The Twilight Saga: New Moon

Metascore
44

Mixed or average reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 32
  2. Negative: 7 out of 32

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. 60
    Is this sequel defending its fan base and preempting criticism about its transparent agenda? This IS a soap opera, folks--and acceptable escapism for those old enough to see it yet still young enough to shriek at undead dreamboats.
  2. Constrained by the plot of the novel, the film keeps the two lovers apart for quite a spell, robbing the project of the crazy-in-love energy that made "Twilight," the first entry in the series, such a guilty pleasure.
  3. Weitz takes a looser approach than the series’ last director, Catherine Hardwicke, did. He has a better sense of humor, too.
  4. Reviewed by: Helen O'Hara
    60
    If you buy in to the central romance, you’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll swoon. Otherwise, the lingering glances, lip-chewing and regular de-shirting may cause uncontrollable giggles.
  5. More solidly crafted and insults its audience quite a bit less than its predecessor, and it sets up several nice emotionally complicated cliffhangers for the next installment. I hope its target audience has a blast.
  6. Let's just say it: It's great there's a movie that makes teenage girls scream. Half the movies Hollywood makes are designed to make teenage boys scream, and those boy movies are just as ridiculous and a lot nastier than New Moon.
  7. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    50
    Where the first film’s director, Catherine Hardwicke, plugged into Meyer’s vision of supernatural teenage lust with abandon, Chris Weitz is stuck with a sequel that’s a morning-after mope-fest.
  8. 50
    In the sequel, Weitz lays on a pop song and slow-motion during a critical scene involving the sudden reappearance of a fearsome villain, giving everything an MTV-slick, teen-friendly gloss and reminding you this is just a movie -- a somewhat silly and hollow one.
  9. Actress Kristen Stewart – coolly intense, androgynous, and intelligent – remains the series' strongest asset, as Bela, the emotional centre of the story.
  10. 50
    Ever since "True Blood" glamoured me, Twilight seems even more sexless and toothless. I prefer my undead with a little life in them.
  11. 50
    The storyline is all over the place, with numerous unresolved subplots sprouting out of thin air and being left hanging (presumably to be resolved in future movies).
  12. It probably won't make a jot of difference to all the screaming tweeners lining up to see this movie, but The Twilight Saga: New Moon is not wonderful.
  13. 50
    The movie's script and production values represent a big step up from the nearly unwatchable predecessor and make it suitable viewing even for people who aren't Twilight nerds.
  14. 42
    In spite of its wealth of conflict, New Moon suffers from a dearth of accompanying tension and excitement, thanks to the increasingly tedious relationship at its center.
  15. The big tease turns into the long goodbye in The Twilight Saga: New Moon, the juiceless, near bloodless sequel.
  16. Weitz’s pacing is so limp you’re going to need the electricity generated by a live audience to keep from yelling, “Hurry it up!”
User Score
4.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 597 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 51 out of 181
  2. Negative: 98 out of 181
  1. Dec 10, 2011
    4
    "New Moon", the tweenage vampire romance sequel to "Twilight", is crappy as **** As usual, the movie is filled with unnecessary steel faced"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. Aug 16, 2010
    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 theWhat 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. Dec 17, 2011
    2
    Bad performances, and some terribly written dialogue, not to mention its long running time, which makes it unentertaining, this film does haveBad 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 »