Originally Posted by dudalb
Just the Browncoats at work again. Being the star of "Firefly" gets Nathan Fillon instant sainthood in their book.
Even if the film had sucked the Browncoats would praise it because Fillon is in it.
You just called a guy who thought the IDEA of a Serenity movie was retarded a "Browncoat". You're funny.
Faraci's review echoed my Ford comparison - and you guys know how much the Browcoat brigade loves him...
What did Fillion show me in Slither? He showed me he can carry a movie. That's what stars do - they take a movie onto their shoulders and run with it. He did it with comic timing, self-depricating charm, and oddball bravado.
And this David Arquette shit? I think anyone with more than seven brain cells would tell you that this is exactly the kind of movie Arquette is horrible in - be it his twitchy performance in the Scream films, of his flat-out channeling of Dustin Diamond in the utterly bland Eight Legged Freaks. In point of fact, Arquette's only ever been good doing drama - The Grey Zone and Dream With the Fishes immediately spring to mind. It's when he tries to do this sort of jokey performance that he botches.
Fillion's good as gold in this movie - and when he rolls a botch of his own (White Noise 2, anyone) - I'm sure plenty of people who didn't bother to watch Firefly (like...um...me) will call him on a shit flick.
As far as the Rooker thing goes...there's a really great story about his being cast in the film that you'll read about soon enough.
And yes, Matchstick - It WAS indeed about luring that all-important Rooker demographic - which we see now paid off in spades...