Critics: 'New Moon' Twaddle, Boring; Fans Go Nuts

Update: “New Moon” smashed box office records, raking in $26.27M in midnight screenings from 3,514 theaters, according to Summit Entertainment.

“Twilight” sequel “New Moon” became almost a force of nature last night (Nov. 20) as tens of thousands of ardent fans turned out for midnight shows. Although nothing can probably stop the onslaught at this point, critics around the country are mostly disappointed in the film.

A survey of major newspaper and magazine critics by TheImproper.com found a strong current of dissatisfaction with the Chris Weitz film. Even the star-crossed love triangle between Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner couldn’t salvage it, no matter how many times Taylor rips off his shirt.

A review in People magazine is typical of the reaction among professional movie critics.

“Though the battles between good and evil vampires and between vampires and wolves generate excitement, mostly Moon is a stilted, soapy supernatural romance,” it reported

“You’d have to be an already ardent Twilight fan – girls and moms, you know who you are – to get moony over this teen twaddle.

But it doesn’t end there.

Influential movie critic David Germain, who writes for the widely distributed Associated Press news service, had a similar reaction.

“What fans are about to find out is that critics, present company included, don’t care much for this adaptation of the second in Meyer’s “Twilight” series. And those fans won’t give a fig what these critics have to say about their beloved Bella and her beastie boy toys.”

As far as Twilight fans are concerned, Germain is half-right. Judging by early estimates the second in the Twilight saga series is doing explosive box office business.

“I’ve learned tonight from rival studios that Summit Entertainment’s “New Moon could break the all-time midnight opening record for a motion picture,” influential Hollywood insider Nikki Finke, writes in her deadlinehollywooddaily column.

“New Moon” opened across North America in 3,514 theaters at 12:01 AM Friday, and some studio heads were predicting that the mid-night show box offce would top all time leader “Dark Knight.”

“Dark Knight” grossed $18.4 million in 3,040 theaters when it opened at midnight in 2008. It raked in $67 million on its debut day. For its July weekend opening the film totaled $158.4 million

“’Twilight,’ had a big 49 percent drop from Friday to Saturday, and rival studios are predicting the same fall off for “New Moon” this weekend because of its appeal mainly to young women,” according to Finke.

Still, the critics have been relentless in panning the movie.

“For anyone who has not sworn the blood oath of undying allegiance to all things “Twilight,” here’s a few issues with “New Moon,” wrote Germain.

“It’s really two half moons, or two halves of a movie that don’t quite fit. The real rivalry between the werewolves and vampires is to see which species can behave with greater preposterousness and pretension.

Finally, “New Moon” is boring, eternally so.”

As for the beloved actors, Kristen and Edward, Germain has this to say:

“Stewart is on screen almost all the time, and her Bella is just a drag to be around. With her flat speech and listless presence, it’s unfathomable how two different sets of monsters could fixate so completely on her.

“All three lovers are so joyless, it’s hard to imagine why any of them would want to spend eternity together,” he concludes.

Mike LaSalle, the movie critic for the San Francisco Chronicle aptly describes “New Moon” not so much as a movie but as a cultural phenomenon, on par with, say, the hula hoop in the 1950s or walking on airplane wings in the Roaring 20s.

But purely as cinema, he thinks future movie aficionados will be scratching their heads over the hype.

“People will watch this second installment of  the Twilight saga and think, ‘What was that?’ without realizing that this movie is not really a movie. It’s an excuse for a lot of people to dream,” he writes.

Critics, of course were not all uniformly negative. Some basically see the film for what it is.

Michael O’Sullivan, a tepid middle-of-the-road critic for the Washington Post, sees redeeming value in the film.

“Look, there’s nothing terribly serious or heavy going on in ‘New Moon,’ despite a lot of nonsense in the screenplay about souls and damnation,” he writes.

“The performances are uniformly strong, especially by Stewart, who is turning into a fine young actress. Despite melodrama that, at times, is enough to induce diabetes, there’s enough wolf whistle in this sexy, scary romp to please anyone,” he writes.

Kenneth Turan, the highly influential critic for Hollywood’s hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, also accpets the movie for basically what he thinks it is – a franchise.

“ ‘New Moon,’ which has been grandly titled ‘The Twilight Saga: New Moon’ in honor of that first episode’s huge success, marks the franchise’s entrance into the self-protective, don’t rock the boat phase of its existence, which is inevitable but a bit of a shame,” he writes.

But Elizabeth Weitzman, writing for the New York Daily News, explains the widely varying reaction to the movie most succinctly.

“When it comes to the vampire world, either you’re in or you’re out,” she writes.

“If you’ve come to this movie looking for fancy filmmaking or an original voice (other than Meyer’s), well, Weitz frankly doesn’t care. You’re not his audience.

“He’s got a franchise to keep running, and he does that with workmanlike precision and minimal intrusion. Which, most likely, is just how fans will want it.”

And to think, we still have at least two more sequels to go.