User Score
4.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 380 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 17, 2011
    4
    With still the incredibly weak performances, and still unintentionally funny moments( basically most of the film) make this the worst written yet, but boy is it entertaining. I give this film a 38% of a good movie.
  2. Mar 14, 2011
    3
    This movie was bad. This was the first twilight movie I saw. A lot of wooden, sometimes hammy, acting, dumb love scenes, terrible script, average special effects, and a bad story with bad characters. I do not recommend that you see this movie.
  3. Aug 13, 2010
    0
    The majority of teenage girls and I, do not see eye-to-eye on entertainment. They enjoy things like One Tree Hill, pop music, and whatever is on MTV while they're sitting in-front of the television. Things that promote superficiality, melodrama and self-absorption. Twilight is yet another of these things. It's badly written, terribly acted, superficial, and worst-of-all, boring as hell. IThe majority of teenage girls and I, do not see eye-to-eye on entertainment. They enjoy things like One Tree Hill, pop music, and whatever is on MTV while they're sitting in-front of the television. Things that promote superficiality, melodrama and self-absorption. Twilight is yet another of these things. It's badly written, terribly acted, superficial, and worst-of-all, boring as hell. I cannot say enough bad things about this, and the fact that this has become as popular a fad as it has, makes me want to die a slow agonizing death from cancer just to get my mind off of it. This isn't receiving a 0 because "I'm a guy and guys just hate Twilight because girls enjoy it". This is getting a 0 because it is truly earned, by a movie (and book) that have no thought put into beyond the characters appearances. There is nothing redeemable to list here. Expand
  4. Aug 14, 2010
    4
    It's teeny-bopper sheen, abs, and amateurish writing obscures what could have been a good movie. It's too bad the plot centers around a love triangle and romantic lines that would make George Lucas cringe.
  5. Aug 22, 2010
    0
    I've just started to write a script which will make me millionaire. Here's the recipe; dig out a few Mills & Boon romantic trash novels (3 in all), re-write the romantic hero as a cutesy-wootsey werewolf, who upon the sight of a full moon enjoys to nothing more than to roll-over and have his belly tickled. Enter the romantic anti-hero who doesn't admire having his belly tickled so much,I've just started to write a script which will make me millionaire. Here's the recipe; dig out a few Mills & Boon romantic trash novels (3 in all), re-write the romantic hero as a cutesy-wootsey werewolf, who upon the sight of a full moon enjoys to nothing more than to roll-over and have his belly tickled. Enter the romantic anti-hero who doesn't admire having his belly tickled so much, but rather prefers gnawing at a butcher's bone and terrifying stray kittens of an evening. Let one cute human, kitten-owning teen to be a the centre of a love triangle between said doe-eyed-beasties. Put together a cast of good-looking young people to populate the families, friends and townsfolk of this fictional village. Don't let any of the protagonists kiss until the very last 10 minutes of the final movie in order to maintain a high level of suspense among the female, pre-teen audience. Expand
  6. Aug 23, 2010
    1
    i have to admit i haven't read the books, and i watched the movies just to know what's everyone so crazy about. but this movie was super-boring. it wasn't as horrible as new moon, but the acting almost made me cry with frustration. i mean, they get paid soooo much money for this??? i just don't understand why the movies are such a big hit. it has nothing we haven't seen before!!! littlei have to admit i haven't read the books, and i watched the movies just to know what's everyone so crazy about. but this movie was super-boring. it wasn't as horrible as new moon, but the acting almost made me cry with frustration. i mean, they get paid soooo much money for this??? i just don't understand why the movies are such a big hit. it has nothing we haven't seen before!!! little advice, read anne rice, watch true blood, coz that's about real vampires. this is just a pile of crap. thank gods i'm not stupid enough to pay to see this garbage Expand
  7. Feb 8, 2011
    0
    While the other two Twilight movies were bad, this one sets a new low by having the least interesting plot, meaning it was so bad, I would've given this movie a -5 if metacritic let us do it.
  8. Dec 29, 2010
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Okay, seriously? This is what some people consider to be a good film? This is what people were up at midnight to see? You gotta pray for humanity, even if you don't believe in God. Okay, opening rant aside, lets move onto the actual film review. This films plot is less stupid than New Moon. Here, it's basically Newborn Vampires VS The Cullens and Jacobs Pack. The problem with that is that the Newborns are hugely anticipated and so built up, but, the fight lasts barely a minute, and they don't even do damage against the good guys. Bella's a **** There she is stringing Jacob along, when we all know she'll choose Edward over him. Heck, they're discussing him turning her at the beginning of the film. Poor Jacob, his heart being played like some toy. The dialogue was crap. This is an actual piece of dialogue. Charlie Swan: What's going on? Jacob Black: [pause] I kissed Bella. [pause] Jacob Black: And she broke her hand. [pause] Jacob Black: Punching my face. [pause] Jacob Black: It was a complete misunderstanding. Whoever wrote dialogue like that probably wrote for Andromeda. The troubling thing is that in the theater I was in, people actually laughed at that dialogue. They'd probably have laughed if someone just got up their and jingled a bunch of keys. And we're supposed to believe that Bella and Edward are in love? They have as much chemistry as a rapist and his victim. And Edward still looks like a **** with his pale ass face, his disco ball impressions in the sunlight and hair being 95% gel I will add one positive thing: Bryce Dallas Howard and Ashley Greene are beautiful! Thats the only good thing I can say about this piece of crapola. To close this review, If you see a twilight fan who calls this the best film of the year, do the right thing. Slap them over the head, give them a copy of Nosferatu, Dracula, Near Dark or 30 days of night and hope they get immerssed into a REAL vampire movie Expand
  9. Oct 27, 2010
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw it with my girlfriend and she's really into this stuff (vampires etc.). Maybe that's why I found this film a little bit frivolous. I don't mind if someone like it - it's his stuff. But please, I don't wanna hear about it all time. When will the new Twilight movie hit the cinemas? Really, I don't care Expand
  10. Mar 10, 2011
    2
    More generic sparkly vampire nonsense that doesn't deserve your attention. Despite being a flavour of the month thing, where vampires are periodically "cool" again for a month or two, this movie caters for screaming fangirls and nothing else, please avoid if you are over the age of 13
  11. Jun 10, 2011
    1
    One of the most boring movies I've ever seen... one of the worst actresses I've ever seen seriously the girl really needs some acting classes. They sell the Lautner boy like a piece of meat is always half naked =___=. Pattinson acting is about 30/100. The "great final fight" is lame, MORE THAN LAME, for me this movie sucks. The only point I'm giving is for the character of "Alice" wich IOne of the most boring movies I've ever seen... one of the worst actresses I've ever seen seriously the girl really needs some acting classes. They sell the Lautner boy like a piece of meat is always half naked =___=. Pattinson acting is about 30/100. The "great final fight" is lame, MORE THAN LAME, for me this movie sucks. The only point I'm giving is for the character of "Alice" wich I found interesting. Expand
  12. Jul 20, 2011
    1
    How many more Twilight films must they make before they finally realize that they are creating an abomination of a franchise? Although Eclipse is better than its two predecessors, which is hardly saying anything, it continues its dull and lifeless story with very poor acting, dull imagery and a totally boring characters. Three films, three flops. This is getting ridiculous.
  13. Mar 8, 2014
    3
    Just because of a slight improvement, the "Twilight" series won't win over much more fans. Once again, we have a bland script and terrible acting.
  14. Nov 12, 2012
    3
    This new dose of vampire mush for puss:es is the worst load yet. It offers no payoff at the end, and not even any highlights throughout its duration. The plot literally flatlines after the first frame.
  15. Max
    Aug 20, 2010
    4
    There's something highly appealing to the Twilight saga, though I can't put my finger on it. The characters are wooden, the plot is laughable, and the direction is uninspired. Yet I found myself enjoying Eclipse much more than the first two, but not for reasons the filmmakers would hope. It's a terrible film, but thoroughly enjoyable if you're in the right mood. Look for all of theThere's something highly appealing to the Twilight saga, though I can't put my finger on it. The characters are wooden, the plot is laughable, and the direction is uninspired. Yet I found myself enjoying Eclipse much more than the first two, but not for reasons the filmmakers would hope. It's a terrible film, but thoroughly enjoyable if you're in the right mood. Look for all of the intentional and unintentional double-entendres; their inclusion, no matter how immature they may be, are the most enjoyable thing about this movie. Expand
  16. Nov 16, 2010
    4
    Parts 2 and 3 of the saga would be terrible if they weren't hilarious in their awfulness. The novels are poorly written tripe, a cut below Barbara Cartland-style romances and that doesn't help things. The movie version accentuates the lack of structure, pacing, unity, rhyme and reason. There's also a pack of Mononoke-huge wolves so that's a plus. Also, no comedy in tha last three year madeParts 2 and 3 of the saga would be terrible if they weren't hilarious in their awfulness. The novels are poorly written tripe, a cut below Barbara Cartland-style romances and that doesn't help things. The movie version accentuates the lack of structure, pacing, unity, rhyme and reason. There's also a pack of Mononoke-huge wolves so that's a plus. Also, no comedy in tha last three year made me laugh as much as Twilight trilogy and although it was unintentionally funny, I respect funny. So... go Bianca and Godfrey and Jimbo, whatever your names are! Expand
  17. Nov 19, 2010
    4
    Drop the act, people. Eclipse is utter modern vampire love fantasy. Every moment is padded with tacky lines and subpar acting, and had it not been for a couple of entertaining scenes in the last 30 minutes, the whole two hours wouldâ
  18. Aug 20, 2010
    4
    Love all the parts in the film without Bella and Edward being lovey dovey. Jacob is better in the book. Argh. The scenes for the supporting characters are definitely interesting and the highlight of the film
  19. Sep 26, 2010
    3
    "Is it better than New Moon?" After viewing The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, this was the first question asked by most people, and the answer is "Yes.", but that doesn't mean that Eclipse is good.
    The third outing into Forks, Washington retreads much of the same ground as the first two films, Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) are both still fighting for Bella's (Kristen
    "Is it better than New Moon?" After viewing The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, this was the first question asked by most people, and the answer is "Yes.", but that doesn't mean that Eclipse is good.
    The third outing into Forks, Washington retreads much of the same ground as the first two films, Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) are both still fighting for Bella's (Kristen Stewart) love, which leads to discussions like, "I want to be a vampire. But you shouldn't become a vampire. I want to have sex. We shouldn't have sex until we're married. I like the cold vampire and the warm wolf, why can't they just get along?" Of course we know there's also going to be a battle, either between vampires and wolves, vampires and vampires, or a mix of vampires, wolves, and more vampires. There's more shirtless abs too, Edward even asks Bella at one point, "Doesn't he own a shirt?"
    If you can sit through all this, there is about 45 minutes of worthwhile footage, mostly consisting of Jasper Hale (Jackson Rathbone) or Charlie Swan (Billy Burke). Bella's loving father, Charlie, is his usual comic-relief self, and he maintains and like-able presence while remaining concerned for Bella's well-being. Every scene with Charlie is enjoyable. Jasper is a different animal altogether, as the most mysterious, and unpredictable, of the Cullen coven, Jasper finally comes out of his shell to show that, (surprise, surprise) Jackson Rathbone can act. Rathbone never comes across cheesy or lame, and he delivers his sub-par lines in such a way that we focus not on what he's saying, but how he says it.
    Another bonus in this installment of The Twilight Saga, are the featured back-stories of select members of the Cullen coven. Up til now, Edward's the only one graced with a "How I became a teenage vampire" story, and it's not just the low temperature bloodsuckers who have a history lesson to share, we also learn a little history of the Quil wolf tribe.
    The actors are slightly better this time around and deliver less cringe-worthy moments. The dialogue is still uninspired, but I can't blame the director, David Slade (check out his film Hard Candy (2005), to see what he's capable of when he has a good script and actors). In Eclipse, Dakota Fanning is still shaping up to become the next Meryl Streep, I hope to see more than a few stares and harsh words from her in the next two films. Ashley Greene, my other favorite actress in the film, who plays the future seeing vampire, Alice, isn't in many scenes, but she's great, as always, in her few moments on-screen. Although I wasn't thrilled with Rachelle Lefevre in the first two films as Victoria, the red-head vamp who's set on ridding the Earth of Bella, she was a better fit than Bryce Dallas Howard, who, although a good actress, doesn't have the qualities needed to pull off the heartless soulless creature bent on destruction and revenge.
    David Slade uses more static and wide shots, giving the viewer more to chew on and allowing them to take in the scene as well as the moment. On the down side several hand-held scenes were too shaky, not The Blair Witch Project (1999) or Cloverfield (2008) shaky, but it gets annoying. The CGI wolves had been vastly improved, yet still possessed an air of cartoonish quality, making them less believable in some scene.
    There will never be a better score for any Twilight film than that of Carter Burwell, the masterful composer behind the score of the first film (you may recognize his talent from the Coen Brothers films, Fargo (1996), No Country For Old Men (2007), and Burn After Reading (2008)). Despite this, Howard Shore brings the score back from the depths it sank to in New Moon to a more acceptable level in Eclipse. Even the songs this time around work better in their scenes.
    Eclipse isn't the Twilight film I'd hoped for, but the moments that weren't filled with Bella, Edward, and Jacob drama were decent. Plus, I now have a new actor to keep an eye on.
    Expand
  20. Jan 1, 2011
    4
    It's hard to review this movie without mentioning the other two. But I will start by saying this movie is an improvement over the last. And on par with the first. The vampire clan are a really cool set of characters that have some depth. The shapeshifters really need to find a shirt. But they aren't terrible. This movie boast some very impressive fight scenes and Alice and Victoria, thisIt's hard to review this movie without mentioning the other two. But I will start by saying this movie is an improvement over the last. And on par with the first. The vampire clan are a really cool set of characters that have some depth. The shapeshifters really need to find a shirt. But they aren't terrible. This movie boast some very impressive fight scenes and Alice and Victoria, this time played by Bryce Dallas Howard, look really hot. There're are a few conversations in the movie that made me laugh too. So why the 4, Bella. The whole crappy story is about the most boring and uninteresting charactor in the movie. Why should I or anyone care about who she ends up with? And everything that she said and did was just annoying. This movie is a teenage girls fantasy and I guess that's who I have to be to enjoy it. Expand
  21. May 24, 2012
    4
    No improvements from the last movie. The plot is still weird and ridiculous. Taylor Lautner is still acting funny rather than dramatic. It still has scenes that doesn't have depth. It still lacks excitement. And it is still a book series that wasn't meant to be a movie.....
  22. Aug 29, 2011
    0
    It sucks. I hate it. Anyways, me and my friend made a bet. We are going to see Breaking Dawn Part 1 and see how fast it takes me to puke. Who ever loses has to buy the winner a burger from a restaurant. WISH ME LUCK!
  23. Jan 22, 2012
    2
    Woof! This movie is so bad, so poorly written, directed, and acted, that it's actually....good? No, never. It's horrible. This whole universe of lore is so ludicrous it borders on blasphemy. Vampires sparkle & they can reproduce thru intercourse? Werewolves imprint on their soulmate? And at the center of this world is a mysteriously special "woe is me" dullard female who takes 3Woof! This movie is so bad, so poorly written, directed, and acted, that it's actually....good? No, never. It's horrible. This whole universe of lore is so ludicrous it borders on blasphemy. Vampires sparkle & they can reproduce thru intercourse? Werewolves imprint on their soulmate? And at the center of this world is a mysteriously special "woe is me" dullard female who takes 3 movies to choose between the jock werewolf and the sparkly emo vampire.

    I give it a 2 for comedic value.
    Expand
  24. Jun 24, 2012
    4
    Bella, just get a life or end it. We are all just done. Kind of visually stunning film. That's pretty much I and everyone else can say...

    Also Bella, it wouldn't hurt to surprise us all with a different facial expression...maybe?
  25. Dec 8, 2012
    4
    Almost everything about this film was a major improvement upon the first two installments, but I had a real hard time getting into this one; I found it to be slow, uneventful, and surprisingly boring.
  26. Oct 24, 2013
    3
    'The Twilight Saga: Eclipse' basically consists of some people laying in a tent and communicating through poor acting and a lackluster screenplay that they are cold and at the climax a big tree falls. That's all that happens. Nonetheless, its better than its predecessor.
  27. Aug 1, 2014
    4
    While it could've been far worse than what the audience was expecting, "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" is still a failure in cinematic terms and only devoted fanboys/fangirls will find satisfaction.
  28. Aug 1, 2014
    2
    "Eclipse" is nothing more than a b-movie supporting the vampire trend "Twilight" has started. Not the worst film of the year, though, but pretty silly and unnecessary. It is visually impressive, at least.
Metascore
58

Mixed or average reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. It took three films, but The Twilight Saga finally nails just the right tone in Eclipse, a film that neatly balances the teenage operatic passions from Stephenie Meyer's novels with the movies' supernatural trappings.
  2. Reviewed by: Peter Debruge
    80
    Employing a bigger budget, better effects and an edgier director ("Hard Candy's" David Slade), Eclipse focuses on what works -- the stars.
  3. 50
    The movie contains violence and death, but not really very much. For most of its languorous running time, it listens to conversations between Bella and Edward, Bella and David, Edward and David, and Edward and Bella and David. This would play better if any of them were clever conversationalists, but their ideas are limited to simplistic renderings of their desires.