Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: 'The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part I' is beautiful but hard to watch

A slicker surface hides an even more rancid center as the franchise starts to wrap up

  • Critic's Rating C-
  • Readers' Rating C-
<p>Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart are back as Edward and Bella as the 'Twilight Saga' franchise enters the home stretch with 'Breaking Dawn, Part I'</p>

Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart are back as Edward and Bella as the 'Twilight Saga' franchise enters the home stretch with 'Breaking Dawn, Part I'

Credit: Summit Entertainment

Are you a fan of The Twilight Saga?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

If you're already onboard and dying to see "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part I," then just go.  Enjoy the movie.  Have fun, and don't bother reading this review.  There's no point.  And I don't begrudge you that at all.  If you love the books and you just want to see the film version of the story you already know, I'm sure you'll be delighted, and if you haven't liked the films so far, I don't think this is going to radically change your mind.

For the rest of you, here's what I wrote at the end of my review for "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse":

I find myself in an interesting position as we face down the prospect of "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn," because I like and respect Bill Condon as a filmmaker.  I think he's got good taste.  I think he's made really strong films so far as a director.  I think he's worth paying attention to, and I think he's got a real taste for genre material that he hasn't really indulged since he went mainstream.  He's a smart guy, a writer first, and I think he knows how to shape difficult material for the screen.  And yet, I truly believe that "Twilight" is worthless as source material.  I do not believe there is a filmmaker alive who could manage the impossible feat of creating a faithful adaptation of Meyer's book and also making a good movie.  Going into the home stretch, I think this is one of the worst blockbuster franchises of all time, inept from start to finish, and getting worse as they go.  There will come a time when we look back on these films and wonder what sort of mob insanity drove their success, and we will laugh and shake our heads and pretend they were never really that popular.

I will say this for the new film… you cannot accuse it of being all tease and no delivery (pun fully intended), which was one of the main dramatic issues with both "New Moon" and "Eclipse."  This is a movie that begins with a big event, ends with a big event, and which expends tons of energy trying to convince us that every single thing that happens in-between is also a VERY BIG EVENT.  This is almost too rushed, a breakneck ride that doesn't feel like any of the other films.

It is a gorgeous movie, technically speaking.  Beautifully directed by Bill Condon, impeccably shot by Guillermo Navarro, and cut with real sophistication by Virginia Katz, there is nothing about this that is sub-par.  It is a lush, effortless film.  It picks up in the middle of a moment, and it barrels headlong towards its big crazy "did I really just see all of that?" finale, and even when it comes to the little bonus post-credits moment, the film is so impatient to get there that it does it halfway through instead.  That energy makes it so compelling that it would be easy to get caught up in it and just go along with it and accept that whatever is being told this well must be worth telling that well.

It's not, though.  With each film, with each book in the series, with each step closer to the resolution of one of the most grotesque romantic triangles in modern pop culture, this series reveals more and more about the particular pathology of Stephenie Meyer, as well as the tin-eared deficiencies of Melissa Rosenberg as a screenwriter.  The only reason this isn't going to win my "Most Awkwardly Introduced Expository Dialogue" award this year is because Dustin ("The President's wife…" "You mean MRS ROOSEVELT?!") Lance Black's "J. Edgar" is an uncommon gem.  It amazes me how arbitrary and silly the rules of Meyer's world are, but it makes sense.  She isn't writing genre fiction at all.  Perhaps the single funniest thing that I've seen happen as a result of the popularity of "Twilight" is that horror sites run stories on it now.  Horror sites.  "Twilight" is to real horror as cotton candy is to real food.  But only if the cotton candy is spun out of arsenic and crystal meth, because for the metaphor to be accurate, it needs to be something that is sickly sweet but genuine poison.

Want More...

The Twilight Saga?
  • Eclipsetriokeyart_thumbnail
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
"Twilight" is so gross deep down on the subtextual level that it makes me unhappy to even dig into it, and less so with each film.  The Edward-Bella-Jacob triangle is so unhealthy, so poorly defined beyond anything except surface, that even if the films didn't add the supernatural element, they'd be hard to take.  The problem is that Meyer doesn't want to do genre, so we have to take her use of vampires and werewolves as metaphorical, and the moment you start to try to read the subtext of all the choices she makes, it gets disgusting.  Quickly.  We could talk about the idea of everyone fearing for Bella's life, but her telling everyone, including Edward, that the bruises are okay because she knows he really loves her.  Really?  This is what we're selling as romance now?  The entire series has confused the need to bone with "love," and now that they're finally able to consummate things because they're married, the thing she has to worry about is that he will hurt her or even kill her.  Even though he loves her.

That's icky enough, but then there's also the pro-life/pro-choice stuff that she utterly fumbles as a writer and the pregnancy-as-body-horror stuff that she's not smart enough to craft properly.  The way Condon stages the freaky pregnancy that threatens to destroy Bella in this film is better than how it's written, and the visual strength of many of his choices again makes this feel like it's better than it is, like we should be invested in what's happening.  It's just strange to see these strong choices of his undermined each and every time someone opens their mouth, and there are places during what should be the most harrowing part of the film that are laugh out loud ridiculous, which probably isn't what was intended, and it's not because of any choice made by the filmmakers.  It's just material that is so ridiculous that I can't imagine how anyone could do it any better than this.

It's almost disconcerting to see a series that has been this slow-motion passive suddenly kick into overdrive in the last film, and as a result, characters don't behave based on who they are, but rather because of what the film needs from them.  And because of this new sense of pace, suddenly every single scene is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED, which leads to my favorite scene in any movie this year, a hilariously insane sequence where a bunch of CGI werewolves think at each other vigorously.  Carter Burwell, a composer who has created some of my favorite film scores, scores this thing like he's being tased.  It's like having an entire symphony scream at you, and it's this sustained crescendo that seems to assert itself no matter what's going on.

The hardest thing to reconcile here is how skilled much of the filmcraft is, and how it's in service of something I can barely stomach.  Take the wedding sequence, for example.  Condon manages to wring real suspense out of the reveal of Bella's wedding dress, and he stages the entire opening with a loose, conversational energy that allows the cast to play a little bit.  Watch the way Anna Kendrick dig into the ten or twelve lines of dialogue they give her in the movie, and watch the way she feels like she's starring in her own movie that just happens to intersect with this one for a few scenes.  Condon tries to do right by the cast in general, and the measure of his success hinges on how well Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, and Taylor Lautner do in the film.

Pattinson's on cruise control at this point, waiting for the franchise to end so he can move on and figure out who he really is as an actor.  Kendrick jokingly refers to Edward as "The Hair" in her wedding speech, and that's appropriate, since he's basically doing a Zoolander here, letting the smolder do all the acting for him.  There's so little difference between his angry smolder and his happy smolder that he seems to basically not react to anything.  And considering how batshit crazy everything's gone in this film, it is decidedly odd to simply let the events wash over him with no emotional range to speak of.

Taylor Lautner, bless his heart, tries as hard as he can, and while it is masterful strategy to cast Booboo Stewart as Seth, Jacob's sidekick in the film, since Stewart may actually be the worst actor I've seen in a professionally released movie, Lautner still seems to be struggling with the basics of human communication.  He is fighting an uphill battle, though, because the character he's playing is the worst in a dense line-up of terrible characters.  Nothing Jacob does makes any sense, and he spends the entire movie in a pout all the way up to the moment when he has to play a scene opposite a newborn infant that may be the single most preposterous moment in any film this year.  It's one emotional impulse after another passing as characterization, and the cumulative impact leaves me with the impression of someone who simply isn't getting any better on camera.

The one person who genuinely seems to have flourished under Condon's attention is Stewart, and I can honestly see her doing everything she can to invest this awful, rancid human being she's playing with something like a recognizable soul.  I wish this material deserved the amount of work Stewart's putting into things here, because she's always shown great promise as a performer.  I think the level of scrutiny that comes with this series has not done her any favors, though, and she's never really felt comfortable in any of the press she's had to do for the films.  That's fine for Bella Swan, though, because the only personality trait that she plays aside from mooning after boys is a sort of nervous discomfort with the world.  Like George Clooney during the early days of "E/R" and his first few films, Stewart has certain tics that seem like a crutch, habits that she's going to have to leave behind at some point.  The end of this series would be a lovely time for her to shake all of this, and we'll see what happens.

By the end of this film, after sitting through hilarious scenes of vampires karate kicking giant CGI werewolves and Bella's diet of blood served in styrofoam cups and vampires with make-up so silly that I'm not sure how anyone is ever supposed to accept them as anything but vampires and lots of talk of imprinting, it genuinely felt like the story was over.  If the last shot of Bella in the film was the last shot in the series, it would feel like a story was finished, but there is a mid-credits sequence that is both the silliest, most overtly campy moment in the film and a reminder that Meyer still has several dangling plotlines that she's going to have to wrap up in that last movie.  I really can't fathom how intelligent grown adults managed to play this stuff straight long enough to capture it on film, and more than ever, I feel baffled that other people don't recoil from these the same way I do.

Here's the thing… I get that there are rabid fans of this series.  It's looking like it's going to make something like $140 million in its first weekend, which is crazy.  I think only the final "Harry Potter" film opened to the same level of expectation this year, and I'm sure people will compare the two in terms of impact.  The difference is that kids are going to keep discovering the Harry Potter series in a cycle that will play out over and over and over again, and I think each new set of readers are going to be charmed anew.  With "Twilight," this is it.  This thing's got a short shelf life, and it's already curdling, and not all the talent in the world can disguise the smell.

"The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part I" opens today, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • 1
  • 2
Next 71 Comments
  • Default-avatar

    neverthehero

    I was quite surprised to see the teaser ending scene half way through the credits as well. I loved that scene though. It's a shame that Meyer didn't really put the Volturi to good use though. A more discerning thought I have about the movies is the love affair that older women have with this series. Is this new era of Moms (ie mid 30's early 40's) , ones that embrace this type of romance with their daughters? I'm not a socialist but it seems to be a little unsettling .

    November 18, 2011 at 4:31AM EST Reply to Comment
    • The Volturi are the main focus of "Part II."

      November 18, 2011 at 4:33AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      neverthehero without going to into spoilers, I thought the suspense that Meyer finally built up in the second half of the book ( I felt like a new author finished the book, it was in such stark contrast in what came before) was a letdown by the end... My comment however, re-reading it does suggest I thought she should have done more with them in Part One, sorry! :)

      November 18, 2011 at 4:37AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    neverthehero

    I think your letter grade is spot on as well. Very articulate in your viewpoints on the damaging aspects of a underlying weak story but still are able to give proper respect as a film.

    November 18, 2011 at 4:33AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Twilight fan

    I think Bill Condon did a wonderful job and coming from a die hard Twilight fan, this was my absolute favorite movie of the 4. It captured the characters as they were in the books. They brought back Edward and Bella being cute together. There ARE awkward moments, yes, but there are awkward moments in the book. It exceeded all my expectations. The first one started the love for me, the 2nd and 3rd I enjoyed just because I love the story, but this one blew it away for me. After my experience in the theater, I don't think I'm the only fan that loved it. And let's face it, they make these movies for the fans. Not to win awards. And since a large population of the entire world are fans...they are extremely successful doing it. It was amazing. I'll leave it at that.

    November 18, 2011 at 4:44AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Lacey Bryant I would disagree that a large population of the entire world are fans. Statistically speaking, of course.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:09AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Cheryl

    This movie SUX!!!!!!!!!! It was as bad as Sex in the City 2..... OVER DONE

    November 18, 2011 at 5:04AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    IRELYN

    I LOVED IT, AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO PART 2..

    November 18, 2011 at 5:08AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Lee Harvey

    America loves crap.

    November 18, 2011 at 5:11AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      blip Come on now, Lee Harvey, be fair: when it comes to "Twilight," the whole world seems to love crap.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:28AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Grubi Do you go to the Entertainment Weekly website Lee? There is a guy with the handle, "LOL" who types "America Loves Crap" on every Box office report along with some of the other articles. He literally has no life. He is usually the first person to comment on the article and the only movie that he says he likes is Fast Five. He claims Fast Five is the best movie of the last 50 years. I don't know if you were making fun of him Lee or if this was just a coincidence, but if it was the former, please continue to do so because he is worse than a spammer.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:23PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Really?

    Drew, you have had some low points in your career, but this review is about as low as you have ever gone. If you have a problem with the franchise, fine, but let's not act as if you and your kind don't love some of the absolute biggest pieces of disgusting trash ever to hit the screen. The mere fact that you and your kind of geeky reviewers can bash something like the Twilight Saga, while praising absolute shit horror films that are truly repugnant, morally reprehensible, and you know STUPID, is the biggest failing of you and your colleagues. You can blow smoke up everyone else's ass but we know what you like, we have read your reviews, and for you to try to take the stick to Breaking Dawn when you love such shitty horror films is not only funny. It also makes everything about you as a reviewer absolutely and utterly tainted.

    November 18, 2011 at 5:32AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Say what you will, but instead of being vague, be specific. I can tell you exactly why this series skeeves me out morally. Now it's your turn. Tell me where I've taken great pleasure in amorality or where I've endorsed the morally reprehensible without any analysis of the text or subtext.

      Go ahead. By all means.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:39AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      YesRly At least those horror films don't usually disguise moral agenda when selling themselves to teens. I mean, making as if bruises are ok in a relationship as they try to cover it up? Really? I've seen all three of the other films, and actually enjoy them for what they are, but there is something morally suspect about them. You can't swathe the entire genre of Horror under a rug of disrespectful opinion either, some of the cleverest, most interesting movies that study the human condition are horror (for example, the films of Cronenberg) and some of the finest filmmaking technique (Carpenter's early output). If anything this little rant showcases your inept naivety and lack of regard for film in general - also shooting yourself in the foot when Twilight is so covered as a Teen horror in the mainstream horror press.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:54AM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew And if you hold "Twilight" as the dividing line between good or bad reviewers, I'm happy to be on the other side of the line from where you are.

      I will say this, though... at least Bill Condon's going to be able to make whatever he wants for the rest of his life after he racks up two films that gross almost a billion combined dollars worldwide. Good for him.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:04AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Shadowlands I'm with YESRLY: There are some absolutely fantastic horror films out there and they should be judged on their merits as films that adhere to that genre. Twilight films are not horror films, so it's a completely different ballgame. The biggest issue is that these films are embraced by young female audiences who are taking to heart the ideas advocated by Meyer which is that love will hurt and kill you. Drew did a good job laying out why that's problematic. You disagree, but you're not presenting any kind of rationalization other than "boo, you suck." That's not an argument. That's a difference of opinion taken to the level of personal attack.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:32PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Johnny I'm going to be that guy and point out that while I loved the Film Nerd 2.0 Star Wars series, everything that you criticize about Twilight (beautifully made, but slow followed by rushed pacing; flat characterization; bad acting by most of the actors including the male lead; a romance that seems to be based on just saying "we're so in love!"; an abusive relationship as a central plot point) could also be said about the Star Wars prequels, but you're a lot kinder to them than you are to this. "Really?" doesn't have a good point and s/he doesn't make it well, just saying you're dumb, but I thought it was an inconsistency based solely on relative love for the series/genre (and to be clear, the genre of Twilight is romance, not horror).

      November 18, 2011 at 1:29PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      neverthehero @Johhny I don't think Drew was that particularly kind to the prequels in his actual reviews....And at least in the Star Wars universe at least there were consequences. Maybe Anakin's and Padme's relationship wasn't healthy (to say the least); it ended up with her dying and Anakin becoming a scarred twisted evil mostly machine part-man. The Jedi were left in ruins. In the Twilight universe, Bella and Edward get basically want they want. You can't argue that Bella sacrificed her humanity because being a vampire is what she desired and nothing in the world (outside of possibly saving Edward) would she want to be changed back.

      November 18, 2011 at 2:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Johnny NeverTheHero, OK, I only started reading Drew recently, so I'll take your word about the old prequel reviews. But your point doesn't answer the fact that most of the flaws, besides the consequences of abuse, coincide very well between the two films (well, from Drew's description. I feel no need to see Twilight, I just like Drew's reviews). And Lucas, in describing Anakin's downfall doesn't say, "The consequences of their unhealthy relationship finally come home to roost," but "their love is ultimately their downfall," so I'm not sure even that part of your argument works.

      November 18, 2011 at 2:24PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Jae'Nickole

    I loved the movie. As a true twilight fan I was anxious to see how the book version would turn to the film version. My husband did not like it, more of a chick flick he said. But it told the story. I was upset with the end, but only Bcuz I wanted more. Can't wait for part 2 but It's bitter sweet. I really need stephanie to write another book for another movie!

    November 18, 2011 at 5:33AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Md

    I haven't seen the movie yet, but I read the book ands this is exacfly how I felt when reading the book! Everything was rushed. Stephanie Meyer seemed to be in a hurry to wrap the series up with a neat little bow.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:54AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Kascritter

    DialI am a fan of the Twilight saga and I have to say this was the worst film out of the four... so far. I think the director did well in general, but the screenplay was awful. What story were they telling, because I read them all and this took on an almost completely different direction. Things were left out that are important, other portions were completely different, and some things that should have been changed, such as the mental dialogue between the wolves came across as nothing more than cheesy. There was hardly anything original about the soundtrack. I can understand recycling one song for effect, but I have zero interest in buying this one. The one thing I can applaud is you don't have to suffer through Kristen Stewart's trademark stutter. I agree the mid-credit scene was hysterical and not needed. They should have left it with Kristen's eyes open and mouth closed. I considered it her best acting in this saga to date.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:15AM EST Reply to Comment
  • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

    drew

    Something I meant to say in the review...

    While watching, I kept thinking of one film. That film is Chris Weitz's marvelous "A Better Life," which he got to make specifically because he earned Summit about a bazillion dollars with "New Moon." That is an example of taking clout and using it right.

    I know that Condon is a guy who has a lot of things he'd love to make that are personal, and we're talking about an Academy Award-winner here. If he makes not one but two big gigantic hits, and that helps him make something as great as "Gods and Monsters" or "Kinsey," then I am thrilled for every single dollar spent on "Twilight" this weekend.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:26AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Stas_talkback_profile

      AshyLarry81 I really loved Gods and Monsters and Kinsey was pretty good too. Plus his Candyman sequel and his Chicago screenplay have me excited for him getting some passion projects off the ground

      November 18, 2011 at 6:50PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Rob Man, do I ever agree. Everybody wins on this one. The ditzy Twilight fans get a better film than they will ever appreciate or deserve, and Bill Condon gets to make two or three decent movies without any bullshit hassle.

      And here's a thought, I wonder if Meyer being a mormon will have any effect on the election, should Mitt Romney be the Republican's man...

      November 18, 2011 at 10:07PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Grown up woman

    Cannot agree more. It is very difficult to creat a good movie from a bad original source. And what about making two movies from one book with little to no story.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:31AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Notthetargetteenager

    I think you deserve hazard pay. Thanks for seeing so I can avoid this and go see something I might possibly enjoy. Even the Muppets sound better.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:27AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    vchj

    Not as expected

    November 18, 2011 at 9:44AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Moonbeam

    I love how reviewers always say, Oh, but Kristen Stewart is a great actress.... and the director, if he's respected in the industry, did the best he could. It's like... gee... did you come into this with preconceived notions or WHAT? And unfortunately, this review exposes lots of preconceived notions that have absolutely nothing to do with the film I just saw.

    Anyway, to answer NeverTheHero, the reason grown women love the books and movies is that Bella is, basically, playing the role of wife/mother. If you read the books, she does all the cooking, sacrifices constantly for her family, and wouldn't have it any other way. The men around her think they need to protect her (but they don't - she's the one who usually saves the day), she has to fight for control of her life from these overprotective men, and she will do just about anything to protect the life of her child. Welcome to an average adult woman's life story. Of course, the books are fantasies, so in Bella's case, she did all those things and is actually appreciated for it. Most of us aren't.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:00AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      LN reading your comment has finally made me understand why twilight is popular. People are too privileged and bored and #2%cking stupid. how old are you? whyyyy would you spend money and time consuming this crap? and then go on hitfix and defend it with some of the most non-sensical winy bullshit i've ever read. You want to be the kind of human being other human beings appreciate? focus less on twilight and more on fighting poverty or violence or something else that actually matters

      November 18, 2011 at 12:06PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Michizzy82 @LN I just had to chime in here. I do not necessarily agree that Drew is using his preconceived notions while writing this particular review.

      However, I think it is very obvious that people definitely have preconceived notions about these book, movies, and everything about the series. It is just like anything that is super mainstream, and gets the "teeny bopper" wrap. There is a fairly large group of people out there who scoff at things SIMPLY because they are mainstream, or have a certain reputation. My guess is that you are one of those people.

      To say that MOONBEAM is "too privileged and bored and #2%cking stupid" is completely ridiculous. I thought it was a pretty well-worded way to explain the appeal to the "older women" who enjoy this series. I actually read his/her comment a thought "Hmm, I never thought about it like that, but it is an interesting opinion." You lashed out irrationally on a comment board, so I guess we can see who is "#2%cking stupid."

      And, I will admit that I enjoyed reading the book series. Not the biggest fan of the movies, but I like seeing the story I enjoyed on screen. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, because I was able to take it for what it was worth.

      Maybe next time you want to attack someone on a board like this, you should, say, focus less on people's comments and focus more on fighting poverty or violence or something else that actually matters.

      That is all.

      November 18, 2011 at 3:21PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ln Michizzy82, I'm not scoffing at twilight because it's mainstream, I dislike it because, as drew eloquently explained, it's terrible. It's bad, there is something wrong with liking it and you would agree with moonbeam because U ENJOY TWILIGHT

      November 19, 2011 at 2:10AM EST
  • Fountain-small_talkback_profile

    Fawst

    I just don't get the love. I really don't. I haven't read the books, but I have seen the first movie. I thought it was ridiculous, and not because "it's 'Twilight.'" I found it ridiculous in the way that I found movies like "Not Another Teen Movie," or even "American Pie" (as funny as it was) to be ridiculous: they were totally unbelievable. Now I understand that a certain suspension of disbelief is in order for something that is this close to genre material, but Drew, you nailed it in the review: the makeup on some of these vampires is laughable. Specifically the Doctor. The first time I saw the movie, I said out loud, "that must be the worst cop in the history of bad cops if he can't take one look at him and not know there's something WRONG here." Look, these movies just aren't "for me," and I understand that. But the core storyline of this series truly comes from the realm of bad romantic comedies. These are characters that fall in "love" for no reason other than that they're pretty and they need to for there to be a story. And while I haven't read the books, I can absolutely state that with certainty based on the first film. Drew, I love how you keep mentioning that this story isn't about love, it's about the need to bone. You're right. Don't take this the wrong way, but when I stumbled across an "adult video" on the net the other day starring Jennifer White, I laughed my ass off because it made me think of your comments on the series. These two just need to bang it out, that's all there is to it. I think the xxx version actually was more realistic in that sense. It certainly was more entertaining.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:12AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Fountain-small_talkback_profile

      Fawst I should clarify: the video wasn't just some random porn, it was a "Twilight" xxx parody.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:14AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    hostforthedead

    Subject: ...involve themselves with a "fear" that has no known alliances?
    Date: 11-18-11 08.25 am
    sjbeverage@gmail.com

    Why, for HEAVEN'S SAKE would anyone want to go to a movie house and involve themselves with a "fear" that has no known alliances? You want fear? Try making a Baptist make a life-changing decision in less than 1 second - much less than 2 weeks!!!

    Over 25 LIFE-CHANGING decisions were made at this site, in less than 10 minutes:
    http://forums.charlotteobserver.com/?q=node/11501#comment-65838

    November 18, 2011 at 10:12AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Josh

    I've come to the conclusion over the years as a movie fanatic. To me I love cinema and will pop a movie in for the hell of it and see what it is about. For those who scrutinize every aspect of every movie here is my advice. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, DON'T WATCH IT. IT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, DON'T SLAM IT.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:46AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Mark Right and while you're at it, never say you hate cancer or cancer sucks if you haven't had cancer. Because you have to have cancer to be entitled to not want it.

      November 20, 2011 at 1:08PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Josh

    I enjoy the cinema. I enjoy hollywood. I have my likes and dislikes. For those who scrutinize every little aspect of a film Here is my advice. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T WATCH IT. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT DON'T SLAM IT. It's just not for you. I am speaking NOT to the writer of this article as it was very well formulated. I am speaking to the " this movie is gay" "twilight is for fags" people who couldn't act their way out of a potato sack.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:50AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    thenightstalker

    Can anybody explain to me why a 100+ year old vampire is still going to high school? It would seem to me that taking general biology for the 25th time would get boring.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:56AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Rob It's absurd. It's so girls and women trapped in miserable, remote little towns like Forks and Port Angeles can fantasize that they'll meet a vampire.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:14PM EST
  • Batboy_talkback_profile

    Rev. Slappy

    The most disturbing thing about this awful series is how anti-feminist it all is. I was always a huge fan of Joss Whedon's Buffy series and loved how he created a strong woman of action as a role model for young girls. Bella is a horrendously bad role model for young girls, she is defined by men and in some cases needs them literally carry her around. I hope The Hunger Games finds a huge audience because Katniss has a hell of a lot of Buffy in her.

    November 18, 2011 at 11:24AM EST Reply to Comment
  • A_monty_talkback_profile

    Monty Jack

    As always, this'll be hilarious with a Rifftrax commentary six months from now.

    November 18, 2011 at 11:33AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    SavFem

    Personally I think anyone compairing Bella's bruises to actual battery & spousal abuse is taking a HUGE leap. Those were not made out of Edward being violent, controling, or even slightly abusive to Bella. I think they're more comparable to hickies in that when things get a little too intense sometimes marks can occur.

    November 18, 2011 at 12:23PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      evolution1085 And sometimes when Carl drinks too much and Luanne gets a little lippy, he gets a little intense and shows her the back of his hand while they have sex cuz that's how he gets down... nothing wrong with that either right?

      November 18, 2011 at 12:49PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Johnny OK, I haven't read or seen Twilight, I just like Drew's reviews, so what's the context of these bruises? Is it like rough sex? Or, he starts to bite her and then stops or something? Or is he actually beating her?

      November 18, 2011 at 1:37PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Peggy I totally agree with you. Not only that, but he has super strength and he's not human! He would never intentionally hurt Bella, which make reviewers stabs at "abuse" really over the top. I mean, come on.

      Johnny: Since Edward has super strength, he was afraid he wouldn't be able to control himself when they had sex. People don't realize the context of the vampires' super strength in these movies, because it's never fully explained, but basically Bella is like a soap bubble to him and he could hurt her on accident if he's not being careful. If they were having sex, he'd probably get distracted in a way. So, when they did, they woke up the next morning and Bella had a few bruises here and there. The end.

      November 18, 2011 at 2:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      neverthehero Neither in the books or movies does it go into detail. Basically it's set up that Vampires go into a heightened sense of euphoria when engaged in sex and let their guard down. He was most likely squeezing her too hard. There was no biting going on.

      November 18, 2011 at 2:05PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Johnny Oh wow, Peggy. That sounds very, very far from abuse. It's more like the old "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex that analyzed what Superman's sex life would be like. But yeah, comparing it to abuse doesn't make sense. There was an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Ray hurts his wrist falling out of the bed during sex. Is that abuse?

      November 18, 2011 at 2:20PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva The bruises in the book and the film were accidental and incidental, not intentional. They weren't abuse. Moreover, they only happen the first time the newlyweds have sex: the second time, Edward knows what to expect (he, too, is a virgin, remember) and is more careful, so there aren't any new bruises the second time (and they both still have a rollicking time, presumably, given that they're both blissed out the next morning, at least in the book).

      November 30, 2011 at 5:24PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Peggy

    I hate when people have to over-analyze the crap out of these movies and find some "hidden message" of pro-life/pro-choice or abuse or whatever, because SURELY girls can't think on their own? Surely we'll be brainwashed by these movies. Are. You. Kidding. ME?!

    Honestly, if everyone just took it for what it was, they'd realize it's not a message or anything -- it's just a love story. Get over it.

    I thought the movie was brilliantly done, and all of the acting was super impressive compared to the other films -- all the reviewers keep talking about laughable moments, which, yes, I've experienced in the last 3 films, but this one? I honestly didn't.

    *Shrug* I enjoyed it, so suck it.

    November 18, 2011 at 1:56PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Eegah01_talkback_profile

      eegahchaka I hate when people have to over-analyze the crap out of these movies and find some "hidden message"

      He is a critic it's his job to analyze .

      November 19, 2011 at 2:32AM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew And honestly, if everyone just watched the surface of everything and never ever considered what it actually says, we'd all be much happier, right?

      I think the intelligence of your argument is summed up by your last line. Perfectly.

      November 19, 2011 at 4:30AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    nick_r

    Drew, this review is good example of why I enjoy reading your material so much. It seems like so many reviews of movies like this fall into one of two camps: the camp that feels they must give legitimacy to it because of how popular it is ("It's a guilty pleasure!") and the camp that basically skips reviewing the film and just makes fun of it.

    The fact that you actually take a serious approach to reviewing the film (even while pointing out how ridiculous it is) and to disentangling some of its themes and messages, is very refreshing and makes for a much more interesting read. It's funny that you get accused for going into this movie with an agenda when, in fact, you actually viewed it with a fairly open mind and most of your attackers probably just looked at the letter grade you gave it and dove right in to their rants.

    November 18, 2011 at 2:35PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    jezzleffezzle

    "The entire series has confused the need to bone with 'love'"

    Marvelous sentence, Drew.

    November 18, 2011 at 3:14PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Batmans1_117_talkback_profile

    XeRocks81

    I don't care about Twilight, but that picture of Kristen Stewart playing chess is giving me a massive boner. I have issues.

    November 18, 2011 at 3:16PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Trevor Whitecliff

    The whole thing sounds pretty funny. Karate kicking vampires? Werewolves that think vigorously at each other? Extreme levels of exposition? I might actually watch this one on bluray. Might be the greatest camp movie of all times.

    November 18, 2011 at 4:10PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    sancho

    "Carter Burwell, a composer who has created some of my favorite film scores, scores this thing like he's being tased"
    SHOULD BE ON THE DVD COVER OF BREAKING DAWN XD

    November 18, 2011 at 4:34PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ksong

    Never never never read a review of the biggest chick flick of the decade that is written by a man.

    November 19, 2011 at 1:31PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew You almost got that right.

      Try "never never never read a review of the stupidest franchise of the decade that is written by someone with a brain."

      But close. Nice try.

      November 19, 2011 at 6:48PM EST
    • Eegah01_talkback_profile

      eegahchaka @Drew 10 points.

      November 19, 2011 at 9:28PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva Don't make the mistake of thinking that a woman would automatically give this one a good review. I don't: it should have been much better, even considering the source material. Meyer is a crappy writer with an interesting premise -- a would-be bad boy who wants to be redeemable instead of a monster, and the girl who falls for him despite her supposed intelligence -- but Melissa Rosenberg gave us even worse: she took out the little bit of humor in the book that made the characters more credible (barely) and prevented the book from taking itself too seriously. All of the dry sarcasm and good lines, few as they were in the book, were missing in the film. What we got was a script so streamlined that it drained away much of the overall emotion and eliminated most of the anguish and conflict for Edward and Jacob in particuklar. Jacob was hopelessly one-note, whereas Edward was no longer the "burning man" of the book, with most of the desperation and shock that should have been there notably absent (sorry, simply being silent in Rio when he realized she was pregnant is not the same as shock -- and Pattinson should have known because he's a better actor than was evident in this film).

      Even if you're a rabid Twi-hard fan, you deserve a better script than this film had. Yet even so, director Bill Condon managed to elevate large chunks of the film above the lousy script: big kudos to him. Stewart also did much better in her role than could have been expected; she's got real acting chops, and I hope she gets a nice indie film with a really good Oscar-worthy script for her next outing on film. The gal deserves some breaks.

      As for Meyer, she needs to go back to writing class and not flunk this time. Maybe she can keep from letting her screwy Mormon ideas about the proper role of women from infecting her next project.

      November 30, 2011 at 5:11PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva Eeeek! Typos. Sorry. Can we get an edit function here sometime soon?? Just a thought.

      November 30, 2011 at 5:16PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva Have to add that the often sarcastic Bella of the earlier books who doesn't pull any punches with Jake or Edward is missing in thsi film, and she only smiles once -- instead of all the time during the wedding, as she should be once she's married -- and only giggles once. Where's the happy newlywed?? Even in the book, Bella's not this grim. What was Rosenberg thinking??

      November 30, 2011 at 5:27PM EST
  • 1
  • 2
Next 71 Comments

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web