This review of my Twilight experience was been planned for a long time, and isn’t quite as relevant now. The weekend after release night, I and handful of brave II members (Lord Snow, Elanor, Jeni, and Eccentric Iconoclast) embarked on a movie going experience that would cost us the following:

Had I been an enemy combatant, the Geneva Convention would also have been violated on that night. There was no line when Lord Snow and I arrived at the theater, so getting our tickets was easy. I had to hide a laugh in a cough when I asked the girl at the ticket counter for a ticket to Twilight. She probably wasn’t judging me, but it was an embarrassing situation nonetheless.

I had expected huge lines, so we ended up arriving about an hour early. I felt slightly ridiculous to be a Twilight hater who showed up earlier than the fans to get tickets, so we went over to the Borders to look around and link up with the rest of our group. I was amused to see Twilight and Inheritance placed side by side—bookstores know their demographics.

When we finally entered the theater it was packed. We sat in the third row from the front, which is just next to eyestrain aisle. Lord Snow and I weren’t the only Y chromosomes in the theater, I’m quite sad to report. Along with the chaperoning fathers, there were also some single guys. I’m going to posit a correlation between watching Twilight by yourself and being single. I think even girls who like Twilight know there is something off about a guy who likes Twilight. Just throwing it out there. Obviously the largest demographic was middle class teenage females—a corporate marketing agent’s fantasy come true.

The audience was actually fairly quiet, not at all like the screaming masses I heard of elsewhere. Probably Minnesota Nice kept the crowd more or less sane. I love Minnesota. There was only mild screaming when Edward first came on screen, and not a lot of that “take it off, hottie!” nonsense. Granted, most of the screaming actually came when the Half-Blood Prince trailer aired, and Daniel Radcliffe in all his robed glory appeared. Make of that what you will.

The hottie, of course, was Robert Pattinson. They couldn’t possibly have been referring to Kristen Stewart, because the make-up department spent extra time making her look as unattractive as possible, and the costume department did its part too. Now, it was my understanding that in a Hollywood movie if you aren’t sexy you had better be good at acting, and sometimes they even expect both. To call Kristen Stewart an actress is an insult to the many actresses who can do facial expression. Stewart looked perpetually bored. Maybe she was trying to read the book while the movie was being filmed. Occasionally she would use her facial muscles to tug slightly at the edges of her lips, in what some of us call “a smile”. This was evidently the cause of much distress, given the expression of pain in her eyes. It didn’t help, however, that she barely closed her mouth throughout the entire movie. Presumably she was so dazzled by Edward’s amazing sparkle, she forgot she had jaw muscles. It’s possible Kristen was just too embarrassed to be in the movie to really try and act. After all, she was given some of the worst source material in existence, and the script writing didn’t drastically improve on the writing.

I’m inclined not to forget Kristen, because her cast mate Robert Pattinson did so much better on all levels. Especially since his unstated goal was to ruin the movie. Some choice quotes of his include, “I read the book and was like ‘Well this is really dumb, I’ll never ever… This is so pointless going up for the role.’” and also “And the more I read the script, the more I hated this guy, so that’s how I played him, as a manic-depressive who hates himself. Plus, he’s a 108 year-old virgin so he’s obviously got some issues there”. Because I knew he was trying to destroy the movie from the inside out, I was much more sympathetic to Pattinson’s struggles with the script. Unlike Stewart, he actually attempted to inject some life and even some humor into the delivery, even as he loathed the entire experience. Pattinson was probably given even more embarrassing lines than Kristen. Some little nuggets of diarrhea include, “I like watching you sleep”, a line which Kitty mocked much better than I ever could; and also, “You are exactly my brand of heroin”, said in a nicely angst-filled voice. The script writers might have drawn inspiration for its remarkable romance from the Star Wars prequel trilogy, another series renown for its amazingly well written romance. If the romance in Star Wars can be summed up as “Padme, I hate sand. You aren’t like sand. So I love you”, then the romance in Twilight could be summed up as “Bella, I love heroin. You are like heroin. So I love you”. Stunning, really. Beyond that, the script writings forgot to mention anything Edward could possibly have seen in Bella. Not even any redeeming qualities, to make up for her being clingy, whiny, shallow.

When producing the Twilight movie everyone seemed to have forgotten chemistry, that vital little thing that makes romance tick. It was absolutely nowhere to be seen in Twilight. Pattinson seemed about as happy to be kissing Stewart as he would be about kissing a dead possum, and for her part Stewart simply looked bored. Pattinson was still the more dynamic of the two, and at times it even seemed like he wasn’t utterly revolted at the concept of Stewart. Seriously though, they spent a sizeable portion of the movie gazing into each other’s eyes, and yet, I still didn’t get the impression these were two people who loved each other and wanted to be together forever. Or even that they were two people mildly sexually interested in each other and wanted to have a one night stand. The closest they ever came was a wonderful scene in a meadow right after Edward has revealed his sparkliness to her, and they gaze soulfully into each others’ eyes while the camera circles around them. Just like in all those trashy romance movies.

Part of the problem was that the camera was zoomed SO FREAKING CLOSE. Stewart hasn’t really mastered the art of nuanced facial expression, so a close zoom on her face is about as expressive as faded wallpaper. You know how 80% of communication comes from body language? Well, that assuredly isn’t true, but the fact is, a lot of communication is through body language. And when the camera is zoomed so far in you can’t see bodies, so you don’t see any body language. Had there been some body language, maybe we would have felt a bit of the sexual tension. If she is wrapping her legs around him, and pressing her pelvis into him, then we would get the picture. But not from zooming in on the faces. (Of course, had they been more racy, then parents would have thrown a fit. Which just goes to show what an enormous pander this movie was.)

Oh, the romance. So yeah, that was bad. What else is there in the plot of Twilight? Well, some other stuff, I suppose. The pacing is entirely wrong. It’s slower than a dead whale on land, but that should only be expected—after all, they were trying to condense a tedious and self-indulgent teenage diary into a two hour film. Let’s take a moment and take a quiz. What was the one thing you knew about the movie before you went to see it? That it was about vampires? That Edward was a vampire? Yeah. If it wasn’t already perfectly obvious from the trailer (subtlety is not a strong point of this film), then most likely some breathy teenage Twihard told you while ejaculating about how great Edward was. So why then, does the movie spend an entire hour discovering Edward is a vampire? A terrible script is the only explanation I can come up with, as this was one of the densest decisions I’ve watched in film for quite some time. For an entire hour you get to watch the stupid and vacuous version of high school Bella attends. This is boring. So much time is wasted in the slow beginning that the male audience has lost interest by the time things start occurring (and the movie jumps the shark). By comparison, the ending seems rushed. After the revelation at the half way mark that Edward is a vampire, everything starts happening in fast-forward. Just fast enough that the ridiculous gaps in logic fly by before you can notice.

Yeah, the plot is pretty bad, and slow. But that’s not the only thing that goes into making a good movie, right? Atmosphere and setting can do a great deal to improve a movie. So what’s the setting like? Well, for one thing, vampires are pussies.

Probably all of you are already aware of the numerous ways the vampire myth has been raped in Twilight. Vampires aren’t allergic to garlic, silver doesn’t burn them, crosses don’t repel them, running water doesn’t repulse them, their reflections show up in mirrors, sunlight doesn’t disintegrate them. What does sunlight do? Actually, it’s nearly as bad in Twilight. It brings on a bout of embarrassingly bad CGI, along with a lovely background accompaniment of tingtingting. (Because Edward’s sparkles are so cool, they even make tinkling noises.) So bad that it prompts a deep shame in Edward, so he’ll never want to appear in light. The point is, these “vampires” are hardly vampires at all. They are closer to Greek gods with an occasional penchant for blood (which compared to Zeus’s remarkable diet for pretty women is perfectly acceptable), except that the Greek gods had flaws. Edward should have been Dionysus with blood in place of wine; instead, he became Apollo, without the jealous rages.

What is the problem with this though? Shouldn’t we encourage authors to break out of the cliché, to reinvent and reimagine, to expose us to new realms and adventures? Well, sure, but don’t go calling something what it’s not. If I invented a murderous race of midget men who burrow into your chest as you sleep and eat your heart whole, I don’t go calling them elves. Why not? Because elves, like vampires, are a fantastic race with existing connotations. These things have definitions and traditions; they aren’t yours to use as a label for just anything you think of. Sure, you can create a nice play off a race, and get away with calling it with the original name, but when you reach the point where your idea is no longer the original concept, you know you’ve made a mistake.

Stephanie Meyer admitted to having no awareness of the existing myths surrounding the vampire, which is a stunning example of poor research. Had she even taken the step of Googling vampire as her “protagonist” Bella does, she could have glimpsed the vast mythos surrounding the vampire. Instead, she probably read some Anne Rice novels, which are already a road to hell. I have no doubt in my mind that Stephanie Meyer did not read Dracula before beginning her series. Her use of the vampire is entirely irreverent.

Using an existing word for a new concept dilutes the meaning of word, and confuses the idea of your own concept. Doubtless lots of people went to see Twilight expecting to see a vampire movie. I can only imagine that the surprise was unpleasant. That wasn’t a vampire movie, of course not. At worst, this is false advertising, at best this is an act of ignorance. I’m grateful Stephanie Meyer did not attempt to create a race of dwarves—tall handsome men with well maintained facial hair and no fondness for alcohol.

As a consequence of the impotent conception of the vampire comes a distinct lack of atmosphere. Twilight is not a scary movie. When a vampire seems more content to gently nuzzle your throat instead of eviscerating it, you begin to get comfortable. There is not a moment in the movie where you feel like Bella is threatened, even assuming you thought of Bella as a sympathetic character. The trailer tries to play up the “action-filled” parts of the movie, to try and trick hapless males into the watching the film. In doing so, they accidentally included every scene involving action in that entire movie. The trailer is an infinitely scarier piece of cinematography than the actual movie. Every potentially scary situation that was displayed in the trailer is infinitely diffused by a ridiculous display of vampire power that renders the threat nonexistent. Thus the “horror” designation on this Horror/Action/Romance movie seems misappropriated. Same goes for the “action” designation.

It’s also hard to take seriously the atmosphere of the movie when it is saturated with a ridiculous amount of product placement. Apple, BMW, Chevy, Google, Rainier, Volvo, etc. I can’t tell if they thought this was a genuinely good idea, or if it was a cynical attempt at marketing to a much sought after demographic, but either way it was a complete mood killer.

None of this is helped by the backdrop provided for this movie. The sleepy Pacific Northwest is beautiful in film, but it has a soporific quality. This isn’t a flaw in of itself, but it compounds some other problems this movie has. The only time it was put to good use was with the tree climbing scene, but that was ruined by drunken camera work. It’s one thing to do a panoramic sweep of the landscape, it’s quite another to orbit around like a crack-addicted honeybee.

And now I’ve completely lost my train of thought, so I’ll talk about some visual aspects of the film.

Well, the “special” effects were pretty terrible. Every time a vampire jumped they did so in a parabola, so neatly arced that you could plot it in algebra class. That they were swinging on wires was painfully obvious. It wasn’t helped by the cheesy motion blur effect that the vampires had when running, which was stolen directly out of Queen of the Damned (which is just fitting, considering Anne Rice had to have inspired Stephanie Meyer). Not to mention the whoosh ing sound they made as they jumped.

All of this combined to make the baseball scene one of the stupidest moments in all of cinema. The Minnesota Nice finally wore off around here, when we were laughing our asses off in the theater. Some grown woman snapped and screamed, “Would you quit it with your annoying laugh!” in about the bitchiest voice possible. Of course, she wasn’t yelling at me, because my laughter doesn’t sound annoying—must have been one of you other people, to be sure. The entire scene can be summarized like this: everyone sets up ridiculously quickly, Bella pretends to act, Alice pitches (sexy), Rosalie hits the ball, Edward runs, moment of drama, Alice pitches (sexy), Carlisle hits the ball, Edward and Hunky Dude collide, Alice pitches (sexy), Jasper hits the ball, Hunky Dude jumps, Biker Dudes show up. They hit the ball the same way every single time. Super interesting. And they didn’t keep track of score, or show who was on what base, so it’s not like there was any reason to be interested in the game itself. It was simply there to show off the might of the vampires, and introduce CONFLICT. Conflict with ridiculous looking biker dudes, that is. Twilight, like any self respecting film, makes its villains look like utter retards, which makes us really scared of them, or something.

Not that James was the only person who looked silly. They all did. The Cullen family looked like a group of A&F models dropped into flour. Which was probably all the effort the make up department put into it. Additionally, Bella looks pale enough to be a vampire already, which is just hunky-dory. The sparkles…were terrible. When Edward went out into the sun to show Bella what a monstrosity he was there was another round of laughter from our ultra-conspicuous row. That was probably the worse CGI I have ever seen in my entire life, including while I was in a first year computer modeling class. Someone must have just taken a photoshop sparkle brush and applied it to Edward, because that’s what it looked like. The sparkles were so small and close together it looked like Edward had a layer of white fur—utterly ridiculous. And that scene was the dream that inspired the book, I kid you not.

In summary, the entire thing was one massive collage of fail and stupid. If you are going to see this movie make sure you see it with a friend. Also make sure that either the friend pays, or the friend puts out. Otherwise it is unacceptable to be caught watching this movie.

I’ll leave you with a video of Kristen Stewart at her incoherent babbling finest.

How you can help spread the message

Tagged as:


  1. Kitty on 2 January 2009, 01:28 said:


    I love that video. It’s amazing. Stewart is an AMAAAAAZING ACTRESS.

  2. Snow White Queen on 2 January 2009, 02:26 said:

    Ok, that clip was just the crowning achievement of a scathing review. Seriously, how can someone stamemer that long?

  3. Marquis De Carabas on 2 January 2009, 03:06 said:

    That whole scene just feels completely awkward to even look at.

    But yeah, you did great review.

  4. DrAlligator on 2 January 2009, 03:08 said:

    I haven’t got a clue waht you’re on about, Twilight was one of the greatest theatrical achievements I have ever seen.

    No other film has had me laughing non-stop for an hour-thirty.

  5. SubStandardDeviation on 2 January 2009, 03:11 said:

    Wow, this movie must have been terrible if the reviewers can’t describe it coherently. Terrible plot, acting, characters, pacing, camera work, makeup, special effects, audience…how was the music, by the way? The hospital BGM didn’t sound all that bad.

    dwarves—tall handsome men with well maintained facial hair and no fondness for alcohol.
    Unless you’re awesome like Sir Terry Pratchett. And even he drew the line at one.

  6. SlyShy on 2 January 2009, 03:15 said:

    Eh. The music was mainstream pop. I find mainstream pop to be exceptionally lacking in musical quality, but it’s a matter of taste.

  7. MegaB on 2 January 2009, 07:28 said:

    I’m really REALLY glad that I haven’t read the book. Sly tends to be slightly harsh in some aspects, but generally he gets things right on.

    Twilight must really be that bad…There’s NO WAY I’m watching the movie after this!

    Thank you Sly! You just saved me from an hour and a half of utter crap.

  8. Arnold Layne on 2 January 2009, 08:33 said:

    As much as I love your review Sly, I couldn’t help but like most parts of the movie. It’s a guilty pleasure.

    And yes, Kristen Stewart in that scene was horrific & I actually like her.

  9. LucyWannabe on 2 January 2009, 10:33 said:

    Awww…I actually liked the baseball scene because of its campiness…okay, and Jackson Rathbone’s handling of the bat helped out…

    But I DID love your review, because it encompasses everything about the movie that I couldn’t stand. This is case where a perfect adaptation is a BAD thing. They had an opportunity to actually fix all the problems with the source material…sigh

  10. trexmaster on 2 January 2009, 11:50 said:

    Like others said, great review, though my opinion of the movie wasn’t quite that harsh. I thought it was boring and mediocre rather than extremely awful. Still I remain flabbergasted as to the cause of teenage female excitement over this movie.

  11. Kevin on 2 January 2009, 12:46 said:

    Well done. Wow… she is really that terrible. Bad middle school play material there.

  12. Apep on 2 January 2009, 12:55 said:

    Quick point, SSD: the tall, clean-shaven, tea-totaler is an adopted dwarf, so it might not count.

    Moving on to the video:
    First, how clumsy do you have to be when the excuse of falling down not one, but two flights of stairs, and out a window can be excepted without batting an eyelash?
    Second, Stewart really nailed the ‘Bella is clingy and psychotic’ vibe, despite everything else about her performance.

  13. Hedwig Widrig on 2 January 2009, 13:47 said:

    “B-b-b-b-b-b-but you can’t l-l-leave me!”
    “I’m not going to.”
    “Oh. Okay.”

    Excuse me while I don’t watch that movie. XD

  14. Amelie on 2 January 2009, 13:52 said:

    The diatribe was hilarious but the movie clip says it all. I’m so glad I didn’t waste my money watching this disaster.

  15. SubStandardDeviation on 2 January 2009, 13:57 said:

    @ Sly: My ability to appreciate music is limited to “doesn’t make my ears bleed” and “I like it”, so no big deal.

    @ Apep: You have a point, but he mostly embraces the Dwarfish culture – he’s Lawful, doesn’t understand subtlety/metaphor, and is willing to crack a few heads when necessary. I’m willing to count him in.

  16. Lois on 2 January 2009, 14:47 said:

    I actually liked the baseball scene. But I definatley agree on the whole Kristen Stewart sucks big time and I would probably punch her in the face if I ever saw her to see if that would make her move a facial muscle, and also because she really annoys me. And Edward sparkle thing was an epic failure.
    But yes, I like Robert Pattinson, just not in that film. The film kind of made me want to lmao and slit my wrists with boredom at the same time.

  17. Rachael on 2 January 2009, 15:21 said:

    I loved how Bella, the petite teenaged girl managed to get a bleeding headwound, her leg shattered, her artery cut, and get bitten (apparently very painful) …. and never go into shock.

    “Surely shes going to pass out now. Surely. Ok, shes bleeding everywhere, surely now. Uh……”

  18. SlyShy on 2 January 2009, 15:25 said:

    If they had her just pass out and fall unconscious she could have acted that part really well. She’s pretty good at laying still.

    But seriously, she lost a ridiculous amount of blood, and she was still screaming while Edward sucked her off? Your brain starts to shut down pretty quickly after blood loss like that.

  19. Kevin on 2 January 2009, 16:40 said:

    Where’s the female Heath Ledger, Pattinson, even Gyllenhall or for goodness sakes even Leboeuf? I don’t mean to sound sexist here, but it seems more and more actresses are just chosen for the look and not much in the way of discernible ability. Seems to me the sexists are the ones casting these crap actresses.

    That’s a question I may move to the forums, come to think of it.

  20. Snow White Queen on 2 January 2009, 17:30 said:

    Like I said on the forums, Dakota Fanning is genuinely talented. I also like Natalie Portman, and Angelina Jolie actually can act, even if she’s gorgeous. Hilary Swank was amazing in ‘Million Dollar Baby, Gwyneth Paltrow, Reese Witherspoon. And Ellen Page was great in ‘Juno’.

    I’m aware that most of these are older women, and not teen actresses, but there are some good actresses out there. You just have to sift through all the Paris Hiltons in there.

  21. arial_vs_lotus on 2 January 2009, 18:08 said:

    Hilary Duff surprised me in War Inc. I forgot she was even in the movie at first. and Anna Paquin rocks in True Blood. not sure if she qualifies as “teen” but she can play it well.

    I think the highlight of watching Twilight was the obnoxiously bad MST3-ing I spewed in the theatre. There were only 3 other couples and only one guy had the nerve to tell me to shut up, after the “Do you sniff her panties too, Stalker?” line.

  22. SlyShy on 2 January 2009, 19:43 said:

    Oh. Oh, god. Given what a high her smell gives him a whiff of her panties would be like a shot of ecstasy. Ahaha, Breaking Dawn had better be hilarious.

  23. Spanman on 2 January 2009, 20:12 said:

    Quite frankly, the baseball scene had me in stitches the entire time. It was hilarious and so much fun. XD

    The stammering is bad. Very bad. For some reason her voice sounds abnormally low-pitched. And that makes it even worse.

  24. Artimaeus on 2 January 2009, 20:13 said:

    Frankly, I doubt a reputable actress would have willingly taken part in this. Who would want to play a girl with no personality and cuddle with someone covered with clown makeup?

  25. SlyShy on 2 January 2009, 20:14 said:

    I imagine the low-pitched voice was either because that video is from a terrible theater filming, or because she is trying to act like she just fell down two flights of stairs.

  26. Will of the Wheel on 2 January 2009, 21:50 said:

    I think that your review has gone a way over the top. There were flaws in the Twilight movie, but it was in no way an abomination.

    I did enjoy it. However, I didn’t go to the theatre with the intention of hating it. Unlike some people.

    I agree that the sparkles were terrible and unlike what I had imagined.

    I didn’t think that clip of the movie was bad. I mean, her thoughts were racing so fast with the dread of Edward leaving that she could hardlythink coherently, let alone speak.

  27. SlyShy on 2 January 2009, 21:54 said:

    But did you go into the theater with the intention of liking it?

  28. Will of the Wheel on 2 January 2009, 22:06 said:


    I actually am generally against movies made after books, because they are, more often than not, terrible.

    As a movie I thought this was pretty good. As a movie version of Twilight, I thought it was okay.

  29. SlyShy on 2 January 2009, 22:24 said:

    So what about the movie impressed you? What made it a pretty good movie, in your eyes?

    I can give you an example of what I mean. Brick is one of my favorite movies because:

    • It’s a clever reincarnation of the noir genre
    • It transforms a very typical Californian suburb into an atmospheric setting appropriate for a noir movie.
    • Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Nora Zehetner captured the spirit of the stoic detective and femme fatale very well, respectively.
    • The writing made creative use of 50s slang
    • Effective use of cheap camera techniques
    • Nice musical score

  30. Juni on 2 January 2009, 22:37 said:

    Her use of the vampire is entirely irreverent.

    As one who first learned of vampires through the book Dracula, Twilight isn’t even about vampires. Vampires don’t even figure. Edward reminds me of Superman’s younger, wannabe emo cousin who only pretends to loathe his sparkle skillz so he can get sympathy from stupid girls.

    Blood sucking demon who’s damned for eternity? No.

  31. Mitch on 2 January 2009, 22:39 said:

    Top baby names of 2008
    “Isabella skyrockets to #1 for the first time ever.”

  32. SlyShy on 2 January 2009, 22:44 said:


    “Mom, why am I named Isabella?”
    “Because I love Twilight.”
    “Mom, those books weren’t even good. I’m so embarrassed.”

    At least, I hope Twilight is just a passing fad, and later generations realize how ridiculous it was.

  33. Will of the Wheel on 2 January 2009, 22:49 said:


    You said that Kristen was extremely unexpressive. I, on the other hand, thought she was expressive. It may not have been completely obvious, but I think that was fine. Bella, as Bella, was so aware of her own averageness, and unworthiness, and the fact that she was uncomfortable in Forks, that she was very intraverted and didn’t express a lot of what she thought. She was also supposed to be a very mature character and din’t really “fit in” to her Hight School atmosphere.

    I also thought that Robert Pattinson was very un-hot. It was amusing seeing all the times he thought he was.

    The movie did a good job of showing the maturity of Bella’s relationship. She was not infatuated with Edward. She didn’t stare at him with starry eyes, but rather she was angry at his inexplicable “hatred” of her. She thought clearly and didn’t get into a panic when her relationship with Edward was threatened. But instead she was angry because she assumed Edward thought she was a petty, flighty teenager.

    I liked the music too.

    I was also happy that they didn’t stuff the movie full of fluffy lines (not too much anyhow) that only damaged it. Instead, through the music, the camera work, and her reactions, they gave the film a more emotional feel.

  34. Will of the Wheel on 2 January 2009, 23:18 said:


  35. Juni on 2 January 2009, 23:56 said:

    **Top baby names of 2008
    “Isabella skyrockets to #1 for the first time ever.”

    Reminds me of the lady I met who named her newborn girl “Eowyn”. Naming your child after a character from a renowned fantasy series is one thing, but as odd as that may be, there’s just no area in my brain for naming a girl after Bella.

  36. Legion on 3 January 2009, 00:26 said:

    Sounds like the camp factor alone will make this movie worthy of being made into a drinking game come the DVD release. >=]

  37. Artimaeus on 3 January 2009, 01:01 said:

    I hate to pick an argument, but in what way, exactly, are Bella’s relationship choices mature? I can appreciate that Kristin Stewart was trying to appear levelheaded, but that’s not Bella character. A mature, intelligent girl don’t fall “irrevocably in love” with a guy who she’s known for maybe a month and is struggling against the urge to rip her throat out. In order to make Bella believable, there has to be some uncontrolled emotion. There are some parts that should be played deadpan, but starry-eyed, love-struck, teenage girl just isn’t one of them.

  38. Will of the Wheel on 3 January 2009, 01:20 said:

    It’s not the relationship choices that I was counting as mature. Having a vampire boyfriend and a werewolf who is in love with you for a best friend is not a very good choice.

    But I don’t know any girl who looks around and just DECIDES who she will fall in love with. It just… happens. Many mature, intelligent girls fall in love with the wrong guy. But its usually not until later that everybody finds out it was, in fact, the right guy. As I think is the case with Twilight.

  39. scary_viking on 3 January 2009, 02:11 said:

    ??It’s not the relationship choices that I was counting as mature. Having a vampire boyfriend and a werewolf who is in love with you for a best friend is not a very good choice. ??

    Many mature, intelligent girls fall in love with the wrong guy. But its usually not until later that everybody finds out it was, in fact, the right guy


  40. Artimaeus on 3 January 2009, 02:30 said:

    I know what you’re saying- that love isn’t rational or thought out, and that Bella is being lead mostly by her emotions. The problem is that Kristen Stewart barely shows any emotion. If Bella was a cold, distant, unfeeling character, this interpretation might make sense. But she’s not. The girl who faints when her boyfriend kisses her isn’t the girl who stays calm when her relationship is threatened, if you see what I’m saying.

  41. Will of the Wheel on 3 January 2009, 02:41 said:

    Scary Viking:
    What exactly are you asking?

    Artimaeus: I don’t think that because you don’t show very much emotion means that you are cold or distant. But I don’t think that was your point.

    I see what you are saying. However, I don’t think she was really calm exactly. Maybe just the reaction she had was different that what we expected. We would think shock, outrage, perhaps uncontrollable crying. But she just freezes up and becomes very stressed. That was what I thought.

  42. scary_viking on 3 January 2009, 03:15 said:

    Yea, the highlight tags didn’t work out too well there. The top part was supposed to be a quote too.

    I’m saying that you said that the relationship choices aren’t what you’re calling mature and then you said that they were (in the second quote), which is a contradiction.

  43. Kitty on 3 January 2009, 05:41 said:

    If you want to argue about this stuff, go register for the forums.

  44. DrAlligator on 3 January 2009, 14:32 said:

    Guys, don’t be discouraged to watch Twilight by the review! Go! Give the studio money so they can make more!

    It’s a great comedy. Can’t wait for Full Moon. Or… whatever the next one’s called.

  45. SlyShy on 3 January 2009, 14:37 said:

    Oh, man. I forgot to mention the absolutely crude way in which they set up the sequel. Some movies at least leave it ambiguous, but not Twilight.

  46. Rand on 3 January 2009, 14:43 said:


  47. Juni on 3 January 2009, 17:37 said:

    How did they set up the sequel?

  48. Spanman on 3 January 2009, 17:46 said:

    With what’s-her-face smirking at the camera. She may as well have said “I’m so sexy, I’m gonna get that Bella with my hands tied behind my back.”

    Also, I thought that in the lack of fluffy lines, the film held a lot of awkward pauses. Where Bella stares at Edward or Edward stares at Bella. It made me squirm. :D

  49. SlyShy on 3 January 2009, 17:47 said:

    By showing the main villainess watch Bella and Edward go to prom. Stalking is a vampire’s forte, I guess. And then the movie went black and white, some Radiohead started playing (wtf? it’s actually a bit sad how many good bands got sucked into this mess. Iron & Wine did too), and she walked down some stairs dramatically swaying her hips.

  50. Juni on 3 January 2009, 18:59 said:



    Thanks for explaining!

  51. Elli on 7 January 2009, 19:25 said:

    The make-up they have caked on Pattinson looks wretched. Of course, that is how Edward is described in the book, complete with “bags under his eyes” or something…ick. The only way fangirls could buy into his hotness is if they were imagining a different man in their heads while reading it. Which they probably were. Edward’s descriptions, while overblown and verbose, only really said he looked like a “greek god”, “avenging angel” or “cupid”…whatever those are supposed look like. It’s all so vague.

    Not that there is anything wrong with people with paler complexions. I just have a problem with the make-up department rolling Edward in flour and calling it a day.

  52. Delzra on 12 January 2009, 19:35 said:

    “th-ba-be-th-ba-be Thats all folks!”
    I remember that I was sitting in the theater and I believe it was supposed to be a serious moment and I just started busting up laughing.

  53. coffee on 16 January 2009, 19:22 said:

    seems likely that they will come out with a Twilight sequel pretty soon, there’s more crazy money at stake

  54. Delzra on 16 January 2009, 19:39 said:

    Oh yes I just found this video as I was browsing and The title actually piqued my interest as I thought people where actually gonna start going the right way with it disappointed sigh
    But New Moon will come out in November

  55. Lookingforme on 18 January 2009, 17:34 said:

    Thank you so much for this! I am unfortunately the only one in my friend circle who seems to realize how bitchy and shallow Bella is, and how creeper-like Edward is (saying “I like watching you sleep” is NOT supposed to make a teenage girl feel special, or even feel comfortable, if you know what I mean.) I watched the movie last night with my Twihard friends, and even they laughed during the movie (albeit not as hard as me). Pattinson looked revolted by Stewart; when she put her head on his chest, I seriously thought he was going to push her away. And Stewart was about as interesting to watch as cell division. Anyways, thanks for letting those who are sane know that they are not alone!

  56. watch twilight new moon on 21 September 2009, 11:20 said:

    Yea @coffee Twilight new moon is coming october 20th or something. Im going to watch it.

  57. Danielle on 21 September 2009, 13:03 said:

    Hey, watch twilight, you might want to check some of the other comments before you advertise a movie here. ‘Cuz I highly doubt anybody who saw that shameless plug for New Moon is going to fork over ten bucks to watch it.

  58. SlyShy on 21 September 2009, 13:26 said:

    Well, many of us will be going to see it. If I don’t get into a preview screening I’ll certainly be watching it premier night, so that I can write a review.

    That guy was just trying to get PageRank for his laughably bad website. Little does he realize we use the “NoFollow” URL attribute, so spamming us doesn’t actually help his search ranking.

  59. Dylan on 21 October 2009, 20:30 said:

    So exactly what is your vote over Twilight SlyShy? Also I agree with you on Kristin Stewarts acting.

  60. Arya on 21 October 2009, 20:30 said:

    So exactly what is your vote over Twilight SlyShy? Also I agree with you on Kristin Stewarts acting.

  61. SlyShy on 21 October 2009, 20:41 said:

    Oh, I intensely dislike Twilight.

  62. Arya on 21 October 2009, 20:45 said:

    Ok, I just have to say I think Twilight is stupid and basically pointless.

  63. Arya on 21 October 2009, 21:12 said:

    I also dislike Twilight very very very much.

  64. Puppet on 21 October 2009, 22:42 said:

    Look, you don’t need to double post, Arya. Take your time to think before you type. And try to make the posts useful.

    Also, don’t bother replying to this post.

  65. Arya on 22 October 2009, 20:24 said:

    It was an accident Puppet.

  66. Arya on 28 October 2009, 18:14 said:

    Now I can see why it’s pointless replying to that.

  67. watch grammy 2010 on 26 January 2010, 06:52 said:

    Expected better!

  68. fffan on 28 February 2010, 00:21 said:

    Did anyone else wonder why Edward told Bella he had been watching her sleep for 2 months yet she had only been living at forks for a little under a month? Also, did anyone get annoyed by Edward’s supposedly-musical-but-in-reality-husky voice or bella’s low monotone voice? It sounded like she was inhaling argon gas or something at regular intervals…

    Ah well I’m probably getting too involved with a movie that after all doesn’t really have a plot until after about an hour.

  69. Emma on 23 December 2011, 22:21 said:

    Instead, she probably read some Anne Rice novels

    Actually, she didn’t even read Ann Rice. She didn’t want other people’s views of vampires contaminating hers
    Dear Mrs. Meyer: what the hell were you thinking?

  70. cheap-essay on 7 May 2018, 01:28 said:

    Excellent article! We are linking to this particularly great article on our website. Keep up the great writing.