IMDb > The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
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 3 of 93: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 922 reviews in total 

19 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

So, so bad:(

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

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

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?

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

That tiny flicker of hope has died

Author: LittlestMonster
23 December 2009

Firstly I'll set out a few points because I don't want this to come off as biased or a 'Twihard' or 'Twihater' - I'm neither. I'm a guy who has in fact read the Twilight Saga and it's an OK series (except for Breaking Dawn - but we will cross that bridge when we get to it). Everything clear? Let's begin.

Now, Twilight was bad. I'm sorry but it's true - no matter how much you deny it, it was. If only Twihards tried to clear their beloved book, RPattz and Taylor out of their heads for just a while and watch that movie again, they would see the awkward stiff moments which were supposed to be romantic scenes, mumbled lines and zero connection between the characters.

For me, I blamed all these flaws on the director, Hardwicke. After the handing of the Twilight reins to Chris Weitz and I truly had high hopes for New Moon, seeing all the trailers, leaked footage, photos etc. The end result? Weitz didn't do anything better, New Moon may have even tumbled a few steps below Twilight. The flaws mainly exist within the static acting of the cast - more than half of the dialog is mumbled and said with no emotion. Bella (Kristen Stewart) manages to maintain only one expression throughout the entire film - whether she's sad, happy, exhilarated, depressed (very Channing Tatum). Robert Pattinson hasn't displayed any great talent either. The only considerably good performance was that of Taylor Lautner who has put on a much better show than last time (that's speaking with his body out of mind)although his character did begin to slip near the end.

All in all, New Moon is a big yawn - there is some action which does help brighten the scene but is very brief and provides no satisfaction. There is nothing drawing the viewer in, nothing that keeps you compelled for more - it's almost a chore to watch this bore of a movie through to the end. As I've said already this is largely a fault of the stone- faced, monotonous acting. Both Twilight and New Moon never showed us why Edward loves Bella, nothing ever convinced the audience that they are truly in love. Twilight seemed to have been rushed to get to to the action, while New Moon seems to have concentrated on how many shirts we can get off. Box office success or not, New Moon has done it for me, I have truly lost all hope for the franchise - unless a serious cast change is in order, nothing is tempting me to and I don't think I'll be waiting outside Eclipse's doors.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

The entire series is a disgrace to true sci-fi/fantasy

Author: Platypus5 from United States
23 December 2009

Somewhere in Middle Earth, Saron is shaking his head in disgust at this latest addition to the genre that includes his own story.

Has anyone else noticed that most of the people who rave about this movie and the original Twilight tend to not be big scifi/fantasy fans? Only recent converts?

I am not surprised. The true fantasy fans knew better than to go see this film. All it really is is a love/action movie dressed up with vampires. Ha! I bet most of the viewers who liked this movie haven't even seen Lord of the Rings or the original three Star Wars movies. (Then again, I haven't seen Lord of the Rings, but I do not consider myself a true fantasy/sci-fi fan. Only a moderate one)

No, you can't just have werewolves and vampires and call it a high-fantasy (the true fantasy genre) film, just like how you shouldn't have a few aliens to call your film high-science fiction. (the REAL sci-fi)

Low fantasy drives me bonkers.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 56 people found the following review useful:

tween soft porn

Author: skundrel from United States
23 November 2009

The plot will remind you of watching a rehash of any old WB teen sci-fi drama like Charmed or Roswell, with a complete cast of aesthetically pleasing suburban teenage vampires that have their own love triangles and shimmer in the sunlight. Comes complete with gratuitous scenes of teenage male characters taking off their shirts and showing off their muscles to ensure enough screams by tween girls in the theater will make you giggle instead of concentrating in the movie itself. Just when you thought the formula of "any unusual social circle + hot teens having relationship problems" had been cherry picked to death, Hollywood comes along and mixes us up a new batch of the same-old (again). While watching this movie, you will get an eerie sensation that every single cast member was type-casted to attract broad types of teen stereotypes so that everyone out there who watches the movie can have their own favorite character they can relate too, just like in those old WB Shows. Once your mind gets over the whole vampire thing, it truly is a very stale and genetic script of boy gets girl, boy loses girl, etc. You get the point.

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 76 people found the following review useful:

it is a shocking movie

Author: engyb26 from Egypt
23 November 2009

i would like to know why did they change the director of the first twilight saga , i watched the first one many times and because of it i was waiting for the second one which was disappointed.... we don't care about the sides effects .. ..the music was too bad ,we need to see a love story ...full of emotions and exciting kisses..., and another thing ,who wants to see Edward wearing a red lipstick !!!!!! his lips were reddish than Bella's !!!!!!!? where is Edward the one that we all loved in the first movie ???? Please people at summit we do not want to see more lipsticks in the Eclipse movie or any bad hair cut ! please try to make the third movie a good one .

Was the above review useful to you?

83 out of 158 people found the following review useful:

I thought vampires were meant to be interesting?!

Author: Angie from Australia
20 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I read all four Twilight books a long time ago when they first came out - I liked the general idea but thought that the writing and plot was terrible, and after the whole Twilight hysteria I ended up HATING everything about it. However, I will admit I was quite excited when I heard they were making movies. So I went to see the first movie the day it came out. I was thoroughly disappointed but oh so entertained in a so-bad-its-good sense.

So when New Moon came out I rushed to go see it, anticipating a similar hilarious showing. And that it was! However, I was ALSO pleasantly surprised by some changes:

GOOD THINGS - Jacob Black. Not only was I totally mesmerized by everything below his neck (and spent the whole movie feeling like a pedo), I also thought his acting was pretty good. Taylor is a very likable and sweet person and he made Jacob go from being my least favorite character in the book, to my most favorite in the movie.

- The action. The few minutes of action scenes were actually quite good! The special effects were perfect and everything just worked. Much much MUCH better than the stupid ass effects used in the first film.

BAD THINGS - Kristen Stewart. My god this girl can't act for shizz! It's just... oh god.... it's just so bad. How does she get hired?!?! I feel so uncomfortable watching her. In comparison, the rest of the cast appear highly interesting and very competent. Go them!

- Boring. Some scenes were unnecessarily long and most of the characters severely lacked depth. They hold no interest and it is hard to pay attention. The scenes between Edward and Bella were the worst - they went on forever talking crap.

- The script. Who keeps hiring this screenwriter?! If she was actually talented she could take that awful book and turn it into something decent. But she's not, so all she does is create an even larger pile of crap.

Everything and everyone else does not even get a mention because they were all so mediocre (and not anger-inducing). I will say this: New Moon was not as bad as Twilight. I like this new director. Everything was relatively better. Relatively being the operative word here. Enjoy!

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

What is wrong with people?! So bad, so bad

Author: emmarustadlyvik from Norway
26 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Alright. I am 15. And a girl. And this doesn't work for me at all. This movie is so horrible that it's sad. I hear my friends talk about Twilight and how wonderful the books and movies are, and I had to check them out. The first film was OK, but not better than it's rated. And then I sat down and saw this one, and..well, I will actually say it's OVERrated. The only good thing about this one is when Taylor Lautner smiles and takes off his shirt. Nothing else, and that is embarrassing. They can't act, especially this..Kirsten. I mean, I had to ask my friend if she was supposed to be so..cold, and without any feelings at all. And yes, she was, because she was so shy and didn't like any attention. But I don't see her acting, really. She shows just as much acting skills and emotions like Tobey Maguire in Spider-Man. She doesn't have any passion, it looks like she's bored. And yes, Robert Pattinson is way better than her, but there's still a long way to Tom Hanks. In my opinion, the acting are one of the reasons this doesn't work out. Even though the chemistry between Robert and Kirsten is impressive.

Second of all, the film is rather boring. You (finally) get to the plot when there's left 30 minutes of the movie or so. And before the plot, it's very much "oh, my life sucks, I feel abandon, I'm just gonna sit here, being very deep and feel sorry for myself." And of course, there's a little struggle in her head. "Which one of them should I choose?". Cliché. Cliché big time. You have seen this before, with better actors and without vampires.

And yes, the plot. Saving Edward from certain death. And they fight a little, smashing each other to the walls. I usually cheer when people fight in movies, but I get bored of the fighting as well. I don't get that "Oh, this is exiting, I wanna know who's winning even though I already know it"-feeling.

So. Touching story, if you like that kind of story, great music, somewhat OK special effects. But I really don't understand why people say this is good? What is wrong with those little teenage girls? This movie is pathetic. It's boring. So please, stay away from it. Rent (500) Days of Summer on DVD if you have to watch a romantic movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Very Disappointing

Author: nej0538 from United States
30 January 2010

I can't even begin to describe how disappointed I was with this film. The acting was horrible, the storyline was pieced together, and it was just plain boring. I've read the books and enjoyed them. I was excited to see the movie. I'm so sorry I spent the money to go see it.

The only reason I think it got so much enthusiasm was because of the teenage girls gushing about Taylor Laudner's bare chest throughout the movie. If it wasn't for frequency of that, I think even they might have noticed how bad the film was.

Don't expect to see me in line to watch the next two installments of Twilight.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 93: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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