Two vampire movies are lingering on the box office charts this week. One of them is The Twilight Saga: New Moon (292 screens), which sports some odd numbers. It has somehow grossed about $100 million more than its predecessor (for a total of nearly $300 million), which means (I guess) that lots of people saw Twilight on DVD and then went to the theater to see the sequel. It's also officially the highest-grossing vampire movie of all time. But it's also one of the worst, if you can believe the voters on IMDB. It currently has a user rating of 4.6, which puts it slightly below Queen of the Damned (2002), but above Eddie Murphy and Wes Craven's Vampire in Brooklyn (1995). Likewise, Rotten Tomatoes critics have rated the movie 28%, as opposed to the original's 50%.
Lurking near it on the box office list is Daybreakers (338 screens), which has earned a modest $29 million. Its IMDB rating is a modest 6.8 (ranked between Shadow of the Vampire and The Omega Man), and its Rotten Tomatoes rating is a modest 66% (or "certified fresh"). In other words, it's not bad and not a masterpiece, but it's fun and it works. Vampire and horror fans seem to like it well enough, and so did I. That's easy. How, then, can we describe The Twilight Saga: New Moon? It's a wildly successful movie that no one seems to like? I suppose part of it can be explained by the fact that a passionate group of pre-teen girls are probably seeing it again and again, but probably not $300 million worth. (And possibly it's a group of teenage boys driving down the IMDB score as well.)