Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 Reviews

Page 1 of 548
Super Reviewer
November 19, 2011
Not as terrible as the previous chapter, since things start to finally happen, the story has at least more potential and the technical aspects are quite decent, but the main actors achieve the lowest bottom in awful acting and the whole misogyny of the plot is abysmal.
Super Reviewer
February 8, 2014
Twi4 - it seems each Twilight gets a bit worse. This one features Bella in dark makeup - each scene a little darker than the previous.
Super Reviewer
May 13, 2013
The first-half of the last chapter of the Stephanie Meyer adaptation disappoints as the rest of the films did. As what Deathly Hallows Part 1 did in the past, Breaking Dawn Part 1 does as well. It's lengthy and a slow pace that only builds up its climatic points in the second part. Only difference is Deathly Hallows Part 1 is actually pretty good. Breaking Dawn Part 1 is brought down by its once-again uninspiring performances and dull chemistry. 3/5
Super Reviewer
February 7, 2012
Eh... I kinda liked it. Just because the teasing from the first three movies was over and they actually got on with it!
Super Reviewer
½ September 24, 2011
"The Twilight Saga" has never been particularly great, and after the dreadfully poor "New Moon," I had lost all hope for the young franchise. Once "Eclipse" came into the picture I had a new aspect on the series, actually being interested how it is all going to end, not having read the books of course. This time around, Bella and Edward are getting married, having sex, and getting pregnant. Only problem, Bella is not able to hold a half-demon/half-human baby. It is killing her from the inside out. This film is not great in any way whatsoever, but the fact that I was able to take this ride with ease, and have my heart racing by the final moments of the film, tells that I still have a desire to finish. This film is filled with beautiful camera shots (as always), a riveting premise (even though there really is no story), and the conclusion will have you begging for more as you clench every bone in your body, watching the filmmakers fire-on-all-cylinders, not holding back any of the graphicness of the novel. This, like "Harry Potter" has the Part 1/Part 2 film scenario, and having to wait a year is absolutely ridiculous, but who am I kidding? I'm on board! "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn- Part 1" is not a good film at all, but I enjoyed watching it. There are so many problems that cannot be ignored. The acting is surprisingly improved, but once this saga comes to an end, so will Taylor Lautner's career. I spent most of his screen-time laughing as I could not stop to take him seriously. This film is a mixed bag overall, but I found myself intrigued! It's pretty intense, but the story is pretty lamely executed until the end!
Nate Z.
Super Reviewer
November 21, 2011
Taking a cue from the blockbuster film franchise of our age, the Harry Potter series, the producers and studio heads decided to split the final Twilight film into two separate movies. Yes, for you cheerless, unfortunate males dragged along to author Stefenie Meyer's estrogen-drenched soap opera, hoping to be done with Bella Swan and her sparkly vampire boyfriend, well your pain soldiers onward another year. If Breaking Dawn: Part One is any indication, we're all in for a world of pain come November 2012.

Wedding bells are ringing for Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and her undead boyfriend, noble vampire/undead heartthrob, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). Bella's persistent demand to be turned into a vampire is finely about to come true. She wants to stay human a bit longer, to savor her last days on Earth before sipping blood through a bendy straw. Her always-in-second best bud, Jacob (Taylor Lautner), is worried for Bella's well being. The wedding is like a fairy tale and Edward sweeps his new bride away to a tiny island off of Rio de Janeiro, where the housekeepers illogically speak Spanish. The couple makes the most of their time alone, and by this I mean they have sex (I refuse to believe this couple would play chess in the newlywed downtime). Edward withholds any second rounds of sex, fearing he'll seriously harm his bride (he destroyed the bed in mid-copulation). No matter because Bella gets pregnant right out of the gate. We're told this is impossible, yet her half-human/half-vampire fetus is rapidly growing inside momma's belly. The baby is also destroying its host, eating away Bella's body. Edward demands to kill the baby but Bella will have none of it. She?s going to deliver this baby even if it kills her. If it does kill her, then the truce between the werewolves and vampires will be broken, and Jacob's feistier tribe mates will be knocking down the Cullen doors looking for some tasty vampires to chomp.

Director Bill Condon, he of Dreamgirls fame and an Oscar-winner for 1998's Gods and Monsters, goes hog-wild with the emotions, fittingly reminiscent of the life-and-death swings of emotional polarity that orient a teenager's life. Condon plays all of the ridiculous melodrama straight. It successfully channels the feelings of teenage angst and obsession, much like the first Twilight film. This Teutonic exhibit of buzzy hormones is like catnip to the Twilight faithful. Finally, they get what they've been waiting for, and Condon and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg delay that gratification even longer. This is the longest wedding I've seen on screen since The Godfather. It takes up about 45 minutes of the movie. The protracted walk down the aisle literally takes longer than the rest of the ceremony combined. I can already envision thousands of young girls asking for the "Bella dress" when their time down the aisle comes. At no point does the movie address the fact that the groom's side probably are all absent a heartbeat ("Hmm, extreme paleness? Are you with the bride or the groom? I'm at a loss."). That's a missed comedic opportunity. What's with the wedding guests played by name actors like Maggie Grace (TV?s Lost, Taken)? Did they hire recognizable actors for one-line bit parts? They better have larger roles in the second feature. Under Condon's direction, the film looks marvelous, and even the long-awaited love scene has some discernible heat to it that will give teen girls "funny" dreams for the next few months. Condon's also helming the next and final film, so I can at least say it'll look swell.

This last film was broken into two parts due to the mountains of money the studio would make. It surely wasn't for some sort of artistic necessity. The plot of BD: Part One is stretched mighty thin. It's no joke that the wedding and honeymoon takes up half the running time. The baby drama is handled so amateurishly, and the plot ramps up the incubation time so that everything too fast for the audience to adjust to how stupid everything truly is. The first half of the movie is free of meaningful conflict. It's just concerned with payoffs. From everything I've read online, and from female friends who have partaken of the series, BD: Part One pretty much covers most of the plot of the 400-page book. What's left? I would totally give the series a pass if the second movie, started with Bella, hair a knotted mess, holding a shrieking baby. Edward sits at the table, drinking. "When are you gonna get a job?" she yells. "When are you gonna stop being a bitch?" he retorts, then gulps down a swig of booze. This domestic downer of an ending would almost make the whole series worth sitting through. Truthfully, as the teaser during the end credits advertises, if Michael Sheen (Frost/Nixon) has a larger part in BD: Part Two, it automatically becomes, sight unseen, the best movie of the series. Thus is the awe-inspiring power of Michael Sheen.

This has long been a silly franchise filled with poorly veiled messages that seem less empowering to teenage girls than reassuring to their parents. Long a heavy-handed message about abstinence, the characters finally get to have sex, after they're properly married of course (does God really object more to vampire-human relations or when it occurs?). And you better believe the moment Edward and Bella eventually do the deed is a moment that teen girls, and their mothers, around the nation have been anticipating for three long, hard years. The buildup to the carnal climax is a rapturous release for the audience of Twi-hards; my theater felt like it exploded in pubescent hormones and giggling as soon as the proverbial train entered the station. Speaking of euphemisms, I find it telling that not a single character ever refers to sex as, well, "sex." They keep dancing around the term, referring to it as indistinct pronouns like "this" or "that" or the slightly more specific "honeymoon activities." It's like the characters can?t talk about a mature topic without a case of the giggles. There's even a scene where Jacob talks about Bella's forthcoming tangle between the sheets, openly, and with alarm: "You'll kill her," he tells Edward. He doesn't kill her but he does leave bruises all over her body. Bell assures her new husband that he?s not to blame, arguing, "You just couldn't control yourself." What kind of irresponsible message is that sending to teenage girls? But after enduring three movies of "save it until marriage," the message is made even clearer when Bella, after one bout of sex, gets pregnant. Boom. Bella breaks the news by saying, "The wedding was 14 days ago, and my period's late." Edward stares dumbfounded and replies, "What does that mean?" Apparently, after graduating from high school 200 times just for kicks, Edward must have been absent every damn time for sexual education ("Condoms go OVER? Oh! This whole time I thought they went UNDER, you know, to hold everything in.").

It's here where the movie awkwardly shifts into a relentlessly pro-life message on legs. I?m not against movies presenting messages, but when a movie is as narratively empty and transparently padded as BD: Part 1, then the movie just gets swallowed up by the clumsy message. It doesn't matter that Bella's unborn hell spawn is literally killing her, sucking her dry from the inside out, she's going to have this baby no matter what, even if she dies in the process. Okay, Meyer, we get it. Here's a question for the world: can anyone really tell that much difference between emaciated Kristen Stewart and her normal self? She always appears a little sickly and hollow-eyed, but maybe that's just me. The baby is basically the only conflict the movie presents and it happens so late in the film. Thanks to a fast gestation period, the demon fetus is determined not to wait until Part Two to make its grand entrance. Now that Bella is preggers, she?s become instant buddies with Rosalie (Nikki Reed, a long way from Thirteen), and the two of them begin a war against non-gender pronouns (its vs. he/her). The baby conflict would be more interesting if it was a tad more ambiguous, but the fact that it literally is killing Bella, not to mention its monstrous possibilities, and yet she persists to give birth is less characterization and more stubbornness. If Bella's worried she'll never have another chance to have a flesh-and-blood daughter, then explore this. Otherwise it makes Bella look blithely cavalier with her own life.

It's here where Meyer and the Twilight franchise, already deliriously high on teen angst, goes off the charts into weirdo territory (some spoilers will follow). Never mind where the werewolf boys (and a girl) manage to find new clothes after they destroy them after each beastly transformation, we've got far weirder moments to process. There's a vampire C-section via biting. There are giant wolves communicating via growling telepathy and bad CGI. There are Bella's completely insane names for her child; if it's a boy she wants to combine Edward and Jacob's names because that's not awkward ("See, son, you're named after the other guy I could have slept with but decided to just string along instead."). And if it's a girl she wants to combine her mother's name and Edward's mother's name forming the atrocious "Reneesmee." Excuse me? That makes Apple seem as traditional as apple pie. No one tells Bella these names are horrific because she's pregnant, naturally. I imagine all the characters broke out into laughter as soon as Bella left the room to go puke into a bucket. Easily the weirdest and dumbest thing in the history of the Twilight franchise occurs as a contrived deus ex machina and a tidy solution to Jacob's eternal, annoying pining. Jacob is determined to slay the monster he believes responsible for killing his unrequited love, Bella, but then he looks into those cute little baby eyes and swears devotion to this newborn babe. He "imprints" on her, which means that they are meant to be together, and thus the werewolf/vampire truce holds. "Of course," Edward intones, "Imprinting is their number one law. They cannot break it." Of course! This reminded me of the scene at the end of the second Harry Potter movie where a phoenix comes from nowhere and cries into a wound ("Of course, phoenix tears can heal anything," Harry informs while I was physically smacking myself in the head). Doesn't anyone else find this whole plot development creepy? Jacob can?t have the mother, so he?s going to have the baby? And he's got to wait 18 years if he wants their coupling to be legal on top of that. I think a messed up name is the least of this kid's worries.

It all comes down to the heroine of the franchise, Miss Bella Swan (sorry, Bella Cullen now). I just don't get what all the fuss is about. To me, Bella isn't worth the effort. She?s never really been anything close to a fully formed character. Bella Swan has always defined herself by having a boyfriend, and when he was gone it was about pushing her friends away and moping until she finally found a new guy. She has zero self-identity, no center, she is an empty shell, there is no there there. She's a cipher, meant for the teenage readership to plug themselves into her place. I won't restate my theory that the Twilight series is glossed-up pre-teen wish fulfillment, but there you have it. Yet there are sneaking moments where Bella seems almost shockingly human. Her anxious montage of preparation before her first night of sex is relatable and sympathetic (what outfit to wear? Shave the legs? What kinds of makeup?). Too bad this relatable side of her character vanishes all too quickly. Before Bella defined herself by her boyfriend, and now she defines herself by her baby. She's still the same whiny, selfish, morose, and cruelly manipulative Bella, though. She can't let Jacob alone; she has to continue stringing him along, bringing him into inappropriate personal matters. Jacob's always been a bit of a control freak who seems to spout quasi-rapist dialogue (the classic "You love me, you just don't know I yet."), but the guy's always gotten a raw deal as far as I'm concerned. Betrothed to a baby is not a worthwhile parting gift. I worry that young, impressionable girls are going to look at Bella as an influential figure. If these same gals want a literary heroine they could truly look up to, they should feast their eyes on Katniss Everdeen, proactive and laudable star of the Hunger Games and forthcoming movie of the same name.

The three actors have been playing the same character notes for so long that they could all just go on autopilot and collect their paychecks. Stewart (Adventureland) is less annoying than she has been in previous films. I'm trying not to take out my antagonism of her character on the actress, who I've genuinely liked in pre-Twilight projects (even her Joan Jett performance was pretty decent). Pattinson (Water for Elephants) seems to shrink into the background for this movie. There are a lot of long, ponderous, somehow meaningful stares between the two, with the soundtrack trying to communicate emotions that the screenplay has failed to do (a little more variety on the soundtrack next time, fellas? I think I tuned out after the twelfth melancholy piano ballad). Luckily, Pattinson does have something of a screen presence to go with those abs. Unfortunately, the same could not be said for Lauthner (Abduction). The young buck, formerly of Shardkboy fame, just cannot act. He has a nostril-heavy manner of expressing emotion that makes you wonder if he?s about to blow your house down. It's telling that within mere seconds of the film beginning, the guy rips off his shirt, the peak of his acting abilities. I suspect it will not be long before Lautner and his six-pack and sitting at home, unemployed, and indulging in a different six-pack.

Breaking Dawn: Part One is certainly not intended for critics of the book and film series, or really any audience member lacking ovaries. But I think that even the most ardent Twi-hards will walk away giggling at the silliness of the melodrama. I try not to be out rightly dismissive of the whole series, but the bad characters, bad plotting, and questionable messages make it hard to continue bending over backwards to find slivers of quality to support. I get the appeal of the series, the fact that Bella Swan is a cipher to exercise frothing teenage wish fulfillment, but that doesn't excuse the movies from being so bad. This isn't the painful abomination that was 2009?s New Moon, but it's come the closest. Only the promise of more Michael Sheen makes me hopeful that BD: Part Two will be better than its predecessors. But when you're talking about an obscenely popular moneymaker, quality becomes secondary to delivering a product that is recognizable to the demands of the screaming fans. BD: Part One is less a payoff than a warning. There is more to come, and if you thought Bella was intolerable before just wait until her vampire growing pains.

Nate's Grade: C-
Super Reviewer
½ August 13, 2010
Sorry team Bella, team Edward, or team Jacob (or should I just say em : Twilights fans), I just can't rate this movie any higher than this.. I'm not a Twilight haters but this movie definitely made just because the studio didn't want to lose all the possible money they can get by splitting the last movie into 2 different movies or should I say it ending this franchise immediately.. A very slow but powerless drama combined with not-so-great acting from the actors made this movie made really in the purpose that I mentioned before.. Even some other scenes seems ridiculous when it meets my eyes like when wolf Jacob talk with their pack and I feel like watching an animation movie or when Bella's condition getting worser and worser day by day the effects were just weird cause the body get the effects but the face just didn't.. But I still have some hope for the second movie since all the action will put in there so I hope there's an improvement in the last movie..
Super Reviewer
March 19, 2011
A very slow, rather dull installment in the franchise....seems to go down hill more which each new film.
Super Reviewer
June 3, 2012
I will be honest and say that, while I have despised the previous installments in this series, the Twilight Saga is known for being some of the most comedic films ever. In that view point, Breaking Dawn part One is the most hilarious film I have seen in a very long while. If you are someone, that enjoys comedy, then this is one film you will be busting a gut over. Sad thing is: this film was made as a serious drama. The comedy here is like that of The Room: the byproduct of poor film making. With this being the most humorous, it is just quite sad. Then again, I do have some sympathy for this series. You see, the problem with Twilight is not really the acting or directing (granted they are part of the problem). The problem is due to the cheap material that Stephenie Meyer wrote and the poor script writing. With this film, the script is just a mess. To begin with, there are so many unneeded scenes, so much that could have been removed without ruining the film. Then the complete screw up of the logic of the series (umā¦ they are suppose to sparkle, right?). Finally you have the different directors for each film. Okay, direction. I understand that each director for this series tried their best with the material (the best is David Slade, but then again he is a talented director). But given the novels that this series is based on, I pity them and their dignity at making one of the worst film series I have ever seen. And it probably did not help at all that they tried to copy Harry Potter with breaking the film into two segments. To be honest, they did not need to with this film. They just did not. Moving on to acting. What am I kidding? There is no acting in this film. The reason why is simple: all the actors know is that they are in a soft pornographic film for teenage girls and as such, they will automatically get a huge paycheck for doing nothing. At all. For those like me that have the burden of reviewing every hit film that comes out, we are asking for something real, for something to keep us, the critics, entertained. Yeah, this film is just a slap in the face. The people donā(TM)t make an effort, donā(TM)t add anything to the characters, and just gives us cardboard. So, where did all the money go to? The cinematographer and the make-up artist. I will give the film props on being beautiful to look at in terms of scenery and the make-up when Bella is pregnant is, shockingly, well done. But other then that, there is nothing good about this film. But that brings me to my biggest problem: this film is insulting. One thing I have noticed about the Twilight books is that it is nothing short of a metaphor for teenage romance and teenage sex. One thing that this film also had going for it is the topic of abortion. Right now, this topic is rather hotly debated and this film had the chance to have a serious, adult look at the topic, weigh both sides, and give the audience and characters a chance to actually decide on this issue. Here, they just make it out that all guys want to do is be a coward and go for abortion while the women want to have the child. As a guy, I am beyond insulted with this. Why, is my question? The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part One is stupid, unintentionally funny, and a complete mess of a film while insulting any man that watches it. Never in my life of reviewing films have I found a film that is this un-enjoyable, dreadful, and completely unnecessary. With this, I am grateful that there is only one film left and after that, we can bury Twilight and start recreating the myths of Vampires.
Super Reviewer
October 27, 2011
Going for the Harry Potter ending effect, and failing badly, the film consists of some strange scenes and absurdly awful script, the director is better off finishing now while he still has an ounce of dignity, while the actors have no idea what they are doing and clearly haven't spent time on this kiddie project very much.
Super Reviewer
March 4, 2012
I usually take my time to make a brief but sustancial opinion of movies, but honestly I was expecting a litle bit more for "The Final "SAGA" (yes " " again)"...c'mon! But not this I'll just say: A wedding long enough to become pregnant.
Super Reviewer
February 19, 2012
Breaking Dawn: Part 1 really doesn't have a whole lot to work with and director Bill Condon can't make anything of it.The film's run time is 105 minutes, and even though that is under 2 hours, it still comes out as a long tedious journey. Seriously, the most intriguing part of this picture are the last couple minutes, which includes the scene embedded in the closing credits. It takes extremely long for the plot to pick up, and even then there isn't much to sit up for.The action is brief and forgettable, much like the first hour of this movie. It doesn't help much when the violence between vampires and werewolves is held in check.With a story without much intrigue, the nonchalant acting fits right in. That isn't a positive. Watching Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson for nearly the entire first hour is torturous. The characters have no range of emotion and that hurts.Breaking Dawn: Part 1 is not an enjoyable sit through and the only reason for the viewing is to fill in the gap between Eclipse and Breaking Dawn: Part 2.
Super Reviewer
February 18, 2012
Okay, so you're girlfriend/boyfriend/"special friend", wants to see Breaking Dawn, part 2 and you don't.
But if you downright refuse, you know their is going to be hell to pay. So what do you do?

You watch the film as a comedy.

But Ken!? Twilight isn't a comedy! It's a mela-dramatic "romance" about "vampires".

Well that's where you're wrong. Breaking Dawn part 1, is like the fever dream of a 12-year-old bi-polar girl. Everything is turned up way past 11, to the rarely used "Mexican Soap Opera" setting. The histrionics of this film makes Showgirls look like it was directed by Ozu. Simply hilarious.

I am, in no way, shape or form, saying this is a good movie. But, in the right frame of mind, it can be very entertaining. Oh and the cinematography is GORGEOUS. So there's that.

But come on, how many movies do you get to see a vampire-teeth Cesarean AND a werewolf fall in love with a baby?
Super Reviewer
February 15, 2012
I wouldn't call the Twilight series one of my favorite movie series ever, but it's still one of those in which I like or love every film in the series, even the one ("New Moon") that most people didn't enjoy.
Super Reviewer
½ February 13, 2012
Not executed well enough. I guess that only the hardcore fans would manage to cherish it. "Breaking Down the Twilight Saga - Part 1" would have been an apt choice of title for the movie IMO. I can only hope that the next part won't create such a feeling for one and all. Amen.
Super Reviewer
June 20, 2010
Cast: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Peter Facinelli, Ashley Greene, Kellan Lutz, Jackson Rathbone, Elizabeth Reaser, Nikki Reed, Billy Burke, Maggie Grace, Jamie Campbell Bower, Michael Sheen, Anna Kendrick

Director: Bill Condon

Summary: Not long after immortal soul mates Bella Swan and Edward Cullen say "I do," a strange sensation begins to build inside Bella's burgeoning belly. But the couple's unborn child is at risk before she's even born.

My Thoughts: "With so many negative responses I thought for sure I would dislike this, but I kinda really liked it. I am not one of those crazy obsessed Twilighters, or Twi-hards, I'm not too sure what they call themselves. But I am a fan of the books. I got sucked into them just like the rest. I think Bill Condon has done the best job directing then the ones before. I'm not saying the other's have been awful, but this film just seemed so well put together. Of course people will say it was boring and there wasn't much happening, but it's suppose to play out that way. This film is definitely a build up for whats to come. The acting has definitely improved. It seems to just have gotten better which each film. The movie focuses more on the relationship and less on the ever pending doom of Bella being killed by other vampires. This time she's still possibly going to die, but it's more of a choice. The part I really didn't care for is where the wolf pack is conversing still in wolf form. It was bizarre and just seemed cartoonish. Not a fan of that scene. Finally Alice and Jasper's hair looks right. It has been a mess since the first film. In my opinion of course. I still think the make-up was done the best in the first film as was Edwards hair. Billy Burke has been the most solid actor in all the films and he still delivers some of the best one liners in this movie. The most improved in the films is Kristen Stewart. I really like her other films. But for some reason I just felt her acting was off in these movies. Well the first one at least. But she was great in this one. It ended just were I thought it would and it leaves you wanting more. Can't wait for the second half, because really, that is the one to see."
Super Reviewer
½ January 29, 2012
I hate Twilight a lot. But nobody can say I am unfair towards it. The third film was actually entertaining and less infuriating. Breaking Dawn Part 1, is different altogether. It is just a horrible product shoved out with no regard for its audience. Bella and Edward get married and go on honeymoon, this last for over an hour. She gets pregnant, which shouldn't be able to happen, and some potentially evil demon baby is sucking the life from her. The films biggest crime is that nothing happens for so long. This series has had a tendency to drag on and on. With New Moon seeming totally unnecessary. What happens here, is that we get one book split into two films. This film has about 30 minutes of material in it. Characters have the same conversations they've had a thousand times before, with nobody evolving. Bella and Edward feel the same way they've always felt, as does Jacob. The sex scene is embarrassingly juvenile, with a quick cut to something from a parody. The film doesn't let up in the absurdity department, as some animated wolves have a conversation with each other, but with mindless growling and dialog, it sounds terrible. What any other film would have shortened into a montage is played out to a variety of banal songs that all sound the same. Finally we get towards the end and the graphic, grotesque birth scene is barely shown at all. It leaves us with a finale in which a wolf "imprints" himself onto a newborn baby in a scene more disturbing than anything The Human Centipede could muster. If you like characters that whine about everything, actors that have no emotional range, and watching slideshows of other people's honeymoons, then you may enjoy this laughable effort.
Super Reviewer
January 28, 2012
This was pure crap to me. I actually am surprised this could be that corny.
Super Reviewer
½ January 14, 2012
Bella gets married. Bella finally has sex with Edward. Bella gets pregnant, and won't allow the baby to be harmed no matter how much it's killing her. The underlying Christian theology is very much alive in Breaking Dawn Part 1; more alive than any of these actors that much is sure.
By this point, only the die hard Twilight fans are running to the theatre, so they already know what to expect. But even by that standard, it's hard to really understand what kind of satisfaction they're getting out if this movie. There is absolutely no plot and no discernible story. If anything, Breaking Dawn Part 1 acts as its own kind of porno movie. The eye candy comes in the form of a wedding dress in which I'm sure the producers spared no expense in finding the best designers in the world to make. The sex scenes are tasteless, featuring a hilarious bed breaking scene that sparks no passion or chemistry amidst awkward cuts and cheesy dissolves. Also, there's been a lot of buzz around the C-section scene and that the filmmakers won't be shying away from the blood or harrowing violence that such a complicated pregnancy could cause. Well, you hear a lot of gross sounds; you don't see anything.
The makeup/CGI job done to Bella's body as the fetus ("you mean baby," one character continually corrects) drains her blood is perhaps the most successfully delivered part of the film, but it serves to deliver way too many scenes of other characters just sitting around telling Bella that she's not looking so well and waiting for her to make a decision. Taylor Lautner has the best line in the whole movie as his character, the hardly ever shirtless Jacob Black yells at Edward upon seeing pregnant Bella for the first time, "You did this!" As Jacob tries to keep his pack of wolves at bay, he eventually succumbs to an "imprinting" which unintentionally brings things to a whole new level of disturbing.
Keeping Bella's father (Billy Burke, the only actor here able to show a modicum of emotion) in the dark about her condition, Bella sits around dying for most of the movie. It's a depressingly bleak, humourless (well, it tries to be), and needlessly long story that shows more than ever a studio's desire to milk this franchise as much as it can. This film did not need to be told in two parts; more than an hour could have been cut out.
Super Reviewer
½ January 12, 2012
The next movie in the so called "Phenomenon." It's common knowledge that 95% of the people who bother seeing these movies are teenage girls who haven't read the books and only care for the shirtless guys. 4% are divorced Twi-Moms who have decided to go for pedophelia (One of the many things this series encourages.) and that small 1% are people who have read the books. The books are very poorly written and I decided "I'll see the movie for the sake of seeing if it fixes on the book's flaws." I was dissapointed. I've went into each Twilight movie hoping it would be the film to change how I feel of the series...every time I end up dissapointed. The second movie is easily the worst in the series, but this film comes pretty damn close in surpassing it. The wedding scene everyone was anticipated to see incredibly rushed and forced. I couldn't feel the love between Edward and generic teenage girl #354. (A.K.A. Bella) Then there's the honeymoon.....all logic was lost in that scene. She gets pregnant, and then that's really it. One praise I have for the film however, is they did a very good job on the makeup for making Bella look like a....teenager with a baby eating her insides.....Yeah, that sounds weirder the more you think about it. It's a shame the makeup can't help Kristen Stewart's acting though. The acting still sucks unfortunately. Pattinson and Stewart are both very wooden and dull and Lautner constantly shows too much emotion. Every time he's on screen, he'll make this face: >:( He's never happy or excited, just always too stoic in his roles. The only good actor is the guy who plays Bella's dad....that's it. The birth scene was overhyped and nothing special. Nothing happened in this film, it's basically just a two hour long episode of "Secret life of the American teenager." It's a boring film filled with bad acting, awful dialogue and no build up to Part 2. (Not another one! *Facepalm*) Not to mention a werewolf falls in love with a newborn baby and werewolves talk to eachother with psychic mind reading powers.....Did I seriously just type that? Skip this film, it's a waste of screen time.
Page 1 of 548