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 guidemessage board
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 »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 92: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 916 reviews in total 

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?

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

An insult to vampires and werewolves.

Author: adampowell65
5 July 2010

Here is my definition of a vampire: A dark-haired savage that looms in the darkness,leeching on the blood of the innocent,preferably with an accent.

Here is my definition of a werewolf: A man who,at a full moon,becomes a menacing beast with huge claws and fangs.

Not a vampire: Gay emo kid.

Not a werewolf: Badly animated dog.

Bottom line: If you are a fan of vampires and werewolves in a true scary movie,see Underworld.This movie is a piece of garbage.The only people who like it are obsessed fan-girls.The only guys who like it have no idea what a vampire is supposed to be.I give it a 1/10. I'm disappointed IMDb doesn't have a 0/10 rating.Or a minus rating.

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?

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:


Author: seelverstreek_street28
18 February 2010

I honestly cannot fathom how a sane person can sit through this movie without swearing. And, no, it's not because you're rooting for something good to happen to the characters, you're just there hoping they'd all explode somehow.

Kristen Stewart may be a good actress, but you'll never tell from this series. She gives a very wooden, uninspired performance. It's like zombie Bella, unless that's what's intended. The writing is extremely cheesy and flows like a young child learning to write short conversations for the first time.

This movie is filled with BROODING and MOPING. It's not believable, entertaining angst, it's just annoying and sickening.

I know there are people who'll say a rating of 1 is unthinkable, when there are so many other horrendous movies out there. Granted, that's true, but a lot of those movies know they're ridiculous. New Moon pretends to be something of substance when in reality, it's plain ridiculous. It takes itself way too seriously and in so doing, bores viewers beyond measure.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Patenson...what have you done?

Author: adseccafico from United States
30 December 2009

Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Edgar Allen Poe, Lon Chaney (Sr. and Jr.), and Bram Stoker are all rolling in their graves at the massive s*** pile that Hollywood has produced. And it's not just New Moon, it's the original, Twilight, as well. Now, I maybe beating a dead horse. But as both a filmmaker and a film fan, I feel obligated to to voice my opinion on this (for lack of a better term) cluster f*** known as the Twilight franchise.

Let me start with the acting, or lack of. It would appear to me that this movie (didn't read the book, so I have no gripe with it) was based around sex appeal. Its as if the producers picked the best looking kids auditioning, with very little care for ACTING SKILL. (which, if your acting is very important). Robert Patenson improved very little from the first movie, still giving a very vein and self-indulging performance. Kristen Stewart also showed little signs of improvement, keeping the same expression almost through the picture. As for "Mr. 6-Pack" Taylor Lautner, again, casted on sex appeal. But was the only one to show slight improvement.

Moving on to direction/scripting. Now, I wasn't expecting a Cecil B. DeMile epic. But please, try to make something decent. An actor is only as good as the script that's written and the direction they're given. So, I can't blame it all on poor acting. So for all of those involved in both films behind the scenes, please try to make something better the 3rd time around. Follow your basic techniques and don't try to be too fancy with the camera.

In conclusion, this film grossed over $700,000,000 world wide. And it was perhaps the most idiotic, the most dull, and the biggest crap fest I have ever witnessed. This movie made its money through sex and the hormonal instincts of teenage girls and middle-aged house wives. This series gives horror films a bad name. But the question remains, how far will they go? Will that tarnish The Frankenstein Monster's legacy next? Will they continue to make money? Is it just a fad? Frankly, I don't car about any of these questions. I'm avoiding this series. Thank you for reading.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

And we all thought twilight was bad!

Author: nba_is_jakob from Australia
18 December 2009

OK, twilight was a massive success and gained popularity from 13 year old girls with a crush. Its no surprise that this installment of the twilight saga would be even bigger with a even better looking and more buff character in Jacob. If thats all it takes to make a real bad movie a massive success then we need to take a long hard look at ourselves and wonder what the world has come to.

The acting was very stiff from both Kristen Stewert and Robert Pattinison and how can one believe that there in love with acting like that which made it totally unbelievable. Do these two actors think that long awkward and uncomfortable silences and pauses with an unnecessary amount of staring will make us believe there in love, i mean please why don't you two show some emotion.

The CGI was better in this than the first which wasn't hard because they were terrible. There were a couple of scenes where you might have a chuckle but thats it from a entertainment stand point.

The story is very boring and slow and the film went way longer than it should have done.

The only half positive reviews i have heard have been from fans of the book or again girls with crushes for guys who for no reason take there shirts off non stop for no real reason. If your a fan of the book series and enjoyed the first one then i guess you might enjoy this one, but if you want a pure cinematic experience then this isn't for you. I would recommend renting out a film like Donnie Darko which has nothing to do with twilight but it is awesome.


Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Bad Movie

Author: eastbergholt2002 from United States
7 December 2009

This may sound sexist, but this a movie probably best enjoyed by teenage girls. My guess is that anyone else is likely to find the film a challenge. Phillips and Scott recommended the film on their show "At The Movies" so I took my two kids who were back from college. They laughed in all the wrong places and made fun of me for taking them to see such an awful movie. The film takes itself too seriously and the male characters were always taking their shirts off which made it seem like a cheesy, exploitation film.

As you know Bella is a girl in love with a vampire. In New Moon she is dumped, becomes suicidal and then befriends a werewolf. Although, Bella is very pretty it's hard to understand why her two suitors are so attracted to her. She is constantly depressed and getting herself into life threatening situations and having to be rescued. Edward's sister Alice (Ashley Green)is smart, pretty and funny and is more my type of heroine. Some light relief was provided by Michael Sheen who hams it up outrageously as Aro, king of the vampires, he obviously needed the paycheck.

I couldn't understand why Edward at 109 was still in high school and chasing 17 year old girls. I would suggest that Bella is not a very good role model for young girls, she seems badly in need of psychological counseling. This film is so bad it's funny.

Was the above review useful to you?

31 out of 55 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?

Page 4 of 92: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

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