Review of The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009) by Johanna H — 09 Sep 2013

It's Sharkboy and Cedric Diggory fighting over the sister from "Zathura", and it's all directed by the guy who did "The Golden Compass", so this is either the ultimate children's action crossover or a film that's actually worse than the ultimate children's action crossover I just outlined. No, this film isn't that bad, but I reckon this film all but settles the debate over whether or not teenagers are dumber than pre-teens, because at least those kiddier films that I referenced earlier lacked the pretense to being above goofy, with the "Harry Potter" films that Robert Pattinson was in being pretty doggone good. Well, to be fair, I don't exactly know how kid-friendly something like "The Goblet of Fire" is, because that did get kind of brutal, and ended up running over two-and-a-half hours, a length that is too long for kids, but apparently too short for teenagers, because even though this film isn't but 130 minutes, it just feels like an eternity. Okay, again, I don't know if this film is quite that bad, because it's mainly so watered down that Chris Weitz took his polar bear fight from "The Golden Compass" and made it into an even duller werewolf fight, which you would think would seem more hardcore than big ol' polar bears smacking each other around, but is most definitely not when you consider that an armored polar bear voiced by Ian McKellen automatically knocks something up the awesome meter a couple of notches, and that the wolves in this film look pretty bad. Well, there's $50 million that could have gone to some real-life Native American family or something, which is a shame, because according to this film, what true Americans there are left are so poor that they have to make the pressing decision to purchase either shirts or top-notch exercise equipment. Come to think of it, this film doesn't make being an American seem that bad, because if they're not running a casino or, well, dead, they're werewolves with Adonis-like bodies, except they apparently have to settle for Kristen Stewart, and not even without duking it out with blasted vampires. No, she's kind of cute, just not quite attractive enough to inspire an "Underworld" installment in her backyard, and yet, that's among the least of this film's questionable aspects, which isn't to say that there aren't undeniable strengths to this film, some of which actually top their counterparts from the mediocre, but still generally superior predecessor.

The film is ultimately an inferior sequel on the whole, but there are some distinct areas in which this effort steps things up, particularly when it comes to music, at least up to a point, because even though this film's song soundtrack is better than that of its predecessor, as well as with some decent beats, it's still pretty hit-or-miss and overly teeny, as opposed to the more frequently enjoyable and tasteful original efforts by the justly beloved Alexandre Desplat, whose score is anything but all that unique, but flavors up both the whimsy and classical sharpness found in Carter Burwell's decent score for the last film, while proving to be endearing and complimentary to the artistry of this messy film by its own right. About as complimentary to what artistic integrity this lazy misfire is Javier Aguirresarobe's cinematography, which lacks the ice-cold color that made the visual style of the previous film relatively distinguished, but more-or-less for the better, as this film's visual style is cleaner, more well-defined and around strikingly good-looking, with the occasional nifty camera trick that flavors up action sequences which may be technically questionable (Seriously, what is up with these effects?), but remain surprisingly well-choreographed and tightly well-staged, sometimes to a near-awesome point, you know, whenever this bland flick finally gets around to action, that is. At least on a stylistic level, this film not only tops its predecessor, but may very well be near-excellent, and I hate saying that, because this film is just so faulty when it comes to substance, though not to where I can completely disregard what is, in fact, done right, and not just within the artistic value. Quite frankly, what ultimately destroys this film is its being so fall-flat when it comes to writing and, in some ways, acting, because when it comes to direction, while Chris Weitz's under-inspired areas hardly help the film from its swift decent into mediocrity, he's a stronger director than this film deserves, making some stylish plays with narrative that keep the dullness that haunted 2008's "Twilight" at bay, and sometimes even emphasizes the right heights in intrigue at the right time in order to breathe life into a certain degree of tension. The film is too dramatically sloppy to ever be all that compelling, but really, as much as it bothers me to admit this, the first act is pretty decent, and the final act isn't too shabby either, regardless of a lame stinger ending, and while the body which rests between these highlights slips far enough in compellingness for mediocrity to ultimately stand supreme, the fact of the matter is that there are, in fact, relative high points in this effort of generally rather low quality that give you glimpses of a better film, the vision of which rarely fades too much, due to the final product's boasting yet another aspect missing from the predecessor: ambition. Granted, the feeling of ambition that Weitz projects emphasizes the flaws to the point of making the final product more grating than the predecessor that was practically luckily too lazy to be all that frustrating, but there's an almost endearing charm to the heart that goes into this shamefully misguided project, and whose sometimes being paid off with undeniable strengths leaves the film to come close to being saved as decent. Of course, the final product can't even reach the level of its mediocre predecessor, because even though this project boasts some degree of potential, often reflected by undeniable strengths, what it does wrong it does so wrong that it undercuts the highlights and ultimately crafts quite the fall-flat, even trite film.

Sure, 2008's "Twilight" was formulaic something fierce when it came to plotting, but its story concept still had a certain freshness that, as you can imagine, expires with this sequel, thus making it more difficult to ignore the genericism, which is even more considerable this time around, where plotting hits trope, upon trope, upon trope, upon trope, until predictability ensues, and firmly, at least until things get to be too inconsistent for you to figure out what's going on, even in a tone that perhaps isn't as all over the place as the tone of the predecessor, but remains almost as inconsistent as plotting. The film forces in a few subplots and jars between story layers, often to a degree that is so sloppy that it is unreal, convolutes an overblown narrative and goes primarily triggered by the film's being way too bloated for its own good, achieving an unreasonable length of 130 minutes through excess material and filler that, before too long, get to be near-exhaustingly repetitious, then continue to drive the film's pacing down, until monotony is hit, then aimlessness so numbing that blandness starts to cut through the somewhat lively atmosphere, and leaves you to meditate upon the other writing flaws, of which there are so very, very many. Screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg returns as an interpreter of Stephanie Meyer's questionable vision, and let me tell you, her efforts are hardly any sharper than the efforts of Meyer, tossing in the occasional piece of comic relief that is gratingly fall-flat ("Face Punch", the parody of dumb action films that this film makes for some reason, is such a bafflingly forced, unsubtle and fall-flat comic concept that it should be referred to in film schools as a prime example of how you do not write a piece of satirical comic relief), as well as a wealth of weak dialogue pieces whose many particular lowlights are anything from trite to just about sickeningly cornball to the point of being impossible to sell for people turning in good performances, let alone most of the performances in this film. Now, the film offers a few pretty good performances from underused talents, such as the charismatic Billy Burke, rather underappreciated Robert Pattinson, and near-show-stealingly effective Michael Sheen, found only as a late-minute antagonist in the final act, but on the whole, if the performances aren't mediocre, or at least underwritten, they're nearly challenging to watch, with leading lady Kristen Stewart particularly falling flat in a bland, sometimes glaringly faulty lead performance that goes cleansed of the charisma that could have stood a chance of saving this questionable character melodrama. Perhaps the strongest performance in this film is by director Chris Weitz, and you'd figure that a relatively upstanding directorial performance would be enough to save a film, but for every competent aspect to this film's storytelling, there is an incompetent element that Weitz does little to obscure, arguably because he realizes that this story was never to make all that endearing of a drama. The predecessor's story concept wasn't that strong, and its underwhelmingness sealed the final product's fate as a mediocre misfire, but with this installment's story, Stephanie Meyer really drops the ball, producing a thin conflict behind a trite story that has to resort to crowbarred plot beats and manufactured drama in order to forcibly shove its progress along, and breathe some life into characters who are ultimately uninteresting, maybe even unlikable. If there are compelling moments in this film, they're the products of Weitz trying just so hard to make something out a tremendously underwhelming story concept that he actually ends up emphasizing the shortcomings that he cannot obscure, and make no mistake, there are plenty of shortcomings that are all but impossible deny, not necessarily to the point of driving this film into the contempt that plenty of people rather understandably hold for it, but certainly to the point of driving the final product almost to that point, and by extension, deep enough into mediocrity to fall flat as a messy misfire.

When this "new" venture is done, you're left with a film whose tasteful score work, handsome cinematography, excellent action sequences and sometimes reasonably effective direction top their counterparts found in the generally superior, but still mediocre predecessor, and, when joined by a certain degree of charming ambition, all but save the final product as decent by its own right, but the flaws - which range from a trite, uneven and aimlessly overdrawn narrative, to cornball writing, questionable acting and an all around thoroughly uncompelling story concept - are too substantial for "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" to drift too far away from contempt, and stand a chance of evading near-overwhelming mediocrity.

2/5 - Weak.