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
Watch On
  1. Why does “New Moon” basically work, even with its grave self-seriousness? A few reasons. Weitz lets the material breathe, and his actors interact. The film does not try to eat you alive.
  2. Given this swoon-inducer, Summit Entertainment would be well-advised to set up fainting couches in the multiplex lobby and provide smelling salts to those who need them.
  3. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    80
    Mopey, draggy, and absurdly self-important, the movie nonetheless twangs at some resonant affective chord. This viewer, at least, was catapulted back to that moment of adolescence when being mopey, draggy, and absurdly self-important felt like a passionate act of liberation.
  4. May be one of the most fun-free, angst-ridden teens we've seen on the big screen in a long time.
  5. Once again, the three young leads give committed performances, with Lautner's character allowed a larger share of the spotlight this time around.
  6. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    63
    The werewolves have it all over the blood-suckers in The Twilight Saga: New Moon. When these oversize, hirsute creatures burst onto the screen, they inject life into a rather inert story.
  7. Reviewed by: Jordan Mintzer
    70
    Carried by Kristen Stewart's compellingly dark performance, but also by helmer Chris Weitz's robust visuals.
  8. Despite melodrama that, at times, is enough to induce diabetes, there's enough wolf whistle in this sexy, scary romp to please anyone.
User Score
4.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 572 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 »