IMDb > The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

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

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 93:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 925 reviews in total 

48 out of 80 people found the following review useful:

Why?

2/10
Author: leonidliu from Russian Federation
21 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In my comment I want and will try to answer on some questions which sticked in my head after watching Twilight and New moon. First, why twilight was not just popular but literally bursted teen world. What was so unbelievable magnetic in Twilight? Second, why New Moon turned out so tasteless with quite good and fresh ingredients? Well, Twilight, generally, it's not a story about vampire, it's about love and passion and what most important thing it's about inaccessible love and passion. My first association with Edward and Bella was Elisabeth Bennet and Mark Darcy. This plot of hate in public and love with first look inside and gradual opening true feelings always charmed. It's classic and there is nothing surprising in Twilight's success. Besides classical love story there is magic of vampire's immortally, reading minds, seeing future, longing girl's blood (and it affects more than usual sexual attraction in ordinary melodramas), beautiful music with right mood in right places, fantastic landscape from flying camera, silent and mystical atmosphere, and (don't worry, I didn't forget) Robert Pattinson. I reckon the combination of innocent young love and dark Edward's desire of killing Bella it's the cocktail almost everybody wants to drink. Catherine Hardwicke feels keenly what teens want and she gave them beautiful which they can understand. A million defects in Twilight you just dissemble because it doesn't matter. And what we seeing in New Moon? It's really boring and too long. I'm almost asleep, and that telling a person who loves Gerry of Gus Van Sant with no action at all. But New Moon have an action but there is no sense and nothing exciting. Everything what was so good in Twilight including logical acting and simple but pretty rich dialogs was so wrong in New Moon. I read the books but still didn't understand reasons of character's behavior in the film. Sentimental words repeating over and over again during two hours about how she loves or how she feels produced only irritation. In Twilight everything was obvious without much words. New Moon's music made a fairy impression what right if considering New Moon like a fairy tale, but this is most realistic book in saga. Hardwicke knows where highlight key points and she made Twilight romantic, but I didn't see promised gloomy in New Moon. No mysterious, no magnetic, no passion. It was bright and colored. Bella's skin was shiny white in Twilight but in the second part it's even pinkish. It has to be a story about despair and death of spirit and sinking deep in yourself and depression. It has to be a story about loosing The Biggest Love Ever. All of Bella's hopes and dreams disappears just like Edward did. And then she slowly wakes up, step by step after months of semi-life because of sunshine of her friend Jacob, but everything I can remember about this character it's his naked trunk. Actors looks absurdly wooden and not so handsome as in first part. Why all of this personages were so natural in the first film? I can give only one answer: because of director. And I'm sorry Chris Weitz, because I like him.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 49 people found the following review useful:

It's not just people hating on it...

1/10
Author: FoxWolf87 from United States
5 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When this movie came out, I thought all the nasty comments were just people hating on it without seeing it because it's a popular flick for young, teenage girls, and they wanted to look cool by trashing it before it came out.

And then I actually watched the movie, and... SWEET Jesus... It is actually one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It's not just people hating on it. It is actually a really bad movie. I mean I feel like I've been mooned watching "New Moon".

But, just to even things out, I'm a guy. So I'm not exactly unbiased when it comes to this movie. (I saw the movie because I work at a Drive-In theater, and it was a really slow night.)

That said, I've seen love stories and fantasy love stories that I've actually liked, or I can respect for being well made, even if they're not my thing. And that's what I was expecting with this. I was expecting it just to not be my thing, but it made me frigging ANGRY to try to sit through this. I say "try" because I couldn't sit through the whole thing!

Everyone else has commented on the movie, but I'll add my two-sense anyway.

ACTING - Mostly awful. The woman playing Bella is actually OK, but she's given horrible dialog, a horrible motivation, and a horrible story so it's impossible to get into her character.

STORY - It's stupid. That's the only way to describe it. It's like watching a two hour emo-trip.

Here's the story ***SPOILERS***

Edward breaks up with Bella. She goes through a long... long... long... LONG over-dramatic period of mourning where she meets another guy and basically acts completely emo and sees Edward everywhere. Not just for a few days or a few weeks, but MONTHS. Which the film MAKES A POINT TO SHOW US BECAUSE THEY PUT UP TITLES SHOWING US THE PASSING MONTHS AS SHE STARES OUT A WINDOW!!!!

And then she starts hurting herself and putting herself in dangerous situations because... life is meaningless. And you know, she's emo. Because her boyfriend broke up with her. And even though she's got other guys expressing an interest left and right... she just keeps crying over this one guy, who is kind of a dick. That's not romantic. That's a sign you need psychological help. And it is a terrible message for young women. "If your boyfriend breaks up with you... act like it's the end of the world... because it is. Don't try to move on. Dwell on it. And get into motorcycle accidents."

DIALOGUE - Bad. SPECIAL EFFECTS - Bad. PACING - Bad. LOVE SCENES - Unbelievably bad. CHARACTER MOTIVATIONS - Ridiculous.

ANY GOOD?

Well... I will say the cinematography is nice. Some of the editing is nice. The girl playing Bella can act, but she's given bad material. And some of the scenery is kind of nice.

But in all... the movie is really crappy. I didn't see the first one, and I don't intend to. Hell, I didn't intend to watch this one. I only tried to because it was a slow night at the drive-in movie theater where I work. But if you want to watch a good fantasy love story, there's better stuff out there. There's more well-made stuff out there.

And fans of "Twilight," I'm not hating on you. If you like it, hey, everyone's got their own preferences. Watch what you want to. But I didn't care for the movie, and I, personally, didn't find enough good to give it a higher rating.

1/10 - Only watch it if you're a fan of "Twilight" or you're really into this kind of thing. To anyone else... I wouldn't even bother with it.

Was the above review useful to you?

37 out of 61 people found the following review useful:

Garbage, just like Narnia

1/10
Author: sattaravy from Australia
23 November 2009

This is definitely one of the most hyped up movie ever...

The whole Twilight saga is just another example of how boring people nowadays are. A teenage girl falling in love with a vampire, and has a werewolf friend. What's so new and creative about this whole thing? I mean, why do people think movies such as Underworld sucks and yet this one great? One reason: Because this one involves teenage love.

Yes. A girl who has no emotion, no character, never smiles... gives her first love to a vampire... and when he dumps her, begin to act suicidal just to see him... at the same time ignore the wolf-boy who at least is kind and not selfish and seems to have a heart... is just plain stupid and boring... yet this gets a lot of young people high... I don't get it.

To make things worst, this movie could not have delivered it more boring and dull... there were hardly any exciting dialog, no action (all the action are already in the trailer)... and most of the male characters in the film are half naked most of the time... you know, just so they can get more teenage girls to watch it.

Plain dumb and boring.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Garbage

1/10
Author: adengenira from Romania
2 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is one of the worst movies out there, even a low budget B-movie is better, much better than this one. Or is it really a low budget movie ? Cause most of the scenes are in the forest, anyway..

I couldn't even laugh at its stupidity. It made me sad and disgusted. They should pay us to see it, not we.

It has very bad acting. Some scenes don't have logics. Has cheesy romance. The special effects a 10 year old can make them better and the list goes on..

Here is the summary: Bella talks, talks, talks and does nothing, then Edward talks, talks, talks and then they go in the forest and they talk some more. Then he leaves and she starts crying. Jacob shows off his pecs and the girls start screaming, then he transforms into a giant wolf and goes all horny for Bella. Edward meanwhile thinks Bella is dead for some reason, whatever and wants to die, but Bella of course arrives just in time and saves him. They kiss and he asks to marry him. Suddenly the end.

Stay away from it! it will hurt, believe me.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 90 people found the following review useful:

Thank God For True Blood & Supernatural - Boycott This Film & the Books

1/10
Author: SkidMcCormick from United States
21 November 2009

Whilst I do not begrudge Stephanie Meyer on her success with the Twilight series and the untold pots of money she's amassed; she's no J.K Rowling either. To quote one of her critics, Stephen King: "while both authors spoke to young readers, the real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good." I get the feeling Steph was a stay-at-home soccer mum, whose only boredom was to reinvent a genre. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to bring something different into Vampire folklore (as Joss Whedon did with Angel and Ron Koslow with Moonlight. Both vamps walked around in the day,whilst avoiding the sun; and displaying their fangs-for-all menace at night). Angel was in love with Buffy Summers, but their love was not cringe-inducing and much can be said for Mick "Moonlight" St.John and his passion for Beth Turner. Sadly, if Twilight was written in the 80s and turned into a movie in that period, we could have had a different story in the Romeo & Juliet vein (which was sadly alluded to in New Moon and possibly insulting to Shakespeare himself!) Bram Stoker said the inspiration for Dracula came to him after contracting VD, a BLOOD related disease. Does this mean that Steph Meyers happened to get inspiration from her menstrual cycle? So, what's wrong with the Twilight movies? First of all, why doesn't Edward Cullen possess fangs? Can a Twilight reader explain this to me? The notion of a veggie vampire isn't new and was seen in Supernatural's season two episode "Bloodlust" - (featuring Buffy Alumni, Amber Benson) as a vegetarian vampire with an impressive set of retractable fangs and a new craving for Cow blood. She was a badass girl and yet, you liked her nobility too. A very convincing storyline, thanks to the writers and actors of the show (Eric Kripke, you're God! Jensen & Jared, you two make Pattinson & Lautner look like real amateurs!)Steph Meyer has said on Oprah recently that she avoided horror stories and it seems she should have stayed away!

If you want decent, hardcore horror by a female author, look to Charlaine Harris and her Sookie Stackhouse girl, that inspired HBO's "True Blood", a sick, shocking and very funny vampire show with attitude. Tonight, I sat through New Moon, in a sea of giggling girls who just didn't know when to STFU! In fact, if Twilight was made as a comedy, it would actually work! Upon seeing Robert Pattinson as Edward, one girl shouted out: "Is that him? He's not all that!" I have to admit that was almost the highlight of sitting through the torture. I wanted to leave; but also remained seated to see if New Moon would conjure a surprise or two. Well, it did, most laughably that werewolves transformed in the daytime (the cute, cuddly, ferocious kind; not the tear-your-heart out muthas, mind you)and vampires going for long swims (WTF??)It even tries to be pop-culture clever in the form of Victoria, but the attempt was poor and looked smug and painful at the same time. Also, is Bella supposed to be a poor-girl's suppressed Goth? Watch Katie Holmes do a far better job in Disturbing Behaviour.

If you want wiseass remarks, look to Dean Winchester in Supernatural, the King as far as I'm concerned. Sadly, today's generation has no clue about anything, and the demographic for Twilight, clearly proves that. I miss the glory days of the 1980s, when films WERE films, and not concerned about "original" ways of enticing an audience. And how does someone like Chris Weitz go from directing American Pie to this???

If there are any redeeming qualities to Twilight, it's really underused actors like Billy Burke as Charlie Swan; Michael Sheen as Aro and Dakota Fanning as Jane. Michael's no stranger to the horror genre and cuts a convincing Lycan in the Underworld series. They could've given him fangs here, but guess they didn't want their audience to have nightmares (please!) Kristen Stewart is a good actress but struggles with the dialogue at times. Rob Pattinson (whose career will only last 2 more years)does a good American accent but is no Brad Pitt (who incidentally, played a great romantic fanged lead in Interview With The Vampire). The real horror here, is that Hollywood has been running out of ideas for years and this is the best source material they could find? Sit through and watch at your peril - and get the hell out while the screaming of prepubescent girls rings in your ears! You have been warned.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Lets be honest, Serious Shortcomings...

4/10
Author: YYTQinetiQ from United Kingdom
30 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Firstly, I should point out that I am not someone who hates the Twilight franchise, and I have read the books; neither am I a 15 year old girl who has fallen hopelessly in love with one of the two male leads.

The film had several problems with it that became increasingly obvious as the film progressed.

The acting, and not all the acting either. The really sad thing is that there were some strong performances here (more on these later), but Kristen Stewart… dear God she can't act. In Twilight she was annoying, in New Moon she is indescribably annoying, but nevertheless, I'll try to describe it. For one, she blinks a lot and she twitches a lot, I don't know why she does this. Also, she only ever wears one of two expressions: slightly shocked, or utterly disinterested. She just looks bored to be there, I'd rather fill out tax returns for the rest of my life than watch another minute of Bella moping about, looking depressed. I know she does this in the book, but the film isn't the book. The director took liberties elsewhere; he could have found a better way to portray this.

Moreover, even before Edward breaks up with Bella she's a complete cipher. In the book Bella is interesting, compassionate and full of life; someone you could fall in love with. In the film she is a boring, boring, boring kill-joy who can't even accept gifts on her birthday without kicking up a fuss. Why does Edward like her? Yes, she's quite hot, but that's about it. She has nothing else, no personality at all.

Next, the music. It wasn't that I didn't like it (I love Paramore), it just wasn't even remotely appropriate most of time. Film music is film music: it compliments a scene, it shouldn't dominate it. The one exception to this was the scene in which Harry Clearwater has a heart-attack; I felt the music here actually worked quite well.

Oh, and the colouring/lighting… I don't even know where to begin. It was awful. Really, really awful, in fact, it was almost as annoying as watching Kristen Stewart. The colouring was alternately too dark, too washed out, or too bright. Also, did anyone else notice the camera constantly flicking between people's faces, as well as the totally unnecessary close-ups? Apparently Kristen Stewart wasn't the only one feeling twitchy. The camera-work alone made the break-up scene in the woods between Edward and Bella a complete joke. And that's before you include Kristen's total inability to act; Patterson kept cringing every time Bella delivered another terrible line, by the end he was starting to look embarrassed to be involved in scene more wooden than the trees surrounding them.

That said, the film did have some redeeming features. The CGI on the wolves, which I know some people didn't like, I thought was pretty good. The wolves looked a little bit cuddlier than I imagined, but that's fair enough. Also, was it really necessary for the Quileutes to be quite so topless? It just felt a bit cheap and exploitative.

Some of the supporting acting I quite liked too. Most of the Cullen's (especially Alice) were good, Bella's friends were good, Dakota Fanning pulled off menacing quite well too, even Robert Patterson and Taylor Lautner were OK, if unexceptional. Michael Sheen was also decent (although I didn't buy into him quite as much as I did in the Underworld series, in which he was immense), and added a little bit of genuine class to the cast list. The problem is that all of these little performances are overshadowed by Kristen Stewart's monstrous tribute to bad acting.

In short, don't watch this film. It's immensely frustrating and self-involved. After about an hour of watching it, I really wanted to kill Bella, and by the end of the film I would have settled for killing just about any of the cast. If the film had lasted another 10 minutes, no one would have been safe. I did, however, get some free popcorn and a hug from my flatmate, so not all bad. But seriously… train wreck.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 54 people found the following review useful:

New Moon deserves a Razzie!

2/10
Author: pgwhite95 from United States
23 November 2009

If this is going to be the new norm in Hollywood, I'm going to stop going to the theater. I went and saw this movie with my wife, we just recently saw "Twilight" and have not read the books, so we were at a disadvantage next to the million's of other kids in line with us. The only good mark I can give this film is that it's a new spin on the old Vampire tale. Plus, it's a new spin on the "i'm a girl being chased by two boys, who will fight over me." This formula has been done thousands of times, and it won't be too long before there's another silly teen-craze movie that draws in the current generation of movie goers. The negative marks on this film are too numerous to mention. It's plain and simply bad. It rates up there with Manos: hands of fate, and From Justin to Kelly. This is an example of the junk movies that are made in today's age, and just like the recent Transformer's movie it's made a boat-load of money based on hype. If anyone actually watches this movie more than once needs to be screened for psychological problems.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

So, so bad:(

1/10
Author: Raluca from Romania
22 December 2009

So, I'm not going to insult the people who liked this movie but I have to ask: What in the world do you like about this movie? OK i get it, the books are good, I've read them but the movies are just awful. The actors are really bad, the lines, everything. Kristen Stewart is a bad actress. And Robert Pattison a horrible actor. I know you all are going to say " go to hell you don't know what you're talking about" but this comment is just my opinion. just like others wrote. I have some friends that loved this movie and i still try to understand why? I thought i was going to fall asleep at the cinema. It was SO boring. The actors have no charisma. nothing. no facial expression. The lines are horrible and I better stop here. So, I've learned my lesson,I'm not going to the cinema to see the next movie. I've wasted good money on this one. I'm not making the same mistake again next year or whenever it will be. So people sorry if anyone got mad with this comment, not my intention, just wanted to express my feeling towards this movie ( if you can call it that ).

With respect, Raluca from Romania :)

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

Unfair Comments

10/10
Author: ashvanauken from United States
26 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Possible Spoilers: Book and Movie I think most of these reviews are being unfair, though I can understand a lot of the points that have been made. I was on the fence about going to see this movie because of these reviews here. I'm glad I choose to watch it! The directors compacted a book to a movie, which could have easily been well over four hours, into two. This movie could have been one of those slaughtering of book to movie scenarios like Blood and Chocolate, the directors could have not followed the book at all, again like BandC, but they didn't. It was a decent job and New Moon, in my opinion, was better than Twilight. Honestly, it was really closer to the book than Twilight was; this is probably why people felt it was rushed though. It was too much for two hours and had the movie been made longer it would have been a terrific adaptation.

The actors and actresses were better, it was even funny at points when it was meant to be intentionally funny; they were familiar with the material they had to work with. Special effects kind of wavy, but they aren't everything. The fact that the story was so close to the book made up for the sometimes cheesy computer-generated images. More screen time for the Volturi and a bit more of Jacob/Bella interaction as well and it would have moved 'great' to 'amazing,' but that can be corrected in Eclipse. Also the addition of more interior monologue from Bella was a good idea. The music I didn't really pay much attention to, but then again it wasn't a Mickey Mousing like Twilight had been. The music just seemed to be not as important in New Moon.

I also read something about Kristen Stewart not being able to act…Bella was dull in New Moon; she was depressed because Edward left, she was supposed to be that way. I read all the books as well and though I'm not the biggest fan of Stewarts she did a good job acting depressed. And Rob Pattinson playing Edward did decent as well. In the beginning he was all happy-go-lucky, but as the movie progressed, he looked that way because he was in pain at having to leave Bella! I haven't read the New Moon book for awhile, but I do read the books often enough to remember this.

Overall I was pleased with New Moon.

Was the above review useful to you?

40 out of 71 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst supernatural romances ever written

1/10
Author: CountVladDracula from United States
22 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I can't even express into words how strong my distaste for the entire Twilight Saga truly is. In my personal opinion Twilight is prefabricated, poorly written, shallow, demographic-forcing tripe. When I was a fourteen-year-old girl I was very obsessed with the vampire anti-hero Lestat from Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles. And though Lestat had many relationship issues he was still a better defined and more well conceived character than that of Edward Cullen.

Edward and Bella are poorly thought out, two dimensional shells. This was a deliberate effort by the author so that every young reader could imagine themselves as the main characters but in the process she made them so superficial that the characters lacked any quality of definition. They did not feel like real people.

Not only is Twilight poorly written but it also hinders upon actual mythology. The notion of vampires glittering in the sun is laughable at best. It brings to mind the recollection of such toys as the My Little Pony dolls. The logic behind vampires sparkling in the sunlight is non-existent. A vampire burning in the sun has been a staple of Gothic fiction for many years. There are real diseases and disorders in the world that make sunlight harmful to certain individuals. Scientifically it's more plausible to be harmed by sunlight than to 'naturally' sparkle in it.

Another flaw in the mythos of Twilight is the definition of werewolf. I cannot tell you how many times I have come across Twilight fans who insist the characters who can turn into wolves are not werewolves. They say that these characters are shape-shifters. A shape shifter by traditional definition can take on multiple forms, not just one. Many Twilight fans also argue that within the mythos of the books a true werewolf only changes on the full moon and that's why Jacob and company are not actually werewolves. The parapsychology student in me winces at this. In many traditional werewolf folklore out of Germany and France there are werewolves that most certainly can change at will, are aware in their wolf form, and are not bound by the phase of the moon. The very word werewolf means man-wolf. It does not mean part man and part wolf. It comes from the notion of a man INTO a wolf. Most classic werewolf stories (before The Wolf-Man movie) had the werewolf changing from a person into an actual wolf.

The very first werewolf legend can be traced back to the Greek myth of King Lycaon. According to legend King Lycaon served human flesh at a feast for Zeus (the king of the Gods). Zeus was so offended that he punished Lycaon by turning him into a wolf. Only his eyes remained human. This myth is where the terms Lycanthrope, Lycanthropy and the more modern Lycan come from. I guess it's safe to say Stephenie Meyer does not do her research in regard to the occult before writing these stories.

Not only is Twilight poorly written and intellectually insulting to occultists (amateur and professional alike) but it also promotes very unhealthy relationships. Edward Cullen is abusive, stalkerish and obsessive. Edward has also had moments of physically harming Bella. Bella is equally so but that does not make it okay, nor does it make the relationship healthy. At one point Edward disables Bella's mode of transportation and has her kidnapped as a means to 'protect' her. If he was not a vampire this would be viewed as highly abusive of the character. There is a fine line between being chivalrous and sexist. Edward Cullen crossed that line miles ago. This sets a very unhealthy ideal of what defines romantic relationship for the young readers of Twilight. I am not saying not to read Twilight nor am I saying to burn the books. I am simply saying that it needs to be looked at in context for what it truly is and that there are far higher quality reads out there. If you want a chivalrous character who is NOT sexist, seek The Dresden Files novels by Jim Butcher. The hero, a wizard named Harry Dresden, is very chivalrous without being sexist.

Bella is what modern writers call A Mary Sue. In fiction writing and role playing games Mary Sue characters are strongly frowned upon. A Mary Sue is a character of shallow quality who is nearly flawless. The character is so perfect that even her so-called flaws are endearing.

I have run online text based role playing games since 1999 and I can tell you there are plot points in Twilight I would not have allowed in my game. A major one would be when Bella and Edward finally had their daughter toward the end of the book series the child aged extremely fast and by age seven or so she was involved with her mother's werewolf ex-boyfriend. To me this is disgusting. I would never have allowed this in my online role playing game. She might have developed with supernatural speed but she still has only had only seven-years-life experience and I feel that is certainly not enough time to be in a romantic relationship with a grown man. That was disturbing to me. Supernatural speed aging does not give her enough life experience for that sort of relationship. That was simply not right.

In short Twilight is not what I would consider a good read even for those who truly love supernatural romances. See out the likes of The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. Twilight is not worth the time. There are higher quality works of fiction out there.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 93:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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