The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Metascore
44 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 32
  2. Mixed: 16 out of 32
  3. Negative: 7 out of 32
view
per page
  1. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    25
    The Twilight Saga: New Moon takes the tepid achievement of "Twilight" (1988), guts it, and leaves it for undead.
  2. Charlotte Observer
    Reviewed by: Lawrence Toppman
    38
    The sequel to the 2008 hit “Twilight” makes no effort to satisfy outsiders. It's strictly for devotees who won't balk at plot absurdities, clunky dialogue and patchy characterizations.
  3. Salon.com
    Reviewed by: Stephanie Zacharek
    30
    New Moon, on the other hand, merely follows a dictated formula. It's a cheap, shoddy piece of work, one that banks on moviegoers' anticipation without even bothering to craft a satisfying experience for them. Its pandering is an insult.
  4. New York Post
    Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    38
    New Moon is supposed to be an exciting love story plus monster action. So where’s the excitement? Where’s the action?
  5. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Kimberley Jones
    30
    I’m told Bella’s helplessness is true to the spirit of the novels, but so what? It’s almost 2010 – let’s get hip, people.
  6. Film Threat
    Reviewed by: Jessica Baxter
    0
    It’s intellectually and socially detrimental to both literature and cinema, simultaneously.
  7. Village Voice
    Reviewed by: Ella Taylor
    30
    Chaste, oddly bloodless, and nearly plotless saga.

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
3.7 out of 10

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 447 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 53 out of 170
  2. Mixed: 26 out of 170
  3. Negative: 91 out of 170
  1. grandpajoe6191
    4
    "New Moon", the tweenage vampire romance sequel to "Twilight", is crappy as **** As usual, the movie is filled with unnecessary steel faced characters that just sucks at acting. The character development isn't even a development. Director Chris Weitz just throws everyone's personality into the movie without even trying to fix it. Guess what the result is; no good or bad morale, only a cheesy love between a spoiled **** with her ghastly boyfriend is left. Not only that; what's with the random, slow-mo so called "action"? I guess if you glue in several dudes with abs fighting vampires make a good action scene, right? IF you are a movie critic like me or people who are just starting out to learn more about movie criticism, have this as your 'worst movie' in the romance genre. Trust me; it'll come in handy.… Full Review »
  2. nboley08
    3
    What does it matter if a film stays close to the book if some people haven't even read the book. Anyone could make an exact rendering of the book, but it's the originality and creativity that is put into adaptations (though not this one) that make it exciting and worthwhile. This films was incredibly boring and almost corny at times. Lautner can't act to save his life sadly, and most of the time when he's trying to be dramatic, he is actually funny. What a poorly made film.… Full Review »
  3. heyitsmegrif4
    2
    Bad performances, and some terribly written dialogue, not to mention its long running time, which makes it unentertaining, this film does have some great romance and an impressive budget though, but it fails to impress. I give this film a 25% of a good movie.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »