The Twilight Saga: New Moon: Review By T.Clark
OMG, IT'S NEW MOON!
-
OVERALL3.0WORTHY
-
Story
-
Acting
-
Directing
-
Visuals
Well, they better get used to it.
The Twilight Saga doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It's here to stay for at least two more years, and whether the popularity will remain once the series reaches its finale is unclear, but one thing's for certain: it will make a lot of money. A LOT. If you don't realize that, you must have a serious case of denial that probably stems from your year long hard-on for The Dark Knight. I'm at fault--I loved TDK just like the next person. I bashed Twilight. But let's face it: most of that money was the result of the late Heath Ledger's death. No one died from New Moon. So most of the people seeing this movie are die hard fans. While I'm not a die hard fan, I didn't hate the movie. In fact, it was pretty good(gasp). Maybe I had an epiphany. Maybe this is an apology letter of sorts, but the movie is not as terrible as some of you who haven't even seen it say it is.
Before diving into my actual review, let me state that that aforementioned epiphany came before seeing the movie. It resulted from the amount of over-the-line comments based on nothing but so-called principal. People who have not seen this movie out of some sheer belief that not donating a penny to this film will somehow make a difference. It won't. This movie was going to break records either way. At least I read the first book. At least I've seen this second movie. I can afford to have an opinion. Pull the stick out of your ass, grab a friend(preferably a girl), and see the movie. I'm not saying join the craze, I'm just asking to stop being so closed minded.
Now for the review(I may go off into more minor rants throughout). I don't have anything to compare this movie to. I didn't read the book. I didn't see the first movie. Walking into this flick, I was oblivious, not knowing what potential harm to my mental state I was about to walk into. Surprisingly enough, no harm was done during the watching of this movie and the words you are reading now were written by someone with a complete hold on their mind frame. If you don't already know, New Moon is the the second installment to the Twilight Saga, which tells the tale of a blood feud between vampires and werewolves, and the romance between Bella Swan(Kristen Stewart) and her vampire love, Edward Cullen(Robert Pattinson). Things seem to take a nosedive for that relationship in this movie, however, as Edward leaves Bella to "protect her." Bella ultimately finds comfort in the arms of Jacob Black(Taylor Lautner), who happens to be a werewolf. Shenanigans ensue.
The thing that New Moon does well is create an entirely different world to the one most of us are used to. In this world, vampires sparkle in the sunlight and werewolves have some anger issues which trigger their transformations(not the moon). Like I said, I used to bash Twilight for its supposed insults against the age old tales of vampires and werewolves. But lets face it. That premise will continue to live on. There will still be movies where vampires and werewolves kill people. Would I prefer that? Absolutely. But as long as a movie can successfully bring something different to the table that reaches to a larger audience, I'm all for it.
From what I gather, the first movie didn't do that so well, the whole *successfully* creating that world. As I've come to understand, that movie was very dark, not in mood, but in atmosphere. New Moon, on the other hand, it pretty bright. The atmosphere is inviting and the visuals have improved(I could tell just from the trailers that the first flick obviously had a low budget). It's obvious the new director, Chris Weitz, used the film's higher budget to offer a brand new style to this franchise. The CGI isn't the greatest, but it's good enough. The werewolves are stylistic and so are the fight scenes, which, for a guy, offer the movie a breath of fresh air(because a guy can only take so much of Bella's breakdowns).
The movie plays like your typical flick aimed at teenagers. Corny dialogue flourishes, but it also offers some humor. It's funny at times. It brings the action at times. Its heartwarming at times. Its a near perfect blend of downgraded, middle aged male-proof likability. Transformers 2 is a mindless action orgy, but men love that. At least the emotion in New Moon isn't forced and plays well with the story. Is it done perfectly? No. You won't find yourself crying, but I wasn't expecting it to. I expected it to be awful. So kudos. Somehow, the movie keeps your attention. And I do emphasize the "somehow." Maybe it's the fact that there are so many other people who are into this franchise, it just makes the whole experience worth while. "Oh my God, did you like New Moon?" "Yeah, I've seen it 3 times, WOO-HOO!"(I haven't seen it 3 times, but you get the picture).
That's not to say I still favor people calling this movie "amazing" or "masterful." It's not. If you call it that, I will still bring the reign, because it's not a work of art, far from it. But I do have a better appreciation for why some like it so much. I've been known to say that it's easy to make fun of, and it is. I found myself laughing at the instance when Edward first comes on screen in slow motion like it's freaking Baywatch. But it's also easy to like because it reaches out to a wide audience. You just have to accept it for what it is, and it isn't all that bad.
The performances are what I expected, though. Mediocre, but not terrible. Kristen Stewart needs to work on her crying. She acts like she's having an orgasm, like she thinks breathing heavily will convince the viewer. It doesn't. Taylor Lautner won't win any Oscars(sorry ladies). Robert Pattinson, however, shows hope. He isn't given much to go with in this role, at least in this film, and still gives a convincing performance. If he can find the right roles with the right people(and he's set to star alongside Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman in upcoming films, so he has a promising future ahead), then he'll have a successful career that isn't solely based on this one character. Besides those three characters, the only main roles are new ones, from the Volturi, a group of "royal" vampires. I really think they could have done more with this aspect of the film. A royal group of vamps that enforce the laws? That should be towards the top of the list. Unfortunately, the actors portraying these roles don't really get that much screen time or chance to shine. I do want to mention Dakota Fanning, however. The girl, at such a young age, can give you the creeps in 2 minutes of screen time, probably not even that. I wish the Volturi had more screen time just to see more of her performance. She's a better actress than most of the people in this movie at 14 years old, and she's proven that with her other performances.
Overall, New Moon is a simple yet likable movie. Not great, but good. It gladly flaunts its teenage approved simplicity and if middle aged men don't like the movie, that's fine, because that's not the age group it's going for...but at least give it a chance before bashing it. There's been worse things in this world...much worse.

Comments (9)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
Lane
I really like the way you started your review, btw, with your first paragraph and then the one line after that. Lol, good way to wake people up.
8 months agoby @lane1Flag
Lane
Wow, I wasn't expecting to see this review from you, IUH. Also wasn't expecting it to be over 2 years old now, lmao. I was just sifting through your reviews though and noticed you gave it a decent rating so I was interested in what you had to say. I agree with it, for the most part. I'm not a Twilight nut but I have read some of the books and seen the movies. I've never understood the immense love or hate for this series. It's mind baffling sometimes how ignorant people can be (on both sides). But I just try to ignore the comments for the most part since a lot of them are pretty childish (aside from the simple "jokes" made about it, as you say it's "easy" to make fun of). Good review.
I would give it a little higher rating as I enjoyed the first one a bit more than others and gave that a 3 and thought each new film was better than the last. Eclipse got a 4 from me because I think it improved in every area where the first 2 went wrong, most especially the acting. Kristen Stewart did the best, or atleast most impressive job because whereas she was pretty weak in the first 2, when she came back in the third I was like "Where did this girl come from?" Lol. She seemed to have gotten more comfortable in the role by the third film which can only help to benefit the final installmants (hopefully).
8 months agoby @lane1Flag
The Narrator: The Better Man
Good review. And I watched this movie and read the books... speed read them anyways. And the books like I said are okay. Their like a 2.8, or even 3. This movie was around a 3.0 when I first watched it, but few hours later I rethought some stuff and it really is crap. I mean a good teen flick? Absolutely. But 4 star worthy? I can't agree with you on that one. Too each their own and once again good review...
Btw I agree with you and Vamp, Dakota really looks eerie and cool in it. I'm surprised she's only 14.
2 years agoby @narratorFlag
Vamp
Excellent review, man. I'm glad you stepped outside the box and saw it. I completely agreed with EVERYTHING you had to say, and actually read the review yesterday without time to offer my two cents. I especially agree with your Volturi comments. More screen time would have been nice, but they aren't focused on in the books. At least until the fourth one, anyway. The first three are concerned with the trouble at hand: Victoria. I also agree with your Dakota Fanning comments. She was positively CREEPY with those red eyes. Definitely a great job. I barely recognized her, either!
Check out my review, too, sometime. Just posted it. We agreed on quite a bit of points, and you got a mention in it. XD
2 years agoby @vampire2000Flag
T.Clark
All things pop culture, Zany lol And thanks.
2 years agoby @insertusernamehereFlag
ZanyZap
Nice review. The girlfriend dragged me to the theater opening night with a set of iron chains, a tow-truck, and a puppy-dog pout. Damn, my push-over propensity.
Like you the extent of my Twilight knowledge came from two bias sides. One deeming the franchise a "masterful work of art" and the other, "gay, gay, gay..."
My formed-consensus lined almost perfectly with yours. The story was weak and extremely anti-climatic. The acting was certainly above Lifetime special, but by no means Oscar caliber. I did enjoy the direction, the transitions, and music.
Overall, I can't say I was disappointed, but then again, I had next to no expectations walking into the theater.
The film, however, did not spark my interest enough to see the next in June, or any following. I should stop dating Twilight fans...
And as for the Volturi, reminded me of a My Chemical Romance concert.
Off topic: Does Aficionado refer to anything other than its denotative meaning? Comic book reference, or whatev...
2 years agoby @zanyzapFlag
The Serial Killer
I'll have to think about this one since I heard it was better than "Twilight." Nice review.
2 years agoby @traeFlag
Paolo Sardinas
Great review! I also read the first book, did not enjoy it at all. Saw the movie for the first book and I ended up disliking it even more. Later I decided to check out the second book, New Moon obviously, with the belief that the story would get better as it progressed...wrong. Still didn't care for the book and just this past weekend managed to get into the theater, with a friend, and watch the film. Still didn't enjoy it. This one series that just won't stick with me, and I have given up trying to make it stick.
2 years agoby @sardinasFlag
slysnide
4???? I gave it 3 and ripped on it for all the unintended humor. Good review anyway. Can you believe it's already scored $258.8 million globally??? It's ridiculous.
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag