Liked this movie a lot! Why do you guys complain? - Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012) Discussion

[–] The_Grither 11 years ago

It's IMDB, this is what they do. A lot of people here think they aren't doing their job if they aren't complaining about movies.

reply

[–] starwolf 11 years ago

It's IMDB, this is what they do. A lot of people here think they aren't doing their job if they aren't complaining about movies.

ReallY? Well, never let it be said I didn't do my job, then.

I think this movie should be seen as a super hero movie, compare it to Blade for example. Very nice action scenes and a fun story because its based on real events. Why do you guys keep complaining? Finaly there is a movie which is different from the rest!! How can you not love that?

Bad cinematography, bad matte work and green screen, so-so acting, a script with so many holes in it that it doubles as chickenwire, and ridiculous over-the-top action scenes.

That's how I could not love that.

The_Grither, did I do my job? Do I get a raise?

reply

[–] Wombstar 11 years ago

Still waiting for someone to list me a plot hole.

reply

[–] wogears 11 years ago

One plot hole:

During the first charge at Gettysburg (the Wheatfield?), the vamps 'go invisible' and infiltrate the Union forces. The battle should be over. Invisible vamps moving at super speed would spend the night killing the Northern general officers, artillery commanders, etc. Game over. Not here, though.

Then, when the Union soldiers get their silver bullets, the vamps conveniently stay visible so the Yanks can shoot them. Hell, the Totally Evil Female biter even lets Mary load silver into her muzzle-loader, then keeps running (visibly) toward her so she can be blown away. Come on. Too friggin' much even in a C- vampire movie.

reply

[–] HypnocraticGoat 11 years ago

You might as well ask why the vamps never took over the United States right from the start by turning all the Founding Fathers into vampires.

reply

[–] Wombstar 11 years ago

Yeah theses arn't 'plot holes'

reply

[–] starwolf 11 years ago

See, this is why I didn't answer you. When you said

Still waiting for someone to list me a plot hole.

What you actually mean is "Still waiting for someone to list me something I will accept as a plot hole" which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

It's fine with me if you think the movie was coherent and held together tightly with internal logic. That's your privilege.

I don't think it held together all that well, and one of the areas we disagree over is the whole "only the living can kill the dead" thing. I think it makes no sense at all and you do.

Honestly, I am happy for you that enjoyed it. I wish I had.

reply

[–] Wombstar 11 years ago

Not really, because the last guy who listed me 'plot holes' they all had explanations for them other than one goof,

And how does Vampires not killing other Vampires make no sense? basically it means a Vampire can not kill another Vampire.. i duuno how else to explain it to you.

reply

[–] starwolf 11 years ago

And how does Vampires not killing other Vampires make no sense? basically it means a Vampire can not kill another Vampire.. i duuno how else to explain it to you.

... for the many reasons listed other places.

reply

[–] stenney 11 years ago

how about just lack of a plot at points. or at least lack of info that would support the plot? how is a vampire ade? when Adam bites Richard, he is changed, somewhat slowly and without Richard's knowledge, all within a matter of moments. but when Adam bites Richard's GF, she dies. what is the difference? some background to the myth, especially one so familiar to many of us, would be nice if you are planning on changing such major aspects of it.

and vampires can't go in the sun!!!

"Monsters are such interesting people, my stars, the places you must go, the people you must meet!"

reply

[–] aakaido17 11 years ago

If I remember correctly, there was a line Adam or whoever the bad vampire was had that said something being good or pure decided if the bite would kill you and if you were evil or evil enough, the bite would overtake you. Of course, that's not what he said verbatim as it what he said was very short, but that's what you could have concluded. I think you may have missed that part.

reply

[–] spicy_mchaggis-2 11 years ago

starwolf, I don't really feel like you can harp on this movie for over the top action sequences. The entire premise of the movie is over the top. Would you say something like kung fu hustle's action sequences were over the top? I mean they were, but they were supposed to be it was an intententional style sirection that they took that I feel fit very well and in all honestly pretty much made the movie in both cases listed above for me.

reply

[–] starwolf 11 years ago

@spicy_mchaggis-2, because I don't think they were intended to be "over the top funny." I think they were intended to be "oh my gosh, what great action" sequences. The director is not known for his wry sense of humor, and the work the author adapted the work from is not humorous.

I see you guys using the fact that it was the top to prove it was humorous, but maybe it was over the top because it was just bad.

Consider, "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and "The Robot Monster" are both hilarious movies, but both were intended to be serious. "Beast of Yucca Flats" - great for a laugh. But intended to be serious as a heart attack.

Again, if you enjoyed it then that's a good thing. I don't begrudge the fact that you enjoyed the movie. And maybe you're right and it was supposed to be funny. But in the absence of proof that is so, unfortunately I think the movie was a stinker.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] starwolf 11 years ago

Given the question I was asked and the answer I gave your reply makes no sense.

I am not sure why you felt that the perfect time to be condescending. Should I answer in kind and say, "Can't you read English?"

But no, I will assume you can, but your reply is still a non sequitur.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] starwolf 11 years ago

Okay, right you are. I was blending that conversation with three or four others.

However, since he (she?) was comparing the action sequences to those in "Kung Fu Hustle," which IS intended to be "over the top funny" I don't think my assumption that he was defending this movie from the "it's a comedy point of view" is that much for a stretch. In fact, I would go so far as to say it's implicit in what he wrote.

Question my English language skills all you like, mate. I'm not perfect.

But I always think it's funny (and not over the top funny) when I go out of my way to make sure that people understand I am criticizing the movie and not them while some people who defend the movie can't seem to do without criticizing me personally.

And just by the way, as a stage actor when I receive direction to go "over the top" invariably it means the director wants the action so outrageous it's funny.

reply

[–] nathynmasters-845-608407 11 years ago

I think "funny" is the wrong word to use. The action was over the top because of the kind of movie it was. If you accept the premise, then the rest falls into place.

I've already bought into vampires and the fact (in this film) Abe Lincoln hunted them. Now you tell me Abe has super powers and at this point I stop and say, "Nope, don't believe it." LOL. C'mon seriously. You knew what to expect from the trailer. (Which was pretty spot on actually).

I watched this film and it was fun and exciting. I went into understanding it's a film about Abe Lincoln hunting vampires. That told me all I needed to know. I saw it as a vampire film along the lines of Buffy, Fright Night, etc. As for the so called "plot holes" you can ask questions like this of almost any movie in this genre. You're putting a lot of thought into a film who's major premise is all about suspending disbelief. Abe has powers, bought on by his hatred of vampires. You do the math here. LOL.

-Nate

reply

[–] iamhap 11 years ago

All this talk about "intentions" is actually, contrary to your thinking, completely irrelevant to real sound judgement of this film (and film in general).

All we should be looking at and listening to is the film.

Not looking at intentions. Not taking into account what we know of the director's sense of humor outside of the film. Certainly not looking at the author of a book which shares the title (that is so far removed from what we are actually trying to give criticism to).

Bitches ain't *beep*

That being said, I thought this movie was a hilarious and wildly stupid-funny take on America's best president.

As for Plan 9 and Robot Monster, I will consider them, and have considered them and I retort: THEY ARE HILARIOUS MOVIES TOO, just like you say they are. And that's it. No need to go further. We interpret those movies as funny, so that is what they are.

There shouldn't need to be "proof" that a movie is "supposed" to be funny for someone to let themselves enjoy it. What we have is proof that it actually is funny, and that's good enough.

This bitch is good *beep*

P.S. I also admittedly didn't just laugh at the over-the-top action (and over-the-top everything else for that matter), but I also gasped and said, out loud, "holy *beep* that is insane" at more than one of the many ridiculous execution style finishers Abe whipped out.

reply

[–] sonobor 11 years ago

Bad acting? I though Benjamin Walker was exception. Likable, slightly bumbling, determined man who slowly morphed into the Lincoln we think of.

reply

[–] DjfunkmasterG 11 years ago

Not really, but you can't tell everyone that or otherwise their head would burst.
________
"Deadlands 2: Trapped" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1103262/

reply

[–] jgoersch 11 years ago

I loved it, too. And I've been defending it against everyone else since.

I never sleep on planes. I don't want to get incepted

reply

[–] roddmatsui 11 years ago

It's fairly amusing seeing people pick the movie apart on the basis of its logic, when it's half-serious and intentionally absurd to begin with.

Abe Lincoln gets a horse thrown at him, and then gets on the same horse--and chases after the villain. Does this in any way resemble reality? Do people actually think it was intended to?

The movie shows us a fork spinning into the air after blowing a vampire to smithereens, and as it nears the camera we see it is monogrammed "A. L.," suggesting it is the very fork Lincoln was holding when the brilliant idea struck him. People don't realize the levels of intentional absurdity built into this film? This film is a hoot. You gotta see it for what it is.

reply

[–] jgoersch 11 years ago

Exactly! Who expects Citizen Kane when the movie is called Abraham Lincolm - VAMPIRE HUNTER :D

I never sleep on planes. I don't want to get incepted

reply

[–] monstermayhem32 11 years ago

The movie is decent for what it is as a vampire movie.

reply

[–] jessica_acisse 11 years ago

I'm going to chime in with a few varied thoughts here:

First off, I left this movie with two totally different opinions. As a movie, on its own, it was fun action packed popcorn fare. That description, by default, accounts for minor plot holes, and ridiculous non-realistic acts, actions etc.

As a movie based on a book, I think it was fairly terrible to very terrible. Not going with the usual, "the book is always better" which is almost always true; the problem here is that movie diverted too often from the book for what seemed to me at least to be no need other than to create an action movie rather than a drama with action movie.

Added characters, removal of other characters, limiting of factors that gave character development and drive... all things done simply to make the simple action movie. I think they were moves that did not need to be made and I could see a more true-to-the-book interpretation as having been a great film.

The biggest problem I had, having read the book recently, was having AL seem to possess supernatural strength and agility which I feel diminished his task, efforts, commitment, and success. In the book, having him be a very strong (through training) and very skilled (through training and experience) was enough and it just made it more substantive I guess.

The film in the end enhanced his 'abilities' beyond human for the action sequences which again, for an action flick, makes sense to be able to make those more surreal. Just really the only way to enjoy this movie was to treat it as NOT related to the book at all which may have been easier if not having just read the book.

The simplistic "hey just in case you didn't get it" moments were a bit stuffed down your throat..the fork with A.L. on it seemed to be thrown in there in case for some reason someone didn't already make the connection to the silver cannonballs on their own. And I have to agree with some people earlier having an issue with how the 'vampires can't kill vampires" was portrayed. If Henry could not stab Adam, then it is he can't harm him, which meant the fight between Barts and Henry and the fight between Adam and Henry would be impossible. A better approach would have been having the stab connect and then have Adam just pull it back out demonstrating the lack of being able to kill, so that the combat could still be a non-plot hole.

reply

[–] TheJediWay9 11 years ago

i thought it was terrible, but in a good way

reply

[–] CheeryToes 11 years ago

I thought the movie was rather ridiculous, but I was still entertained. I don't know enough to see all the CGI/editing flaws that someone looking for them would see, and I watched it on a 40 inch tv and not at the movie theater, so maybe that's why.

Over all, I think the 6 it gets for a rating is pretty accurate. It was fun, if you don't take your Vampire movies too seriously. I was a little disappointed that Abe still died, I was kind of hoping for a Henry finds him right after he's been shot and turns him and they leave together to hunt vampires...oh well, guess that would be too over the top! ;)

"I jumped off a roof for you"

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] queencat18 11 years ago

In the book, Henry does change Abe, saying that some people are just too interesting to die. And apparently the current president knows, because there's a little part where he says that it was gracious of Kennedy to let him stay at the White House that night.

"Oh my God! You put a living room where the crack den used to be!"

reply

[–] cary_howe 11 years ago

Because it sucked! I work in effects and all this was came down to an excuse for effects. First sign an effects film sucks is the film can't survive without effects. The characters were nonexistent and the story was barely even given a nod. Come on the guy was elected President and it didn't warrant a mention! His son dies and it does little to drive the story. The Mary character is a total waste and I love the actress they just didn't give her anything to work with. They threw a ton of money at the director and said blow us away. YAWN!!!! Take away the stunts and opticals and the Lincoln character was boring. It's a stunning looking film that didn't hold my interest at ALL! I didn't read the novel but making the whole Confederacy a vampire plot was lame! They should have been loosing the war and effectively sold their souls to the vampires to win. A much stronger theme. I give the script a 2 and the direction a 3, take away the action and effects and I give the direction a 2. The source material as in the history had so much to offer that I'm not inclined to cut the director and writer any slack. HOW COULD YOU NOT MAKE THIS FILM INTERESTING???? To make it this lame took serious effort! Hollywood needs to hire real writers and directors and stop hiring their nephews and drinking buddies!!!! With the right script and direction this film could have been amazing instead of lame!

reply

[–] samb8 11 years ago

Entertaining film.

What the hell are people expecting here?

It's a popcorn flick with some nice ax play by honest abe.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eurostar-427-360396 11 years ago

The movie was very enjoyable. Id like to see a sequel. The ending was very nice too. A movie should be treated as entertainment. We arent reciting Shakespeare or (insert literary legend here). Its a good story, interesting, pretty unique, acting was good, the special effects i liked, the fighting was good too. My only complaint is that the movie used too much slow motion, but its not something that would make me denounce the movie.

reply

[–] Hans2003 11 years ago

Nice post. The movie was great!
I will watch it again for sure.

reply

[–] stenney 11 years ago

vampires can't go in the sun. PERIOD.

"Monsters are such interesting people, my stars, the places you must go, the people you must meet!"

reply

[–] stenney 11 years ago

how about just lack of a plot at points. or at least lack of info that would support the plot? how is a vampire made? when Adam bites Richard, he is changed, somewhat slowly and without Richard's knowledge, all within a matter of moments. but when Adam bites Richard's GF, she dies. what is the difference? some background to the myth, especially one so familiar to many of us, would be nice if you are planning on changing such major aspects of it.

and vampires can't go in the sun!!!

"Monsters are such interesting people, my stars, the places you must go, the people you must meet!"

reply