The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (12A)

Film

Thrillers

Twilight Eclipse.jpg

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong>2/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong>3/5
Rate this  

Time Out says

Fri Jul 2 2010

Having cut his fangs on tween revenger ‘Hard Candy’ and inventive bloodsucker ‘30 Days of Night’, could director David Slade kick off a ‘Harry Potter’-like reinvigoration of the ‘Twilight’ series? Well, sort of: ‘Eclipse’ is a step up from the painfully anaemic ‘New Moon’, and it’s clearly the work of a filmmaker keen to put his own stamp on the series. But Slade is constrained at every turn by the sheer, crushing lifelessness of author Stephenie Meyer’s material.

‘Eclipse’ barely advances the story at all: we’re still stuck in the town of Forks, where moody heroine Bella  (Kristen Stewart) is forced to choose between undead love-of-her-life Edward (Robert Pattinson) and musclebound werewolf Jacob (Taylor Lautner). There are lots of other characters – silly names are dropped with dizzying regularity – but none of them actually seem to do very much.

Slade directs with  flair: his action sequences, though small in scale, have real drive, and a series of surprisingly grim Civil War flashbacks enable him to utilise a different visual palette from the usual drab greens and greys.

But he can’t disguise the massive flaws inherent in the screenplay: the slipshod plotting, whiny, self-serious tone and excruciating abstinence-first subplot. The biggest problem remains the characters: neither Slade nor Stewart are capable of turning manipulative whinger Bella  into anything more than a joyless black hole sucking the life from every scene, while the only performer capable of giving her part any spark, Anna Kendrick, is completely sidelined this time around. Strictly for Twihards.
63

Comments

Add +

Release details

Rated:

12A

UK release:

Fri Jul 9 2010

Duration:

124 mins

Share your thoughts
  1. * mandatory fields

Comments & ratings

Rated as: 3/5 (39 ratings)
  • Thought this was much better than the 2nd film. I watched twice, once with my girlfriends who are all Twihard fans, and then with my boyfriend (27, and very reluctabnt to go, had to be bribed) He was actually pleasantly surprised and has asked if he can come with me and my girls when the fourth film is released. It has a solid story and is fast-paced. Ignoring the 'love triangle' (there clearly isn't one, Jacob is never going to get Bella, lets be honest) i really enjoyed the new characters, the sometimes scary undertones and the impressive visual imagery. Also want to point out that to those who have invested a lot of time in reading the books and watching the films, the flashbacks of Jasper and Rosalie are really rewarding - it's nice for some of the other characters to have some depth. One last thing - I would never have picked Stewart to play Bella, she distracts me with her constant stammering/pausing/twitching. Having watched interviews with the actress, this is not actually acting, she is like that in reality.

    Rosalie (Bahahaha) Thu Aug 19 2010
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • the books are better than the films they got mor deitail in them but the films are equally as amazing no 1 was good no 2 was shit no 3 was amazing !!

    darcie xxx Wed Aug 18 2010
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • Twilight 1 good, 2 ok, 3 shit? Still not with you. But I sincerely hope the next ones are a revelation. but then again........so what if they aint!

    scrumpyjack Sun Aug 15 2010
    Report
  • Foe example I'm a Saw fan, 4 was a 1 star film but I love the rest. I liked Twilight 2, thought it was very good, I thought 1 was ok, bit boring, 3 was rushed I think, but I'm curious to see how it ends! I'm open to almost all movies, except chick flix of course! lol

    Thomas Noctor Sun Aug 15 2010
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • so 4star out of 5

    amy Sun Aug 15 2010
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • awsomeee the last one im sorry but it was sh*t and so was the one before that but this one wassss fabbb still not quite 5 starr xx sorry

    Amy Sun Aug 15 2010
    Report
  • You sure aint offended me, T.Nocter. Im just curious why a 1 star film would inspire you to want to see more - unless the first two were at LEAST very good, which we can all agree, they wern't. For example, Transformers was ok, No.2 was totally dreadful (*) so, unless Trans 3 attracts 4 & 5 star reviews (i'll eat my hat!) I never would contemplate seeing another in the series. However, Twilight 1,2 & 3 are all acceptably entertaining so, while im not champing at the bit to see the next one, I wont view it with trepidation. If these films were ok then ok then shit, no further viewing required, surly?

    scrumpyjack Sun Aug 15 2010
    Report
  • I apologise if I offended any fans here, I'm sorry, I do like the series it's why I go to the movies! I just didn't like this one, sorry guys!

    Thomas Noctor Sat Aug 14 2010
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • why is my name in capitals? all i did was hyphenate thomas noctor. and its not reaaly a review thomas, its more of your opinion.

    -poppyrosee Sat Aug 14 2010
    Report
  • POPPYROSE, YES, Thomas Nocter CAN "slag it off...." THOMAS NOCTER , why would you want to see the last 2 movies if you have given this a one star? I gave it ** as i find them kinda enjoyable in a one off view way....but ONE star indicates total crap, which this isnt. Relative crap? yes...Total Crap? no. I think if the series is of ANY further interest to you a minimum of 2 star is more apt, if youre honest.

    scrumpyjack Sat Aug 14 2010
    Report
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  • Hotwise
  • Cool brands
  • Star