June 22, 2012, - 8:11 pm

Wknd Box Office: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Brave, Lola Versus

By Debbie Schlussel

I really liked one of the new movies out at theaters this weekend. The rest were “eh.”

* “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World“: While this is definitely for adults only (it’s chock full of sexual themes, drug use, and R-rated language), I really enjoyed this movie. It’s very funny, romantic, and charming. But it’s the kind of movie guys will like, too.

It’s the end of the world. The news broadcasts that everyone only has three weeks to live because an asteroid is heading toward earth. Because of that, people quit their jobs, there are no more flights, people use illegal drugs and party non-stop, there are riots, and magazines stop publishing. One magazine is shown with the cover, “Last issue – The Best of Humanity,” and it bears pictures of Jesus and Oprah. Oprah? Are you kidding? They must be?

Steve Carell is an unhappy, bored insurance agent, whose wife leaves him when she learns the world will soon end. His neighbor, Keira Knightley, is in her late 20s and has just dumped her boyfriend. With riots surrounding their building, they escape and travel to see the true love of his life and to take her to fly in a private plane home to England to say good-bye to her parents. But the story is really about their journey and what happens to them and between them along the way. I’m not a fan of Knightley, but she didn’t really get in the way here. The best thing about the movie is that the male lead character played by Carell is a real mensch and class act.

Some who’ve seen it have said the ending is a “rip-off.” Not so. It ends perfectly and at just the right time. Anything different really would have been a rip-off.


Watch the trailer . . .

* “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter“: I hated this movie. I’m all for historical movies and even historical fiction movies. But this was just stupid and has nothing at all to do with history. And, as I understand from a friend who read it, the book is much better. Still, I’ve already said on this site that I don’t like these concepts of turning Lincoln into a vampire hunter and other similarly silly premises. It’s all about liberal disrespect and tearing down of authority and historical authority figures we revere in America. When I first wrote about that, a commenter suggested we write a book about Barack Obama, vampire bloodsucker. The thing is, he makes a silly cameo at the end of this movie (well a Black arm of a man who is supposed to be him does) as a vampire hunter. Huh? He won’t even fight Islamic terrorists, illegal aliens, or a bad economy. Vampires would make mincemeat of him. Also, in this movie, the vampires are mostly Confederates and slavery supporters, which is not the case in the book (which has vampires on both sides), so it’s an anti-Southern, anti-red state movie.

The story: Abraham Lincoln’s mother is murdered by a vampire. He becomes a vampire hunter with a mentor who sends him to Illinois. Lincoln decides that if the vampire hunter stuff doesn’t work out, he can always run for office, and soon he’s in the White House fighting off the vampires. The movie has Lincoln accompanies by his magical Black friend who stays at the White House with him, while Mrs. Lincoln consults Harriet Tubman to go on the underground railroad to escape the vampires like Black slaves escaped slavers. Huh? Just stupid. And the special effects and stunt weren’t believable either.

Skip this messy, stupid movie and read some history books about the real Abraham Lincoln. This vampire stuff is for the birds . . . and gullible teens searching for heartthrobs. Where is John Wilkes Booth when you need him to put a movie out of its misery? Sadly, he was nowhere to be seen in this horrid flick.


Watch the trailer . . .

* “Brave“: Disney has been pushing this Pixar 3-D animated kids movie big-time. But it doesn’t live up to the hype. The story is kind of dull and laced with feminist she-manism, like all movies aimed at girls, these days. All the men in the movie are dopes, per usual. And it’s kind of dark, both in color and story. Also, I was surprised that, even though it’s animated, this kids movie had a scene showing all the men walking with their naked butts to the screen. Why do Disney and Pixar feel the need to push the envelope like this with young kids?

A Scottish princess is dismayed when her mother, the queen, wants to marry her off. The princess wants to spend her time riding horses, hunting, and shooting her bow and arrow in the forest. So, she goes to the woods and seeks out a witch to cast a spell on her mother. The spell turns her mother into a grizzly bear and she must beat the clock to keep her mother from permanently turning into a bear. Her father, the king, is an incompetent, drunken dope who lost his leg to a grizzly bear and wants to party and kill the grizzly.


Watch the trailer . . .

* “Lola Versus“: I will never understand why anyone finds self-absorbed, navel-gazing hipsters interesting. And so it goes with this waste of time movie chock-filled with annoying people badly in need of help and common sense. There are a few funny lines in this movie, but mostly it will annoy the heck out of you. Lola (Greta Gerwig) is engaged to her artist boyfriend in New York. But he dumps her and she starts feeling sorry for herself with a bunch of unattractive, weirdo friends and sleeps around with everyone including her ex-fiance. The end. Ick. Two hours of life gone forever, wasted on this dreck. Don’t do what I did. Skip it. No charm was involved in the making of this movie.


Watch the trailer . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

37 Responses

“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World“ looked interesting when I saw the commercial last night, but I was understandably hinky that they would blow it with something vulgar or stupid.
I’m so glad it’s worth seeing, thank you Debbie!

Michelle on June 22, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Since when did Abraham Lincoln suddenly become a whip wielding Belmont?

(if anyone here played any of the Castlevania video games, you’d get the reference)

Is anyone like me sick of the damn Vampire craze??

Squirrel3D on June 22, 2012 at 10:30 pm

It would just absolutely kill Hollywood to tell the real story of Abraham Lincoln as narrated by either Thomas DiLorenzo or Lerone Bennett, Jr.

The police and National Guard would have to be called out to protect every community in America from rioting by the Black Community if they knew the truth that Lincoln was trying to get Black folks to move back to Africa. (LIberia)

As Lerone Bennett, Jr. most ably points out that Lincoln did not believe anything that he was writing about the Emancipation Proclamation.

If anybody should ever sue the Federal Government, it should be the family of Clementine Vallandingham for telling the truth about the War Betweem the States on the House floor.

Lincoln ripping people off with Greenbacks.

Lincoln giving members of the 48’ers (Known Marxist’s) positions in his administratiom and the Army.

Confederate South on June 22, 2012 at 10:31 pm


    Are you tellng us that the Confederacy was something good and that Blacks/Afro-Americans should have been shipped out of America? Or perhaps you believe that we should still deport all people who are not White by your definition? Your screename is very interesting.


    A Reader on June 23, 2012 at 12:00 am

      A Reader, you really should read some of the works that give the true picture of those days. DiLorenzo would be a good place to start. Not all of the Southerners were slaveholders, but they were all effected by the legislation being pushed through by the Northern Congressmen and Senators to protect the industrial North. Economics was the overall cause of Secession, not slavery. Northerners also owned slaves, who remained slaves until the end of the War of Secession.

      Joel-Confederate Son on June 25, 2012 at 12:39 pm

I am sick of Vampire movies but only ‘cuz no one does ’em well. I don’t watch “True Blood”. I figure if I am gonna watch stupid porn I should just start with the real stuff. All the actors seem so cartoony too. I can’t stand that hairy one who is always mugging for the camera like a silly sexy beast. I laugh because that type of beefcake is liked by dumb broads and gays. It’s embarrassing to me.

Skunky on June 22, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    I would agree that vampires, zombies, Weerwolves, demonic leprechauns, and other worn out hacks of the night should be retired for twenty years. There is no horror, humor, or even mild interest left in the bunch anymore. Skunky, it is just recycled fare that packs as much punch as a tub of jello.

    As for Lola versus Sex, it is just summer slut fare in pretentious packaging.

    How is Lola versus Sex much different from this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyUNp-y7N5c

    Note how old this is. 😉

    Worry on June 23, 2012 at 5:53 am

      LOL Worry! Your link made me laugh. I wanted to watch it for the 70’s nostalgia alone…nevermind the “Teenage Tramps”…hee-hee!

      I like these movies that celebrate tramps and yet that type of behaviour lead to Britney Spears’ breakdown…not that she doesn’t still make $$$ off of the mal-behaviour that keeps her gainly employed.

      Skunky on June 23, 2012 at 11:52 am

I’m just wondering about the premise. If you knew that the world is going to end in 3 weeks, I can understand partying, bur rioting? And why cancel all flights? As for magazines, in this age of online ones, who needs slaughtered trees?

The third movie – I didn’t get. The princess wanted a spell to be cast on her mother, and her mother was to be turned into a grizzly bear. So what was the problem – didn’t she get what she wanted? If her mother reverted back to the queen, again she would put her up for marriage. Or wouldn’t she?

Infidel on June 22, 2012 at 11:52 pm

I’m waiting for the moment when some kid does a report for his US history class on Abe Lincoln and references the “fact” that he fought vampires!

Alan on June 23, 2012 at 2:13 am

A Reader
My previous post is a total criticism of the Abraham Lincoln Administration.

Abraham Lincoln has been dubbed as one of the greatest presidents of all time by Northern writers when in fact he is the opposite of what he has been portrayed as.

Thomas DiLorenzo is a free market economist an historian who follows the same belief system as Black Economist and Historian Dr. Walter Williams. Both gentlemen apparently endorse each other.

Lerone Bennett, Jr. is the former publisher of Ebony magazine. Lerone spent 10 years writing “Forced Into Glory,” a book about Abraham Lincoln from a Black Man’s perspective.

I document what I have written from these gentlemen.

A Reader. The South Was Right. James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy.

Lincoln wanted the 2 best ports in America which are in the South and illegally tax the hell out of the South.

Confederate South on June 23, 2012 at 5:56 am

Lincoln suggested deporting freed black slaves to Africa because he felt blacks and whites could never get along, and that blacks would be happier in Africa. Frederick Douglas told Lincoln that blacks were as American as whites, and Lincoln dropped what he honestly thought was a solution that blacks wanted.

There were no “Marxists” during the War Betweeen the States. In fact, at that time, Karl Marx was a reporter in the US, reporting on the war for a European based newspaper.

Not everything written in the South about the War is accurate.

For a more accurate depiction of the war, see the Newport News Maritime Museum (which contains parts of the USS Monitor), which gives the five reasons for the war.

In a tip of the hat to our friend. Confederate South, most people don’t realize that the first state to try to secede was South Carolina…in 1830 under a pro-slavery president, Andrew Jackson. The issue was economic domination of the South by the imposition of heavy tariffs, which was killing the Southern economy.

Incidentally, left wing Montgomery County, Maryland was a Southern county, during the war, and was a conservative county until left wing Bostonians and NY’ers overwhelmed the natives here as the government expanded. We still have a Johnny Reb statue near the old courthouse, although it has been moved to a less prominent area.

Jonathan E. Grant on June 23, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Thank you for your time Mr. Grant. You informed me about a very accurate fact of Andrew Jackson that I was unaware of.

    I hope that you take time out of your busy day to read the book Lincoln’s Marxists by Al Benson, Jr. and Walter Donald Kennedy. Benson and Kennedy go to great lengths in documenting this book. Benson and Kennedy definitely reference one of my favorite authors, Thomas DiLorenzo.

    I do believe that Abraham Lincoln greatly subverted the Constitution during his time in office and employed German mercenaries in his army.

    I give credence to Al Benson on this because several men in Napolean’s army were given political assylum in the United States in the 1840’s. Some of these men were also German socialists who were also given political assylum.

    The revolutions of 1848 in Europe greatly affected America and yes Lincoln was for big government and did support the socialists.

    By the way Jonathan, according to Thomas DiLorenzo, the New England States wanted to secede around 1812.

    Thank you.

    Confederate South on June 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm

Qinton Tarantino, has a new movie out —


“Django”. Check out the dialogue at 2 minutes into the trailer.

I am thinkin that somewhere, someplace, in a shit can in an LA dive, there is a bar napkin that has “Da Jango” crossed out. This level of entertainment, this movie, another Weinstein Company disgrace, which incomprehensibly continues to realize profits, is a revisionist historical cultural cairn which signifies the ever decreasing standard for American entertainment in teh narrative of a self destructive “We Shall Overcome” paroxysm.

I hope Harvey fuckin Weinstein and Quinton Tarantino get cancer in their fuckin eyes.

Sorry about the cussin Deb. I am a crusty old man.

chuck on June 23, 2012 at 11:06 am

I wish some creative writers stop trying to add contemporary horror or fictional characters like vampires to historic figures for entertainment drivel. They seem to impress upon gullible readers, especially the young ones, entertaining falsehood in the American history.

The day history teachers receiving essays and test papers from kids stating Abraham Lincoln fought vampires before and during the Civil War is the day liberal progressives have won the war on misrepresenting American history for entertainment.

Bob on June 23, 2012 at 1:19 pm


You still didn’t answer my question on our handle on this board. I am awaiting an answer on why you use the name “Southern Confedearate”

Overall, consertative or liberal, I am amazed with how seriously people are taking this picture. As though the director actaully wanted to make a picture about American History. From the title, anyone could see this wasn’t supposed to be a serious picture. In fact, most reviewers panned it, saying that it took itself too seriously.

Again, you have to take the film as a whole in order to try to understand what the film was about and why it was made. I seriously doubt the maker of this film, intended people to take it that Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

A Reader on June 23, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    A Reader
    It is my constitutional right to choose any name that I want as long as I do not cause consternation or grief to Debbie Schlussel.

    I was born and raised above the Mason Dixon Line but am a Southern Sympathizer.

    At one time I believed in all of the horse manure that Dick Gregory preached. Because of Dick Gregory and his Legions of Liberals, this country is in horrendous shape.

    By the way, I did not see the movie and am not a movie watcher. I comment because I consider Lincoln as having started this country onto a path of ruin.

    Confederate South on June 24, 2012 at 6:05 pm

Oh, one more thing. The film is rated “R”. Therefore, it’s not open to kids under 16 without a parent present. Meaning that unless a parent is very liberal that they don’t mind thier sons and daughters watching very violent material at a very young age, I doubt many young people will see it.

Overall, I believe this film will be a bust and go to the Redbox quickly and be forgotten within a few months.

One more comment, to those of you who were sooo worried about “The Dictator” it is out of theaters already. Apparently Sascha Baron Cohen’s act became very thin very fast. Plus “Borat” and “Bruno” was quite a few years ago.

A Reader on June 23, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    You appear not to understand the MPAA rating system. An “R” rating doesn’t necessarily mean the film is violent, only that its theme is too intense for most minors to handle on their own. Big deal. That could be said about a lot of domestic and foreign films. And where did you get the idea that only “liberals” let their kids see “R” flicks?

    Seek on June 25, 2012 at 6:19 pm


      You apparently didn’t get what I was saying.

      1. R Rating – The title of the film suggests that there might be some intense violence there. The bottom of the Rating in fact tells you it was rated that way for violent material.

      2. I wasn’t saying only liberals would allow thier kids to see this kind of film. What I was saying is that if a parent doesn’t care what his/her kids see then they wouldn’t mind allowing thier children to go see the film. That’s what I was talking about in using the term “liberal”. Not in political terms.

      A Reader on June 26, 2012 at 11:56 pm

Re: “Barack Obama, vampire bloodsucker.”

Bad analogy to Lincoln hunting vampires which is just plain stupid. Whereas “Barack Obama, vampire bloodsucker” is a truthful statement.

bob on June 23, 2012 at 10:29 pm

I was expecting something more . . . interesting . . . from “Seeking a Friend.” The trailer is probably one of the best trailers I’ve seen in some time, so I expected more. Of interest, the trailer has the phrase ” . . . if you won’t kill me,” but the movie uses, ” . . . if you won’t rape me,” killing being preferable to rape to the general public, I guess. Also, the Talking Heads “Road to Nowhere,” used in the trailer, is nowhere to be found in the movie. I figured the movie would be more of an absurdist “road trip,” such as “O, Brother Where Art Thou,” but where the “Friendsies” and “by the book cop” scenes have the right absurdist touch, William Peterson’s interaction with the main characters is just creepy, and the scene with Penny’s survivalist ex-boyfriend plays out as if the producer called in a substitute director for the day. Also, that guy (the actor playing the survivalist ex-boyfriend) cannot act. My wife and I agreed that the movie only became interesting when the couple meet up with Dodge’s father (Martin Sheen – who can act rings around people just by shrugging his shoulders). But there is no way that a Cessna 150 or 172 is going to fly across the Atlantic.
Finally, I would kill just to have one of the houses that everyone seems to own in this movie.

G: I wondered if a plane of that small size could fly to England from Delaware without stopping for gas at least. But I don’t know much about planes. DS

gmartinz on June 24, 2012 at 12:47 am

Deb –

…in the spirit of truth in advertising (yes I know it is a crap concept), you might mention in your review of ‘Vampire Abe’, that Lincoln historical research is a hobby of yours, so you KNOW of what you speak…

Nick Fury on June 24, 2012 at 5:51 am

Reading books on Lincoln would be as much fiction as the vampire movie. Lincoln ranks up there with Stalin, Hitler, and all the other bad guys of history. As you are obviously pro-Jewish, please look at Lincoln and the North’s actions against Jews during and after the War of Northern Aggression. For that matter, read or listen to some of Lincoln’s speeches, they sound just like David Duke.

To answer some of the commenters, name why we fought in any war in our history. It is impossible to find the reason or reasons. Most of the men in WWII had no idea as to why they were fighting. Yet we know for certain that millions died in Lincoln’s war over slavery, despite the fact that he defined the war as one over tax collection.

david7134 on June 24, 2012 at 5:03 pm

Some of these comments reveal the tendency of the internet to give credibility to crankish, conspiratorial and, frankly, nitwit assessments of historical figures such as Lincoln.

The vilification of the man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation is reminiscent of the crazed wackos of the 60s who said that ‘white liberals’ were the main enemies of blacks’ progress.

Taking isolated, episodic statements of historical figures, abstracting them from the historical environment in which they were made, and ignoring the main thrust of their overall accomplishments is,at best, the dilettantism of schoolboys.

And quoting a fifth-rate journalist who masqueraded as a historian fifty years ago to make a few bucks off the Civil Rights Movement isn’t any better.

Little Al on June 24, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    Little Al
    Where is your research. I do not see any. I do consider Lerone Bennett, Jr., Dr. Walter Williams, and Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo to be very reliable sources of information. I do consider Dr. Walter Williams to be one of our nations most reliable scholars.

    Yes I do believe Lerone Bennett, Jr. a former publisher of a Ebony Magazine when he says that the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a political statement. Lincoln’s wife Mary Todd of Kentucky. Her family owned numerous slaves.

    It took everything that Lincoln had in his being to give a speech that he did not believe in.

    Confederate South on June 24, 2012 at 6:29 pm

Well,CF, you are certainly not a reliable scholar, as you do not know the fundamental rules of punctuation. Your comprehension of what I said is so lacking that I won’t waste any more time trying to respond to it.

Little Al on June 24, 2012 at 6:36 pm

As a history teacher, I don’t have a problem with Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. I know it’s historically inaccurate. I also know that, in an age of video games, it might be a good thing to get kids interested in history. I’ve had several students in my WWII class who signed up because they’ve played Call of Duty and wanted to see what it was all about. The beginning of knowledge is, “I don’t know,” so if Abe Lincoln fighting vampires gets someone interested in history, I say go for it.

Confederate South, you sound cranky because your side lost. While I have the utmost respect for the Confederate soldier, the fact remains that the war started over slavery. Ports, taxes, tariffs, states’ rights, whatever–it was about slavery. Any historian who says otherwise is an apologist and/or a fool.

A cursory examination of the Northern economy in the Civil War was that it was as capitalist as possible. Salmon P. Chase was about as non-Marxist as one can get without being Ayn Rand. He had the North running a surplus at the end of the war. It was the South that was Marxist, if anything: a group of “intellectuals” leading people into war because they thought they knew more than everyone else. The Southern economy was Exhibit A in why centrally planned economies fail. A relative handful of rich slaveowners dragged a South into a war that only about half the entire South even wanted. They fought hard because they were Americans, but it was no thanks to Jeff Davis or Edmund Ruffin.

Lincoln was in a position no other President has ever been in and, I pray to God, never will be again. Before you go Monday morning quarterbacking, put yourself in his stovepipe hat. You’ll find it’s mighty hard to be a President when the country has literally torn itself to pieces in front of you. What decisions do you make? How do you handle having incompetent generals, a fifth column of Democrats encouraging draft dodgers behind the lines, and a hostile press?

There’s a reason why Lincoln is consistently ranked just behind George Washington as one of our greatest Presidents. He certainly did better than I would have–I would’ve had Vallandingham shot for treason and giving aid and comfort to the enemy, since that was exactly what he was doing.

Sentinel on June 24, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    Sentinel and Little Al
    I highly suggest that you both research your material much better than you have.

    Cranky, not hardly, I have done my research and I stand with the scholars whom I cite.

    Neither of you cite any sources whatsoever. I do not make a post on Debbie’s website without having an accurate source. Let’s see you disprove the three men I have cited. You cannot do it.

    Sentinel you are absolutely wrong.

    Confederate South on June 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm

Sentinal, I take it you’re a history teacher in a public school? The Civil War was started and fought over economic reasons and slavery was used as a ‘beard’ to keep the English, with their textile factories dependent on Southern cotton, from siding with the Confederacy. The Union’s only advantage over the Confederacy was their factories. If England had supported the Confederacy, I believe the war would have ended differently.
Lincoln did violate the Constitution when he temporarily repealed habius corpus. Little Al, the Emancipation Proclamation only eliminated slaves south of the border states. It left slavery intact within the border states, which is where most of the battles were fought: a political calculation and not a moral declaration. Your comment on ‘crazed wackos from the sixties’ also shows your bias. White liberals have done more to hamper blacks’ progress than the Klan. I’m not defending the Klan but at least their hatred in open. White liberals’ paternalism and government social programs are both insulting to Americanism and results in the destruction of self-reliance.

Boswell on June 25, 2012 at 7:22 am

Well, Boswell, you are aptly named. Who are you a stooge for?

It is ludicrous to think that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War, although I realize there are many people, many of them ‘civil war buffs’ who read anything they can about the Civil War, no matter who writes it, who think differently.

There were all kinds of economic rivalries in the first 70 years of the US, many involving tensions with Western states and territories, which did not escalate to war. But slavery exacerbated these rivalries, and made it impossible for the US to carry on an effective foreign policy, among other things. and even those who wanted to compromise found slavery personally repugnant.

And I guess my comment about white liberals was kind of prescient, considering your criticism of them.

Well, I don’t know what kind of bug spray this site is using — first the Muslims, then the Poles, and now the Southern racists, or maybe Buchananites.

Little Al on June 25, 2012 at 8:11 am

Little Al,
Have you looked at the Emancipation? Do you understand that it did not free a single slave? It would be the same if Obama was to sign a piece of legislation that referred to an activity in Mexico. What would be the significance of such an act. I use Obama as he is nuts enough to try it.

As to fighting to eliminate slavery, why didn’t the Union eliminate slavery in the states under its control? You will say politics, I say crap. The original 13th amendment, approved by Lincoln, would have kept blacks in slavery till the current day. So, if we follow your logic, and the logic of the Lincoln myth, we come to the conclusion that two slave holding nations were fighting so that one could eliminate slavery. That makes sense in our upside down world of today, but in reality, it is bunk. Why didn’t we go to war with Brazil after the War of Norther Aggression?

Read what one reporter of the time said, Charles Dickens, I paraphrase, but he thought the whole thing to be a power play between two regions.

As to Marxist, a simple search of the web will show that Lincoln received a letter of encouragement from Marx for his efforts and ideas. Yes, the government was capatilistic, much as the croney capatalism we have now. The whole of the Lincoln government and likely Lincoln himself were as corrupt as it got. They were actively trading in cotton from the South.

Lincoln forever changed our government. We are not a free nation as a consequence.

david7134 on June 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm

To those “offended” by the alleged besmirching of our nation’s history by “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter,” I say: Relax, mates. This is what is called camp — as in a self-consciously affectionate parody. It’s no more to be taken at face value as American history than “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was meant to serve as a guide for academic archeologists. It’s well-crafted summer fun, nothing more.

Seek on June 25, 2012 at 12:46 pm


    Just in case you have not read my previous posts, that is what I have been trying to tell this group. That the Abraham Lincoln film is not a serious movie.

    What I find interesting however, is how posters are arguing with each other about actual history over all this. People, again, this film was nothing more than what was supposed to be fun. Unfortunetly, many of you don’t get it. One more thing, if any of you did any research, you would have found that it is based on a book of the same name. (Also fiction of course).

    A Reader on June 25, 2012 at 1:42 pm

Maybe Debbie should initiate a spelling, grammar and reading comprehension test for posters. It is sorely needed.

Little Al on June 25, 2012 at 2:49 pm

For what it’s worth, I enjoyed the movie. With the exception of some of the special effects such as the way-too-long horse stampede scene and the also-way-too-long train-on-the-burning-tracks scene (both ridiculous and ridiculously long), it was good entertainment. They could have cut those scenes down a good bit or totally and added additional scenes from the book, such as when Abe traveled to New Orleans and met Edgar Allen Poe. Great fiction! In my opinion, the movie was good(except for the items stated above). The book, however, also in my humble opinion, is a tremendous work of fiction and I loved it. I also loved the fact that there was no nuance of Obama being the next vampire hunter at the end of the book. The end of the movie was in no way even close to how the book ended.

Mimi77449 on June 25, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Friends was one of the worst movies I’ve ever sat through in my entire life. There were 6 people in the theater and 2 of them left after 20 minutes. What was funny about it? It was incredibly boring! My kids could have done a better job of putting a movie together. No wonder it was pulled from theaters after only two weeks. The actors should offer to give back the money that folks paid to see this.

We stayed hoping to finally get interested but nothing ever happened. How any critic could have found anything to like about this movie is beyone comprehension.

Bill on July 24, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field