New Moon

Yes, I saw "New Moon (2009)," the newest addition to the Twilight Family. Let's just get that out in the open right here and now. And I wasn't dragged to it. Sure, it was free for me, and that's probably why I went. But I still went of my own accord and in a sober state of mind. And really, honestly? I enjoyed it. It was a wonderful comedy full of off the wall slapstick antics and pointless teenage drama bullshit, sprinkled throughout with delightful special effects that were eye-catching and believable.

Oh. It wasn't a comedy?

Well, then it was just really, really, really stupid. But that's not to say that it was terrible by any means. I'm not going to be one of those IMDb trolls that claims that it was the worst movie ever made and gives it a 1-star rating under four different account names (Ahem...) Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner were fine, if over dramatic (which is what the roles call for). Their acting was believable and not quite as off-putting as I expected. By their own admission (in an Entertainment Weekly article), this movie isn't about the acting. It's all about appearances. Still, though, they tried and displayed at least a somewhat vast range of expressions. The most laughable part was Kristen Stewart's acting. I've heard people say that she's a great actress, but I just don't see it. Ever. And I really want to, for a number of reasons. But it just isn't there. Maybe she's just not trying, but every emotion that she's supposed to have seems the same. There was literally no difference in her tone between begging Edward not to leave her and walking away from a motorcycle gang, expressing the "rush" that she felt from the danger. I just don't know how that's passable or reasonable at all. I'm not an actor, though, so I guess I can't talk too much shit.

And I don't want to gripe ad nauseam about the story line. There were plot holes and very clear issues with the display of the passing of time, but in terms of what people actually go to this movie for, that's secondary. It's all about appearances. So, why then, do the werewolves look like cartoon characters? Wikipedia lists the estimated budget for this movie to be between $50 and $70 million. The actors had to be paid, I guess, along with the rest of the crew, but certainly a substantial part of the budget was dedication to visual effects. Despite this, I'm almost positive that everyone in the sold-out theater this morning laughed when the werewolves finally showed up. Let's look at another werewolf flick just for a second. "Dog Soldiers (2002)" is a British Horror movie about a group of soldiers dropped into a forest infested with a family of werewolves. The creatures in this movie look amazing, and are probably the best that I've seen in almost any movie. And yet - gasp! - they weren't created using CGI. To top it all of, all sources indicate that this was a low budget movie, though none can give an exact figure. In any case, it didn't come close to the $70 mil mark. It seems like the creative geniuses behind the second of fifteen films in this Saga could have saved themselves a lot of money by going for a more natural look. Sure, there might have been some functional issues, like the werewolves fighting, but CGI could have been used a little more sparingly.

Verdict: Not Stoked.I feel as though at this point I've droned on far too long for a Twilight movie. It wasn't great, and it wasn't terrible. It was just a money-making, appearance driven feature that had nothing to say. But god dammit am I envious of that Vampire complexion. If I could be pale and glittery at the same time, I think I'd be okay with my life.