User reviews

That was my interpretation of this weekend that I had to endure working at my movie theater, all these little hormone crazed brace wearing under developed young girls who I think would've just about died with the anticipation of seeing Twilight, I'm not kidding, I personally witnessed a twelve year old say that she wanted to have Robert Pattinson's baby. OK, so how I saw the movie, my sister, ironically my older sister has been just raving about the Twilight series with her friends and told me that I have to read these books, after weeks of bugging me with it, I finally broke down and read them. Actually it's kind of a fun series, it reminded me of the same love that I had for the TV series Buffy the vampire Slayer when I was a young teen. But of course she has to take me to the midnight premiere with 100,000 crazed fans who were knocking each other down and crawling all over each other just to see a movie.

Bella Swan has always been a little bit different, never caring about fitting in with the trendy girls at her Phoenix high school. When her mother remarries and sends Bella to live with her father in the rainy little town of Forks, Washington, she doesn't expect much of anything to change. Then she meets the mysterious and beautiful Edward Cullen. Intelligent and witty, he sees straight into her soul. Soon, Bella and Edward are swept up in a passionate and decidedly unorthodox romance. Edward can run faster than a mountain lion, he can stop a moving car with his bare hands - and he hasn't aged since 1918. Like all vampires, he's immortal. But he doesn't have fangs, and he doesn't drink human blood.

So, my opinion about Twilight the movie... honestly, it's average, it's my junior high romance with a vampire. I hate, beyond hate to say this, I'm a hypocrite for saying this, but because I read the book before I saw the movie, I had this completely different interpretation of what the characters look like and how they say certain lines. Twilight the movie made me laugh more than anything simply because of the actors, Robert and Kristen are not bad actors, but the way they talked, I just couldn't take their "love" seriously. Peter Facinelli who played Carlisle Cullen, Edward's father, was exactly how I pictured and pulled in the best performance of the film. Is it worth the watch, absolutely if you're a fan of the books, otherwise, I would say if you just wanna see this movie, I recommend the matinée price because honestly, I think I may have lost my hearing after this weekend of the none stop screams from crazed teens.

5/10

NOTE: This review is the fair and unbiased opinion of someone with extremely little knowledge of the Twilight series. I watched the movie with a few die hard fans who I talked to after the movie, and I will work some of their thoughts into the review.

Another much loved book series has been brought to life in the form of Twilight, which despite having nothing in common with the Harry Potter series, will undoubtedly draw comparisons because of the furor and craze surrounding it. The main difference between the two, however, is that the Harry Potter films are generally good and solid films. Twilight, despite having done a couple things right, is not.

As a story, I will admit, Twilight is very catchy and interesting. Now I see what all the hype is about. If I was a young girl, I would go nuts over this stuff too. It's not just a vampire and a human falling in love with each other, but because of the two leads, it's one of the best on screen romances of the decade. This, however, is severely hurt by the fact that Twilight boasts easily some of the worst writing and editing I've ever seen. Let's not forget about the horrid VFX and pasty makeup, either. It's one of the cheesiest films of the year, and can definitely be put in the category of "so bad it's ALMOST good". Yes, I just invented that category.

The 'allure' of the film appears to be the character played by Robert Pattinson, who ironically was previously known for his role in the Harry Potter series. Pattinson succeeded there and he more than succeeds again, as he more than fit the bill for what he needed to do with the character. Most actors would believe the only requirement of the character is to be good looking, but Pattinson takes it a step further and makes Edward Cullen very likable, trustworthy, and in the end, a good hero for the audience. Kristen Stewart is sort of the queen of not showing facial expressions, so she's perfect for the role of the awkward teen Bella Swann. However, there were sometimes where her lack of emotion bothered me.

Our supporting players...Well, none of them are noteworthy like Pattinson is. The villain of the film is lame, cheesy, and played by an actor I can't take seriously. Nikki Reed is probably the best as Rosalie, Edward's 'sister', and the antagonistic vibe felt from her adds a different side to the movie.

Okay, I don't really know what possessed the writer of this screenplay to make it so horrible (was it the source material?), because the dialog is just so bad that I laughed at serious moments. There's a lot of intentional humor, mostly in the beginning when Bella and Edward feel like awkward teens in love. I guess the movie moved along okay, because I wasn't bored at all. I was either laughing at how stupid the dialog was, laughing at some of the mildly funny jokes, or getting pulled in by the electric chemistry between Stewart and Pattinson.

That, folks, is the reason most people will be able to sit through this movie. The chemistry between the two leads, romantically and sexually, is amazing. In this respect, Pattinson and Stewart are perfectly cast and it makes me wonder if they could end up together in real life some day. I was very surprised by how much I liked seeing their one on one scenes, as cheesy and bad as the VFX and editing are.

As far as these visual effects go, I've seen a few vampire movies in my day. I'm going to assume director Catherine Hardwicke has seen a few. Well, she needs to watch a few more. Her fight scenes are horribly choreographed, terribly shot, and lack the intensity required to successfully rouse her audience. I could almost notice the wires the actors flew across on. I noticed a ton of errors with the editing as well, such as basic stuff like mouths moving and no words coming out, and words coming out when no mouths were moving. The fight scene at the end has wicked bad editing too, as the sound mixing also suffers as well.

All in all, with Twilight, as bad a movie as it may be, I couldn't help but stay interested in it because of the electric chemistry between the leads. That alone kept me in the seat the whole time. It is technically one of the worst films of the year, but the entertainment factor in the above respect keeps it out of the company of movies like Disaster Movie and College. I was actually lucky to see it with some of the fans of the book, and all of them (5) described the movie as a 'disappointment' and that the film went 'half way' with some subplots, either starting and dropping them, or randomly starting them halfway through an individual subplot. They were not happy at all with this movie, but agreed on one thing: Robert Pattinson was the perfect Edward Cullen. I'll agree with them on all those points and say that Twilight is exactly what I thought it would be: so bad it's ALMOST good.

I think this movie suffered from lack of a good script and bad acting.

There's an atmosphere to Twilight and that much you simply cannot deny. I can't help but be engrossed by the way that this movie captures the beauty, dreariness and nature of the Pacific Northwest. A memorable score and soundtrack heighten Catherine Hardwicke's broody, yet still enchanting tone. Elliot Davis' cinematography under her direction replicates the indie flair prominent in her other features, this is what separates it apart from the commercially realised sequels that followed. It's a hot and cold, gothic romance with just enough high stakes to enchant you until the very end. If it's raining, you can best believe that I'm slipping into something comfortable and putting Twilight on.

Now do not be offended by any of this, this is just my opinion.

No I am not a rabid Twilight hater. I read the books, yes all of them. I thought they were interesting. Not very original, well thought out, or well written, but decent enough to read. I had several problems with this movie. It's not just the cast. Though I think Cam Gigandet did an excellent job as James. Okay my main problem with the cast was not really who they picked. I guess it boils down to the fact that Bella and Edward really are not that interesting. Is it so much to ask for a heroine who isn't so whiney and can take care of herself. Or maybe a vampire who isn't broody and boring and doesn't SPRAKLE! ((sorry that just bugs the **** out of me)) I think if they had stuck more to the actually book it would have been better. Granted, not by much, but it would have at least gotten 5 stars from me.

I do like the cinematography. The movie is gorgeous visually, and as i stated before the acting was not terrible. I would have picked different people for most of the cast, but thats me. I do have one more thing to say before i end this.

RABID TWIlIGHT FANS NEED TO CALM DOWN!!! ITS JUST A BOOK AND MOVIE SERIES!! don't take the fact that people don't like it to heart. if you like it, thats great.

If I saw the movie now for the first time I know I probably will hate it, but the 11 year old me was so love struck with it. Honestly no movie these days makes me this happy anymore. Also I think this one (the first movie) is so much cinematically pleasing. I enjoy the dark blue rainy vibe & the shaky camera a lot. This movie is my guilty pleasure. 10 for the nostalgia feelings.

This movie deserves an 8 purely for the soundtrack - one of the best movie sound tracks EVER (in my opinion) and beautiful scenery and cinematography. sure, the acting isn't great, nor is the script writing, however this movie is an enjoyable watch and a romance classic

This is awesome part of franchise "Twilight" because gteat atmosphere, cool soundtrack.

I have read the books, and the first thing I noticed was that the story wasn't about a plot line at all. It's about the characters and what's going on with them. Stephenie Meyer focuses on interaction, not on dialog, plot, or setting, which is fine. But it makes for a bad movie.

Surprisingly, Twilight wasn't that bad of a film. I expected it to be much worse. As I said, there's very little plot or dialog in the book, so it's hard to make a convincing film. They had to over act looks to try and communicate without many words. I could probably count on one hand the lines in the movie.

Other than the over acting, it wasn't bad. There were some very good moments and some very "eh" moments. But overall I would recommend it to Twilight fans. I probably won't ever want to see it again, but it's okay at midnight with some school friends who like it or something.

Okay, I just got back from watching "Twilight" and I must say, cheesiest, choppiest, worst characterization of a movie I have seen in years and by far the worst Book adaptation I've ever seen! It even beat my discontentment with Ella Enchanted.

As avid readers, we do not go to a movie to see "surprises" or script changes! We go to the movie to see our favorite books displayed out in front of us to see how our minds and visuals compare.

Bella was suppose to be funny, she was way too bloody serious! Kristen go get some facial expressions, terror is not love and looking insensitive all the time is not what the character Bella is all about! She's so clumsy it's funny, she's sarcastic, you took out ALL of my favorite lines! And their should have been more chemistry between Jacob and Bella, it's like hey look their vamps, haha now you can leave. She's comical, did you even read the book?

Edward, don't' look so constipated all the time. Like jeez you're suppose to be tense, not looking like you had too much carbohydrates and not enough water. Not only that you didn't' portray Edward's genuine gentleman side at all, the loving chivalrous side! And where is that infamous half smile! Honestly i'll make a list for all of your characters! An essay about each and everyone on how readers want them portrayed and what scenes we could do with out.

Alice was awesome, Jasper, very nice! Rosalie, hell down pat! Emmet, please face baseball cap forward, it's annoying. actually don't wear hats, Emmet's not wangster and you look hot without it. Carlisle please cause some more fatherly emotion but good! Esme, you do alright.

One question plagues me though... WHY WEREN"T THEY GIVEN MORE LINES? Like jeez! I understand your need to save time because no one wants to sit through a six hour movie but if it had to be three and a half hours, we'd enjoy it!

Jacob Black, awesome casting!!!! But give him more lines, I saw Tyler Lautner in Sharkboy and Lavagirl, he's a really good actor, ACTUALLY why don't you JUST FOLLOW THE BOOK!! Come on everyone loved Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. I read those books and especially in Harry Potter didn't' have any troubles with their movie adaptations, actually i didn't realized when they changed something! OK maybe some chapters were taken out but it didn't ruin the overall point and it was funny loving and mischievous. I loved those books and those movies.

The chemistry between Bella and Edward was lacking.

I actually didn't care to get up and go bathroom in between, i pretty much didn't' care to miss any of it. THIS IS A POPULAR BOOK! You're adaptation sucked major insignificant crap. I mean just look at your movie rating! For a book that beat Harry Potter's final book, I mean best seller's list and it was Eclipse the second last book of the series and it beat out the final book to HARRY POTTER. Couldn't you have taken a little more time on it. And where was Alice and Jasper and Rosalie and Emmet at the end in the prom scene?

I honestly do not care if you continue on with the movies, actually I'd prefer it if you didn't. You have ruined my vision of it, you're killing your fan base. Unless you guys give the next one some extra spark and actually start listening to your fans, you can forget about a wide fan base. I absolutely hated the movie. I felt sorry for those who didn't read the books because they had NO CLUE what was going on it was so choppy!!! I couldn't even tell when the next day started, all of a sudden, Edward "I would like you to meet my family" next two minutes, "wow you have a really nice house..." um... hello did she sleep? DID I FALL ASLEEP? I think i missed something, oh no wait, you did. It's called nightfall. Where was the talk about twilight? How it is the beginning and ending of a day...? Or about her talking in her sleep. He looked like a weird serial killer stalking her in her sleep. WHERE WERE THE FUNNY PARTS! I had more fun and made my friends laugh by making my own commentary during the film, i even made people i didn't know who sat in front of me in the theater burst out laughing from my commentary then your boring movie did.

As readers we expect the book to be taken seriously, and adapted to screen, NOT BASED, ADAPTED!!!!!! I've taken Communication Production Tech class in my high school writing my own scripts, so I know script writing agony, i'm also writing my own book. So if i was to ever sign off my book to make it a screen version I'd make darn sure it took more than a few SLOPPY months to make, with a CAST WHO READ THE BOOK FIRST AND RESEARCHED THEIR CHARACTER! Honestly, can you seriously give me an answer about how many cast members actually, i mean truly read all the books? I'm sure hardly any of them did.

This by far is the biggest disappointment I have seen in years and I'm only eighteen.

ADAPTION IS NOT THE SAME AS BASED ON!!! PEOPLE HONESTLY! Anyone who says they loved the movie did not care much for the characters or shares the same love as Stephenie Meyer does for her books. This was rushed, unorganized, ill plan, deceitful, and horrid.

You're lacking the spunk, zest, fire, passion, integrity, and the complete ethics of what made the TWILIGHT SERIES!

To say that 'Twilight' carries baggage is a dire understatement. The books' reputation precedes them, carrying questionable writing and strong themes of abusive relationships, and it's impossible to watch the movies in 2022 without being aware of much derided special effects, acting, and more. At the same time, one tries to approach movies with an open mind, and it's important to recognize in the first place that these titles were written for a "young adult" audience, and all the horrid awkwardness that immediately greets us with scenes of high school age characters is actually very fitting, for good or ill. And secondly - there are a lot of recognizable performers here that have more than proven their capabilities elsewhere, before or and or since; I think most viewers should be well-rounded enough to recognize that even the best actors, given poor material to work with, will look bad in a lackluster feature.

I don't think 2008 film 'Twilight' is especially great. However, I'm frankly astonished to find myself thinking it's not nearly as bad as everyone has made it out to be in the past 14 years. Here's the thing: all the ham-handedness, the overt and kitschy flourishes, the bluntness - and above all the stilted and gawky writing, acting, and otherwise execution - doesn't feel accidental. It's bewildering as a movie-goer, absolutely, and hard to swallow, and to whatever extent the approach here was intentional, I don't think it was pulled off with all due success. Yet this is a movie about teens, for teens, with supernatural elements forced in, and at the same time that the picture comes across as unnatural and inorganic, nothing actually seems out of place. It's a flummoxing, indelicate balance, distinctly imperfect, and I can't for one moment begrudge anyone who honestly engages with 'Twilight' and dislikes it. For my part, though, speaking as someone who has watched films of all possible styles, genres, quality, value, from silent classics to Asylum mockbusters - I see what this wanted to be, and what it could have been. I can understand and appreciate the ways in which this does work, and those in which it doesn't. If the series were produced not as feature films but as a program on The CW alongside 'Riverdale' or the like, no one would bat an eye. I don't know if it's totally correct to say I like 'Twilight,' but... I get it.

Hair and makeup, costume design, Elliot Davis' cinematography, Nancy Richardson's editing, the visual effects, Catherine Hardwicke's direction, filming locations, set design and decoration, the soundtrack - almost every possible aspect of the production design and art direction, more often than not, is painfully gauche, overdone, and a bit of a burden to bear. That's not to say that it's outright bad; sometimes a particular shot or scene is actually rather fetching, and were more care taken at large I can see where they would have fit in a title of greater repute. Artless as it may sometimes be, it's not sloppy.

Of course, again, much has been made of the acting. To be frank: especially knowing what the cast are capable of, what I see in watching this are actors who worked with what they were given. At risk of repeating myself, the overwhelming awkwardness that pervades the picture from the very start is built into the characters and their interactions, the setting, the scenario, and every little detail, for better or for worse. In a story about young love, new friends, uncertainty, and personal and interpersonal conflict, all the somewhat halting, forced, or artificial expressions, movement, or delivery don't seem entirely wrong - but instead, kind of appropriate. Director Hardwicke has some noteworthy credits to her name, and if occasionally her contribution here is lacking, when it comes to guiding her cast, I think she was rather on point. Once more, it's a very fine line the production walks, an uneasy balancing act of "just right" that ever risks slipping into oafish gracelessness. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke, Nikki Reed, Anna Kendrick, and everyone else on hand did their best with what they had. None of the performances here are great - but by no means do I think they're altogether rotten.

And that leaves the writing. Though I have certainly heard much about Stephanie Meyer's books, I freely admit I haven't read the source material, and I can only make assume that Melissa Rosenberg's screenplay is reasonably faithful. It's worth noting as well that Rosenberg has a considerable number of credits and indeed accolades to her name. The same facets I've described with 'Twilight' broadly certainly apply here, too, as the dialogue and characters vary between tawdrily brusque and direct, inelegantly clumsy and unrefined, and or what feels like is simply suitable. The scene writing, informed by Meyer's own, similarly has some bright spots, while at times struggles with contrivance. However, I also get a sense that this is just one of the difficulties of telling a YA-supernatural romance story; I find it hard to imagine there are many ways of showing scenes of Bella and Edward's blossoming love, or the demonstrations of his powers, that wouldn't come off as strained and cringe-worthy. And the overall narrative has problems in the small details, and above all treads murky territory with the questionably handled overtones of domestic violence and abuse. Yet the bare essence of the tale - a human mingling with "creatures of the night" - is classic, with familiar themes, and is no less worthy just because of the high school setting. In the wide strokes, I think the screenplay is just fine.

What I think it all comes down to is that this is a movie that, beyond the presumed target audience of teen girls, is best left for those viewers who are wholly receptive to all the wonderful, weird, wild, or woeful possibilities that cinema has to offer. I genuinely believe that 2008's 'Twilight' is quite far from a bad movie - but I also readily recognize that I say this from a place of having done my best to find the value herein. Apart from the thematic material in regards to relationships, the biggest issue I see are the special effects - done well such as they are, but not considered at the storyboard stage with particular mindfulness. Everything else, from writing, acting, and directing, down to the slightest rounding elements, are "okay" or "apt" but constantly border on tactless or unsophisticated. For what it tried to do, and be, I think 'Twilight' was more of a success than not, but it tripped over its own two left feet a little bit too much for it not to be noticeable. Color me surprised, though - I can't say I wasn't entertained.

10/10 sorry but it's so iconic.

I think the first movie is the best from all. The atmosphere, the colour palette, the costumes, the details, the music (omg the music is so fantastic) and the most important is the landscape, the nature its all giving THE VIBE.

The acting well not the best but honestly I can deal with that cause all the things that I listed above saving the whole movie.

Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson such an iconic duo. To be honest I'm so happy to see that after this saga they went to another movies, genres and proved that they have so much talent. I think it was such a learning curve for the actors.

As a gay 66 year old man, I am clearly not part of the intended audience for this film, however, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The film is filled with handsome teenage males, and many homely ugly- Betty goonily-dressed females, including the lead Bella. The boys either strut around looking pretty, with blank expressions, like runway models, or they act like silly hyper active grade 4 school boys. The boys are so inept in their attempts to impress the girls. Bella rudely dismisses them all with a look that says, "You have got to be kidding. You thought I would have anything to do with you?"

Bella is cranky, rude, not very bright, without interests, hobbies or talents. However, she is new to the school, which gives her some appeal.

Edward, is considered the ultimate dreamboat by all the girls, but he allegedly considers himself too good for any of them. I thought the explanation was that he gay, but it turned it out was because he was a vampire.

All the ugly girls get cute boyfriends in the end, but that fantasy- fulfilment story is very much in the background.

To my great surprise the plot of the first half of the film unfolds with the ponderousness of a Jane Austen novel. I never expected that from a teen movie. There is great push pull between Edward and Bella. Edward is trying to control his urges to kill Bella and drink her blood. Bella blithely ignores what he is telling her. The reticence builds an incredible tension. It is similar to the sort of tension people in an earlier day felt trying to avoid sex before marriage or gay sex.

What makes no sense is why Edward is attracted to Bella but not the other girls. I decided to pretend it had to do with scent or some vampire-only discernible attribute. The real reason has to do with fantasy fulfilment.

Robert Pattinson does a brilliant job of portraying Edward the vampire. His approach is similar to Stephen Moyer playing the courtly vampire Bill Compton in True Blood. He is calm, patient, breathy, intense, old- fashioned. He is handsome, but in an almost non-human sort of way.

At one point he says roughly, "I am the most dangerous predator on the planet. Even my face, by voice and my scent are designed to lure victims." You look at him, and imagine his exotic scent, he is speaking literal truth. It is like an electric shock. Photographs of him are not sufficient to show what I am talking about.

Like the Superman I movie, Edward gradually reveals his powers to Bella. Unlike Lois Lane, Bella is completely unimpressed.

The movie shifts gears to comedy, when Edward takes Bella home to meet the "family".

Then the movie shifts gears again, stealing the special effects from Superman II, where the titans battle.

Bella always chooses the most dangerous possible thing to do at each stage. It obviously helps the plot, but it made me want to smack her for being so stupid.

Bella within almost minutes of meeting Edward decided she wants marry him. Then a week or so later she decides even marriage is not sufficient commitment. The want him to commit for eternity of life as a vampire. The belief that there was only one true love for me caused me untold misery. I might even go so far as to say it ruined my life. I hate seeing that poison being sold to unsuspecting young girls.

Perhaps I Have to tell something so that people who hate this film do understand why I review like this. My Dad died in 2008 when Twilight aired. I watched the movie again and again. And today, I still watch it again and again. I always have problems when I read a book and they made a movie of it. Because most of the time the movie just sucks. But not with the Twilight movies. They are like the books, and this without a big budget. So if you have a hard time and you need a simple but nice movie to watch to leave into another world. Please watch this.

What would you do, if a vampire captures you, sends your heart into a spin, vessels bursting out your skin, only drawback is he's keen, to suck the life out of your spleen, though he'll hold back at his leisure, to ensure you get your pleasure, competition soon arrives, puts your man in overdrive, all the passion and the gory, to lay claim to all your glory.

After the enormous flurry of attention Stephanie Meyer's literary series attracted (a unique hybrid of Romeo and Juliet style teenage angst and hormonal lust and supernatural horror), a cinematic adaptation seemed not only inevitable but almost expected, providing sultry visuals to the tale of starstruck lovers and proving the definitive date movie for months to come. However, the curse of mainstream literary adaptations proves inescapable, with excitement surrounding the release leading to the film being somewhat unreasonably over-hyped. And while Twilight is hardly a complete failure of a film by any standards, there remains the inescapable sense of its existence being geared to match up to a set standard rather than simply aiming to succeed as a film, making for the overall result being uniformly disappointing, whether for fans of the source material or those unfamiliar with the novels.

Few Hollywood productions have the concern of appealing to both the demographics flocking to romances and supernatural action films, and as such, the impression is frequently given of Twilight biting off more than it can chew. This indecision between concentrating on the supernatural or romantic facets of the film leads to one of the more glaring flaws of the picture - the sense of neither being devoted enough focus to truly excel. While the climactic battle is gruesomely effective, for the most part, the film's special effects appear rushed, under-budgeted and just plain sloppy, coasting by on horrendously unconvincing slow motion to represent vampire super-speed and making moments which should have been filled with wonder and awe instead evoke unintentional laughs and groans. However, Meyer's revisionist take on vampire lore is intriguing, and the viewer wishes the film had delved into the technical aspects of immortal vampire lifestyles further - a sequence where protagonist Bella slowly begins to suspect the true identity of the mysterious boy she has found herself involved with is impressively eerie and chilling. Such moments are aided incalculably by the tremendous musical score of Carter Burwell, whose bold mix of brassy Gothic themes and eerie, chilling motifs perfectly compliments the intensity of the film.

However, Twilight's main concern lies in its script, which boasts some particularly gruesome patches of dialogue apart from the general lack of characterisation one has sadly grown to expect from the teen romance genre. Similarly, despite director Catherine Hardwicke appearing to be the perfect candidate to helm such a film (with directorial debut Thirteen demonstrating a keen knowledge of the teenage girl mentality), her handling of the source material is unfortunately shaky.The film repeatedly falls prey to the "Harry Potter syndrome", feeling somewhat clunky in its almost robotic adherence to its source material, giving it the sense of jumping awkwardly from plot point to plot point and lacking the necessary cohesion and narrative flow.

But most importantly, for a film revolving around its central romantic attraction and sexual tension, the audience is never really given the chance to FEEL the romance, to be drawn in by the mutual lust and entrapment of the two leads for one another. In an oddly rushed sequence, the budding romance between protagonists Bella and Edward is reduced to a couple of nonchalant sessions of hanging out, mostly demonstrated through montage, after which Bella's (largely unnecessary) narration declares her unequivocal love for Edward. This rather abrupt transition would toe the line of appearing satirical of teenage romance were it not for the fact that the viewer realises the moment is meant to be completely heartfelt. What was likely far more effective in literary form, with the chance to understand Bella's emotions and mental process making the romance far more credible does not translate into film. As such, with this crucial central romance lacking the necessary spark which made the novel such a success, Twilight, for all of its periodic cinematic potential, just feels somewhat unnecessary.

The film's casting is perfectly passable, supplying a sufficient variety of up and coming pristine teenage beauties capable of essaying their character types, yet for a book which was driven by such genuine intensity and passion, one can't help thinking of all the performances as somewhat listless and flat. While Kristen Stewart makes a passable romantic lead as headstrong Bella, she lacks the necessary charismatic spark to truly make the viewer warm to her, making her teenaged-angst interludes harder to empathise with. Robert Pattinson does his best as teenage dreamboat vampire Edward, sharing strong chemistry with Stewart, even if his "sultry, moody glances" delve into the melodramatic to the point of verging on comical at times. The rest of the cast give rather bland but serviceable performances, the standouts being Cam Gigandet who is mercifully given the chance to gleefully chomp on scenery and generate sufficient menace as sadistic villainous vampire James and Ashley Greene who essays the ideal balance of being sweetly charming without being overly chirpy as Edward's kind-hearted sister Alice. However, despite his best efforts, Billy Burke is forced to wade through "stern but absent father" clichés to the point of being almost invisible as Bella's emotionally stunted parental figure, and Taylor Lautner fares little better as mysterious prospective love interest Jacob.

While Twilight is hardly a failure on all fronts, with a sporatic peppering of effective moments, the word which most ably describes the film as a whole is 'passable', lacking the necessary intensity or impact to truly hit home. It is easy to envision the adaptation being far more satisfying if done as a smaller, independent production outside the shadow of Hollywood, one which would not shy away from capturing the true passion and intensity of the central relationship without baulking at the prospect of a simmering yet sexless teenage relationship. As is, Hardwicke's film is content to succumb to cliché and sloppy, complacent storytelling, making it far too 'bloodless' to truly satisfy.

-4/10