Reviews by Kyle Ellis

As said in my review of Breaking Dawn: Part 1, I am neither a fan or detractor of the Twilight Saga, though in terms of the books I only lasted the first chapter of the first book. Of the movies, for me the best was Eclipse, and the worst New Moon. In terms of Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 I'd say that it is a marginal improvement over Breaking Dawn: Part 1 and ranking the whole saga I'd put it bang in the middle, but for a finale to a film series I found it very underwhelming.

Does it have good points? Yes actually. I did think the scenery was really lovely, very evergreen-looking, and the photography did have some nice shots(some of the zooming though does get too much). I also thought that Breaking Dawn: Part 2 did have the best music score, courtesy of Carter Burwell, of the saga, and that Renesmee was just adorable. There are a few performances that were quite good. Michael Sheen does ham things up but he is gleefully fun to watch, Billy Burke is once again amusing and Ashley Greene is good as Alice. Dakota Fanning is also not too bad, I think an improvement over the previous instalments, but I have seen her give better performances in better movies.

That said, I am still not convinced by the acting of the three leads. I will say though that Kristen Stewart does give her best performance of the series, she does finally crack a smile after looking bored previously, she doesn't mope around as much and she does show some genuine concern regarding Bella's situation. However, and it doesn't help that Bella(in my eyes) is such a dull and unlikeable character, I still didn't find her entirely convincing, her eyes show no signs of life, her face lacks expression and she has a lot of flat line delivery. Robert Pattinson does have some sweet chemistry with her, but he does look constipated a lot and his facial expressions have a tendency to be on the hammy side. They are not that bad though compared to Taylor Lautner, who is unbearably wooden here as Jacob and the constant taking off of his shirt got old quickly.

On top of that, Bill Condon's direction seems rather uninspired. I am familiar with Condon and do find him a promising director/writer who observes things well, Gods and Monsters is one of my favourites, Kinsey is very interesting and Dreamgirls is decent. But there is little of what these things as good as they were on display here, so as like the previous instalment there is the sense that Condon was not in his comfort zone. A lot of things don't help though, as the dialogue continues to be clunky and almost like watching an overly-melodramatic soap opera- especially in the first half where everything is lacking in any kind of intent- and the story is plodding- though the beginning also manages to feel very rushed- in its exposition with scenes dragging on too long and very little that is exciting or surprising. The ending has no real gusto or emotional punch(though actually it still manages to be the highlight of the entire film), the fight scenes are clumsily choreographed, the opening credits go on for far too long and you just don't care for any of the characters.

In regard to the special effects and make-up, they are pretty terrible here. The computer generated wolves manage to be both cheesy and stupid in design and manner and the red glaring contact lenses look dodgy and are more at home in a cartoon. While Renesmee as a baby looks so creepily fake that it is laughable, the be-headings are the equivalent of ripping the head of your favourite toy in a rage and the white greasepaint passing for make-up all looks blotchy and artificial. The closing moments are clichéd and reek of cheese as well, and the vampires are as far away from authentic as you could come. Overall, not the best or worst of the series, but for a saga finale it was underwhelming, where it had potential to go out on a bang it was more of a whimper.

4/10 Bethany Cox

I am neither a Twilight fan or a Twilight detractor. This said, I am indifferent to the franchise. As far as the movies, I still think, coming from someone whose knowledge of the books only comes from my sister being a fan and me reading a chapter of one and putting it down, that the best is Eclipse(not saying much) and New Moon the worst. But that is not a consolation really. Breaking Dawn: Part 1 is not quite among the worst of the year and nowhere near among the worst ever, however it suffers from some major problems that I will get to later in the review.

So what was it that got me seeing Breaking Dawn: Part 1 in the first place? The answer was its director, Bill Condon. I am familiar with his previous films and find him a promising director and writer, finding his films well written, observed and acted. Gods and Monsters is amazing and one of my favourites, Kinsey was interesting and Dreamgirls elevated by the soundtrack and cast was quite decent. Did Condon do a good job directing? For me, I am not sure. I'd say of the four Twilight movies so far Breaking Dawn: Part 1 has the most cinematic feel to it, on the other hand there is not much here that made Condon's previous films so good and I'd go as far to say it is the film of his that engaged me the least.

Are there any redeeming qualities to this instalment? I think so actually. Although there are moments of sloppy editing, I did like the look of the film. At some points it was quite Gothic, and at others it had either an evergreen or autumnal feel to it. The scenery often does look stunning, the effects are okay I guess and the cinematography especially with the close-ups of the back of the wedding dress and the final shot is some of the best of the franchise in my opinion.I also liked Carter Burwell's score. I like Burwell a lot, his music has a hypnotic and quite hauntingly beautiful quality to it. For my tastes though some of the pop tunes are on the insipid side, however the score itself was pleasant with a lot of what I like about Burwell evident.

Much has been said about the sex scene. In all honesty I was expecting it to be of hilariously cheesy quality, but somehow Condon brought a little more subtlety than I was expecting. The last thirty minutes was perhaps the most exciting Breaking Dawn: Part 1 got, as some of does have purpose and intensity, which was something that the first half of the film did not have.There are also two good performances, Billy Burke and Michael Sheen, the latter being another point of interest. Burke as always is amusing with some of the better lines of the film(though is that saying much do you think?), while Sheen, ever the great actor, adopts a menace and magnetism as Aro without overdoing it too much. Ashley Greene is also quite good, if not great.

I have to say I still don't think much of the acting of the central trio. Kristen Stewart is much better than she is in New Moon, with much less of the moping and dead pauses, but some of her line delivery is still awkward and her facial expressions for my tastes are lifeless. It doesn't help though that Bella is a rather dull character.Robert Pattinson has more to do than he did in New Moon and is less hammy than in the first film(the looking into the camera moments brought moments of unintentional laughter when I first went to see Twilight when it came out). As a matter of fact this is perhaps his best performance of the series and he is certainly the best of the central trio, but like Stewart some of the line delivery could've been more inspired.

Taylor Lautner on the other hand is getting worse and worse. He is hunky to be sure, but does that alone make you a good actor? Not to me. I will give credit and say he is better than he was in this year's Abduction, where both the film and performance were awful, but the more dramatic moments from him felt forced and overplayed, and throughout there was a very stilted nature about him. A lot of the problem is to do with the writing. The dialogue in the Twilight franchise never was particularly good, saying this though in terms of written quality this is Twilight at its most banal, its most clunky and its most cheesy. The characters are clichéd and underdeveloped too, and at the end of the day you don't care for anybody. Oh, and the talking wolves were poorly done and unintentionally funny.

The story is very bland and unengaging, not to mention thin structurally and in content. The whole of the first half reads little more than ponderous melodrama. Was the wedding lavish? Yes it was. But it was also plodding and over-extended. The second half fares better, still with the clunky dialogue, uneven acting and cheesy, underdeveloped plot points and characterisations, but as I said the last thirty minutes or so serves as the highlight of the film. But for me what killed the film was the pace. Mind you, I have seen movies with slow pacing, but they are often paced deliberately and with strong meanings, great acting and dialogue and identifiable characters. With little of that here, Breaking Dawn: Part 1 not only is dull and plodding but also uninteresting and without bite.

Overall, despite my admiration for Condon and Sheen, this didn't work. The ending is highly suggestive of a continuation, which I understand is happening. If so, I do hope it will be better than this. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I don't hate the Twilight movies as much as others do, but I don't care for them either. The first was average, the second was pretty poor and the worst so far and while Eclipse is the best yet that isn't saying much. I haven't read the books the movies are based on, apart from a couple of pages of one which didn't spark my interest in reading the rest, but my sister has and likes the books and movies, though she says she likes the books more.

Eclipse does look good. I think the scenery in general is splendid and the cinematography and editing is much better too. The special effects are also an improvement, they don't feel as rushed here. The score is also very nice, courtesy of Howard Shore it is probably the best score in any of the Twilight movies. David Slade also does an above serviceable job directing, Eclipse is by far the best directed movie of the Twilight saga as of now.

However, Eclipse still has the same major problems as the first two did, but not quite as bad. The dialogue is still very clunky, Pattinson and his family have some pretty good lines but Stewart and Lautner's dialogue are quite awkward and in general the delivery is too. The story is more involving than in New Moon, which was not only sluggish but almost a non-event in terms of story, but there is the odd disjointed part particularly in the middle act and in the more "romantic" bits. Stewart and Pattinson have a decent chemistry, but Stewart still looks awkward with Lautner, while the action scenes felt rushed and the pace is still incredibly sluggish especially in the middle.

The acting is very mixed. Pattinson and his family I was fine with this time around, and Bryce Dallas Howard is a welcome addition to the cast as Victoria. Billy Burke while somewhat underused is decent as Charlie as well. Conversely, there are some weak links too. Taylor Lautner does little more than take his shirt off and say some clunky lines, while Kristen Stewart while better than she was in New Moon with a marginally more expressive face gives a rather lacklustre performance as Bella as she does have a whiny delivery here and there are still the awkward pauses between each line.

So overall, it has its strengths but also its weaknesses, but it is watchable and while it could have been a lot better with better scripting and pacing Eclipse is the best so far of the saga. 5/10 Bethany Cox

The first Twilight film was pretty good, while not necessarily being my cup of tea. It wasn't a 5-star masterpiece or anything like that but it was watchable. New Moon was okay, but its many problems make it disappointing too. I am one of those who hasn't read the books, but I have friends and relatives who have and while some say the books are good and the movie keeps to the style if not the details of them others say both the books and films are not good. My sister belongs in the former category, though she remarks that the book New Moon was her least favourite of the series and yes she liked the movie. I didn't like the movie as much as her, it had some good moments but it felt dragged out and unconvincing.

I will say there were some good things. There are some scenes in the film that are quite nicely shot, with some decent cinematography and lush scenery, plus the CGI wolves and the special effects in the fight sequences were fairly impressive to say the least. Secondly, Alexandre Desplat's score did have some pleasant parts to it. I will not say that it is particularly memorable or anything like that, and Desplat has done much better work before, but there are some themes that are very nice, particularly Hearing Damage. About Chris Weitz, initially I thought he was a curious choice for director, as I know him best from The Golden Compass, which I admit was a better film. But while he lacks the style of Catherine Hardwicke, he does a decent if not entirely exceptional job directing.

The quality of the acting was uneven, at best it was decent, at worst it was wooden. Taylor Lautner was not bad at all as Jacob not to mention incredibly hunky and handsome, I could tell he was trying to bring some life and momentum into this film and it showed, and Robert Pattinson was a marginal improvement from the previous outing as Edward. Dakota Fanning despite her role being brief is fine as Jane even if it required a lot of staring. Billy Burke is also amusing as Charlie, his and Lautner's acting came off best. Michael Sheen is a great actor, he was perfect in The Queen, and while he has an intriguing and imposing presence he does have a laugh that is quite irritating, even more irritating than Tom Hulce's laugh in Amadeus. However, I wasn't impressed at all with Kristen Stewart as Bella, her facial expressions are limited and her delivery didn't convince.

Other than Stewart's performance, there are other things wrong. One is that the dialogue is incredibly corny and disjointed. Second, the chemistry between Bella and Edward is non-existent, it is better with her and Jacob but it still feels awkward. Thirdly, the story drags so much, not much happens, and when you think something exciting is going to happen, it is just another dragged out scene. I think the most exciting the film got was some bike stunts and some werewolf-vs-vampire scenes. Fourthly, while the scenery is nice, the editing and transitions from scene to scene was rather choppy. Fifthly, the pacing is quite pedestrian, the first 20 minutes or so were so slow moving I almost bailed out but decided not so as it isn't really fair. Finally, the ending, way too abrupt. When Edward said "Marry me Bella", then pause, then finish, I was like "That's it?" I even re-winded to see if I had missed anything, no I did not.

Overall, it was okay, but it wasn't really my cup of tea. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I didn't think Twilight was a terrible movie as such, but it is not a fantastic one either. I will admit it wasn't my cup of tea, hence my mixed score, but there are redeeming qualities. I haven't read the book, so I can't judge its faithfulness or lack of to the text. I am going to start with the negatives. The dialogue felt very clunky and awkward, and I honestly felt the actors didn't have that much to work with. The plot takes a very long time to get going, and while it gets going, there were parts that felt underdeveloped sadly. And there were a number of bits towards the beginning that were unintentionally funny, and I think that was to do with Robert Pattinson. He is a real heart-throb I know, but his acting came across as rather hammy and even overdone. When me, my family and my sister's boyfriend saw it at the cinema, there was a lot of laughter at the scenes where the character Edward Cullen was staring into the camera. However, there are some good points. Kristen Stewart does give an assured performance in the lead, and Cam Gigandet does give one of the better performances of the movie. The soundtrack was somewhat decent, the camera work was good on the most part, and the scenery was splendid. Overall, I had mixed feelings on Twilight, it wasn't bad or good, just a little on the average side. It was a vampire movie but without the bite. 5/10 Bethany Cox

I had few problems with this film, and I have heard a lot of criticisms saying it is overlong and overrated. True, it is over three hours long, but I was amazed that it goes by so quickly. I don't think it is overrated at all, I think the IMDb rating is perfectly decent. The film looks sumptuous, with gorgeous costumes and excellent effects, and the direction from James Cameron rarely slips from focus. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his best performances as Jack, and Kate Winslet is lovely as Rose. David Warner, a great actor, steals every scene he's in. The story is very rich in detail, and is hot on character development, obvious with the love story which is very moving when it needs to be, though in the first bit of the movie it is a little slow. The last hour is extremely riveting, and I will confess that I was on the edge of my seat, when the Titanic sank. I will also say that the last five minutes were very moving. The music score by James Horner was lovely, though I never was a huge fan of the song My Heart will Go On. The 1996 miniseries was good, but suffered from undeveloped scenarios and some historical inaccuracies. Overall, I give Titanic an 8.5/10. Bethany Cox.