What's Up With the Slither Wither?

Wow, when I got the google-news alert about your article that just said "Nathan Fillion is box office poison", I came over here ready for a fight. :)

Glad to see you recognize genius acting. :-D

Reply

I, like a lot of people, will just have to wait until it comes out on DVD to see it. Even if I thought it was worth $10 to see it in the theater, my wife would sooner eat a slug than watch it. So I'm stuck watching the movie by myself. Based on the TV commercials for it, I thought it was supposed to be a serious horror flick. But after reading the reviews, I realized it was just a joke.

Reply

You people put too much stock in Nathan Fillion. He's adequate as a leading man but he's no Bruce Campbell. If he's going to be compared to Bruce Campbell, you have to admit that he's Bruce Campbell if Bruce Campbell tried at all to be a real actor. And Bruce Campbell trying to be a real actor takes all the Bruce Campbell-ness out of him. Fillion may be more engaging than the Harrison Ford of the last 10 years but he (nor anyone else currently in Hollywood) will never be 1973-1989 Harrison Ford... EVER. He's more like a 50's B-movie star and I don't mean that in a bad way, but Kevin McCarthy was never going to be the next Humphrey Bogart, you know what I mean?

But yeah, you nailed it: Horror fans don't want comedy in the mix. The marketing team on Slither should have known this and should have billed it as a straight horror film. It would have drawn in probably triple what it did. There's no excuse for the public to not eat up movies like Slither and Shaun of the Dead when they make inexplicable number 1's out of crap like Boogeyman and When A Stranger Calls. But this is what the reality is.

On the other hand, if Slither was a big hit, in about a year from now, when Slither 2 was scheduled to come out, we'd all be complaining about how we're sick of hearing about it, it's not that good, blah-blah-blah, so I guess we should just thank the geek gods that we occasionally get some films that we can preach the gospel of to the heathens. We all love it when we can turn someone on to a flick that they otherwise would never have seen.

Reply

"If he's going to be compared to Bruce Campbell, you have to admit that he's Bruce Campbell if Bruce Campbell tried at all to be a real actor."

Man, what an asshole thing to say. Bruce Campbell is a real actor and if you ever read any interview with the man (especially his recent stuff) you'd realize just how damned serious of an actor he is. He doesn't take the industry lightly, he doesn't mess around when on set. Just because he's good at being campy and we all love him dearly for that does not mean he isn't a real actor. It's people like you that will perpetuate the belief that Bruce Campbell can't act, but that's just why we love him. And that's sad.

Also, you've either never seen Bubba Ho-tep or you're just too blinded by the conviction that he is a joke of an actor, but Bruce's performance in it is something else. There isn't a single person in the acting sphere today who could have pulled off that role with that same degree of perfection. Just because the material is intentionally absurd, don't think that the people performing it are.

As for Slither's opening weekend impotence, I wasn't surprised. Even though it did have some marketing money behind it, it's just the kind of movie that main-stream movie goers don't get behind right away. Just wait until the masses of MySpace start mentioning it and it'll become a great success with people other than us.

Also, it did have some TV-spots here and there, but it didn't have that much of a theatrical campaign; at least not a long term one. I can't remember once ever seeing a trailer for it on the big screen. I think with TV-spots people are more prone to think of it passively and really not care all that much, but with a theatrical spot you're forced to pay attention to the sell. And then later on when you see a TV-spot, you're just reminded of the big screen sell (for better or worse).

Of course there are all of us who watched the trailer online months ago, but we're the people who would have seen it regardless of promotional material.

Reply

Umm, Peter... not trying to start a fight here but... umm... do you really think that someone who posts comments on a movie news blog would actually say something uncomplimentary towards Bruce Campbell? Think about these things, Peter.

Reply

*For the record, James Gunn claims that the budget is closer to $15 million, not $29 mil.*

I fear for the future of R-rated horror when stuff like this happens. However, I have already gotten two people to see it (and they liked it), and should I accompany my father to V for Vendetta, I will make sure that our tickets say 'Slither,' regardless of what we're actually seeing.

Reply

Alex, I know everyone loves Bruce Campbell, even while bashing him, but I just think it is very discrediting to undercharge him the proper respect he deserves by calling him not a "real actor". And I can understand why so many people do say that about him - and you probably do love him - but it doesn't make it any less demeaning.

Reply

This comment is from just an ordinary movie goer, so take that into account. I loved Slither. I am not really into horror, but I have followed Nathan Fillion's movies since seeing Serenity. He shouldn't be compared to any actor because being himself is more than enough. Some day others will be compared to him. What I liked about Slither was that it didn't really fit into any genre. I can see the point in this article about it not having teenagers in it because they are the ones who have the time to go to movies more often. Also sooo many movies are put out at one time that you have to choose one over the other. Whoever misses Slither will have missed a great movie. ALL the actors, director crew did a good job according to this ordinary movie goer and it's MY money that contributes to its earnings.

Reply

Re: Bruce vs. Hollywood (with a side of Nathan)

The problem Bruce Campbell has is that he likes to go campy. And while it works on genre bending TV shows and in specialized geek subsets of movies, it will never be enough to have his movies and projects into mainstream commercial success. (I write this as a devotee of the genre bending geek subset of tv and film, btw. Much love for it.)

Don't get me wrong. Bruce is wonderful at doing what he does. He's a wonderful dupe, a fantastic clueless idiot, or the brave everyman thrust into impossible circumstances yet manages to not just survive but thrive. And sometimes he even saves the world and/or gets laid.

However, because he chooses this niche, he is pigeonholed. I think of Bruce, I think of playing to the camera, suck focus, camp it up, ham it up, go for big and bold where subtle would be fine.

In other words, Bruce will never be a Hamlet. He'll be a walk on in "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" and totally steal the show by going way over the top. He plays his roles with joyful abandon and does not worry about how he looks; he is willing to sell himself out to make the joke or take the punchline and make some truly hideous material work.

Nathan will never be anyone other than Nathan. He's not a Harrison Ford, he's not a Bruce Campbell or a Rip Torn or anyone else. He's just Nathan. I like that he is honest abou how/why he makes certain movies or takes certain jobs. Even with creditable and respected work, the man needs to eat and that doesn't always mean you can pick good work. Having your name attached to a bomb is still publicity.

I think Nathan is too hard to pigeonhole just yet. He's equally adept at humor and action, he can come across as a believable romantic lead, he has the loveable trampled everyman look and attitude. I just don't know if a guy who can act as well as he does, ho comes across as an organic actor can make it these days with the competition coming from overly pretty, feminized men or idealized steroidmongers.

There's no middle ground, and that's why it's so damn hard to see -good- actors go to waste in small budget sidelines. I'd prefer a Nathan or Bruce film anyday to the angst ridden blonde bleached humor stripped Brad Pitt flick, or a dumbed down eye candy movie with Stallone or Diesel or Schwarteneggar anyday.

I like substance in a film,and the substance comes more from the actors then the material they have to work with. I enjoyed Sliher, and I hate horror movies. But the laughs and gore/goo/spooge were set up in such a way that it was funny and the cringe from this scene or that spoo was immediately replaced by a laugh.

I'd take that over Rocky 23, Rambo 9 or Pacifier 2: Diaper Duty anyday!

Reply

Actually they spent around 15 to 17 million to make Slither. 29 is probably Universal lumping the marketing. James Gunn got a ton of bang for the buck. The film will get discovered by an audience.

Reply

"Damn that pesky R-rating, right kids"

This is probably the most important reason for why this movie didn't fly. It was totally unnecessary to make an R rated movie out of this. That a was a terrible buisness decision, that should have gotten a producer fired. This is a great movie for 14-18 years olds. The 14 year olds would have shown up in groups with grown-ups attending. The movie would do better in video release as well. The fanboys and geeks would not have turned from it over a PG-13 rating...that has been well-established.

So why do movie-makers continue to make this obvious, elemental mistake.

Reply

You know, even though I haven't had the chance to see Slither, I can't wait- and I'm a true, dyed-in-the-wool horror fan, who takes her horror quite seriously. From the ads, it looks like a well produced film(great cinematography and effects)Normally, I despise horror/comedies(at least the ones where ya just know they did'nt have the guts to go pure horror, throwing in a few lame jokes to please the fainthearted and to avoid the supposed stigma of the genre..)I too saw Shaun of the Dead and freakin'n loved it. It has to be,in my most hunble opinion, one of the best blendings of genres in recent memory. In essence, it rocked.

Reply