Comments on: Twilight movie thoughts

By: Bittens

Bittens — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:47:03 +0000

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it wasn’t so low budget. What Hollywood views as “low budget,” is huge compared to other countries, but they still manage to put out good movies. Pan’s Labyrinth? $19 million. Best Picture winner Slumdog Millionaire? $15 million. 28 Days Later? $9 million. The Descent? $5 million.

Even within America, there are plenty of more underground films that become hits with critics and the film community that are made for much smaller budgets. The Wrestler was $6 million, Frozen River was around $3 million, Being John Malkovich was $13 million, Session 9 was $5 million, even Catherine Hardwicke’s Thirteen was $1 or 2 million.

Sorry to go on such a rant, but it’s kind of a touchy subject with me. Most of my favourite films were made for less than Twilight. Most of them also needed more special effects, but the crew knew how to be practical and make things look good for little money. With Thirteen, I’m surprised CH wasn’t better at this herself.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:24:21 +0000

Across the board, I’ve heard that people are disappointed in the movie…which makes me sad.

I think we all have massive expectations because the book is so darn addictive. Ah well, I’m sure I’ll go see it anyway.

Thanks for the review!

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:15:44 +0000

We kinda have to remember it was low budget. very loooow budget

By: Lauren

Lauren — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:11:33 +0000

I actually enjoyed the film. For what it was, it was really fun and a decent adaptation in my mind. Sure, they left out some scenes, but of course they would. I really liked the casting in the end. I was tentative at first, but everyone seemed great (minus Rosalie. She acted fine, but she didn’t look the part). I thought Jasper was decent because he IS stiff in the books, always trying to stay controlled. And i actually loved the casting of Jessica and Mike – they LOOKED like real high schoolers and even acted that way. It’s totally how my students would have been in that situation.

Oh but the glitter effect? So bad.

By: kim

kim — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:53:47 +0000

Emmmm, they totally left out my fave part. ‘Member when Bella sees blood in her science class and has to go to the nurse’s station and Edward shows up and is all, “I’ll protect you from being sick” and shit? WHERE was that in the movie? I spent the whole hour and a half waiting for it to show up.

I thoroughly enjoyed Edward showing up and being all “get in the car!” when Bella was about to be raped.

Sexyness. Rar.

By: chele

chele — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:40:48 +0000

I agree on the rosalie casting, have yet to see the movie but for me I had imagined Rosalie like a super model

By: mandy

mandy — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:08:44 +0000

I wasnt all that thrilled with it. It may have had to do more with the screaming, giggling teenagers. I was disappointed when it was over. I just felt that it could have been so much better.

By: liz

liz — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:04:29 +0000

I think when I was watching the movie I was so caught up in the excitement that I loved it. if I watched the movie again, I’d probably see the same flaws.

I am horrible at critiquing movies. I love anything that keeps me entertained. Although, I DEFINITELY agree about Kristen Stewarts underacting. UGH. I hated her portrayal of Bella. She was so irritating.

By: Ashley

Ashley — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:03:59 +0000

Oh, and I forgot. It’s Catherine Hardwicke’s fault about Rosalie. The actress who played her, Nikki Reed, knew Hardwicke; Reed wrote and starred in Thirteen, which Hardwicke directed. Favortism!

By: Kerri Anne

Kerri Anne — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:45:07 +0000

OK, I have to chime in again to say: Yes, I heard all the stories and read the articles calling Twilight “low budget,” but there is a part of me that will never be able to call anything that costs 37 MILLION DOLLARS “low budget.” That seems insane to me. It also seems like a pretty lame excuse for them not to be able to pull off some pretty key effects that are central to both the book and the movie.

Also: The CULLEN HOUSE. I hated! that part. Mostly because I was convinced I was going crazy, because I was SURE I had read that the Cullen’s house was anciently old and almost Southern-inspired in its design, as I had remembered Meyer writing about a porch that wrapped around the entire house, which would constitute some columns. I came home and had to run to the first book to re-read that part. Turns out, I’m not crazy. At least not about the Cullen house being super old, and not Brand New Super Modern Artsy House With A Piano In Its Own Room.