criterionforum.org

Come on, I can't be the only person to have seen this (albeit for free). I've really disliked the somberness of Bekmambetov's previous films, but there's something oddly endearing about a film that goes out of its way to treat a premise this wild with such seriousness, even as it drives the logic and body count over the cliff. I think I prefer that to the really obvious wink-wink quality of something like Snakes on a Plane, where the constant posturing to seem in on the joke makes a bad film simply boring.

Just wait until the crowd goes completely apeshit at an incredibly overwrought battle that takes place in the middle of a herd of rioting horses.

Also, if you're going to see this film, I recommend it in 2D, since the 3D effects are isolated so egregiously that you'll get to savor every slow-motion whip tossed at the camera, just like Dr. Tongue's House of Wax.

Upon exiting, my daughter asked, as she does after every movie we watch together, "what was your favorite part?" Without question is was the horse stamped fight. Totally ridiculous.

I didn't think it treated it's premise with seriousness until the 3rd act, which was also the least fun and interesting part of the film. Up until then, it seemed to revel in the goofiness of it's premise. I had a great time watching it.

I suppose I'll agree that the film only gets really serious in the third act, which may have colored the overall experience for me. I was actually surprised by one bit of restraint in a movie that otherwise shows little:

Spoiler

I had figured Stephen Douglas HAD to be a vampire. How could they pass up that opportunity? He was pale enough that I guess it could still be a possibility.

davebert wrote:

Spoiler

I had figured Stephen Douglas HAD to be a vampire. How could they pass up that opportunity? He was pale enough that I guess it could still be a possibility.

Yes! I had that exact thought. This movie more than any I've seen lately is ripe for a "How Did This Get Made."