Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 83 reviews(2 star)show all reviews
28 of 37 people found the following review helpful
on February 11, 2010
New Moon had the benefit of a bigger budget, more action scenes, and more suspense. The same cast we love are back playing the same characters. Edward is still gorgeous, and thinking of what's best for Bella. Bella is prettier, more mature, and when her heart was breaking, mine was too. Jacob is looking good with a new body, a new haircut, and finds out he really IS descended from wolves. Alice is still sweet, Carlisle is still kind, and Charlie is still the loving dad. There are some great scenes from Italy, and the vampires really look like vampires.

BUT...

There are no special touches this time around. No cool blue lighting. No beautiful music. No Bella's lullaby, or flightless bird. No Robert Pattinson singing or playing the piano. No Stephanie Meyer making an appearance. No romantic, peaceful dreamy feeling. Also, there will not be any commentary from Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson on the DVD.

So if you loved the look, the sound, and the feel of Twilight as I did, then you might be disappointed in New Moon. I know I was.
1717 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
on September 3, 2010
The problem w/New Moon is that it takes itself too seriously while giving the audience plenty of reasons to consider it a joke.

I try not to read too much into movies, and I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions, but I agree that this movie has influence on young girls, and yep, older women as well. I was in junior high once, and a lot of the dialog resembled what I remembered hearing btwn boyfriends and girlfriends. You know, back in the day when you had a major crush and they were the love of your life? Then 3 weeks later, you BOTH move on to another "love of your life." That's how the dialog sounds. It's cheesy, overdone, and I feel sorry for the teens who thinks this is what it should be. Edward and Bella have an obsessive and codependent relationship. Dumped by a vampire so you're feeling suicidal? Really? If you take out the vampire stuff, everything else is still wrong. Bella is a mopey, emotionless, humorless, goalless, utterly empty of personality shell of a girl. It's really hard to understand why either of these guys find her attractive. What does she do? For herself or anybody? She's a major drag and she treats her dad like crap. It's just not credible that two guys are willing to die (one again) for her. She offers nothing in return. She gets dumped by Ed and just eats up the attention Jacob pays her w/no intention of ever reciprocating his feelings. We call that leading. Everything is about her to the max. What I found particularly amusing is that she asks Jacob if he could just STOP being a wolf...yet this same girl would never ask that of Edward. It makes no sense. Lautner did the best acting of the three, and made me feel for Jake. I read the Wiki page for the Breaking Dawn book and the outcome for his character sounds like a movie recipe for disaster. At this point, producers need to stop leading the little girls on. He honestly saved the movie. As an adult, I can only handle so much teen angst and the fact that he cracked a few smiles kept me from turning it off.

When the werewolf first emerged from the woods before chasing Victoria, OK yes, I thought it was a bear. But even still, the werewolf scenes were the best parts. The vamp makeup was terrible and the contacts were distracting. Pattinson was better in the first movie. Stewart was the same non-entity. She was so unrelatable. Even if not in the dialog, mannerisms, facial expressions, and actions can convey so much about a character. It's hard to believe that Bella is not a robot. Even on the dvd cover, she just doesn't try. Compared to both male leads. Actors should be able to sell their characters' motivations. Stanley in `Streetcar' was utterly reprehensible, but Brando sold it. Stewart does not, and therefore Bella comes off as one of the most undeserving "heroines" to ever hit the screen.

Ugh, I'm gonna stop here.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful
on February 2, 2010
This will not go down well with all those fans, but I found the film utterly boring, and Edward totally lacking that endearing quality he had in the Twilight film. Of course a lot of money was spent on New Moon, the director showed more accuracy in special effects and so on but on the emotional level the film failed miserably. By the way, those weird vampire eyes that holler "I am not human" render the whole concept of the Cullen family blending in with the mortals, absurd.

Everyone has seen the film, read the book or at least is aware of the premise. I would like to compare the portrayal of the characters in Twilight and "New Moon" in an attempt to show that it takes a male director with a deeper understanding of teenage love and passion to successfully depict this in his films and make the audience feel the sexual tension right along their spinal cord like an electrical charge. I confess to not being a fan of the books and read them to see what it is that teenagers find so appealing in them. I escorted my young daughter to the cinema to see both films. The characters in Twilight were teenagers other young people could easily identify with. Bella was an unusual teenager but her insecurities rang true, her lack of self confidence was in a way appealing and her fragility explained why the boys felt protective towards her. In New Moon she comes across as a nervous wreck, moody and unpredictable, uncaring for others and obsessed with her own little drama. She is brooding and jumpy, as if she were in dire need of therapy, which she is, considering her reckless behaviour. The director does nothing to atone for all these abhorrent aspects of her character which if seen from an objective perspective, are to be condemned and certainly not admired. Her attitude towards her friends at school, Jacob and her father is despicable and that is putting it mildly. It makes one wonder what it is that makes the boys love her so as there is little she does to warrant such feelings. She exhibits a very superficial level of love and her dismissive attitude to 'giving away' her soul was irritating. It simply emphasizes the fact that she is shallow and puerile, thinking only of the veneer of her outer appearance, doing nothing to improve that inner being which remains eternal. I suppose the book was more or less along the same lines, Staphanie Meyers not being willing to delve into the deeper waters of literature to unravel the intricacies of the human psyche, and the director was content to leave it at that.

Edward. In Twilight he was warm, playful with a sense of humour although torn by his conflicting emotions. The director brought out different facets of his character not making him one dimentional, like the characters in New Moon. He had warmth as well as pain in his eyes when he looked at Bella and when he told Bella how long he had waited for her I felt his yearning in my solar plexus which remained inactivated in New Moon. There were no such moments of playfulness, longing, endearment and generally the type of emotions conveyed by a touch, look or soul shattering kiss. In New Moon Edward wore a perpetual frown which was unfair to him as I believe he is a promising young actor who should explore his acting talents by accepting more challenging roles than this. Anyway, I yawned through most of it but my daughter was content and so were the rest of the teenagers by the sounds of their sighs and screeches. As for the adults that accompanied them, they shared feelings similar to mine, the drowsiness I spotted in their eyes being a telltale sign.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
on April 3, 2010
After "Twilight" sunk its teeth into a considerable chunk of box office receipts in 2008; one year later the follow-up film that left many a female moviegoer anxiously awaiting its release finally arrived. The release of "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" to theaters created an even greater feeding frenzy (as it were) regarding the books, merchandise or anything else remotely related to Twilight than its predecessor had managed to cultivate. With all of the pandemonium surrounding this film's release to theaters in late 2009, and its subsequent release a few weeks ago on DVD and Blu-ray, I was left wondering, "Does this latest installment really live up to all the fuss?"

"The Twilight Saga: New Moon" finds Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward's (Robert Pattinson) romance running into trouble after a mishap leaves Bella injured and one of Edward's vampire brethren in a momentary bloodlust. Fearing for her safety Edward exiles himself from Bella's life, vowing never to return. As Bella struggles to cope with the loss of her love, she begins to find solace by testing fate in dangerous and deadly ways. Not wishing to see Bella injure herself over the memory of some vampire, Bella's friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner) steps up his attempts to woo her to his side. However, the timing for Jacob couldn't be worse as he is undergoing a supernatural metamorphosis of his own that will unleash the animal within.

From the viewpoint of a person who found very little enjoyment from the original movie, I had little expectations that the sequel would prove to be much better. My wife told me that she felt I would probably like this movie a little bit more than the previous one, but she wasn't sure how much. Truth be told, she was right. I did like this one just a little bit more than its predecessor, but not by a whole lot.

What makes this entry work a little better than the original? Well let's look at the first one's primary weaknesses. The first film was comprised of an incredibly weak storyline, wooden acting from most of the cast, amateurish dialogue, and barely TV worthy visual effects work. All of this left me with maybe ten to fifteen minutes of enjoyment in the movie. In essence, it shouldn't take too much to make a slightly better movie than what has come before.

For the sequel, we are given a somewhat more interesting storyline, written once again by Michelle Rosenberg and based on the novel by author Stephanie Meyer. The story focuses upon a different side of the supernatural world, namely werewolves, which inhabit the area surrounding the city of Forks. There were times where this aspect provided some interesting moments and one could almost forget all the sappy clichés that consume the rest of the movie, but these moments were few and far between. Generally speaking it was the same old teenage angst angles being played out like any number of the CW Network's TV shows or the previous movie for that matter.

Bella and Edward's story takes a bit of a backseat, which thankfully lessens some of the cheesy romance that dominated the previous film. Instead, replacing their nauseating romance is a bunch of scenes showing Bella screaming in the middle of the night. Apparently this is caused by the heartache of losing Edward being so horrendous that it manifests as an almost physical pain. Although that was never truly addressed in the movie, but I'm told it is in the novel.

Plus, there are a plethora of scenes showcasing Bella's new daredevil side that she's embraced whole-heartedly, because it's the only way she feels close to her beloved. Her entire story arc is so ridiculous that I actually felt a semblance of the apparent pain Bella was feeling, because while watching her scenes unfold I felt like I was being tortured.

To be honest, the only aspect of the story that really sustained my interest was when the Volturi (the elite of the vampire world) arrive on the scene. While only featured briefly, their scenes were the most dramatically engaging, filled with mystery, and an underlying malevolence that left me curious as to what all they had in store for future installments.

Sadly, even during the film's strongest points, the screenplay runs into issues. Once again Melissa Rosenberg is guilty of not divulging enough detail from the books in order for those in the audience that haven't read the novels to fully understand the how and why of what's occurring. For a movie to truly work, at least for the non-readers, the story must not rely on inside information gleamed from the novels; instead, this information needs to be presented in the film's story. However, I'm fully aware that I am not the target audience; the predominantly female readership is, so I doubt this issue will ever see resolution. But, I digress.

The cast for the film performed almost completely as I had expected. Robert Pattinson is as wooden as ever in his continuing quest to usurp Hayden Christensen from the throne of worst actor ever. Robert's lines are delivered so lethargically that one wouldn't be surprised if it turned out he had been reading off cue cards. I know Edward is a vampire, meaning he's a member of the undead, but he claims to love Bella (meaning he clearly still feels emotions), so one would expect him to react with some semblance of an emotional range. However, one would be wrong in this expectation and I don't believe this is a result of a poor script. I believe that Robert Pattinson couldn't act with any truly convincing range if his career depended on it, which it apparently doesn't, so he has nothing to fear there.

Actress Kristen Stewart turns in a similar performance to her previous attempt; except this time she includes many overwrought and unbelievable scenes of agony and heartbreak. Her acting wavered between slightly unenthusiastic and just downright bored (except when screaming, then she was enthused), which could almost be considered a step up from her previous performance. Once more for such a high-profile role, I'm surprised by her apparent lack of interest in the character. If she is acting this way based on some cue from the books regarding Bella's personality, then perhaps that should be addressed somehow in the movies. Otherwise she just appears to be handing in another terrible performance.

Then we have Taylor Lautner rising up from the ranks of barely utilized supporting cast member to third lead in the movie. His performance is the most consistent amongst the primary players, but even then, he's not delivering anything really worthy of note. His character's bogged down with as much angst and weak dialogue as the other two (Kristen and Robert), except Taylor does his level best to overcome these short-comings. His was a commendable effort to be sure, but one that was destined to fail from the get-go.

Lastly, in the minor supporting roles, the same two actors manage to outshine the other cast members, despite their minimal screen time. Billy Burke continues to provide some of the best moments and cheese-free lines of dialogue out of the entire cast. Just as before, whenever Billy's character appeared in the movie, those tended to be the most enjoyable scenes. Which is quite sad considering his total time in the movie is maybe ten minutes. As for the other reliable member of the cast, Peter Facinelli in the relatively thankless role as surrogate father to the Cullen "family" of vampires. This time however, he's relegated to next to nothing in terms of screen time, but he does the best he can with what little he's allotted.

Now, on to the primary reason for which my wife thought I might enjoy this installment more than "Twilight"... the werewolves. The inclusion of the werewolves into the story brought more action into the mix, along with even more visual effects (both elements were sorely lacking in both quantity and quality in the previous film). While the action scenes in this film were fairly entertaining, they were marred by sub-par CGI which detracted from them every step of the way. Most likely the core fan base for these movies doesn't really care too much about the visual effects work for their beloved characters. To me there's no excuse for such a weak effort to ever be put on display from a major Hollywood production.

This film was released in the same year as "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "Avatar", both CGI-intensive movies and for this one to come out with such a weak offering is unacceptable. Obviously the "Twilight" movies have made a lot of money and will continue to do so, meaning the budget shouldn't be an issue. What it boils down to is this, in this day and age, CGI characters can look incredibly realistic, but if done wrong they will stand out like a sore thumb. In the end, Summit Entertainment needs to provide a bigger budget for the remaining films. Especially if they plan to use the werewolves or any other CGI-created characters in the later installments, otherwise the end result will be just as inferior as it was in this movie.

Finally, to address the question I posed at the beginning, does this movie live up to the fuss? In my estimation, even though this entry was slightly better than its predecessor, I would still have to answer with a resounding "No!" However, I must say again, that I am not the target audience for this franchise. So, based on my wife and daughter's undeniable enjoyment of the movie; I would have to say that if you are a fan of the previous movie or the books, then this installment will definitely entertain you and leave you thirsting for more.

"The Twilight Saga: New Moon" is rated PG-13 for violence and brief language.
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on September 2, 2010
And women who should know better. I just watched New Moon last night via Netflix. That was pretty much the only way I would watch it bc I would never have paid for a ticket. From the beginning, the hype killed my interest. The actors were everywhere. I couldn't shop at Nordstrom w/o seeing their cardboard cutouts. Teens were going nuts, women my age (27) going nuts, women my MOM'S age were going nuts. First movie I didn't watch til this year when we had a blizzard. I watched NM last night and it was bad. I'm a fan of Buffy, Angel, some Anne Rice, heck, I even liked that weird Jim Carrey vampire movie from before he became a star, but Twilight bugs me. The second time around, sparkling faces *still* don't do it for me. I'm no big fan of "Edward," but he looked worse in this movie. The makeup job on him was over the top. Christina Aguilera would have been jealous of how red his lips were. He looked more like a clown than the undead. "KStew's" range of emotions are *still* Emo and More Emo. Of the three, Jacob did the best acting bc he was the only one I hoped survived. He might have a future in Hollywood if he can get away from this franchise. He and Edward had more chemistry than Bella had w/either one of them. As in Twilight, the nemesis tension between them was palpable. I will admit I did rewind their phone call several times. Taylor's delivery of those lines was very good. The script was humorless which is pretty sad for a teen movie. It's obviously a moody film, but there was no typical-teen sarcasm or anything like that. New Moon takes itself wayyyy too seriously as though it'll be played on Turner Classics someday.

On to the story, it was utter garbage. No plot, no action, no suspense. Was there really any doubt of how it would end? I cringed through the entire movie. I only kept it on since it would have been a waste of my Netflix free trial. I'm a person who can watch movies from Citizen Kane to My Man Godfrey to Memento to The Hangover and enjoy them all. I'm not pretentious with entertainment, so I was honestly hoping that the series would have found a groove and improved once the 2nd movie appeared. It's still the same overly hormonal stuff. It's funny because I'm an 80s baby so we had Clueless (Jane Austen-inspired), Sixteen Candles, River Phoenix, 10 Things (Shakespearean), Scream, and many others. These millennium kids have Twilight. What a gyp. Edward and Bella are NOT Romeo and Juliet. Edward was a vision for a good chunk of the movie which suited me just fine; however, his absence caused Bella to have screaming fits at night (see: obsession). She gets closer to Jacob during this time doing pretty normal teenage stuff: motorcycles, movies, etc. She even embraces warmth. ((Which honestly, even in a fluffy movie like this, had so much potential. It would have been more interesting if the story was written in a way that Jacob ACTUALLY had a chance. Her "I love you" was pretty ridiculous considering her next line was: "Don't make me choose bc it would be him, meaning Edward. Killed any chance for a believable triangle.)) That goes to hell once Ed's "sister" returns and you just see a regression in Bella. She becomes more obsessed with Edward. She disses Jacob who actually helped her during the time she was depressed.

Which also begs to question: what is it that draws these guys to such a downer type of girl? I mean, she's so BLAH. Edward, ok yeah, I can see it, but Jacob could do so much better. He has family, nice future sis-in-law, a better outlook on life...dude, get away from this moody girl.

Disclosure: I skipped over the entire part of the movie in the temple structure or whatever. Once Edward came back, Bella started talking about turning again, and I lost interest. The only reason she wanted to turn was because she had nothing else going for her, which is sad for a girl of only 18. I guess this makes me part of "Team Jacob" by default but that's more because there was no obsession there. Her "love" for Edward was pure obsession not based in any type of reality. She's being hunted because of him. I totally understand...who wouldn't want to be w/someone whose presence makes them a target? //total sarcasm.

As for the effects, the CGI was better this time, but still obvious. LoTR or House of Flying Daggers this is not. I did like the werewolf scenes perhaps because at least they resembled wolves. The vamps were still fangless and hanging out in the sunlight. Edward and Bella also did a good bit of mumbling; I shouldn't have to turn my volume to 50 or read lips to figure out what's going on. The scripted lines made me so embarrassed for the actors. Jacob said something like "it's gonna get ugly in here." Did he momentarily morph not into a werewolf but a 60 yr old man? LOL, he was the only one of the 3 leads that I liked, so that line made me say "ugh."

When the movie ended, I said "that's it?" I had no desire to see Eclipse. In fact, I went ahead and read the plot on Wikipedia just so that another Netflix movie wouldn't be wasted.

If you have to watch a movie about teenage girls in crisis, watch Man in the Moon (Reese Witherspoon) or Mermaids (Winona Ryder). Or for teen vampire angst: Buffy. Actually even Vampire Diaries on the CW doesn't crap on vampires like these movies do.
22 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
11 of 15 people found the following review helpful
I liked "Twilight", the first film better. Perhaps because it was new and we didn't know how this world would translate visually yet. It isn't a huge stretch to jump from author Meyer's written page to the visual screen, she does what a huge number of writers do today and writes her books to be made into films. The first film introduced us to everything we were familiar with in the books so it was interesting, new and unusual.

I think "New Moon" suffers from the same problem I felt the first two Harry Potter films suffered from. The director of each film is so faithful to the source material; he doesn't add any artistic flourishes of his own. After the enormous success of "Twilight", director Catherine Hardwicke left/ was fired because she protested the shooting schedule the studio was imposing on her. Chris Weitz, the director of "American Pie", "About a Boy" and "The Golden Compass" stepped in and took the reigns. But the difference between the two is both subtle and great. Because he is used to directing big budget films, he is able to handle the task of shooting them on an accelerated schedule, but he doesn't quite know (or care?) about how to get the best performances from his relatively young and inexperienced stars. He also doesn't (have time to?) add any artistic flourishes of his own, to make the book really come alive on the silver screen.
He also directed "Eclipse", the third installment, which is due next summer.

Filmmaking is a visual medium and there are frequently problems with adapting other mediums to this huge canvas. Often, plays seem 'stagey' when adapted to the big screen; two actors have a conversation, one leaves and another enters, continuing the story. When a good filmmaker gets their hands on a play and adapts it for the big screen, they are able to 'open it up' and create a dynamic new universe for the story, making us forget it was a play in the first place. Books are often problematic because a well-written book usually explores the characters' inner feelings and their thinking. What is making them say or do what they are doing? How do you translate that to the screen? Well, Meyer does that for the filmmaker by having her characters talk about their feelings all the time.

If you have read the book, the movie will seem very familiar to you and a certain amount of this is expected and necessary. The fans have to be able to recognize key elements and we have to get to the right point for the third film to pick up the story. But because it is so faithful to the book, "New Moon" seems a little boring. And because the actors aren't great at their craft, at least not yet, the film quickly resembles a teenaged version of a television soap opera.

Bella (Kristen Stewart) is trying to get back to a normal life and returns to school in Forks. Edward (Robert Pattison) is at her side every moment, much to the consternation of her friends. Then, Alice (Ashley Greene), Edward's 'sister' asks Bella to come over one night for a surprise birthday party. Bella reluctantly agrees to avoid hurting Alice's feelings. Bella is becoming more and more determined to become a vampire; Edward was made a vampire at seventeen and Bella doesn't want to grow old without him. An accident at the party causes Edward and the Cullen's to leave town, for Bella's protection. But Bella becomes deeply depressed and soon finds solace in the company of her friend, Jacob (Taylor Lautner), an Indian who is handy with cars. Soon, it becomes apparent the Jacob has some issues to deal with and Bella becomes reckless as she starts to seek thrills that will help her feel alive.

Bella has a couple of reasons for wanting to become a vampire; she has fallen madly in love with Edward and wants to spend the rest of her life with him and because he is pretty much immortal, she doesn't want to age because she feels he will not want to be with her when she is thirty, forty, fifty, older when he will always look like he is seventeen. Both of these messages are not exactly enlightened, especially when the main audience for these books and films are pre-teen girls who are usually already dealing with self-esteem issues. Thankfully, much of Edward's being seems to be to dispel these theories. He doesn't want her to be a vampire because he knows there are many things she will miss out on. And he frequently states he is so in love with her that he won't care what she might look like in the future. This is nice to hear, but as it constantly comes up, it becomes boring very quickly.

She also wants to become a vampire because there is a female vampire hunting for her, to extract revenge for Edward killing her lover, another vampire who wanted to kill Bella. Apparently, it is hard for vampires to kill one another, although Edward was able to do so in "Twilight". But Bella believes that by becoming a vampire, many of the threats she faces, as a human will go away.

Much of the film, as the book, is about the relationship between Bella and Jacob. Jacob finds his body changing in strange ways and soon realizes he is a werewolf. Werewolves and vampires don't get along, so Bella now faces another problem. Can she juggle her relationship with Jacob and her love for Edward?

Eventually, the entire story shifts to a small medieval village in Italy and Bella and Alice race to the town square to stop Edward from revealing himself to the many humans who have assembled for a festival honoring the mythical vampires who control the town, the Volturi. If Edward exposes himself, and their secret, the Volturi will have no recourse but to kill Edward. You know, this story development played a lot better in the book. In the film, Alice and Bella have a realization and the next moment they are speeding through the Italian countryside in a yellow Ferrari. In the film, this development seems like a wild stretch.

Once they meet the Volturi, we are introduced to Jane (Dakota Fanning) and Aro (Michael Sheen) among others, two ancient vampires with amazing powers who oversee all other vampires in the world.

All of the actors are good, none are great. Robert Pattison almost seems to be smirking through his lines, like he can't believe how corny they are. Believe it. Sure, he's good looking and plays Edward like James Dean might have if he had played the role, but he doesn't really go to any depths as or for the character. Everything is on the surface. And this seems like an okay fit for the film. And clearly the millions of tween girls who have already seen the film doesn't seem to care.

Kristen Stewart is also okay as Bella. Throughout much of the film, Bella is either madly depressed or trying to be madly rebellious and independent. This second idea might work better if we didn't see Edward pop up as her conscience every time she tried to do something dangerous. It makes her seem like she can only live if she is in a relationship with Edward. Not exactly a great message to present to all of the tweens in the audience. "You are only good and productive when you are in a relationship with your boyfriend." But to be fair, the movie can't be faulted for this alone. This is the main idea behind the books as well.

Taylor Lautner has the most complex role as Jacob, the younger member of the Quillite tribe who becomes friends with Bella. Throughout the film, Jacob goes through some changes wreaking havoc on his life and strains his relationship with Bella. He has the most to do, the most to show, the most to emote, and this makes his character the most complex, the most interesting.

The rest of the cast is basically background for the romantic entanglements of these three characters. Even Edward's "family", the Cullen's, have virtually no screen time. This makes all of these actors almost non-existent. The good thing about this is that most of them barely register and this is a good thing based on their acting ability.

"New Moon" is already a worldwide hit and the next installment "Eclipse" has already been made and will be released next summer. But that doesn't mean the movie is great, only that it has tapped into a fan base willing and able to propel it to blockbuster status.
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
20 of 28 people found the following review helpful
on February 4, 2010
I am a Twilight fanatic and have seen the movie at least a dozen times. This film is nothing like Twilight. I don't feel that Chris Weitz was a good choice to direct this film. It is really lacking the emotional intensity that Catherine Hardwicke brought to Twilight. IMO, she did a brilliant job and I didn't feel the same connection between Bella and Edward that I did in the first film. Honestly, wolves or no wolves...that's what it's all about, isn't it?

I also didn't like what happened to the Cullen's. They actually aged more than the humans! Only Carlisle and Emmett seemed like themselves. Rosalie looked terrible and the wig was just ridiculous. And what is up with Jasper's hair, and his voice?? I really missed the old Alice too. Everything about her seemed different and kind of strange. Not cute and perky like the first movie.

I think Taylor Lautner did a fine job as Jacob, and even though I will always be on "team Edward", he was one of the more positive things about New Moon. I really expected better cgi with the wolves, so was a little disappointed in the quality of the special effects.

The scene with the Volturi was very exciting and probably the highlight of the movie, but it wasn't enough to make me watch again and again like Twilight.

The Music was also disappointing, especially since the Twilight soundtrack was absolutely perfect and the songs were so well chosen.

I knew going in that Edward would be absent for a large part of the film, and knew that would be a drawback, but it was more than that. Again, I think it comes down to direction and the poor choice of using Chris Weitz and trying to get the film made on such a tight deadline. Quicker was not better in this case. I am certainly hopeful that David Slade can redeem Eclipse and bring the series back to what it should be.
22 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on March 23, 2010
My opinion is based on the DVD release of the movie, not actually the quality of the movie itself. I am a big fan of the Twilight series and saw New Moon in the theaters twice. I've been waiting for the DVD version "with baited breath"...only to find out that the special features section is REALLY limited.

I've also learned that several versions of the movie are sent to Target, Wal-Mart and Borders (if not more). Target has deleted/extended scenes and Wal-Mart has a special preview of Eclipse.

I feel VERY cheated about buying from Amazon. I must admit, I didn't read what all the special features were going to be because I just assumed that deleted scenes were going to be part of it. Also, was hearing that it would also include upcoming scenes from Eclipse. But I never heard that I would have to go to different markets to buy different special features.

The only reason why I'm giving the DVD 2 starts is because the limited special features that I got from Amazon were decent enough.

In short....LOVE the Movie but HATE the DVD Special Features.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on April 3, 2010
Like others, I have noticed that the DVD version seems to be missing a few scenes. The one I noticed most was when Bella goes to Italy to save Edward. If memory serves, watching it in the theater there was a scene when she runs into his arms and they start to kiss. To draw out the dramatic flare, the kissing scene seems to go on for a few minutes and they pan the camera around them before they are interrupted by the Volturi. This seems to be missing from the film. I'm also disappointed about the special features are missing the one thing that should be on a TWO DISC SPECIAL EDITION...deleted scenes. I am now sorry that I didn't do my research before I bought this. I love the books, and I have pretty much loved the movies, but this is ridiculous. I for one was looking for an alternate ending that goes along with the book and deleted scenes...I'm NONE too happy with this. If there's someone out there that can do something about this, I wish I knew them!!
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
on February 2, 2010
I have read the Twilight book series more than 20 times. I fall into the over 40 age group that are fans of the series. I agree with previous Twilight movie reviews that so much was cut from the story it was a joke, but the director had a very limited budget a short filming schedule and Summit determined the quality of the script. For what she had to work with it was good. It was a huge success and that is what allowed New Moon to be made.

Now let's talk New Moon. The number of film mistakes made in this movie reflect the quality of a 1st year film student. Sloppy is the only word. Continuity is everything when shooting a movie. This movie is a mess. In the meadow scene where Bella and Edward are looking into each others eyes, it looks like a silk flower explosion not to mention that BELLA'S FOOT IS MISSING. Some idiot placed a backdrop over her leg and neither the director, editor nor continunity officer noticed.

How about the scene where Jacob comes into Bella's bedroom. Bella goes to bed wearing a light yellow top and wakes up wearing a dark green top. (movie magic) At last count there are over 60 of these sloppy mistakes in New Moon. There is one scene where Bella's hair part moves 6x's. Or how about the scene in the truck with Bella and Jacob going to test the motorbikes. Look at the trees going past the windows. Half the scene indicates the truck should be going in reverse.

As listed in previous reviews the makeup, hair and costumes were bad. All the vampires looked like they had aged 10 years since the last film but the humans had stayed the same. The costumes in Twilight were age appropriate. This time around Alice looks fat, dumpy and like she is having a bad hair day all the time. Jasper talks like he is wearing dentures and his hair is so bad I can not even talk about it. The wig used on Rosalie looked just like a wig.

New Moon added fight scenes that did not exist in the book and once again the script gutted the story. No wonder Stephenie has distanced herself from New Moon and the up coming Eclipse. $30 million for the first movie $150 million for the second. First movie was more bang for the buck.

Still this movie is better than nothing......but just.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.