Twilight (1998)

Pretty Good

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

With so many seasoned and excellent cast members in "Twilight" directed by Robert Benton, you'd think you're in for a good watch, but you'd be mistaken. This movie is a clunker, thanks to a hacked up story and poor direction. Newman and company can only do so well, but when direction and content get in the way, it doesn't matter how good the cast is. Dialog is fairly stilted but what's worse is the noir atmosphere fails. You have voice-over, but lighting and production doesn't lend to it. A final dual with Newman and Garner in their 70s is preposterous, and a stinkbug to end on. 4.5/10 I had higher expectations for this but was disappointed. An epilogue scene was distasteful as well.

This is a very good film, an actors' film. The cast is brilliant. The story is basically that of The Great Gatsby, except at the core of the setup the two rich people are in league, rather than at odds. There is not much originality in the plot or character motivation, but just enough interesting people to keep you watching, and enough action to keep you on the edge of your seat.The photography and direction are excellent, and the movie flows very well. But it is a small film, a small world with not much depth. It seems everybody is just playing it safe, and we get a good detective thriller with some action, a lot of great dialog, and we get to watch Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon, James Garner, and Gene Hackman listen to one another. That alone should make the film worth watching.I am not sure how the film could have been any better, given its scope and intent. If you are expecting a great film that somehow changes your life, and most viewers are, I suppose, you will be disappointed. If you expect to be entertained and amused, then this film satisfies completely.

I found this story of an aging private eye (Paul Newman in yet another terrific late-career performance), and his aging friends, lovers and clients (Gene Hackman, Susan Sarandon, James Garner, all doing admirable work) touching, sweet, funny, sad, and an enjoyable noir mystery to boot. Its not that the plotting is that brilliant, or the story that novel, but this is really more about the characters than the mystery anyway. Its about aging and loss and trying to hold onto your pride and self-esteem in the face of the indignities later life. In all that it has much in common with Benton"s earlier, very good "Late Show", but for me this had even more depth and resonance (perhaps reflective of Benton"s own aging?).

These excellent actors did what they could with the script which is what brings the rating down. I like film noir, Susan Sarandon, Paul Newman and Gene Hackman. Excellent supporting roles from Stockard Channing, James Garner, Reese Witherspoon (showing more than she does now) and Liev Shriber.POSSIBLE SPOILER: A aging private eye (Newman) has some dirty work to do for Hackman. In doing this, he uncovers a long held secret and not so nice things about Hackman and Sarandon. While not the most original of plots, watching these film legends is indeed a trip down memory lane of the Bogarts, Becalls et al.And how interesting was it that Stockard Channing and John Spencer (of West Wing fame) are teamed up here? Good solid film noir. Recommended despite dialog flaws.