User reviews

Twilight is a slow burn modern film noir. A more laid back version of LA Confidential. The first scenes feature a young Reese Witherspoon and Liev Schreiber in Mexico with Paul Newman that leaves Newman injured. We then go forward a few years.

Harry Ross (Newman) is a down on his luck detective with an injury and not much money. He lives in California in the guest quarters of Witherspoon's wealthy parents who are his old friends and former film industry executives now in the twilight of their years. Jack (Gene Hackman) is dying of cancer and he and Ross pass time playing cards.

Jack asks Harry to deliver a package in Los Angeles. When Harry arrives to deliver the package he encounters a shot man named who turns out to be a former detective. This begins a chain of events involving a past case that led to the disappearance of Catherine's (Susan Sarandon) ex- husband.

Harry realises that his friends have been deceitful and manipulative of him. His old colleague Raymond (James Garner) tries to persuade Harry to get away from it all.

The film is about immoral people who are wealthy and wish to stay ahead and use others for their own means. As a pot boiler its slow, even meandering as there are betrayals and double crosses. What sustains it is the acting and with the four leads and some rising stars you watch it for the actors and the depth they provide.

Most critics wrote off the film because of the poor script and the lackluster direction. Yes, it is true that an average viewer should be able to spot the villain, well before the ex-cop and ex-private investigator does so in the film by comparing life-styles. But that is what young audiences will look for in the movie. What I liked about the script were the subtle dialogues ranging from Samuel Johnson misquotes to acerbic one-liners that developed each of the characters slowly. Take the misty-eyed Lt. Verna (Stockard Channing) greeting Ross as an old acquaintance and then closing the dialogue with the icy "Cuff him!" to the arresting officers. You have an extra-ordinary script here and everywhere in the film.

This film is not action-packed; it is heavy on dialogue requiring a mature mind to take in the clever character buildup. Sarandon's character, in particular, was well developed leading to a charming finale.

Benton never appealed to me as a great director; nonetheless this film's strength lies in his script (co-scripted by Russo), a thoroughly delightful cast ensemble, and a notable camerawork by Sobocinsky.

Finally, I thought the film's name was a wonderful and appropriate selection.

This won't ever be anyone's favourite movie. It sets its sights fairly low, so it doesn't have any difficulty in hitting its targets. Nevertheless, it will trump many other thrillers simply because of the sheer professionalism of its cast. Esposito is an irritation and Liev Schreiber is fantastically dull as ever, but the real joy comes from seeing the old pros, Newman, Hackman, Sarandon, Channing and Garner doing their thing. Authority oozes from the screen whenever any one of them is on, which fortunately is nearly all the time. Hackman is particularly fine, especially considering he has virtually nothing to do.

This must be the oldest cast since Cocoon!

7 out of 10. It would be nothing without its principals.

This movie didn't do well with the critics or at the box office but if you're in a nostalgic mood I'll think you'll enjoy it. The nostalgia is not just for the stars, Newman, Hackforth and Garner but for the whole private eye genre of the forties. All three stars show why they have been tops for so long. At 73 Newman can still make the action and the sex scenes creditable. It gives new hope to men of a certain age everywhere! It is a film that probably plays better on TV than in a movie house. The pace is leisurely but there is some nice sharp dialogue and atmospheric camera work. All this plus a moody score by Leonard Bernstein make for a highly professional entertainment. The more I think about it the more I like it.

A retired Detective is given a simple job, but his seemingly easy task soon turns into a complex mystery.

It's just wonderful to find a film called Twilight that I actually liked.

It's a bit of a pot boiler, and by modern standards, it is somewhat old fashioned, but it works, I've read a few savage reviews, but I quite liked it.

It's quite a mature cast, but I enjoy that for a change, it's nice to see a group of Detectives that aren't fast tracked children for a change. Newman, Hackman and Sarandon are all great, the acting is faultless.

Overall, I would say, a decent story is elevated by a particularly capable cast, 7/10.

The late actor Paul Newman portrays a fly in the ointment, the anti-hero version of Dick Tracy, herein Twilight. I've read some reviews of people wondering why widely acclaimed filmmaker Robert Benton has made this movie. A short answer: To provide screen experience to new starlets with veteran actors.

There are 3 of those starlets in this film. First one is Reese Witherspoon. 1998 was an important milestone for her. She's been busy whole year long with Pleasantville and Overnight Delivery. Through 1998 summer she played in Twilight, thus she has bold scenes with Liev Schreiber. Even though she has a cameo role as Mel Ames in the film, her role includes the only nudity content of her box-office movies career. Yet, Twilight features its queen Susan Sarandon. For me, this is Sarandon's third best after Atlantic City and White Palace. She comes out of pool, starts walking in Eve outlook, looking for her Adam, then Newman comes by.

The second starlet is Liev Schreiber. He plays Mel's date at Mexico. While Mel lies naked on a couch, she asks him "Do you love me?". He keeps his silence a bit while staring at her tits, and hinders himself from replying "No, I just love your tits". Thankfully Mel speaks before him: "I mean it doesn't really matter you love me or not". If all the movie critics thought the same way that Robert Benton has written the worst script of his life, they might be right.

The third starlet is Patrick Malone. If you read this review right now, and don't know who Patrick Malone is, it's because herein Twilight he wasted his chance of a lifetime due to his imitation of Will Smith. A young actor in Hollywood must not copy other actors of same career level. I actually liked Malone's harmony with Newman playing his partner, if only he could have played his own style. He was one of the supporting actors in Lawrence Kasdan's Grand Canyon(1991).

Even though the cast is rich on paper, the whole plot is turning around Paul Newman. No one is able to come closer to him, and he acts only with his self-belief. From my point of view, the main issue is not the script nor the cheapness of the story telling methods. Nobody but Benton and Newman, is in the mood of making a movie. Gene Hackman, James Garner, Stockard Channing spoil the story. So many stars make it darker. Only Newman and Sarandon could have been enough to fill the cast, since the storyline is so simple.

Lots of people will sit through a well-known symphony, already knowing how the tune goes, but not minding because they want to see how this particular orchestra will play it.

The same goes for "Twilight." We've all heard this tune. The fun is watching how the Newman-Hackman-Sarandon-Garner orchestra will play it.

For my money, they can sure carry a tune.

Robert Benton, an otherwise excellent film director, must not have been too inspired with this film, and it shows! Every element that went into it should have produced an interesting film, after all, this was the second collaboration between Mr. Benton and Richard Russo, a wonderful writer on his own right. Unfortunately, there are no sparks in this slow evolving take on deceit and an unsolved crime in L.A.

The opening scenes are deceiving because they take place in Puerto Vallarta. We see Harry Ross, a private investigator, going to the rescue of a rich girl, Mel Ames. Mel is a gorgeous creature that is seen in all her glory, and it seems to have been planned that way in order to hook the viewer into staying for the rest of the story. Alas, beautiful Mel goes straight and is only seen in a couple of other scenes! We lose, that's all!

As a film noir, there are too many things that don't make sense in "Twilight". The film is not a complete waste, although the pace, being slow, doesn't add anything to the story, or the way we feel after sitting through it after a while.

Paul Newman makes an interesting appearance as Harry. James Garner, another great personality, does the best with the small part of Raymond Hope. Susan Sarandon is mysterious and secretive as Catherine and Gene Hackman doesn't have much to do. Reese Witherspoon, making her screen debut, is lovingly captured by the camera. Stockard Channing, one of the best stage and film actress working in films today, is wasted. Giancarlo Esposito is the only one that brings a badly needed comic relief to the movie. M. Emmet Walsh, Liev Schrieber, Margo Martindale, and John Spencer play minor roles.

While the film is far from horrible, but it requires a lot of patience from the viewer. The crisp cinematography by Piotr Sobocinski gives the film a beautiful patina. Also the moody music score of Elmer Bernstein and the production design of David Gropman, contribute to make the film appear much better than it is.

Twilight is directed by Robert Benton who also co-writes the screenplay with Richard Russo. It stars Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon, Gene Hackman, James Garner, Stockard Channing, Reese Witherspoon, Giancarlo Esposito and Liev Schreiber. Music is scored by Elmer Bernstein and cinematography by Piotr Sobocinski.

Harry Ross (Newman) is working for Jack (Hackman) and Catherine Ames (Sarandon). When one day he is sent to deliver a package for Jack, it turns out to be the starting point of trouble that opens up a 20 year old missing persons case involving Catherine's ex-husband.

Twilight, the word in this case signifying persons in the twilight of their lives, is on the surface a standard murder mystery infused with noirish blood. But although the film never gets above a steady beat, where subtlety of performances and tone are key, it's a better picture than the poor box office it garnered suggests. However, in spite of the quality that comes with said performances and script, the latter sinewy and begging for the mature film fan's attention, picture is a little too subtle for its own good. When action does come into play it feels like an intrusion, misplaced even, which shouldn't be the case as there is, after all, a suspected murder and private investigation going on in the plot. The blend isn't quite right in spite of the intelligence and thought that's gone in to make the characters engaging.

The whole calm over chaos approach taken by Benton (Kramer vs. Kramer) is however admirable, many people like dialogue driven movies, especially ones dripping with noir atmospherics, myself included, but it does put itself out as being only accessible to a select audience. That's why it failed at the box office; well that and the fact that this A list cast of some distinction meant expectations went through the roof prior to its release! But there's still much to enjoy as the seasoned performers dally around themes of mortality, loyalty and forbidden fruit, with the rose tinted cloud of nostalgia hovering constantly over head. It's apt that the film clearly harks back to noirish movies of yesterday, for its main characters are forced to constantly look backwards, to times passed, times never to be had again.

The good far outweighs the bad here, but you need to be in a select band of film lovers to get the best rewards from it. 7/10

Paul Newman is an ex-cop turned private eye, whose work leads to a lengthy friendship with an aging actor (Gene Hackman). Susan Sarandon is a recognizable actress married to the dying Hackman character. The actress's past husband was thought to be lost at sea. Some believe he was murdered. Blackmail and flirtatious adultery spices up the low impact script. Dialog seems to have been phoned in over a cup of coffee. James Garner and Stockard Channing round out an all-star cast. There are moments of dark humor at Newman's character's expense. Sarandon is a little sappy, but invigorating. Channing is wasted in such a small part. Predictable and slow script; but the Oscar winners among the cast make this flick worthwhile.

It's refreshing to see consummate actors plying their trade, especially one with the skill of Paul Newman. It's especially wonderful to see this skill applied to a film like "Nobody's Fool." In "Twilight," Newman is reunited with "Nobody's Fool" director-screenwriter Robert Benton and is essentially playing the same character. Only this time the character is placed in a manipulative plot that seems like retreads from better crime films. It's simply a window for Newman to show is talents. Other screen veterans--Gene Hackman, Susan Sarandon and James Garner (who is just as natural in front of a camera as Newman)--are also on display, but are not given the screen time to display their skills. It's really Newman's picture and the rest of the actors are simply "guests". Stockard Channing is underused in the role of a police investigator and one of my favorite character actors, M. Emmet Walsh is completely wasted in the role of a...well...a corpse, I guess. The message--about people in the "twilight" of their years--is heavy-handed and the story makes absolutely no sense logically. But it's good seeing Newman at the top of his form--now, if he will only pick out better projects in which to display his talents.

With all the action-schlock movies coming out of Hollywood, and all the obsession with special effects, it is nice to have a movie about real characters with some real acting. This is a great cast with Newman in his usual fine form, and Hackman, Sarandon, and Garner reminding us what real acting is all about. I don't know why this film reminded me of L. A. Confidential in the story line, but this film's characters have depth and texture, unlike the cardboard cutouts of that movie. The gritty plot, about past crime, betrayal, friendship, and loyalty, is not without its moments of sardonic humor. As a matter of fact, the movie observes all the conventions of film noir; if it had been made in B&W it would have looked like something from the 1940's. Elmer Bernstein, who has been around forever, can still churn out a great score. A grownup movie for grownups.

A retired ex-cop and private detective (Paul Newman) who lives with a rich actor (Gene Hackman) who is dying from cancer and his actress wife (Susan Sarandon) gets mixed up in murder when he is asked to deliver blackmail money.

In retrospect, this film is notorious for having a young, topless Reese Witherspoon and a Liev Schreiber at the early point in his career. But ignore these things, because they do not matter (even if Witherspoon likes to pretend she forgot she was in this movie).

Just check out this cast: Gene Hackman and Paul Newman. The rest are merely a bonus, because these are two of the greatest old white men in acting (at least at the time).

What a shame! Great cast - poor movie. Newman is, has been and always will be one of the greats, with support from Sarandon, Hackman and Garner this movie had great potential. Unfortunately it's just dull, dull, dull. A disadvantage of following such a well-worn genre as private-eye movie, is it's a fair bet that predictability is going to be a problem. Unfortunately that is amply demonstrated in Twilight. This can only be recommended as an opportunity to see some top-notch veterans go through their paces in a harmless, non-challenging couple of hours.

In a world where sex, violence, and sleaze in movies seems to dominate, it is refreshing to find a film that is the caliber of movies made from a much earlier decade, when cinema was intended to be a work of art. You could not ask for a better cast than in this movie. All are very well-respected for their acting abilities and their professional demeanor. The score is excellent; the story line captivating. Paul Newman is indeed more than believable in his role as a sexy, no-nonsense gumshoe. Susan Sarandon is sultry in the style of Susan Hayward and Lauren Bacall. Gene Hackman is, well, Gene Hackman. I only wish there were more movies coming out of Hollywood of this nature.

"Twilight" is mostly interesting because we get to see some elderly people doing things that we usually see young people doing in movies. Otherwise, the whole thing's kinda confusing. It portrays some people investigating a twenty-year-old murder, and what it exposes about everyone. I've liked most movies starring Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon and Gene Hackman, but this one seems like they took several ideas and just mixed them up.

So, it's not terrible, just strange. It might be worth seeing, if only once. Also starring Reese Witherspoon, Stockard Channing, James Garner, Giancarlo Esposito, Liev Schreiber, John Spencer and M. Emmet Walsh.

Good "noirish" thriller to watch on TV. Good acting, some very clever lines but not difficult to figure out the plot. Great to see these veterans in action again. Who doesn't like Newman or Garner?! Great houses and cinematography. Have fun. Oh I just found out I have to put ten lines on this in order for it to show. Maybe that's why there is only one comment. This is not the movie to write ten lines about. However I would like to add that Susan Sarandon, named Catherine Haywood in the movie, is every inch the movie star without giving the performance of her life. Gene Hackman deserved more movie minutes. The man really can act. OK this makes ten lines now. Have fun!!!!

This is a humorous drama, somewhat predictable, but the simple fact that this film has Newman, Sarandon, Hackman, Garner, Channing and numerous well known charactor actors makes it worth the time.

This movie doesn't win a whole lot of points for having an original plot, but where its storyline is lacking the actors pick up the slack. The obvious stand outs are Paul Newman, James Garner and Susan Sarandon, but really there are no weak links. Gene Hackman and Stockard Channing perform wonderfully. Even "newcomers" (when compared to the rest of the cast) Reese Witherspoon and Liev Shreiber hand in commendable performances. Watch this one to see the masters in action, it's enjoyable simply watching them do their job.

Paul Newman made Harper back in 1966, a pretty good PI movie, it took 9 years to make the sequel The Drowning Pool (1975) with the same character Lew Harper, in an attempt to capitalise when his career was on a bit of a downward path. This looks like he was trying again to rekindle the same flame from Harper, the same type and style of flick but with a different character. It almost worked but not quite.

Its not a bad attempt though, it was obviously a vehicle for Newman despite looking a bit long in the tooth. The best thing about this was the supporting cast, headed by Gene Hackman who did not get that many scenes, Susan Sarandon, James Garner, Stockard Channing, and with young Reese Witherspoon and Liev Schreiber, Channing was particularly good. M. Emmet Walsh who is a seasoned and talented actor only got a short non-speaking role of a dying man who just got shot, so was completely wasted.

It was a bit dreary though, the pace and style seemed to fit Paul Newman's age, and wherewithal, it did not have that vitality that a younger person would bring, it was a good story with a few twists, the actual plot was mostly ok but did have a few gaping holes, e.g the character Gloria with no explanation or reason given to why she was involved ? Direction was ok, not great, photography poor, music was dreary, it lost some of the energy it would have had from being made 30 years before in a different era with a younger Newman.

I gave it a 6 for the supporting actors and intrigue.

I came to this movie with some expectation, and having read some favorable reviews on IMDb: that was a big mistake.

Just because there are some well known "names" in the cast do not believe that will save this film, because it does not.

Briefly: a retired cop gets entangled in some blackmail/murder plot, but the whole picture is boring, self indulgent and unbelievable.

The script is poor, and none of the players give convincing performances. The story, the plot and the players are all unrealistic in the extreme and just because they have made their career by other films will not salvage them or this picture.

1/10.

I really liked this film, even though I never heard of it until it was on cable. I was afraid at the start that Newman was going to recycle his curmudgeon character from "Nobody's Fool" but instead he played a very different richly complex character. Kudos also to the rest of the nearly all-star cast. One important plot element absolutely jumped out at me, even though none of the characters seemed to notice, but aside from that I have no complaints. Reese Witherspoon was particularly beautiful here. Grade: A

Very well done. I was surprised. It is a worthy vehicle for Paul Newman. It was well worth Gene Hackman's time. Stockard Channing was wasted. The rest of the cast kicked out.

This was a well scripted, well directed, and beautifully photographed murder mystery. The plot has several twists. The characters are reasonably believable.

The plot keeps you engaged and guessing, even through some of its holes.

Newman is good, Havkman is adequate, Sarandon plays a part any middle aged actress could have done. Reese Witherspoon gives a predictable performance. James Garner lucked out as a TV actor in n an A list movie.

It's unfortunate that this film was released only shortly before L.A. Confidential, which is a wonderful film that deserved its honors. Twilight, with its intriguing characters and twisty script, simply fell out of the limelight, and hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.

There are faults in the script, to be sure, and even with this all-star cast, things are a little uneven. However, this film is a gritty, interesting thriller, focused on the playing out of lifelong grudges and desires. Much as Deep Impact was nominally a sci-fi film, but truly focused on the different ways in which people confront the end of the world, Twilight is only nominally a crime thriller, but truly focuses on the lengths to which people will go to preserve the legacy they desire. A satisfying, if not brilliant, film.