Escape to the Movies: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Grahame-Smith recently released another book that I will likely NEVER become a movie. Not cuz the book is bad, but because well... It's called 'Unholy Night' and the premise is this 'all we know about the three magi is they were at the birth of Christ bearing weird gifts' Even as a christian, and maybe because of that, I found all the references in the book to be kind of interesting and fun.

2nd thought I assume that this movie
image
Might gain a bit more popularity? By the way Jesus is assisted by a Luchador... It's also a musical.

surg3n:
What is it with Americans trivializing historic figures...

Abe Lincoln was a vampire hunter.
Einstein was a party animal.
Sherlock Holmes was a douchebag genius fighter.

Saying Abe was even more than what he was already, many consider him our greatest president ever. I don't find trivializing, I find it was adding more myth to the man, granted it's a myth no one will believe but it's fun.
Einstein by all accounts was a bit of a philanderer.
Sherlock Holmes was not a real person.

Christ, how many films does Tim Burton direct at once?

Surely there's not enough time in a lifetime to direct that many creepy not-quite-horror movies?

My only problem with this movie is that Robert E. Lee doesn't show up as a vampire.

I can't wait for the distant sequel. Al Gore: Manbearpig fighter.

Yay! Moviebob reads the comments!

RECORD YOURSELF SLAPPING A MAN WITH A FISH

...

*ahem*

I was iffy on this one but I'll give it a shot. Maybe tonight if its playing.

Ryan Spellman:
Why is it okay for Hollywood to MOLEST our nation's history. Am I the only one who realizes this?

Considering it was a book first you probably shouldn't place the blame solely on Hollywood. Also you do understand what satire is right?

I am curious to see how this plays out outside of the US?

And a review of Brave initially probably wasn't as neccasary, those goign to see it, were going to see it and probbaly not watch Bob. Though he reviewed Avengers that was a known, but probably wouldn't sway anyone anyway.

Then of course you have Asylum creatign their red box straight to video movie to confuse people. This time it's Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies. (I also notied tehe pixar rip off "The Bravest" a cartoon and a girl with red hair as the lead, wow that's blatent)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tFaQYSFLuE

YodaUnleashed:
When the trailer for this showed in the cinema and the titles came up at the end "Abraham Lincoln.......Vampire Hunter", no lie, everyone in the cinema laughed in derison. Then again this is England and such ridiculousness would be fine in a Monty Python sketch but not in a serious fully-fledged movie. I suppose it could be fun to watch and laugh at.

The same thing happened in my theater and I'm in the US.

This was the worst movie I've ever seen. Completely disagree with you Bob about it being fun, I thought it took itself way too seriously and should have stuck to being a B-movie. The plot didn't flow, the action scenes were repetitive and broke my suspension of disbelief, and the characters were all flat and boring

I actually want to watch this in theaters lol but just need to find a friend willing to spend cash to go with me to watch Honest Abe chopping up vampires...which should be an easy sell :P

iblis666:
Really its gotten to the point where when ever i even think of the confederacy i start to wish that General Sherman had done a better job of burning the south.

You just said you wish I had never been born because my ancestors had been brutally slaughtered. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the individuals you are complaining about were being totally reasonable and only defending themselves from unfair attacks by you.

I once read an article that basically said, "yes, the South has many problems, but it's still not okay to stereotype anyone." There were hundreds of comments, and almost every single one literally and explicitly argued that Southerners should be stereotyped because they bare collective guilt. Do you post on Salon by chance?

I was supposed to get drunk and go see this to escape the oppressive heat here and the person bailed on me.

ollieoz17:
Speaking as someone who is from the deep South and has spent 24 of the last 26 years here, I wish there was a lot more demonization of the Confederacy from my fellow Southerners. Gone With the Wind style romanticization makes me queasy, and I figure that if my home is ever going to rise above the status of "belittled country backwater," we're going to have to come to terms with the facts that 1) the Confederacy were the bad guys, and 2) we're not the CSA, and haven't been for the last 150+ years.

Of course, I *do* still get annoyed when people from elsewhere use the term "Southern" pejoratively, but I'm not going to pretend like we don't have problems, and this weird historical-identity one is a significant one we really need to have gotten over by now.

(fellow born-and-raised resident of the Southern States slowly stands and begins a slow clap, while offering a meaningful nod)

Lionsfan:
This was the worst movie I've ever seen. Completely disagree with you Bob about it being fun, I thought it took itself way too seriously and should have stuck to being a B-movie. The plot didn't flow, the action scenes were repetitive and broke my suspension of disbelief, and the characters were all flat and boring

I saw this and disagree. The only character I noticed to fall flat was Joshua Speed, played by Jimmi Simpson. I thought, "Oh, the crazy guy from "It's Always Sunny". I wonder what he's going to do.", but he was only a device to help give Lincoln a place to stay when killing vampires and later do something in the ending that could have been done by an unknown and it wouldn't have made a difference. I don't want to post spoilers.

arc1991:
"Novemeber 22nd, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated...or was he? It is the year 2511 and after years of being frozen, The president is re-awakened...he is John-117"

*takes off sunglasses* Mother of God... That... Oddly explains a lot. Or nothing. I can't tell which.

I went to see it on sunday and have to say that I was rather surprised at how much I actually enjoyed it. Bob is right about the pacing though, there were a fair few big jumps in the timeline that could have done with some smoothing.

CaptainMarvelous:

This is really just a test of sorts, War of Independence?

Well, they were technically fighting for independence, but I find any such names for the war to be rather cutsy and pointless. The "War of Northern Aggression" is just funny. It was a Civil War by most standards so that's probably what it should be called. Sorry if that doesn't make it easy for you to dismiss everything I said without thinking about it. ;P

ReiverCorrupter:

CaptainMarvelous:

This is really just a test of sorts, War of Independence?

Well, they were technically fighting for independence, but I find any such names for the war to be rather cutsy and pointless. The "War of Northern Aggression" is just funny. It was a Civil War by most standards so that's probably what it should be called. Sorry if that doesn't make it easy for you to dismiss everything I said without thinking about it. ;P

Ahhh my bad, didn't give proper context, I meant, given how you view the Civil War how do you view the War of Independence (the war against Britain), in that, you don't see either side as being villains in the Civil War. I'd give some sarcasm back but that was totally my bad for not giving a long enough reply first time round.

CaptainMarvelous:

ReiverCorrupter:

CaptainMarvelous:

This is really just a test of sorts, War of Independence?

Well, they were technically fighting for independence, but I find any such names for the war to be rather cutsy and pointless. The "War of Northern Aggression" is just funny. It was a Civil War by most standards so that's probably what it should be called. Sorry if that doesn't make it easy for you to dismiss everything I said without thinking about it. ;P

Ahhh my bad, didn't give proper context, I meant, given how you view the Civil War how do you view the War of Independence (the war against Britain), in that, you don't see either side as being villains in the Civil War. I'd give some sarcasm back but that was totally my bad for not giving a long enough reply first time round.

Well, first off, my point was that neither sides were monadic entities that could entirely be seen as either villains or heroes. It was that both sides had their fair share of villains and heroes.

I think the revolutionary war is also filled with propaganda. The fact of the matter was that the English were taxing us in order to help pay back for the very costly war they had to wage with the French Canadians on our behalf. We were dicks for not wanting to pay the taxes. But the British were also dicks for not giving us representation in Parliament. On the American side, the war was largely perpetrated by wealthy New England merchants whose profits were being affected by the taxes. These people probably wouldn't have been satisfied merely with representation in parliament. Of course, the British certainly didn't help the situation by reverting back to their typical tactics of brutal suppression. The Americans also committed plenty of atrocities against people they saw as British sympathizers as well, which people don't like to mention. So once again, the historical facts are far more nuanced than the way the history is presented.

However, America's secession was pretty much inevitable one way or the other. Our population would eventually rise to the point that we would dominate the British Parliament under proportional representation, which the British would likely consider unacceptable. Not to mention the fact that the massive infrastructure and the accompanying logistics of our country would eventually necessitate self-governance.

The only war that I really see as being close to black and white is WWII, for obvious reasons. But even then, I don't think the regular German soldier could be blamed for the atrocities committed by the SS. Even if their overall cause was pretty sickeningly evil, it's unfair to demonize the personal sacrifice of those who died thinking they were protecting their motherland and probably had no knowledge of the death camps.

I would also point out that the Allies did some very nasty stuff to Germany as well, such as the firebombing of Dresden by the British and the raping and pillaging done by the Russians after the fall of Berlin (which we pretty much ignored). Not to mention the fact that the crippling sanctions placed on Germany after WWI probably played some part in the Nazi's rise to power. The fact that the efforts to actually rebuild Western Germany after WWII has made them our allies as opposed to the effects of the sanctions placed on them after WWI should be acknowledged as an important historical lesson.

This might piss a lot of people off, because, after all, if you're going to demonize somebody, the Nazis are the natural target. And I can hardly blame people for having strong feelings about the matter. But if you want to claim to be rational you'll have to sacrifice your personal feelings and look at things through a cool objective perspective.

So there you go: a reasoned approach to history is one that doesn't involve absolutist moralization and demonization.

ReiverCorrupter:

CaptainMarvelous:

ReiverCorrupter:

Well, they were technically fighting for independence, but I find any such names for the war to be rather cutsy and pointless. The "War of Northern Aggression" is just funny. It was a Civil War by most standards so that's probably what it should be called. Sorry if that doesn't make it easy for you to dismiss everything I said without thinking about it. ;P

Ahhh my bad, didn't give proper context, I meant, given how you view the Civil War how do you view the War of Independence (the war against Britain), in that, you don't see either side as being villains in the Civil War. I'd give some sarcasm back but that was totally my bad for not giving a long enough reply first time round.

Well, first off, my point was that neither sides were monadic entities that could entirely be seen as either villains or heroes. It was that both sides had their fair share of villains and heroes.

I think the revolutionary war is also filled with propaganda. The fact of the matter was that the English were taxing us in order to help pay back for the very costly war they had to wage with the French Canadians on our behalf. We were dicks for not wanting to pay the taxes. But the British were also dicks for not giving us representation in Parliament. On the American side, the war was largely perpetrated by wealthy New England merchants whose profits were being affected by the taxes. These people probably wouldn't have been satisfied merely with representation in parliament. Of course, the British certainly didn't help the situation by reverting back to their typical tactics of brutal suppression. The Americans also committed plenty of atrocities against people they saw as British sympathizers as well, which people don't like to mention. So once again, the historical facts are far more nuanced than the way the history is presented.

The only war that I really see as being close to black and white is WWII, for obvious reasons. But even then, I don't think the regular German soldier could be blamed for the atrocities committed by the SS. Even if their overall cause was pretty sickeningly evil, it's unfair to demonize the personal sacrifice of those who died thinking they were protecting their motherland and probably had no knowledge of the death camps.

I would also point out that the Allies did some very nasty stuff to Germany as well, such as the firebombing of Dresden by the British and the raping and pillaging done by the Russians after the fall of Berlin (which we pretty much ignored). Not to mention the fact that the crippling sanctions placed on Germany after WWI probably played some part in the Nazi's rise to power. The fact that the efforts to actually rebuild Western Germany after WWII has made them our allies as opposed to the effects of the sanctions placed on them after WWI should be acknowledged as an important historical lesson.

This might piss a lot of people off, because, after all, if you're going to demonize somebody, the Nazis are the natural target. And I can hardly blame people for having strong feelings about the matter. But if you want to claim to be rational you'll have to sacrifice your personal feelings and look at things through a cool objective perspective.

So there you go: a reasoned approach to history is one that doesn't involve absolutist moralization and demonization.

Fair enough, you stand by your point admirably, carry on sir +1

I recently saw the movie and enjoyed it... though I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet (I still want to though). A cousin of mine who read it was annoyed by all the changes they made to the movie (such as the addition of a "Black Best Friend" - thank you, TVTropes - who still managed to kick major vampire ass.) Interestingly, the guy who wrote the book was also involved with the movie, so make of that what you will...

In the book, I always thought it was kinda weird that Lincoln only cared about ending slavery b/c it would take away the vampire's food source.

Like, 'we must stop these monsters... and I guess we can let these guys go.'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here