Kim B. (boggy75)

You know, you don't quite realize how anti-climactic the first film is until you've seen the second. I've been reading reviews, and most critics prefer the first film to New Moon... Which baffles me, considering NOTHING happens in the first film (122 minutes of an EdwardxBella staring contest), while NM was a relatively "deeper" film (you know, as deep as any of the novels are). NM had action sequences, at least, and I liked that it wasn't as drab. They'd crack a joke (Jasper was hilarious), they'd poke fun. It was nice to see Chris Weitz didn't take himself (or the series) as seriously as the Twilight director, Catherine Hardwicke. (Which, being a woman, Hardwicke probably found her film terribly romantic, and I'd say the biggest majority of the fangirls did too.)

My number one beef with the films is Kristen Stewart. She's a monotone, one-note actress with zero charisma, and zero presence (which actually works for the movie; Bella herself is dull and uninspiring). And while Pattinson plays his role well, I can't see him acting in any film that isn't estrogen-fueled and +12 on the emo scale (during the previews it shows Pattinson in a new film of the same flavoring as Twilight). Elizabeth Reaser (who plays Esme) is just too old, and Kellen Lutz (Emmett), while amusing, is physically unfit for the part.

My favorite is, of course, Jackson Rathbone, who despite the hair malfunctions of both NM and it's predecessor, is a sensational Jasper, and honestly, the actor with the most range. I've seen him in other stuff lately and BOY, he's intense. I saw clips of him as a serial killer in Criminal Minds--dude is chilling as fuck.

I do wish they'd focused a little more on the wolf pack, and a little less on Bella's terrifying "nightmares." And I honestly don't remember anything of the little skirmish with the Volturi at the end of NM (in the books, it's a little less dramatic). And I wish, as always, they'd given the Cullens more screentime, but then they're not in the novels much, so that's an unfair thing to ask.

IMHO, New Moon was far superior to Twilight. Though I'm secretly hoping Eclipse blows them both out of the water.

Twilight is a movie that knows what it is, and for that reason, it's difficult to fault. Not that Twilight is a ground-breaking piece of cinema (by any means), but what the movie INTENDS to do, it does well. The soundtrack for the film is SUPERB (artists include Muse, Paramore, and original works by lead actor, Robert Pattinson). And although the casting is questionable, some of the actors and actresses truly shine. (Kudos to Jackson Rathbone and Ashley Greene for their stand-out performances as the quirky duo of Jasper and Alice.) The make-up and costume is hit or miss, and the special effects leave a lot to be desired (those hokey "vampire" scenes--really people). Some of the actors go a little overboard with the Dawson's Creek emo-angst, and the EdwardxBella crossed lovers romance will really only appeal to fans of the book (or anything with a vagina). Twilight enthusiasts will balk at the alteration (or altogether omission) of many of the novel's key scenes, as well as the blatant disregard for character abilities beyond Edward's telepathy and Alice's (implied) clairvoyance. BUT, if audiences can overlook the predictability of the plot and accept the movie for what it is (little more than a guilty pleasure), I think you'll find it an enjoyable (if not completely mindless) viewing experience.