Travers: 'Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2' Only 'Marginally Better' Than Previous Installments

Franchise's final chapter is only good 'in the sense that a simple head cold is better than swine flu'

By |

There may be other movies released this week, but the fervor around the conclusion of the Twilight series overshadows those other films. "There's something inside my heart that gladens me inside when I know it's over. I never have to see another Twilight movie," says Peter Travers. "They've been so torturous." Breaking Dawn Part 2 follows what Travers calls "the worst of the Twilight movies," but does it deliver a satisfying finale to the series?

It escapes total scorn, as Travers notes this entry is "the first one that seems even remotely alive," but it's only "inching" out of the scum bucket. Director Bill Condon almost redeems himself from Breaking Dawn Part 1, particularly with the more complicated personal relationships between the characters like the now-married Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart). Though the "Hollywood soap opera" and inter-character drama are a step up, Travers jokes, "The only thing that could make this movie better would be if the Kardashians played all the vampires. I think their acting might be better the acting I see in this movie."

He knows he won't dissuade Twi-hards, but though he acknowledges Breaking Dawn Part 2 is "marginally better" than previous Twilight films, don't get it twisted - it's not a good movie. "It's good only comparatively and in the sense that a simple head cold is better than swine flu."

Travers wants to know: Which of the five Twilight movies was the best? Let him know via email, on Twitter, or in the comments below.

x