Grossly Underrated

Rating: 6/10 (22 March 2010)

No, this is not the greatest movie ever made. Yes, some of the lead actors do horrible jobs (I shan't name names, you can figure that one out for yourself)- though I blame the original director more for that for poor casting in Twilight. The editing and mise-en-scene are a bit obvious at times as well and they take full advantage of marketing Lautner's new body.
HOWEVER, I believe it's also grossly underrated. Based on other posts on this site I was actually dreading watching it- I thought it was going to be another "Twilight". But based on the script and some of the young actors he was given, Chris Weitz did an amazing job; far, far, faaaar better than the former director.
The cinematography is improved (much warmer and simply more pleasant to look at overall as opposed to the grey, cold colors from the first film), he elicited better performances from all the actors, even the bad performances were markedly improved, and he seems to have put more thought into filming the movie overall (as opposed to Hardwick who seemed to only want to get across the cheesiest, clichÃ©, chick-flicky aspects of the series...).
Even the script is improved- it covers more of the book and gives the actors better material to work with.
As formerly stated, this is not a fantastic film, but it's not sub-par either, and it's doesn't deserved below a 5 or 6/10 rating overall in my honest opinion. It's an average, albeit very engaging film- worth seeing if only to develop your own opinions on it.