I didn't go to this movie expecting Oscar winning caliber, I did want to be entertained, even in a "turn your brain off" way. I understand that more often than not when books are adapted into movies, things are changed, cut for time/story, etc. Preserving the main idea of a story can be done even implementing this method without the nuclear meltdown that occurred with this adaptation.
I LOVED the book. I loved the way time was taken to carefully develop the characters & story, & weave them into coordination with true historical facts, & events.
I'm not saying this needed to be "Batman Begins", i'm willing to accept the fact that studios aren't willing to provide unlimited funds for films they might consider "going out on a limb."
This movie would've been great if it had gone one of two ways: A goofy, campy, slaying story in the spirit of Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead" series (which I thoroughly enjoy). Or, if it had closely followed the tone & story of the novel. This movie did neither of those. The ONLY resemblance to the book are some character's names.
Here are my quarrels:
1.) A completely changed & rushed back story. What was so carefully plotted out in the book & gradually developed both story & character wise (so you can feel for Abe, his plight, motivations, feelings, & destiny) is now a completely different story with omissions of important characters, events, situations, mindsets, emotions, etc. & the addition of characters & situations not in the book.
It's rushed through in approximately 5 minutes, leaving you wondering why you should give a crap at all. You have no connection with Abe, or any other character for that matter. I was actually stunned.
2.) There's a training sequence that's laughable, & approximately 3 minutes long, with some of the worst CGI ever.
3.) Henry. His back story is unfortunately butchered & laughably unbelievable. As is his initial meeting (and ensuing friendship) with Abe. Gone is his meticulous nature, and important contributions to the story, and left is a husk of the character from the book.
4.) And what's this crap about vampires can't kill their own? And how vampires are made vampires? The explanation for how vampires are made vampires is so ridiculous, you'll want to puncture your own eardrums for having heard it.
5.) Continuing omission of key characters & events which continually leave you detached from any characters or the story. Adam, & the female vampire (? name) are a prime example of additional made up characters shoe horned in the movie. If they had followed the original story they would have had more than enough material without needing to invent these two silly, cardboard characters,
6.) Continuous, unemotional, passionless, mind numbingly repetitive "Matrix" like slow motion vampire killing scenes. Silly fight in a herd of wild running horses....horse "tossing".
7.) Silly subplot about silver. It's not ever in the book as being harmful, or the making of weapons from them. (PS: writers...stop putting silver in vampire movies, save it for the werewolves.)
8.) Mary Todd was never savvy to what her husband was up to. But here, less believably, distributing silver weapons out in the battlefield, where she could then have a stupid scene where she shoots the female (name?) vampire, who is running at her with full "Ahhhhhhh!!" battle cry.
But I guess the "writers" figured they needed to amp it up & give her a scene where she does something.
9.) I'm confused as to what happened at the end. Who is it in the bar? Why couldn't they just have had the ending they had in the book? The ending in the film reminds me of that ending from "Interview with the Vampire" with Tom Cruise telling Christian Slater he's going to give him the choice he never had. Cheesy.
Imagine my shock to find out that Seth Grahame-Smith was involved with the screenplay. SHAME ON YOU SETH! Did you have little creative control, or did you not care & sell out completely??!!
Tim Burton should hang his head in shame too (even though he hasn't been involved with a quality flick since "Sleepy Hollow")(with the "possible" exception of "Sweeney Todd".)
In my showing there was a group of gabby tweens who literally burst into giggles every time something happened on screen. Most of the time it was something that wasn't meant to be funny, but due to the nature of this "film" -was. Normally this behavior annoys me, but I couldn't even get annoyed with them, as it was justified.
So what did I like you might ask? If you're still reading. Well, I liked Benjamin Walker as I thought he looked the part, especially in Abe's later years, & he tried. But due to poor writing, and equally poor direction, his performance throughout the film is uneven and shockingly wooden as Abe in his younger years.
I liked Dominic Cooper as Henry, who like Walker, did the best he could with the crappy material and direction, at least he had a little more passion in his performance. It's not his fault the script sucked.
I liked that the vampires didn't sparkle.
If you enjoyed or have any respect for the book this is "based" on, I urge you to refrain from spending your hard earned money on a vastly overpriced ticket. You have been warned.
I LOVED the book. I loved the way time was taken to carefully develop the characters & story, & weave them into coordination with true historical facts, & events.
I'm not saying this needed to be "Batman Begins", i'm willing to accept the fact that studios aren't willing to provide unlimited funds for films they might consider "going out on a limb."
This movie would've been great if it had gone one of two ways: A goofy, campy, slaying story in the spirit of Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead" series (which I thoroughly enjoy). Or, if it had closely followed the tone & story of the novel. This movie did neither of those. The ONLY resemblance to the book are some character's names.
Here are my quarrels:
1.) A completely changed & rushed back story. What was so carefully plotted out in the book & gradually developed both story & character wise (so you can feel for Abe, his plight, motivations, feelings, & destiny) is now a completely different story with omissions of important characters, events, situations, mindsets, emotions, etc. & the addition of characters & situations not in the book.
It's rushed through in approximately 5 minutes, leaving you wondering why you should give a crap at all. You have no connection with Abe, or any other character for that matter. I was actually stunned.
2.) There's a training sequence that's laughable, & approximately 3 minutes long, with some of the worst CGI ever.
3.) Henry. His back story is unfortunately butchered & laughably unbelievable. As is his initial meeting (and ensuing friendship) with Abe. Gone is his meticulous nature, and important contributions to the story, and left is a husk of the character from the book.
4.) And what's this crap about vampires can't kill their own? And how vampires are made vampires? The explanation for how vampires are made vampires is so ridiculous, you'll want to puncture your own eardrums for having heard it.
5.) Continuing omission of key characters & events which continually leave you detached from any characters or the story. Adam, & the female vampire (? name) are a prime example of additional made up characters shoe horned in the movie. If they had followed the original story they would have had more than enough material without needing to invent these two silly, cardboard characters,
6.) Continuous, unemotional, passionless, mind numbingly repetitive "Matrix" like slow motion vampire killing scenes. Silly fight in a herd of wild running horses....horse "tossing".
7.) Silly subplot about silver. It's not ever in the book as being harmful, or the making of weapons from them. (PS: writers...stop putting silver in vampire movies, save it for the werewolves.)
8.) Mary Todd was never savvy to what her husband was up to. But here, less believably, distributing silver weapons out in the battlefield, where she could then have a stupid scene where she shoots the female (name?) vampire, who is running at her with full "Ahhhhhhh!!" battle cry.
But I guess the "writers" figured they needed to amp it up & give her a scene where she does something.
9.) I'm confused as to what happened at the end. Who is it in the bar? Why couldn't they just have had the ending they had in the book? The ending in the film reminds me of that ending from "Interview with the Vampire" with Tom Cruise telling Christian Slater he's going to give him the choice he never had. Cheesy.
Imagine my shock to find out that Seth Grahame-Smith was involved with the screenplay. SHAME ON YOU SETH! Did you have little creative control, or did you not care & sell out completely??!!
Tim Burton should hang his head in shame too (even though he hasn't been involved with a quality flick since "Sleepy Hollow")(with the "possible" exception of "Sweeney Todd".)
In my showing there was a group of gabby tweens who literally burst into giggles every time something happened on screen. Most of the time it was something that wasn't meant to be funny, but due to the nature of this "film" -was. Normally this behavior annoys me, but I couldn't even get annoyed with them, as it was justified.
So what did I like you might ask? If you're still reading. Well, I liked Benjamin Walker as I thought he looked the part, especially in Abe's later years, & he tried. But due to poor writing, and equally poor direction, his performance throughout the film is uneven and shockingly wooden as Abe in his younger years.
I liked Dominic Cooper as Henry, who like Walker, did the best he could with the crappy material and direction, at least he had a little more passion in his performance. It's not his fault the script sucked.
I liked that the vampires didn't sparkle.
If you enjoyed or have any respect for the book this is "based" on, I urge you to refrain from spending your hard earned money on a vastly overpriced ticket. You have been warned.