Similarly, I did not anticipate positive reviews. Let's talk about that first. As the reviews started rolling in, I was stunned. Not because there were so many bad ones, as I'd expected, but that there were so many good ones. True, the negative have outweighed the positive but one needs to look at where the positive reviews are coming from.

Major, prestigious media outlets and well-respected critics liked the film: Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Screen International, Village Voice, The New York Times, New York Daily News, Los Angeles Daily News, Wall Street Journal, E! Online, Cinemablend, CBS Radio, Movie City News, Washington Post, Seattle Times, Toronto Star, Entertainment Weekly, San Francisco Chronicle, Rolling Stone, B-D. com, Cinematical, Philadelphia Daily News, and Reelzchannel to name a few. All good or mostly positive reviews. I was shocked.

You see, the conventional wisdom was that all the hype and fangirl frenzy would be just so much bluster and the film would not live up to anyone's expectations. In fact, most reviewers write much of their reviews ahead of time. I know this for a fact. I won't name names. But they do, and I have no doubt that most of the critics for the outlets above went in fully expecting to write negative reviews. I have no doubt that their mindset was, "well, there's no way this film will be as good as the hype so I'm not going to like it." Critics love hating films that the public embraces, especially the tween girl set that this was supposedly going to appeal to. Well, guess what? While a lot of critics did stick to their original plans and weren't going to like it no matter what, many went in expecting to write negative reviews and were thrown for a loop. They liked it. They really really liked it (a Sally Field reference for those old enough to remember). They actually thought it was good. Some even had to go back and miss deadlines because they had to rewrite reviews they had done ahead of time. Now, as I stated, there is little doubt that the film would have done well regardless of its quality. But the fact is that it is a good film, and the positive reviews testify to that. That's why there are so many good reviews from well-respected critics and major media outlets. More than anyone expected.

That said, I put myself into the same category as those critics I mentioned above. As I stated earlier, I also went in expecting to be disappointed. But...it was not to be. I enjoyed it. I thought that director Catherine Hardwicke did an excellent job (they doubted her on Lords of Dogtown, too), the acting was not as wooden as I'd expected, production values were higher than I'd anticipated, the pacing was perfect, the story was compelling, and I was very impressed by what this relatively inexperienced cast and crew were able to pull off on a modest budget.

Like many of the reviewers who are normally extremely critical, I went in expecting something ordinary. I walked out having seen a fine piece of work. I thought I'd hate it. I was wrong.

By now everyone knows the numbers. Final box office figures put the total at just under $70 million. It was certainly enough to greenlight the next film in the series, New Moon. Most likely, that film will be shot back-to-back with Eclipse, book number three. I think the franchise will retain its audience. In fact, the Harry Potter books/films were even more heavily pre-teen and tween than this one if only because the lead characters themselves were pre-teens and tweens -- it wasn't until several films into the series that they finally made it into high school. Twilight begins there. So if the pre-teen and tween fans of Potter didn't move on, and it had staying power, then they are even more likely to stay with Twilight if they are already on board, because as they get older they will actually be aging into the characters, not along with them. And much of the Twilight audience are adults who will likely stay and see it through. Not to mention the new fans that are and will be hopping on board.

That should include me, I suppose. I never got into Potter myself. Personally I thought it was more of a kids' thing. I find, as an adult, that it's quite difficult reading stories about children and being able to relate to them in any way. Young adults are another story. I'm not too far removed from that (I hope).

Some criticism online said that adults cannot relate to the relationship between Bella and Edward because it's unrealistiic and only driven by "lust and teenage hormones," not "true love." To which I reply, "duh." Because as far as love vs. lust and teenage hormones are concerned, some would argue that the two are mutually exclusive. To many, by definition, no story about mid-teens can ever really be about "love." So any romantic story involving teens or younger can only be about "lust and hormones." And what's wrong with that? Look at Romeo and Juliet. So it's not necessarily a problem with the story or the script -- it's a problem with the entire genre of young "love." Although "problem" wouldn't be my word of choice. Personally, I think it defines the experience. Twilight is a classic coming-of-age story. And it's got bite (sorry, I had to say it).