Ask anyone but a Twi-hard how they feel about “Twilight,” either the books or the movies made so far, and they’ll probably laugh in your face. Or they would have until today, when “Eclipse,” the third film based on the third original book by Stephenie Meyer, is running in theaters all over the world. Though far from an A+ movie on its own and clearly the most exclusive installment in the franchise so far, “Eclipse,” directed by visionary David Slade, finally makes for the film that fans have been waiting for for more than 2 years: a perfect blend of soapy romance, action scenes, good acting and excellent directing.
For those still not in the know, the appeal of the “Twilight” phenomenon is to be found both in its stars and characters (especially the males), who are beyond perfection in almost every regard, and its timeless story. Transposed on the big screen, the idea of having a man who is as gorgeous as he is courteous, in love with a woman who is the epitome of the modern girl and trying to talk her into marrying him first before turning her into a woman is bound to appeal to the romantic in all of us. Add to that the hot and bothered wolf, who may be a bit rough around the edges but is ultimately still looking out for Bella, saying things like “I’m exactly right for you, Bella; it would be as easy as breathing with me,” and it’s no wonder this franchise is targeted mostly at women, regardless of their age.
Yet “Eclipse” also brings something for the gents, aside from this story with clear Heathcliff-y touches. From the very first scene – introducing yet another beautiful actor, Xavier Samuel as vampire Riley, leader of the Newborn Army – it’s clear that much more consideration, effort, time and money went into the making of this film. The rest remains pretty much the same, only that Bella’s (Kristen Stewart) struggle is not with herself but rather with life itself, a life she no longer desires. While Edward (Robert Pattinson) asks for her hand in marriage every other three lines, she insists she must be “changed” first. For those not fluent in vampire-speak, that means sealing the deal by lovingly severing her carotid and turning her into an undead, which could possibly leave her soulless. Hence, Edward’s stubbornness in accepting the offer, as well as Jacob’s (Taylor Lautner) determination to show her that there are other options available as well. Like, choosing him.
The film starts off with Riley’s transformation by red-headed vampiress Victoria, now played by wide-eyed Bryce Dallas Howard, who is still out to get Bella to avenge her mate’s death in the first film. Useless to say, anyone who didn’t see the first two installments and just happens to stumble in the theatre when “Eclipse” is playing may have a really hard time following the events on the screen, even if their pace is not even all that accelerated to begin with. Not only is the Newborn Army heading towards Forks to end Bella and the entire Cullen clan, the covenant of “vegetarian vampires,” but the Volturi are also going in the same direction since, as expected, they have a pretty strong hunch Edward did not fulfill his part of the bargain and Bella is still a mortal. The danger is so great that the situation calls for an alliance unheard of until now, between vampires and the werewolves who protect the humans of Forks from the bloodsuckers.
Bella is, again, caught smack in the middle but, this time around, she doesn’t seem entirely lost. In fact, Stewart is finally delivering the part she was assigned two years ago: she revels in the sweet feeling of power the powerlessness of love gives her, and she makes that crystal clear. Little awkwardness here. She is also more vocal, less confused and definitely more able to render thought and emotion in front of the camera, save for a few instances when, in her defense, Bella too was probably too confused to make any sense. The improvement in her performance mirrors the one in the narrative: for once, the world was offered a “Twilight” film that doesn’t take itself too seriously and that is intentionally funny and tense, depending on the situation.
Pattinson, whose performance in the previous two flicks was labeled anything from constipated to endearingly (but ridiculous) wannabe “intense,” is contained in “Eclipse.” In fact, his Edward holds so much back that, when he finally lets go, the experience is nearly cathartic – and can’t but pry a sigh from the audience. His is the hardest role to play, if one thinks about it, since he must make believable a type that would probably get only sneers and mocking in real life, granted it would exist in the first place. After all, he’s a virgin who’s over 100 years old and begs the woman he loves to marry him when she’s literally throwing herself at him in every imaginable way she can think of. Somehow, Pattinson manages to pull this one through, even if men in the audience will still laugh when they see him brooding, furrowing those perfect brows and pushing Bella aside just as things heat up.
And, speaking of hot things, then there’s Taylor Lautner as Jacob. Screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg and director Slade clearly wanted to shift the focus on him, to be faithful to the original material. So far, Jake has loved Bella from a (safe) distance but he’s no longer taking it: he’s more aggressive and stands his ground with the girl he loves and who loves him back – she just doesn’t know it. Luckily, he’s still adverse to shirts. Also luckily, the wolves are now better rendered, even if they still leave much to be desired since, though heavy, they have little to no palpable weight. All this works to make even the excessive makeup (in at least a couple of scenes, Taylor is arguably wearing more lipstick than Stewart) seem acceptable – or, at the very least, pardonable.
To conclude what could be a very long review, David Slade and the entire cast have delivered in “Eclipse” the kind of film that fans deserve and had been waiting for. It’s campy, it’s soapy (but in a lovey-dovey way that makes it terribly sweet and endearing, without being cringe-worthy), it’s beautifully rendered, has excellent direction and good acting (save a few minor slipups here and there). “Eclipse” is also like a door that closes on the “Twilight” franchise, because it’s uninviting to newcomers, though not intolerable for them, should they happen to stumble upon a screening.
“The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence. It opened on June 30 in most territories, and will reach, Austria, Germany and Switzerland on July 15.
The Good
After two movies that made critics (and some fans too) cringe, “Eclipse” finally explains why the “Twilight” phenomenon has come to be of this magnitude. Director David Slade brings tension and genuine (albeit very caste) emotion on the big screen, combined with shaky camerawork and spectacular scenes of violence that are unlikely to gross anyone out. The three leads, Pattinson, Stewart and Lautner have finally grown into their respective roles, while also understanding that, though urgent, their situation still allows for an earnest giggle.
The Bad
Before release, Summit marketed “Eclipse” as film that would target the male segment of the audience as well: that will happen only if girls will forcefully drag their boyfriends, brothers or male friends to see it. In other words, “Eclipse” will not bring in new fans, because the plot itself does not allow it. At the same time, the narrative and the way it is portrayed (as Meyer envisioned it from the get-go) make of this “yet another Twilight film.” It’s good, but it’s still “Twilight.” Special effects are also rather cheap-looking, despite the huge budget.
The Truth
“The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” makes for a very enjoyable experience if the following conditions are met: you’re a Twi-hard or you have seen the first two films, read the books and enjoyed them all (to some extent or another). By comparison with the previous two films, “Eclipse” raises the bar and gives fans the film they had been dreaming of. As a standalone production (should anyone dare to consider it as such), it’s just another vampire flick – with very good looking actors.
I'm sorry, but your critique of the special effects being cheap despite the "huge budget", isn't really an accurate statement as $68 million isn't much money to film a movie, not with so many movies in triple digit million dollar budget figures.
Whether you like the film or not, fan demand made it a very profitable film as it almost quadrupled the amount spent on budget.
If it had a large budget, over $100 million, then let's talk cheap effects.
Comment #1.1 by: Elena Gorgan on 12 Jul 2010, 09:14 GMT
Kathy, you’re right: $68 million is not that much money to invest in a movie IF compared to others whose budget easily tops $100 million. It is a “huge budget” though, if you consider how much money went into making “Twilight” and even “New Moon.” Moreover, $68 million is by no means a small budget – and what I said was that, for this kind of money, some special effects were “rather cheap-looking.” While those included in the fight scenes were awesome (especially when the vampires were decapitated), the wolves still left much to be desired because they seemed to have no weight whatsoever. Thank you for your comment.
Find us on Google+
