Let me start by saying that I was not a huge fan of the first film, for a myriad of reasons, so my expectations for this installment were rather low. With a new director attached, one that had some more experience and a better view of the story in my opinion, this helped bump those expectations up a bit. Granted, no matter who the director was this film, and its successors, was bound to make millions upon millions of dollars, which it did: the third largest film opening ever, behind only "The Dark Knight" ($158 million) and "Spiderman 3" ($151 million). I will admit that this film was leaps and bounds better than the first film, but "New Moon" still isn't quite to the level it should be.
One of complaints about "Twilight" was the lack of quality computer graphics. "Twilight" had a budget of about $30 million and I think they did what they could with what they had. Enter "New Moon" and it's $80 million budget (approximately). The animation of the wolves was just OK, nothing ground breaking. I would like to have seen a bit more money put towards that aspect of the film, but let's face it...the demographic of this film is not too concerned with CG, so I can overlook that.
I'm convinced that Robert Pattinson has a permanent case of constipation. He consistently has a look of pain and discomfort on his face and it gets rather annoying. He really does try though, his work is getting better, but he's got a ways to go. Kristen Stewart is just plain bad...flat out. First, she needs to make a better effort to not stare at Taylor Lautner's chest the entire time they are on screen together (ladies, I don't want to hear about how hot he his. Her job is to act, not be distracted). That being said, the two had much better chemistry than the previous film and I can only hope that continues to grow. Lautner was decent and I think given a bit of time, he'll be a decent actor. The one that stole the show for me, yet again, is Billy Burke; he's a great actor and quite under-rated. Too bad Michael Sheen and his entourage weren't in the film more, because they were all great!
There were some great technical moments in the film as well. At times, the camera work was superb, some great panning shots and some unique angles. At the same time, the way they chose to "pass time" was kind of an easy was out and left me a bit nauseated. There were a couple of cool editing moments thrown in as well.
All in all, the film was much better that the first installment and I hope the budget continues to grow. I am excited to see what David Slade does with the "Eclipse" film and hope he brings a new vision to the film. It's not the most fast paced film out there, but it's enough to hold your attention. However, the lack of decent acting throughout the film and some rather cheesy moments keep me from rating the film higher.
Grade: C+