There's nothing transporting about the visuals. Twilight was a famously low-budget production compared to most traditional blockbusters, but this is ridiculous.
Really? I looked into the budgetary issues, and decided she was just upset because it wasn't getting as much as Harry Potter. Seriously, you do not need a Harry Potter scale budget to make a teen romance, even if it does have vampires. And heaps of movies have looked awesome for a lot less than $37 mil, because they either A) Used an alternative to CGI B) had awesome cinematography or C) both. Oh, you want an example? Pan's Labyrinth cost $20 million.
If a fantasy movie that looks that awesome can be made for that much, Hardwicke has no excuse whatsoever.
Nov 19 - 06:19 PM
A woman not liking Twilight? Thats unusual.
Nov 19 - 07:01 PM
The idiot fangirls don't speak for the entirety of the female population, believe me. I'm a teenage girl and think the whole Twilight series is a joke.
Nov 19 - 09:32 PM
As i 15 year old girl, i could not agree with you more. When people explain parts of the book, i cant help but stop them and ask them if what they just said sounds anything but ridiculous.
Nov 19 - 09:39 PM
um excuse me...but I am not a tween girl but in college actually, and I have been a big fan of twilight even before it was made popular. And I happen to think that this series of books are one of the better plots out there today. So if you don't like the books and you think the plot is dumb then why the hell would you even go and see the movie?
Nov 20 - 12:58 PM
Fail.Typical woman. Read some actual literature.****.
Nov 20 - 01:54 PM
i think that you comment about typical woman not reading your idea of literature is very degrading and biased of you. Don't judge a book by its cover remember? I found the movie entertaining, which I believe is the purpose of a movie. it may have not had a big budget but i think they did well with they had.
Nov 21 - 05:09 PM
I'll tell you why, for the lulz. And trust me, I've seen the trailers and some leaks and this is going to be so bad, it's awesome.
Nov 20 - 02:44 PM
C'mon. Don't stereotype. I'm not an idiot just because I like the series, dude.
Nov 25 - 09:55 AM
I'm very impressed with what they are able to do with such a small budget, and if this one does well then they'll make the next with an even bigger budget. Don't base your review entirely on $37 mil.
Nov 19 - 10:57 PM
What they were able to do with this budget is not impressive in the least...It's very clear her review is based on the fact the film is lackluster. I know people who can make $20 000 look better than this film. Take a look at the film 'Gabriel'...there's no excuse. It was just a lazy production to begin with and once the hype generated they paid for reshoots and new scenes realizing they were on a track that let down the target audience. They had to raise the film's bar to match expectations and couldn't do it.
Nov 20 - 05:12 AM
I understand people getting upset about bad visuals, but that isn't the entire movie. It of course is part of it, and the overall grade should be downgraded if the visuals are poor. But I would say acting, cinematography, script, and even the music would be more important.
Nov 20 - 10:29 AM
I have to agree with many of the points raised in this review. Of particular note:
- the special effects look awful
- much of the fun dialogue that made the chemistry work in the book is missing here
- Kristen looks like she is going to puke every time Edward is around (like she threw up in her mouth a little) and her performance was horribly one-note
- the "sparkling" skin effect was pitiful
Sep 28 - 01:29 AM