Just saw Cake Eaters again last night and i'm seriously laughing at all this people that brag about Kristen Stewart's acting because this movie proved most of them wrong she is amazing playing a 15 year old girl with a strange illness she changed the way she talks and she even changed the way she walks for the role without forgetting it and walking or talking normal and that for me is why i give this film a 8 out of 10 all the rest of the cast was just OK nothing really special and the characters weren't something special either. Like i said with this movie Stewart shows that she can act and do wonderful roles forget Twilight once and for all and try to see other movies with her because she's actually pretty great.

If you only know Kristen S. as "Bella", than you haven't seen her full Spectrum yet. This is one of the films where she can show what she is really capable of. Of course this being an ensemble piece, there are quite a few other people, who are all really good in their roles. And while this is a man trying to get past his ... well past (I'm talking about the script writer), it still is able to affect other people (the viewers), too.Of course a drama isn't something that will get all people excited and there are quite a few things, that might get you off the movie. But if you take the time and invest in the characters as the filmmakers did, you will come to like it. Plus the audio commentary is a really nice one to listen to.

This isn't a flashy movie, but it is a nice simple, beautifully photographed, well crafted film. The characters are true to themselves and it was a pleasure to watch. For some reason, I really liked it. It also has a great soundtrack that works well with the overall poetic feeling of the movie. A very impressive directing debut for Mary Stuart Masterson. Although I'd like to see her in front of the camera, MSM does a great job behind the camera on this film. Kristin Stewart is completely believable as the disabled Georgia, and treats her character honestly and forthrightly with a subtle dignity, and it was a joy to watch her act. Bruce Dern and Elizabeth Ashley also do their jobs well and are completely believable.

Its been said this movie is a portrayal of reality and that its unresolved end and almost complete lack of meaning is the whole point cos "life is like that". You could think that, or you could also think that the director has made a movie that doesn't connect, delivers no meaning and because of that is ultimately pointless.You see I'm not watching life, I'm watching a movie, and yes we like movies to be insightful and accurate, but this movie trundles out some well worn clichés and so pulling out the "its a slice of life" card just doesn't wash.Yes Kristen Stewart delivers a believable performance as a 15 year old girl with a terminal illness. I'm assuming it's believable cos she looked pained and terminal but I've no idea if it was an accurate portrayal of the disease she was supposed to have.They've also got a lead guy role with a funny name (beagle) and an assortment of slightly cliché small town characters and by the end of the movie you wonder, "yeah, and what, what's your point, what are you trying to say?" all that set up for no delivery.Kirsten's character wanted to try sex and had no compassion for the guy she chooses to try it with, she doesn't care how he feels. Nice set up, but why?The dads relationship, the other son's issues, what's your point? Was there one in the script and the director failed to convey it? The comments here read like friends and fans of the director. There's a difference between subtlety and just plain vague. Parts of this movie were painted in obvious strokes so it would appear that was the directors style (and not one that I like), so why is there no point, maybe she didn't have one to begin with. Why fill your movie with cliché's like the dad and the elder son, the hussy grandma, the small town girlfriend that got left behind? If you're going to be subtle then be it.