Twilight (1998)

Thanks for the memories!

Overrated

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

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.

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.

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

Newman, in a role similar to "Harper," is a has-been private detective living with and helping out aging movie actors Hackman and Sarandon. The script is rather convoluted and ultimately less than satisfying. However, it is a pleasure to watch old pros like Newman, Hackman, and Garner, each about seventy at the time of this film. Comparatively, Sarandon and Channing are spry young things in their fifties. The impressive cast also features up-and-coming stars like Witherspoon and Schreiber. Benton, who co-wrote the script, creates a nice atmosphere, aided by one of Bernstein's last scores. Given such an assemblage of talent, the film is a disappointment.