not good but better than the first one

Rating: 4/10 (29 November 2009)

first of all, i am a fan of the books and very disappointed by the first movie. after seeing the trailers of new moon, i have better hopes this time. i expected the changing of director probably might improve the acting, but well, obviously it is the problem of actors now i have found. the few that can act are Michael Sheen and Peter Facinelli; the rest were playing either the roles of stone or wood.
i don't know what happened to kristen's eyes? sometimes in the movie she gave me an impression that she's stoned; and sometimes the way she blinks (very rapid) looked very annoying. she seems to have only one or two expressions in the whole movie. i can't see the joy when she's with edward again and the guilt she felt towards charlie.
rob is as bad as the first movie, no improvement at all. edward in the books is funnier and "livelier", but rob, jeez, my advice is he should attend some drama classes before taking other jobs.
taylor's acting is a bit better, but whose idea was it that every words he spoke was coming from his throat? maybe he was trying to be husky but hey, the way he delivered it just seemed unnatural and pretentious.
i wonder why this production team would still give us crap with the hugely increased budget? are they putting most of the resources on cgi only? or was it because the major casting was set, can't do anything about it? with their poor acting skills, the poor performance will be in consistent no matter how much more money to put in? look at true blood and vampire diaries, they are also adaptations from books but are way way better than the twilight movies. even the songs are better.
to be fair, new moon is better than twilight (most of the credits to Michael Sheen --- don't recall anyone can act in twilight), however, i can't give it a pass. it is a four out of ten.