The day has finally arrived. Twilight, the first film based on the tween vampire book series by Stephenie Meyer, gets its release this weekend. But is it worth the hype surrounding undead dreamboat Robert Pattinson? Click above for the complete review from Rolling Stone's film critic.
• Read Review: Twilight


Email
Stumble
AIM
Del.icio.us
DiggThis
Fark It!

- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC.
Danielle | September 7, 2009 1:11 PM
I LOVED the movie. Honestly, I saw no wrong with it. That may be because I'm so helplessly in love with the story, but who cares??
Stop caring about the special effects people! That's not the point of the movie. If that's all your noticing, then your really missing out on the big picture here. I'm sick and tired of hearing how they aren't like the "traditional" vampires. VAMPIRES AREN'T REAL PEOPLE! There is no right or wrong way to portray one as long as they drink blood! Stephenie's version are much more modern and not nearly as cheesy.
Jimmy | July 1, 2009 7:30 PM
I'm with you Natch, after reading what everyone else has put up here I see that they've completely missed your point. When i read the premise of the movie I was like "Wow, a vampire romance movie...bet this one appeals to the teenage girl market" and after getting drafted into watching it by a chick mate I'd have to say I was pretty much on the money. The only thing original about this movie is....um....ok, pretty sure this genre has been done to undeath.
Brandon | November 26, 2008 7:07 PM
Natch, stop playing the "taste card." It's lame.
James Bond WAS a lame film, other than car chases and explosions, the film had no depth. It was just like seeing another action film!
As for Twilight, it wasn't the best film, but the romance between its two character was more interesting than seeing Bond thrown around.
To lish | November 25, 2008 5:20 PM
"Not everything has to be obvious and handed to us on a plate " ?
So says the fan of a book and a movie about vampires where the heriones name is "Bella" Hate to break it to you but you can't get more ham fisted than that sister.
Lish | November 25, 2008 4:34 PM
Overall, not a bad review. Pretty fair, but honestly, Pete, (can I call ya Pete?) do your research. You can't ding the film for the vampires not having fangs. It explicitly says in the book that they don't have them. (besides the fact that fangs are tacky) They have venom-covered, razor-sharp teeth, and that's how they "feed." Furthermore, how could they be constructed realistically as these vamps that blend into society if they have these huge incisors that give them away? The story would not have worked. Seriously, have a little imagination. Not everything has to be obvious and handed to us on a plate.
I also would like to add that I am irrevocably in love with the books, and after seeing Twilight the first time, I wasn't sure if I liked it or not. However, after the second viewing I decided I definitely did. (so if you're on the fence, give it a second chance) I don't know how much anyone can really get out of it if they haven't read the book because too much backstory happens to cover in the film that helps in understanding the story better. But I loved it and will try to see it at least one more time, if not two, before it leaves theatres.
And hopefully Catherine will be given the New Moon job. I honestly don't trust anyone else to preserve the story as well as she has.
And PS - Rob as Edward = hummina hummina hummina...perfection.
Starr | November 25, 2008 1:32 PM
I loved it. I acutally liked it better than the book and I adore the book. It added to the story rather than took away in my opinion. Yeah the CGI needed help but on the budget they had I wasn't expecting Transformers :P
Oh and Natch...sour grapes for what reason? One wonders ;)
twilightxXxfanatic | November 24, 2008 3:59 PM
ok.. first
the movie was AMAZING in my opinion
and i don't think it was rushed at all..
what were they suppose to do? add parts that weren't in the book and have it make no sense at all?
if you get what i'm trying to say
my personal opinion is all i'm trying to say here
i thought Twilight was an outstanding movie and i can't wait for the next. The actors were a great choice i would say, and Alice was perfect, she's adorable. Edward... well, lets just say he's absolutely gorgeous in every way.
i really thought they did a great job on the whole thing..
and to Natch.. i HATE james bond. and Twilight isn't just a "corny teenage girl/lonely house wife" movie.
James bond is a man "prostitute".
sorry if it sounds a bit harsh.. but its the truth
To Natch | November 23, 2008 5:49 PM
The reason he trashed Bond was because it wasn't that good, not because of his masculinity. If he thought Twilight was a decent movie, he has a right to say no, not whether it's "cool" or not. I don't think you understand what criticism is.
Anonymous | November 22, 2008 4:17 PM
Awesome review Peter! I saw the movie and I completely agree with you- the special effects were pretty bad and the film was a bit rushed... but at the end of the day the purpose is not effects- its the love story which I think was depicted perfectly in the film!
When watching this movie you have to take it for what it is: A teenage love story. Its not going to be winning any oscars or anything, but the movie had heart and thats all I really wanted from it.
Rob and Kristin did a great job and I thoroughly enjoyed the film!
Natch | November 21, 2008 1:27 PM
Peter, I must be one of those people you spoke about who have been in rehab or under a rock for the past three years... or maybe I just have taste in what I read or watch. C'mon what guy trashes a James Bond movie yet tells you to go see a corny teenage girl / lonely house wife movie like "Twlight" ?
I offically cannot take you seriously as a critic.