NEW MOON WAS SO FUCKING GOOD I AM SO READY TO SEE IT THREE MORE TIMES
It is just BEYOND my comprehension how New Moon is currently rated at a 30% on Rotten Tomatoes and the previous movie is at a 49%. The first movie was one of the biggest disappointments of all time and almost everyone I've spoken to about it agrees that it was bad and the acting was painful to watch. The only person I can think of (that I've spoken to) that actually liked the first movie was my boss, Carol. And she's like sixty or something and really into vampires. Now let's think about this, it is possible that I liked New Moon so much more than the first because I didn't view the movie immediately after the book (though, I did take notice of added scenes, added lines, change in order of events, etcetera) but New Moon, as a whole, was so much better than Twilight that it's almost incomparable.
I mean, let's be honest, what better movie for Kristen Stewart to act in than a movie where the director tells her that the love of her life has dumped her, does not want her, and she should plan on "acting" miserable for the entirety of the movie. She probably didn't even have to practice facial expressions in the mirror, she just walked on set and acted like herself. Kristen Stewart and Rob Pattinson are still bad actors, no doubt about it, but I detected a hint of improvement in this movie. It wasn't completely grueling to watch them -- though, that might not be saying much seeing as Pattinson was absent for most of the movie and Kristen was playing herself pretty much.
What I don't understand is why the majority of critics think New Moon is significantly worse than the first movie. Usually, when I read bad reviews on movies I like I can, for the most part, understand their point of view or where they're coming from. A lot of the reviews on New Moon were just annoying to read, tbh. It seemed like every bad reviewer was adamant about establishing their utter distaste towards the Quileute (wolf) boys always walking around shirtless in the film like this was the director's main intention. Like, she sat down with the writers or whatever and declared first and foremost that the Quileute boys had to be half naked or there wouldn't be a movie.
- "So much screen time is spent on shirtless gym-body boys that the intent of the filmmakers seems to be in establishing "impotent beefcake" as a new subgenre for its target audience of traditionally horse-obsessed tween girls." -- Cole Smithey
"Its defects include cumbersome dialogue and ludicrous plotting - its lack of sophistication is total - but who's going to notice with all those shirtless wolf-men flexing their pecs?" -- Rossiter Drake- "Given Pattinson’s ascension to pinup star as well as the pack of shirtless hunks filling out this latest film’s supporting cast, it’s safe to amend that statement to read that New Moon is a love story first and a male-model calendar second." -- Matt Brunson
Commencing huge faggot mode, but everyone that has read the book(s) knows that Jake's body (+ the rest of the boys) runs at 108 degrees and since their clothes practically explode when they phase into their wolf form it's kind of convenient for them to only wear shorts. I'm almost positive Jake even says something to Bella about his body temperature being so high. Having the Quileute boys walk around shirtless for most of the movie wasn't a ploy to lure in (pre)teen girls, it was simply what was written in the book. Though, don't get me wrong, I'm sure the director knew that sticking to this minor detail would be beneficial.
Kristen (Bella) was more morose in Twilight than she was in New Moon when it's supposed to be the other way around. Even when she was moping around in NM she seemed more alive than in Twilight when she was supposed to be head over heals in love. The bursts of intentional / unintentional humor (in NM) were greatly appreciated and a breath of fresh air after the last movie. I thought that might have gained a few points with people who thought this movie was a bore buttttttttt I guess not.
There was one quote I found that summed up my general, um, feelings, I guess, towards most of the reviews I read and I will provide it here: "Almost everything that the reviewer did not like about the movie, from the shirtless Jacob to the unresolved ending and including Stewart's moping about can mostly be attributed to the book. Very few comments are about the movie itself; I only saw some comments on the musical score and performances. The movie is pretty faithful to the book, so it just seems that the story itself is not the liking of the reviewer, rather than the movie. "
IDKKKK, I think Twilight fans will love this movie and non Twilight fans will either hate it or think it's ehhh, okay. I did attend the midnight viewing by a stroke of luck (my friend had an extra ticket) and as I waited two hours (longest two hours of my life) for the movie to begin I had a lil chat*~ with my friend's 28 year old sister. I'm not exactly sure if she has read the books (I'm going to assume yes) but she had said something like, "I didn't think the first movie was terrible," I highly disagree as we all know, "..but it wasn't good. It was, it was bad." After New Moon, however, I turned to her and all she had to say was, "IT WAS AWESOME."
I did think that parts of New Moon were a little rushed, but it was nowhere near how noticeable it was in Twilight. Um, what else... Some people were complaining about the CGI wolves. I will admit that when I saw the first wolf I was terribly worried because I wasn't sure if it looked believable, but as the movie progressed and I saw more of the wolves I was satisfied. I mean, LOL they were no I Am Legend CGI.
*shudders*
EDIT: Also, can I get a HELL YES to the increase in their budget? It is such a palpable difference that it blows my mind. Just take one look at sparkly skinned Edward in Twilight and dazzling, diamond-like Edward in New Moon and you'll know what I'm talking about.