Long, tedious, unintentionally hilarious, silly, lumbering, consistently empty-headed -- those are some of the adjectives being used to describe The Host. And they all can be found in just one review -- Lou Lumenick's in the New York Post. In fact, the movie hasn't received a single positive review from a major newspaper critic. What it primarily has going for it is the name of the writer who conceived the book on which the movie is based -- Stephanie Meyer, who produced the Twilight trilogy, which begat one of the most successful movie franchises ever. Virtually every review of The Host compares it with the Twilight films -- some favorably. Elizabeth Weitzman in the New York Daily News, for example, writes: There's no more subtlety here than in the Twilight saga, but at least this woozy, convoluted tangle represents a more interesting effort.. Those may be the most positive words written by any critic about this movie. More typical of the attitude of virtually all critics towards it are these comments from The New York Times's Manohla Dargis: Dopey, derivative and dull, The Host is a brazen combination of unoriginal science-fiction themes, young-adult pandering and bottom-line calculation. That sounds like it should work (really!), but it never does, largely because the story is as drained of energy as are its moony aliens. Michael O'Sullivan in the Washington Post scorches the actors and the director, Andrew Niccol. Niccol, he writes, is usually better than this. But I don't blame him. His body has been taken over by Meyer, whose monomaniacal focus on the supernatural menage a trois is guided by her own alien overlords: the teenage girls who buy her books by the millions.