Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter Review Thread (Use Spoiler Tags)

[dyne]

Saw this Saturday. All I can really say is that it felt rushed, pacing wise. There could have been enough material for a much longer movie(s) but as a stand alone, nothing about it seemed fully fleshed out.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by andydlp

Thankfully, someone else mentioned the blurry look. I thought I had a crap screen so decided not to mention it in my earlier post.

I know, right?!?
I thought at first my theater just sucked but it wasnt all shots so that wasnt it. Plus I talked to others who saw it elsewhere and they noticed the same thing.
It was jarring when those extra blurry shots came up too. It was like switching from a blu-ray to a bad SD DVD picture!

[johnchatzo]

I was planning to watch it but i don't know if i will after the mediocre reception from the fans.Thinking about it

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

I know, right?!?
I thought at first my theater just sucked but it wasnt all shots so that wasnt it. Plus I talked to others who saw it elsewhere and they noticed the same thing.
It was jarring when those extra blurry shots came up too. It was like switching from a blu-ray to a bad SD DVD picture!

Yep, definitely picked up on them instantly. I thought the projector was out of focus at first, but eventually picked up on the creative choice.

[Al_The_Strange]

Just got back from the theater seeing this; gave it a 3.5/5, but rounded it up to 4/5 for the poll. The plot pacing/consistency bothered me the most, but it was otherwise solid.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”

Chances are that you’ve already made up your mind about this film when you read its title. You’ll either facepalm at the sacrilege of turning one of history’s greatest men into something base and tasteless, or you’ll laugh your behind off. Regardless of your reaction, the film may surprise you. Director Timur Bekmanbetov has proven himself to be a master of orchestrating scenes of absurdity and chaos, with beautiful and awe-inspiring action scenes, and with serious demeanor. He does the same here, orchestrating the absurdity with a straight face and plenty of style to satisfy.

After “Wanted,” a film so loaded with fantastic action sequences, I was hoping Bekmanbetov would deliver a plethora of inspiring new setpieces. Such scenes are few and far-between in “AL:VH;” there are plenty of short fights with lots of style and lots of gnarly bloody mayhem, all captured in flowing slow-motion photography. The biggest standouts will be the horse stampede scene, which somewhat resembles a crazy car-chase scene that swaps out the cars with horses and sends horses flying off in all directions (a very clever and inspiring scene, in my opinion, which is sadly marred by some camera shake and lots of dust on the screen), and the climactic train battle, which will likely be compared to the train scene in “Wanted,” but I feel it’s a solid stand-alone setpiece. In terms of action, the film delivers; it’s still the director’s tamest and sanest work, but what we get would be something comparable to an “Underworld” movie.

The story for this madness is generally sound, believe it or not. Regardless of how you accept the idea that Abe slays the undead in his off-hours, the film does a fine job of weaving historical accounts and personal history in with the vampire storyline. I’m no Lincoln expert, so I don’t really know how much of the film is accurate (I certainly don’t know how well it adapts the original novel). Accepting it as its own little universe, I felt it was generally successful. Half of it does a good job of setting up the vampire story and the other half does a good of playing out the period drama, all in an earnest manner.

If there is any problem with the story, it would be in its consistency; the opening scenes whiz by really fast, before settling into a steady and pleasing pace during Abe’s youth. The story then zips through entire years of the story, lightly covering the Civil War aspect and speeding it up to the climax. It’s very choppy, uneven pacing; I suspect that 30-60 more minutes of scenes would have allowed the story to breathe, allowing the pacing to flow naturally and make the film even more epic than it is. What we get feels like an abridged telling of the overall story.

The film definitely has style. The camera work can be a little shakey in some scenes, but there are also a lot of moments with slick slow-motion photography. There are quite a few unique editing effects. Acting is generally not bad; I grew to accept Benjamin Walker as the title character, for he looked and acted the part very well. Writing is not terribly strong, but it gets the job done. This production has decent-looking sets, props, and costumes. As one other reviewer pointed out, however, the makeup department failed to make certain characters age the way Lincoln does, and it can be distracting. Music for this movie has some really awesome parts.

There could have been more to the film: more crazy action, more to the Civil War scenes, more consistency to the plot, etc. Still, if you’re looking for stylish vampire-slaying action like I am, the film generally satisfies.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Recommendation: Probably not to anybody looking for perfect cinema, or anybody who can't accept the premise of the film's title. For everybody else, as a rental.

[InCali]

I guess, to me, the question is "Can you really rate some campy movie on the same scale that you would a movie like LOTR?" One was meant to bring a work of literature to life and the other was made (I assume) to have you put your palm on the side of your jaw and shake your head in disbelief (I'll let you guess which is which.....). Some of us purists would have rather had a 6 part LOTR film and included Bombadil, Barrow Wights, used Glorfindel instead of Arwen in "Flight to the Ford" and the list goes on...but, that's for another thread.

I mean is it an overall enjoyment rating or a really good movie rating??? Or a little of both?

[InCali]

Originally Posted by BluPayne4400

So i assume this is not worth the $27 price tag it will cost me for 2 tickets to see in 3D huh?

As honest Abe said: "Noooooooooooooo......."

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by InCali

I guess, to me, the question is "Can you really rate some campy movie on the same scale that you would a movie like LOTR?" One was meant to bring a work of literature to life and the other was made (I assume) to have you put your palm on the side of your jaw and shake your head in disbelief (I'll let you guess which is which.....). Some of us purists would have rather had a 6 part LOTR film and included Bombadil, Barrow Wights, used Glorfindel instead of Arwen in "Flight to the Ford" and the list goes on...but, that's for another thread.

I mean is it an overall enjoyment rating or a really good movie rating??? Or a little of both?

Why did you quote me? I have had no part in this Abe vs. LOTR debate.

[InCali]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

Why did you quote me? I have had no part in this Abe vs. LOTR debate.

My most humble apologies for this mistake. Should have done a multi quote. I was asking about whether movies of various ilks should (can) be compared on this sort of simplistic rating scale. Some said they couldn't be because of the "ridiculous" factor. You seemed to think otherwise.....quote removed.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by InCali

I guess, to me, the question is "Can you really rate some campy movie on the same scale that you would a movie like LOTR?" One was meant to bring a work of literature to life and the other was made (I assume) to have you put your palm on the side of your jaw and shake your head in disbelief (I'll let you guess which is which.....). Some of us purists would have rather had a 6 part LOTR film and included Bombadil, Barrow Wights, used Glorfindel instead of Arwen in "Flight to the Ford" and the list goes on...but, that's for another thread.

I mean is it an overall enjoyment rating or a really good movie rating??? Or a little of both?

I don't think it matters. Ratings come down to personal preference anyway, whether the movie is campy or not. I think you're terribly over thinking this.

[InCali]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I don't think it matters. Ratings come down to personal preference anyway, whether the movie is campy or not. I think you're terribly over thinking this.

The story of my life...trying to objectify subjectivity.

[P@t_Mtl]

I won't be seeing this for a while since because of 3D, for those who have read the book, is it worth reading? I am thinking of ordering for my ebook

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I won't be seeing this for a while since because of 3D, for thos who have read the book, is it worth reading? I am thinking of ordering for my ebook

The book is absolutely worth reading.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

The book is absolutely worth reading.

Thanks, I will place the order and it's cheap right now. The movie look's like something I might enjoy but with theaters wanting everything in 3D mean's I have to wait for a rental later this year

[djgeneral]

I enjoyed this quite a bit. Very fun (and of course silly!) movie.

[InCali]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I don't think it matters. Ratings come down to personal preference anyway, whether the movie is campy or not. I think you're terribly over thinking this.

Camp scale: 9 of 10
Was it a good movie scale: 4 of 10 (generous)
Generous, crappy movie critic scale: 6 of 10 (me)

Paying homage to my favorite movie critic (Joe Bob at the Movies). President axe chopping fu, basketball bouncing head fu, silver necklace female vampire fu, 500 pints of blood, no Aardvarking.

6 stars...Joe Bob sez check it out.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by InCali

I guess, to me, the question is "Can you really rate some campy movie on the same scale that you would a movie like LOTR?" ....

I mean is it an overall enjoyment rating or a really good movie rating??? Or a little of both?

To answer your first question, Yes. All movies can be on the same scale. Granted, I think we sometimes run into confusion when people apply the wrong rating scale to movies.

I think that all movies could be rated on a few things (in no particular order):

1- Entertainment Value
-- Self Explanatory

2- Does it achieve its purpose?
--Does a light hearted movie try to be be serious? From what I can tell this movie mix history and fantasy to tell a fun story. If it does that well, I'd say it succeeded. A film also needs to meet up to expectations set up during the film...

3-- Production
--Cinematography/Acting/Effects

4-- Story/Plot

I think that if this movie (which my wife and I want to see) entertains, good production and meets it purpose, I'd give it a 5/5.

Just a thought

[spolcyc]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I won't be seeing this for a while since because of 3D, for those who have read the book, is it worth reading? I am thinking of ordering for my ebook

One of the best books I have read in awhile. It is a great quick read. Depending on how fast you read, you may finish it in a weekend.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by cvm

To answer your first question, Yes. All movies can be on the same scale. Granted, I think we sometimes run into confusion when people apply the wrong rating scale to movies.

I think that all movies could be rated on 3 things:

1- Entertainment Value
-- Self Explanatory

2- Does it achieve its purpose?
--Does a light hearted movie try to be be serious? From what I can tell this movie mix history and fantasy to tell a fun story. If it does that well, I'd say it succeeded. A film also needs to meet up to expectations set up during the film...

3-- Production
--Cinematography/Acting/Effects

I think that if this movie (which my wife and I want to see) entertains, good production and meets it purpose, I'd give it a 5/5.

Just a thought

That's pretty much how I grade all my films and things. It allows me to give movies credit whether it's well-made or poorly-made, or whether it's campy or not. Only difference is, for #2 I grade the story or content.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I won't be seeing this for a while since because of 3D, for those who have read the book, is it worth reading? I am thinking of ordering for my ebook

The book is vastly different from the film. It's much better IMHO, as it's more fleshed out, and makes a lot more sense. It reads like a straight-up narrative history text, and certain events and characters don't exist in the film, or were completely changed. The main plot of the film and several of its characters also don't exist in the book. As I've said before, I got mild entertainment out of the film (can't watch Criterion-esque films all the time ), but I was disappointed in it since they strayed so far from the book, just to make it more action packed.