Review: Twilight

I feel obligated to give about a paragraph of full disclosure before writing any kind of review of "Twilight." First of all, I have read the first book in the incredibly popular vampire series, because I don't believe in drinking the haterade just to drink it; to a fault, I'll give just about anything a fair chance to impress me. This has led to watching way more of "The Surreal Life" than I'd like to admit, but it keeps me honest. The second thing I feel the need to mention is that I think the series is castrating the vampire genre, but I'll get to that later, in context.

On with the review. "Twilight" is the story of Bella (Kristen Stewart), a young girl who leaves her mother and stepfather in Arizona to live in Forks, Washington with her dad, police chief Charlie Swan (Billy Burke). She becomes something of a local celebrity, and soon catches the eye of Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). Edward seemingly despises her, judging by the fact that the first time she comes near him, he looks like he's having a seizure and a spastic orgasm at the same time. However, this is because Edward is a vampire, and is undeniably attracted to Bella, at first on a PG-13-friendly physical level, and then later on a much deeper, more romantic, but no more physical one.

Now, as an adaptation of the novel, "Twilight" is about as good as it was probably ever going to be, even if done by a more noted filmmaker than Catherine Hardwicke (director of the incredibly unsettling "Thirteen"). The issue with "Twilight" is that the book is good because of the introspection gained from it being a first-person narrative, from Bella's point of view. When she describes all the feelings Edward stirs within her, it's interesting if a little bit Harlequin-lite. This can't really translate to the screen, though, and as a result, there's a lot of downright comical scenes where Bella and Edward exchange longing glances, and don't communicate the same sense of gut-wrenching need that the books get across.

Speaking of Edward, I've watched interviews with Pattinson, he's a charming, well-spoken and funny guy, but this movie does him no favors. The other issue of translating the books is that something has to be cut (the books are all pretty huge, actually), and what was cut first was all the lighter, funnier interplay between Bella and Edward. As a result, Pattinson spends more than half the film over-emoting and delivering lines like "You're like my particular brand of heroin" with an all-too-straight face. This having been said, when the film picks up in the second half (as actual danger comes into play beyond the love story), Edward becomes more interesting to watch, and Pattinson steps up to the plate ably; he even briefly plays the role of action hero near the end, and it works. Stewart, as Bella, looks bored for the first half of the movie, but again, as the film picks up momentum, so does her performance. I'm not sure what it is, but there's something about her as an actress, a certain quiet strength that makes her seem like a poor fit for a damsel in distress on the level she's playing here, but she fits well enough.

The film as a whole is just okay; it's laughably overdramatic at times, but not horrible, though purists of the series will beg to differ. It's just hard to watch a vampire movie where sunlight makes them sparkle and the main characters can barely even kiss without conflict. The fact is that the "Twilight" series is the perfect set of books for the Disney Channel generation, because Edward is the perfect heartthrob for it; he's beautiful, would rather watch a girl sleep all night and talk about her feelings than try for anything more and is totally safe for the average suburban 12-year-old to fantasize chastely about without her parents getting upset. The movie reflects this; it's pseudo-edgy enough to attract a modern crowd without actually stepping on a single set of toes.