The best of the "Twilight" series... which isn't really that big of an improvement.

Rating: 4/10 (8 July 2010)

OK, first off, I am not a fan of the Twilight series, nor am I a hater. I'm just a neutral in-between casual movie-goer. I am also not a book reader, so stop reading this review if you want to compare the film with the book. I would also like to mention that the first "Twilight" movie was mediocre but the second movie was just plain abysmal, in my humble opinion. And also, I personally find the fan frenzy over the entire "Twilight" franchise, book or movie, completely overblown. I mean, come on. Lovers are voting a 10 and haters (most of which who haven't even watched the movie yet) are voting a 1. People, if you don't like the movie, don't see it and bash it unreasonably. Let the movie critics do that for you.
That being said, "Eclipse" is leaps and bounds better than "New Moon", and some steps up above the first. Apart from the screenplay and dialog (which is still bland and mostly uninspired) and special effects (which are on par with "New Moon"... which isn't really that much of a compliment), the acting, music and especially direction has improved significantly.
Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner. Yes, they have genuinely improved slightly in terms of acting and chemistry. Heck even the quips they give each other are believable; Edward's quip about Jacob 's lack of a shirt made me chuckle. Some of the actors in the dark parts of the film display genuine fear and emotion, something that was lost in the previous two films. And near the end, Pattinson challenges an enemy by personally taunting them where it hurts most, and you can see the fury in each of their eyes. Other actors also get their moment to shine; Jackson Rathbone and Elizabeth Reiser in particular as Jasper and Esme Cullen, Billy Burke who made me laugh more than ever in any of the previous movies, heck even Dakota Fanning improves with an ever increasing mysterious aura around her. Bryce Dallas Howard is sadly wasted as her villainous role is nothing more than an extended cameo appearance if you count the minutes she's on screen.
However, the script is just as boring as the previous two, with so much predictability and wooden stiffness to it that, I felt like it was bordering on just plain stupidity. OK, yeah I get the old "no-one-else- but-you" type of clichÃ© and I kinda appreciated the fact that the hero is trying his best to get the girl away from his dangerous life to no avail and to the rival's delight, but it is written in a very stunted way that it looks as if the girl switches from one boy to another like clothes hangers. It's kinda stupid if you ask me.
Production design is good but getting unoriginal, fast (it's basically the same as the previous two), while the cinematography is great in which you get to see beautiful panoramic scenery and/or the wolf pack's shirtless abs. It's a mixed bag, that one.
Call me a movie freak, but one of the best thing worth watching (or listening) in the movie is Howard Shore's fantastic orchestral score, which is rousing and sweeping, and best of all easily suits the film. Compared to Carter Burwell's atmospheric score in the first film and Alexandre Desplat's great but horrifyingly mismatched score in the second, this one feels more suitable and gives out even more emotions than the actors themselves. And during the battle preparation and action sequences, one can't help but wonder when Frodo and the Fellowship are going to show up to aid their battle.
Finally, director David Slade. The film's action sequences and moody/grim parts has his style all over it. Even during some of the talk scenes, the camera shakes in a similar way to that of Slade's previous films "Hard Candy" and "30 Days of Night". Heck, the very well-handled action sequences is basically a PG-13 "30 Days of Night" with no blood and extra werewolves thrown into the mix. From the moment the film starts, his taut direction immediately puts you into the action. But most of the action is near the film's end. Moreover, it's a huge surprise to why Slade ever got dragged into the "Twilight" franchise: he should be doing more gory films instead of this. Nevertheless, an interesting director does not make a bad script into a terrific movie, but at least Slade does his best with the material he's given.
In short, although the third time's the charm with the "Twilight" franchise, it's still adequate, and it's mostly a hit and miss with the movie-going crowd. If you hate "Twilight" you're gonna hate/stay away from this one; if you love it, you're gonna love this one. Simple. As a normal movie reviewer, this is just nothing more than a decent time waster, with romance, vampires, werewolves and CGI.
One could wonder what Bill Condon could do with "Breaking Dawn".
Entertainment value: 6/10
Overall: 5/10