Opening

—— The Identical Sep 05
—— The Longest Week Sep 05
67% Thunder and the House of Magic Sep 05
71% God Help the Girl Sep 05
—— The Remaining Sep 05

Top Box Office

92% Guardians of the Galaxy $16.3M
20% Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles $11.8M
39% If I Stay $9.3M
31% As Above/So Below $8.3M
21% Let's Be Cops $8.2M
37% The November Man $7.7M
17% When The Game Stands Tall $5.6M
32% The Giver $5.3M
65% The Hundred-Foot Journey $4.6M
34% The Expendables 3 $3.5M

Coming Soon

—— No Good Deed Sep 12
—— Dolphin Tale 2 Sep 12
—— Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? Sep 12
100% The Skeleton Twins Sep 12
100% The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby Sep 12

New Episodes Tonight

88% Finding Carter: Season 1
43% Houdini: Season 1
67% Matador: Season 1
—— Rizzoli & Isles: Season 5
—— Royal Pains: Season 6
—— Sullivan & Son: Season 3

Discuss Last Night's Shows

—— Anger Management: Season 2
71% Dallas: Season 3
—— Mistresses: Season 2
25% Partners: Season 1
67% Teen Wolf: Season 4
62% Under the Dome: Season 2

Certified Fresh TV

86% The Bridge (FX): Season 2
91% Doctor Who: Season 8
83% Extant: Season 1
89% The Honorable Woman: Season 1
87% The Knick: Season 1
89% Manhattan: Season 1
97% Masters of Sex: Season 2
89% Outlander: Season 1
82% Satisfaction: Season 1
87% The Strain: Season 1
82% Welcome to Sweden: Season 1
77% You're the Worst: Season 1

Twilight Reviews

Page 1 of 6
jjnxn
jjnxn

Super Reviewer

May 4, 2008
Cast is far above the material in this throwback try at a noir in color. If you like any of the actors worth checking out.
Dean !

Super Reviewer

January 13, 2007
A decent slow paced thriller, more of a detective story really. It has a great cast Gene Hackman, Susan Sarandon, Paul Newman and a very early, memorable role for Reese Witherspoon. If you like detective stories and a plot with a slight twist you might like this, but it could do with a bit more action at least. It seems to have slipped by most people but it's worth a watch if it's on.
bbcfloridabound
bbcfloridabound

Super Reviewer

July 29, 2009
Twilight: There is a number of movies out there with the title just plain Twilight, they seem to come out every few years. This is not the 2009 Vampire Movie Twilight. This is the 1998 Twilight Movie with Paul Newman, Gene Hackman, Resse Witherspoon, James Garner and Stockard Channing. Director Robert Benton has crafted a film reminiscent of the 1940's. With this lineup you expect a great movie and that?s what you get. Remember keep your mind open to the fact it was filmed in 1998 and not 2008. Newman plays the part of a ex-cop now Private Detective who retires after being shot by Hackman?s Daughter. The film opens with P.I. Harry Ross (Paul Newman) down in Mexico tracking down the minor daughter of Jack Ames (Gene Hackman), they wrestle and she gets Newman's gun and shoots him in the leg, so sets up the fact that Newman lives in Hackman?s guess house doing odd jobs for him. One job is Newman is handed an envelope and told to give it to female at an address, he goes there only to find a wounded man with a pistol, so starts the twisted mystery with more turns then a Californian Mountain Road. Its an excellent movie that should be seen by all. 4 stars.
Steven V

Super Reviewer

April 25, 2007
So many good actors and actresses, but the movie is a total "flop". The book Twilight by Stephenie Meyer is more better than this movie.
kylemydude
kylemydude

Super Reviewer

July 1, 2010
In this faithful adaptation, Bella is played by Susan Sarandon, Edward by Paul Newman, and Jacob by Gene Hackman. This film is a masterpiece on all fronts, you really relate to Sarandon's character as she has to decide who she wants to be her boyfriend for an entire two hours. Don't miss this gem of a film, when else will you get to see Gene Hackman as a shirtless werewolf?
October 11, 2013
Trying to be the 80s film noir, but it does not seem to work. What a shame though with the great cast. I mostly found myself not caring.
GabrielKnight
December 3, 2012
A classic noir thriller so true to the genre, it looks and feels like it was made in early 70's rather than late 90's. I kept noticing "anachronisms" such as cell phones and reminding myself that this movie is not as old as it seems. Apart from the great cast and pitch-perfect noir atmosphere, there's really not much else going on, the plot is rather thin and obvious, and after watching it, you are left with a feeling that you've seen something similar, but better before.
TonyPolito
May 22, 2010
Neo-noir it is, but not anywhere near the hard-bit or shadowy styling that fans of the genre typically crave. This film's tributing the genre as it fades away, rather than actually recreating it. In parallel, it tributes its stellar leads whom, in terms of age at least, are here well into the twilight of their own careers.

And the plot parallels, revolving around a pack of Hollywood old-timers - a retired PI (Newman), his old pal (Garner) and two long-forgotten film stars (Hackman & Sarandon) - who find skeletons suddenly tumbling out of their closets in the evening of their lives. Skeletons that turn them all against one another.

Sarandon's the femme fatale; Channing's the police sergeant chewing yet respecting Newman. Witherspoon's the bratty daughter; her career not yet established, she was surely humbled in such company.

Pacing is slow, characterization is shallow and dialogue isn't sparring exposition, starkly contrasting the genre being honored. Rather the film is intentionally haunted by references to age and past. As such, the viewer is being invited to gently savor what this mature genre was, to admire how aged talented actors ably and easily slip into their roles, to behold how much accomplishment such a twilight can hold.

The camera drifts nostalgically over an LA gone by - Santa Monica Pier, Hollywood Regency lamps, all-night newsstands, Mid-Century architecture - all subtly displayed as also well past their own primes, a part of some long-lost Golden Age.

All of the basic noir elements are here, but they do not entertain, nor were they intended to do so. Instead, the film's not unlike a long quiet moment spent taking in the sunset the title implies - a sunset upon a certain part of Hollywood's past, its talent and one of its most admired genres.

RECOMMENDATION: For film buffs, well spent meditation.
August 3, 2014
One of my all time favorites. Smooth as canadian mist!!
June 15, 2007
a very good movie named twilight. Memorable characters and it is russo as his best
KevinRobbins
June 21, 2014
Finding her was the hard part. The rest is easy.

A former cop and private detective is a servant to a wealthy family. He does their dirty work and serves as a servant throughout the house. One day the head of the house becomes very ill with cancer and the servant has to extend his services, first to the wife then to matters pressing the family.

?I?m glad nobody shot your pecker off.?
?Me too!?

Robert Benton, director of The Human Stain, Kramer vs. Kramer, The Late Show, Bad Company, Feast of Love, and Nadine, delivers Twilight. The storyline for this picture was interesting and entertaining for sure. It wasn?t Newman?s best film, but he delivered a fascinating character. The acting is excellent and everyone delivers solid performances. The cast includes Paul Newman, Gene Hackman, Susan Surandor, Reese Witherspoon, Live Schreiber, and James Garner.

?Anytime your client says don?t bring a gun, bring two.?

Twilight is a film I found on Netflix and had to watch since it starred Paul Newman (one of my favorites). I will say they kept the story interesting enough to make me want to see how it played out, but it definitely wasn?t outstanding or unique enough to be a classic thriller. The performances by the great cast made this worth viewing.

?I started with a wife and daughter and ended up a drunk.?

Grade: C+
June 1, 2014
kind of noir, kind of boring, kind of incomprehensible.
April 29, 2014
If you are a big Paul Newman fan, it's worth a watch. It will remind you of one he did in his younger days - Harper [1966] - or similar work by Gene Hackman (Night Moves [1975]).

This one builds into the plot the more advanced age of the stars. It works well enough. But i can't recommend it to people who aren't big fans of Newman or Hackman or Sarandon (or a young Reese Witherspoon, for that matter).
March 29, 2014
This is a movie that you appreciate more as you get older, the pacing,the acting, etc.Really solid performances all al around.
October 29, 2013
Great movie that stays good every time you see it. Well written, well directed, well acted, great movie score, great tone and pacing, what the hell is wrong with you people?
November 16, 2012
Being in the company of these major talents makes up for an average story.
Marter
August 7, 2012
Two years before our actual story begins, we meet our lead character, as well as a couple of minor ones. The protagonist for our story is Harry (Paul Newman) a semi-retired private detective. In our opening scenes, he's hunting down a couple of kids, who escaped from America and headed down to Mexico. He's working for the parents of the girl, Mel (Reese Witherspoon). Mel's boyfriend, Jeff (Liev Schreiber), allegedly stole her (he had her permission but not that of her parents), and considering she's only 17 at this point, this is a crime.

Anyway, he tracks them down with seemingly relative ease. We then fast-forward two years, and Harry is telling the story of the time in between our opening and now during a police interview. He's going to narrate a story involving a twenty-year investigation regarding the death of a man who has been long presumed dead, likely due to suicide. This man was the former lover of one Catherine Ames (Susan Sarandon), who is the wife of Harry's employer, Jack (Gene Hackman). Sounds fishy, doesn't it?

It would make sense for Jack to be the prime suspect. After all, he gets the trophy wife, and the man he steals her from isn't going to complain. Or maybe it's Catherine herself, fed up with being fought over that she decided to kill the one she least loved. Maybe it really was a suicide, and the whole thing is silly. Perhaps it's even Harry, and what he's really working toward is discovering if anyone else is attempting to solve the case. Who better to track down an investigator than another investigator -- and one of the best, to boot? Maybe the man never actually died. Maybe he's actually Harry! There are so many possibilities!

The only one we can assume is innocent is Mel, considering that for most of the story, she's 19, and the death was over 20 years ago, so is couldn't have been her. Or maybe she's not really 19, and maybe she's not really the daughter of these two people. She doesn't call them "Mom" or "Dad," so that's possible, right? We're kept guessing for most of Twilight, which is always a good thing in a film like this. Our mind must always be kept busy, or it might start to feel like a drag to sit through.

Aiding Harry on his quest are two people, both of whom seem to come and go as they please. The first is another elder investigator, Raymond (James Garner), while the other is a cop who used to be Harry's partner -- or maybe they were never partners, I'm not sure as both characters keep contradicting one another -- a man named Reuben (Giancarlo Esposito). Hey, maybe one of them did it! Again, our mind continues to suspect everyone.

Unfortunately, after what happened is actually revealed, I was disappointed. Not because it's necessarily a poor choice, but because there were much better ones. You know how on multiple choice tests you're asked to pick "The Best Answer" even though more than one is technically correct? That's what Twilight's decision felt like. Yeah, it's choice is okay, but there were much better ones to choose from. If there were four possible choices, the one it goes with is about third best in my mind.

This leads to a disappointment with the film after it ends. You wanted it to be someone else, not because of any emotional involvement, but because it would have made more sense. You wish you could have written this film, if only to fix that one choice. The reveal isn't all that well-handled either, as Twilight tries to disguise its true villain one too many times for my liking. It wanted to have a real twist, but that results in an overlong running time, and the film only plays for around 90 minutes to begin with.

This is also a very deliberately paced film. By that, I mean that it's slow. This isn't a noir film that will keep you involved thanks to a fast-paced plot; instead, it wants you to invest in its characters after the mystery is set-up fairly early on. I guess when you have three actors over the age of 60 at the time of filming, it makes sense to keep the plot somewhat slower -- after all, you're not going to have James Garner or Paul Newman involved in too many gunfights or car chases; they're better at standing around talking anyway -- but it is a little too slow and repetitive at times.

I've given you the cast members. Once you read them, you come into this film and expect good performances. That's also what you get. Your expectations will be met, and it's largely because of the cast that Twilight remains watchable and engaging. Lesser actors would not keep you guessing or suspecting that they might be the perpetrator. But because we have strong actors, everyone is a suspect.

Twilight is a watchable neo-noir, although due to its repetitive and unsatisfactory nature, it's not necessarily a must-watch. It's missing that emotional connection which would help us through the slow moments. Our minds are constantly working, attempting to figure out who committed a crime -- if anyone did -- but the payoff is much less enjoyable than you hope. It's a good film that will pass the time, even if a couple of key choices stop it from getting a full recommendation.
July 27, 2012
Isn't it weird to have confusion with the series starring Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson?
December 23, 2010
Twilight is a hardboiled neo-noir with its heart in the right place, though its adrenaline-producing testicles are all shriveled up. Featuring an aging A-list cast, this box office bomb is bogged down with superfluous characters (how did you convince the production staff to pay you, Reece Witherspoon?) and tedious pacing, as well as severely lacking any real moments of suspense, one of the cornerstones of the genre. While it contains genuinely humorous moments, its venture into action is less successful due to the fact that this isn't the same Paul Newman who was blowing up safes and plunging into rivers 30 years before. In fact, Newman was probably one of the few bright spots in the otherwise dully-performed script; Saradon seemed to often be going through the motions, including a hilarious "live, damn you!" spoken in monotone. The one good thing that can be said is that at least this film doesn't contain any vampires - but the undead stiffs, who used to be silver screen heroes, in this forgettable coffin aren't that far off.
David Almeida
May 6, 2010
(from The Watermark, 03/29/98)
This film comes so close to being excellent, but not quite close enough. Newman is an over-the-hill ex-cop turned go-fer for his two retired-actor best friends (Hackman and Sarandon). When Newman stumbles on a murder, we find that there's still some life in this seemingly dead old man. The only problem is, the film doesn't allow Newman to come to the realization that it ain't over until it's over. Thus, the supple film noir visuals and serviceable whodunit plot are left floundering without a theme to motivate them. Twilight has fallen and it can't get up.
Page 1 of 6
Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile