Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

Director: Chris Weitz

Time Out rating

Average user rating

62 reviews

Synopsis

Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart return in this sequel to the massively popular brooding vampire movie, 'Twlight'. It's the second of a planned four movie series that are all adapted from the original novels by author Stephanie Meyer and concern the emotion ups and downs of a cadre of pin-up vampires from the suburbs.

Movie review

From Time Out London

Given the effect the first ‘Twilight’ film had on teens, it’s appropriate that the sequel is a study of sexual and romantic obsession. When pallid, principled vampire Edward (Robert Pattinson) leaves town, his chaste girlfriend, Bella (Kristen Stewart), moons and mourns for months. The usual teen pursuits don’t interest her: she sneers at shopping and only opts for sport or cinema if they bring her closer to Edward. Then solace arrives in the bulging biceps of Jacob (Taylor Lautner), Bella’s childhood friend-turned-boy-hulk.

It’s not exactly a celebration of female independence, but ‘New Moon’ still has an expert handle on its young audience. Near-kisses and sexual frustration abound. Boys become attractive yet also dangerous when they come of age – and the good ones keep the monsters in check. This time, the monsters aren’t merely vampires, but werewolves: spectacular CG creatures that snarl and pounce their way through several enjoyable action sequences, then transform back into buff, topless young studs… Yep, ‘New Moon’ knows what it’s doing.

Plot-wise it’s a slow starter, but gains momentum when Bella develops a taste for adrenaline in the hope of catching a glimpse of her vampiric protector. Motorbike rides and deathly dives follow, along with a scenic race to Italy to meet uber-vampire Michael Sheen (always a pleasure). Welcome comedy comes from Bella’s schoolmates, notably Jessica (Anna Kendrick), who wearily deconstructs the symbolism in zombie movies while bemoaning the lack of hot guys. Is this ‘New Moon’ defending its fanbase and pre-empting criticism about its transparent agenda? Natalie and Bella are intelligent young women, yet ruled by their hormones – plenty of room for audience identification there. ‘New Moon’ is little more than a skilful soap opera, but it’s still enjoyable escapism – even if you’re old and wise enough to see through it.

Author: Anna Smith 2009-11-17 11:04:40

Time Out London Issue 2048: 19-25 November, 2009

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

susan said...

Posted on Nov 26 2009 01:03 would have stabbed myself through the heart with a spit if i had to listen to kristen stewarts monotone voice any longer.

Report as inappropriate
siobhan said...

Posted on Nov 25 2009 21:47 This was boring....I haven't read the books so I didn't know what was going to happen and I still thought this was lame.... I nejoyed the first film - the aesthetic was much better in it as well as the direction. The vampires and special effects in this film were way worse than the first film. Mostly though, it was just boring.

Report as inappropriate
Jacky said...

Posted on Nov 25 2009 19:24 Good film, loved the first one. I was disappointed that Edward was not in it for a big chunk of the film, but loved the end where bella sees him again. Going to see it again next week.

Report as inappropriate
shaz said...

Posted on Nov 24 2009 23:49 great film cnt wait 4 the nxt 1 ..

Report as inappropriate
Jack said...

Posted on Nov 24 2009 17:14 I thought the film was amaxing tbh, and cant wait for the next 2, brilliant stroy line :) and made me more excited for the other ones

Report as inappropriate
cuty said...

Posted on Nov 24 2009 12:26 i think new moon is the best in the world but u need to watch 2012

Report as inappropriate
_Matt_1977_ said...

Posted on Nov 24 2009 11:18 I forgot to mention - [MINI-SPOILER] Anna's whole psychic thing is really overdone, especially regarding how quickly she twigs onto what Edward is about to do and how quickly that all happens. That really could have been done far better. Beautiful actress though, and nothing bad to say about her otherwise.

Report as inappropriate
_Matt_1977_ said...

Posted on Nov 24 2009 11:15 Overall:- deeply flawed in its plot, pacing and even in some of its computer generated graphics, but still enjoyable. Kristen Stewart is really beautiful.
...
The good:- Kristen Stewart is beautiful. The vampire aesthetic in this film, as in the first one, is awesome.
...
The bad:- The pacing of this film is all wrong and the plot comes across as contrived. The film starts out far too slow, almost directionless and verging on boring, then it suddenly seems to rush things and gloss over things that could have been handled with greater depth and dramatic sensitivity, like the question as to the loss of one's soul for instance. Some of the acting, especially in some of the more emotion-driven scenes, is a little wooden. Maybe it would be accurate as a representation of teenagers, but Edward Cullen is supposed to be 109 years old.
...
The ugly:- Some of the computer graphics are just terrible - particularly in the second half of the scene with the vampire with dreadlocks. Without wanting to spoil things [MINI-SPOILER ALERT]:-
...
... the creatures that you see which are supposed to look vaguely realistic - just don't. It's really awful.
...
And don't get me started on the vision of Edward and Bella practically skipping through the woods. The audience actually broke out in fits of [deeply inappropriate] laughter at that point.
...
It's really difficult to rate this film. I enjoyed it, and it is far, far better than the Vampire's Assistant. But it's still a deeply flawed film and a poor sequel to the first Twilight movie. Even so, I did enjoy it, and I nearly gave it 3 stars... but I couldn't quite bring myself to do it.

Report as inappropriate
Nikki said...

Posted on Nov 24 2009 10:52 Movie Was Brill Would devinetly urge you to go and see it x

Report as inappropriate
suki said...

Posted on Nov 23 2009 14:29 completely terrible- so disapointing as I liked the first one.

Report as inappropriate
Sophie Keay :) said...

Posted on Nov 23 2009 13:56 how anyone can call New Moon boring, i dont know! i loved twilight! but New Moon is SOOO much better, the CGI is soooo good! after reading some of the reviews im woundering if me and the people who gave it ONE star!! :O were watching the same film! i loved it sooo much and am i going again this wednesday! TEAM EDWARD!!!!!

Report as inappropriate
borago said...

Posted on Nov 23 2009 10:34 I liked Twilight but New Moon is boring. There are no connections between the scenes. The colours are artificial, I dont like the Cullens new hairstyle at all. I think that C. Hardwicke did better job.

Report as inappropriate
usman khawaja said...

Posted on Nov 23 2009 00:18 ME -U R VERY RIGHT -BLESS YOU

Report as inappropriate
Saif said...

Posted on Nov 23 2009 00:02 If this is your Idea of an average film, god help us. Good luck Time Out. Keep with the firing. You used to have soul.

Report as inappropriate
me said...

Posted on Nov 22 2009 20:53 I really don't understand how people can give New Moon 1 or 2 stars! It's a great film, if a little slow to start with, but soon gets into the swing of things. It's impossible to compare New Moon to Twilight because they are just so different to each other! The acting is brilliant and all the best parts from the book have been included - go and watch it and see for yourself, I can't wait to go and see it again!

Report as inappropriate