"Twilight" An Objective Review from a 22-year-old male It wasn't the train wreck I was expecting But it was still flat and uninspired

Rating: 6/10 (9 February 2011)

About a year ago, I found myself unable to sleep one night, while visiting a relative. In my desperation to occupy the blank void of wasted time, I began searching his Video On-Demand channels and there it stood, screaming at me: "Premier: Twilight on Demand"! I'm not familiar with the books, but I know the basic story- sappy, pouting boy and girl fall in love boy turns out to be vampire assorted shenanigans ensue. I also know the films are met with very mixed-to-negative reception critically despite their booming popularity to the young female market. So, I had to take a dive into the pool of estrogen and sappy dialog, if for nothing more than to understand why this darned series is so popular, and why I can't swing a dead cat without hitting something "Twilight" related.
And my feelings are surprisingly contradictory the film was simultaneously better and worse than I had imagined.
"Twilight" is directed by Catharine Hardwicke, a director whom I have the mixed feelings for, as I felt her film "Thirteen" had good intentions, but fell into the trappings of a cheap exploitation flick, and in the end was little more than a feature-length Mtv reality show. And I felt it mainly had to do with amateurish direction on her part, and a lack of focus. So I already had that against "Twilight"- I assumed the filmmaking would be of just-as-"meh" a quality as she displayed before. Surprisingly, Hardwicke was, for the most part, a capable director in her handling of the material. Granted, the scenes of suspense and action were poorly done (the climax was rushed and at times it was impossible to see what was going on), and some of the dialog sequences fell flat, but on the whole, I feel she has grown as a visual artist.
The acting was adequate for the leads. Just adequate. On the whole, Robert Pattinson did an OK job as the heartthrob vampiric lead; though he did feel like a creep and a stalker too much- guys who behave like him likely wouldn't get the girl It's different seeing it in a movie, but in real life, it's too weird. But then, there's your necessary suspension of disbelief. But Kristin Stewart fell flat as a pancake as the human lead Bella Swan. Boring and at times annoying, Stewart takes awkward to a whole new level in this film. I can't put my finger on it, but she either tried too hard to be an angsty teen, or she just wasn't trying at all. I can't say. Either way, she doesn't work that well.
Surprisingly, the secondary characters were generally very well-played. In fact, I'd argue that some of the secondary characters (particularly Carlisle and Esme, Edward's adoptive vampire parents, and his accepting and sweet-hearted adoptive sister Alice) are leaps and bounds beyond Edward or Bella in terms of development. The whole notion of Carlisle and Esme heading a "vegetarian vampire" family (they eat animals, not humans) that generally isolates themselves from humans, but respects them as a race and are willing to treat them with kindness and honor well, to be honest, it's a lot more compelling than the knock-off Romeo and Juliet tale the film forces down our throats.
Although I will say the romance is not without its charm. A few scenes are loosely entertaining (though much more juvenile than any high-school romance I'd ever seen or been in), some of the exchanges are alright, and on the whole, it works on some level. Let me put it this way- I thought I'd hate the romance, but I actually didn't mind it. In fact, if the script and dialog (I'm not gonna lie, it was soap-opera level at best) were better, it could have been great. But as it stands, it was OK.
This is where the movie exceeded my expectations.
Where it failed my expectations are with two factors- 1) The action, which I thought would be redeeming. The previews lent emphasis to the battles and running and kinetic energy but this was just a ploy to lure in boyfriends and husbands there is maybe three minutes of action in the whole film. And those three minutes were very sloppily done.
And  2) The villain was poorly established (let me rephrase that- NOT established at all) and really didn't lend to the story. He shows up like twice in the whole movie and suddenly just decides to torment our heroes for no reason. It was a glorified sub-plot that should have been cut out during editing for adding nothing to the film.
In addition, it felt like a good 15 minutes could have been cut from the film, as there is certainly an abundance of filler material, which bogged and slowed down the movie- at times painfully. Some of Edward and Bella's scenes went on for far too long. The few scenes the villain gets to establish himself really don't work. There are a few subplots, moments and minor characters that just felt unneeded (Somehow, I don't think the Golden Onion award is gonna come back as an important part of the sequels), and there are just shots that feel like they run about 10 seconds too long. Yes, we get it, young lovers like to look into each other's eyes... we don't need to spend a half hour watching the actors do this, though... it gets boring.
But like I said, on the whole, it wasn't a bad movie. It was misguided and very juvenile, but I think it works for its target audience, and I'd never take it away from them. For me, as a serious, unbiased movie viewer, it is just decent. An average 6 out of 10.