Twilight

User Score
4.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 956 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

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

User Reviews

  1. tb
    Jan 10, 2009
    3
    Most of you guys are retarded. the first half was decent. her school chums were funny. but as soon as they get into the vampires this movie becomes shockingly cheesy and unintentionally funny. the pacing is way, way off. Too slow at first than way, way 2 fast. the bad guy is introduced way 2 late and the climax is way 2 short. this is one of the worst directed movies ive ever seen and one Most of you guys are retarded. the first half was decent. her school chums were funny. but as soon as they get into the vampires this movie becomes shockingly cheesy and unintentionally funny. the pacing is way, way off. Too slow at first than way, way 2 fast. the bad guy is introduced way 2 late and the climax is way 2 short. this is one of the worst directed movies ive ever seen and one of the cheesiest. Expand
  2. Naomi
    May 23, 2009
    3
    The film is crap rob pattinson is a weirdo. I love the books but the movie was sad and boring .
  3. LilyX
    Jul 30, 2009
    3
    Nothing actually happens in this travesty of a film. Gothic romance? You wish! Only 15 yr old girls can find some interest in this boring, banal, undercooked crap with bad acting and laughable dialogues. Oh, at least I laughed out loud in certain points.
  4. CarlyN.
    Nov 21, 2008
    3
    I went with 9 of my friends to see the movie and none of us liked it. We came knowing it would be different from the book but didn't think it'd be that bad. The acting skills of the actors weren't that good, the music didn't fit the scenes, they mixed scenes from the book together....overall it was a big disappointment.
  5. SandiH.
    Nov 21, 2008
    3
    I love the books. The movie was close to it. THE DIRECTOR AND MUSIC STUNK! she made it seem like a complete acid trip, the cinematography was all over the place and crude....and there was never a point in which the music ever STOPPED. or matched the actual scene. and there was an actual montage. and a quote form the Lion King. (yes, really) his sparkling was weak. over all, the director I love the books. The movie was close to it. THE DIRECTOR AND MUSIC STUNK! she made it seem like a complete acid trip, the cinematography was all over the place and crude....and there was never a point in which the music ever STOPPED. or matched the actual scene. and there was an actual montage. and a quote form the Lion King. (yes, really) his sparkling was weak. over all, the director had no idea what the hell she was doing. Expand
  6. DrakeR.
    Nov 21, 2008
    3
    Crapy book. Crappy movie. Plot is cliched and boring. Save your money and see something decent.
  7. PaulaD.
    Nov 22, 2008
    3
    The movie will probably satisfy fans, but will not do much to attract those who have not yet read the book.
  8. DavidH.
    Dec 20, 2008
    3
    Twilight, the film that keeps on giving. But the question is whether the audience wants what this film has to offer. The dialogue is poor at best and utterly atrocious if not. The script feels as if it was written by an 8 year old with a vocabulary of around 25 words: Edward: do you like the rain? Bella: no i don't like the rain, i don't like anything cold and wet (worth noting Twilight, the film that keeps on giving. But the question is whether the audience wants what this film has to offer. The dialogue is poor at best and utterly atrocious if not. The script feels as if it was written by an 8 year old with a vocabulary of around 25 words: Edward: do you like the rain? Bella: no i don't like the rain, i don't like anything cold and wet (worth noting these abysmal actors stutter their way through the lines, straining at an attempt to portray high school love, but frequently missing the mark and just showing themselves to be poor actors) The plot is nonsensical and horrendous, the support cast don't help at all. And did i mention, the dialogue is awful. Gets a three for the scenes which weren't utterly appalling, and for the unintentionally witty lines (see above) and my personal favourite: Edward: hold on spider monkey (aimed at Bella) not spider girl, or spider woman, or even spider lady, no..... spider monkey! Expand
  9. MaureenD.
    Jan 18, 2009
    3
    Book much better. Not enough graphics, her acting not very good and he should of kept his accent. They skipped so much that if you didn't read the book you would be lost. Hope movie 2 has better graphics like Harry Potter did.
  10. PeterKay
    Oct 30, 2009
    3
    This film was really poor, for a vampire film to not use a correct definition of a vampire is a deadly sin; this made the movie as uncompelling to me as possible, there is a difference between innovating and redefining, and twilight crossed the redefining line. A vampire is not a vampire just because it sucks blood; leeches and mosquitos suck blood too. It could of been a lot more This film was really poor, for a vampire film to not use a correct definition of a vampire is a deadly sin; this made the movie as uncompelling to me as possible, there is a difference between innovating and redefining, and twilight crossed the redefining line. A vampire is not a vampire just because it sucks blood; leeches and mosquitos suck blood too. It could of been a lot more appealing with a better cast, Rob said himself in an interview that he wished it had more violence, he's not the right man for the job; someone more sensitive and with a better hold on romance would have been better. I'm finding it hard to find good things to say, but its just too cheesy to comment on, one thing I did like was the small role played by Bella's father(Billy Burke) and Alice(Ashley Greene) but I feel hard to give these value as they are both established actors. Expand
  11. Moebius
    Apr 3, 2009
    3
    Holy... Well, let's stop on this. I haven't seen a Movie! It was just a set of separate (and often ridiculous) scenes, not linked together at all! It's a complete waste of time, money and nerves! Even visuals more like chinese action-movies with all those "rope-jumping"! What's this?! I hate it. Really. P.S. Girls, who watched "this" with me, wasn't excited too. Holy... Well, let's stop on this. I haven't seen a Movie! It was just a set of separate (and often ridiculous) scenes, not linked together at all! It's a complete waste of time, money and nerves! Even visuals more like chinese action-movies with all those "rope-jumping"! What's this?! I hate it. Really. P.S. Girls, who watched "this" with me, wasn't excited too. Who needs movies like this, then? Expand
  12. KeenanS.
    Jun 15, 2009
    3
    The moment I saw a preview of this film, I knew it was going to suck, but I was still willing to give it a chance, so I went and saw it. Wow, it sure did suck. The film is atrocious and fails to deliver anything that a romance or vampire film should have. It has boring, 1-dimensional, cardboard characters who have some of the worst acting abilities (Especially the guy who plays Edward) The moment I saw a preview of this film, I knew it was going to suck, but I was still willing to give it a chance, so I went and saw it. Wow, it sure did suck. The film is atrocious and fails to deliver anything that a romance or vampire film should have. It has boring, 1-dimensional, cardboard characters who have some of the worst acting abilities (Especially the guy who plays Edward) I've ever seen in a film. The dialogue was really bad, thanks to the cliched, hackneyed script. The music soundtrack is horrible, and stands as one of the worst film soundtracks I have ever heard. The CGI effects were utterly appalling, and I've seen better CGI in the 90's. The film also does not meet certain requirements vampire films are supposed to have, such as the fact the vampires sparkle like diamonds in the sunlight. I don't mind if a few things get changed up a bit in a vampire film, but vampires die in sunlight. It's been a requirement for the last few centuries. By the way, whoever says this is the best romance since Romeo and Juliet is an idiot. Expand
  13. RyanM.
    Mar 26, 2009
    3
    Ridiculous. Sappy. Like a bad MTV video or after school special. Really geared for teenage girls.
  14. EnzoP.
    Jul 16, 2009
    3
    Twilight is a very bad movie. While was watching it I felt so weird because every five seconds you see kirsten stewart and robert pattinson staring at each other awkwardly. Just look at the picture on the top of the page. Although it did keep my interest through out the movie.
  15. AlexG.
    Dec 27, 2008
    3
    This movie, along with the book, was not all that great. I found it annoying that there was no background for the characters and that Bella did not do or say things that a normal person would. Also, the so-called vampires in this movie were nothing but people who were strong and people who could fly. What happened to the vampires that suck humans' blood and can't go out in This movie, along with the book, was not all that great. I found it annoying that there was no background for the characters and that Bella did not do or say things that a normal person would. Also, the so-called vampires in this movie were nothing but people who were strong and people who could fly. What happened to the vampires that suck humans' blood and can't go out in sunlight. Twilight recieves far more praise than it deserves and is one of the worst movies of 2008. Expand
  16. Aug 23, 2010
    3
    It would be a great mistake to call this picture "vampire movie". Vampires here are quite phony since they don't drink blood. I don't know if it is bad acting or whether romance is supposed to be so slow and passionless between vegetarian vampire and gloomy girl, but I can't see a single spark between them even when they're kissing. Characters' actions are full of incoherence. How doesIt would be a great mistake to call this picture "vampire movie". Vampires here are quite phony since they don't drink blood. I don't know if it is bad acting or whether romance is supposed to be so slow and passionless between vegetarian vampire and gloomy girl, but I can't see a single spark between them even when they're kissing. Characters' actions are full of incoherence. How does Edward, according to some girl's evidence quite desired by most of schoolgirls, fall in love with some girl who seems to have dyslexia? I don't believe that his feelings are based on her smell solely. Why on earth evil blood-drinking vampires are so hostile? Smell again? And let alone poorly made supernatural jumps and combat scene. I practically can see strings attached to their bodies. Expand
  17. May 22, 2012
    3
    Bad acting, cheesy moments (super cheesy), lack of chemistry in love scenes and not having the true spirit of a true vampire is all I can say. You would not even classify this as a vampire movie because vampires in this movie are rarely drinking blood and rarely bites people. Overall, the film is boring and bad. They did redeem just a little bit in New Moon and Eclipse (from a score of 3 to 4).
  18. Dec 19, 2011
    3
    This is a very horrendous move. A pretty predicatble plot, and bad acting and a stupid story (do we need more vampire romances in the world?) I just want to punch the direct in the face.
  19. Jan 7, 2012
    3
    It had a few decent moments in it, but overall this movie just bored the hell out of me. The romance wasn't moving at all, that best fight scene mtv awarded battle with edward and that one wolf was 2 minutes of basically epic shoving. why the hell do so many people like this movie? Its like over 2 hours long and it just drags on.......blah blah oh hes a vampire.....blah blah blah of i'mIt had a few decent moments in it, but overall this movie just bored the hell out of me. The romance wasn't moving at all, that best fight scene mtv awarded battle with edward and that one wolf was 2 minutes of basically epic shoving. why the hell do so many people like this movie? Its like over 2 hours long and it just drags on.......blah blah oh hes a vampire.....blah blah blah of i'm suddenly magically in love with you edward..... i gave it an honest chance, and it made a chuckle here and there, thought it was kinda creative at times but overall im just watching this like, wait a minute? why the **** is this vampire glowing in the sun? Plus Bella should've been hotter. seriously they get a mega pretty boy i guess for the vampire because girls wont shut up about him, but for bella we got an actress whose a 8 of 10 at best. lol. Expand
  20. Dec 15, 2012
    3
    One of the worst sagas ever made.
  21. Aug 10, 2014
    3
    Twilight has laughable performances that are so bad they're almost good. It is unbelievably silly, but it is an atmospheric movie, with a directorial style and an excellent musical score.
  22. Jan 14, 2015
    3
    The only reason this film exists is to get the girls screaming for more, Twilight is absolute garbage and it baffles me on how big this movie's fan base is.
  23. AdrianaS.
    Nov 27, 2008
    2
    the movie quite frankly sucked! i wa expecting more... i mean the books r fantastic and then this movie flopped. But some how it is still making millions (which i do not understand) Too many scenes were changed and added. it went to slow and all they did was stare at each other.. no flirting or "i love you" moments like in the books. It sucked.
  24. RuthJ
    Jan 12, 2009
    2
    I am a big fan of the book (and hot vampires) but OMG this movie was awful!! The negative reviews I read beforehand weren't nearly harsh enought to prepare me! The opening scene of one of the Vamps hunting a deer showed promise, but the first 20 minutes of "dialogue" (was there actually a script or were they just winging it?) forced me out of the theater somewhere around the I am a big fan of the book (and hot vampires) but OMG this movie was awful!! The negative reviews I read beforehand weren't nearly harsh enought to prepare me! The opening scene of one of the Vamps hunting a deer showed promise, but the first 20 minutes of "dialogue" (was there actually a script or were they just winging it?) forced me out of the theater somewhere around the "I'll have a garden burger" moment. I'm not sure if it was really the acting (hello B-list) or the director trying to jam in insignificant book details rather than taking time to build suspence and character depth. Edward's tempted and tortured moment in biology class just looked like a five-year-old that had to pee?! I had to re-watch Harry Potter to remind myself that he really is a decent actor. I vote 2 - in the event that it got better sometime after I gave up. Expand
  25. DanR
    May 1, 2009
    2
    I like to think of myself asa movie buf so I decided to give this movie a fair go, I read the book and decided it got a 5 out of 10 because it is not written that well and the same thing goes for this movie. They tried to change a classic horror element, Vampires, like what the remake of dawn of the dead did to zombies but while dawn of the ead was good this failed. Poorly made, little to I like to think of myself asa movie buf so I decided to give this movie a fair go, I read the book and decided it got a 5 out of 10 because it is not written that well and the same thing goes for this movie. They tried to change a classic horror element, Vampires, like what the remake of dawn of the dead did to zombies but while dawn of the ead was good this failed. Poorly made, little to no prodution values and just a ciomplet lack of what makes a movie good. Expand
  26. RoseW.
    Nov 22, 2008
    2
    The movie did exactly what Vampires do, suck. The only reason it made as much money as it did is because of their millions of loyal fans who have read the book plus the girls who have swooned over Pattinson since his appearance in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Overall, the film is funny, though unintentional, and has ruined the idea and fear people have had for vampires for many The movie did exactly what Vampires do, suck. The only reason it made as much money as it did is because of their millions of loyal fans who have read the book plus the girls who have swooned over Pattinson since his appearance in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Overall, the film is funny, though unintentional, and has ruined the idea and fear people have had for vampires for many generations of young tween girls. Expand
  27. Joe
    Nov 22, 2008
    2
    Terrible acting... people in the theatre were laughing at the acting.
  28. adrianav
    Nov 24, 2008
    2
    this movie was verry porly made, the acting was not the best, the makeup looked obviously way overdone. it looked like a low budget film. the setting was not belevable. I beleve that the director does not demand more of the actors, because when you have a demanding director you can get the worst actors to look like the best. the story draged on too long, and felt boring, the vampires actedthis movie was verry porly made, the acting was not the best, the makeup looked obviously way overdone. it looked like a low budget film. the setting was not belevable. I beleve that the director does not demand more of the actors, because when you have a demanding director you can get the worst actors to look like the best. the story draged on too long, and felt boring, the vampires acted way too depressing, and sure a little depresing is okay but they way over did it. in one ocassin I saw the main character who is not suposed to be in derect sunlight ouside in a cloud free sunny day,their is no way that this group of teenagers could have gone to a normal school without raising some crazy suspicions. alot of girls went to see the movie, but it was the book that made them go. Expand
  29. HeatherJackson
    Nov 24, 2008
    2
    A lot of build up and a BIG let down!!! I have read all four books and I was really disappointed!!! The acting was terrible, there was no real connection between the two main characters(Edward and Bella). The almost love scene was cheesy and the makeup and special effects were awful. Don't waste the money for a ticket.
  30. EC
    Dec 11, 2008
    2
    The only things that I felt was good in the movie, was the music and the laughs. Edward, Jasper, Alice, Bella and Jacob all looked.. wrong. The acting was okay at best and the scenes where the vampire used their 'superpowers' were horrible.
Metascore
56

Mixed or average reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 37
  2. Negative: 2 out of 37
  1. 63
    Twilight will mesmerize its target audience, 16-year-old girls and their grandmothers. Their mothers know all too much about boys like this.
  2. Reviewed by: Justin Chang
    50
    A disappointingly anemic tale of forbidden love that should satiate the pre-converted but will bewilder and underwhelm viewers who haven't devoured Stephenie Meyer's bestselling juvie chick-lit franchise.
  3. 50
    In the 17-million-copy land of "Twilight," the calling card isn't blood and fangs, but the exquisite, shimmering quiver of unconsummated first love. By that measure, the movie version gives really good swoon.