# what do you all think of the movie twilight???



## conformità (Mar 14, 2010)

edward cullen luuurrrvverr, or not? :happy:


----------



## Mikbert (Jul 19, 2009)




----------



## Hiccups24-7 (Oct 17, 2009)

I lol'd at the picture I have to be honest.
But seriously I'm enjoying the movies so far. I haven't read the books and I don't plan to so I can't compare, but the movies are fine there's nothing wrong with them. And anyone that criticises a movie is just expressing expectations in my opinion. Would someone really make and release a movie that everyone including themselves would consider to be crap? nah exactly.
I think the hype and piss taking has just become the 'cool thing to do', I'd say most just do it for the laughs.


----------



## GBer8721 (Jan 18, 2010)

*Vampires don't sparkle dam it*. The last good vampire movie was Daybreakers. That movie had real vampires.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

I have no comment other than they appear to be rubbish, both books and movies. One of my favourite actresses, Sarah Clarke, is in the films but even she can't make me watch Twilight (she's only in it because she is friends with the first film's director). If you like it, fine, but I don't.


----------



## conformità (Mar 14, 2010)

Mikbert said:


>


 have you seen the movies?


----------



## conformità (Mar 14, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> I have no comment other than they appear to be rubbish, both books and movies. One of my favourite actresses, Sarah Clarke, is in the films but even she can't make me watch Twilight (she's only in it because she is friends with the first film's director). If you like it, fine, but I don't.


why did u find them rubbish?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Alexa said:


> why did u find them rubbish?


The books were a bit too full of flowery language, not to mention misogyny, and they are basically glorified fanfiction, although to be fair I've not actually read the books nor seen the movies.


----------



## conformità (Mar 14, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> The books were a bit too full of flowery language, not to mention misogyny, and they are basically glorified fanfiction, although to be fair I've not actually read the books nor seen the movies.


i havent read the books, i just seen the movies as they were recommended to me by a friend and we both agreed, its not the fact that its about vapires it more about edward love and protection for bella


----------



## Hiccups24-7 (Oct 17, 2009)

GBer8721 said:


> *Vampires don't sparkle dam it*. The last good vampire movie was Daybreakers. That movie had real vampires.


You just expressed an expectation, since when did all vampire movies have to be a particular way? Vampires aren't even real so it's not like they have to stick to 'fact' or anything, not that they should if it were the case.
Stating a preference on the other hand, nothing wrong with that, I'll just ignore the first half of your post me thinks


----------



## Stolen (Apr 5, 2010)

Standard B-movie Sci-Fi channel fare. I'm pretty sure I saw better acting and special effects on Mothra, and the movie about the man who turned into a giant blood-sucking mosquito. 

I'm honestly shocked that such a big budget movie could look so cheaply made. The effects were from the '70s, and it was like each actor was reading directly from the script. I get it, I get it...."I'm too dark/brooding/moody/mysterious/deep to show emotion." They just take that line of thinking a bit too far, and give the entire cast the emotional appeal of a broom handle. 

As for the books - I admit I haven't cracked them open. But I find myself morally obligated to avoid books that leave my mouth tasting inexplicably of cheddar. Exhibit A, a quote I found online when deciding if I wanted to read them:

_"Aren't you hungry?" he asked, distracted._
_"No." I didn't feel like mentioning that my stomach was already full - full of butterflies.
_
I admit complete confusion at their popularity, and this coming from someone who went to every midnight book release for Harry Potter.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

The movies are bloody terrible, and I enjoyed her books, apart from the last one, but she can't write for shit.
Pardon my French.


----------



## walkawaysun09 (Mar 13, 2010)

I haven't watched either movie all the way through, but have read on the plot and gotten enough out of it (from the hour or so of each film I wound up watching while my mom/sister/brother's gf were watching it a few times), that it is a desperately misinterpreted piece of satire meant to alert women to the stereotype of them going after the emotionally abusive bad-boy and/or "loner" like Edward Cullen while ignoring the more emotionally supportive/protective man much like Jacob. It is full of flowery language in the books to interest girls, and play off like some sort of modern teen romance/fanfiction-type drama reminding them of their current tween year romances that are going sour, without them fully realizing that it also has some hints as to why it is such a way.

Then again, I haven't watched it FULLY, but from the combined hour and a half or so I've seen of both first two films...that's what I am getting from it...that it's a totally misinterpreted satire on teenage relationships and "falling in love too fast/too hard for your own good."


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

I thought they sucked which says a lot because I L.O.V.E. Vampire movies.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I saw it at the movie theatre...I wasn't all too excited to go, it was mostly my sister who wanted to see it
It was kinda blank...I haven't read the book, but it was kinda...just missing something
My sister wanted to see New Moon, so we saw that too...it's funny how many times we saw shirtless guys hahaha


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

You should read some of the Twilight fanfiction - most of which are terrible. I made a 24/Twilight crossover myself, but I know almost nothing about the characters and it just contained a very OOC Bella.



> A wet day in Los Angeles, and Bella Swan grumbled as she got out of the cab. She had had enough rain back in Forks, and the forecast had definitely said that it was going to be hot and sunny in LA. As she crossed a busy road, she looked at a figure on the other side in surprise. Rushing over to the woman, she realised that the woman didn't recognise her.
> 
> "Mom?," Bella asked Nina, who was amazed and confused by the strange young woman. She wondered if it was some sort of wierd joke by Jack or Tony. She looked at the young woman and saw no similarity in her. Sure, they were both pale and brunette, but Nina had clear blue eyes, whilst Bella had deep brown eyes, and there were far more differences than similarities.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

I liked it. I haven't seen the new one though.


----------



## Robatix (Mar 26, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> The books were a bit too full of flowery language, not to mention *misogyny*, and they are basically glorified fanfiction, although to be fair I've not actually read the books nor seen the movies.


Yeah, I read an article at Feministing that described Edward as emotionally manipulative, and the "rage" issues of the werewolves (Team Jacob) as inappropriate, or at least insensitive, characterizations, considering the extraordinarily high rates of domestic abuse among Native American families.

Then again, most romantic relationships in movies are not actually representative of healthy couplings, since one or both characters involved are usually broken in some way, so as to create a cinematic need to unite, or reunite, the two over the span of ninety minutes.

Having said that...Alice can bite me anytime. *wiggles eyebrows*


----------



## Lady K (Oct 13, 2009)

TentacleZoom said:


> I'm honestly shocked that such a big budget movie could look so cheaply made. The effects were from the '70s, and it was like each actor was reading directly from the script. I get it, I get it...."I'm too dark/brooding/moody/mysterious/deep to show emotion." They just take that line of thinking a bit too far, and give the entire cast the emotional appeal of a broom handle.





This is inaccurate. The first Twilight movie was written and created just before the insane craze and before Hollywood understood how frenzied all the young girls would get over Edward and Bella. The first movie had a small budget - I believe they even used Catherine Hardwicke's (the director) own house for some of the shooting. The movie has bad effects because they had a tight budget.

However, this does not excuse the not so well done second installment. By this time, the craze was material and tangible in our world. They switched directors, and ran with a much larger budget. The fact that the second movie is subpar (in my opinion) is quite bothersome to me. I feel that if they're going to make gads of money off of it, it should at least be well made.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

For New Moon:
It would have been nice if their target audience was a more mature crowd...but:
I think they knew they didn't have to make it a very well made movie considering it's target audience was teen girls...The thing that stood out to me was how many times they had a guy with his shirt off! That tells me their main focus was getting girls to go ga ga. Besides that is the obvious attractions a teen girl may have to the plot in general. So I think they knew that they didn't have to spend much on making it a good movie to get people to go watch it


----------



## Coccinellidae (Mar 16, 2010)

No, I'm not really into it. I tried to read a book, but I got bored :blushed:. I've seen 2 movies too only because my friends invited me. I wouldn't go if somebody hadn't invited me. :laughing:


----------



## obz900 (Mar 29, 2010)

I refuse to watch them. I read the first couple chapters of Twilight before uncontrollably vomiting. It took awhile before I was able to pick up any sort of printed material again.


----------



## thestrangewarrior (May 5, 2010)

I think they are (the books and movies) very boring and just awful. I do respect people who like it though if they don't take it too seriously. Those who inflict harm (physically or emotionally) because they don't like it get no respect from me.


----------



## Raindrops (May 2, 2010)

Been avoiding going on thread because people make too much of a bit deal of the Twilight series whether they love or hate it :dry:.

Admittedly I like the books because I'm a sucker for romance and love stories, the vampire stuff makes it all the more compelling too; however as an English Lit student and think the writing style is terrible to be honest, it's repetitive and sometimes grammatically incorrect. It is also a little disturbing how controlling Edward is of Bella. However the novels are good for an easy read and they keep you entertained through either the pure rubbishness of the novel or when it's actually supposed to be funny.

Now for the films, hmm, I'm again in two minds, while I find them exciting and again compelling. The deliberate pauses in speech can get a bit ridiculous - for exampla "Edward *sigh, then pause for several seconds", bla bla". However the scenery/photographies (or whatever you call it) are absolutely stunning. Of the three main actors, Taylor is definitely the most talented; the other two can seem a bit wooden at times.


----------



## Miraji (Mar 12, 2010)

Mikbert said:


>


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH i totally loved this one


----------



## Miraji (Mar 12, 2010)

i watched the second movie and its a cheesy movie..which mean to only fool teens with such so perfect romantic i dont know what ...beside where is the charisma in the main characters


----------



## Miraji (Mar 12, 2010)

Lapsistiai said:


> *The Twilight series helped a great deal in my realization that everyone is psychotic.* There is too much wrong with the series to put in to one post.
> 
> I wish we could patent words. First it's vampires who sparkle, are filled with venom, and feel like stone, next it's cyclops with seven eyes, centaurs that are half-man half-platypus, leprechauns who breathe fire, and fairies that transform in to robots.
> 
> Actually... maybe I should write a book.:tongue:


hehheehehhehe i will be waiting for your book


----------



## Sweetish (Dec 17, 2009)

I haven't read the books. I've only just recently watched the first film when it happened to be on cable. To have a valid opinion on something, I need to actually witness it despite bracing myself for a disappointment. What's this about vampires that sparkle? I had to see it for myself, and when I did I have to say I enjoyed laughing at how ridiculous of a plot ploy it was.

I have relatives who love the books and the movies, one of which talked her husband into taking her to see the 3rd movie for her birthday. If she ever wants to watch these movies on DVD and invites me to do so, or she talks about the books while I'm around her, I'd rather not feel compelled to insult her taste without having at least some perspective on the whole subject that can spark a good conversation rather than a shallow, defensive one.



sprinkles said:


> Some people do make movies that they know are crap. XD they just tend to get swept under the rug LOL.
> They typically don't hit the box office so it's kind of a non issue anyway.





Hiccups24-7 said:


> o_0
> I can't be sure now, unless I see some proof on that.
> When you consider how much is at stake when making a movie, pun intended, it would seem ridiculous.


Google a director by the name of Uwe Boll to read about how he shamelessly, intentionally, makes shitty movies with the priority to make at least something of a $$ profit- not to necessarily make a good, quality movie.



Hiccups24-7 said:


> I would be foolish to think anyone would not be allowed to make negative comments about this movie, and I'm a little saddened to think you feel that way. Do I come across as being that stupid? damn! o_0
> 
> Most of the reasons people have bashed this movie in this thread and otherwise are in my opinion lame. And can be applied to any movie that is within the same demographic range. I do feel and agree this movie made less of an effort to hide it's flawed morals which to me just speaks volumes on peoples intelligence. Are they not smart enough to see it in other movies so there for they don't bash those other movies? Pick on the easy and weak? Go with the crowd? Everyone is doing it so it's ok? I'm sure no one would ever admit to that though.
> 
> It can be frustrating when you have an equally valid point yet find it hard to put it into words so therefore have to deal with everyone facepalming you. :-/


I know your opinions have changed a bit over the time since you've participated in this thread, but still...

If you haven't already, watch The Last Airbender, but try to sneak in so you don't have to pay for the ticket, because it's not worth the $$ trust me. Read all the reviews after watching it, so that you can appreciate the authenticity of the [highly negative] criticism.

Seriously, compare The Last Airbender to a classic like The Neverending Story. They are targeted at the same age audience (demographic), yet I easily discern which one is the drastically better film- do you? People who have been in denial about M. Night Shyamalan's dwindling abilities to make good movies now should have no doubt. Wolfgang Peterson did not dumb down The Neverending Story for its target, younger audience, nor edit out its humor to cater to dark seriousness nor edit out the dark seriousness to cater to the humor, so why couldn't M. Night endow the screenplay for and editing of The Last Airbender with such dignity, let alone how could he settle for the crappy, extended shot takes?

I've seen directors do so much more with a film's screenplay and with the energy of the film's actors with a lot less money in their allocated production budget. I know of directors who actually give a damn about making, not just an entertaining movie that will turn profits, but a GREAT movie that hopefully will turn much better than expected profits so that film production companies aren't confused about the difference enough to think that $$ spent on or $$ earned by a motion picture directly correlates with it being a great film.



sprinkles said:


> Nah. Some (but not all) B movies can fall into this classification. Some exploitation movies do as well. We just don't see them a lot because they honestly are bad taste.
> 
> I think Killer Klowns From Outer Space is one prime example of a movie that is just entirely a joke... while it's kind of a cult classic, it's definitely not a seriously done movie at all.


No, not seriously done, but seriously fun to watch. :crazy:

Killer Klowns From Outer Space was definitely entertaining to me when I was 9. It did scare me, to be honest, but I didn't turn into a person with a deathly fear of cotton candy, of popcorn, or of people dressed as clowns because I understood it was all too absurd to begin with. Same story with Stephen King's "IT"- the film didn't frighten me away from clowns because I understood that for what it was. Unfortunately, most of Stephen King's books translated to movies turn out as B-grade with lowered standards, which is sad because the books are so much better.

Whoever said that Daybreakers is a good vampire movie better have been speaking sarcastically, or I truly have no hope for humanity's taste in film. That shit is B-movie or bust.

Interview With The Vampire, on the other hand, is actually good, but again not as good as the book it was based upon, as usual.



Robatix said:


> Yeah, New Moon was rushed out the door, and it leaned on lousy special effects. The director was also to blame for The Golden Compass, which is a warning New Moon's producers were remiss to ignore. That Eclipse was given to the director of Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night could at least be a sign that the next Twilight movie will have some edge, unlike its immediate predecessor.


Yes, that was sad about The Golden Compass. I honestly don't know how they could ever have written a working screenplay to get an adequate translation from book to screen with the proper character depth, pacing and explanation of outlandish concepts like the alethiometer and dust. Definitely should have been a sign to go with a different director, but depending on when contracts were signed I'm not sure if they had that knowledge to go on beforehand. It IS a bit lofty to expect a production company to hire a certain director when they know the movie will make $$ regardless just because of the franchise it has created- again, not crediting the picture for its quality or lack thereof but only crediting the projected and actual revenue they anticipated and gained, regardless.

I've read some comments by people who think that the talents of the director of the 3rd Twilight movie were wasted on that film, but I don't know enough to have an opinion on that.



Treeton said:


> I had the misfortune of trying to force myself to watch the movie without getting up and hitting someone. The parts where they used special effects for the running was nothing short of hysterical, though. The acting was sub-par at best, some moments were an absolute cheese-fest. Who ever played the part of Jasper has my vote for the best actor with chronic constipation, considering that his only facial expression was that of someone with bowel issues. Overall, not enjoyable.
> 
> On a more off-topic but not incredibly to off-topic note:
> I feel kind of... disturbed by the books. When I first read them, it seemed as of there was a sort of hidden meaning behind Edward and Bella's behavior, and in all honesty, I expected the first book to end in tradgety, highlighting the symptoms and eventual outcome of an abusive relationship in a fictional world. I honestly thought that this book would bring something new to the table, having a pinch of sci-fi in a "Romeo and Juliet"-esque story ( Romeo and Juliet had many emotional and mental issues that contributed to their downfall, if you're wondering about the connection I was trying to make there).
> ...


Yes, the author of the books is Mormon.

Stephenie Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, anyone with an opinion on the subject of Twilight should read about its background, for example the fact that she didn't begin writing it with any ideas that it would ever be published. Also, check out what classic literature she cites here,



> *Inspiration*
> 
> Meyer cites many novels as inspiration for the _Twilight_ series, including _Jane Eyre_ by Charlotte Brontë and _Anne of Green Gables_ by L.M. Montgomery.[36] Each book in the series was also inspired specifically by a different literary classic: _Twilight_ by Jane Austen's _Pride and Prejudice_; _New Moon_ by Shakespeare's _Romeo and Juliet_; _Eclipse_ by Emily Brontë's _Wuthering Heights_; and _Breaking Dawn's_ theme by Shakespeare's _The Merchant of Venice_[37] and _A Midsummer Night's Dream_.[38] Meyer said, "I've been reading books for adults my entire life. Growing up I was an avid reader—the thicker the book, the better."[39] She also said she is a huge fan of Orson Scott Card, and "can't go through a year without re-reading" Jane Austen's books.[39]
> 
> ...


She pretty much de-fangs the vampires and neuters the werewolves. Weak. I need to go watch Bram Stoker's DRACULA just to get this stale, boring taste out of my film purveying palette and listen to Annie Lennox' song "Love Song For a Vampire" while I'm at it.

Before I even read the wikipedia page or watched the movie I quickly recognized that there are references to the Mormon culture and religious belief system littered throughout the plot, which I certainly saw in the first movie. Anyone who doesn't recognize that for what it is, in my book, is quite frankly willfully ignorant. Sure, it's just entertainment! However, you should know just what it is that you are reading and/or watching, rather than paint it as simply a chick flick or a niche romance movie for vampire and werewolf aficionados.

The themes portrayed in the movie are analogous to Mormon patriarchal society. People can go on to then accuse the CoJCoLDS of being anti-feminist, if they wish, but follow the line of rationality, people, please. Understand the religious culture, then certain aspects of the plot and the characters in it make a lot of sense within that particular context.

Edward is symbolic of the dutiful Mormon boy who resists temptation, refusing to defile Bella's virtue. He is above and beyond the material, the superficial, the temporary. He is the young, aspiring to be patriarchal, protector.

Beastiality boy (sorry, WTF is that character's name? *yawn*) represents the distracting temptation to indulge in a life of mortal sin rather than be joined together for eternal life, love and happiness with the symbolic, good Mormon boy and his together forever "family".

These contrasting interests of the chaste versus the carnal will clash and fight for Bella's attention as exaggerated metaphors of any young Mormon girl's moral dilemma and manifest tension of her hormone driven, religious culture influenced fantasies.

It's not simply a vampire & werewolf movie nor simply a chick flick =Þ it's a giant metaphor which can be directly related to Mormon teenagers shown resisting their hormonal urges, all in the name of a religion's requirements to stay faithfully virginal until married and sealed together, within the temple, for time and all eternity. A parallel to the idea of being bound to that one special person that the adolescent has been told since childhood he or she is meant to be with and become part of an immortal family with.

...

Congratulations to all of those who have been swooning over a romance novel / romance film written by a woman from an indoctrinated Mormon female's perspective.

Everything about the first movie's production quality is good, but nothing great, excepting of course the plot which is disappointingly shallow; the plot being the meat of every movie, or any good story for that matter, along with the important focus of character development, which also wasn't very good. The sparkle in sunlight concept can be seen as merely a plot device so that the author would be able to place Edward's character within the reality of an average teenager's daily (out in pseudo daylight) life, or else he'd be perceived as even creepier than he already is, rather than just weirdly aloof yet still approachable. Seriously, a teenage vampire who can only court the female protagonist, er, damsel by night does not help the author to portray him as the hero in a romantic light to maintain his "good boy" dutiful image properly aligned with the symbolism.

Mormon authors alluding to their religious beliefs, history and culture is old hat- she's a fan of Orson Scott Card, after all, and he has done that same thing in his fictional novels, even stating that he hadn't realized he was doing it so subtly until after the novel had been published.



Geodude said:


> Adding my voice to several people saying similar stuff.
> 
> Frankly, I think the fact that something is aimed at children/teens is no excuse for being poorly written, poorly acted and shallow. Spirited Away was aimed at children, and it was none of those things. Where the Wild Things are was aimed at children, and I thought it was one of the best films of last year. Also Labyrinth, Princess Bride, Up, some of the Harry Potter films.
> 
> ...


I loathe that weak, co-dependent female character portrayal garbage, too. It seemed like more could have been done to flesh out the character, instead we're left with this idea that Edward is attracted simply to the peace and quiet of a non-broadcasting (vacant-?) mind and masochistically falls into limerence with her. At least in Bram Stoker's DRACULA he falls into limerence with Winona Ryder's character because he believes she is his long lost love, reincarnate- I mean, at least it's easy to discern that he's fucking passionately, insanely obsessed with the woman for his reasons which are made obvious, even if her character isn't all that deep, either.

I'm beginning to wonder if S.M. cheated on the Mormon ideals of not watching "R" rated films to catch that flick =P

The lamb and the lion dialogue bits were amusing, but beyond generating laughs seemed nothing more than yet another religious reference.



MoonLight said:


> It was very interesting to read this thread, lol just admit everybody has their likes and dislikes. I still don't get why some like other sagas or trilogies or whatever each of us sees what they like in them.
> 
> I read all of the books I think SM character display is good, you really get to know them regardless of whatever you think of what they are doing. If you have a good imagination the stories come to life and the movies will fall short but they are enjoyable. There are many things in the books that are not present in the movies but it was quite an experience to watch the movies then to read the books then to watch the movies again. Your brain starts to fill the gaps.
> 
> ...


Of course.



Arsineus Maximus said:


> The only thing I liked about it was Muse's 'supermassive black hole'


Hehe. Yes, that wasn't bad. If I'd managed to fall asleep while watching the film, that song no doubt would have awakened me. It felt a bit sudden for where the atmosphere and mood of the movie had been going, but in a way a relief. Mostly a relief because it reminded me that even if M Night. fucked up The Last Airbender, the original animated series of Avatar: The Last Airbender will always be golden and this fan-vid with that song demonstrates just a tasteful li'l bit of why.


----------



## Danse Macabre (Oct 30, 2009)

*I think this accurately sums up my feelings on the subject of Twilight and moreso, it's godawful author:*


----------



## L'Empereur (Jun 7, 2010)

^ This .


----------



## Alvarez (Jul 15, 2010)

The movies are fine. I got dragged to them by my ex and they weren't terrible.

That's all I can say about this topic while retaining my near-superhuman levels of Manly. Now excuse me, but I need to go work out before dousing myself in Gatorade and then somehow setting myself on fire.

edit: that made no grammatical sense


----------



## GiGi (Aug 13, 2010)

There are so many good vampire, and even werewolf movies out there. Twilight is not one of them. I get it that it starts out as an old fashion kinda love story. And I understand why girls and women love these movies, it speaks to our desire to tame a dangerous Bad Boy, who falls in love with us and protects us from the world. I got it!
I saw the first movie and thought it was a little whinny but ok. Then I saw the second movie and wanted to help the evil vampire chick kill Bella. The melancholy behavior was too much. I felt like the life was being sucked out of me. Being a horror movie fan I was embarrassed. It wasn't horror, it was "Legend of the Fall" with fangs and no shirt. I'll skip the rest and not bother to read the books. I am, however, looking forward to the spoof.
Call me old fashion but I like my vampires to be blood sucking night terrors.


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

The first film was fine; I actually thought it was good (for a romance). The second movie was atrocious.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

Alvarez said:


> The movies are fine. I got dragged to them by my ex and they weren't terrible.
> 
> That's all I can say about this topic while retaining my near-superhuman levels of Manly. Now excuse me, but I need to go work out before dousing myself in Gatorade and then somehow setting myself on fire.
> 
> edit: that made no grammatical sense


which sadly is the only known cure for twilight disease.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

Rob Pattinson is the only thing that makes those movies worth it. Not because I find him attractive, but because I find him hilarious. He's a bad actor, he knows it and plays off it. He thinks his character is a creepy, pathetic, douche and he plays him that way. It amuses me. Makes me sad they don't let him talk much in the commentaries, but that makes sense because he doesn't have anything nice to say about the movies or his role. :tongue:


----------



## Rusalka (Dec 30, 2009)

My friends dragged me to the first one, which was terrible, but thankfully not that long. The second one... oh my God I was dying, it was so damn long. I was starting to fall asleep when it was coming toward the end. However, I hate the whole franchise. Stupid.


----------



## tangential (Aug 15, 2010)

I watched it on DVD not having any sort of expectations. It was a pretty good movie, I thought. But it's not the best vampire movie I've seen. Still, good for what it is.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I've seen the first and third but not the second. honestly I thought it was pretty cool. vampires, werewolves, carnal instincts taking over, lots of fighting. granted, it was a little cheesy, but not much to complain about 
Edward is cool, he's strong, composed and confident; Jacob is whiny, thoughtless and controlling and gets on my friggin nerves.


----------



## Abx (Oct 5, 2011)

conformità said:


> edward cullen luuurrrvverr, or not? :happy:


I liked Twilight Soundtrack than Edward Cullen.


----------



## lethal lava land (Aug 2, 2011)

My problem with the first movie (besides the lackluster writing - which became even more apparent when I started reading (& subsequently making fun of) the book - is the movie is two and a half hours..and literally NOTHING happens. The plot summary on wiki is like a paragraph, and that's basically all that happens in the entire movie. It could have easily been much shorter.

Oh and Bella Swan is a horrible character. All she does (in the book & movie) is complain. All the time. WHY ARE YOU NEVER SATISFIED? And why does Kristen Stewart always have her mouth half open with a stupid expression constantly plaging her already not-that-attractive face..and she can't act either (at least from what I've seen, which is admittedly not much)..another thing working against her

Also: Edward, watching Bella sleep isn't romantic..it's fucking creepy. You're a pathetic douche.

Anyway, now I'm gonna get flamed..even though I'm not really trying to start anything.

*runs*


----------



## rocknroll_lover (Jun 28, 2013)

Do not approve. So teeny-bopper and cringey haha. But I can get sucked into obsessive love stories at times... but generally not a fan.


----------



## imaginaryrobot (Jun 11, 2013)

I invested time into reading the series, so I made sure to see all the films. I really liked the first one, tolerated/mildly enjoyed 2 and 3, and was incredibly annoyed by Breaking Dawn (both part 1 and 2). I don't know if it's because the films got worse, or if it's because I got older.  I can be a sucker for romance, and I think I got kind of annoyed by the later films for trying to be more than what I think it actually is (a mediocre love story). I think it got ridiculous by trying to add these intense plots and battles or whatever, but that's just me. But overall, I don't really have anything against the series. I'm a casual fan.


----------



## Kittynip (Mar 24, 2013)

If you replaced Edward's description as a 'sexy vampire' to a '40000 year old man who sits outside of a teenage girl's window and watches her sleep' it suddenly gets really creepy - errrr awesome.

But it just wasn't my cup of tea, lol. 
People should enjoy whatever they want to. 
I liked the OST - Christina Perri rocks.


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

One of those movies that I'll never have the time to go see.


----------



## CaptSwan (Mar 31, 2013)

Mikbert said:


>


Amen. There's nothing like the love story between a girl and an immortal pedophile who's old enough to have been a pedophile when you're grandma was a teenager... Not even Shakespeare could have come up with that.


----------



## Meliora (May 13, 2013)

Stinks worse than a pile of manure. Bad script, poor casting, terrible acting, no plot, subpar special effects, etc.

The books also stunk ass: low level/quality of writing; lack of a decent plot; repetitive use of the same descriptions; very little character development; use of a "Mary Sue" insert character named Bella that basically told impressionable teens that even if they have nothing going for them in terms for personality or ambition (because what does that really matter anyway according to the books) some really old dude will pay them attention (but when the he doesn't, it is more than okay to whine, cry, and shut oneself off); romanticizes co-dependent/manipulative relationships; idolizes the "princess" syndrome; tells not shows; etc


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

I tried watching the first movie--but I couldn't sit through the horribly banal dialogues delivered with faux gravitas and incredibly long pauses between words/phrases. I might as well have heard something like this: "Your...skin...is...so...beautiful...and...nice...to...look...at."


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie (Apr 11, 2012)

I would rather stare at a blank wall for 90 minutes that be subjected to that crap.


-ZDD


----------



## Tipttt (May 16, 2013)

It's forgettable. If it wasn't for the hype around it, you'd really never hear about it except in discussions about really meh movies.

The second one is well made, but has a bad script. It's real pretty, some genuinely good scenes in it, and the bad ones are almost always laughably bad, so it's a fun movie all in all.

The third one probably has the worst script I ever saw. Half of the plot points are plot holes.

Fourth one is really annoying to watch, but i don't remember why. Didn't see part 2 yet.


----------

