If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Sun-Times)   "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is without a doubt the best film we are ever likely to see on the subject....It's also a more entertaining movie than I remotely expected. Yes, Reader, I went expecting to sneer"   (rogerebert.suntimes.com) divider line 67
    More: Spiffy, vampire slayer, Abraham Lincoln, Timur Bekmambetov, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Anthony Mackie, vampires, Seth Grahame-Smith, Vengeance  
•       •       •

5219 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 22 Jun 2012 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-22 12:39:32 PM
The book was fantastic. I do not have high hopes for the movie though, which probably means I will end up enjoying it.
 
2012-06-22 01:03:27 PM
Not looking so hot on Rotten Tomatoes...

Link

Will still be there to see it ASAP.
 
2012-06-22 01:04:19 PM
GAH! Spoiler in the first paragraph of the review -_-;
 
2012-06-22 01:06:29 PM
Eh, sounds more like "rent it and drink many beers while watching with friends" fun rather than "worth braving the crowds and high prices of a theater" fun.
 
2012-06-22 01:06:58 PM
"Yes, Reader, I went expecting to sneer"

Is he even able to do that now?
 
2012-06-22 01:09:12 PM

The Silver Mullet: Not looking so hot on Rotten Tomatoes...

Link

Will still be there to see it ASAP.


39% critics/75% audience indicates it's probably worth watching.

Although rt has steered me wrong more than once.
 
2012-06-22 01:10:56 PM
Well...the plot does deviate from the novel quite a bit, but I'll still go see it.
 
2012-06-22 01:13:16 PM
I guess you could say he found the move to be....
Jaw dropping.
 
2012-06-22 01:13:17 PM

adder1: GAH! Spoiler in the first paragraph of the review -_-;



BOOTH KILLS LINCOLN!
 
2012-06-22 01:14:15 PM
The problem i have with it is not the suspension of disbelief that Abe Lincoln was a vampire hunter, its the suspension of disbelief of just vampires in general... They are a concoction of Bram Stoker. Just because they've made their way into mainstream fiction, doesn't legitimize them as entities worthy of consideration.

Sadly, i'm a cynical bastard, and i'm feeling the same about zombies and humanoid aliens... Its just so over-exposed, and i'm not buying into it.

I love monsters and fanstasy and sci-fi, but to me, those genres should be defined by NEW things... Things that are fantastical that we've never heard about before.
 
2012-06-22 01:15:36 PM
The movie looks more entertaining than the book which was a boring mess.
 
2012-06-22 01:16:21 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Yes, Reader, I went expecting to sneer"

Is he even able to do that now?


Ooo edgy, a Roger Ebert lost part of his jaw to cancer joke. I totally was not expecting anyone to do that.

I know, I know, welcometofark.jpg and /oblig and all that. Still an asshole move.
 
2012-06-22 01:20:33 PM

Figaro: The movie looks more entertaining than the book which was a boring mess.


I thought he did an excellent job weaving the vampire story through the real events of Lincoln's life. I was impressed by how much research had gone into it.
 
2012-06-22 01:29:49 PM

Figaro: The movie looks more entertaining than the book which was a boring mess.


YOU GOT HISTORICAL FACTS IN MY VAMPIRE BOOK!
meh, the book started slow but picked up quite a bit, you know... with the vampires.
 
2012-06-22 01:30:31 PM

improvius: adder1: GAH! Spoiler in the first paragraph of the review -_-;


BOOTH KILLS LINCOLN!


Wait... I thought it was Snape..... so you're telling me.... Lincoln is Dumbledor?!?!?

Seriously, I of course know Lincoln's actual story... what I didn't know was the final scene of the movie would be that. 'sides, it COULD have been "Inglorious Basterds-like" in altering the history... *shrug*
 
2012-06-22 01:34:48 PM
Vampires? Puh-leeze.

Now you show me the Union army fighting hordes of giant radioactive ants, and we'll talk.
 
2012-06-22 01:35:30 PM
see, what you guys are forgetting is that this little feature is being directed by mad russian genius, Timur Bekmambetov, and at the very least we will be treated to some spectacularly insane action sequences. it could be a movie about a bar room brawl between mary poppins and tinkerbell...if timur is directing it, some aspect of it will be worthwhile
 
2012-06-22 01:36:44 PM

adder1: improvius: adder1: GAH! Spoiler in the first paragraph of the review -_-;


BOOTH KILLS LINCOLN!

Wait... I thought it was Snape..... so you're telling me.... Lincoln is Dumbledor?!?!?

Seriously, I of course know Lincoln's actual story... what I didn't know was the final scene of the movie would be that. 'sides, it COULD have been "Inglorious Basterds-like" in altering the history... *shrug*


Yeah, I actually agree with you. Dick move on Ebert's part. I think I would have liked to be semi-surprised to see that ending.
 
2012-06-22 01:42:57 PM

T.rex: The problem i have with it is not the suspension of disbelief that Abe Lincoln was a vampire hunter, its the suspension of disbelief of just vampires in general... They are a concoction of Bram Stoker. Just because they've made their way into mainstream fiction, doesn't legitimize them as entities worthy of consideration.

Sadly, i'm a cynical bastard, and i'm feeling the same about zombies and humanoid aliens... Its just so over-exposed, and i'm not buying into it.

I love monsters and fanstasy and sci-fi, but to me, those genres should be defined by NEW things... Things that are fantastical that we've never heard about before.




wrong. Specificall the bram stoker part. I'm not going to get into the whole history of vampire mythology here, but while he did do his part in helping popularize them, he absolutely didn't create them. The idea existed long before he did.
 
2012-06-22 01:50:37 PM

T.rex: They are a concoction of Bram Stoker.


Just like zombies are a concoction of George Romero.
 
2012-06-22 01:51:29 PM

Internet Meme Rogers: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Yes, Reader, I went expecting to sneer"

Is he even able to do that now?

Ooo edgy, a Roger Ebert lost part of his jaw to cancer joke. I totally was not expecting anyone to do that.

I know, I know, welcometofark.jpg and /oblig and all that. Still an asshole move.


i581.photobucket.com

You're right, it's obligatory.
 
2012-06-22 01:51:41 PM
Meh, no thanks. Unless my buddies want to go after some beers, I'm not interested. That review solidified my initial impression of the trailer. The review points out that they try to play Abe Lincoln as seriously as possible, but if you watch the trailer you will notice that he's splitting giant trees with a single blow, ninja-jumping all over the place, and your typical CGI-action sequences that have become the hallmark of summer blockbusters. Ironically, I have less of a hard time believing vampires were fighting in the civil war than Lincoln was a ninja-master. They have an interesting gimmick that will provide a loose basis for stringing a bunch of overly stylized action sequences. I just don't think it will have the fun and laughs to make up for the plot deficit. IMHO.

/for stupid action movies, Expendables 2
/for beautiful movies that are light on plot, Beyond the Black Rainbow
/for an actual good movie (assuming you like his previous work), Moonrise Kingdom
 
2012-06-22 01:52:15 PM

improvius: adder1: improvius: adder1: GAH! Spoiler in the first paragraph of the review -_-;


BOOTH KILLS LINCOLN!

Wait... I thought it was Snape..... so you're telling me.... Lincoln is Dumbledor?!?!?

Seriously, I of course know Lincoln's actual story... what I didn't know was the final scene of the movie would be that. 'sides, it COULD have been "Inglorious Basterds-like" in altering the history... *shrug*

Yeah, I actually agree with you. Dick move on Ebert's part. I think I would have liked to be semi-surprised to see that ending.


I don't really see what would be semi-surprising about that ending at all. The point is that it's all a supposedly secret history and that major historical events like the theater, or the north winning the war, etc, aren't going to be changed. Details of events may be slightly different, but "historically known" events still occur.
A surprising ending would be if it weren't really Lincoln killed in the theater and he became a vampire himself or something, but that would also be a totally lame ending.
 
2012-06-22 01:56:50 PM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: improvius: adder1: improvius: adder1: GAH! Spoiler in the first paragraph of the review -_-;


BOOTH KILLS LINCOLN!

Wait... I thought it was Snape..... so you're telling me.... Lincoln is Dumbledor?!?!?

Seriously, I of course know Lincoln's actual story... what I didn't know was the final scene of the movie would be that. 'sides, it COULD have been "Inglorious Basterds-like" in altering the history... *shrug*

Yeah, I actually agree with you. Dick move on Ebert's part. I think I would have liked to be semi-surprised to see that ending.

I don't really see what would be semi-surprising about that ending at all. The point is that it's all a supposedly secret history and that major historical events like the theater, or the north winning the war, etc, aren't going to be changed. Details of events may be slightly different, but "historically known" events still occur.
A surprising ending would be if it weren't really Lincoln killed in the theater and he became a vampire himself or something, but that would also be a totally lame ending.


to everyone who read the book
................
 
2012-06-22 01:57:37 PM

Lumbar Puncture: T.rex: They are a concoction of Bram Stoker.

Just like zombies are a concoction of George Romero.


Well, even i know that Richard Matheson wrote about zombies in the 50's.
 
2012-06-22 02:11:25 PM
The book was a disappointment. A good concept poorly executed. I hold out hope that the movie instill what lacked in the novel.
 
2012-06-22 02:21:25 PM
Who cares? Brave came out today. And in four weeks it's time for Batman.
 
2012-06-22 02:21:46 PM
"...on the subject...."?
 
2012-06-22 02:24:47 PM

Markoff_Cheney: to everyone who read the book
................


I have a dream...
 
2012-06-22 02:25:45 PM

T.rex: Lumbar Puncture: T.rex: They are a concoction of Bram Stoker.

Just like zombies are a concoction of George Romero.

Well, even i know that Richard Matheson wrote about zombies in the 50's.


CSB: Previous to Romero, the Concept of the zombie existed, but not in the monster form we're used to. I earlier films, they were either dead or mesmerized men who were completely under the control of a Zombie Master (i.e., "White Zombie," 1932). They had no power other than to obey, and had no taste for human flesh.

Romero created the flesh craving, brain-shooting independent zombie that has become the current norm.

And, incidentally, Vampires did exist before Stoker, but also as monsters - Stoker added the urbane, communicative, intelligent aspect.
 
2012-06-22 02:49:14 PM
I haven't read/seen AL:VH, but I did just finnish Anno Dracula, where Dracula isn't killed by Van Helsing and ends up marrying Queen Victoria. Add in a dash of Jack the Ripper, Sherlock Holmes, Jeckyll & Hyde and other sundry forgotten gentlemen and it was a suprisingly good read.
 
2012-06-22 03:17:42 PM

NINDroog: I have less of a hard time believing vampires were fighting in the civil war


If I remember the book right vampires really did not fight in the war. A few joined the fight when the war turned badly against the south but never were they there in great numbers.
 
2012-06-22 03:19:07 PM

Internet Meme Rogers: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Yes, Reader, I went expecting to sneer"

Is he even able to do that now?

Ooo edgy, a Roger Ebert lost part of his jaw to cancer joke. I totally was not expecting anyone to do that.

I know, I know, welcometofark.jpg and /oblig and all that. Still an asshole move.


Here you go.
 
2012-06-22 03:59:54 PM

scottydoesntknow: The book was fantastic. I do not have high hopes for the movie though, which probably means I will end up enjoying it.


I also really liked the book. The movie looks interesting, in an "I'll wait for the DVD" kind of way.
 
2012-06-22 04:14:34 PM
I want to see this film. I like alternate history, I like silliness, this is silly alternate history. Boom. Headshot.
 
2012-06-22 04:30:16 PM
Most of the bad reviews I've read come across as super-hipsters who refuse to like anything that is intentionally fun. One Top Critic on rotten tomatoes complained simultaneously that the movie wasn't funny enough and that it was too cartoony. Others complain that the historical facts are all wrong. Others complain that there was no literal underground railroad in real life. All of those reviews completely miss the point of the movie, and were likely written before the movie was even screened for the reviewer
 
2012-06-22 04:31:27 PM

verbaltoxin: Who cares? Brave came out today. And in four weeks it's time for Batman.


Brave is disappointing, because expectations were so high. It's a perfectly fine movie for children 10 and under, but that's it, and you expect more from Pixar
 
2012-06-22 04:52:56 PM
From the collective body of reviews, this might be the worst thing to happen to Lincoln in a theater.
 
2012-06-22 04:56:50 PM
I loved the book and just read the review. The whole time my mind was going "WTF am I reading?". I was expecting some changes but wow, just wow. The kicker was that the movie was written by the same guy as the book.
 
2012-06-22 05:04:38 PM
the best film we are ever likely to see on the subject

Wait, there's more upcoming movies about 19th Century US presidents who hunted vampires?
 
2012-06-22 05:09:12 PM

improvius: BOOTH KILLS LINCOLN!


Sad. I asked for a table.
 
2012-06-22 05:10:46 PM

Farker Soze: the best film we are ever likely to see on the subject

Wait, there's more upcoming movies about 19th Century US presidents who hunted vampires?


Fanglin Pierce: The Untold Story.
 
2012-06-22 05:10:58 PM
Looked like it was either going to take itself entirely too seriously, or just be an orgy of poorly-lit CGI battle sequences. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it turns out to be neither, but I'm certainly not wasting time and money in a theater to find out.
 
2012-06-22 05:40:58 PM
I'm not putting any more money into another Vampire or Zombie piece of fiction or film. I don't care if it's the second coming of The Maltese Falcon, It's just encouraging studios/publishers to even more vampire/zombie/superhero tripe out there. For the love that is everything good and holy, can we get one farking movie for adults?
 
2012-06-22 05:59:24 PM

Kibbler: Vampires? Puh-leeze.

Now you show me the Union army fighting hordes of giant radioactive ants, and we'll talk.


The biggest issue I have is that an army of vampires could be beaten by one man. That's a suspension of belief that is just stupid but then this is supposed to be about Lincoln killing supernatural shiat.
 
2012-06-22 06:05:31 PM

InmanRoshi: I'm not putting any more money into another Vampire or Zombie piece of fiction or film. I don't care if it's the second coming of The Maltese Falcon, It's just encouraging studios/publishers to even more vampire/zombie/superhero tripe out there. For the love that is everything good and holy, can we get one farking movie for adults?


Nope. Only supernatural movies and superhero movies. That's it.
 
2012-06-22 06:10:47 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Yes, Reader, I went expecting to sneer"

Is he even able to do that now?


I guffawed. Am I going to Hell now?
 
2012-06-22 06:38:23 PM

T.rex: The problem i have with it is not the suspension of disbelief that Abe Lincoln was a vampire hunter, its the suspension of disbelief of just vampires in general... They are a concoction of Bram Stoker. .


Vampire legends go back to ancient times and can be found in most cultures.

Some free (albeit old) books relating to them can be found here:

http://archive.org/search.php?query=vampires%20AND%20mediatype%3Atext s

One book which I have read and is quite interesting:
The devils and evil spirits of Babylonia : being Babylonian and Assyrian incantations against the demons, ghouls, vampires, hobgoblins, ghosts, and kindred evil spirits, which attack mankind, tr. from the original Cuneiform texts, with transliterations, vocabulary, notes, etc (Volume 1) -

http://archive.org/details/devilsevilspirit01thomuoft

(best viewed in PDF imho as it is an original scan).
 
2012-06-22 06:49:30 PM

Dazrin: Internet Meme Rogers: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Yes, Reader, I went expecting to sneer"

Is he even able to do that now?

Ooo edgy, a Roger Ebert lost part of his jaw to cancer joke. I totally was not expecting anyone to do that.

I know, I know, welcometofark.jpg and /oblig and all that. Still an asshole move.

Here you go.


I'm not clicking that until you declare friend or foe.
 
2012-06-22 07:02:22 PM

steamingpile: Kibbler: Vampires? Puh-leeze.

Now you show me the Union army fighting hordes of giant radioactive ants, and we'll talk.

The biggest issue I have is that an army of vampires could be beaten by one man. That's a suspension of belief that is just stupid but then this is supposed to be about Lincoln killing supernatural shiat.


The book never had an army of them. He usually killed only one at a time (it specifically states they're pretty solitary creatures). Hell half his strategy was to light their house on fire during the day forcing them out so he could fight them weak and half-blind.

Few vampires were in the actual war, and those that were killed many union soldiers, but were eventually taken down. Hell one part has over 30 slaves rebelling against their vampire master and him killing about a dozen before dying due to slave zerg rush.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report