Review: New Moon Is Either Just Fine or Way Mopey, Depending On Who You Are grade C+

[ken]

Should you go see New Moon? Does it matter what we say? You're going to see New Moon. But if you have any lingering doubts about the second film in The Twilight Saga, we're here to help. Below is a handy clip 'n' save chart matching your own personality with a customized review of the most hyped film of the year.

Find the category that best matches you, and the truth about New Moon will follow:

You're a Superfan! You collapsed into a jellylike mass when R.Pattz first appeared in Twilight—or you are Ted Casablanca:

This film will not disappoint. But then again, as long as Robert Pattinson is present, it'd be hard for any film to let you down. You won't get a ton of Rob, though, as his chaste vampire Edward Cullen appears mostly as a wispy cloud of distant romance, whining little more than "pleeeease" while his dear heartbroken Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) mopes and experiments with leather-jacketed danger.

That said, the climax does involve Pattz going shirtless. And the very end of the movie will likely make you collapse into a jellylike mass all over again. If you're a drooling Rob fan, that should keep you atremble through the debut of the third film, Eclipse, next summer.

YOUR GRADE: A-

________

You're Kind of a Fan! First movie surprised you, and now you're hooked.

If it was Pattinson that first lured you in, you run the risk of being lured back out, unless you can get equally excited about shirtless 17-year-old jailbait.

The real stars of this movie are Jacob's (or rather, Taylor Lautner's) ridiculously shaped pecs. They have about as much acting ability as Pattz himself, whose diction disintegrates in direct proportion to his broken, bloodless heart.

However, if it's Stewart's performance that first impressed you, you won't be let down. She's as bewildered and slack-jawed as ever, now new and improved thanks to suicidal tendencies.

YOUR GRADE: B-

________

You're Team Stephenie! You love the books, but the first movie did nothing for you.

If you fixate on funny things like plot and character—in movies, anyway—too bad. Edward's torture over a perceived lack of "soul" translates into a vague Marlon Brando impression for Pattinson. At one point he crushes a phone, and things get exciting for a second.

As important and interesting as side characters like the Volturi are in Stephenie Meyer's literary universe, they get to chew very little scenery this go-around.

Dakota Fanning whips into the picture, all schoolgirl braids and red-eyed adolescent menace, but she barely sticks around long enough to murmur the word pain. And the icy wit of seasoned British actors like Michael Sheen is largely wasted.

But other new characters get plenty of time to play onscreen, and even book fans should be happy with the well-cast wolf pack. They're all fangs and snickers, and they steal every scene they're in.

YOUR GRADE: C

________

You're Just a Regular Person! You don't care about Twilight either way, but usually go see whatever big movies are out.

Well, here's the synopsis: Vampire Edward dumps girlfriend Bella, and she sits in a room for several months, for reasons that are clear only to readers of the Twilight novels. (Director Chris Weitz seems to think every teenage girl goes catatonic for three or four months after a breakup, and also that prolonged moping makes for good cinema.)

Finally, the girl toys around with a boy named Jacob, who seems just fine until he starts baying in the moonlight. And waxing forth about how dangerous he is. Long lectures follow about who will be able to protect who.

Edward finally figures out he was wrong to leave Bella, and high drama ensues, full of slow motion and shirtlessness.

Now, one of the major problems here is that neither Weitz nor Pattinson sells us on what's so dreamy about this cranberry-lipped, nearly mute Edward Cullen guy. Not when there's a pliant, shirtless young werewolf waiting to make Bella his princess. (Hi, superfan. We know you get it.)

The special effects are fine, the music is great and, like the first installment, New Moon has an intimate, indie feel. The cinematography and effects have improved over Twilight, but unless moping counts as an event for you, there may not be enough whizbang to fulfill expectations as an "event film."

YOUR GRADE: C-

Okay you guys who have seen the movie give us your thoughts.

[xrnzaaas]

"full of slow motion and shirtlessness."
On male or female side?

Didn't see the first movie and I most certainly don't plan on watching the sequel either.

[ken]

The Box Office Hit Is Attracting Both Girls and 'Twilight Moms'
By DAN HARRIS

Nov. 23, 2009—

"The Twilight Saga: New Moon" features long, steamy, smoldering gazes by handsome, shirtless young men who are vampires or werewolves. Despite those lingering, lustful looks the film includes only four kisses and not a single sex scene.

Women and girls, who made up 80 percent of the opening weekend audience, said that is one reason "The Twilight Saga" appeals to them.

"I actually like that, the fact that they don't have bedroom scenes or anything," Gabrielle Rivera, 15, said.

Lisa Gradie, who has read all of the "Twilight" books, said she loves it "because the movie is so much about tension, and so much about Bella and Edward and they can't get together, so the kind of downplayed sexual tension definitely adds to the movie because you're just waiting for something to happen."

"The Twilight Saga" stands in stark contrast to other vampire movies or series. From Bela Lugosi to HBO's "True Blood," vampires are most often associated with the libido.

"Because you select your prey &i t's almost like a romantic notion in that respect. & It's not like you are going to be killed, it's like you are going to be dated," Joe Garden, author of "The New Vampire's Handbook," said.

Clearly the storyline is working. In the first three days, t the box office raked in $140.7 million, according to studio estimates. That places "New Moon" third behind "The Dark Knight" and "Spider-Man 3" on the highest-earning films for an opening weekend on the domestic charts.

The movies are based on the "Twilight" books, written by Stephanie Meyer. Meyer, a Mormon, wrote her lead character, Edward, to be a chaste and noble protector of his love interest, Bella.

'Twilight Moms'

This may explain why the movie is a hit among so-called "Twilight Moms" who have described Edward as "the perfect man."

There is a "Twilight Mom" Web site complete with an online store where moms across the country can buy "Twilight Mom" shirts, bags or aprons.

"Hollywood had no idea they were roping in the older gals when they were aiming for the younger ones," Tom O'Neil, a senior editor at In Touch Weekly, said. "The reason they are getting this response is that all these 'Twilight Moms' are yearning for love they are not getting at home, so 'Twilight Dads' out there, pay attention."

For the next "Twilight" installment, if moviemakers want to attract "Twilight Dads" and "Twilight Boys," they may have to revert to the more lusty vampires.

But after raking in more than $69.6 million last year and $140 million over its opening weekend this year, they might not want to change the storyline at all.

[petruccio]

One of my female friends finally dragged me to see this yesterday *sigh*...I was hoping to put it off until the DVD

Suprisingly, it's not actually a horrid movie...I enjoyed the film and the director managed to stay amazingly close to the storyline and plot points from Meyer's book (unlike the latest directors of the "Harry Potter" films).

The biggest surprise for me was that Robert Pattinson's acting (I use that term generously) has managed to get even worse. After seeing him in the first film, I honestly did NOT think that was even possible. I mean...where the hell do you go after "awful" except up....right? Who knew it could get even worse?

He plays "Edward" like a simpering, monotone, mumbling, grunting fool...

Taylor Lautner, at 17, is already displaying much more acting potential, and easily upstages Pattinson when they share the screen...

And before you say it...it's not about being shirtless...though I'm sure all his female fans don't mind that a bit

It's about the fact that Lautner is comfortable on the screen and seems to be able to deliver his lines with passion and feeling, without it seeming "forced"...while Pattinson, on the other hand, seems only know one way to delilver lines, and seems "forced" in almost every scene

That's my two cents