“Insidious: Chapter 2” – It Will Take What You Love Most

I love a good scary movie. In fact if lights are on, I’ll turn them off before I start it. I’ll do whatever I can to enhance the experience. So when a sequel comes out to a movie that legitimately gave me the willies…you’ve got my attention. Sadly as with James Wan’s first foray into horror (“Saw”) it would appear that this series is destined for the same “sequels equal money” path. It definitely had some moments that got my heart-rate up, but then again so does running up the stairs.insidious2

The first film did a great job taking a normal haunted house flick and turning it on its head. It freaked us out because as with almost every other film, the hauntings tend to stop once you move into a different house, but what happens when one of you is haunted? Plus the ending to “Insidious” just made you go, “Well great, I’m never living with roommates again.” and that was that. The sequel starts up right where the first one left off, which honestly detracts from what made the original great but oh well. I think  there’s actually a third one on the way so I’m losing hope as I’m writing this. But I digress…

So a quick premise of the first film: family has son who can wander in his dreams, accidentally wanders into Hell or something similar, becomes lost and possessed. Hijinks ensue and eventually all seems well when son wakes up. Ending comes out of nowhere, you need new pants. Ok, now that we’re caught up we’ll move on to the second chapter. Family moves into a new house (a la normal thought process of hauntings) and of course crap keeps happening to everyone, only this time the son isn’t to blame. Without giving away too much plot because it will give away pretty much the entire first film, just know that it’s very sub-par to the first film. The scares aren’t as genuine and they rely on the same “sudden noise” effect that is more related to how high your volume is. Also they tried to give a backstory to the hauntings which I believe rarely works. Much like “Paranormal Activity” it was so much scarier when things were happening and you had no idea why, versus some tortured soul of the creepy guy next door whose house was always the recipient of hurled rotten eggs. That, and by the time it was over they were totally gearing up for the threequel, and knowing Hollywood I’m sure we’re destined for about four more of these as well.insidious2 (1)

I know this is from the first movie, but it still scares the crap out of me.

Now if you’ve read at least a few of my reviews then chances are that you’ve seen one of my horror pieces. To be honest I think most of them have low ratings from me but that’s because I’ve set the bar rather high when it comes to scaring myself, something that only “What Lies Beneath” and “The Tunnel” can still do on a reoccurring basis. I really wanted to enjoy this movie, and in some ways I did but just not as a follow-up to “Insidious”. First time I watched it was in broad daylight and after it was over I still had to politely excuse myself to go for a good cry. Last night I popped this on while on the couch in pitch black and with the volume at a decent “scare” level, and I still felt like “meh” when I crawled into bed afterwards. The acting was not the greatest and I’m sure the actors just phoned this one in for the paycheck, but then again Hollywood isn’t exactly rolling out the originals these days.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: Definitely watch the first film, it will remain better than it’s follower and most likely all of the films after that. Oh, and the guy on the poster for this one isn’t even in the movie.

FLICKCHART RATING: 731/2057

Advertisements

“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” – From the smallest beginnings come the greatest legends.

While that tagline may be a bit misleading, Peter Jackson’s return to Middle Earth is definitely a nice precursor to his “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. Featuring plenty of cameos from the first go-round, an excellent score that in my opinion rivals some of the music from the trilogy, and tons of prosthetic noses, “The Hobbit” proves that it has a place among my DVD shelf (when it comes out on extended edition Blu-Ray, that is).The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

A lot of people were skeptical during the pre-production of “The Hobbit”, with most of the buzz being “No! Don’t ruin the trilogy!” or “Peter Jackson is stupid. He’s going to make the longest movie out of the shortest book,” or “Bilbo sucks.” All of these, at the time, were valid arguments that I, too was nervous about. However now that I sat through all two hours and 46 minutes I can easily put those to rest. First off:

He didn’t ruin the trilogy. Nor is he going to with the rest of the installments.

“The Lord of the Rings” trilogy has already gone down in history as one of the best trilogies of all time, second only to “The Mighty Ducks”. Side note, if you don’t believe me then give them a re-watch. I’ll choose Charlie Conway triple-deking and scoring the game winning goal over Frodo’s incessant whining any day. But I digress. LOTR (Lord of the Rings is getting too long to type) is very standalone. Sure, “The Hobbit” sets it up by referencing Bilbo’s adventure with the dwarves and him finding the ring, but other than that you could see it without previous knowledge of the trilogy and be perfectly content. In fact, I would almost advise the younger generation to start with “The Hobbit” first, just so you can watch the entire story grow.

“The Hobbit” is the longest movie but the shortest book.

This has always been a debate among film-lovers when it comes to book adaptations: which is better? Teachers will almost always say that the book is, and for most of the time they’re right. However it still boils down to an opinion of the viewer and in some cases it turns out to be the other way around. For instance, I have read “Jurassic Park” twice and listened to the audiobook once, yet the movie is still second to none for me. It did for toilets what “Jaws” did for the ocean in my case, something I couldn’t get out of the book. So when production started on “The Hobbit”, the only Tolkien book I have actually read, I was excited. Sure it’s not that long of a book, but that’s also because books don’t include sweeping scenes of the characters walking places, or a face-stuffing montage of dwarves singing and eating. Since so many people had mentioned to me that the movie was going to be too long, I went in expecting it to be but came out happily surprised. There are plenty of fillers that just add to the time because they are fun to watch; nothing is taking away from the story. Oh, and the studio probably asked him to do it. And finally…

“Bilbo sucks.”

Well, sure. But at least he isn’t whining the whole time. And Martin Freeman is actually English.

So those points aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. However there is something else that I believe needs to be touched on, and that’s the viewing experience. Peter Jackson went against the curve and shot a lot of this movie in 48 fps (frames per second). Movies are generally shot in 24 fps and that is what gives them the cinematic look. Anything above that and it starts to look like a Blu-Ray advertisement at Best Buy. After looking at the movie times we decided on seeing the 48 fps HD XTREME 3D RAGETACULAR edition. I had read a review going into it saying that the 48 frames isn’t for everyone, and it definitely isn’t. I’m not a fan because it makes it feel as if you’re standing next to the camera watching everything be filmed. Maybe some like the “live” feel but I don’t. Cinema is classic and I’ll always want the cinematic touch. So take that with a grain of salt but I urge you to see it in 24 fps if you have the chance. The 3D is a nice touch as he actually had some stuff fly at the screen, and I’ll admit that I may have had the tiniest dodge at one point.

08_the_hobbit_fili

Don’t miss the pivotal scene in the beginning about dishes.

Now just a quick paragraph about the movie itself. It’s great. I didn’t remember anything from the book since it’s been years since I read it, and while Jackson may have added plenty of his own touch, it is quite the spectacle. Yes, there’s a lot of CGI but the action scenes are fun and wouldn’t have been possible without it. I also mentioned the music earlier, which is much more haunting than Howard Shore’s earlier work on the trilogy. I find myself humming “The Misty Mountain” quite frequently as it becomes a base for the whole film. Honestly, the movie made me want to go on an adventure myself.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: The 3D and 48 frames is not necessary to enjoy this prequel, but hopefully you’ll be upset that it’s over by the time the credits start to roll. Even if most of the film is reminiscent of a large World of Warcraft battle.

FLICKCHART RATING: 119/1963

“Lawless” – When the law became corrupt, outlaws became heroes.

Three British actors, two American actors, and an Australian actress headline this film about prohibition in Virginia during the early 1930’s. Goes to show that talent spreads far and wide in the industry. It’s also about bootlegging and dealing with the blowback from the authorities, and dagnabbit I thought it was pretty darn good.Lawless

First thing that I noticed was how big Tom Hardy was in the film. Then I realized that it was due to “The Dark Knight Rises” being filmed right before “Lawless”, so he was coming down off his muscle high. His role as Forrest Bondurant of the Bondurant Brothers was outstanding in my opinion. I didn’t have any previous knowledge of their reign over the moonshine racket, and I can’t say that I’m a source of it now but I definitely got the feeling of what it was like to make the white lightning during that era. Working alongside Hardy were fellow kin Shia LaBeouf as Jack Bondurant, and Jason Clarke as Howard Bondurant. The movie opens with Jack’s narration about how they seem to be “invincible”, walking away from deadly situations several times throughout their lives. Probably why it seemed like a good idea to make moonshine. It takes place during 1931 which is right in the heart of Prohibition, but it’s in Franklin County, Virginia and everyone, even the cops, are buying the stuff. I’d like to give a big thank you to those keeping the booze flowing when times were tough.

So once we get past the rough-and-toughness of the brothers, we’re introduced to Gary Oldman’s character, Floyd Banner. He’s a bootlegger out of Chicago who just doesn’t give a guff and will stop at nothing to keep his business afloat. Sadly his screen time is sufficiently small and his use in the trailer may be a bit…exaggerated. It’s ok, I kept watching. Shortly after Banner enters we get to meet Maggie Beauford, portrayed by Jessica Chastain. Right off the bat you can tell that she’s some sort of love interest to Forrest but also the brother’s gas station attendant (in the movie the station is mostly used as a coffee house and bar, so don’t get the wrong idea.) Finally, my favorite: Guy Pearce. The last movie I saw with him in it was “Lockout” and before that, “Prometheus”. In the former he’s a tough-as-nails ex-military type sent into space to retrieve the President’s daughter (read my review about it here), and in the latter a creepy old guy running Weyland Industries (read my review about creepy old man Pearce here). Now, take both of those and combine them, lose a little muscle mass, add some pomade and a slick Italian suit, and you’ve got Charlie Rakes, the Chicago Special Deputy brought in to take down the local bootleggers. As a reviewer of films I feel it’s fair to point out when certain ones do not get the marketing they deserve. “Lawless” is definitely one of those movies, especially with the cast it has, but also because of Guy Pearce’s performance as Rakes. If I had a “Top 100 Villains” list he would definitely be on it. He is ruthless, cunning, evil, and downright creepy. I have a lot of admiration for Pearce as this is now the third film he’s in that I’ve reviewed, and I hope that many more are to come. That being said if making illegal booze, a gruffed up Tom Hardy, and a super sexy Jessica Chastain aren’t enough to make you interested in this film, please let Guy Pearce be the reason you are.

600full-lawless-screenshotPretty sure Moses parted that thing.

As the film progresses things obviously get harder for the brothers as the law continues to crack down, and Jack (LaBeouf) being the youngest gets his head full of the local preacher’s daughter, Bertha Minnix (Mia Wasikowska)…seriously? Bertha? The film comes in at just shy of two hours but I really enjoyed every minute of it, and felt a bit of jealousy that I didn’t have my own still to hide from the police. I’ve rarely had a very “patriotic” feel about anything, but for once I felt proud to be from Virginia.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: A movie that has kind of gone unnoticed since it’s release in August but I urge you to give it a look. It may be a Hollywood-ized retelling of some of our nation’s history, but not enough to ruin the story. Plus for those of you who don’t want to watch it because of Shia’s involvement, he spends the majority of the film getting his butt kicked. So there’s that. Oh, and Jessica Chastain is smokin’.

FLICKCHART RATING: 213/1961

“Diabolique” – Don’t Reveal the Ending!

Wouldn’t it be great if all movies had this tagline? Sadly this did not hold true for me as someone accidentally revealed a key part to the end, however by the time I finally watched this film (months later) I definitely did not see the end coming the way it did. That being said, don’t go running around telling everyone that Luke’s daddy issues are going to be resolved by the end of “Empire”.Diabolique

Normally I’d say that subtitled films need a lot of draw to get me to watch them and for the most part, that’s almost always true. Even “Pan’s Labyrinth” took some urging from one of my college roommates before I decided to sit down and read the screen for two hours. You would think that after a movie as great as “Pan’s” that I maybe would’ve changed my mind, but not so much. So it wasn’t until my girlfriend Emily persuaded me to see “Diabolique” that I felt ok with watching it. Since I normally force her to watch movies I felt this was an interesting turn and that maybe she had a decent taste after all. That or I would just humor her and watch this crappy French movie from the 50’s. Having finished the movie I can gladly say that I may listen to her film recommendations more closely now, as “Diabolique” is an old thriller done right.

Movies have obviously changed since their inception a little over a century ago, though some would argue for the worse. Thrillers and horror films in particular have turned from actually scaring you and making you fear things like the ocean, or a bathtub to just throwing obscene amounts of blood and gore at you until you can’t keep down that overpriced popcorn anymore. So when we popped in the Criterion Collection edition of “Diabolique”, it was a welcome breath of (old) fresh air to the thriller genre. Set around the same time it came out (1955) it follows two women who work at a boarding school, run by none other than the tyrannical husband of one of our heroine’s. Within the first five minutes of the film we discover that the other woman is in fact the man’s mistress but this is not secret knowledge; both women are friends with each other and have a shared hatred for the man in their lives. As the backstory unfolds we learn that the wife (Christina) purchased the boarding school with the money she inherited from her family, but being 1950’s France is not allowed to run the school, only teach in it. Therefore her brutish husband Michel serves as the principle and rules with an iron fist. The two women are sick and tired of him beating them and treating them both terribly, so they decide to drive to the country and divorce him altogether. Of course once Michel catches wind of this plan he follows them to the country as well and tries to win his wife back by yelling at her and slapping her a few times. Ah, the ways to a woman’s heart. This doesn’t pan out as well as Michel had hoped, because the two ladies decide to retaliate and, you know, kill him.

Naturally.

600full-diabolique-screenshotThis is how divorce used to be handled in 1950’s France.

What follows for the next hour and a half is Christina’s nervousness as they live their lives after the deed, but questions start to arise as well as strange occurrences that point to Michel communicating from beyond the grave. Obviously this is a problem and the film plays it out very well. I was caught completely off guard by the last few minutes of the film, but couldn’t be more pleased at how it turned out. Going back to the beginning of this post, in today’s movies it’s just so hard to not guess the ending of a film by the time you’re half-way through it (“Lincoln” anyone?) whereas “Diabolique” did a wonderful job making you guess up until the reveal. It was eventually remade in 1996 or 1997 with Sharon Stone, so make sure you don’t see that one by mistake. Also if you need anymore of a reason to see it, Hitchcock vied for the rights to make this movie and lost out to Henri-Georges Clouzot by six hours, so there’s that. A great thriller and a well-placed choice for the Criterion Collection, and the lead actress looks super eerily like a French Judy Garland. Creepy.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: Forget that it’s black and white and French (ew) and give it a shot. The only downfall for me was that there is no musical score, so it has a very raw feel but perhaps that plays into the suspense of the whole thing. Oh, and DON’T REVEAL THE ENDING.

FLICKCHART RATING: 499/1959

“Skyfall”

As I sit here listening to the soundtrack to “Skyfall” by my man Thomas Newman (Newman for President 2016!), I can’t help but replay the entire movie through my head. I’ve seen every Bond film multiple times, most of which spent with my dad during the TNT Month of Bond marathon’s over the years, and “Skyfall” definitely takes the cake. Most if not all of you older folks will automatically disagree because Mr. Connery “is the only Bond”, but Daniel Craig has brought in a new era altogether. “Skyfall” is no longer your dad’s James Bond.

To me “Skyfall” is the best James Bond film I’ve ever seen, and here is why. It is every single Bond movie put together. That’s not to say that you don’t need to see the previous 22 to appreciate it, but it does stand alone as a pretty awesome film. It also has the closest thing to an origin story that Bond has ever come to. Previously Pierce Brosnan mentioned how Bond’s parents died back in “Goldeneye” but this time we actually get to live through Bond’s past. Also the jokes are back. Both “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” were almost completely bare-bones action with a few chuckles here and there, but “Skyfall” came back and had us laughing several times throughout the film. It brings you back to remembering that Bond is still a suave and quick-witted spy instead of just a brawler with some fancy gadgets. Which brings me to my next point: Q. Ever since Desmond Llewelyn passed away after “The World is Not Enough”, Bond has been remiss of his trusted Quartermaster. Luckily we now have Ben Whishaw as a younger, Mark Zuckerberg-esque Q who quickly proves to be more of a friend to Bond then a mentor. I felt that this fit in quite well, especially with our generation who may tend to find the older films tedious and smutty. I’ll be honest, I’m not quite sure what that word means but for some reason it felt like it fit the sentence. Let’s run with it.

At 143 minutes this movie definitely did not feel long enough. I tend to piece together the bits of the trailer into the film and use what’s left to figure out how close we’re getting to the end, and as the remaining pieces dwindled all I could think about is how I wanted it to keep going. From the opening sequence watching Bond chase down an assassin on a moving train through Istanbul after riding a motorcycle off a bridge, to his romps in China, England, and finally Scotland I just couldn’t get enough. Sure the dialogue has it’s cheesy moments and Javier Bardem’s villain is a tad reminiscent of earlier rogues, but that’s what makes this a fun movie, right? That’s another thing, Bardem’s portrayal of Silva, the blonde haired creeper with a personal vendetta. He’s almost more realistic in this way because his motive isn’t world takeover or large scale bank robbery, it’s something much deeper than that. In my opinion it takes Bond and MI6 to places they’ve never been before and creates tension for Bond. I read an article yesterday about the film and how Bardem’s role was questioned as being homosexual in a way, but instead Sam Mendes (director) defined it as uncomfortable, which is exactly how it ended up being. Coincidentally the first time we are introduced to Silva the audience had several laughs at the interaction between the two. It was a breath of fresh air to be up against a baddie who wasn’t petting a cat, or trying to harness the sun’s rays with a satellite filled with diamonds (yeah, this actually happened in “Die Another Day”). The chemistry between the two actors was amazing, and even Bardem’s channeling of Hannibal Lecter was spot on. Even Judi Dench got a much larger role than usual, which is great to see because she was born to play M and get out from behind the desk. Newcomer to the series Ralph Fiennes was a perfect choice for his character, Gareth Mallory (Gareth?). He’s basically M’s higher-up but treats her more like an old…younger sister, if that makes sense. He spends his time looking out for her while also trying to remain professional. Naturally the first time he and Bond meet they butt heads, but the relationship takes a sudden leap about halfway into the film which can mean only great things for later on. And holy crap, Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe are super sexy Bond Women (no longer “Girls”), and are also a solid throwback to the wooing ways of old. Truly everyone cast in this film in whichever roll they filled was an excellent choice, and I certainly wouldn’t have picked anyone else.

Javier Bardem no longer works in films unless his character has weird hair.

I would like to end this with the “Bond Theory”, and what “Skyfall” does for it. When “Die Another Day” came out, the director had considered using Roger Moore or Sean Connery in a cameo role as Brosnan’s Bond’s father, therefore explaining that the Agent number 007 and James Bond were just moniker’s for an agent’s specific level. Basically if you were a member of MI6 and happened to be good at breaking the rules and killing bad guys, you reached the level of 007 and your “cover” then became James Bond, with the same back story as every character. This would explain why there have been so many different Bond’s over the years, as well as why George Lazenby looked directly at the screen and said, “This never happened to the other fella” after chasing a girl on a beach in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”. Of course there are discrepancies with this over the series, but there are also reaffirmations such as Judi Dench M being referred to as “new” in “Goldeneye”, and “Casino Royale” being time stamped within 2006. Yeah I know, we fan boys have way too much time on our hands. Anyway, “Skyfall” offers it’s own unique take on this theory, one that I assumed was debunking it right away but after listening to my girlfriend’s thoughts (and dismissing them way too quickly), I now think she was right in stating that this film only helped the idea that there have been several James Bond’s over the years (shout out to Emily). So whether you really care about the series or not, it really hits home and offers more than just action. Even you Connery lovers will walk away thinking this one is shaken and not stirred. (I admit, I have no idea what that means.)

DIRECTOR’S CUT: I hate Adele and wish someone else had sung the theme song, but the movie more than makes up for it. It’s just too bad that kids can’t really dress up as James for Halloween since the man could use some more recognition as being awesome.

FLICKCHART RATING: 20/1956 (Whoa)

“The Expendables 2” – Back for War

I had no idea Chuck Norris’ voice was so high. That’s pretty much what I walked away with from this sequel, besides the over the top explosions and gun battles that would make Michael Bay break down and cry. To me this was a perfect example of what happens when a studio gets involved with making a sequel to a half-way decent film, and in my opinion it failed to hit the mark.

The first “Expendables” was pretty solid; a bunch of aging action stars getting together to form a mercenary-for-hire team to do the dirty work of the government while also retaining some form of humanity. This second take was more of a revenge mission as one of the members is killed off right at the beginning. When the posters and the teaser trailer hit, everyone was excited to see JCVD and Chuck Norris (CHUCK NORRIS!) in the film, but after watching it you realize that they were hardly in it at all. JCVD (Jean-Claude Van Damme) plays the villain of the film, trying to collect plutonium to make a bomb or something, kind of hard to pick up on when the actual plot scenes are few and far between. Chuck Norris shows up about halfway into the movie as another friendly mercenary who likes to work alone, however his appearance is nothing short of a gimmick. No joke, but when he walks up to the team he actually delivers his own “Chuck Norris” meme that was so popular on the internet a few years back. That’s how…low this movie sunk. Bruce Willis and the good Governator make a comeback as well, and I’ll honestly say that I enjoyed Willis’ performance as a John McClane-esque CIA operative working in the shadows. Arnold, however…I swear the man’s acting has become worse over the years. He definitely peaked during “Jingle All The Way”. From the way the trailer portrayed those two I thought they were going to be villains in the film, judging by all of the yelling they did in the first film, but they surprised me and actually come out on top as friends to Sylvester and his crew. However while we’re on the topic of cheesy lines, I’m starting to wonder if Arnold is getting paid every time he says “I’ll be back” in a movie that isn’t “Terminator”, because frankly it’s getting old. He and Bruce have a quote exchange in the middle of a firefight (where else?) that is literally just a chance for them to pretend to be the other. Wow.

Just a normal day for Chuck Norris.

So enough about why it was mediocre. The original cast is back and I enjoy the camaraderie they have for one another, especially because they’re all jacked up meat heads with guns. Jet Li makes yet another appearance in a film, coming out of retirement for the umpteenth time, but disappears early on with a very ambiguous answer as to whether we’ll see him in future installments. The explosions and violence definitely keep up with the name “Expendables” and don’t leave you wanting for much else. The dialogue could use some tweaking, but then again in a movie about guys shooting each other and blowing things up one-liners are an occupational hazard. I guess the first film really didn’t need a sequel because it would essentially be the same film, over and over again, which is exactly what this ended up being. I’m sure the studios will want more of these and last I saw, a female version of the film is on it’s way. So heads up, we could be seeing “The Expendabetties” sometime in the near future.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: Hooray explosions!

FLICKCHART RATING: 633/1950

“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” – President by day. Hunter by night.

I wanted this movie to be real. I wanted to pick up a history book and find a footnote that said something along the lines of, “Oh and when he wasn’t abolishing slavery, Lincoln often spent his days eliminating the scourge of vampires that once plagued this nation. He also had three children.” Timur Bekmambetov, the visionary director behind “Wanted” comes back full force with the film adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith’s book, and though I haven’t read the actual story I feel that this representation was probably spot on.

The movie opens on young Abe watching as one of his slave friends is whipped, and through his rash actions winds up getting the family fired from the service of one Jack Barts, a slave and business owner of some sort. That night Abe witnesses the same Jack Barts come to their house and “hurt” his mother, resulting in her strange death within the next few days. Flash-forward about ten years and here’s young adult Abe sitting at a bar, gathering the courage he needs to plant a bullet right between Jack Barts’ eyes. During his drunken confrontation (in which he is losing the fight, badly) it is revealed that Jack Barts is actually a vampire. Abe is saved by Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper…Iron Man’s dad in Captain America) who decides that he is going to impart his knowledge of being a vampire hunter onto Honest Abe. Through this montage of learning how to be a BAMF with an axe, we are told that apparently the United States were filled with vampires during the days leading up to the Civil War, a plague that needed to be eradicated. The lead vampire is simply known as “Adam”, which is quite fitting. I’ll point out that he’s played by Rufus Sewell, who after seeing “A Knight’s Tale” is pretty much locked as a villain for the rest of his life. This plot is discussed in more detail later on but the main reason is that many Confederate land owners were vampires and were happy with life because they could feed off the slaves they owned, while continuing to get new ones: hooray for a never-ending supply of food! Once Abe learns all of his awesome new ass-kickery skills, he is shipped off to Springfield, Illinois to kill the neck-biters in the area.

Enter Mary Todd.

One of the first rules of fight cl-er, vampire hunting is that you are not to indulge in romantic feelings with anyone else. Otherwise you’ll be creating a vulnerable spot for your enemies to target, and then nobody wins. Over time Lincoln decides to pursue Mary and his beliefs for abolishing slavery, which naturally enrages the Confederate vampires as their food supply would then run out. This leads to the Civil War as vampires are used as soldiers since they can’t really, you know, die.

Emancipate this.

But enough about the story, you’ll have to watch it to see how it all plays out and it’s well worth the watch. Normally you would think that a story like this would result in some sort of straight-to-DVD release because of how crazy it is, but Timur definitely knows how to weave a yarn together. He utilized a lot of the slow motion effects from “Wanted” into this story and it really works out. Nothing like seeing Lincoln to a backflip while decapitating vampires. The dialogue should be noted as well, as the actors really put a good effort into the South/North accents and the dialect at the time. Also, the line, “Abraham fu*kin’ Lincoln!” is spoken at one point, which I believe should have been his campaign slogan.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: This movie is awesome. There’s a reason Abe is on Mount Rushmore, and now we know why. You can cover it up all you want, government…but now we know the truth.

FLICKCHART RATING: 230/1948