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 5 of 93: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 921 reviews in total 

25 out of 44 people found the following review useful:

?!! What happened?

3/10
Author: sariforever from Germany
21 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all I read all four books (not a teenage girl!) and I have to say that movies will never be as good as the books! But apparently that's not the bad news about the movie. New Moon is actually just plain boring. The Story is told without depth and I don't know who hired the actors but they are simply bad! Neither Robert nor Kristen delivered any emotions. Which is exactly the problem because the whole book is just about emotions and heartbroken teenagers! It's about love, desire, friendship and Bella is supposed to be bursting because of her loss. Her heart is broken but what the hell happened? Kristen Stewart looked as she would have been bored out of her mind or just wanted to be somewhere else but not in this movie oO No heartbroken teenager on screen! Girl start acting or quit the job! Same goes for Robert Pattinson. I've never seen him as the next De Niro anyway but that it would get worse.. outch! There is no connection between him and Kristen at all(which was at least one reason I liked Twilight). If those two are actually dating well then good luck for that relationship. Next to that I wouldn't hire the make up artists of the movie again! The faces of all Cullens looked like cheap Halloween costumes. The contact lenses are exorbitant and I still don't get why all Cullens are suddenly forced to wear smeared red lipstick?!

The only really good thing in this movie is actually Taylor Lautner and I'm not just saying that because that 17 year old boy is way better in shape than his fellow Robert Pattinson (who BTW. is supposed to be the most handsome guy in this movie.. ahm NO!). No I'm saying that because he did a great acting job and made it possible that I was totally Team Jacob for once! <-- which is basically a miracle because when it comes to the books I'm totally an "Edward girl" (hey and wasn't Taylor the one they wanted to replace with another guy so badly? Wow! Way to go if you want to make a bad movie even worse)

I guess one problem with Edward here is that Robert Pattinson is not the greatest actor and the second reason is that they picture Edward in a different way in the movies. It's always just the desperate and "wise" Edward but they tend to forget that Edward can be cheeky and fun as well. How many times did I spend laughing because of him and Bellas stupid reactions?! New Moon ruined it!(well yeah it's not the book with most of the fun parts of Bella and Edward but what happened to the proposal scene? Unbelievable!)

Next to all that it seems hard to follow for everyone who hasn't been reading the books by now . There are so many plot holes and seemingly unfinished scenes! Hard sudden cuts. I just wasn't impressed. The movie has some cute jokes (some of them unintentional) but hey.. please please don't go this way with Eclipse!

Was the above review useful to you?

29 out of 52 people found the following review useful:

These are not real vampires. Also, no plot.

1/10
Author: dieharddeus (dieharddeus@gmail.com) from Staunton Illinois
21 November 2009

Real vampires don't sparkle, they don't love teenage girls, they're not pedophiles who like girls that are centuries younger than they are.

They aren't vegetarians. Ever.

They are dead husks that lurk in the dark. They feel nothing, they have no soul.

This movie is just a plot less mindless romance movie made for fat tweens who no one will ever love. And they know it.

Vampires are meant to be the embodiment of evil, not some moronic sparkly dream boy who does not and never will exist.

Keep liking and watching movies like this and no one will ever love you.

They won't anyway, but at least you wouldn't be rotting your brain with this filth.

Was the above review useful to you?

41 out of 76 people found the following review useful:

I don't know what you people are talking about

10/10
Author: rosehannah75 from United States
20 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have no idea why people are saying that it's awful, terrible an abomination, all I can think of is that, maybe, they went into the wrong theater. I honestly thought it was great, the first one sucked, mostly because of the directing, New Moon, not so much. first off the directing was better, and that right there makes a huge improvement, also the acting has improved from the first one. The acting in Twilight was OK, not bad, just OK, no one particularly wowed me, but New Moon, wow. I have a lot of respect for Kristen Stewart and I think she's a great actress, but didn't love her performance in Twilight. New Moon is a whole different story, she was so much better. She had to go to a very deep place for some scenes and that shows talent. Also, the other actors have improved, mainly Rob Pattinson, who wasn't the perfect Edward in the first one, he was much better in New Moon. The resemblance to the book also wowed me, Twilight left out a lot of scenes and did that crazy mix and mash thing, taking conversations that were supposed to be and putting them there. New Moon, however, so closely resembled the book and made me feel like I was reading the book, the whole time. I loved how thy showed Alices visions and Bella as vampire (that was a strange scene, though, I'll admit, running through the woods, Edward in a vest and Bella in a fairytale dress) and I liked how they showed Edward after he talked to Jacob on the phone, it showed how much he adores Bella. Another thing I loved was the way they showed the passing of time, Bella sitting in her room with the seasons changing around her and I loved how she kept emailing Alice through out the movie. The Volturi scene was great, Aro was pretty creepy. The main thing that I disliked about the movie was the very end, "Marry me, Bella" camera looks at Bella, Directed by: Chris Weitz.... Overall it was a great movie and totally worth the wait. I absolutely can't wait for Eclipse, as it's my favorite book and we get to see Edward and Jacob together, fighting over Bella. All I can say is, I'm so glad they're not waiting a whole year before Eclipse, lie we had to for New Moon, only 6 months! LOL 10/10 (I'd say that's a pretty good rating)

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

This is one movie where a spoof would be far better than the original

1/10
Author: donco6 from United States
4 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Hard to believe I wasted 3 hours (hey, it was on FX and they jam everything with mega-commercials) of my life watching this tripe.

If I had to watch one more 360-spinning view of Bella sitting somewhere, mourning the loss of Edward, all to the strains of some overwrought teen pop music, I'm quite certain I would have had to run to the bathroom to barf.

NOTHING happens in this movie. You don't need to worry about spoilers because there can't be any.

What I *am* anxious to see is the spoof of this movie, because it will be deadly funny.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Bella needs to go potty

4/10
Author: poj-man from United States
28 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've not read the Twilight books...and I am a 49 year old male...so...I know the demographics are not targeted at me. However, I have no begrudging anyone their success and harbor no ill will towards the Twilight gang. My opinion is that I am "calling as I see 'em."

Technically the film is structured OK. The cinematography is nice and the CGI is fine. To me, though, the film is like the Vampires of true Vampire myth...soul-less.

I see many reviews state that Twilight is "teen porn." I find that I disagree with this assertion. Twilight is more like people who need some porn in their life for there really isn't anyone in Twilight.

For the movie Bella acts like she needs to pee. Like...pee really bad. Bella is in blue jeans and she is so tormented that she is almost constantly bending in her blue jeans like she needs to find a potty quickly.

Bella pines for Edward...and acts like she must pee. She tells Jacob "Don't do this" in such a tortured manner...and acts like she must pee. She exits the car to run to the clock tower not knowing what to do...and she acts like she must pee. That is most definitely not "teen porn."

If mopey, whiny characters who bear no semblance to reality are your fantasy bag then have at it. In this kind of fantasy the characters are all tortured and the nerdy girl who looks like she needs to pee is loved by both vampire and werewolf. In real porn she is enjoying doing both of them at the same time...and she probably has more substance than Bella. Considering how little substance that porn girl is demonstrates how little substance Twilight is.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Frustrating

3/10
Author: Sjhm from United Kingdom
13 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Truthfully, the CGI is good. Then we come to the real problem; Kirsten Stewart is not the actress to carry Bella off with conviction. It's a shame. Because this film is all about Bella. She is the core of the story, with Edward absent for a significant portion of the film. Without a good core, the cheesy dialogue and long sorrowful glances are just that, cheesy and long, it's impossible to see past them. It takes FOREVER for anything to happen. Happy or sad, suicidal or in a bad mood, it really is impossible to tell. Kirsten's broody look never changes. Scenes which should have some poignancy are simply flat and dull. I know that the character is somewhat thinly written, but really, come on. And then Robert Pattinson comes back in, and he also delivers his lines as though he's reading from a telephone directory. Very disappointing.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

the absolute worst film I have ever seen

1/10
Author: BelmaresJodene from United States
20 April 2012

I was forced to watch this terrible pitiful excuse for a film. This film had absolutely no redeeming qualities at all. I have never seen such a worthless piece of crap film in my entire life. The storyline was just terrible the acting sucked and the effects were just terrible. I want those two hours of my life back.Furthermore it had an actor from one of my favorite movie series and I was not Happy This film is so bad that it belongs in a landfill. This is also the worst book to movie adaptation I have ever seen in my life. Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time with this abomination. I cannot tell you how much I despise this film . lastly this makes gnomeo and juliet look like the silence of the lambs and that's saying something. Avoid at all costs. One more thing vampires sparkling what the f*ck is that If you want a real movie go see hunger games

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Slightly better than the first, but a far cry from being any good

4/10
Author: Bobby747 from Canada
28 July 2010

The reason it took me so long to review this film is because I wanted to wait for it to show on the movie network, as my interest in it was next to none. I got bored today and watched this movie and they basically took all of the redeeming qualities of the first film and removed it.

The most interesting part of the story was the relationship between Jacob and Bella, however it began to get tiresome after Jacobs third attempt to reach out to Bella, and then it just wouldn't stop. Edward and Bella's relationship is totally annoying to me, as there is no apparent passion between the two when they're interacting with each other. Close talking with convenient lighting does not convey passion.

I tried watching this with the notion that this is a children's movie, and I guess its good enough for kids if they decide to like it. However the subject matter leads to a rhetoric that is heavily politicized. I do not wish to discuss that here.

I understand that fans of the Twilight novels wanted this film to do what the previous one could not. Which is to do the novel justice. The script writing was not thoughtful enough to even come close to representing even a poorly written novel. The dialogue was that of an after school teen TV series. You can tell that Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson tried a bit harder to convey emotion. However Pattinson is too caught up in the image he wishes to portray as a vampire instead of becoming his character for the film, and Stewart is likely in a quandary. The acting was so bad in the first one, but there is a huge fan base for Twilight. How does she make the character better without straying too far from what was done in the first film? That being said, Bella's character was ruined before they even started filming New Moon. Unless they rebooted the series, there was no saving this film.

What bothers me is that I know these actors can do much better. I've seen Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart do some good work in the past, and it seems they've both let the Twilight attention get to their heads. Their acting is pretentious and dull in New Moon. I hate seeing scenes with them together because I'm numb with boredom every time they are.

This movie was slightly better than the first as a MOVIE, not as a representation of the novel. I have no comment about the novels because I have never read them, nor do I intend to. Vegetarian vampires, and the struggle of two people who want desperately to be together is not really my thing and quite frankly it's the oldest story ever, are not really my thing. How about every religious person and their desire to be with a God who may or may not exist? That's how old this story is.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Thumbs down for New Moon

3/10
Author: jonathanruano from Canada
28 July 2010

Kristen Stewart once called herself as a "professional liar" when referring to her performances in movies, like Twilight. The problem with "New Moon" is that the performances of Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattison, Taylor Lautner, Anna Kendrick and others are so obviously a lie that it is nearly impossible to believe in any of them. In this respect, New Moon is a very inferior film to the first Twilight which, for all its flaws, at least had believable characters and a believable love story. The main reason for this major flaw in New Moon is that the script lacks compelling dialogue. Most of the dialogue, especially in the beginning, is absurd; and the actors know that their dialogue is absurd because they give the consistent impression that they do not believe in what they are saying. So the result is a superficial vampire movie.

But the problem with "New Moon" goes even deeper than that. The plot is not really interesting. For most of the film, Bella is meant to be depressed after her break up with Edward Cullen that is never properly explained. But Bella never succeeds in establishing a connection with the audience - not least because the Kristen Stewart voice-over sounds so fake - and therefore watching her depressed is a boring experience, instead of a touching one. There is a somewhat interesting part of the film with the wolves, which in my view really do upstage the actors. But the part with the volturi, who are meant to enforce a rather rigid set of vampire laws, was done completely wrong. If the film-makers were smart, they would have done something unique and original with the set, like create a whole new vampire world hidden from human civilization with its own unique look (why do vampire buildings have to look like human buildings, for instance?), culture and way of life. Instead human beings can see the volturi simply by walking into an elevator, clicking the basement floor - how unoriginal (what happened to secret passages) - and then walking into a throne room that looks like a baroque cathedral from a tourist guide. The volturi themselves, moreover, are not that scary, even when they do come close to killing Edward Cullen (I really stopped caring by that point, because I wanted an early end to this film). Martin Sheen is miscast as the head volturi, because he lacks the stature and command to make that role work. Sheen was much better in "Frost/Nixon" because in that film he was supposed to be a mousy interviewer who seemed way over his head financing and carrying out the interview of President Nixon. Perhaps Frank Langhella would have made a better volturi or Eva Green. But Sheen is all wrong for the part. The same is true for the other actors attempting to look scary as volturis. The female volturi, for instance, looks like one of those part geeky, artsy theatre chicks one meets while attending the fringe festival. Of course, the script does not give the volturis much to do or anything interesting to say. So these actors are also hamstrung from the start.

Overall a disappointing film. Thumbs down. The other sad thing about this film is that Graham Greene, who was so brilliant in "Thunderheart" and "Dances with Wolves," is in this film, but the film-makers only gave him a bit part instead of utilizing his considerable talents in full. What a sad day when a great actor's potential is not exploited to make a bad film, like this one, somewhat better.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Neither better nor worse than its predecessor

5/10
Author: MovieProductions from United States
30 June 2010

** out of (****)

Chances are, your feelings toward the film "Twilight" will match your feelings for "New Moon". Mine sure did. This film basically did nothing for its predecessor, which is a shame since the trailer looked somewhat decent. I thought that maybe an above average Twilight flick would make its way, but I guess that's too much to ask these days. The characters are surprisingly more stale than before, although this movie is a little more interesting. For everything that is in this movie that was better than Twilight, there is also the opposite. However, the special effects improved slightly and fortunately we get more action than romance. Still, this movie is basically neither better nor worse than "Twilight". You can take that as a complement or a negative, and you know which side you're on.

"New Moon" revolves around Bella (Stewart) and Edward (Pattison). Edward leaves Bella in the forest and now Bella is all alone. However, she meets Jacob (Lautner) and gradually develops a crush on him. Although, Edward returns and Jacob has a secret: he's a werewolf.

I think it's kind of humiliating that a director gets a better script, yet makes a film that's on par with Twilight. I mean how could this have not been good? You have werewolves vs. vampires. That sounds cool already and imagine the type of execution that Scorsese can make *faints*. Folks, if you think this latest installment is impossible to have worse acting and dialogue, then you are dead wrong. Yes, it might seem improbable, but the performances and dialogue have gone from beyond awful to officially the worst I've seen. Moreover, I thought the first hour was way too boring and a chore to sit through.

Now, there are some redeeming qualities. The technical aspects have improved. Not by much, but a sufficient amount. Moreover, the last hour is actually watchable. The action here is also not too shabby. Also, I thought that the story was slightly more interesting.

"New Moon" is basically on par with "Twilight", but that isn't a complement. Both films boast decent technical aspects and interesting stories, but also boast terrible performances with an awful script. "New Moon" is neither a bad nor good film and compared with its predecessor, it matches its film quality. This weekend, I'll seek out "Eclipse" and see if that film can break the mediocrity streak. Hey, David Slade is directing. If the third installment is even just the slightest better than "New Moon", I'll be satisfied. Until then, this is my review of "New Moon".

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 5 of 93: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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