to imagine what expression Edward might be giving than seeing someone else's brief interpretation of it.

I also didn't like how they showed the vampires move. Again, it's something that is better imagined, since it looks hokey on screen. Edward flapping his arms while being hoisted up by an obviously painted out cable is just silly - Buffy-quality special effects in a movie that shouldn't require anything of the sort, as it's not the focus of the story.

My last gripe is the same issue I have with the book - it's not a full story. The climax is forced and the ending is rushed and the entire thing serves as little more than an introduction to something more rather than being a self-contained book (or movie ."

We still have to imagine it because those who haven't read the book won't know what he's feeling.

I think you're again being incredibly over-critical. As you even said yourself The special effects (while not the best) were such a minor part of the film.

There is nothing wrong with the ending at all. And it is a full story thank you. It has an introduction the characters, a complication (the relationship) and a resolution to the murders and an exciting climax (the fight) that wasn't in the novel. It also kindly reminds us that there will be a sequel. But more importantly the threads from this story are largely tied. So I don't know what you are bitching about.
"

Overly-critical? The special effects were bad, but they're not that important? You're basically saying that the movie is good if you ignore all the bad parts. If something is good, it shouldn't need anything to excuse it."

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

"biggest_loser said:

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

The whole movie is a big "don't have sex or you'll get vampire STD's movie" and the it's just shot horribly. So aside from a dumb concept, it has terrible choreography. In the vampire on enemy scene, you can almost see the wire holding the actors up... It's all incredibly cheesy. It might be okay for 12 year old girls who want some corny love story, but I enjoy movies with a bit more substance, or at the very least passable special effects.



"

i give the movie a recession out of lolmoney.

"LiquidPrince said:

"biggest_loser said:

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

The whole movie is a big "don't have sex or you'll get vampire STD's movie" and the it's just shot horribly. So aside from a dumb concept, it has terrible choreography. In the vampire on enemy scene, you can almost see the wire holding the actors up... It's all incredibly cheesy. It might be okay for 12 year old girls who want some corny love story, but I enjoy movies with a bit more substance, or at the very least passable special effects.



"

Again another juvenile response. The movie has nothing to do with STD's at all.
I don't see how teenage love or vampires is a dumb concept? A lot would disagree with you if you believe those two concepts are dumb.

You can't see any wires at all. I think the photography captures the town very well, as you would imagine it in the novel.

 I don't think its cheesey, i think its incredibly romantic, especially for a teen film.

What are some films that you've liked recently? And what did you like about them?"

"LiquidPrince said:

"biggest_loser said:

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

The whole movie is a big "don't have sex or you'll get vampire STD's movie" and the it's just shot horribly. So aside from a dumb concept, it has terrible choreography. In the vampire on enemy scene, you can almost see the wire holding the actors up... It's all incredibly cheesy. It might be okay for 12 year old girls who want some corny love story, but I enjoy movies with a bit more substance, or at the very least passable special effects.



"

Again another juvenile response. The movie has nothing to do with STD's at all.
I don't see how teenage love or vampires is a dumb concept? A lot would disagree with you if you believe those two concepts are dumb.

You can't see any wires at all. I think the photography captures the town very well, as you would imagine it in the novel.

 I don't think its cheesey, i think its incredibly romantic, especially for a teen film.

What are some films that you've liked recently? And what did you like about them?"

That movie was garbage, even the Twilight Obsessed girls at my school who have read those abysmal books hated it. (Although my 13 year old sister loved it, because she is unable to judge quality.) But whatever, you have your own opinion and are free to keep it. Also, nice review. If I totally didn't disagree with everything you said (i.e. a Twilight fan) I would commend your excellent writing skills.

"biggest_loser said:

"LiquidPrince said:

"biggest_loser said:

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

The whole movie is a big "don't have sex or you'll get vampire STD's movie" and the it's just shot horribly. So aside from a dumb concept, it has terrible choreography. In the vampire on enemy scene, you can almost see the wire holding the actors up... It's all incredibly cheesy. It might be okay for 12 year old girls who want some corny love story, but I enjoy movies with a bit more substance, or at the very least passable special effects.



"

Again another juvenile response. The movie has nothing to do with STD's at all.
I don't see how teenage love or vampires is a dumb concept? A lot would disagree with you if you believe those two concepts are dumb.

You can't see any wires at all. I think the photography captures the town very well, as you would imagine it in the novel.

 I don't think its cheesey, i think its incredibly romantic, especially for a teen film.

What are some films that you've liked recently? And what did you like about them?"

Please stop calling other people's responses juvenile. It makes you sound pretentious. People are just trying to tell you why they disliked Twilight. Personally, I agree with him. I definatly prefer movies with more substance and intelligence, like say, 'Taxi Driver'. I'd go further into it but I'm getting tired and starting to crash. That and I've still got work to do for tomorrow."

"Bulldog19892 said:

"biggest_loser said:

"LiquidPrince said:

"biggest_loser said:

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

The whole movie is a big "don't have sex or you'll get vampire STD's movie" and the it's just shot horribly. So aside from a dumb concept, it has terrible choreography. In the vampire on enemy scene, you can almost see the wire holding the actors up... It's all incredibly cheesy. It might be okay for 12 year old girls who want some corny love story, but I enjoy movies with a bit more substance, or at the very least passable special effects.



"

Again another juvenile response. The movie has nothing to do with STD's at all.
I don't see how teenage love or vampires is a dumb concept? A lot would disagree with you if you believe those two concepts are dumb.

You can't see any wires at all. I think the photography captures the town very well, as you would imagine it in the novel.

 I don't think its cheesey, i think its incredibly romantic, especially for a teen film.

What are some films that you've liked recently? And what did you like about them?"

Please stop calling other people's responses juvenile. It makes you sound pretentious. People are just trying to tell you why they disliked Twilight. Personally, I agree with him. I definatly prefer movies with more substance and intelligence, like say, 'Taxi Driver'. I'd go further into it but I'm getting tired and starting to crash. That and I've still got work to do for tomorrow."

I don't mind if they disliked it as long as they aren't wasting my time with crap like "its about STDs" - thats just not funny. AT ALL.  I don't care if I sound pretentious."

"biggest_loser said:

"LiquidPrince said:

"biggest_loser said:

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

The whole movie is a big "don't have sex or you'll get vampire STD's movie" and the it's just shot horribly. So aside from a dumb concept, it has terrible choreography. In the vampire on enemy scene, you can almost see the wire holding the actors up... It's all incredibly cheesy. It might be okay for 12 year old girls who want some corny love story, but I enjoy movies with a bit more substance, or at the very least passable special effects.



"

Again another juvenile response. The movie has nothing to do with STD's at all.
I don't see how teenage love or vampires is a dumb concept? A lot would disagree with you if you believe those two concepts are dumb.

You can't see any wires at all. I think the photography captures the town very well, as you would imagine it in the novel.

 I don't think its cheesey, i think its incredibly romantic, especially for a teen film.

What are some films that you've liked recently? And what did you like about them?"

Oh, because I have a differing opinion, I'm suddenly childish... Right... Twilight is essentially a movie for teenage girls. The story is ridiculous, and it is in fact a movie that is about the woes and struggles of a female who can't make love to the other because he is a vampire. A metaphor for STD's... Also the special effects were indeed undisputably bad. No, you couldn't see any wire, but I was saying that it was shot so horribly, that it essentially wouldn't have made a difference because every action that required a supernatural ability looked so... Unnatural... and not in a good way. There are things that are supernatural in movies like Wanted, or Harry Potter, but the way that they are shot makes them seem credible, or something that could possibly happen in real life. Twilight was just poor, in these regards.

As for movies I liked this year, there are plenty. Milk, Dark Knight, Quantum of Solace, Wanted, Tropic Thunder, and so on. There are more, but I see no reason to list them for you. If you liked the movie then congratulations, however, many would agree with me that it was terrible.

"

"That movie was garbage, even the Twilight Obsessed girls at my school who have read those abysmal books hated it. (Although my 13 year old sister loved it, because she is unable to judge quality.) But whatever, you have your own opinion and are free to keep it. Also, nice review. If I totally didn't disagree with everything you said (i.e. a Twilight fan) I would commend your excellent writing skills."

"LiquidPrince said:

"biggest_loser said:

"LiquidPrince said:

"biggest_loser said:

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

The whole movie is a big "don't have sex or you'll get vampire STD's movie" and the it's just shot horribly. So aside from a dumb concept, it has terrible choreography. In the vampire on enemy scene, you can almost see the wire holding the actors up... It's all incredibly cheesy. It might be okay for 12 year old girls who want some corny love story, but I enjoy movies with a bit more substance, or at the very least passable special effects.



"

Again another juvenile response. The movie has nothing to do with STD's at all.
I don't see how teenage love or vampires is a dumb concept? A lot would disagree with you if you believe those two concepts are dumb.

You can't see any wires at all. I think the photography captures the town very well, as you would imagine it in the novel.

 I don't think its cheesey, i think its incredibly romantic, especially for a teen film.

What are some films that you've liked recently? And what did you like about them?"

Oh, because I have a differing opinion, I'm suddenly childish... Right... Twilight is essentially a movie for teenage girls. The story is ridiculous, and it is in fact a movie that is about the woes and struggles of a female who can't make love to the other because he is a vampire. A metaphor for STD's... Also the special effects were indeed undisputably bad. No, you couldn't see any wire, but I was saying that it was shot so horribly, that it essentially wouldn't have made a difference because every action that required a supernatural ability looked so... Unnatural... and not in a good way. There are things that are supernatural in movies like Wanted, or Harry Potter, but the way that they are shot makes them seem credible, or something that could possibly happen in real life. Twilight was just poor, in these regards.

As for movies I liked this year, there are plenty. Milk, Dark Knight, Quantum of Solace, Wanted, Tropic Thunder, and so on. There are more, but I see no reason to list them for you. If you liked the movie then congratulations, however, many would agree with me that it was terrible.

"

You're quite childish, because there is no reference to STDs in that film at all and I think you're just saying that because you can't come up with a sensible argument. So you just put whatever crap you want onto the film.

Now then: Let me get this right? The supernatural parts - supernatural being out of the ordinary - are meant to look natural? You'd know what flying looks like though wouldn't you? The flying scenes were such a small part of the film. It seems that whenever people like you - and i've seen this before on games forums - don't like something they just seem to latch onto something and say "its the worst movie ever". You remind me of these fools on Gamespot who wouldn't stop criticising Juno because of the dialogue. Get a life.

Wow Quantum aye? I happen to really, really dislike that film. And if you say Twilight was badly shot, then Quantum would be nearly unbearable.

I did enjoy the film thank you. Its better than you - and other people who haven't even seen it - give it credit for."

"LiquidPrince said:

Oh, because I have a differing opinion, I'm suddenly childish... Right... Twilight is essentially a movie for teenage girls. The story is ridiculous, and it is in fact a movie that is about the woes and struggles of a female who can't make love to the other because he is a vampire. A metaphor for STD's... Also the special effects were indeed undisputably bad. No, you couldn't see any wire, but I was saying that it was shot so horribly, that it essentially wouldn't have made a difference because every action that required a supernatural ability looked so... Unnatural... and not in a good way. There are things that are supernatural in movies like Wanted, or Harry Potter, but the way that they are shot makes them seem credible, or something that could possibly happen in real life. Twilight was just poor, in these regards.

As for movies I liked this year, there are plenty. Milk, Dark Knight, Quantum of Solace, Wanted, Tropic Thunder, and so on. There are more, but I see no reason to list them for you. If you liked the movie then congratulations, however, many would agree with me that it was terrible.

"

You're quite childish, because there is no reference to STDs in that film at all and I think you're just saying that because you can't come up with a sensible argument. So you just put whatever crap you want onto the film.

Now then: Let me get this right? The supernatural parts - supernatural being out of the ordinary - are meant to look natural? You'd know what flying looks like though wouldn't you? The flying scenes were such a small part of the film. It seems that whenever people like you - and i've seen this before on games forums - don't like something they just seem to latch onto something and say "its the worst movie ever". You remind me of these fools on Gamespot who wouldn't stop criticising Juno because of the dialogue. Get a life.

Wow Quantum aye? I happen to really, really dislike that film. And if you say Twilight was badly shot, then Quantum would be nearly unbearable.

I did enjoy the film thank you. Its better than you - and other people who haven't even seen it - give it credit for."

"biggest_loser said:

"LiquidPrince said:

"biggest_loser said:

"LiquidPrince said:

"biggest_loser said:

"lol: CreamyGoodness: I know that is a joke but its a very true imitation of so many people that criticise Twilight.

LiquidPrince: i don't mind if you say that as long as you can justify your reasoning. Articulate. I'm all ears my friend."

The whole movie is a big "don't have sex or you'll get vampire STD's movie" and the it's just shot horribly. So aside from a dumb concept, it has terrible choreography. In the vampire on enemy scene, you can almost see the wire holding the actors up... It's all incredibly cheesy. It might be okay for 12 year old girls who want some corny love story, but I enjoy movies with a bit more substance, or at the very least passable special effects.



"

Again another juvenile response. The movie has nothing to do with STD's at all.
I don't see how teenage love or vampires is a dumb concept? A lot would disagree with you if you believe those two concepts are dumb.

You can't see any wires at all. I think the photography captures the town very well, as you would imagine it in the novel.

 I don't think its cheesey, i think its incredibly romantic, especially for a teen film.

What are some films that you've liked recently? And what did you like about them?"

Oh, because I have a differing opinion, I'm suddenly childish... Right... Twilight is essentially a movie for teenage girls. The story is ridiculous, and it is in fact a movie that is about the woes and struggles of a female who can't make love to the other because he is a vampire. A metaphor for STD's... Also the special effects were indeed undisputably bad. No, you couldn't see any wire, but I was saying that it was shot so horribly, that it essentially wouldn't have made a difference because every action that required a supernatural ability looked so... Unnatural... and not in a good way. There are things that are supernatural in movies like Wanted, or Harry Potter, but the way that they are shot makes them seem credible, or something that could possibly happen in real life. Twilight was just poor, in these regards.

As for movies I liked this year, there are plenty. Milk, Dark Knight, Quantum of Solace, Wanted, Tropic Thunder, and so on. There are more, but I see no reason to list them for you. If you liked the movie then congratulations, however, many would agree with me that it was terrible.

"

You're quite childish, because there is no reference to STDs in that film at all and I think you're just saying that because you can't come up with a sensible argument. So you just put whatever crap you want onto the film.

Now then: Let me get this right? The supernatural parts - supernatural being out of the ordinary - are meant to look natural? You'd know what flying looks like though wouldn't you? The flying scenes were such a small part of the film. It seems that whenever people like you - and i've seen this before on games forums - don't like something they just seem to latch onto something and say "its the worst movie ever". You remind me of these fools on Gamespot who wouldn't stop criticising Juno because of the dialogue. Get a life.

Wow Quantum aye? I happen to really, really dislike that film. And if you say Twilight was badly shot, then Quantum would be nearly unbearable.

I did enjoy the film thank you. Its better than you - and other people who haven't even seen it - give it credit for."

Listen buddy, how about you get your fact straight before you spout nonsense that makes you sound beyond ignorant. And I QUOTE:

Is anyone else confused by the fact that “Twilight” has been adopted by champions of abstinence?

Moral-minded critics and skittish parents have latched onto the literal fact that the teen lovebirds in the movie never actually have sex. Yet considering all the anguished panting and heaving going on, I’d say “Twilight” has things on its mind other than waiting until marriage.

For those who don’t know – meaning those who don’t have a teen or tween girl in their lives – “Twilight” is an adaptation of the first book in Stephenie Meyers’ romance series about a high-school girl who falls in love with her vampire classmate. He’s equally enamored with her, though in a confused way that mixes up emotional attraction, physical desire and basic animal hunger.

At least on the screen, “Twilight” is about nothing other than the fervent desire to engage in sexual intercourse – and the horrors that would result from indulging in such behavior.

From the first moment he sees new student Bella (Kristen Stewart), vampire Edward (Robert Pattinson) begins writhing in his seat as if some sort of uncontrollable urge has come over him. (To be frank, he looks as if he has to use the washroom.)

Not long after, Edward is swooping up behind Bella, sniffing her neck and whispering, “If you were smart, you’d stay away from me.”

This of course leads to the pair dating, which mostly involves her batting her eyes at him while he mumbles something along the lines of “I can’t ever lose control with you.” They almost do lose it, once, but to the relief of those critics and squeamish parents, they manage to stick to cuddling in their underwear.

With all of this going on, “Twilight” is simultaneously titillating and puritanical – sort of like listening to Barry White while taking a cold shower.

Unfortunately, religion can often be blamed for this sort of conflicted view of human sexuality, in which sexual desire is strictly defined as dangerous and evil. Indeed, Meyers – the creator of the “Twilight” phenomenon – is a Mormon, and while I can’t speak to how directly her religious background influenced her writing, I can say that her equating of sex and death isn’t that far removed from the sort of mindset that exists in some Christian circles.

SOURCE

Like I said, metaphor for abstinence.

"

I don't get it. Why can't the vampire dude bone the chick?

"LiquidPrince said:

Oh, because I have a differing opinion, I'm suddenly childish... Right... Twilight is essentially a movie for teenage girls. The story is ridiculous, and it is in fact a movie that is about the woes and struggles of a female who can't make love to the other because he is a vampire. A metaphor for STD's... Also the special effects were indeed undisputably bad. No, you couldn't see any wire, but I was saying that it was shot so horribly, that it essentially wouldn't have made a difference because every action that required a supernatural ability looked so... Unnatural... and not in a good way. There are things that are supernatural in movies like Wanted, or Harry Potter, but the way that they are shot makes them seem credible, or something that could possibly happen in real life. Twilight was just poor, in these regards.

As for movies I liked this year, there are plenty. Milk, Dark Knight, Quantum of Solace, Wanted, Tropic Thunder, and so on. There are more, but I see no reason to list them for you. If you liked the movie then congratulations, however, many would agree with me that it was terrible.

"

Now then: Let me get this right? The supernatural parts - supernatural being out of the ordinary - are meant to look natural? You'd know what flying looks like though wouldn't you? The flying scenes were such a small part of the film. It seems that whenever people like you - and i've seen this before on games forums - don't like something they just seem to latch onto something and say "its the worst movie ever". You remind me of these fools on Gamespot who wouldn't stop criticising Juno because of the dialogue. Get a life.

Wow Quantum aye? I happen to really, really dislike that film. And if you say Twilight was badly shot, then Quantum would be nearly unbearable.

I did enjoy the film thank you. Its better than you - and other people who haven't even seen it - give it credit for."

"I don't get it. Why can't the vampire dude bone the chick?"

Again the supernatural parts are such a small part of the film. You're wasting your breath ol' man. Its about the relationship. Ohh myy nooo you're so right. I should keep those "asinine" comments to myself! Ohh Please sir! Punish me! Punish me! I deserve to be punished! Hit that moderators button! C'mon. C'mon. Hit me. Hit me. Hit me. HIT MEEE

Oh yes! You must be right. I'm sorry again. Because the critics - who have no biased at all against religion or political agendas - must be right!!

Well I'll tell you now: I'm a critic and IN MY OPINION Twilight is much, much better and more entertaining affair than Quantum. I don't care about percentages by some guy with a laptop. lol! Have you actually read some of those reviews? Some of them are literally a few lines. The guy who gave Disaster movie a good review, wrote about 6 lines. Giving me a percentage is not going to convince me of which is the better movie.

The Changeling has 59% But I know which film will be at the Oscars and which won't.

I will gladly tell you why Twilight is better if you like?

"Again the supernatural parts are such a small part of the film. You're wasting your breath ol' man. Its about the relationship. Ohh myy nooo you're so right. I should keep those "asinine" comments to myself! Ohh Please sir! Punish me! Punish me! I deserve to be punished! Hit that moderators button! C'mon. C'mon. Hit me. Hit me. Hit me. HIT MEEE

"Again the supernatural parts are such a small part of the film. You're wasting your breath ol' man. Its about the relationship. Ohh myy nooo you're so right. I should keep those "asinine" comments to myself! Ohh Please sir! Punish me! Punish me! I deserve to be punished! Hit that moderators button! C'mon. C'mon. Hit me. Hit me. Hit me. HIT MEEE

Oh yes! You must be right. I'm sorry again. Because the critics - who have no biased at all against religion or political agendas - must be right!!

Well I'll tell you now: I'm a critic and IN MY OPINION Twilight is much, much better and more entertaining affair than Quantum. I don't care about percentages by some guy with a laptop. lol! Have you actually read some of those reviews? Some of them are literally a few lines. The guy who gave Disaster movie a good review, wrote about 6 lines. Giving me a percentage is not going to convince me of which is the better movie.

The Changeling has 59% But I know which film will be at the Oscars and which won't.

I will gladly tell you why Twilight is better if you like?"

s this you?

I keed, I keed. :P
"

"biggest_loser said:

"Again the supernatural parts are such a small part of the film. You're wasting your breath ol' man. Its about the relationship. Ohh myy nooo you're so right. I should keep those "asinine" comments to myself! Ohh Please sir! Punish me! Punish me! I deserve to be punished! Hit that moderators button! C'mon. C'mon. Hit me. Hit me. Hit me. HIT MEEE

Oh yes! You must be right. I'm sorry again. Because the critics - who have no biased at all against religion or political agendas - must be right!!

Well I'll tell you now: I'm a critic and IN MY OPINION Twilight is much, much better and more entertaining affair than Quantum. I don't care about percentages by some guy with a laptop. lol! Have you actually read some of those reviews? Some of them are literally a few lines. The guy who gave Disaster movie a good review, wrote about 6 lines. Giving me a percentage is not going to convince me of which is the better movie.

The Changeling has 59% But I know which film will be at the Oscars and which won't.

I will gladly tell you why Twilight is better if you like?"

And that's EXACTLY it. It's your OPINION. One that I do no not share. However, apparently anyone one who does not share your opinion is childish. Yeah okay my friend, you keep thinking that... Second of all, there is nothing you could say that would EVER convince me that Twilight is a better movie the Quantum of Solace. Quantum was my favorite movie this year, and Twilight was my most hated, so you can save your breath. However the difference between you and me is, I would never come into a thread, ask for opinions and then bash every person who doesn't share mine. I gave you valid reasons on Twilight, and now, I really don't care if you like Quantum of not, I never asked. You can go ahead and like Twilight, good on you, but don't call people who disagree with you childish because then you sound ignorant.

"

" You can have as many, as many opinions as you want....so long as ...you suitably justify them. You have give me some reasons, well done. Thats more than most people would on here.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that I have to like them and I can disagree - as you can to mine - as much as I want. Thats the debate. So we are at a bit of a stalemate my friend.

Twilight (IMO) was more entertaining for a number of reasons (You don't have to respond to these but I know you will. You are not going to give up easily i can tell).

I thought it was far more 'engaging' in its narrative than Quantum. The characters are a lot of fun, there's plenty that I recognise from the novel AND its very romantic. Quantum suffered from being stuck somewhere between Pierce Brosnon Bond (falling out a plane) and Bourne (crappy camera work).

Now when I say crappy camera work, I mean CRAPPY. I don't think they even watched their film because that has to be some of the worst editing I have ever seen. Case in point: You can't see what is happening in many of the fight scenes like the car chase, cut in between with the horses running. All the studios cared about was making an action film. Its 40 minutes shorter than Casino Royale. There are not any humerous lines in it (unlike CR) and also (To me) I didn't even find out what the hell Quantum was.

The villain is also pitiful. I've seen that fellow in Diving Bell and The Butterfly. He was terrific in that. In this he's just wasted. Completely miscast. He's too small and weedy to be a Bond villain. He did nothing in that film. Additionally, I felt that the last scene was very tacted - where he spared that fellow - was tacted on and didn't relate well to the rest of the movie.

Oddly enough, and to my joy, that director is not returning for the next Bond movie, thank god. I think that is a bit of a sign. Bring back Martin Campbell because CR was terrific.

Though I must say for this film I still thought Daniel Craig was great and the same for Dame Judy Dench - both great, but they deserved a better movie, than one which was just dull and lethargic.

Thank you and good night. (Its not really night here but you know...I've always believed that what doesn't kill you - like annoying posts - onlyyy makes you stranger...)

PS: Ohh man that title was really bad btw! Thank you! *Barrage of Tomatoes lands on stage*"