Only to be enjoyed by tween girls and die-hard fans.

Rating: 4/10 (30 November 2009)

Die-hard fans of the Twilight novels and movies won't be reading this review. Or at least, they are not my target demographic. People reading this review are probably like me - guys - and maybe girls - who haven't read the series of novels written by Stephanie Meyer and who watch the films from a very neutral point of view. We watch these movies precisely as stand-alone films, and not as adaptations of our favorite novels featuring our favorite characters and our favorite scenes. I don't know how well adapted Twilight was - all I know it was a very mediocre motion picture -, which means I haven't watched New Moon with specific expectations. All I wanted was to watch something mildly entertaining and hopefully better than the last installment.
Well, now that I have watched the film, all I can say is that, as a professionally-produced motion picture, NOT as an adaptation of some novel I have not read, New Moon is mediocre. Not good, certainly not god-awful, but just painfully mediocre.
If the performances in Twilight were just bearable, then the ones in New Moon are simply god-awful. Although the romance between Bella and Edward wasn't particularly credible in the first movie, at least there was some palpable chemistry between the lead actors that helped the audience relate to their supposed love - a kind of chemistry that is unfortunately absent in this film. And it's not only that - Robert Pattinson plays Edward like a mannequin and appears for about 20% of the movie's running time, and Stewart's Bella is nothing more than a useless, crying girl who doesn't seem to know how to live without a man by her side. If Twilight showed that women could be chauvinistic too, then New Moon conveys a very backward, old-fashioned and stupid view of love and relationships.
At least some of the actors are competent. Taylor Lautner's Jacob is a thousand times more charismatic, interesting and lively than Edward, which means a romance between himself and Bella would be much more satisfying both character-wise and plot-wise. (I somehow sense this won't be the case, though.) I'm not saying Lautner is a good actor, but at least he's got some screen presence and tries to develop his character more than the stiffer-than-a-tree Pattinson. Secondary actors are not very important, the only standout being the great Michael Sheen, who is suitably disturbing and scary as the leader of the vampire royalty.
Speaking of vampires - I have no clue why Meyer decided to call this overly-sentimental and whining monsters "vampires". True, they do drink blood and are immortal, but they also lack fangs, screen presence, charisma and, most importantly, they are not scary at all. But don't get me started on the most laughable concept Meyer introduced to the vampire mythos - that of the creatures shining or sparkling when exposed to light. Why the hell would this make sense? It looks laughable on screen - and I'm pretty sure it doesn't fare any better on the written page - and it makes these so-called "vampires" look even more ridiculous. Actually, James Berardinelli, one of my favorite on-line critics, has a perfect name for these guys: VINO. (Vampires In Name Only.) At least the movie looks better than its predecessor, although that doesn't mean it's got a more competent director in the form of Chris Weitz. (I suspect it's got more to do with budget.) Special effects are OK, I guess - the wolf pack - especially Jacob - look good when in animal form, and some of the blue screen work is pretty decent. Certainly nothing groundbreaking - but who cares? It's not like all the tween girls and moms who have allowed the movie to break a gazzillion box office records care about the action or the visual effects. All they want is to see their favorite characters on screen reciting some awful dialogue - most of which was extracted verbatim from Meyer's novel - and showing off their biceps. I admit it was pretty amusing to see all the hormonal girls shouting in the middle of the movie theatre every time Jacob took out his shirt and started posing like a gay porn star.
Like I said in the beginning, this review is for those who know very little about the Twilight saga - "Twi-hards" certainly won't care about what I have to say, nor will they care about the lackluster screenplay, the mediocre special effects or the horrible acting. The thing is, movies are supposed to be for everyone, something that becomes even more poignant when talking about adaptations - the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films are as successful as they are because they can be enjoyed by die-hard fans and newbies alike. Sadly, the same cannot be said about the Twilight films. Hopefully, this will change once we get to see David Slade's vision of Meyer's story - I'm pretty sure a decent director like him will at least try to do something remotely interesting with this set of - at least until now - boring and brooding characters.