I didn't want to see this film because the previous one was lacking in... well... everything. But girlfriend wanted to see it. I went in and was instantly surprised to see the demographic had widened past 12-16 year old girls who instantly swoon at any even remotely hot guy so that was interesting. It's not relevant to how good the film was- it just reaffirmed to me (and should to all of you) that hating a series on principle or having preconceived notions of how bad something will be is unfair on it.

Not in this case. It was still bad. BUT worth the money I payed to see it because though it most definitely not intended to be entertaining in the way I found it. It was full of melodramatic dialogue and bad acting which, if you take ANY Drama classes at school- Which Robert DIDN'T- you'll notice certain things about how people deliver lines. You notice how they're SAYING lines they have memorised with unnatural and stylised emphasis on the key words in the sentences without giving the (cheesy) dialogue depth or realism. Quite simply, it was so terrible I found myself resisting the urge to burst out laughing in a room full of fans who were probably misinterpreting the melodrama as "Good, emotional drama." No. This film is ridiculous.

As it goes further on it gets less tightly stitched together and I had to become reliant on my knowledge of the books to fill in and pick up the slight gaps in dialogue and plot. They would say things that are based on something that didn't happen on screen (probably deleted scene for time) or their dialogue would just be terrible unrealistic lines that are work as standalone ones for a trailer but in conversation it seems like they're jumping slightly just to get to say something that is dramatic without it actually making too much sense.

BUT! It does have SOME redeeming qualities! The melodrama wasn't nonstop hilarity so thankfully something else held my attention. There was actual effort put into this film. The fight scenes actually used REAL special effects (something the first film was a bit cheap on) which actually looked kinda impressive. Any action was short lived unfortunately but what little there was, they did a reasonable job with.

I was impressed at the presence of transition. The previous film jumped and skipped and the next plot point just WAS without having been caused. This film (until near the end, of course) actually had a pace and a coherency to it that allows you to understand it without reading the books. This is a bonus. Certain things you'd think would drag on as the director tries to give you time to let the "emotion" "sink in" thankfully didn't take forever and the entire movie fit almost snuggly into its 2 hour length. Too bad it fell apart more and more it went along.

The film also shares the semi-awkward character interactions that create the same humour as the first one. Not as deliberately funny as the first one (though, as I said, it was pretty hilarious when it wasn't meant to be) though.

Though it was many failings with only a few things to back it up as being a reasonable film it will definitely make all you little teenage girls out there desperate to see Jacob's hell tanked up body very happy. You can HEAR the audience's reaction the first time Jacob takes his shirt off. He's got all you need: Pecs, biceps, ABS OF STEEL and minimal clothing. Too bad he lacks depth and real character. (Girls love obsessively devoted Zombies, they don't think enough to complain) It is NO WAY even NEAR one of the best films of 2009. NO ONE should say this ridiculous claim.

Really tossing up between 3 and 4 stars. Mmm. I guess a movie's highlight shouldn't be how low it sinks. 3.

Okay first off if you are looking for gore,blood,violence etc.Twilight New Moon is not the movie for you.From reading comments from 100's of people they think it made vampires look lame.But if you are into romance then this is the movie for you.

Hey I'm a guy and I thought this movie was great,I read all the books so I love how the movie goes right with the book.It may satisfy hardcore fans of the series, but outsiders are likely to be turned off by its slow pace,relentlessly downcast tone, and excessive length..It's kind of like a fairy tale sad at first then a happy ending overall romance is not my thing but it was a really good movie I was satisfied taking my time to watch it.

Ok first of all i've reed all the books. Don't know if that is good or bad. I know what is going to happen the whole film so, i like watching it but it was also boring me.I'm glad they changed directors for this film cause you can tell.It does still leave you wanting more!

There's way too much tortured acting going on in The Twilight Saga: New Moon, even for those like me who enjoyed the earlier film.

Picking up where Twilight left off, this film follows moody teenager Bella Swan as she's dumped by her vampire boyfriend Edward Cullen for fear of hurting her. She spends months on end moping in her bedroom, before another boy falls in love with her. But Bella isn't destined to have a normal relationship. Turns out her new guy, the hunky Jacob Black is a werewolf.

What bogs down this second film that's been adapted from Stephenie Meyer's bestselling novels, is the morose nature of Bella and Edward's romance. Robert Pattinson, who became an overnight heartthrob since appearing in Twilight, plays Edward Cullen as a brooding, humorless fellow with almost no personality at all. Doesn't help that Kristen Stewart's Bella is a bland and passive character who remains sullen and self-absorbed throughout the film, pleading Edward to "change her" and then going into some sort of blue funk each time he turns her down.

While the first film and its director Catherine Hardwicke successfully managed to capture the virginal yearning in Bella, New Moon directed by Chris Weitz, only gets the action portions right. The scene in which Jacob (played by Taylor Lautner) first morphs into a CGI werewolf and leaps onto another of his species is nothing short of stunning, and the same can be said for a musical sequence in which a pack of werewolves chase a female vampire through a thick forest.

But these are small consolations in what is otherwise a painfully long, uniformly boring melodrama with affected performances from each of its three leads.

It's an ordeal to endure mostly for its maudlin, morose tone. I'm going with one-and-a-half out of five for The Twilight Saga: New Moon; it made a ton of money when it was released internationally, but that doesn't make it any good. Watch it entirely at your own risk.

Rating: 1.5 / 5

great movie...loved how they made the warewolfs big wolfs...vice vsa o.d. nasty looking & scary...n with the vampires how the could b in the sun just there skin shines...vice vs they can't go out in the sun because there skin a fry...like all the other vampire movie...loved it over all different ... n really hope the 3rd one dnt let me down...

There's way too much tortured acting going on in The Twilight Saga: New Moon, even for those like me who enjoyed the earlier film.

Picking up where Twilight left off, this film follows moody teenager Bella Swan as she's dumped by her vampire boyfriend Edward Cullen for fear of hurting her. She spends months on end moping in her bedroom, before another boy falls in love with her. But Bella isn't destined to have a normal relationship. Turns out her new guy, the hunky Jacob Black is a werewolf.

What bogs down this second film that's been adapted from Stephenie Meyer's bestselling novels, is the morose nature of Bella and Edward's romance. Robert Pattinson, who became an overnight heartthrob since appearing in Twilight, plays Edward Cullen as a brooding, humorless fellow with almost no personality at all. Doesn't help that Kristen Stewart's Bella is a bland and passive character who remains sullen and self-absorbed throughout the film, pleading Edward to "change her" and then going into some sort of blue funk each time he turns her down.

While the first film and its director Catherine Hardwicke successfully managed to capture the virginal yearning in Bella, New Moon directed by Chris Weitz, only gets the action portions right. The scene in which Jacob (played by Taylor Lautner) first morphs into a CGI werewolf and leaps onto another of his species is nothing short of stunning, and the same can be said for a musical sequence in which a pack of werewolves chase a female vampire through a thick forest.

But these are small consolations in what is otherwise a painfully long, uniformly boring melodrama with affected performances from each of its three leads.

It's an ordeal to endure mostly for its maudlin, morose tone. I'm going with one-and-a-half out of five for The Twilight Saga: New Moon; it made a ton of money when it was released internationally, but that doesn't make it any good. Watch it entirely at your own risk.

Rating: 1.5 / 5

well i love both movies and if you didnt "I" HOPEFULLY
everyone we dont want to read how much they hated it. cant wait for the rest..hope i did not upset anyone...im sure they will get better and better reading the last book now..dont be a haterr

Chris Weitz’s film caters as well as the previous movie did to pale, fantasy-loving teenage girls, while adding a bit more humour for the rest of us.

Depending on your gender, age and Twihard-ness, this good-looking angst party is either a solid Meyer adaptation with quiver-worthy moments of hotness; or a wet, ludicrous, unintentionally-funny pile of steaming bathos.

I really liked this, I dont think it was better than the first however.
Unlike a lot of people who like these movies I have never read the books, so I am just a fan of the movies themselves. I am not so closed minded that I can't stand a different take on vampires, there is nothing wrong with being a bit more creative instead of just following the same old story over and over again.
I dont understand why people get so hung up over them being able to go out in the day to. This is not the first movie to do this; many TV shows have and some Movies too.
About the whole which team your on thing that everyone talks about, well I would pick Edward over Jacob, reason being, because Jacob acts like a animal, he is way too possessive of Bella for my taste, and he is too quick to become violent, like all his Werewolf friends, even the Vamps have more control, and I don't like how he lies to Edward like he did.
I am not impressed by the the angry tough guy thing, Edward only fights to defend Jacob fights mostly for himself and what he wants, which is Bella no doubt. One thing I can't wait til Bella gets turned, that will be cool, I hope they don't end it after that!!
I am sure they could come up with other things to do afterwords.
I found version 10 to be a good one if your willing to wait a long long time for it to buffer.I gave the movie 5 stars. and the version too

Over all very good. Wished it had a little more details from the book but kept to story line. great graphics of the morphing. Can't wait for the next installment. Dakota Fanning made an interesting Vampire....very child like yet evil as the character was written. Hope the next two are just as good over all.

I LOVE THIS MOVIE IT IS AWESOME. AND ROBERT IS SO DAMN HOT. THEY R THE BEST MOVIES EVER MADE... LOVE THE VAMPIRES NOT MUCH INTO THE WEREWOLFS BUT JACOB IS PRETTY HOT 2 BUT IT IS TEAM EDWARD 4 LIFE...... I AM A BIG TWILIGHT FAN. 2 BAD 4 ALL U HATERZZ, HATERZZ SUCK.

I've read all the books. I know what happens. This never ruins a film for me.

I didn't want to see this film because the previous one was lacking in... well... everything. But girlfriend wanted to see it. I went in and was instantly surprised to see the demographic had widened past 12-16 year old girls who instantly swoon at any even remotely hot guy so that was interesting. It's not relevant to how good the film was- it just reaffirmed to me (and should to all of you) that hating a series on principle or having preconceived notions of how bad something will be is unfair on it.

Not in this case. It was still bad. BUT worth the money I payed to see it because though it most definitely not intended to be entertaining in the way I found it. It was full of melodramatic dialogue and bad acting which, if you take ANY Drama classes at school- Which Robert DIDN'T- you'll notice certain things about how people deliver lines. You notice how they're SAYING lines they have memorised with unnatural and stylised emphasis on the key words in the sentences without giving the (cheesy) dialogue depth or realism. Quite simply, it was so terrible I found myself resisting the urge to burst out laughing in a room full of fans who were probably misinterpreting the melodrama as "Good, emotional drama." No. This film is ridiculous.

As it goes further on it gets less tightly stitched together and I had to become reliant on my knowledge of the books to fill in and pick up the slight gaps in dialogue and plot. They would say things that are based on something that didn't happen on screen (probably deleted scene for time) or their dialogue would just be terrible unrealistic lines that are work as standalone ones for a trailer but in conversation it seems like they're jumping slightly just to get to say something that is dramatic without it actually making too much sense.

BUT! It does have SOME redeeming qualities! The melodrama wasn't nonstop hilarity so thankfully something else held my attention. There was actual effort put into this film. The fight scenes actually used REAL special effects (something the first film was a bit cheap on) which actually looked kinda impressive. Any action was short lived unfortunately but what little there was, they did a reasonable job with.

I was impressed at the presence of transition. The previous film jumped and skipped and the next plot point just WAS without having been caused. This film (until near the end, of course) actually had a pace and a coherency to it that allows you to understand it without reading the books. This is a bonus. Certain things you'd think would drag on as the director tries to give you time to let the "emotion" "sink in" thankfully didn't take forever and the entire movie fit almost snuggly into its 2 hour length. Too bad it fell apart more and more it went along.

The film also shares the semi-awkward character interactions that create the same humour as the first one. Not as deliberately funny as the first one (though, as I said, it was pretty hilarious when it wasn't meant to be) though.

Though it was many failings with only a few things to back it up as being a reasonable film it will definitely make all you little teenage girls out there desperate to see Jacob's hell tanked up body very happy. You can HEAR the audience's reaction the first time Jacob takes his shirt off. He's got all you need: Pecs, biceps, ABS OF STEEL and minimal clothing. Too bad he lacks depth and real character. (Girls love obsessively devoted Zombies, they don't think enough to complain) It is NO WAY even NEAR one of the best films of 2009. NO ONE should say this ridiculous claim.

Really tossing up between 3 and 4 stars. Mmm. I guess a movie's highlight shouldn't be how low it sinks. 3.

According to Stephenie Meyer (author of the Twilight book series these films are based on) Edward was Bella's true love. There 'was' no other. Edward was IT. Now, I saw that interview and looked her dead in her mouth when she said it.But by penning New Moon (the book this fim is based on), she just slaughtered her own (and Bella's own) proclamation. So I guess Edward is "not" THE ONE after all; he's just a stalker who lights up like a disco ball in the sun. And despite my description of him, he still has more going for him than Bella! Bella's primary hobby is stumbling, her secondary hobby: being rescued by buff werewolves. She is constantly being carried, saved, and fought over by various men in this entire franchise (not just this movie), both human and monster alike. Now, I've way too many fangirls ripping on Kristen Stewart's acting in this. They say she's too "flat", her voice never changes, her expression is the same. But I don't agree. Here's why: as an actress, Kristen has to go along with the
character outlined in the book, but the character is a "blank slate" on which the reader/viewer can "project themselves". Duh! She's onle described in the book as having brown hair and eyes, oh and likes to read. She blank. So Kristen is portraying a character that has no character...and she can't "give" any traits either. Get it? As for the movie, Jacob Black is (was,until Breaking Dawn) the ONLY character Stephenie Meyer actually 'developed' in this entire series (not "saga": series). He actually had a character arc and actual goals. He started out one way and then 'changed' as this thin plotline staggered on. Everyone else in this movie, like all the others in the franchise, are cardboard cut-outs: the damsel in distress (Bella), the knight in shining armor (Edward). As a matter of fact all the other characters could be taken out of this franchise and it wouldn't even effect the storyline (in fact they "were" taken out in Breaking Dawn, the last book in the series)! I mean, the Volturi felt very deux
ex machina in this, like they were just thrown in from nowhere. I never felt threatened by them because Twilight "vampires" are just not scary in the least. They're a joke. Even Damon in Vampire Diaries scared me more than the Volturi. Sigh.

I didn't want to see this film because the previous one was lacking in... well... everything. But girlfriend wanted to see it. I went in and was instantly surprised to see the demographic had widened past 12-16 year old girls who instantly swoon at any even remotely hot guy so that was interesting. It's not relevant to how good the film was- it just reaffirmed to me (and should to all of you) that hating a series on principle or having preconceived notions of how bad something will be is unfair on it.

Not in this case. It was still bad. BUT worth the money I payed to see it because though it most definitely not intended to be entertaining in the way I found it. It was full of melodramatic dialogue and bad acting which, if you take ANY Drama classes at school- Which Robert DIDN'T- you'll notice certain things about how people deliver lines. You notice how they're SAYING lines they have memorised with unnatural and stylised emphasis on the key words in the sentences without giving the (cheesy) dialogue depth or realism. Quite simply, it was so terrible I found myself resisting the urge to burst out laughing in a room full of fans who were probably misinterpreting the melodrama as "Good, emotional drama." No. This film is ridiculous.

As it goes further on it gets less tightly stitched together and I had to become reliant on my knowledge of the books to fill in and pick up the slight gaps in dialogue and plot. They would say things that are based on something that didn't happen on screen (probably deleted scene for time) or their dialogue would just be terrible unrealistic lines that are work as standalone ones for a trailer but in conversation it seems like they're jumping slightly just to get to say something that is dramatic without it actually making too much sense.

BUT! It does have SOME redeeming qualities! The melodrama wasn't nonstop hilarity so thankfully something else held my attention. There was actual effort put into this film. The fight scenes actually used REAL special effects (something the first film was a bit cheap on) which actually looked kinda impressive. Any action was short lived unfortunately but what little there was, they did a reasonable job with.

I was impressed at the presence of transition. The previous film jumped and skipped and the next plot point just WAS without having been caused. This film (until near the end, of course) actually had a pace and a coherency to it that allows you to understand it without reading the books. This is a bonus. Certain things you'd think would drag on as the director tries to give you time to let the "emotion" "sink in" thankfully didn't take forever and the entire movie fit almost snuggly into its 2 hour length. Too bad it fell apart more and more it went along.

The film also shares the semi-awkward character interactions that create the same humour as the first one. Not as deliberately funny as the first one (though, as I said, it was pretty hilarious when it wasn't meant to be) though.

Though it was many failings with only a few things to back it up as being a reasonable film it will definitely make all you little teenage girls out there desperate to see Jacob's hell tanked up body very happy. You can HEAR the audience's reaction the first time Jacob takes his shirt off. He's got all you need: Pecs, biceps, ABS OF STEEL and minimal clothing. Too bad he lacks depth and real character. (Girls love obsessively devoted Zombies, they don't think enough to complain) It is NO WAY even NEAR one of the best films of 2009. NO ONE should say this ridiculous claim.

I didn't want to see this film because the previous one was lacking in... well... everything. But girlfriend wanted to see it. I went in and was instantly surprised to see the demographic had widened past 12-16 year old girls who instantly swoon at any even remotely hot guy so that was interesting. It's not relevant to how good the film was- it just reaffirmed to me (and should to all of you) that hating a series on principle or having preconceived notions of how bad something will be is unfair on it.

Not in this case. It was still bad. BUT worth the money I payed to see it because though it most definitely not intended to be entertaining in the way I found it. It was full of melodramatic dialogue and bad acting which, if you take ANY Drama classes at school- Which Robert DIDN'T- you'll notice certain things about how people deliver lines. You notice how they're SAYING lines they have memorised with unnatural and stylised emphasis on the key words in the sentences without giving the (cheesy) dialogue depth or realism. Quite simply, it was so terrible I found myself resisting the urge to burst out laughing in a room full of fans who were probably misinterpreting the melodrama as "Good, emotional drama." No. This film is ridiculous.

As it goes further on it gets less tightly stitched together and I had to become reliant on my knowledge of the books to fill in and pick up the slight gaps in dialogue and plot. They would say things that are based on something that didn't happen on screen (probably deleted scene for time) or their dialogue would just be terrible unrealistic lines that are work as standalone ones for a trailer but in conversation it seems like they're jumping slightly just to get to say something that is dramatic without it actually making too much sense.

BUT! It does have SOME redeeming qualities! The melodrama wasn't nonstop hilarity so thankfully something else held my attention. There was actual effort put into this film. The fight scenes actually used REAL special effects (something the first film was a bit cheap on) which actually looked kinda impressive. Any action was short lived unfortunately but what little there was, they did a reasonable job with.

I was impressed at the presence of transition. The previous film jumped and skipped and the next plot point just WAS without having been caused. This film (until near the end, of course) actually had a pace and a coherency to it that allows you to understand it without reading the books. This is a bonus. Certain things you'd think would drag on as the director tries to give you time to let the "emotion" "sink in" thankfully didn't take forever and the entire movie fit almost snuggly into its 2 hour length. Too bad it fell apart more and more it went along.

The film also shares the semi-awkward character interactions that create the same humour as the first one. Not as deliberately funny as the first one (though, as I said, it was pretty hilarious when it wasn't meant to be) though.

Though it was many failings with only a few things to back it up as being a reasonable film it will definitely make all you little teenage girls out there desperate to see Jacob's hell tanked up body very happy. You can HEAR the audience's reaction the first time Jacob takes his shirt off. He's got all you need: Pecs, biceps, ABS OF STEEL and minimal clothing. Too bad he lacks depth and real character. (Girls love obsessively devoted Zombies, they don't think enough to complain) It is NO WAY even NEAR one of the best films of 2009. NO ONE should say this ridiculous claim.

In the second installment of Stephenie Meyer's phenomenally successful Twilight series, the romance between mortal and vampire soars to a new level as Bella Swan delves deeper into the mysteries of the supernatural world she yearns to become part of—only to find herself in greater peril than ever before.

EDITED

the supernatural tale of star-crossed lovers continues as the Cullen family flees Forks in order to protect Bella (Kristen Stewart), and the heartbroken high-school senior discovers that vampires aren't the only creatures in town. Realizing that Bella will never be safe as long as he's around, Edward (Robert Pattinson) makes the difficult decision to leave his beloved behind shortly after her 18th birthday. Reeling from her loss, Bella embraces self-destruction after being comforted by Edward's image during a moment of mortal peril. But as heavy-hearted as Bella may be, her old friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner) distracts her from her sorrows by helping her renovate a weather-beaten motorbike. When Bella encounters a former adversary with a sizable grudge, she's rescued from harm at the last second by pack of enormous, ferocious wolves. Subsequently delving into the history of the Quileutes, Bella discovers the secrets of Jacob's tribe while looking forward to a reunion with Edward that may have deadly consequences.

so director of About a Boy and The Golden Compass made this movie? Chris Weitz made it worse than the first one. the first one's director had a better knowledge about teen movies but this movie was worse than the first.

this was such a bad movie i mean one of the worst. even though after the vampires we know have the Werewolves and some other elements. first of all what is with the slow pacing, is it an indie movie? no it is a badly written movie that is why it seems so death boring and bad and empty. screenplay, plot and dialogues were horrible. action scenes were weird, special effects were mediocre and bad looking.

movie stars Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Ashley Greene, Rachelle Lefevre , Billy Burke , Peter Facinelli , Nikki Reed , Kellan Lutz , Jackson Rathbone , Michael Sheen , Dakota Fanning , Edi Gathegi , Graham Greene , Christopher Heyerdahl , Tinsel Korey , Jamie Campbell Bower , Cameron Bright and others. bad acting all around.

i liked it at first viewing but realized after how bad it is. i don't even wanna talk much about it. it is a bad movie.

This movie was much better than the first one, the first was a bit boring and slow, the second one had a lot more action. Although you can tell judging by the way the story comes along that the writer is an amateur, the plot is kind of lame and obvious, and most of the time the character's decisions don't make common sense (although of course a vampire etc can't beed deemed to follow common sense of course). Still, better movie and I give it 7/10/

It is great how this trilogy has been sticjing to the novel it was written. Lots of romance, thriller and why not sometimes comedy? The director has been smart enough to use the famous actors in his favor. The way he shows how a werewolf is sexier than a vampire is just great. All the girls enjoy it, for sure!

i would actual like to watch the twlight new moon with good quality and u can see the whole face of the characters and its actual the whole movie as well. Cause really i dont wanna just watch the movie with just there lower body showing and not there upper body.