The Twilight Saga: Eclipse – review

Director: David Slade

Release date: 2010

Contains spoilers

Let us recap – I rather liked the books as I felt that, despite not being the best or most original prose in the world, Stephanie Meyer wrote a good character. As the series progressed she ramped up the supernatural peril and wasn’t too in your face with her cockeyed views on social morality and religious ethics (probably because the writing wasn’t strong enough).

When it came to the films we had a problem. The first film, Twilight, looked pretty but needed a fast forward button. I rather liked Robert Pattinson’s performance as Edward but Kristen Stewart as Bella was flat, one-dimensional and all in all it was a very poor performance. By the second film, the Twilight Saga: New Moon, things went horribly wrong. Pattinson obviously felt guilty about acting when his real life girlfriend didn't and so didn’t either. Those lesser characters with good actors were side-lined, perhaps so as not to out-perform the main stars. Ashley Greene as Alice suddenly emerged as the only thing worth watching in the film. So, what a surprise, in this Ashley Greene has been side-lined with very little to do.

the romance sludges on

So, over-all there is the continuing angst filled Bella, Edward and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) love triangle that less simmers and more sludges along with the intensity of a dead mackerel. This is not the love of the century, at least in these young actors' inexperienced hands. To be fair there is a little more chemistry between Pattinson and Stewart in this one, probably spilling in from their real life romance, but they provide no depth to their characters and thus no depth to their love.

Victoria and Riley

So, it’s bad then? Well, let us explore the supernatural peril side and the change in director. David Slade was brought in, who you will know as the director of 30 Days of Night; a horror/action film. As the main film plot concerns the building of an army of vampires, by Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard), one guesses this was why Slade was brought in. A word about the change in actress; Howard replacing Rachelle Lefevre as Victoria. Lefevre may have a grievance at losing a pay-check but the input of Howard in the film was so minimal that Lefevre barely missed anything as an actress.

army of vampires

Anyway, where were we… army of vampires being led by Riley (Xavier Samuel) who believes Victoria loves him and they must kill the Cullens to be free of their tyranny whilst actually only being used so that she can kill Bella and thus avenge herself for the death of her mate at Edward’s hands. This leads to an 'iconic' scene of the vampire army emerging from water that was better realised when Romero had his zombies do similar in Land of the Dead. Of course, the army necessitates the Cullens and the wolves teaming up to destroy the army of new-borns. Surely this is why Slade was brought in?

working together

The trouble is, Slade proved himself to be average at action direction (at best) in Thirty Days of Night and this was one of the reasons the earlier film is not the classic it could have been. The action direction in this is better (to a point), it has to be said, but it manages to feel lightweight, lacklustre somehow and is minimal on screen. The point I mentioned is the action's pay-off. The vampires break like porcelain dolls, none of the good-guys die and when we have humans attacked by the new-borns the film is modest about the attacks to the point of puritanism. Slade at least had some good gore in Thirty Days.

Peter Murphy

The film has some flashback scenes that worked well enough – especially the tribal history flashback that featured Peter Murphy as the Cold One, his first appearance in film since the Hunger. My question, of course, is why such an intriguing cameo? Those who the Twilight Saga is ultimately aimed at are unlikely to have heard of Bauhaus or seen the Hunger. The use of flashback was ultimately harmed by the modesty I spoke of earlier. That said, Jackson Rathbone actually got a chance to do something, both in flashback and in film, and he wasn’t too bad.

beware our old-fashioned garb

Like the flashbacks, the appearance of the Volturi – or, more fittingly, the agents of the Volturi – were badly handled. Wearing out-of-date clothes does not render one imposing or sinister. Dakota Fanning is wasted and I felt that Slade could have done much more with them – despite the limited story impact – to render them the big bad they are meant to be. This leads us on to one of the biggest near misses of the film.

Jodelle Ferland as Bree Tanner

Bree Tanner (Jodelle Ferland, Masters of Horror: The V Word and Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance) was a minor character who then achieved her own novella. Rumour is that the novella will become a film also and so it is not surprising that the film highlighted her, but for no real reason. She is turned, she fails to fight the Cullens and she dies at the hands of the Volturi. The problem is twofold. Firstly it is a waste of a young actress, with an impressive resume, who does more in those few short scenes than many of the bigger stars (even managing to out act them when in the background of a shot). Secondly the camera again cuts off from the killing blow, which could have actually added some weight to the Volturi being the sinister force they are meant to be, had it been shown.

Lore wise nothing has really moved on, except for the idea that vampires are at their strongest when first turned – due to the human blood still in their system (evidence of which was not offered as porcelain flesh failed to release blood on breaking). This is an inversion of normal lore, of course.

ok... he's a dog

Eclipse was very much a film of two-halves. The love story was as poor as we have come to expect. One-dimensional, badly written and awfully acted. On a plus note, Bella’s school friends are relegated to two scenes. The action side was more interesting, but Slade didn’t manage to add a gravitas to the action, failed to generate a sinister atmosphere and bottled the money shots. Worse, there were aspects he could have built upon – following the novel be damned – that he failed to capitalise upon. 3.5 out of 10

The imdb page is here.