'Twilight' sucks

With hundreds of sold-out midnight shows, there had to be a good reason for all the “Twilight” hype. But even three Entertainment Weekly special edition covers and thousands of mall-tour-braving girls later, there is really none to be found.

Well, there is one thing: Robert Pattinson’s ungodly good looks. Pattinson, who plays the mysterious teenage vampire Edward Cullen, is an otherwise poor actor.

The story takes place, faithful to the Stephenie Meyer book series, in Forks, Wash., where pale Phoenix native Bella Swan (Kristin Stewart) joins her father Charlie (Billy Burke). Clumsy and introverted, Bella attracts the attention of everyone, including the hunky Cullen, who doesn’t talk to anyone but his equally beautiful and strange adoptive siblings.

They fall creepishly in love, and she spends the first hour figuring out he’s a vampire, because duh, he’s pale, cold and strong. In the book Bella spends most of her narration chronicling how consumed by love she is. Stewart, however, acts with as much passion as the fake trees behind her.

Speaking of fake, the special effects are so inauthentic that the filmmakers might as well have left the pulley and harness in. Vampires are supposed to be lithe and graceful, but Pattinson is neither.

Fans of the book will be disappointed by the lack of character development aside from Bella and Edward. Fake friend Jessica (Anna Kendrick) and quirky Alice Cullen (Ashley Greene) should have been more important. The best actor is Burke, who played Charlie Swan as the brooding and over-protective father who book fans know.

Those who haven’t read the books will be confused by the screenplay’s omission of certain events.

“Twilight” is not a good movie, and its box office success can be chalked up to a good-looking cast. With three more attempts at success and way more money for production coming, there’s a hint of optimism for the future. But more importantly, there are three more opportunities to gaze at Robert Pattinson.