The Twilight Saga: New Moon

User Score
4.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 572 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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 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 ofWhat 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. Expand
  2. Aug 27, 2010
    0
    I felt that by watching this movie I had opened the door of judgment on tween-girl fandom, and my exclusion hit as I felt the cold abyss stared back at me, daring me to defy it. Yes, I had entered the Twilight zone, and I had no place being there (nor would anyone with any critical sense)
  3. DavidG
    Nov 26, 2009
    0
    This movie was awful. I went in to see it with my girlfriend as she's somehow interested in these fake vampire movies. This movie is nothing more than softcore porn for women. If you've seen this, you'll know what I mean by that. About the characters, the two main characters are just plain dumb, Bella's just a self-absorbed bitch who teases other guys, but in the end This movie was awful. I went in to see it with my girlfriend as she's somehow interested in these fake vampire movies. This movie is nothing more than softcore porn for women. If you've seen this, you'll know what I mean by that. About the characters, the two main characters are just plain dumb, Bella's just a self-absorbed bitch who teases other guys, but in the end just mopes about the seemingly autistic "vampire." Since when could vampires be in sunlight? And when did they start to sparkle? Jesus, I think I'll need a bottle of whiskey to down this god-awful movie with. A fun after-movie fact was, that when I asked my GF about the movie's plot, she actually was like: "What plot?" Anyway, I've got a bottle of whiskey to drink. Cheers! Expand
  4. Oct 4, 2010
    0
    While the first one gave us the ridiculous idea that vampires sparkle, this one implies that werewolves are really creatures that shapeshift whenever they want. Is Stephanie Meyer trying to ridicule the horror genre?
  5. Nov 20, 2010
    3
    A seriously dumb movie. Even the special effects are wimpy. I had hoped to find some thrill in all the beefcake noted in the trailers. But even that is wasted.
  6. DaveH
    Jan 10, 2010
    0
    This movie rocks if you're a 14 year old girl who just had her first period. Seriously.
  7. BenjiP.
    Apr 19, 2010
    0
    Garbage!
  8. TSNMislame
    Jan 31, 2010
    0
    One of the worst movies I've seen on my life of my life with Gigli, Saw VI, one missed call and the first one too! pure vampire and werewolf incoherence!
  9. Aug 18, 2010
    2
    This has to be the worst sequel that I've ever seen. It's dull,I mean it is SO BORING! Very disappointment! You know why this film so bad? Because of those lovey dovey cast and some lovey dovey dopey story,nothing else. It's almost bas as the first one,just the same logic of the sequel. WHAT A RIP-OFF! No other Box-Office Hit couldn't be good like this. I guess that the Twilight franchiseThis has to be the worst sequel that I've ever seen. It's dull,I mean it is SO BORING! Very disappointment! You know why this film so bad? Because of those lovey dovey cast and some lovey dovey dopey story,nothing else. It's almost bas as the first one,just the same logic of the sequel. WHAT A RIP-OFF! No other Box-Office Hit couldn't be good like this. I guess that the Twilight franchise wasn't too memorable and not even too good for the series. It's just downhill from there. Even of course it's a viewers flop and of course there's nothing creativity about this movie,it's just the romantic movie with too many cliches and putting into a vampire of crap,that's all I have. But it's bad,it's really,really bad! Expand
  10. Dalek
    Jan 6, 2010
    0
    The movie sucked. I almost fell asleep in some parts because it's so boring. It's always cheap lines to make the audience laugh, and stupid 16 year old girls distracting in the row behind you. Worst film of all time.
  11. Oct 8, 2010
    0
    There's nothing good about this movie. And you're only gonna embarrass yourself by trying to explain why it's so good. Actually, I'm mistaken- That awkward elevator scene was hilarious! If you were going to watch this movie just for the laughs, don't even bother. Just youtube that elevator scene. It's amazing.
  12. 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 have some great romance and an impressive budget though, but it fails to impress. I give this film a 25% of a good movie.
  13. Mr.G
    Jan 10, 2010
    0
    I thought this movie was pure garbage. it was 2 hours of a confused.
  14. Nov 12, 2012
    3
    When you have a new True Blood airing every Sunday on HBO, this sexless, bloodless Twilight follow-up stings sour and is only worsened by some really terrible acting.
  15. JD
    Nov 20, 2009
    2
    What do you call a vampire movie with no action/horror and what do you call a romance with no chemistry/sex? Apparently you call it NEW MOON, but to anyone who actually can tell the difference between a good story from a bad one, you'll just call it BORING. The werewolves (if you can even call them that) have really bland FX, and they may look good compared to Twilight's FX, but What do you call a vampire movie with no action/horror and what do you call a romance with no chemistry/sex? Apparently you call it NEW MOON, but to anyone who actually can tell the difference between a good story from a bad one, you'll just call it BORING. The werewolves (if you can even call them that) have really bland FX, and they may look good compared to Twilight's FX, but that's because the FX found in Twilight were the quality of a Syfy Original. I won't get into the whole vampire glitter thing, either, nor will I bother trying to debate the logic of a 100 year old male going to high school over and over (I guess home schooling doesn't exist in Forks?) to score with 16 year old tail - in particular, the 16 year old tail of a brooding, angsty, emo girl who really needs to be put on medication. Wow, what a match made in Heaven. The 2 in my score is entirely for Taylor Lautner's abs. The dude hit the gym HARD for this movie, I respect that. Expand
  16. killdarren
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    Indisputable proof that our culture is intellectually bankrupt!
  17. WillC
    Nov 22, 2009
    1
    Awful film. Bad books made into worse movies. Awful acting, god-awful script, hideous CGI. Jacob is the only character who actually has character but thats like saying he is as charming as a brick. The plot is freakin stupid. Edward leaves because Bella gets a papercut? It just proves he doesn't even care about her dispite the fact that this is a love movie. I can see why he Awful film. Bad books made into worse movies. Awful acting, god-awful script, hideous CGI. Jacob is the only character who actually has character but thats like saying he is as charming as a brick. The plot is freakin stupid. Edward leaves because Bella gets a papercut? It just proves he doesn't even care about her dispite the fact that this is a love movie. I can see why he doesn't care about her because Bella is one of the worse teenager in recent memory. Expand
  18. BillyT
    Nov 22, 2009
    1
    Maybe would have been better with different actors but with these emotionless stalefaces I just wanted to walk out.
  19. bradk
    Nov 20, 2009
    1
    New Moon handily wins WMOTY wost movie of the year!
  20. fredr
    Dec 8, 2009
    1
    Being a middle-aged man who writes screenplays i like to stay abreast of what is successful. I was pleasantly surprised by the first twilight movie. It had tension as Bella puzzled about Edward, then after realizing what he is, the tension became over the consummation question. Becoming a vampire is the metaphorical equivalent of sex and the tension and chemistry between the actors held Being a middle-aged man who writes screenplays i like to stay abreast of what is successful. I was pleasantly surprised by the first twilight movie. It had tension as Bella puzzled about Edward, then after realizing what he is, the tension became over the consummation question. Becoming a vampire is the metaphorical equivalent of sex and the tension and chemistry between the actors held my interest. Not the case with the new one. I found it interminably boring. I've seen Kristen Stewart in 4 films and the only one she has believable romantic chemistry is Twilight. Perhaps she has authentic off-screen feelings for Pattinson so she showed that in the first film. But there's no chemistry between her and Lautner, her and Eisenberg in Adventureland or her and Sanford in some crappy indie. She has much appeal in many ways and is not nearly as bad as Scarlett Johansen, but she has to grow. The film as a whole was overlong, boring and weak. It repeated the same plot devices as the first film, this time it's lautner with a secret. And how many solemn promises can these guys break? If you aren't a die-hard twilight fan - skip it. Expand
  21. KatieY
    Jan 2, 2010
    3
    I've would likely give this a 0, but the cinematography (which is grand) makes up for that. Also New Moon is a slow-moving movie unlike Twilight (which was straightforward and easy to understand). And I slightly think Robert Pattinson had bad acting throughout the Twilight Saga. Lastly, I highly recommend to read the book first, then see the movie.
  22. MikeN.
    Jan 30, 2010
    0
    The movie overall was very dull, the so called "thrilling action" parts put me to sleep. Plus for the most part you see Bella weeping and screaming for her Edward, give me a break and cry me a river. The story was good but the really bad acting by Stewart ruined the whole movie, her face looked a rock, pale and emotionless. Overall this movie was a complete waste of my time and my The movie overall was very dull, the so called "thrilling action" parts put me to sleep. Plus for the most part you see Bella weeping and screaming for her Edward, give me a break and cry me a river. The story was good but the really bad acting by Stewart ruined the whole movie, her face looked a rock, pale and emotionless. Overall this movie was a complete waste of my time and my money,and doesn't even deserve to be called a movie anymore. Expand
  23. joeh
    Jan 7, 2010
    0
    I did not see this movie for fear of adding to the already appalling figures it has managed to garner, but after seeing the original I can safely say that no film bearing the twilight name could possibly be meritorious of anything higher.
  24. JonM
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    This movie was offensive to me as someone who likes good movies and literature.
  25. JT
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    A bunch of mopey teens standing around (literally, they DO just stand around for the entire film) as some soon-to-be-dated pop songs play in the background. People actually like this??
  26. AlanaG.
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    The first vampire film I've ever seen that is boring... maybe boring is too kind of a word.
  27. JohnnyW.
    Nov 21, 2009
    3
    Not worth the price of admission to me, but if your a teenage girl it presses all the right buttons. I liked it better than the first one, better special effects.
  28. TonyC
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    I thought nothing was worse than the original "Twilight" movie. I was wrong.
  29. SookieStackhouse
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    UGGHHH...they're not even real vampires! If you are love this movie and your not in high school you have issues.
  30. MichaelZ
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    Just another excuse for girls to keep making fun of anyone who they think is beneath their status (I'll include parents, because they have to put up with this 24/7), and prefer image over what's beneath. But in a vampire movie? Well, fear no more, vampire fans who are still out there. Daybreakers.
  31. SteveM
    Nov 22, 2009
    0
    Bashing my head against a wall would be less painful then this.
  32. TrevinS.
    Nov 20, 2009
    2
    A lot of style. No substance.
  33. MandyC
    Nov 22, 2009
    0
    Poor acting and poor story. Absolute garbage! Yeah, a bunch of ugly guys with abs, TOP WRITING THERE! This is the dumbest series.
  34. joem
    Nov 23, 2009
    0
    This movie is the worst movie i have ever watched, i can not believe i wasted my money on a movie that has horrible actors and a extremely bad story line. In my opinion the Twilight saga itself should not exist.
  35. AdrianR
    Nov 24, 2009
    0
    Another drone of a movie that is going to be wildly popular with the masses of sheep despite shoddy plot loaded with holes and weak acting. Not to mention further killing the traditional vampire in this mtv society.
  36. Waits
    Nov 20, 2009
    1
    Poorly acted, poorly written, dreadfully slow and horribly shot.
  37. J.C.
    Nov 24, 2009
    0
    Please, stop that shit! We´re destroying our kids, our books, our movies, we are hitting culture in the fucking balls! New Moon sucks, like Twilight. It´a product, not a movie. The books are teen´s minds-controllers, not books. Please, see M-O-V-I-E-S (Agora, Diary of Noa) and read B-O-O-K-S (Harry Potter, Pilars of Earth, A World Without End, Fatima´s Hand) but Please, stop that shit! We´re destroying our kids, our books, our movies, we are hitting culture in the fucking balls! New Moon sucks, like Twilight. It´a product, not a movie. The books are teen´s minds-controllers, not books. Please, see M-O-V-I-E-S (Agora, Diary of Noa) and read B-O-O-K-S (Harry Potter, Pilars of Earth, A World Without End, Fatima´s Hand) but not this, please. NOT THIS. Expand
  38. NicholasB
    Nov 28, 2009
    1
    Only those interested in the books and previous film will be happy with this. Everyone else will regard it as a junk film. The bad acting, overuse of male topless nudity and terrible lines are only just watchable if you turn your brain off, but anyone who has no interest in this will be unable to watch for more than a few seconds. I give it a 1, and that's being extremely generous.
  39. Jim
    Nov 20, 2009
    1
    Acting is terrible, dialog is straight from mtv. I dont get how people can enjoy this junk.
  40. KellyB
    Nov 30, 2009
    0
    If only actors could be better than them. The worst of all is beautiful Kirsten Steward. I'm sad for her because the succes of Twilight movies will keep her far from learning acting skills, she will be like Jennifer Lopez. She don't even know how to speak to be listen. I had never read the books but I feel that New Moon is more in feelings than in images, and that's why the If only actors could be better than them. The worst of all is beautiful Kirsten Steward. I'm sad for her because the succes of Twilight movies will keep her far from learning acting skills, she will be like Jennifer Lopez. She don't even know how to speak to be listen. I had never read the books but I feel that New Moon is more in feelings than in images, and that's why the film is so boring. I don't think this film is better than the first, at least the other one was cheap and unpretencious, but I still remember the music and the baseball play. It was more rock and roll, which means more romantic. This one is a "mexican telenovela" with more investment in special effects but no invest in best make up. I really believe the film had to start with Bella's jumping the cliff and then explain whatever they want to explain about the risk of being a human sorrounded by vampires, and wolfs, which is not bad concept at all. Expand
  41. kgm
    Dec 1, 2009
    3
    Bella, Edward a love story for the ages. Yeah, right. Teenage girls believe this sorry excuse of a movie which doesn
  42. Ols
    Dec 18, 2009
    3
    I'm not a fan of Twilight Saga, although I did enjoy the books. The movie, hoverer, is a disaster. The worst is of course Stewart. Her acting is horrible, she looks emotionless, is unable to potray any deeper emotions, has one facial expression during the whole movie (and open mouth, as a bonus). The crucial scene when Edward was leaving Bella in the forest was not only dull and I'm not a fan of Twilight Saga, although I did enjoy the books. The movie, hoverer, is a disaster. The worst is of course Stewart. Her acting is horrible, she looks emotionless, is unable to potray any deeper emotions, has one facial expression during the whole movie (and open mouth, as a bonus). The crucial scene when Edward was leaving Bella in the forest was not only dull and boring but I would even say hiliarious in it's trying-so-hard-to-be-hearbreaking form that reminds us all of low quality romances and old cheap movies. The dialogues can be good for a trailer but while watching the whole movie they seem unfinished, what makes them sometimes hard to understand for people who hadn't read the book. The ending also is sort of confusing and I got the impression of missing scenes that should be there. I also don't appreciate the look of Edward who is supposed to be an 18 year old and still is dressed in suits, not casual clothes teenagers wear. Not loving the books, I still felt someting while reading them, the plot was gripping, I read them all in few days. The movie I found annoying and because I didn't want to wast the money for a ticked I forced myslelf to think it's funny. Expand
  43. Pau
    Dec 2, 2009
    0
    utterly boring, soppy, drags like a cat with no back legs, just another flick for the ugly 14 year old goth girls out there that nothing ever goes right for. completely boring, it doesn't even make you think you just sit and wait for the next cheesy line to come along and believe me there are plenty, i wouldn't even call it a love story as they've gone past that, utterly boring, soppy, drags like a cat with no back legs, just another flick for the ugly 14 year old goth girls out there that nothing ever goes right for. completely boring, it doesn't even make you think you just sit and wait for the next cheesy line to come along and believe me there are plenty, i wouldn't even call it a love story as they've gone past that, they've taken it to the extreme of a massively long soap opera x10! disgraceful. Expand
  44. ChrisW.
    Dec 5, 2009
    0
    It
  45. KimK
    Dec 7, 2009
    3
    The books were okay...I would give the BOOK at 5, but this movies just turned into a JOKE! Sorry Twilight fans out there.
  46. QuinnN.
    Nov 21, 2009
    1
    Soon to be one of the most overrated movies of the decade.The acting was less than average, the comedy was deadpan, and the dialogue, dear god, the dialogue was like some overlong text message. I went and saw this with a bunch of girls and they all loved it cause Taylor whatshisface takes off his shirt for no reason. Let me put it this way, This is a straight guy's worst nightmare!
  47. MikeB
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    I have never read any of the books, nor seen either movie. But just looking at the movie characters, then the fans makes me want to rip my eyes and ears completely off. Anyone who enjoys this crap needs to read...lets see...ANYTHING EVER WRITTEN to see how real people enjoy real literature and cinema And hes, ii am saying your not real people. LET THE CRYING BEGIN!!!
  48. Fedaykin
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    Abysmal acting, writing, editing, screenplay. Just abysmal, this film hasn't a sliver of quality in it. And having to listen the fans going "Oh my God I'm gonna cry!" when the film begins is more than enough to make you leave the theater.
  49. MitchM
    Nov 21, 2009
    0
    This could be the worst movie I've ever seen. Like an atmospheric episode of 90210 expanded to a mind-numbing 2+ hours. Mind you, this is a vampire movie with no blood. No fangs. No sex. No plot ... utter trash. The theater was packed. There were police outside. Giant lines around the block. The crowd was SO PUMPED they screamed at the opening titles in frenzied anticipation. I This could be the worst movie I've ever seen. Like an atmospheric episode of 90210 expanded to a mind-numbing 2+ hours. Mind you, this is a vampire movie with no blood. No fangs. No sex. No plot ... utter trash. The theater was packed. There were police outside. Giant lines around the block. The crowd was SO PUMPED they screamed at the opening titles in frenzied anticipation. I thought, "This movie is going to be nuts with audience reaction/participation." I've been to those action flix in downtown Bklyn where the crowd is SHOUTING at the actors ("DON'T GO IN THAT ROOM, MONTEL!!"). This was going to be a similar phenomenon. ... then for 2+ hours the audience sat there almost completely silent (stunned? stupefied? bored?), save for a few twitters and giggles when the male actors took their shirts off (?!) that joint should have been ROCKING!! Expand
  50. AdamA
    Nov 21, 2009
    1
    When you're trying to make a long movie, you need to keep the audience gripped. New Moon fails to even keep you gripped for the first 5 minutes. It also seems like anti feminist propaganda with girls effectively being told to be doting to your boyfriends, even if they are jerks.
  51. BailorE
    Nov 21, 2009
    0
    Only someone incapable of mature thought could enjoy this movie.
  52. anac
    Nov 20, 2009
    0
    The worst vampire movie ever, totally boring. Fell asleep more than once.
  53. BobB
    Nov 21, 2009
    0
    A horrible movie the stars in it including that robert person and that one guy taylor should die.
  54. KatS
    Nov 22, 2009
    0
    A tedious movie that manages to wring the life out of every second of its 130 minute running time. ..130 minutes of life I'd like back.
  55. cd
    Nov 22, 2009
    2
    I enjoyed the first movie and have watched it many times on dvd. By comparison, this movie lost the wider community interaction, fun spirit, and sense of existance. New Moon was just a bunch of wind sweap scenes of moaning over the next untouchable, yet 'promising to protect you and be yours forever" guy. I know there was a lot to get covered, but the movie was just dull. The slo mo I enjoyed the first movie and have watched it many times on dvd. By comparison, this movie lost the wider community interaction, fun spirit, and sense of existance. New Moon was just a bunch of wind sweap scenes of moaning over the next untouchable, yet 'promising to protect you and be yours forever" guy. I know there was a lot to get covered, but the movie was just dull. The slo mo action scenes (carpet blood flight, fighting wolves) just made me think of computers and think at least about the better direcion in Buffy/ Angel. I thought Hardwicke and team's music choices really blended well and added, while NM music was just tv-inspired mood backdrop. I did enjoy the boy flesh (go Team Jacob!). NM made me just wish Edward would go away. Expand
  56. elly
    Nov 22, 2009
    2
    Terrible, i can't believe how popular this series is! The story seemed over dramatic and the characters where depressed the whole time. The special effects weren't very good, and the dialogue wasn't good either. Although I must say that there is a lot of eye-candy, but that's not the point. This movie is only for girls 13-16 years old. Anyone else, stay away!!!
  57. NikkiG
    Nov 22, 2009
    0
    Worst piece of crap I have ever seen. It didn't help that I had to be dragged to the theatre to even see it. The Twilight Saga in general is a complete and utter disappointment to literature and cinema, it needs to be put down like a suffering dog.
  58. BenjiP.
    Nov 22, 2009
    1
    Garbage!
  59. ZachP
    Nov 23, 2009
    0
    What are vampires that don't drink human blood, don't have fangs and don't parish in the sunlight? Super-heroes without a gimick? You tell me. Both this and the first movie were AWFUL. I love my niece but I will never forgive her for making me sit through both of these. Poorly written, poorly acted, no actual plot and far too much dialogue for you to consider this anything What are vampires that don't drink human blood, don't have fangs and don't parish in the sunlight? Super-heroes without a gimick? You tell me. Both this and the first movie were AWFUL. I love my niece but I will never forgive her for making me sit through both of these. Poorly written, poorly acted, no actual plot and far too much dialogue for you to consider this anything other than a some sort of Lifetime made-for-tv movie with "vampires". People on here comparing this to Romeo and Juliet have clearly never read Romeo and Juliet. And the other thing I've notice, and clearly I am not the first, is that all of the positive comments are female composed. Oh well. I guess we get 300 and Troy and a bunch of other cheesey brutish flicks and they get Twilight. Maybe some day they'll actually start producing good, substantial movies again. Expand
  60. MichaelM
    Nov 23, 2009
    0
    This was the worst movie I've seen in over a decade.
  61. TaylorL
    Nov 23, 2009
    0
    That was the worst piece of crap I have ever watched. Pootie Tang is a better movie.
  62. BenA
    Nov 23, 2009
    0
    I should almost give it a 1 because it certainly does exist. But it is just so shamelessly horrible and a disgrace to good film making across the world. Please enjoy the absurd amount of money you've made stephanie meyer and do us all a favor: NEVER WRITE ANYTHING ELSE AGAIN.
  63. ShawnM
    Nov 24, 2009
    0
    And I thought Disney's 'The Rocketeer' was the worst alltime, but this movie has now joined it!! How many times can Bella get hurt and somehow be saved?! How many times can they show Werewolf boy Jacob with his shirt off?! Give me a break, I've seen better plots, acting, and action from movies made in the 1950's. Stop being so rigid and entertain the rest of us!!!
  64. RossS.
    Nov 24, 2009
    1
    This is probably the worst movie I've seen all Year. If you are a 13 - 16 year old girl, then it's just a phase. Otherwise, there's nothing that redeems this movie's torturously slow pace, Unbroken depressive moodiness, and complelete failure to feature satisfying action in such a super-hyped blockbuster. The female lead grates on the nerves the whole movie, and the This is probably the worst movie I've seen all Year. If you are a 13 - 16 year old girl, then it's just a phase. Otherwise, there's nothing that redeems this movie's torturously slow pace, Unbroken depressive moodiness, and complelete failure to feature satisfying action in such a super-hyped blockbuster. The female lead grates on the nerves the whole movie, and the male lead is non-existent. It gets a grudging one point from me because for a whole 7-8 minutes in that entire movie there was an actual vampire fight that gave insight into the relative strengths, powers, and weaknesses of the vampires in this world. Also, for the first time ever, at the end of these seven minutes, it turns out that Bella might not be completely worthless and defenseless. In summary, the entire film could be reduced to the audience with the Elder Italian Vampire Clan, and the audience would have seen everything worth seeing, regarding the male and female leads. Except that her friend is a werewolf, but she ditches him , so it doesn't really matter. I encourage others to vote this down so low that it winds up on the worst movies top 200. Collapse
  65. JohnL.
    Nov 24, 2009
    1
    I just can't describe how terrible this film was.
  66. ChrisW.
    Nov 25, 2009
    0
    It
  67. BrianN.
    Nov 25, 2009
    2
    If I'd wanted to see depressed high school kids standing around moping for two hours I'd have a better time going to the mall to hang out with the emo kids.
  68. JamesH
    Nov 25, 2009
    1
    WOW was this movie bad. Bad acting, laughable dialogue, bad music, and LONG! I must have looked at my watch 4 times wondering if the torture would EVER end. I am giving it a "1" because Michael Sheen was good in his very brief moment. It was amazing when someone who could actually ACT came on the screen. Otherwise a zero for sure.
  69. LauraM
    Nov 25, 2009
    2
    I am only giving this a 2 because of Taylor Lautner's amazing body, talent and good sense of humor in the midst of such otherwise poor acting ability and a terribly pathetic WB-esque series of films. I gave this film a chance because I thought the books were decent, albeit ridiculous, though after all this sick, childish mania I've even turned from those. The only thing that I am only giving this a 2 because of Taylor Lautner's amazing body, talent and good sense of humor in the midst of such otherwise poor acting ability and a terribly pathetic WB-esque series of films. I gave this film a chance because I thought the books were decent, albeit ridiculous, though after all this sick, childish mania I've even turned from those. The only thing that saves this film is the man-candy that are the La Push werewolves. But Sparkles and Pathetic Swan could be killed off and these films still wouldn't have a prayer. It's painful to see what this ridiculous series has reduced vampires to. I sincerely hope this is forgotten as quickly as it began so Hollywood can make room for some real vampire films. This crap can stick to television and sad, emo teenagers who have no concept of the level of awesomeness required to make a real vampire film. No more of this vampire literature blasphemy. Expand
  70. VilhelmB
    Nov 26, 2009
    0
    Moronic and mind-numbing. Is the female youth of today really this undemanding? No wonder the divorce rate is so high. A bunch of vapid characters glaring at each other and muttering lines that are sappier than a maple tree. This is what constitutes entertainment today for this age group? At least 300 taught boys some history. The saddest part is, Romeo and Juliet (which this story weakly Moronic and mind-numbing. Is the female youth of today really this undemanding? No wonder the divorce rate is so high. A bunch of vapid characters glaring at each other and muttering lines that are sappier than a maple tree. This is what constitutes entertainment today for this age group? At least 300 taught boys some history. The saddest part is, Romeo and Juliet (which this story weakly alludes to) is 1000% better (and more romantic), yet it's next to impossible to interest young girls in Shakespeare because we've replaced the teaching of Classics in our schools with doo-doo like this. When are we going to see movies where young girls are intelligent, capable, determined, and set on forging their own destinies. Somebody please give Joss Whedon $200 million dollars. PLEASE. Expand
  71. JasonD
    Nov 28, 2009
    0
    I haven't seen this movie, and I don't have to in order to understand what type of stunted psyche would enjoy this crap. It would take a complete moron to enjoy literary and cinematic drivel such as this. Either that or a teenager. The death of cinema beckons, oh Twilight. Answer its call.
  72. KatrinaR
    Dec 2, 2009
    2
    I gave the books a try, wasn't all impressed with the preteen angst romance thing. Gave the first movie a chance. Something about sparkly indecisive vampires isn't too impressive. Anne Rice got it right. Not twilight. This movie is FOR preteen girls hoping to see a bare chest. My opinion? Kristin Stewart's acting is HORRIBLE. She's emotionless and bland and just not I gave the books a try, wasn't all impressed with the preteen angst romance thing. Gave the first movie a chance. Something about sparkly indecisive vampires isn't too impressive. Anne Rice got it right. Not twilight. This movie is FOR preteen girls hoping to see a bare chest. My opinion? Kristin Stewart's acting is HORRIBLE. She's emotionless and bland and just not the right person to play the role of a love sick teenager. The hospital scene in the first one was retarded, her deadpan voice was not at all convincing. All in all, she ruins the movies. Robert Patterson isn't any better. I think the two 'main stars' of the movie are the worst things about it. The rest of the actors at least know how to portray a character. Expand
  73. SophiaB.
    Nov 21, 2009
    1
    Just another MTV mess with no real acting, campy dialogue, and shoddy semi-existent plot. The only reason I'll give it a one is because of the mass of shirtless hot dudes.
  74. kpclean
    Nov 21, 2009
    0
    This movie is slower than tar in winter. The first action of the movie is at 1hr 15min and that lasts for 2 minutes. I like Kristen Stewart but the bad dream scenes with her screaming in agony in bed almost made me leave the movie THREE times... I wish someone sucked the life force out of me before this movie did. The sad thing is the movie will make millions says a lot about our over This movie is slower than tar in winter. The first action of the movie is at 1hr 15min and that lasts for 2 minutes. I like Kristen Stewart but the bad dream scenes with her screaming in agony in bed almost made me leave the movie THREE times... I wish someone sucked the life force out of me before this movie did. The sad thing is the movie will make millions says a lot about our over hyped and mind numbing standards. Expand
  75. MicheleT
    Nov 22, 2009
    1
    Since this was not my favorite book of the series, I went in with low expectations. This is was a movie with no plot, poorly acted, there was no flow and it was very disjointed and slow. It was surprisingly far worse then I could have expected. I bumped it up to a 1 because there were a few lines I enjoyed even if poorly delivered.
  76. Ian
    Nov 24, 2009
    0
    What's most important in a love story? Two completely likable characters. Unfortunately, Bella and Edward do not qualify. Bella is a co-dependent, selfish, teasing, manipulative, emotionless hack of a character that nobody can, and shouldn't, relate to. When she gets dumped by Edward, she rides with bikers, throws herself off a cliff, and crashes a motorcycle that results in a What's most important in a love story? Two completely likable characters. Unfortunately, Bella and Edward do not qualify. Bella is a co-dependent, selfish, teasing, manipulative, emotionless hack of a character that nobody can, and shouldn't, relate to. When she gets dumped by Edward, she rides with bikers, throws herself off a cliff, and crashes a motorcycle that results in a bad head injury solely just to fuel her adrenaline-induced hallucinations of Edward. Edward, on the other hand, is nothing more than physically dangerous and emotionally abusive. The highlight of his character happens not too far into the movie where he tries to 'protect' Bella from a fellow vampire set off by her blood. His first instinct is to push her out of the way and into a plate glass table while running at mach 5. After that, he dumps her. New Moon, much like Twilight, just serves as eye candy to underage girls and single women. There's not a hint of a true romance here. Titanic and Beauty and the Beast still stand as my favorite romance movies because I could relate to the characters, and I wanted them to get together. Anybody that relates to either of these characters needs some serious help. Expand
  77. Bill
    Nov 24, 2009
    0
    Worst movie ever! Although I should give it a star for making me laugh so often at the horrible acting, awful screenplay, and giggling girls and grown women. Every time Edward opened his mouth, i could not stop from laughing . Waste of time and money, unless you want to laugh at a movie not intended to be funny. Stay away!
  78. DavidR.
    Dec 14, 2009
    0
    Ass. Pure ass. Never have I seen such a piece of crap. Oh wait. Never have I WATCHED a piece of crap.
  79. DwayneC
    Dec 17, 2009
    2
    I wished I was dead...and not in a good way.
  80. AndresO
    Dec 18, 2009
    0
    I love how many of the reviews basically boil down to "if your a fan of the books than you'll love this movie!" Wouldn't it be easier to just say "if your a mindless idiot with no taste you will love these movies!" Of course if you love the books you'll love the movies. The books are perhaps one of the worst written novels of all time. Terrible plot, terrible grammar, vapid I love how many of the reviews basically boil down to "if your a fan of the books than you'll love this movie!" Wouldn't it be easier to just say "if your a mindless idiot with no taste you will love these movies!" Of course if you love the books you'll love the movies. The books are perhaps one of the worst written novels of all time. Terrible plot, terrible grammar, vapid shallow characters, and a horrible of example of what love should be. The movie mirrors all of this perfect. You watch the movie almost thinking they intended to parody themselves. Expand
  81. Dec 29, 2010
    0
    Crap personified. A sequel for the brain dead bunch, who believe Twilight is vampires at their perfection. Well guess what? IT'S FAR FROM IT! Allow me to sum up Twilight in 10 words! "I'm brooding!" "I love you" Sparkle, Fight, Shine, Crap, End! If there is a god, he'll/she'll immediatley cancel the two sequels, burn all footage of all 4 films and erase this pathetic excuse for a vampireCrap personified. A sequel for the brain dead bunch, who believe Twilight is vampires at their perfection. Well guess what? IT'S FAR FROM IT! Allow me to sum up Twilight in 10 words! "I'm brooding!" "I love you" Sparkle, Fight, Shine, Crap, End! If there is a god, he'll/she'll immediatley cancel the two sequels, burn all footage of all 4 films and erase this pathetic excuse for a vampire saga from everybody's memories. Expand
  82. Mar 6, 2011
    2
    I'll admit it I actually liked the first one, but this was a terribly boring piece of crap, it took nothing that made the first one enjoyable, I highly recommend on not watching this.
  83. Dec 19, 2011
    3
    Uhhh WTF did I just watch. I haven't read the book but the entire film seems so unrealistic as in the situations will just never happen some of you may say "well thats coz its a fantasy film noob" well LOTR was a fantasy film and it was more realistic than this pile of garbage I mean wtf.
  84. Jul 20, 2011
    0
    The sequel to one of the worst films ever made takes the crown of being the actual worst film ever made. At what point in the film is anything interesting, and when is the plot anything more than tedious? This really is a film franchise that needs to end, and it wont be missed by the film-going community when it does, that can be said.
  85. Apr 23, 2012
    0
    Well what can be said for this ridiculous, sopey un emotionally romantic movie that hasn't already been said. Well i only just watched these films and let me tell you this it felt like someone stuck my testicles into a blender and put it on the slowest speed possible. these films are terrible.
  86. Jun 15, 2012
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I am unable to criticize too much a film but in this case, yes. New Moon is certainly one of the most morally harmful to the film world. I still can not believe that the is love between Edward and Belle. Edward that moves away from Belle so as not to hurt (which, however, the wounds). Belle gets depressed and is four months without doing anything to fight back, then he consoles himself with Jacob and then it happens here in the chaos. I do not understand how can people like this saga. Expand
  87. Nov 14, 2013
    2
    Absolutely horrible. "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" is a dull, slow-paced sequel, which has terrible and cheesy dialogue and acting. I have no further interest in checking out the rest of the series after watching this junk.
  88. Aug 25, 2012
    0
    I am not the kind of person to dismiss a film purely based on the franchise (see my other Twilight reviews some of which are positive/mixed) from which it comes from no matter how annoying the fans may be. New Moon is simply put one of the worst films I have ever seen. It was slow, with no tension and no emotion portrayed in an awful performance by Kristen Stewart. How anyone could thinkI am not the kind of person to dismiss a film purely based on the franchise (see my other Twilight reviews some of which are positive/mixed) from which it comes from no matter how annoying the fans may be. New Moon is simply put one of the worst films I have ever seen. It was slow, with no tension and no emotion portrayed in an awful performance by Kristen Stewart. How anyone could think this to be a good film is beyond me. Expand
  89. Dec 21, 2012
    3
    Secretly, this film has to be a COMEDY. It is hilariously God-awful. Effects are crap, and the plot (based on the equally dull and mudane books- are in some ways classically awful.) Anyways, I am a teenage girl and find the whole thing a giant manipulation of those who can't think. It's not about intelligence, this is supposed to be ENJOYED. When something is successful, people like toSecretly, this film has to be a COMEDY. It is hilariously God-awful. Effects are crap, and the plot (based on the equally dull and mudane books- are in some ways classically awful.) Anyways, I am a teenage girl and find the whole thing a giant manipulation of those who can't think. It's not about intelligence, this is supposed to be ENJOYED. When something is successful, people like to complain about it; which is natural. However, Twilight and the whole saga deserve the **** it gets. It's horrendously awful. BOO, you whore! Expand
  90. Dec 16, 2012
    2
    One of the worst sagas ever made.
  91. Apr 5, 2013
    2
    I have seen the first movie, and then this, what is this, I asked to my self. The action is not good, the acting can be better and the story is not good. Than there are the parts where the actors say nothing and do nothing. Worst movie of the saga.
  92. Jan 8, 2015
    2
    Não acho que sequências são ruins mas no caso de crepúsculo o primeiro já foi ruim,e o segundo se superou chato pra c***lho,sem emoção sem vida chato pra c***lho
  93. Oct 24, 2013
    3
    Boasting unintentionally humorful acting performances and an embarrassingly terrible screenplay, 'The Twilight Saga: New Moon' is the worst fantasy film in recent memory.
  94. May 18, 2015
    3
    The first Twilight film was decent now this one is just the same as the first one but way way way more melodramatic, it's a cheesy cornball opera with cliche's. The way that vampire movies are made it's almost feels like a cheesy terrible play, the only film that works as the best vampire film adaptation is Anne Rice's movies. Kristen Stewart does have talent but in the same movie, sheThe first Twilight film was decent now this one is just the same as the first one but way way way more melodramatic, it's a cheesy cornball opera with cliche's. The way that vampire movies are made it's almost feels like a cheesy terrible play, the only film that works as the best vampire film adaptation is Anne Rice's movies. Kristen Stewart does have talent but in the same movie, she is terrible and I think really hates being in this sequel and her chemistry between Robert Pattinson is fake and Launter is a terrible actor. The script is so bad get a different screenwriter! Grade C- Expand
  95. Aug 1, 2014
    1
    What I was just asking for is an improvement over its predecessor, but NO. "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" is a boring, joyless and slow paced flick which is directed by the most incompetent person in the world of cinema. The acting is utterly horrible and none of the action sequences can't help this preposterous movie overcome an excessive length and an absence script.
  96. Aug 1, 2014
    2
    "New Moon" is a disgraceful sequel to a good-looking original. It kept Stewart's embarrassing performance, a lot of the first film's weaknesses, and it threw away "Twilight"'s impressively dark looks and gloomy photography. The only impressing thing here is the town of Volterra, an impressing setting for the film's insipid climax. Everything else feels cheesy and worthless.
  97. Aug 7, 2015
    0
    A pesar de que la primera parte es ridícula en todo sentido, era entretenida. Pero "New Moon" es absurda, estúpida, boba, sonsa, ridícula, pésima, asquerosa, repulsiva, una bazofia. ¿Que es lo que les deja de enseñanza a las niñas adictas a esta saga? Si tu novio no te hace caso: hazte daño, intenta suicidarte, has cosas que pongan en riesgo tu vida y veras que con eso el volverá. Y si noA pesar de que la primera parte es ridícula en todo sentido, era entretenida. Pero "New Moon" es absurda, estúpida, boba, sonsa, ridícula, pésima, asquerosa, repulsiva, una bazofia. ¿Que es lo que les deja de enseñanza a las niñas adictas a esta saga? Si tu novio no te hace caso: hazte daño, intenta suicidarte, has cosas que pongan en riesgo tu vida y veras que con eso el volverá. Y si no es así, puedes cambiar de pareja las veces que quieras. Eso es lo que deja New Moon, situaciones estúpidas, diálogos ridículos y un guion horrible y asqueroso, actuaciones mediocres y una trama aburrida. New Moon no es solo la peor de la saga, sino también es una de las peores películas que eh visto en toda mi existencia. No gasten su tiempo en esta bazofia... Expand
  98. Jun 5, 2015
    1
    Except for the last half hour or so of this movie, it has no plot whatsoever. It is literally two hours of Bella moping that Edward left, and NOTHING else
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
  1. Reviewed by: Anna Smith
    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. Reviewed by: Jordan Mintzer
    70
    Carried by Kristen Stewart's compellingly dark performance, but also by helmer Chris Weitz's robust visuals.
  3. 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.