द ट्वाईलाईट सागा: न्यू मून

** 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".

Okay here it is, New Moon is not unwatchable (thought some parts come close). Twilight was a bit better mostly cause it had some direction. This one is severely unfocused, with a plot that denies motivation and has lazy acting across the board...well not quite.

New Moon may have one edge over its predecessor which is that Taylor Launter puts more into the game than Rob Pattinson. At times, it feels like Jacob may be the better match for Bella. Their interaction which takes up the majority of the movie in fact, feels less broody than the Bella/Edward connection. Unfotunately, around the beginning of the third act we grow out of Jacob almost as fast as we grow into him. Wheras Edward is quite blatantly shy, Jacob by contrast is angry. The reasons for this however seem largely unjustified by the story. Like all bad stories, this one advances by making up its own rules on the spot, resulting in a movie that makes very little sense.

I'm truly not sure what it is about the Twilight saga that demands such a plastic style of acting. Why is everyone so lazy about this? it actually degrades the quality of the material. If this is the kind of Romantic chemistry that sells on the market (a chemistry where two people act like kissing is more pain than pleasure) then Romance itself could be a dying genre.

But perhaps that is an overstatement. New Moon gave me something to watch on TV when there was nothing else on, I wouldn't recommend it for any other purpose.

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.

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.