Let the Twilight blood-letting begin. Though reviewers were asked to hold their critiques until the vampire flick’s Nov. 21 release date, several reviews are now available online, and for the most part, critics aren’t impressed. They unanimously concede that the movie’s target audience — teens with closets full of Team Edward hoodies, who have breathlessly read (and reread) Stephenie Meyer’s four-part series — will thoroughly enjoy the film. But for the uninitiated, consensus so far seems to be that it’s an ineffectual love story combined with cheesy special effects that will leave moviegoers craving more.
A quick summary of the reviews, after the jump.
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
Verdict: Positive
“[Director Catherine Hardwicke] has reconjured Meyer’s novel as a cloudburst mood piece filled with stormy skies, rippling hormones, and understated visual effects. What Hardwicke can’t quite triumph over is the book’s lackluster plot. On screen, Twilight is repetitive and a tad sodden, too prosaic to really soar. But Hardwicke stirs this teen pulp to a pleasing simmer.” —Owen Gleiberman
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Verdict: Negative
"But
much of what made the relationship between Edward and the smitten Bella
Swan work in Meyer’s breezy book has been stripped away on screen. The
funny, lively banter — the way in which Edward and Bella teased and
toyed with one another about their respective immortality and humanity
– is pretty much completely gone, and all that’s left is a slog of
adolescent angst." —Christy Lemire
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Verdict: Neutral
"Twilight
is a film of intelligent strengths and easily avoidable weaknesses, a
modest film adaptation of Stephenie Meyer’s publishing phenomenon. It
is faithful to its source material, which will likely please the fan
base….So where does the movie fall down? On a simple but crucial
matter of visual magic. Whenever something fantastic requires
straightforward on-screen depiction, Twilight looks like a weaker episode from Season 6 of Charmed." —Michael Phillips
EMANUEL LEVY
Verdict: Negative
"Like other movies that are more significant as sociological and demographic than artistic phenomenon, Twilight
will be embraced by very young female viewers, say ages 10-17, and less
so by the female college crowd. If young femmes manage to take their
boyfriends to see it as a date movie (and on one level it is a date
movie), Twilight should score big, really big at the box office."
ORLANDO SENTINEL
Verdict: Neutral
"The
situations, in high school and among the vampires, are over-familiar.
But the dialogue is mostly flip and hip. Some of the laughs are
intentional, some not. A vampire using the word ‘vegetarian?’ Funny." —Roger Moore
ROGER EBERT
Verdict: Neutral
"If there were no vampires in Twilight,
it would be a thin-blooded teenage romance, about two good-looking kids
who want each other so much because they want each other so much.
Sometimes that’s all it’s about, isn’t it?"
VARIETY
Verdict: Negative
"A
disappointingly anemic tale of forbidden love that should satiate the
pre-converted but will bewilder and underwhelm viewers who haven’t
devoured Stephenie Meyer’s bestselling juvie chick-lit franchise." —Justin Chang
TIME
Verdict: Positive
“So Twilight isn’t a masterpiece — no matter.
It rekindles the warmth of great Hollywood romances, where foreplay was the
climax and a kiss was never just a kiss.” —Richard Corliss
USA TODAY
Verdict: Negative
And despite
questionable casting, wooden acting, laughable dialogue and truly awful makeup,
nothing is likely to stop young girls from swarming to this kitschy adaptation
of Stephenie Meyer’s popular novel.” —Claudia Puig
WASHINGTON POST
Verdict: Positive
“On the whole, Twilight works as both love story and
vampire story, thanks mainly to the performances of its principals. Pattinson
and Stewart want to convince you that their characters are an undead freak and
the girl who, against all logic, loves him. Yet they do it not by selling you on
what makes Edward and Bella so different, but by finding their flesh-and-blood
humanity.” —Michael O’Sullivan
More ‘Twilight’:
Box Office Preview: ‘Twilight’ to suck up buckets of blood…and big bucks
Shrieking masses descend on L.A. for the ‘Twilight’ premiere
‘Twilight’: Meet Robert Pattinson
‘Twilight’: Inside Bella-Jacob’s Stormy Scene
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
Verdict: Positive
“[Director Catherine Hardwicke] has reconjured Meyer’s novel as a cloudburst mood piece filled with stormy skies, rippling hormones, and understated visual effects. What Hardwicke can’t quite triumph over is the book’s lackluster plot. On screen, Twilight is repetitive and a tad sodden, too prosaic to really soar. But Hardwicke stirs this teen pulp to a pleasing simmer.” —Owen Gleiberman
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Verdict: Negative
"Butmuch of what made the relationship between Edward and the smitten BellaSwan work in Meyer’s breezy book has been stripped away on screen. Thefunny, lively banter — the way in which Edward and Bella teased andtoyed with one another about their respective immortality and humanity– is pretty much completely gone, and all that’s left is a slog ofadolescent angst." —Christy Lemire
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Verdict: Neutral
"Twilightis a film of intelligent strengths and easily avoidable weaknesses, amodest film adaptation of Stephenie Meyer’s publishing phenomenon. Itis faithful to its source material, which will likely please the fanbase….So where does the movie fall down? On a simple but crucialmatter of visual magic. Whenever something fantastic requiresstraightforward on-screen depiction, Twilight looks like a weaker episode from Season 6 of Charmed." —Michael Phillips
EMANUEL LEVY
Verdict: Negative
"Like other movies that are more significant as sociological and demographic than artistic phenomenon, Twilightwill be embraced by very young female viewers, say ages 10-17, and lessso by the female college crowd. If young femmes manage to take theirboyfriends to see it as a date movie (and on one level it is a datemovie), Twilight should score big, really big at the box office."
ORLANDO SENTINEL
Verdict: Neutral
"Thesituations, in high school and among the vampires, are over-familiar.But the dialogue is mostly flip and hip. Some of the laughs areintentional, some not. A vampire using the word ‘vegetarian?’ Funny." —Roger Moore
ROGER EBERT
Verdict: Neutral
"If there were no vampires in Twilight,it would be a thin-blooded teenage romance, about two good-looking kidswho want each other so much because they want each other so much.Sometimes that’s all it’s about, isn’t it?"
VARIETY
Verdict: Negative
"Adisappointingly anemic tale of forbidden love that should satiate thepre-converted but will bewilder and underwhelm viewers who haven’tdevoured Stephenie Meyer’s bestselling juvie chick-lit franchise." —Justin Chang
TIME
Verdict: Positive
“So Twilight isn’t a masterpiece — no matter.It rekindles the warmth of great Hollywood romances, where foreplay was theclimax and a kiss was never just a kiss.” —Richard Corliss
USA TODAY
Verdict: Negative
And despitequestionable casting, wooden acting, laughable dialogue and truly awful makeup,nothing is likely to stop young girls from swarming to this kitschy adaptationof Stephenie Meyer’s popular novel.” —Claudia Puig
WASHINGTON POST
Verdict: Positive
“On the whole, Twilight works as both love story andvampire story, thanks mainly to the performances of its principals. Pattinsonand Stewart want to convince you that their characters are an undead freak andthe girl who, against all logic, loves him. Yet they do it not by selling you onwhat makes Edward and Bella so different, but by finding their flesh-and-bloodhumanity.” —Michael O’Sullivan
More ‘Twilight’:
Box Office Preview: ‘Twilight’ to suck up buckets of blood…and big bucks
Shrieking masses descend on L.A. for the ‘Twilight’ premiere
‘Twilight’: Meet Robert Pattinson
‘Twilight’: Inside Bella-Jacob’s Stormy Scene
Comments (1-30) of 779 Add your comment
Honestly, I haven’t read the books and had never heard about the books until about 6 months ago. All the hype hasn’t interested me enough to buy the books or stand on line to see the movie this weekend (my sister is planning to see the midnight showing tomorrow night). These reviews don’t help my disinterest.
no surprise here. it was pretty obvious based on the trailer that it looked underwhelming.
EW…enough with the twilight coverage please!!!
This pleases me greatly
Season 6 ep of Charmed? Ouch!
I TINK THAT TWILIGHT IS GOING TO BE GREAT AND i’M 32!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just finished the books, and I enjoyed them. I will not be standing in line to see the movie this weekend, but do plan on seeing it at sometime. As far as the special effects…from my understanding they had a very low budget to work with. So, I was not expecting too much there. I in an interview, the girl who plays Bella, said they couldn’t even afford the green screens. I’m not expecting this to be Oscar worthy by any means, but like I said I still plan on seeing it.
I’m not surprised at all. Let me just say that I love the books (well the first 3 anyway) but….the books are ALL in Bella’s head. How do you make a movie out of…thoughts? plus they picked a mostly untalented cast. Kristen Stewart has been terrible in everything I have ever seen her in! Speak, ITLOW, and the like 5 minutes she was in Into the Wild I contemplated walking out of it. I really did.
I read the Twilight series only after I saw the movie review in EW over the summer. The series made for a quick read, but I found very underwhelming in juvenile, so I can only imagine the movie will be very undermining and juvenile. I also feel the need to put the Death Curse on anyone that puts Harry Potter and Twilight in the same sentence. Stephanie Myers has nowhere near the prowess of JK Rowling. Stop making the comparison.
So if I understand correctly this article/op/ed says “well they faithfully adapted the book, the millions of fans of the books will be happy, they really nailed their target demographic…and because of all of that the movie sucks”. That’s hilarious. People want to hate because of all the hype. Since when did satisfying the fans become a bad thing? And for the record I’m 35, male and enjoyed the book.
I would like to say that I have never in my life watched a movie because the critics loved it, hated it, etc. I am 25 and I have thoroughly enjoyed the books, rereading them again and again. I am sure that the fans of the books will speak volumes about their love for the movie and will silence the critics. Critics are paid for their opinion, but those of us watching the movie couldn’t give damn about some boring critic’s opinion.
I’m not surprised by this: an underwhelming cast of nobodies and mediocre books in no way lead to a good movie. I will be very surprised if the greenlight making “new moon” which was inferior compared to “Twilight”. and Alison I agree: Stephenie Myers has like an 1/8 of the talent that JK Rowling has!
I forgot to add: I can see this movie topping the charts for 2-3 weeks while the fan girls go out in droves to see it and then it will just fizzle out.
I read all the books and I enjoyed them very much, and I’m not a teen. I have to agree with Holly, I never pay any attention to what the critics have to say. I’m very looking forward to seeing the moving, and taking it at for what it is, a movie.
Great! I should love the movie then. Can’t wait to see it.
Where I am from, the critics the local papers chose to use for their movie reviews have been notoriously wrong–is this true elsewhere? A movie the critics rave about is always a bomb by these “rules” and a movie the critics bomb is always a chart-topper. Do critics in general just hate movies that have no significant plot/theme/lesson/Academy nominated actors?
The only and I mean ONLY people who will like this movie will be the girls that read the series of books, and that’s because they’ve decided well before seeing it that they love it. The movie’s obvious shortcomings will be invisible to them.
I think the Twilight books are a lot more mature than the Harry Potter books and that caters to many young adult women, such as myself. My views of movies rarely match that of the critic, so I am not really phased by negative remarks. Obviously, they’re not going to have a ton of blood and gore because they want the movie to be accessible to younger kids. If they had a lot of violence, the rating would easily go from PG-13 to R. And considering that a good portion of Twilight readers are young teen/tween girls, that could seriously affect the success of the film in the box office. Regardless of the critics, I am still anxious to see the Twilight series brought to screen. I love the books and it will be fun to see it visually!
Know what would have been better? A “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” movie. Geez.
& I agree w/ London about Kristen Stewart being underwhelming/not that great. I might have been tempted to see this movie in spite of the fact that I haven’t read the books, but seeing her as the lead that’s supposed to carry the film made me far less than thrilled about it.
Of course, that being said, Twilight will pull in about $200 mil and spawn a series of even worse sequels and prequels.
these movies look terrible: horrible special effects, terrible make up and hair, and terrible actors that nobody has ever heard of! I don’t understand the love/excitement for the movie
I just wish everyone would stop trying to make this into a huge debate over the validity of Twilight as a novel. Yes, the storytelling was engaging for the most part. No, it was not some great pice of literary fiction. It is what it is and people who enjoyed it enjoyed it for what it is. I read the books and I will be going to the movie. I hope to see the pure escapist fare that I expect from it. If I like it, that’s good enough for me. Besides, it got a bunch of people who hate reading to read. Where’s the bad in that?
Honestly, I’m not suprised. If I weren’t a total twihard, I probably wouldn’t be interested, and have never seen any LOTR, harry potter or any franchise-y fanboy/girl movies. My friends are actually shocked by my excitement for twilight, pre-purchased ticket, team edward tee and all. Usually I am a notorious movie snob (ok, and almost 30, with no excuse for the twilight fanatcism, except that I was very ill and hopped up on pain killers this spring/summer and devoured the series cause’ my brain wasn’t able to keep up to book snob reputation), constantly deriding my peers for going to big budget blockbusters, and trying to convince them to get as excited about more serious fare such “Revolutionary Road” as I am. So, in my role as objective armchair critic of our circle, I am sure I would agree with the average critic, but my inner 15 year old has won out this time.
What I can’t figure out is why do people post about a movie and/or book they do not want to see in the first place…or read. Why does it matter if people see this movie and like it? If you don’t want to see it, well then, don’t. Me? Looking forward to it.
I liked the review that said, “The funny, lively banter — the way in which Edward and Bella teased and toyed with one another about their respective immortality and humanity — is pretty much completely gone, and all that’s left is a slog of adolescent angst.” It cracked me up! The book is ALL about the angst; there’s no “teasing banter” about being mortal or immortal, human or vampire; it’s all fraught, it’s all the awfulness adolescence with the added frisson of a particular deadly kind of attraction to make it different. Way to review, Christy Whoever…
And I’m 42, and I loved Twilight, and I’ll be joining the teens tomorrow night at midnight to see it. Sheesh. Critics.
J.K. Rowling vs. Stephenie Meyers – why compare? I love Harry Potter as much as I love this, but they’re aimed at two very different targets.
I’m 38, have bought a ticket to the midnight show tomorrow, and don’t give a d**n about the reviews. I agree with what a couple of the earlier posters said… I love every movie the critics hate and if it’s a pretty straight forward adaptation of the book, that’s gonna satisfy the millions of buyers of the books. Target audience (tween girls) = lots of $$$
I’m 26, loved the books and have already bought my tickets for Friday night. I’m not going into this expecting an Oscar Winning effort, I’m going into to it expecting to be entertained and to see the story brought to life. Of course these aren’t going to be up to HP standards, they are operating with WAY less funding. Good grief. Whatever happened to just enjoying a movie for what it is?
Well said Jamie!
Did anyone actually think that the critics would like this movie? They hated the book. This movie is not going to be some piece of classic cinema, it is a movie for teenage girls, period the end.
Who cares what the critics think- they are always wrong anyway. I read the books, loved them, and cant wait to see the movie. I dont understand the comparison between Twilight and Harry Potter- they have absolutely nothing in common. The movie will be a huge hit, but I agree that it may not hold the interest of those who have never read the books (or at least heard about them from their wife, girlfriend, sister, etc
)
I, personally, could really care what the critics have to say. They get paid to give a review, big whoop! This movie screams out to those who are deovted to the books/authors/actors of this film and it will prevail!