Marketing research or film?

Rating: 1/10 (22 March 2009)

This film is a brilliant example of market research, a product that is perfectly crafted for its target audience, middle-class females ages 12-16. And I sincerely mean that. I know of few films that have so captured the romantic angst of early feminine puberty, and have done so in a pop-cultural idiom touching - at least lightly - on all the hip romantic fads this age group inherits from its parents and elder siblings, from 'goth' to 'Native American spirituality.' It also references much more violent films of the 'vampire' genre without ever betraying its softly shaded early-teen 'sensitiveness.' But good marketing does not necessarily make good film. If you like this film and you are not a middle-class female aged 12-16, you really need to ask yourself why you want to be a middle-class female aged 12-16, because such is the only audience that would not be appalled by this extremely long, drawn-out, soap-operatic "Dark Shadows" style inversion of the old Archie comics.
Some other reviewer wrote that he didn't see the 'so bad it's funny' elements of the film. Please, sir, understand that the very idea of vampires playing baseball is inherently grotesque, and amusing for that reason - it's amazing Mel Brooks didn't come up with the idea for "Dead - and Loving It." Also, the repeated references to the scent of the heroine driving vampires wild had my friends and me telling feminine hygiene jokes for a good half-hour - deservedly so, since the market research that went into this film is clearly manifested here in the not so subtle reference to the body odors young girls become acutely aware of as they enter their menses. And the first indication that the film is soon to become a trash classic is the very appearance of the vampire hero. Bad enough that the actor was chosen because he looks like an 'emo' cross between an anorexic Joaquin Phoenix and a James Dean suffering manic-depression. But then there's that HAIR! It's precisely the kind of cut young girls think guys should wear.
The point being: the situations, the dialog, the very appearance of the film, although all well-crafted to sell to a target audience, make the film hilariously bad when it doesn't simply just drag (which it does quite a bit).
All this sounds like I'm trashing the intended audience of this film as much as the film itself. Not necessarily. When I was very young, I really thought the comedies of Don Knotts (e.g., "The Incredible Mr. Limpet") were utterly charming. Although some films I liked as a child I still find amusing (e.g., Three Stooges shorts), I got over my tolerance for Don Knotts by the age of 14. Had his films been worth seeing for someone younger than ten? Sure. Were they utterly atrocious cinematic sludge? You bet. Back in the '60s, 'New Critics' of various arts convinced us that we had to like great art - which also meant, inversely, that we had to defend entertainment we enjoyed as great art. That simply isn't so. If you're a middle-class female aged 12-16, enjoy this feast, it was prepared for you. As you mature you may yet develop more enlightened tastes - the Cullen family did, after all.