Either you're a huge fan of the 'Twilight' series or you're not: Based on critics' reviews, the new film, 'The Twilight Saga: New Moon,' is unlikely to convert any non-believers. Not when critics like Roger Ebert groan, "Sitting through this experience is like driving a pickup in low gear though a sullen sea of Brylcreem." Ouch!

Director Chris Weitz takes the reins from 'Twilight' director Catherine Hardwicke; Without the passion for her characters and her more indie approach, many critics feel that the sequel simply falls flat. Some, however, prefer Weitz's more-polished style ... and then there are those who simply hated both films and probably can't tell the difference.

Non-fans cite the slow-pace ("The uninitiated might find that the film's deliberately unhurried 130-minute running time feels like a Cullen clan eternity," says the Hollywood Reporter). But most agree that the addition of werewolves to the saga livens up the proceedings. Whether you think endless shots of Taylor Lautner's bare torso are sigh-worthy or just silly probably depends on whether you count yourself a member of Team Jacob.

But hey, who needs critics, right? If what those grumpy Guses say matters to you, check out their reviews after the jump. Either you're a huge fan of the 'Twilight' series or you're not: Based on critics' reviews, the new film, 'The Twilight Saga: New Moon,' is unlikely to convert any non-believers. Not when critics like Roger Ebert groan, "Sitting through this experience is like driving a pickup in low gear though a sullen sea of Brylcreem." Ouch!

Director Chris Weitz takes the reins from 'Twilight' director Catherine Hardwicke; Without the passion for her characters and her more indie approach, many critics feel that the sequel simply falls flat. Some, however, prefer Weitz's more-polished style ... and then there are those who simply hated both films and probably can't tell the difference.

Non-fans cite the slow-pace ("The uninitiated might find that the film's deliberately unhurried 130-minute running time feels like a Cullen clan eternity," says the Hollywood Reporter). But most agree that the addition of werewolves to the saga livens up the proceedings. Whether you think endless shots of Taylor Lautner's bare torso are sigh-worthy or just silly probably depends on whether you count yourself a member of Team Jacob.

But hey, who needs critics, right? If what those grumpy Guses say matters to you, check out their reviews below.

Roger Ebert: "Takes the tepid achievement of 'Twilight,' guts it, and leaves it for undead. You know you're in trouble with a sequel when the word of mouth advises you to see the first movie twice instead. Long opening stretches of this film make utterly no sense unless you walk in knowing the first film, and hopefully both Stephanie Meyer novels, by heart ... Sitting through this experience is like driving a pickup in low gear though a sullen sea of Brylcreem."

LA Times: "'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 ... A smooth professional whose credits include such adaptations as 'The Golden Compass' and 'About a Boy,' [director Chris] Weitz makes the vampire trains of Melissa Rosenberg's capable script run on time, but he almost seems too rational a director for this kind of project. This lack of animating madness combined with the novel's demands give much of 'New Moon' a marking time quality."

Variety: "This second chapter of Summit Entertainment's four-part franchise is as good as 'Twilight' and arguably a shade better... [Kristen] Stewart is the heart and soul of the film, and not only because her Bella is surrounded by characters who literally have neither one nor the other. She gives both weight and depth to dialogue ('You're just warm. You're like your own sun') that would sound like typical chick-lit blather in the mouth of a less engaging actress, and she makes Bella's psychological wounds seem like the real deal."

'The Twilight Saga: New Moon' Trailer

Pattinson, Lautner and Weitz Unscripted interview
'Twilight' personality quiz
'Twilight: New Moon' character guide
Best movie vampires ever
'The Twilight Saga: New Moon' trailers and clips
'The Twilight Saga: New Moon' showtimes and tickets


NY Daily News: "[Director Chris] Weitz takes a looser approach than the series' last director, Catherine Hardwicke, did. He has a better sense of humor, too. But he does get tripped up in the long-winded plot... His job is to sell as many tickets as possible, which means hitting all the right notes. Then again, 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."

New York Post: "'New Moon' is supposed to be an exciting love story plus monster action. So where's the excitement? Where's the action?... This movie moves like the line at the post office. ... Director Chris Weitz proves that 'The Golden Compass' was no fluke: He really is a non-master of action. His CGI werewolves, who look like they were designed by the animatronics crew at Disney's Country Bear Jamboree, go at it in about three semi-OK bouts. These are by far the best scenes in the movie, but they cut off suddenly after a minute or two (you can almost hear the producer yelling, 'That's it for our budget, sorry')."

USA Today: "Though an improvement over the first 'Twilight' film, this sequel ... drags and sputters, even in scenes meant to be infused with passion... Unless it's a Ingmar Bergman film, watching an expressionless person stare out a window or trudge around alone in the woods is simply a drag... the scenes with Bella and Jacob are actually playful, a welcome relief from the lugubrious "love hurts" connection Bella shares with Edward. 'New Moon' does nothing to add depth to a shallow tale."

The Hollywood Reporter: "This slightly improved sequel is ... for better or worse, exceptionally faithful to its 2008 beginnings. The uninitiated might find that the film's deliberately unhurried 130-minute running time feels like a Cullen clan eternity. Given that he's directed both the more intimate character-driven 'About a Boy' and the fantastical 'The Golden Compass,' incoming director [Chris] Weitz is a smart choice for the material."