A sort-of movie review

[deborahjross]

I see very few movies in theaters, and I've yet to come up with a coherent way of describing how I choose them. Greatness has nothing to do with it. Escapism, not quite but closer. Silliness, well of a particular flavor. Almost all of them are sf/f of some sort. When they aren't Austen novel adaptations. When they aren't something I could just as well wait and watch on Netflix. I have inconsistent notions of what demands to be seen on a big screen. I want it all - brilliant writing, great acting, food for thought, love story, some fabulous action/effects but not too much. I never get what I want, so I settle for a fun afternoon.

None of which explains why I saw Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. I thought the concept was cute, had read that the book was pretty dreadful but that the movie was a bit better. A couple of writers I respect said good things about it.

For the most part, I was neither surprised nor disappointed, meaning it was pretty much what I expected. Light on character and meaty ideas, heavy on special effects, intense action, scary things happening way too fast. (My poor friend who came with me had to cover her eyes in places.) Not much on depth of thought. I so, so, so wish they'd taken a small amount of the time (not to mention money) on all those fight scenes and used it to delve deeper into these people, these times, the complicated issues, not to mention what a 5,000 year old vampire might actually be like.

There was, however, one real "money shot." I won't tell you what it was, because it's a true spoiler, but I'm pretty sure you'll know it when you see it. (Hint: it's late in the movie.) Undoubtedly a cheap thrill, but it got me. And that's what's stayed with me, even though I doubt I will want to sit through the yadda yadda fight scenes again.

The one on the backs of the stampeding horses was rather cool, though, or would have been at half that length. Even if the horses had no reason for stampeding. Oh well, maybe they didn't like vampires skipping across their backs. Or something.

Comments

[tanyareed.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on the movie thing. I don't particularly like movies, so I don't watch many, and I might go to the theatre every two years. Once in awhile, there are some that I want to see, and I have ones that I just love (and usually, they are these little silly comedies that just catch me for some reason--My favorite movies are: Romancing the Stone, See No Evil; Hear No Evil, and The Proposal. ) My problem with movies is that there is no time to invest in the characters. You just start liking them/understanding them and then it's over. (I'm pretty bleah about short stories for the most part too). I'd much rather have a novel or a TV series where you can get to know the characters over time, and you have time to really care about what happens to them. You love them, you hate them, you want to know what makes them tick.

Anyway, that's enough blabbing. I will add that mostly the only movies I see in the theatre are the ones my cousin Grant pulls me in to see...um...and sometimes Pierce Brosnan movies, because there is never enough Pierce Bronsnan in my life.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

We don't get television reception, but I do watch DVDs from Netflix. Often these are of series my friends have told me about. I wonder if some of their appeal is the development of character and relationship you talked about. Most of them don't have the same satisfying story arc as a movie, but occasional gems like Babylon 5 do.