La saga Crepúsculo: Luna nueva

First of all, I haven't read the novels/books, so I can't say how close this is to the source material. I've heard that, the first movie (Twilight) didn't bring everything from the book onto the screen (which makes sense, because otherwise the source material would've been really slim/weak). While we had our introductions in the first movie (and I'm assuming you have either seen that or at least read the book), we should be able to have more "fun" with the characters this time around ... well if you thought that, than you are very wrong!!

The things K. Stewarts character (Bella) has to go through, come across. But while some additional stuff has been made up (or so I've been told), that wasn't in the book, to have a "special" character with more screen time, this all adds up to a pretty dreadful experience.

The acting wasn't really top notch from part 1. There is no reason for that. And I think the only one coming out of, mostly unscathed, is Taylor Lautner. And the girl who played in "Up in the Air", forgot her name. But that's more due to the movie "Up in the Air" than to her role in this one.

While nothing much is happening (not only acting wise), the movie still tries to be as dramatic as it can be. The problem being, it isn't at all! And while there are a few nice action pieces, the whole thing feels utterly ridiculous, which makes it quite hard to really enjoy it. Again though, as with the first one, this was aimed at a female audience group and if you saw it in theaters, than you might have heard quite a few of them screaming. There is one "special" scene that really made them happy ... and some guys too (although they might have been cynical)! While the scene as it is, didn't excite me and influenced my vote directly, the impact it has/had, does reflect in my vote, as well as the fact, that the target audience seems to love it ...

The first movie is better / fresher probably because it was directed by a woman... (maybe that's why the books are just SO cool) and as for the music, well Carter Burwell has genius and experience beyond his years, so that too would make Twilight an infinitely exquisite experience over and above the sequel. More budget doesn't always produce a superior movie, sometimes less is more, so I still prefer the first movie to this one. (I went into the hall and tried opening it. then i forgot what happened next and somehow) I actually couldn't think of enough things to say about this movie for the required minimum of ten line criteria by IMDb, so sorry about the random bracketed words in the middle.

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.

People who liked either the first movie or the New Moon book will probably have a great time at this movie. People who didn't like them still might have fun laughing at the moments of glorious teenaged awkwardness--Michael Welch returns as the hilariously down-on-his-luck Mike Newton.

As a sequel, New Moon is excellent. It maintains the same tone as the first movie, smooths out some of the rough edges and builds from there. On its own it's mostly quite enjoyable to watch. There were lots of intentional and unintentional humor and of course the movie takes only a bit of the edge off the book's more than slightly unbalanced story structure.

Things that impressed me? FIGHT SCENES. They actually let us see Felix toss Edward around like a rag doll. And they might have robbed us of the sight of spooky elder vampires petrifying in their old age, but they did let us see Edward's head literally crack like an eggshell as he gets slammed into the floor tiles.

I also like that they expanded Alice's role and showed Bella actually missing someone in addition to Edward. I really wish that both the books and movies had gotten more into the Bella-Alice friendship. Also, the idea that a person's spouse is the only relationship they need is a relatively new one. If even a romantically obsessed book series like Twilight can focus on the fact that Bella is reacting to the entire Cullen clan and not just Edward, then maybe we're moving toward a healthier idea of what love is.

Also, Michael Sheen is the champion of creepy. Sorry, Bill Nighy; he played Aro before you played Greyback! My final recommendation? Go see this movie with a big crowd for all the squealing and shouting at the screen. It's like a floor show but with body glitter.

** 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".