The Twilight Saga: New Moon Review
Posted by Jeremy Thomas on 11.21.2009
The second entry of the Twilight saga is here...is the bark worse than the bite was?
Directed by: Chris Weitz Written by: Melissa Rosenberg
Starring: Kristen Stewart - Bella Swan Robert Pattinson - Edward Cullen Taylor Lautner - Jacob Black Billy Burke - Charlie Swan Ashley Greene - Alice Cullen Michael Sheen - Aro Rachelle Lefevre - Victoria Dakota Fanning - Jane Anna Kendrick - Jessica Stanley Michael Welch - Mike Newton Graham Greene - Harry Clearwater Jackson Rathbone - Jasper Hale Chaske Spencer - Sam Uley Peter Facinelli - Carlisle Cullen Elizabeth Reaser - Esme Cullen Kellan Lutz - Emmett Cullen Nikki Reed - Rosalie Hale Edi Gathegi - Laurent
Running Time: 130 minutes
Rated PG-13 for some violence and action.
In November of last year, teenage readers across the world had reason to cheer: Twilight made it to the big screen and was a huge success. Starring Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, the vampire teen romantic drama based on the smash hit novel by Stephanie Meyers drew mixed reviews at best from critics and derision from guys all over, but still busted out huge at the box office with a nearly seventy million dollar opening weekend. When all was said and done it had grossed nearly $380 million worldwide and put Summit Entertainment, Stewart and Pattinson officially on the map. By the time the dust had settled the DVD had broken records and Summit was moving onto the second book in the series, albeit without Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke. With The Golden Compass director Chris Weitz on the job and all of the principal cast of the first film returning, New Moon set out to build upon the fan base established from the novels and the first film, and hopefully go even higher. With principal photography on the third film Eclipse already in the can and rumors flying about filming locations for the final chapter Breaking Dawn, New Moon has received an enormous bow in over 4,000 theaters this weekend.
The film has Stewart returning as Bella Swan, the human teenager in Forks, Washington who is in love with vampire Edward Cullen (Pattinson). Bella has turned eighteen and while she is receiving gifts left and right, she doesn't want anyone to celebrate it. Age is weighing heavily on her as she is realizing that she will one day be an old woman while Edward will always be young. Despite her constant requests, Edward refuses to change her into a vampire. When a birthday party thrown by the Cullens nearly goes horribly wrong, Edward leaves with his family and Bella is completely lost. She spends her time having night terrors and seeing her now ex-boyfriend everywhere. The time is right for Jacob Black (Lautner), Bella's childhood friend, to swoop in and be a shoulder to cry on, and hopefully more. He promises that he will never hurt Bella the way that Edward did, but when Bella learns that Jacob has a secret all his own (hint: it involves fur and fangs), Bella finds herself stuck between two potential love interests and their warring species. And then there's Victoria (Lefevre), the lover of the now-dead James from the first film, who wants to kill Bella…not to mention the Volturi, an Italian cabal of ancient vampires who aren't as humane as the Cullens. Amidst this all, can Bella decide on love, or even if she wants to live?
Like Twilight, New Moon is based on the Stephanie Meyers series, and once again Melissa Rosenberg takes Meyer's novel and commits it to screenplay form. Rosenberg reportedly handed in the first draft of the script during the opening weekend of Twilight, despite the fact that Summit Entertainment had only secured rights to the film that very month. The amount of time and attention paid to the script is evident, as it seems unfocused and overly long. When it does focus, it chooses unappealing choices as the targets—namely, the relationship between Bella and Edward, or between Bella and Jacob. It goes without saying that this, a supernatural romance, is going to be focused on this love triangle but it does so while Edward is off-screen and off the continent. Without his presence, Bella is reduced to seeing his image whenever she tries to do something dangerous, like some sort of phantom alarm. The crux of the story, and the reason it fails, is because the relationship between Bella and Edward is just not interesting. The idea of a human who is in love with a vampire has been done before, even with the twist that the vampire isn't evil. Edward is a far less sympathetic character here, as he basically gives Bella the cold shoulder, albeit for a sympathetic reason, and then falls into angst-ridden plans of suicide when he believes his love is dead. Edward is the same mopey archetype that moral vampires like Angel or Nicholas Knight have set the path for, except with far less depth or humor to him. And of course, it doesn't help that he's not the smartest of heroes, having left his girlfriend behind to protect her despite the fact that there is a dangerous vampire out there who wants them both dead.
On the other hand, Bella is given a little more depth this time around. She's no longer as awkward as she was in the first film, but she is as antisocial. The excuse this time around is a broken heart, and the effect is uneven but sometimes effective. She sits on the couch and stares out the window for months, and at night has screaming dreams that sound like a girl going through drug withdrawals. Perhaps Meyers and Rosenberg are trying to make a statement about Edward's effect on the girl and the destructive habit of loving a vampire, but it doesn't always go through right. If that is the case, than apparently loving a werewolf is the equivalent of rehab. Jacob Black is certainly a sunnier character than Edward and even when he is going through his own problems, he comes off more sympathetic than Edward. The problem therein is twofold—first off, Jacob's transition from "friend and possibly more" to "another creature of the night" is badly paced and seems too sudden. Also, anyone who is in the audience knows, whether they've read the books or not, where Bella is going to end up. This film series is about teen angst and forbidden love, and there is far more that is forbidden in loving a creature that isn't alive than there is in loving something that is more alive than normal people can comprehend. That gives this relationship a played-out feeling that causes it to drag consistently.
The tired script isn't helped much by the acting, which is uneven at best. Kristen Stewart does a better job this time around than she did in Twilight. Her character has a darker path to walk, and while she doesn't always handle it well—a moment where she breaks down in the forest and curls up is particularly awkward—she carries the angst well. Tyler Lautner is good most of the time as Jacob Black, helped along by what looks like a good thirty pounds of muscle that was added from his lanky build in the first film. Lautner is warm and engaging, but when he has to do some of the heavy lifting in terms of dramatic performance, he doesn't pull it off fully. Meanwhile, Pattinson is just flat-out bland once again as Edward. His character is the least interesting and most irritating, and the young actor is woefully not up to the task of lifting the vampire above the material. Once again, the supporting cast is mostly what lifts this piece of film-making, with Billy Burke injecting more charisma than before into Bella's father and Ashley Greene and Peter Facinelli doing good work as Alice and Carlisle Cullen. Of the Volturi, Michael Sheen is the only one who gets any real focus, outside of a brief moment for Dakota Fanning as the sadistic Jane. Sheen is a talented actor who brings a lot to the role of Aro, for as much as he is in the film.
Chris Weitz is behind the camera this time around, and he certainly seems to have a better handle on the material than Catherine Hardwicke. Weitz takes what Hardwicke did that worked—shots that are beautiful but not glamorous and the relationship between Bella and her father—and keeps them intact. At the same time he has a few cinematic tricks up his sleeve and he does them well. A 360 degree shot of Bella wasting the months away is done nicely while he gets some good make-up work done on some people, particularly Emily Young, one of the werewolves' fiancée. At the same time, Weitz has no more of a handle on special effects here than Hardwicke did. The biggest special effects shots are of the werewolves, and they are perhaps the most ridiculous looking loup-garou ever committed to film. The first full-on shot looks less like a wolf than it does just a vague framework with glowing eyes and fur, and while there is a good amount of expressiveness in the faces the creatures never look remotely believable or anything but silly. Meanwhile the vampire fights are cheats, handled by blurred motion that has been done better even on TV by shows like Heroes. Weitz is also never able to keep the film on a firm course as he gets distracted this way or that before returning back to the main storyline—which, frankly, is the weakest part of the film.
Perhaps that's the most frustrating thing about this film. Much like Twilight, there are some very interesting moments. The Cullens are an interesting family of vampires, and a scene between Bella and Carlisle early on about the nature of vampires and souls is quite good. The Volturi are also quite intriguing and are talked about a few times before they show up, to make them seem important. The subplot of Victoria wanting Bella dead in vengeance for James's death is nice. And the werewolf foursome shows a strong dynamic between them, lifting the sagging middle of the film when they show. But all in all, these portions form less than a fifth of the films running time, and instead we have the far less interesting teeny-bop romance angst to make the other eighty percent-plus feel far longer than it is. By the time we get to the end, which comes to a cliffhanger whose sappiness is surpassed only by its predictability, viewers are likely to feel like they've lived far longer than Edward's 108 years themselves…most of it spent wasting time here.
The 411: An overwrought, sagging plotline that focuses too much time on the least interesting of the storylines dooms The Twilight Saga: New Moon. While fans of the Stephanie Meyers books and the first film will quite probably be pleased, anyone who didn't enjoy the first film will certainly not be entertained by this one. At only nine minutes longer than Twilight, it feels like much more and the shoddy script, uneven acting by the leads and terrible special effects take away a lot from the wasted good work by the other actors who are in much more interesting subplots. While the film may be critic-proof it is far from bullet-proof, and it doesn't take much looking to find the many holes in this inferior sequel to an already iffy franchise.
As an adult fan of the series I disagree totally with your review. The film was visually beautiful and emotionally powerful. If you are not a fan of the story, the movies are not going to convert you. If you are a fan, Chris Weitz brings the page to life just as described. Bella broods and Edward is angsty because the storyline demands it. They are excellent in their roles.
Posted By: Laura (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM
You're a chick, Laura. Of course you are going to say stupid crap like that. Face it, the books suck, the movies suck, and Stephanie Meyer should die for creating an abomination like this. Kill this virus off before it spreads too far. Do not go see this movie. And I work at a movie theater and welcome the money. This movie is flat-out terrible and the fact that it is better than Twilight does absolutely nothing for its case. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
Posted By: James (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Roger Ebert's review of this shitfest is nothing short of legendary. Look it up.
Posted By: Nick (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 12:26 AM
James, you get one internet... NAY!!! 5 internets!!! I laughed so much--the only thing that is sad, is that the original poster probably won't come back to read your wisdom.
Posted By: Regrets (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Im a twi-guy for reasons that i really don't know like so many other educated people. Im 22 years old and in medical school...i shouldn't like this series so much but i live off romance and suspense. It is true that new moon's storyline is quite boring when made into a movie but as a book its quite suspenseful. But in the movie they just skip over too many plot points and they miss so much dialogue that was in the book. They put scenes in the wrong order and i blame it on summit entertainment and melissa rosenburg. If anything, rosenburg needs to be fired. She belongs with on dexter not on an emotional series like twilight. This movie is really a movie for the fans b/c as fans there is just something that makes our minds go nuts about the series. But, twilight is just something we are so not used to that the critics just don't understand cuz the way its written is so not normal and lots of plot is left out and since the critics dont read the books they often get confused. Twilight could have really been a movie for newcomers to the phenomenon but truly it was made horribly and cheaply and catherine hardwicke's vision is terrible. I know people want to give her credit over chris, but technically she had a better storyline to deal with. She gets you hooked on edward and bella which is way too easy but she fails to do alot besides that. New moon starts pretty perfect and keeps you pretty interested in the beginning and actually goes perfect with the book. Now to critics, after the break up scene it gets boring b/c the dialogue between jacob and bella is boring. I feel like even the critics want to see more edward and bella but thats just not how the book was written. You have to go pretty much by the book though...they actually added in more action into the movie that wasn't in the book. The ending was also different but also better. Stephanie meyer never ended her books with a bang, but it was great to see the movie end with a bang. Only thing i will disagree with critics on are the actors. Kristen and rob are actually amazing. I know their acting is weird for some to see but people just don't get that they are acting like the characters in the book. Its not their fault that the book is written a certain way. Rob and kristen played edward and bella so good this time around people should have all switched to team jacob. Girls switching to team jacob just cuz the kid grew some muscles is just plain shallow and you can totally see that the connection between taylor and kstew isn't there. As a fan, i will accept critics bashing the storyline though cuz it was a little dry but i love when bella saves edward so the book is great to me. But the next two movies are way better in terms of plot and action and out of the box ideas.
Posted By: Jared (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 01:02 AM
A shitfest? Your funny. Of course if your going into the movie looking for flaws, your going to find them. But that's not why we watch movies is it? We watch movies to connect with the characters and plot, and be physically and emotionally moved by what we see. What's the point in going into a movie just to make your already bad review worse. Your swaying away from the core values of entertainment, go into a movie with an open mind, and proper knowledge of engagement. If your looking to lose yourself in the story line and be entertained, go see this movie.
Posted By: Mike (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 01:07 AM
I'M STANDING IN LINE RIGHT NOW FOR THE MOVIE!
*COMMENT POSTED FROM A BLACKBERRY
Posted By: Morgan Fisher (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 01:23 AM
Not a fan at all, but anything that gets the girlfriend out of my hair so I can watch UFC and Boxing is a welcome friend of mine. God Bless Twilight for freeing men of their duties on this glorious sports weekend!!
Posted By: Unplugged (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 02:07 AM
Bella finds herself stuck between two potential love interests and their warring species.
At least she's not involved with Chris Brown.
Posted By: Guest#8863 (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 03:51 AM
I'm a critic and couldn't stand the first movie. I've never read the books either. That being said, New Moon is solid in terms of what goes into the movie. If the story doesn't work for you, that's fine, but I feel people are bashing this because its the cool thing to do.
As far as your review, why did you have to do what other critics are doing and put "bark over bite" type comments. So over-played.
I'm not saying that this movie was great, but its not that bad. Again, this is coming from a guy who thought the first one was terrible.
Posted By: Joe Belcastro (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 07:10 AM
edward does have cool hair tho..
Posted By: seth gecko (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 07:32 AM
so glad there are real people out there who are not going for this emo vampire crap. i used to have no problems with movies portraying modern day vampires, but as soon as this shitfest hit theaters, it became a powder keg of crap, just waiting to blow up and destroy any half assed decent vampire movie....please emo kids, return to your upper class homes with your spoiled lifestyle and continue cutting yourselves because your rich "i have everything i want" lifestyle is making you miserable, and take your crappy ass mmovies with you
Posted By: finally (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 08:42 AM
hey Jared, how's your vag doin?
Posted By: Steve (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 09:24 AM
I'm glad to see a bad review of this crap, what's so great about Twilight anyway?
Posted By: Bill (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 09:51 AM
Roger Ebert's review of this shitfest is nothing short of legendary. Look it up.
Posted By: Nick (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 12:26 AM
YES, YES, YES
Posted By: NYCNYC (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM
It really is pointless to argue over these movies. People are going to love them or hate them. Someone raised a good point yesterday though. Kids are actually reading these books. How many books do kids read now? Regardless of whether you like or hate the series and by the way it sounds like the bashers never even picked up a book. At least it has people reading again.
Posted By: JM (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I am a mother of three, no teenagers yet, but I loved the Twilight Saga! I've read the books four times, I thought Twilight was good, especially for a newcomer to the series. New Moon sorta sucked, I know the book and it just seemed rushed! A lot of the supporting dialogue was removed! It had its funny moments, it's coulda been better heart wrenching moments...it was a long movie and I think they wanted to follow the same storyline of the book, but it ended up full of ???. Kristen Stewart totally sucked as Bella Swan, she needs acting classes!!!! Places where she was supposed to feel tremendous pain like her heart was ripped out she made noises like she had a bad case of constipation-come on!!!! The facial expressions she had, her monotone voice! WOW, people give her WAAAYY TOOO much credit!! The Voulteri scene with Dakota Fanning inflicting pain should have been better expalined, I spent that part of the movie explaining to my husband what was going on. The CG was good, there were a few moments the wolves looked fake, but overall it was a decent attempt. They really shoulda have taken their time since twilight raked in billions from accross the globe. My sisters and I went to see Twilight three times, I think this I'll only see the one time, I hope Eclipse is better!!! I know they just wrapped up in Vancouver.
Posted By: Geree (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Amen, Unplugged. Amen.
I read the review just to see how bad the rating would be. I'm kinda sick of vampires, myself. Book shelves, movie theaters. If they were From Dusk Til Dawn vampires, i'd be into it. Sparkling homoerotic vampires, not so much.
Posted By: Acid (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM
i just saw this with my girlfriend and i tried to like it but it was just a poorly made movie and no one can deny that
Posted By: JWS (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 12:27 PM
71 million on Friday.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 12:32 PM
I did manage to read all the books, and never understood the crazy interest in them. They are not that good, and having a girl fall mindlessly in love after a week made no sence at all. My main flaw with the first movie, was that if you never read the book, the movie did nothing to explain what it was about, or try to get new viewers interested. At best it was a made for TV movie. I'm hoping this one is a bit better, just on the fact that Jacob and his parts were 100x better than anything involving the vampires (in all the books, not just this one).
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 01:00 PM
A shitfest? Your funny. Of course if your going into the movie looking for flaws, your going to find them. But that's not why we watch movies is it? We watch movies to connect with the characters and plot, and be physically and emotionally moved by what we see. What's the point in going into a movie just to make your already bad review worse. Your swaying away from the core values of entertainment, go into a movie with an open mind, and proper knowledge of engagement. If your looking to lose yourself in the story line and be entertained, go see this movie.
Posted By: Mike (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 01:07 AM
I can't believe that your defending it. You must be either A) A girl in disguise, or your Gay. I take the second. Because i can't see any real guy defending this crap. Thank god my gf thinks twilight is annoying.
Posted By: Guest#5418 (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 01:35 PM
im still upset they tricked me into watching a chick flick by including vampires and werewolves.
Posted By: kevin (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 01:37 PM
People here claiming the film was "emotionally powerful" have issues reading facial expressions. People here claiming that the acting was "actually amazing" also can't appropriately interpret facial expressions.
When you see something that was clearly meant to be "gripping" or interesting in some form and the actors all have ridiculous looks on their faces that don't match their situation or are reciting their lines robotically, with no investment themselves...the fact that you'd get invested regardless shows a bias TOWARD the novels. Most discerning individuals would just sit there going, "This is stupid." and be unable to get "involved".
Which leads me into my comment directed toward the individual saying that if someone went into the film looking for flaws, they found them because of that. Look at it this way...if you go into a restroom and it smells terrible, are you not supposed to say anything about it if your friend told you earlier that it would smell terrible? Or if you'd been there before and it smelled terrible, but they had since redone some of it? Are you just meant to "go in with an open mind" to the extent where you negate the truth of the situation even once it becomes evident that your suspicions were correct?
Additionally, your line of logic doesn't work anyway because essentially as often as "lowered expectations" lead to people wanting to trash something...they lead to them finding that many things exceed their expectations (and, thus, people then wish to compliment them or comment upon their "superior" quality).
The acting is terrible. Perhaps defend the direction comparably, which couldn't have been worse than Twilight's unless they were trying to make it horrible.
Of course, you know you're going to get immensely ignorant individuals praising a series regardless of its evident issues. It happens with almost every series, no matter how bad the given sequel, original work or adaptation is.
As for...
"We watch movies to connect with the characters and plot, and be physically and emotionally moved by what we see."
That would be great then if New Moon had believable characters (read: actors) and a genuinely involving plot. Maybe then someone who isn't biased TOWARD the films (likely due to the books) would be able to get emotionally invested. However, as it is, with terrible acting and a flimsy plot...
There's no reason for anyone with an IQ to get involved.
So don't go trashing other people for being biased or "not getting it" when it is indeed YOU fans that don't genuinely "get it".
Your bias is blinding you toward the absolutely terrible aspects of these films.
Posted By: Ash (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 02:54 PM
These movies are made for angst ridden teens. I don't know what people are expecting when they go to them. I will not read the books because the movies were horrid. A movie should not convert me, but it shouldn't lead me astray either. You want a good, benevolent vampire book? I suggest George R R Martin's 'The Fevre Dream'.
Posted By: Rage (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 02:55 PM
Not a fan at all, but anything that gets the girlfriend out of my hair so I can watch UFC and Boxing is a welcome friend of mine. God Bless Twilight for freeing men of their duties on this glorious sports weekend!!
Posted By: Unplugged (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 02:07 AM
You know she thinks of Edward when your doing with her right?
Posted By: Plugged (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 03:16 PM
A shitfest? Your funny. Of course if your going into the movie looking for flaws, your going to find them. But that's not why we watch movies is it? We watch movies to connect with the characters and plot, and be physically and emotionally moved by what we see. What's the point in going into a movie just to make your already bad review worse. Your swaying away from the core values of entertainment, go into a movie with an open mind, and proper knowledge of engagement. If your looking to lose yourself in the story line and be entertained, go see this movie.
Posted By: Mike (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 01:07 AM
The main problem is not that the reviews are negative (just ask any TwiTard and you will hear a million positive points without any to back the claim) it's that, Twilight HAS NO PLOT. All it is, is crap.
Posted By: VAMPIRES DON'T F###ING SPARKLE (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 03:20 PM
Jared: Of course, you would you're a "Twi-guy" -- you fit right into their demographic. Twilight SUCKS and I'll tell you why. The morons over at Summit Entertainment cast a bunch of untalented teenage actors, the story is horrible, it doesn't compare to other vampire films in the sense that it meshes quasi-horror/thriller with romance and emotional sensibility instead of an all-out bloodfest preceded and superseded by strong character development and plot. New Moon's strong midnight turnout DOES NOT impress me. This series, like so many before it, will run its course and eventually die out. And, by the way, you're wrong. Most reputable critics of worthy mention DO INFACT read the books before the movie is released.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 03:23 PM
Bella finds herself stuck between two potential love interests and their warring species.
At least she's not involved with Chris Brown.
Posted By: Guest#8863 (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 03:51 AM
That should have been the tagline for the movie!
Posted By: dogpound7382 (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 04:31 PM
jeremy thomas gives us uninteresting dialect and completely misses the point with this crapfest of a review.
Final Score: 3.0
Not Recommended
Posted By: sir (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 04:32 PM
Twilight saga huh? i always thought it was the gay version of underworld which it is i hate that people mainly females think this is some new shit when there have been like 10 movies like this before but then again those other versions weren't as gay
Posted By: Ramirez (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 05:53 PM
Jared,
You are in medical school? I hope my health never depends on you for two reasons. One, you refer to yourself as a "twi-guy." Two, you express yourself terribly. I literally have no clue what your point was.
Posted By: Guest#1224 (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 05:56 PM
So i was just browsing through these comments and other reviews and now i understand its official the ones that like this series also pee sitting down
Posted By: Ramirez (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 06:00 PM
Stephanie Meyer pisses me off. She just wakes up one morning and goes "oh, I think ill be a writer!". Her writing is juvenile, and it shows she never spent much time honing craft. Its what separates her from others like Rowling. Paolini is even better, and he sucks too.
Posted By: YepYep (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 06:33 PM
Anything above a 0 for this movie is fail
Posted By: Guest#3191 (Guest) on November 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM
bashing it is the cool thing to do? i disagree, apparently watching it is the cool thing to do, i find it funny that 95% of the people who are fans now never heard of twilight before the movie came and now all of a sudden their fans, not to mention girls and women have a very unhealthy obession with the movie, i had a friend a mine who is a girl threaten to NOT be my friend anymore just because i didnt like the movie
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 01:26 PM
i bet most of the ticket were bought by teenages
Posted By: Endy (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 12:00 AM
I'd give it a 7.5 or an 8.
New Moon is a book mostly about angst with a touch of werewolves. And, there's a lot of detail in between, as well as a lot of whining.
The movie did a nice job getting the story across; Bella and Edward are ridiculously, over-the-top in love with each other. The Volturi are the vampire governing force, and the werewolf legend still exists.
My only complaint is that the cuts from scene to scene were too quick with little explanation for the jump.
Posted By: Randy M. (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 09:56 AM
If anything, Meyer should motivate others to write their own books. Most of us have played enough games, read enough books, and read enough comics/manga to be able to piece something together at the least.
But we never really do for some reason. I had a whole plot planned out but never really got around to finishing it and then got a hard drive crash losing everything I did have. I should just keep a copy of Twilight and Angels&Demons to motivate me. Then again that might not work since I didn't write for such a retarded audience. It's much harder to craft something akin to Tokien, King, Salinger, Dostoevsky, Heller or any other actually interesting writer, than it is to take advantage of teenage and tween girls.
Posted By: Guest#2619 (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 10:41 AM
To have anyone other than a chick or a gay male (not that there's anything wrong with that) is pointless. You are not the target demographic (neither am I) so your review can't be trusted by those seeking a relevant opinion.
Posted By: demOcratic (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Educated comments here very intellectual. Problem is for all those that seem to be experts on vampires and werewolves how many ever truly have seen one outside of their favorite movie or dare I say BOOK that you read. Its all in what you like and appeals to you. Thats what a writer tries to do when telling a story. if it didn't pull you in fine they didn't succeed. Problem is this writer succeeded, it seems millions of times over with the fans, twitards and yes critics; because the real critics had to have read the book so as to not sound like an ass if asked to back up their opinion. Are the movies great works of art? Not really. Is it worth the time to tear it down? Not really but, if you have time to kill have at it. Just know for all the complaining you have two more movies plus dvd releases coming. Suck it up the series isn't going any where but, people and life would be boring without a lil debate back and forth. This opening weekend all but spit in the face of critics. I say save "I told you so's" for the next movie just in case it bombs because it is if I remember gonna try to throw its hat in with the what summer box office season.....that will be a test. Til then this difference of opinion won't be all that healthy given you will be repeating yourself around what Feb I guess with the DVD comes out.
Posted By: Guest#5568 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM