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 17 of 93: [Prev][12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [Next]
Index 924 reviews in total 

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Eat Your Heart Out Laura Mulvey: A New Moon Reading

3/10
Author: learningthelingo from Australia
12 January 2010

Like millions of other people, I flocked a screening of New Moon in its first week of release. I knew that I wouldn't enjoy it after what the first movie offered me, so saying that I did not enjoy it is like saying I went to a funeral and found it sad. Despite this, I still chose to be a sheep and follow along with the crowd to help break box office records.

The only way to experience this movie (in my humble opinion) is in an audience filled with swooning girls, just to really soak up the atmosphere that the film projects. That was my intention, and luckily I succeed by going to a screening early enough after the films release. I could tick the audible sighs and swooning sounds box on my expectations list, and soon to follow was the obligatory chest shots.

Without going into boring synopsis of the film, which would be as simple as a bus full of Miss America contestants, I can put forth a much easier description. Perhaps only students of film, scholars, academics and cultural critics and theorists will understand it, but regardless, here's my synopsis: Laura Mulvey, eat your heart out.

Mulvey's seminal theory (Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema) discussed the idea of the triple male gaze in the mid 1970s. This triple male gaze is the projection of a woman through a male characters eyes, put forth by a male author (director/writer) for a male audience. In New Moon we see this turned around. It is not the female that is the object of desire anymore, and instead it is the men who are subjected to the "to-be-looked-at-ness" aspect of Mulvey's claims. Her theories have been subverted, and not for the first time (let us not forget Casino Royale with Daniel Craig coming out of the water, like an Adonis, a la Ursula Andress style.) As we see this idea the idea of the triple maze gaze being turned on its head as at least a double female gaze now, if not even triple with Stephenie Meyer's book, the character of Bella and her male contemporaries (or should I say pieces of meat/eye candy.) But despite this, the Bella is still a dull girl who relies on the comfort of vampires and werewolves to stay amused and happy.

Consensus among female teenage (or tweenage) viewers finds the film "hot" and "steamy". Edward is "dreamy", Jacob is "ripped, but 12" and there is an instant divide between Team Edward and Team Jacob (one that could result in heads being ripped off and a ritualistic sacrifice in the name of the Twilight.) Perhaps it's because I've been watching too much True Blood, but the Twilight films leave something to be desired for me. I require that big bite that Twilight and New Moon lack in their "nothing much happens" plot lines. I don't consider myself an action chasing adrenaline junkie, but in I needed some proverbial action and I needed it desperately. Luckily New Moon offered me more than the previous instalment, but I was still not as satisfied as the tweens and "twi-hards", who seem to be feeding on some kind of unexplainable and unquenchable supernatural level.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Don't waste a second on this one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1/10
Author: emailpani from United Kingdom
7 January 2010

I hardly ever leave reviews on anything to be honest but i joined this site especially to leave a review on this movie.

Where can i start, this move is in the top 5 most awful movies i have ever seen. The director was riding on the first Twilight which although not my sort of movie I quite enjoyed. This was the biggest load of B**lsh*t ever.

CRAP ACTING, CRAP SCRIPT, SERIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO WATCH THIS TO BELIEVE IT.

I actually have never felt personal towards a director before, I would punch him of i met him.

Stick it on with mates and have a right good laugh at this movie trying to be a romantic movie. Its gut wrenching, its painful ITS CR*P!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

And again....

3/10
Author: little_bitchy from Switzerland
6 January 2010

I really looked forward to this movie. The books are well written, and it's easy to feel with the characters. But unfortunately, the happened which almost every time happens: The book was so good, that the movie just can't compete!

The actors did well, but seriously, a little more passion sometimes! Robert please when you kiss your Bella you seem more like you're in some sort of pain. Passion does not look like pain! Neither does love!

Everyone has habits, and his little things, but Kristen please stop biting your lip like ALL THE TIME!

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to make a film out of the book, but it happened, and we have to endure the twilight-wave ^^

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Utter Crap

1/10
Author: wolfentertainment from United States
3 January 2010

This movie gets my vote to be one of the worse films of all time, why? Well, let's review a few things shall we? First of all, there is NO plot at all in this movie, and if there was its was rather simple and thorough, add to that the pacing of the film in general was slow, tedious and annoying. I was 1 hour into it and I was bored to death and its only around the very end that something happens or at least that was their intention.

I also found myself laughing at so many things in the movie that I think it should've been placed in the comedy section and add a laugh track every so often.

Finally, the acting wasn't all that good, especially from Edward, he look rather uncomfortable and trying to remember his lines. And those so-called werewolves? Please...they're just giant dogs, not even real werewolves. This film is a shame for vampires, werewolves and the film industry itself, I just cannot understand why people are eating this up! I can assure that the next Twilight movies will be just as bad as this.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Weak Sequel

Author: Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY
4 September 2011

New Moon (2009)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Second film in the smash-hit Twilight series has Edward (Robert Pattinson) leaving Bella (Kristen Stewart) who then goes into a deep depression. The one thing that saves her is her best friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner) but she doesn't realize that he's a werewolf and soon she's going to have to pick between this friend or the love of her life. Opinions on this film are probably very mixed but I think everyone could come to an agreement that Mrs. Bella needs to have her head checked as she has a pretty strange taste in men. With that said, I'm not familiar with any of the books and I'm watching these movies without knowing very much. I do know that the director of TWILIGHT was let go and Chris Weitz was brought in. Weitz has made some decent pictures in his day but why on Earth they selected him is beyond me because he certainly doesn't do anything to keep this film going. I thought the first movie ran way too long but it's nothing compared to this film, which has enough story for about a twenty-minute short yet it gets pushed to over two-hours, which was just painful to sit through. I'm sure fans of the books are going to take away more than someone like me but I personally thought the story was incredibly weak, some of the character motivations were beyond me and the pacing was just so bad that I had a hard time staying awake. I think things got off to a pretty poor start with a rather silly opening sequence that really adds nothing to the film but sadly things don't get any better. I thought the relationship between Bella and her father was good in the first movie but it's hacked up here. Her relationship with Jacob just never held much interest from me and I think that even the chemistry between Bella and Edward was lacking here. I always say great actors can drown in a bad screenplay and it's interesting to see how Stewart and Pattinson do here. I thought they were terrific in the first film and while they're still good here their performances are certainly a major step down. I think a lot of this has to do with the tired screenplay that doesn't give them much to work with including some lame dialogue that doesn't help things. Lautner, sorry ladies, wasn't all that impressive but I'm guessing they got him so he could constantly have his shirt off and not so much for the acting. NEW MOON doesn't even look that good and the CGI werewolf effects are embarrassing at times. I found TWILIGHT to be an entertaining little movie but sadly everything good about it is turned bad in this sequel.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Forgot Who the Target Audience Was & Needed More Werewolves

Author: kimintuitive
6 April 2010

I think this movie needed to be directed and edited by a woman because at no point could I sink into the emotions between characters. Woman love emotional stuff. But this just gave a dry account of the events, instead of developing believable characters.

Not sure how the characters were portrayed in the books, but in this movie Bella and Edward were really annoying - I found myself rolling my eyes and making fun during many scenes. I found their relationship really depressing and unempowering. Instead of showing deep love, it just seemed like an unhealthy co-dependent relationship.

The movie had nice filming and imagery (cool red cloaks in Italy). And I loved all the werewolf men - needed more werewolf scenes.

So for the next film - slow it down. Think of what young women like: they like romantic words and feelings between characters so they can swoon and talk about with their friends. Women value the subtleties of characters, not a sports-desk rundown of a sequence of events.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

wooden acting, weak story line, nothing happens, why the hype ?

2/10
Author: mrUniverse2010 from United Kingdom
5 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Having read other reviews of this movie, all I can say it is a shame that people have given this 10/10 whilst openly admitting they think it is only worth 4 or 5 by their standards but they want to "even it up a little from the people who have given it 1/10". The 4.odd/10 it has received is a little flattering (well... very) by any standards, this is a dreadful dreadful movie, a straight to DVD production at best, if it should have been realised at all. The marketing team who have managed to make this such a box office and DVD success are geniuses !! I had a Twilight and New Moon marathon inflicted on me earlier this week, having watched Twilight (and being very disappointed) I was promised the second was better so optimistically donated another 2 hours of my life to watching it; I CAN say this is better than the first one of the "saga" (strictly this is a saga because it is a long story comprising a sequence of events, don't let the attachment of the word to these movies make you think it can be considered in the same breath as Starwars, Lord of the Rings, etc etc though) but only in the same way breaking your arms is better than breaking your legs, you wouldn't really choose for either of them to happen...

I can honestly say this is the worst movie I have ever seen (well, second worst to its predecessor), the quality of acting is comparative with 5 year olds in a nativity, the plot follows some kind of love story between a vampire (which the author has made an ill attempt at updating the genre of, he (they) sparkle beautifully in the sunshine instead of dying with no attempt (unlike the far superior Blade) to explain why) and a weird brunette who becomes somewhat of a bunny boiler, has a bit of a flirt with a werewolf, then goes back to the sparkly vampire. I have labelled this section as a potential plot spoiler but don't be mislead into thinking there is a plot to be spoilt. Imagine (English readers of this review will understand this) Hollyoaks with poorer acting, no sex, no plot lines, no beautiful women, and rubbish mythical creatures and you pretty much have the Twilight series.

Given the hype around this movie and the others in the "saga" it must seem that I'm in some way taking the micky out of this movie etc, but you have me on scouts honour that words really CAN NOT describe how bad this movie is ! I have rated this as 2/10, it would have gotten 1 if zero/10 was an option, as it is not; it has received the lowest score possible from me plus a bonus point for the CGI in turning man -> werewolf -> man.

The 130 minutes spent watching this could be much better used painting a wall, alphabetising your CD collection or passing a kidney stone !!

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Worst movie ever made

1/10
Author: patelpatel-1 from Fremont, CA, United States
25 January 2010

On a beautiful Sunday afternoon in San Diego, a wrong decision was made and we ended up in theater to watch this unbelievably MENTAL movie.

At times, It seemed like watching a movie without any sound. people just look at each other and just don't speak.

Even a 5 year old can have better stability of thoughts than the characters in this movie.

Finally, it goes without saying that this is "THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE". its just better to play lotto or something at least you have a chance that you would be lucky(1 in 42 million).

Thanks, Nish.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

just a boring soap opera

1/10
Author: nela-bacovska from Czech Republic
16 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

first, i read all the four books after seeing the first movie. and i loved them. i think twilight the film wasn't the best but not even the worst. and than, the day of new moon big premiere began... well, i didn't want to spend my money because i had seen some spots (and they were a little embarrassing to me) so i decided to watch the movie online. it was just boring. maybe for some twilight-lovers it was a precise adaptation of the book but not for me. where did the tension from twilight disappeared? the two head actors seemed to be in pain all the time and not even the cgi could save it. and THE big ending? Marry me?!? Awkward.

i have to react to some comment that tells twilight (especially new moon) isn't a good message for teen girls. i agree with that. but i also think that the books are a good escape from reality. to me, it was like that because i love books in general and the way they let you be in places you'd never get to or become peoples whose minds are really interesting (not that bella's mind is something great but despite all this it's funny reading). i mean that you mustn't take it seriously and just accept it as it is. and also tell your kids (well, girls) to not do it, too.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

The acting was cringe-worthy

3/10
Author: pure-soul-13 from Saudi Arabia
14 December 2009

To be honest the only ones who acted well was Charlie Swan (Billy Burke) and Jane (Dakota Fanning).

Some bits in it may be funny, worth watching if you totally love the books but overall? Its not what a call a movie. Not. One. Bit. "does a joker."

They didn't stick to the book much did they? As far as i remember there were no fight scenes in Italy.

They didn't portray Aro well, he was too, kid like.

Please, DON'T get me started on Kristen Stewart (Bella's) acting, I don't think Bella is meant to cringe and whine. And the whole eyebrow raising thing when she said "Kiss Me." UGH. Not Cool.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 17 of 93: [Prev][12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [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