Article Ratings & Comments
(1-20 of 24 posts) | Reply
on Nov 21 2008 01:15 PM omg maybe its because ur like a 40 year old man and are criticizing twilight!! the movie and book is supposed to target toward teenagers. and its not focused on the vampire part. the focus is on the love between them, how they can stay together and love each other through their differences. the vampires are just to resemble the difference and that split between them. when us teenagers compare the books to our lives [which is what we do and why we get absorbed into most books] we compare it to the ones we love and that one difference that splits us, although it most likely wouldn't be that our loved ones are vampires. (Reply to this) |
on Nov 21 2008 01:52 PM In reply to this comment (#2142427) hahahaha oh man (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 21 2008 02:45 PM It's a campy, cliche-ridden movie about an overdone subject targeted at the female counterpart of the audience that made movies like Meet The Spartans a box-office success. I reeeaaally don't think they have much incentive to make a good movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 21 2008 03:52 PM In reply to this comment (#2142427) Well said, Briana C. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 21 2008 04:44 PM Right at the onset, Carr is already approaching this movie from the wrong angle. This is not a "vampire movie", just as Harry Potter is not a "witchcraft movie". If he can't get that very basic concept down correctly, I can't take his review seriously. It's like a someone trying to talk about apples and starting off by saying, "Apples are vegetables that...." (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 21 2008 05:50 PM In reply to this comment (#2143220) @ Kat J. - Twilight is NOT a vampire movie? Then what were all the vampires doing in it? It may make more sense to say, Twilight isn't about the practice of sucking blood. In which case, you are correct that Harry Potter isn't about the practice of witchcraft, but it is very much about young witches and wizards. I think the trouble is that Twilight focuses on the neo-vampire, or the counter culutral vampire, not the classical vampire of myth. And if you're going to make a "counter-vampire" - one without fangs, that doesn't drink blood, that doesn't burst into flames when walking in the sun, then why even make the characters vampires at all? (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 21 2008 08:01 PM ok what? this is for teens... its a romantic fantisy movie.. its not really supposed to be terrifying.... for the teens who read the book and watched it.. or just watched the movie, it was amazing. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 21 2008 09:20 PM This is not a monster movie. Strange, I know. The mention of a vampire must mean it is focused on killing, rampaging, and gore. No. It is not. Vampires are a supporting role in a book about love. The movie represents that very well. The movie was as close as a movie will ever get. I loved it. And, go figure, I am a girl. And, yes, I'm even a 'teenager' by the literal meaning. No the movie isn't deep. And, no, the movie is a '30 Days of Night'. It isn't supposed to be. I think people who read the book and watch the movie will be completely satisfied. (Reply to this) |
on Nov 21 2008 10:20 PM Well said, my man. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 22 2008 01:44 AM This movie is garbage. Kevin your right and yes chelsea it is a vampire movie. if you took out the vampire aspect it wouldnt be twilight anymore. I hate most of the casting in this film. i am an avid reader of the series and this movie was horrible. Robert Pattinson cant act to save his life. The camera angles are horrible. The movie was way to fast and there was no big conection with bella and edward, not like in the book. so i fail to see the love part in the movie. all this movie really wanted to do was capitalize on the book. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 22 2008 05:55 AM Read the book...it's a love story. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 22 2008 10:41 AM Oh, I read the book. It's a giant piece of garbage brimming with Mary-Sue tendencies and wildly swerving plotlines. Also, SPARKLING VAMPIRES. What the hell? (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 22 2008 01:13 PM if you didn't like the book then there was a great chance you would not like the movie. you are biased. by the way she moved to Washington State not Oregon which goes to show your ability to process the material whether in print or on screen lacks your full attention to the details. The fact that you don't consider them monsters negates the Cullen family's own personal turmoil they endure for themselves. The core of the Cullen's family dynamic depends on their ability to take a life so they may continue to exist. The control they show by only taking animal lives over humans speaks volumes for their commitment to not be the monster they could be. The Cullens have feelings just like humans but they also have a greater control of their very environment and take their powers of the higher beings very seriously. But if you had read the WHOLE book and not 70 pages you might have read between the lines. Maybe the fact that it was told from Bella's perspective turned you off. She could only guess about the Cullens, specifically Edward, but geniunely embraced the family for who they are. Next time get your wife to write the movie review about a book she liked and read in full. (Reply to this) |
on Nov 22 2008 04:23 PM In reply to this comment (#2142427) He's a MOVIE CRITIC, it is his job to review MOVIES regardless of what genre the movie is. Get over yourself already. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 22 2008 09:35 PM This book is based on a romance not some stupid violence scary vampire story. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 22 2008 09:39 PM In reply to this comment (#2145488) It isn't a book review. A critic doesn't have to have read one page of a book a movie's based on, let alone like it, to write a movie review. A negative review is biased because the critic didn't like what he read of the book? He's not writing hard news - it's his opinion. That's what reviews are. It's valid to warn people who actually like vampire movies that Twilight is not a story for people who like vampire horror movies, but for people who like teen romance. Real bias would be if all the reviews were written by fans who can't find anything bad to say about what a lot of the rest of us see as glorified Mary Sue fanfiction. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 22 2008 11:06 PM Silly me. I guess when this prominent critic started his assesment with comments about how he couldn't get through the book the "critic" set the tone for how he would review the movie. so what if he gets paid for his opinion. All that means is he has passed basic writing skills to convey his thoughts. and you know what they say about opinions. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 23 2008 02:28 PM ok so basically you have to be well literate to understand and enjoy the books and we all know since the beginging of books turned into movies that the movie isn't as good as the book. This is no different..... the movie had all the major action .... but none of Bella's thoughts(which is what made the book so great).... but we cant let that get us down! it was a good movie, just like Hamlet ... the movies were never that good because Hamlet had sooo many thoughts. THIS IS NOT A VAMPIRE MOVIE it is a metaphor for pushing the limits of love and i am sorry for the people that cant understand that! If you need me to explain m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r i will happily do so (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 23 2008 05:38 PM It's supposed to be a romance. It's not "Trueblood", "Dracula", "The Lost Boys" or "Thirty Days of Night" Twilight was never a horror story about vamps, it was all about the forbidden love between Edward and Bella and I think Summit portrayed this VERY well. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 23 2008 07:17 PM In reply to this comment (#2148032) No need to explain 'metaphor' to us, but would you like someone to explain the correct use of the ellipsis? Yep, Twilight's about forbidden love, all right. And just in case it wasn't obvious in the character's constant angsty monologues - "Oh I'm beautiful and perfect and live forever but have this horrible tendency to kill my spouse WOE IS ME" - Meyer's oh-so-subtle cover choice pretty much bludgeoned everyone over the head. Still, the vampire thing? Kind of the whole plot. Which is a pity, because if Meyer had opted for a human protagonist whose main problem was his intermittent urge to suffocate his girlfriend with a pineapple, that would've offered an *interesting* moral conflict. (Reply to this) |
RSS Feeds