What’s Good: Almost gets a pass for being so innocent and simple-minded.

What’s Not: The state of films these days because I saw “Twilight,” “Bond” and “Rachael Getting Married” in a few day span and this was the best of the three. Scary.

Fake Peter Traverse Quote: Blood boiling romance with action that bites you in the danger zone.

 

 

Am I “Twilight’s” target audience? Lets see… XX Chromosome? No. Bored housewife? No, seeing as how I’m missing an X. Gay? No, not the last time I checked. Holding out for that perfect man, a literal child predator a couple hundred years my senior that will stalk me, then save me then be my master for all time? Ummmmmmm, no. Virginal? No thanks. Christian? No. Mormon? God no! Chubby. No but I’m working on that. Dateless? Nowadays, yuh-huh. Damn, got me on one–guess I better watch it.

 

While Stephanie Meyer’s novel of the same name is not bad I find it to be far too self precious, spineless, inarticulate (as prose goes), and lacking in any sense of real danger. Also, the romance is muted and it’s hardly even a vampire story–when was the last time you saw a bloodsucker sparkle in the sunlight??? At it’s gooey core, the story lacks the emotional resonance of, say a Potter story (take your pick), a baroque Lestat melodrama or just about any teen drama written by someone with half a brain. That being said, the film version is better than the source material if you can believe it but only because when a real writer (Melissa Rosenberg, who has her name all over “Dexter”) adapts crap, the effect is polished crap. Not good, but one of those rare adaptions that improves if not redeems.

 

First and foremost “Twilight” the film feels outdated, and looks even worse; it’s as if a lost, dream-set episode of “90210″ (the original!) or some forgotten camp vampire film from the 90s crept into the bosom of modern culture and was able to brainwash, er, I mean enthrall a legion of readers and, now, viewers. Having hungrily and happily consumed “Interview with the Vampire,” “Buffy” (my favorite-all-time-anything) and even creative new vampire lore such as “True Blood” I simply cannot spot anything special or unique or new about “Twilight.” The one thing the film version has going for it however is crude aura of total innocence and, stemming from that, likability. On every other count it disappoints–even when judged on it’s own level/genre/type it fails to elicit many sparks. Particularly in terms of tone. There can be no doubt that the film is serious about its subject matter but it is inadvertently silly about it too. And sloppy! Director Catherine Hardwicke has an aesthetically foolish fondness for close-ups (just try to get through the many false-start make out sessions, cheese ball vampire show-downs or basic exposition scenes where one may find themselves looking at skin pores and eye color rather than listening to dialogue). Bad music cues and wince worthy slow-mo style choices are equally haphazard and unnecessary. I found myself giggling like a schoolgirl at how overdone this turkey is. The filmmaking element is crude, yes, but pallet of emotions on display, though overwrought, is handled a lot more adroitly than the non-pallet of motion.

 

The story, pardon, saga of “Twilight” is all character based. I find this ironic because the characters are not terribly original to anyone who has browsed fictive themes of vampire stories or high school dramas. In the story’s universe there are of course “friends” and the “Fathers” (who is easily the best part of the film) and the occasional “local” that enters and exits the small Washington setting. And of course there’s the Romeo and Juliet of this film’s world. Innocent young girl meets troubled 200-year-old boy. The big show stopper (more like dribbler) for fans is Edward Cullin, the brooding vampire protagonist played by Robert Pattinson. He’s a vampire in love, you see, uh, with a human young girl who, in turns, falls even morein love and, wellllllll, that’s it as far as story goes. Ooh, but some “bad” vampires come into town and the Cullins (i.e. the good vampires) attempt to stop them from hurting the girl, Bella. They even play a spirited game of baseball but, yeah, there you go. Characters engage in a number of so-bad-it’s-funny vampire aerobics (besides tree frolicking, that vampire baseball setpiece just might be the dumbest scene of the year… and I’ve seen the Zohan catch fish in his ass!) and just as many wistful and vaguely creepy lines about “watching you sleep” because “it’s amusing.” I would tell this lad to get a life but he’s undead. Though dead, this lip bitter of a hero comes off as constipated and always on the verge of tears. The reason for all the torrid EMOtion is because his desire for nubile young flesh is a temptation and hunger that will always tests Edward’s resolve (der, is that a metaphor?). Edward’s marble mouth affect and attitude, though, is not ageless vampire hunk (which is what I think they were going for) but mush mouth dork. Bella is played by Kristen Stewart (a star-in-the-making since “Panic Room”) and she is the real hero of this story. But she has no discernible skills, weapons or intellect. Bella reminds me of the Princess from Super Mario Brothers. As she goes to school, rolls her eyes at her dad and makes tim with a reanimated corpse, Bella is nothing if not earnest. Boring is another adjective I would throw out were I in a particularly negative mood but I’m not so I’ll add that at least she’s not annoying.