Montgomery Blair High School's Online Student Newspaper
Monday, July 16, 2018 6:22 pm
Nov. 21, 2011

Can't wait until sunset

by Liv Jacobson, Online Entertainment Editor
Brooding music begins to play, and the crowd hushes with the hope that the fourth "Twilight" movie will be as good as the last few. Jacob (Taylor Lautner) runs out of his house with his shirt off, turns into a werewolf and the crazy mob of girls in the audience goes wild. Their ear-piercing screams, unfortunately, are probably the most entertaining part of the hour and half long movie.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

(released November 18, 2011)
Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) gets pregnant almost immediately marrying Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) Courtesy of Summit Entertainment
Chips Rating:
1 stars

User Rating:
0 stars Votes: 6
"The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1" involves Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) getting married to Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and the subsequent grossness that occurs after she gets pregnant. Unfortunately, very little else happens.
"Breaking Dawn – Part 1" begins where "Eclipse" left off: Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) are planning their wedding. A few months seem to have gone by since the proposal, but not much has changed besides the wedding date moving closer. The two get married even though Bella has a very odd and disturbing dream about all of her wedding guests dying, and Jacob is mad at them both because he just can’t seem to get over Bella - even though obviously she is more enthralled by sparkles than by fur. Bella and Edward move on to their never-ending honeymoon, where the couple aggressively consummates their relationship, and as a result Bella gets pregnant very quickly. The rest of the movie drags on through Bella’s horrifically gross pregnancy, and some werewolf drama adds a little bit of plot to this otherwise painstakingly boring and disturbing movie.

The entire problem this film faces is that it should not be a movie on its own. If it had included the entirety of the "Breaking Dawn" novel it would be much more fast-paced and interesting, as the ending of the book is probably the most exciting part. But no, movie producers will be movie producers; they had to milk the multi-million dollar franchise for what it was worth. Hey, if the "Harry Potter" series could pull it off, why couldn’t they? The big difference is that "Harry Potter" actually has incredible substance, and "Twilight" has the complete opposite. Almost the entire book series is based on long descriptions of self-pity and then a couple of fight scenes. The lack of substance really brings this movie to its demise.

The movie's pacing is so incredibly slow that one finds themselves looking at their phone to check the time and realizing that while the movie is halfway through, the newlyweds are still on their honeymoon. They seem to be on an island for absolutely way too long, where they play chess, skinny dip and try to figure out whether there is a demon child eating Bella from the inside. The purpose of the prolonged vacation is probably to engage the audience in their relationship, but honestly the chemistry between Stewart and Pattinson is so unromantic and awkward that the whole romance aspect of these movies has lost its touch.

Edward and Bella play what seems to be an excessive amount of chess while on their honeymoon. Courtesy of Summit Entertainment
Edward and Bella play what seems to be an excessive amount of chess while on their honeymoon.
Futhermore, acting has never been the series’ strong suit, and this movie is certainly not a step up. Stewart maintains the same lackluster and unemotional performance as always, and she sometimes seemed too unemotional even to pull off being an emaciated mother-to-be of a half-undead baby. Pattinson’s and Lautner’s performances are alright, but neither one’s acting is particularly great either. The best character in the entire movie is Bella’s dad played by Billy Burke. He is the sole comedic relief, and brings some of the only intentional laughs from the audience.

Stylistically, the movie is well-made and visually appealing (apart from the computer generated werewolves that are still completely unrealistic), but the movie tries and fails to overcompensate for its lack of plot with pretty camera shots of nature and actors' soulful gazes. The wedding scene was quite picturesque, with beautiful flowers and a gorgeous dress that many fans will probably pre-order years in advance of their weddings, and the honeymoon setting is beautiful.

But despite a few far-between highlights, this movie is not worth anyone’s money (although that didn’t seem to deter anyone opening weekend, when it grossed $140 million). The whole second half of the movie is incredibly gross, and throughout the entire film one is left waiting for it all to just end. If you must see this movie, hold out for Netflix or some other way to watch it for free, and even then prepare a puzzle or something to play with while you’re waiting for something interesting to happen (a warning, though, you may become more engrossed in the puzzle than the film at hand). A bucket nearby might be a good idea, too.

"The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1" (117 minutes) is rated PG-13 for disturbing images, violence, sexuality/partial nudity and some thematic elements. Now playing in theaters everywhere.

Share on Tumblr

Discuss this Article

Silver Chips Online invites you to share your thoughts about this article. Please use this forum to further discussion of the story topic and refrain from personal attacks and offensive language. SCO reserves the right to deny any comment. No comments that include hyperlinks will be posted. If you have a question for us, please include your email address or use this form.

  • C on November 21, 2011 at 10:11 PM
  • Officer SCO on November 22, 2011 at 8:24 PM
    "Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) planning are their wedding"
    "the newlyweds are still their honeymoon."
    "Pattinson’s and Lautner’s performances are alright"

    This is just a sample of the most glaring grammatical errors from your article.

    "when it grossed $140 million). The whole second half of the movie is incredibly gross"

    This is a sample of your "grossly" awkward wording. Would it really be that difficult for you to go to and look up a substitute word?

    Who edits your articles? I find it appalling that you hold the title of entertainment editor, but clearly cannot be bothered to edit your own writing. You have a penchant for unnecessary and distracting adjectives and awkward wording, which led to a pathetic attempt at a positive paragraph in your obviously biased article. Please reread your second to last paragraph and tell me that it does not contain some of the most awkward sentence structure you have ever seen from a so-called "journalist." Speaking of journalists, aren't they supposed to at least give off the appearance of neutrality? I am no Twilight fan myself, but your article reeks of an anti-Twilight circlejerk sentiment that I might as well be reading an amateur "The Onion"-style review. Keeping a bucket nearby might be a good idea for someone reading your article, as well.
    • right... on November 23, 2011 at 9:29 AM
      How can you be a "officer" of SCO when I doubt anyone wants you there. Sure she made some mistakes, but she's a high school student. I'm sure constructive criticism is better than rude antics bordering on harassment.
    • unnecessary on November 23, 2011 at 4:04 PM
      Movie reviews are by definition opinion pieces. Neutrality in a review defeats the purpose of writing one in the first place. If you're looking for an opinion-free examination of a subject, I suggest you check out features or news instead.

      Your comments are in no way constructive, and could have at least been rephrased to resemble helpful suggestions instead of an attack. It's a shame that you don't have anything better to do with your time than to leave abrasive comments on a high school newspaper article. Good day.
      • smh on November 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM
        Officer SCO, you are just rude
  • NS on December 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM
    Unfourtunately, for those who have read the book, the movie will seem like a totally fail.

    However, to those "twi-hards", waiting for this highly anticipating saga continueum, this movie did not fall short.

    I highly recommend anyone read the books BEFORE seeing any of the movies.. unless your just one of those "Ill wait for the movie" types.

    Its obvious that the movie cannot nearly go as in depth in the story line as the book does. That would be unnecessarily long.

    So, for summing it up the best they can into a 2 hour film, I say the movie is a good 4/5.
Jump to first comment