Reviews & Ratings for
The Twilight Saga: New Moon More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 91:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

905 reviews in total

---

997 out of 1513 people found the following review useful:
So BAD I find it funny, 19 November 2009

Author: crazybilby from Australia

I've read all the books. I know what happens. This never ruins a film for me.

I didn't want to see this film because the previous one was lacking in... well... everything. But girlfriend wanted to see it. I went in and was instantly surprised to see the demographic had widened past 12-16 year old girls who instantly swoon at any even remotely hot guy so that was interesting. It's not relevant to how good the film was- it just reaffirmed to me (and should to all of you) that hating a series on principle or having preconceived notions of how bad something will be is unfair on it.

Not in this case. It was still bad. BUT worth the money I payed to see it because though it most definitely not intended to be entertaining in the way I found it. It was full of melodramatic dialogue and bad acting which, if you take ANY Drama classes at school- Which Robert DIDN'T- you'll notice certain things about how people deliver lines. You notice how they're SAYING lines they have memorised with unnatural and stylised emphasis on the key words in the sentences without giving the (cheesy) dialogue depth or realism. Quite simply, it was so terrible I found myself resisting the urge to burst out laughing in a room full of fans who were probably misinterpreting the melodrama as "Good, emotional drama." No. This film is ridiculous.

As it goes further on it gets less tightly stitched together and I had to become reliant on my knowledge of the books to fill in and pick up the slight gaps in dialogue and plot. They would say things that are based on something that didn't happen on screen (probably deleted scene for time) or their dialogue would just be terrible unrealistic lines that are work as standalone ones for a trailer but in conversation it seems like they're jumping slightly just to get to say something that is dramatic without it actually making too much sense.

BUT! It does have SOME redeeming qualities! The melodrama wasn't nonstop hilarity so thankfully something else held my attention. There was actual effort put into this film. The fight scenes actually used REAL special effects (something the first film was a bit cheap on) which actually looked kinda impressive. Any action was short lived unfortunately but what little there was, they did a reasonable job with.

I was impressed at the presence of transition. The previous film jumped and skipped and the next plot point just WAS without having been caused. This film (until near the end, of course) actually had a pace and a coherency to it that allows you to understand it without reading the books. This is a bonus. Certain things you'd think would drag on as the director tries to give you time to let the "emotion" "sink in" thankfully didn't take forever and the entire movie fit almost snuggly into its 2 hour length. Too bad it fell apart more and more it went along.

The film also shares the semi-awkward character interactions that create the same humour as the first one. Not as deliberately funny as the first one (though, as I said, it was pretty hilarious when it wasn't meant to be) though.

Though it was many failings with only a few things to back it up as being a reasonable film it will definitely make all you little teenage girls out there desperate to see Jacob's hell tanked up body very happy. You can HEAR the audience's reaction the first time Jacob takes his shirt off. He's got all you need: Pecs, biceps, ABS OF STEEL and minimal clothing. Too bad he lacks depth and real character. (Girls love obsessively devoted Zombies, they don't think enough to complain) It is NO WAY even NEAR one of the best films of 2009. NO ONE should say this ridiculous claim.

Really tossing up between 3 and 4 stars. Mmm. I guess a movie's highlight shouldn't be how low it sinks. 3.

---

602 out of 867 people found the following review useful:
A never-ending stream of awkward moments, 20 November 2009

Author: deathscythe_42 from United States

I will preface this review by saying that I have not read any of the twilight books, but I did watch the first movie before going to see this film, and I am looking at the series purely from a cinematic stand-point.

That being said, I thought this movie was a massive failure. The entire movie was very slow, long, and awkward. As I was watching it, it really felt like I was just watching a very long book unfold on screen, rather than a movie that is BASED on a book. To die-hard fans of the book, this could be considered a good thing, because all the fans really wanted to see was a movie that depicted all of the events of the book and followed it closely. By what I heard from book fans it seemed to have succeeded in that regard, but that is not at all to the film's credit. The film just moved from one scene to the next as if it was counting off a large check-list of scenes that the fans wanted to see, most of which just consisted of very uncomfortable and boring one-on-one dialogues. The film had very little momentum, and was tedious to watch. This was mostly due to the structure and pacing of the film but also due to the characters.

To be fair, some of the characters were likable, but they had very little chemistry. I already didn't quite believe Bella and Edward were in love in the first twilight. In this one I would flat out argue with Stephenie Meyer herself that the two characters were not in love. Their relationship was stiff, there seemed to be no real emotions between them, it merely consisted of silence, staring, and Edward randomly throwing out gooey love phrases like "you are my everything" and "i didn't wanna live in a world where you didn't exist" that just come out sounding hollow. There was a little more chemistry between Bella and Jacob, but even they were a bit awkward together. It seemed like none of the characters could say two words to each other without a ton of awkward pauses. The conversations were incoherent and annoying. There was a little bit of humor in the dialogue that I admit got some chuckles out of me, but even that came out of the awkwardness between all of the characters.

There were, however, a few welcome releases from the snail-like dialogue. Cinematically it had a few semi-redeeming moments. The score was likable, and a couple of scenes were artistically shot, but even so it was nothing that would deserve a best cinematography or best director nomination. The other well-needed break from the awkwardness came in the action scenes. They were very few and far between, and rather incoherent with the rest of the film, but they were enjoyable. The wolves were obviously CG in a lot of shots, but then there were some shots where they actually looked pretty real, and they were presented pretty well. They could have done a bit better job of foreshadowing them but hey at this point in the movie i was willing to accept what I could get. There was also a more intense scene near the end that I won't spoil that I thought was fairly well-done.

All in all, I did enjoy a few scenes in this movie, but as a whole it was slow, incoherent, poorly acted, and a bit uncomfortable. If you're a die-hard fan of the book, there's a chance you'll love it but if you're looking for a truly cinematic experience, this isn't it.

3 stars out of 10

---

760 out of 1292 people found the following review useful:
Sure didn't see that coming., 20 November 2009

Author: syerradaps from United States

well to start off, I've read all four books, and saw the first movie which i loathed.It had horrible acting, and cringe-worthy dialogue. so i was extremely disappointed with that one.I saw the trailer for new moon and became very anxious to see it. i was hoping it would be better since they got a new director......well i was wrong.i got my tickets in advance. pulled up to the theater with my mom-she has read the series to and thought twilight sucked-and we couldn't sit together because there was so many screaming teen girls.we got there half an hour earlier thinking there'd be no one there..... anyways,so the movie starts, i'm feeling pretty good.....sure as hell did not see this piece of crap coming.WORST.ACTING. but not from everyone.just Kristen and Robert.there was no chemistry at all between them as some claim. half the time he wasn't even looking at her!he mumbles his lines and its just BAD. then Kristen cant show emotion to save her life. she does this rapid blinking thing i don't understand.if they were replaced it would make a huge difference. Taylor was pretty good for the most part. he over acted at times and it came off as fake to me. like something you would see in a soap opera. but the rest of the Cullen clan,the wolf pack,and her school mates were excellent. the cgi was good,had really good stunt work. some lines seemed out of place to me. the leading roles need to FEEL the words and not just say them nonchalantly. the ending was bad to. they cut too many scenes from the book that would make a big difference to. so overall I'm disappointed. why this is such a big franchise i have no idea. fans are too obsessed, boggles my mind.i was left dissatisfied, but of course the rabid fan base will approve.

---

540 out of 965 people found the following review useful:
Much worse than Twilight, 20 November 2009

Author: Lukeskywalker_pt from Portugal - Lisboa

Hi Saw it last night and what a disappointment !!!

Its a 130min gushy of a troubled Bella who swings between Edward an Jacob, looking for the who she loves more. It's all about Looonnnggg closeups of Bella and Edward kissing, or attempting to do so, an on the other side, there is the Looonnnggg fixation of Jacob for Bella and their Looonnnggg staring and trying to kiss each other.

The hole story should fit in a 90min feature, and not more.

Much worse than Twilight.

Its only for the fans, don't waste your money if your not.

Final word, this film is so boring.

2/10

And lets see what they are making for the third part !!!

---

195 out of 284 people found the following review useful:
Best thing I could say was it's a chick flick (no offence meant ladies!), 23 November 2009

Author: roy-583-453250 from United Kingdom

Well, my lovely lady wife has been waiting for this movie since Twilight, and is a huge fan of the books, I thought I would keep her company. We saw the Twilight when it first came out, and I wasn't really impressed with that, so though, hey ho, go in with low expectations and hopefully I would be surprised.

The only problem was, I don't think I could have expected less and still been as bored as I was.

When in the theatre I was probably the oldest male at 37, apart from some dads that had been brought along by their kids, and several boyfriends, which is fair as I guess the film is aimed at the younger ladies than us old folks.

So, we sat down and I waited for anything to happen, well anything really. There was no chemistry at all between the leading actors, just a dull numbness which left me bored, I really don't know how Kristen Stewart got the role as she's possibly the most boring actress around and added nothing to the film at all, unless I guess she was just asked to play a spoilt brat with no brain.

I thought, maybe there is some suspense? Nope, none of that either. Bella does a very good job of not really showing any emotion either way and where in Twilight you there was at least a couple of times it made you think "something good might happen" there wasn't really a single moment in this film that stood out, although I was at some point expecting to see the teleprompter which some of the actors looked like they might have been using, so wooden was the performance.

It's a shame really that the other film I have seen recently "UP" you feel more attachment to the characters in that, than you do to the actors in this.

Yes, the CGI was good, the Wolves were pretty great. But like in 2012, throw a lot of money at CGI and be amazed, but that's about it. There so many little bits of story that really didn't seem to do anything, it really reminded me of another film directed by this lovely director, Golden Compass anyone?? All in all, pretty much a letdown, and that's with low expectations, if felt like just another suck on the wallet by Hollywood to our pockets.

If you are thinking of this film, and really if you read most of the reviews on this site I can't imagine why, wait until it comes onto DVD. Rent it for £1 and you can get a couple of cheap laughs at the acting, and for the ladies, buff men, apart from that give it a miss.

---

448 out of 797 people found the following review useful:
Laaaame., 20 November 2009

Author: messor-587-556944 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Esoteric?" Are you serious? This movie is porn for women. Period. Sparkly vampires? This "imprinting" garbage? What else could this be? All this movie does is makes teenage girls thing that abusive relationships with older men are normal, healthy, and "romantic." The man is literally a parasite. He drinks blood for heaven's sake! He's like a big, glittery mosquito. He doesn't even have any of the cool stuff that Dracula had, like the ability to turn into a bat. Go see something worth your time that won't rot your brain, and make you stupider.

Don't waste your life on this Twilight garbage.

---

234 out of 385 people found the following review useful:
awful....just plain awful, 20 November 2009

Author: lexi0113 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I cut them some slack with Twilight, but not with this one. To say the book was butchered is an understatement. I was fully prepared to take a long, depressing ride with Bella into the depths of h**l, but instead took a trip down comedy lane. What was the point of all those ridiculous one-liners? And Ashley (Alice) - she was terrible. She was so much better in Twilight - at least she showed some character, but here it was like watching paint dry when she spoke. And as for the spoiler note, the only scene that gave me any enjoyment was the confrontation between Bella and Paul. It was just as "electric" as I pictured it in the book. Folks listen, don't waste the money. Wait for the DVD, or even better, just wait for Netflix....

---

251 out of 436 people found the following review useful:
Why, oh why..., 22 November 2009

Author: Anonymous

I had low expectations. After Twilight, this is now an obligation. I don't care much for the books, even though I've read them. (Because these days, you can't possibly have a rational opinion on this saga unless you've read the books. Otherwise, you're just a plain ol' hater who will be disregarded. Yeah, sounds about logical.) Anyway! I so badly wanted to see Dakota shine, even though I reprimanded her decision to get involved with this saga. Her eyes freaked me out - not because they were red, but because they didn't focus on anything. She just seemed to be staring vacantly ahead. (Though I've noticed this with the majority of the cast...I fear it may be contagious.) Which brings me to the Cullens. Call me closed-minded if you wish, but what kind of people wouldn't notice a person with yellow eyes in school? I definitely didn't see those yellow contacts in the first movie. If anything, they were less vibrant and could pass as an exotic shade of brown.

That said, I'm only glad I didn't pay for it. Avoid it. Or at least wait until you can use the "fast forward" button to spare yourself the agony.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a Buffy collection waiting to be re-watched so that I may cleanse my head of this filth they call a modern Romeo & Juliet. I'm pretty sure Shakespeare would want no association with this whatsoever.

---

214 out of 364 people found the following review useful:
Do not mess up a winning formula - bring back Catherine Hardwicke & Carter Burwell!!!, 19 November 2009

Author: (justjojo39@gmail.com) from Australia

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched Twilight before actually reading all 4 books - several times.To be fair, New Moon was the least of my favorites - I am Team Edward. So far I have seen this movie twice, hoping that by the 2nd time it might do something for me. I was disappointed. From the opening scene, I wanted - expected something to grab me - be it the scene or the soundtrack.. but it fell flat. The film's director or maybe screenwriter tried to reproduce the book faithfully, yes it's closer to the book, but in doing so, the first half just dragged on, and the music score did not help.The pace was so slow, the dialogue just fell flat, Edward's eyebrows were too bushy (they were plucked/trimmed in the 1st movie), the Cullen's contacts looked nothing like the 1st movie. Alexandre Desplat is a great music scorer- but his style does not suit this movie..there were scenes that required music, but there was none. Whoever picked the songs for the soundtrack ought to be shot.

I bought my daughter the CD a month ago, and the songs almost sound the same.Nothing grabs you like in the Twilight Soundtrack. Say when you hear "Super Massive Black Hole" you know it's from the baseball scene, or "Eyes on Fire" when Bella was imagining Edward in her bedroom. Fans still will buy it tho, no matter what.

The pace picks up on the 2nd half when Bella cliff-jumps,and Alice rushes back to see her thinking Bella tried to kill herself. From there the pace quickens, to the point where I thought they were rushed-- from Bella & Alice's trip to Italy to stop Edward from killing himself (or being killed by the Volturi),to meeting them (Volturi)at last, to the Cullens coming back to Forks, etc...it looked like the last half was heavily edited - and badly at that. The scene that Alice shows Aro (to prove to him that Bella will turn into a vampire eventually) made me cringe - that of Edward & Bella running in the woods - people actually laughed in the cinema..it looked really ridiculous and sappy.

Twilight was made on a measly $30M budget, but Catherine Hardwicke made do with what was available successfully, it was a winning formula. Hiring Chris Weitz for New Moon to "take it to the next level" unfortunately, was a disappointment considering they had more $$$ to play with. The CGI was better because they had more money, but that's about it. Weitz hired Desplat whom he worked with previously - but it just didn't work. It looked different, sounded different but for all the wrong reasons. New Moon should have been bigger & better than Twilight, but it's not.

I hope the director does not mess up the 3rd movie - my favorite book--and I hope the people behind the production wake up to their senses and hire Carter Burwell to do the music score. He did a great job with Twilight, anything less would be a crime.

Bitterly disappointed.

---

259 out of 457 people found the following review useful:
I'm sorry but..., 23 November 2009

Author: Madz Smith from United Kingdom

I don't usually do these, but I think this movie needs a fair judgement as most of the comments so far have either been uneducated, or based on a personal vendetta against the saga.

Starting afresh, let's look at this movie. It is based on a book targeted primarily at females between the ages of 13-40. If you do not fall into that range, did you really expect to like it anyway? That'd be like going to see "He's Just Not That Into You" if you hate romances, or "Saw" if you hate violence - and then complaining about it. The movie has a set target audience, it's what it thrives on. If it appeals to you, great. If it doesn't, fine, either leave it be like I do with movies I do not like, or leave an educated and constructive review.

So the movie, well I was pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed Twilight, yet New Moon was better. The narrative was greatly improved, it had a deeper plot and it was great to see the director explore new realms of cinematography and camera angles. I took my friend who hugely disliked the first movie along with me, and she left having enjoyed the 2hrs and agreeing that New Moon was certainly worth the £6 cinema ticket. Chris Weitz has done fantastic work on only his 6th directing job. His style may not be unique, but for an emerging artist he has certainly left his mark.

The acting was again much improved. For the large part, these actors are unknowns who have jumped in at the deep end. The one criticism I would have is that it'd be nice for the character of "Bella" (Kristen Stewart) to be allowed the humour and fun loving attitude that she posses in the books, to shine through into the movie. It'd also be nice to see some of the characters back stories developed more, but on a short time scale, I understand the difficulties here.

On the whole, "Twilight - New Moon" deserves much higher respect than it is receiving. It is highly unfair that it is written off just based on peoples opinions of the saga. This is a charming and beautiful adaptation of Stephanie Meyers story and does not deserve to be slammed so unproductively. It does not give out bad messages to it's audience, if that was the case "Romeo and Juliet" should be re induced as at least a 15 to avoid 'such negative messages' being revealed to it's target audience.

Give this movie a chance, even just out of curiosity - you never know, you may become a fan. It's harmless, entertaining fun that at least demands sensible and logical reviews.

If you dislike the movies/books so much, have some self respect and don't watch it - or at least produce a worthy point.

---

---

Page 1 of 91:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history