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 6 of 93: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 921 reviews in total 

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?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Sparkly Vampires Vs. Masculine Werewolves!!!

4/10
Author: Pumpkin_Man from United States
30 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

For the past two years, I've avoided the Twilight saga like the plague because it just looked so melodramatic and ruined the image of scary vampires like Dracula. Instead, we get a Glampire, buff Werewolves, and a whiny teen named Bella who is suicidal over them. There was a double feature at my theater tonight, so I finally decided to cave in and watch. Bella is just ridiculous. After she gets a paper cut at her birthday party, Jasper Cullen tries to attack her. The Cullens soon decide to leave Forks, and Bella goes into a deep depression. Whenever she gets an adrenaline fix, she can see glimpses of Edward. If you love glampires and melodramatic love stories, I'm sure you'll love NEW MOON!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Had a few high points, but other than that...

5/10
Author: sjmutchie from U.S.A.
11 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

All right, so I'll try to be kind about the acting given by the inexperienced teenagers.

Kristen Stewart: I never expected much out of her, especially after her mediocre performance in Twilight. And, I was smart not to expect anything. She didn't improve AT ALL. Her lines are still rushed, and emotionless. Bella's character hasn't developed at all either.

When Edward walks towards Bella, or enters the scene, her face doesn't even light up like a real love-struck teenager's would. With Jacob, it does. I do not approve of being a part of the 'teams' that they've invented for Edward or Jacob, but as a third-party observer, she has much better chemistry with Jacob. When Edward leaves her in the woods, do you think that she would shed ONE BLOODY TEAR?! She doesn't even appear to be affected. And when she is 'depressed' for three months, could you fix your screams so that they don't sound like you're going into labor and giving birth? Thank you.

Now Robert Pattinson: His accent was MUCH better. He didn't sound like he had a speech disability this time around. The only beef I have with him is his lack of understanding of Edward's emotions while he says his lines. In the scene when he leaves Bella in the woods, the way he relays his lines makes him sound like he enjoys leaving her. Even though I struggled through the books, I do remember that Edward is supposed to be 'pained beyond description' while breaking up with Bella. And let us not blame Robert for his lack of abs. We all know that no one can compare to Taylor Lautner. (Stifles a laugh) His fight scene with the Volturi was very entertaining to watch, however. That might just be because I enjoy watching Edward getting his trash kicked, but whatever...

Taylor Lautner: The only thing he had that met any expectation was his muscular figure. His lines were very poorly delivered, but his chemistry with Bella was good. A lot more noticeable than Edward's. Jacob does deliver a few witty lines, but they are almost thrown away due to his rushed delivery. I liked him better with the long hair too. According to 'Indian' tradition, cutting your hair is disgraceful to the culture.

I was suffering through the entire film, thinking that there was no possible hope of redemption, UNTIL, the scene with the Volturi rolled around. Despite the fact that it is not NEARLY long enough, I was absolutely blown away by Michael Sheen's acting as Aro, the leader of the Volturi. Even Cameron Bright, who played Alec, only had one line, but delivered it very well. Dakota Fanning played psychotic Jane very well, but the only suggestion I would have to her, would be to input some dramatic pauses in her dialogue. It makes the audience hang on her every word. The few she has, anyway. I'm looking forward to the expansion of her role in Eclipse. Bella's lack of emotion while Edward is being tortured by Jane's 'pain' power just screams how horrible of an actress she is. Christopher Heyerdahl and Jamie Campbell Bower do a wonderful job of playing Aro's wings; Caius and Marcus. Jamie Campbell Bower's glare that rests on his brow adds GREATLY to his character development. I'm almost tempted to skip Eclipse altogether, just so that I can see Michael Sheen again in Breaking Dawn! But then again, I would be missing Peter Facinelli and Elizabeth Reaser, who never disappoint. The rest of the Volturi guard, Felix, Demetri, and Heidi, also did a great job of making a good impression with little dialogue.

So when it boils down to it, every character in the movie, including minor ones like Charlie, and the Cullens, do very well. The only ones I cannot stand are the three main ones: Bella, Edward, and Jacob. If you can get around those, then this movie will be mildly entertaining. I only bought the DVD so that I could watch the Volturi scene over and over again!

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

I want the money (I didn't pay) back

3/10
Author: Nyx_Selene from Sweden
11 June 2010

I disliked the movie "Twilight", so I saw this one against my better judgment, and with quite a bit of skepticism. Ten minutes in, it was clear that "New Moon" would be better than it's prequel. Sadly, this doesn't say a lot. Throughout the movie, I found myself being either annoyed, bored or utterly amused, and all for the wrong reasons.

The story does indeed stay somewhat true to the book this time, but I think I would have had trouble following what goes on, if I hadn't read the book. Most key moments from the novel have been given focus here, but there's not much to fill out the in-betweens, so this movie impressively succeeds in being both boringly slow AND fast-paced. The fast pace is because of the same thing that made "Twilight" fast-paced; the would-be romance between two people who go from just meeting, to not being able to live without each other in all of 5 days, more or less. It wasn't believable then, and it isn't now. So why boringly slow? Because of these:

1. THE DIALOG. When you write a book, it's okay to use fancier words, and to give your characters long speeches, to let them get descriptive; it's sometimes necessary, because since we can't see either their body-language or facial expressions, their words will to some extent have to make up for them. However, you should never forget that real life people don't talk like that! This movie sadly utilizes lines directly from the book, and as in most such cases, it ends up sounding wooden and insecure, not to mention ridiculous.

2. THE ACTORS. Robert Pattinson looks like he's in immense pain, from beginning to end. He sounds like he tries to put some seriousness into his lines, but without backing them up with any kind of conviction or real feeling. Kristen Stewart once again gasps her way through too many lines, and still hasn't learned to master any facial expressions beyond bored and vacant. Never once did I see "Bella" during the 2 hours this movie progressed - I saw an actress trying hard. She appears to be struggling with every scene, and failing. Her interaction with Pattinson looks they were forced into it, and his attempt at seriousness clashes almost spectacularly with her monotone indifference. After a while, it became amusing to watch her incompetently stumble and stutter through scenes. Towards the ending, I found myself wondering if the director and the screenwriter intentionally left out the more emotional moments, because they realized she wouldn't be able to act them out anyway.

Finally, we have: 3. THE CHARACTERS. Can't say much about them, because there's really nothing to say. If you would ask me to describe any of them without using looks, profession or race, I wouldn't be able to give you an answer. I'm not demanding someone to relate to, but I at least want someone to care about, and here, there's just nothing. The actors could have been replaced with mannequins in some places, and I wouldn't have noticed the difference. I can't call any of the characters particularly memorable, but if any of them were, they would all be found among he minor ones.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 6 of 93: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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