A Bit Long in the Tooth

I was also very disappointed the first time I saw the movie. I did, however, go back for a second go around and this time I found myself enjoying the movie. There are, of course, things that they could have done much better, but over all the second time around was a much better experience. I agree - the tension- between Edward and Bella is not at all really depicted in the movie and the viewers are left trying to figure it out. If you had not read the book many of those moments are lost. Case in point- the scene where Edward first encounters Bella's scent in the chemistry lab..... the book goes into great detail of Edwards feelings and his reactions to that single second of time- you get the full impact of what that moment means to him, the many thoughts going thru his mind.....how he moved as far away from her as possible and how he clenched the table-clenched it so hard that he had sawdust in his hand........ Only showing him covering his mouth....and a funny look on his face- the viewer was lost at what that moment actually meant for Edward. There were many such moments in the book that are lost to the viewer who only saw the movie- the humor of the book is also lost to the viewer. I feel that the director missed a great chance to show more depth to the characters and missed it by a long shot. I hope that "New Moon" will be a much better show.

Any adults out there who found themselves practically obsessed with the Twilight series are in for a big, old-fashioned let down from the movie I'm afraid. While the books were almost painfully sexual due mostly to the complete lack of sex, the movie gives us none of that tension. I was totally disappointed, and still am a bit because I was so excited to see it all on the big screen.

After reading Twilight, I got addicted to the series and I am now reading the 3rd installment. The books are great, I will have to see how the film franchise fares out in comaprison......

I just finished reading Twilight and I thought it was GREAT I'm looking forward to seeing it on the big screen.

IThe best vampires these days are those in anime. Vampire Hunter D, Hellsing, etc. This "Twilight" stuff just sucks.

Stephenie Meyer transformed the mythos of deadly, seductive monsters into a fad for teenagers.
Sparkling vampires? Great way to attract teenagers... Bram Stoker must be rolling in his grave right now...

Okay, twilight actually was one of my favorite series, but I enjoy not the goryness but the historical attributes of vampires, the more sensitive sides. Everyone has seen the "Must kill, must destroy" sides of vampires, and now....now they're stepping out into the sunlight, truth be told. Its a new decade, time for a new change. . It's not really that they didn't stick to the steriotypes....they just completely distorted and turned them into something much, much, MUCH stranger than any other vampire novels. Even I didn't understand the 'Glittering" part, but hey, its not like YOU wrote the book, so either deal with it or go and write your own, instead of criticizing other people's writing. Get it?

I appreciated Stephenie Meyers vampires because she did what no one else has done. No one can say for sure what a vampire should or should not be..."we" (meaning humans) created these mythological creatures...so who is to say that they shouldn't be able to go out during the day...or try to live as normally as they can...I enjoyed reading Twilight because it gave a new twist to the legends and wasn't the same mundane unoriginal story telling.

Twiliight was good, but I have to say that the best Vampire movie I've seen is Underworld...and it's sequel. It stuck more to the 'vampire' qualities and didn't add stupid stuff like sparkling in the sunlight. Vampires are supposed afraid of the sun because they can burn, not look like someone threw glitter on them. Don't get me wrong, the Twilight series is good, gives a new twist on Vampires...but I like the blood sucking, goryness better.

I don't know about "Twilight". Vampires are supposed to be scary, blood-sucking undead/immortals, not "boyfriend material". What's going to be next? A movie with Werewolves as cuddly pets or Mummies as loving foster parents? Give me a break. I prefer the vampires in "40 Days of Night". That's what vampires should be.

Vampires aren't supposed to be "boyfriend" material. They're supposed to be scary, bloodsucking monsters. I prefer the vampires in "40 Days of Night". Now that's a vampire movie.

NO COMPETITION-----Frank Langella was THE most sexy gorgeous "Dracula" back in the 70's flick!

Without a doubt Frank Langella was THE best 'Dracula'! He was SO sexy and georgeos!

I simply love Twilight

Edward does not fly. And I prefer vicious, animalistic predators to sparkly immortals with no fangs any day.

Edward does not fly. And I prefer vicious, animalistic predators to sparkly immortals with no fangs any day.

Yeah right... "Just the vampire we want." A total wuss.

As an avid horror fan, I'm sick of vampires being portrayed as mamby-pamby emo babies. I thought Anne Rice's vamps were bad... But these "Twilight" vampires take things to a new low. Vampires are supposed to be cutthroat monsters of the night, not brooding perpetual teenagers. Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Orlock in "Shadow of the Vampire," or Lance Heinriksen's clan of rugged desert-dwelling bloodsuckers in "Near Dark" are what vampires are all about. They have their positive aspects, allowing the audience to empathize with them. But, ultimately, they are monsters and they can't escape what they are. Heck, even the wannabe-David-Bowie depiction of Dracula in "Dracula II: Ascension" looks tough compared to this weak, "I'm so sensitive" B.S. that's littering theaters. I miss the days where movie monsters were monsters, and not niced-up PC shadows of what once was. Screw Twilight and its lame vampires!

Check out the Gypsy Vampire on youtube and on line for a real Vampire story.