Summit Entertainment | Release Date: November 20, 2009
4.0
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 625 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
183
Mixed:
119
Negative:
323
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
nboley08Aug 16, 2010
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) thatWhat 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
16 of 16 users found this helpful160
All this user's reviews
0
ryancarroll88Aug 27, 2010
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 beingI 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) Expand
7 of 7 users found this helpful70
All this user's reviews
0
DavidGNov 26, 2009
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 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
6 of 6 users found this helpful
0
gm101Oct 4, 2010
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 of 5 users found this helpful50
All this user's reviews
3
DonFosterNov 20, 2010
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.
5 of 5 users found this helpful50
All this user's reviews
0
DaveHJan 10, 2010
This movie rocks if you're a 14 year old girl who just had her first period. Seriously.
4 of 4 users found this helpful
0
BenjiP.Apr 19, 2010
Garbage!
4 of 4 users found this helpful
0
TSNMislameJan 31, 2010
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!
3 of 3 users found this helpful
2
DarkCriticAug 18, 2010
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 theThis 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
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
0
DalekJan 6, 2010
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
KateMOct 8, 2010
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 theThere'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. Expand
6 of 7 users found this helpful61
All this user's reviews
2
heyitsmegrif4Dec 17, 2011
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%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. Expand
9 of 14 users found this helpful95
All this user's reviews
0
Mr.GJan 10, 2010
I thought this movie was pure garbage. it was 2 hours of a confused.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
3
cameronmorewoodNov 12, 2012
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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
2
JDNov 20, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
killdarrenNov 20, 2009
Indisputable proof that our culture is intellectually bankrupt!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
WillCNov 22, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BillyTNov 22, 2009
Maybe would have been better with different actors but with these emotionless stalefaces I just wanted to walk out.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
bradkNov 20, 2009
New Moon handily wins WMOTY wost movie of the year!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
fredrDec 8, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KatieYJan 2, 2010
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MikeN.Jan 30, 2010
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
joehJan 7, 2010
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JonMNov 20, 2009
This movie was offensive to me as someone who likes good movies and literature.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JTNov 20, 2009
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??
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AlanaG.Nov 20, 2009
The first vampire film I've ever seen that is boring... maybe boring is too kind of a word.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JohnnyW.Nov 21, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TonyCNov 20, 2009
I thought nothing was worse than the original "Twilight" movie. I was wrong.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SookieStackhouseNov 20, 2009
UGGHHH...they're not even real vampires! If you are love this movie and your not in high school you have issues.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MichaelZNov 20, 2009
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? 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful