New Moon - Biss zur Mittagsstunde

What would you do, if a wolf should fall for you, when rejected by your lover, spending months under the covers, he wants more than to be friends, an outstretched paw he's keen to lend, scratch his back and he'll scratch yours, just be careful of those jaws, as the lupine are not supine, and returns from certain bloodlines, can increase the curdling pressure, and then you may just need a tether.

We've all dealt with unrequited love before, but "New Moon," the second installment in the popular "Twilight" series, takes it to a whole new level. Bella Swan, the moody high school student who found herself in love with a vampire - the brooding Edward - in the first film, now finds herself attracted to a werewolf, her long-haired Native American childhood pal turned cropped-haired, muscle-bound super-hunk, Jacob. Now, that's a love triangle you don't come across every day of the week.

This disappointing, time-marking follow-up to the flawed but often imaginative "Twilight" is a tedious, slow-moving bore, consisting of little more than endless conversations about which of Bella's two "monstrous" beaus loves her the more and which is more likely to protect her from the danger posed by his rival and the assorted associates and kinsmen who come with him. In fact, so focused is the story on the romantic travails of the three main characters that the movie ultimately stalls out in a puddle of its own sappiness. And on a purely technical level, even the CGI werewolves are not as impressive as we'd expect them to be, given the massive amount of cash clearly lavished on the project.

Actually, the thing that strikes one the most about "New Moon" is just how much of a rehash it is of the previous film, with Bella's predicament simply being played over, only this time with a lover from a different species (especially as Edward voluntarily removes himself from much of the action this time around).

Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson return as the human/vampire lovers, while Lautner gets to run around with his shirt off a good deal of the time (despite the damp, rainy climate). That may be enough to keep the movie's targeted audience of teenaged girls awake and glued to the screen for the duration, but the rest of us will have no trouble snoozing our way through to the next installment.

I too expected this movie to be better. I read the 4 books. The thing is they cut out the best lines from the books which can add SO much to the movies. I was looking forward to some seens in the movie: Edward proposal for Bella, when they talk while they are waiting to get out the Volturi, very romantic and whilte they are in plane going back home. I think the scenarist must be replaced or the writer should oversee the script. The only reason movies are hit cause of the books only. Most people who did not read the books did not like the movies. Hope they'll do better in the 3rd one. But I really hope they'll do much much better in the 4th movie cause this is the book I'd like most. In general, if you read the books you must watch the movies, its nice to have the characters & seens a life.

Admittedly I have only in the last 2 days watched Twilight and New Moon and I am totally baffled by the popularity of these movies. Especially New Moon this film was TERRIBLE. Taylor Lautner cannot act to save himself, yet next to Kirsten Stewart and Robert Pattinson he looked like he had the talent of Catherine Hepburn.

Now, about the acting.... Kirsten Stewart has one face and that is the "semi-sad" look. For the most part ot simply looked like she couldn't wait for the film to be over. Robert Pattinson has one face and that is also the "semi-sad" look. I think he may be this decades answer to Luke Perry. There was a valid reason that the period between 90210 and Twilight had no "Luke Perry types". They can't act!! I fail to see the appeal. Taylor Lautner constantly does that thing where it looks like he is gazing about 20 metres away trying to read micro-printed reading cards and his lines come out accordingly.

And did it bother anyone else that Bella is just so accepting of the fact that vampires and werewoves exist???

Now I know these are movies made to be aimed at teens and tweens, but for crying out loud at least TRY and make a decent film. There are Werewolves and Vampires present. Shouldn't there be epic battles and much blood lust??

Here are a few points that came to mind: 1) Twilight refers to the beginning of the evening between sunset and dusk and when Vampires and Werewolves get ready to come out to play. They ARE NOT daywalkers. If the characters are daywalkers then "twilight" is a pointless time of the day and had no reference to the story..... 2) Calling a movie New Moon where you introduce werewolves into the story would be OK, if the "moon" had anything to do with their ability to turn. Having them as daywalkers as I stated in point 1 defeats the purpose altogether. You may as well have called the story "Cheesecake", such was the relevance. (Mmmmmm Cheesecake).... 3) Vampires and Werewolves are creatures of legend and not a bunch of sorry ass "Emo" teens. They are vicious and bloodthirsty, not whiny and desperate.

Perhaps Stephanie Meyers has them confused with Waaah-wolves and Vam-criers? Yes?........

I am yet to watch Eclipse but it will need to be a vast improvement on New Moon because it was possibly the worst sequel ever....and yes I am including Police Academies 2 through 7!!!

A very generous 4/10 at best.

** out of (****)

Chances are, your feelings toward the film "Twilight" will match your feelings for "New Moon". Mine sure did. This film basically did nothing for its predecessor, which is a shame since the trailer looked somewhat decent. I thought that maybe an above average Twilight flick would make its way, but I guess that's too much to ask these days. The characters are surprisingly more stale than before, although this movie is a little more interesting. For everything that is in this movie that was better than Twilight, there is also the opposite. However, the special effects improved slightly and fortunately we get more action than romance. Still, this movie is basically neither better nor worse than "Twilight". You can take that as a complement or a negative, and you know which side you're on.

"New Moon" revolves around Bella (Stewart) and Edward (Pattison). Edward leaves Bella in the forest and now Bella is all alone. However, she meets Jacob (Lautner) and gradually develops a crush on him. Although, Edward returns and Jacob has a secret: he's a werewolf.

I think it's kind of humiliating that a director gets a better script, yet makes a film that's on par with Twilight. I mean how could this have not been good? You have werewolves vs. vampires. That sounds cool already and imagine the type of execution that Scorsese can make *faints*. Folks, if you think this latest installment is impossible to have worse acting and dialogue, then you are dead wrong. Yes, it might seem improbable, but the performances and dialogue have gone from beyond awful to officially the worst I've seen. Moreover, I thought the first hour was way too boring and a chore to sit through.

Now, there are some redeeming qualities. The technical aspects have improved. Not by much, but a sufficient amount. Moreover, the last hour is actually watchable. The action here is also not too shabby. Also, I thought that the story was slightly more interesting.

"New Moon" is basically on par with "Twilight", but that isn't a complement. Both films boast decent technical aspects and interesting stories, but also boast terrible performances with an awful script. "New Moon" is neither a bad nor good film and compared with its predecessor, it matches its film quality. This weekend, I'll seek out "Eclipse" and see if that film can break the mediocrity streak. Hey, David Slade is directing. If the third installment is even just the slightest better than "New Moon", I'll be satisfied. Until then, this is my review of "New Moon".