Twilight - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Twilight Reviews

Page 2 of 6
½ 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).
½ April 26, 2014
This movie has some slow spots but there are also several interesting moments. The movie has a top notch cast and they all do good work in this movie. Overall I would recommend this film.
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.
½ March 15, 2014
Had never heard of this Paul Newman movie. I liked it a lot. Power cast hands down. Great detective flick.
March 6, 2014
Classic film noir. Quality movie with superb cast. You never quite know whodunit or what's around the next corner. Suspenseful and dramatic tale of Hollywood fame and riches.
February 10, 2014
Not to be confused with the fantasy film of the same name.
Good detective thriller with Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon and Gene Hackman.
½ January 21, 2014
Great washed up neo-noir concept but never really lives up to the promise because it fails to exploit any sense of mystery.
November 13, 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.
½ 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?
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.
November 16, 2012
Being in the company of these major talents makes up for an average story.
½ 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.
August 7, 2012
Looks better than that vampire crap of the same name.
½ July 27, 2012
Isn't it weird to have confusion with the series starring Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson?
½ April 13, 2012
Paul Newman, Gene Hackman and Susan Sarandon. Good Movie
½ March 4, 2012
Decent modern film noir that lacks a real punchline, but has a "best of hollywood cast"
½ March 1, 2012
This won't ever be anyone's favourite movie. It sets its sights fairly low, so it doesn't have any difficulty in hitting its targets. Nevertheless, it will trump many other thrillers simply because of the sheer professionalism of its cast. Esposito is an irritation and Liev Schreiber is fantastically dull as ever, but the real joy comes from seeing the old pros, Newman, Hackman, Sarandon, Channing and Garner doing their thing. Authority oozes from the screen whenever any one of them is on, which fortunately is nearly all the time. Hackman is particularly fine, especially considering he has virtually nothing to do.

This must be the oldest cast since Cocoon!
February 15, 2012
Harry Ross (Paul Newman) is a burned-out private eye who's plunged into a murder mystery tied to a long unsolved case of Hollywood dreams, schemes and cover ups.

also stars Gene Hackman, Susan Sarandon, Reese Witherspoon, Stockard Channing, James Garner, Giancarlo Esposito, Liev Schreiber and Margo Martindale.

directed by Robert Benton.
½ January 21, 2012
I have to say that I liked this "who done it" type film as it brought a few older stars together along with some newer ones at the time. Although I sought out this film as I heard Reese Witherspoon was it in, I was pleasantly surprised about Susan Sarandon in the film too. And seeing Newman, Hackman, and Garner in it was kinda neat too.

All in all a good "old style" movie I would say as it was from the late 90's. So if you get to see it, and you like the old mystery type films, or at least like to be kept guessing, you could like this one too.
Page 2 of 6