Two movies I made sure to see this summer were Prometheus and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
Prometheus was an easy sell. The prequel to Alien promised to deliver the origin story of the franchise’s nemesis.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter could have been a hard sell. After all, I quit reading the novel on page 15. The last vampire movie that was “must-see” for me starred Leslie Nielsen. And I’ve been self-conscious about films with splatter scenes since Watchmen (wondering, is this really my idea of entertainment?) Somehow the trailers for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter hooked me despite these objections.
Prometheus came out first. It was so beautifully made and so stupidly written. The characters behaved so cluelessly it was impossible to understand how they avoided being killed in traffic on the way to the spaceport, never mind on an alien world. Overwrought horror movie fans used to yell warnings to the people on-screen. I wanted to shout, “Yeah, smack that egg! Pound those buttons! Evolution in action, baby!” What a disappointing film.
Then I saw Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. It had its share of absurdities. A svelte Mary Todd and a handsome Abe Lincoln – clearly the originals could never get a job in Hollywood, even playing themselves. However, aided by the audience’s vague recollection of American history, and driven by characters who are consistently faithful to the tenets of this particular mythos, the movie overcomes its ridiculous premise in a very satisfying way. For two hours I was willing to believe what was on the screen.
Did I give Abraham Lincoln the benefit of a certain amount of “chronological snobbery” (as C. S. Lewis would call it)? And did Prometheus suffer in proportion? Chronological snobbery is the implicit (and erroneous) belief that people’s capabilities in earlier times were inherently inferior to ours today. If people today are wiser, as a corollary I am less likely to question bad choices made by 19th century characters – they simply couldn’t be expected to know any better.
Prometheus, on the other hand, is forced to shoulder the burdens that come with being about the future, a place created by people who have wisely used the intervening years to prepare for an alien encounter. I have the same prejudices as Bruce Willis’ character in Armageddon when he shouts in exasperation, “You’re NASA for cryin’ out loud, you put a man on the moon, you’re geniuses! You-you’re the guys that think this shit up! I’m sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up!”
Maybe that’s why I was far more judgmental about future space explorers rushing unzipped into situations I would know better than to touch with a 10-foot pole than I was about seeing our Civil War president chasing danger on a battlefield with a 3-foot axe.
Seeing the trailer for “Abe Lincoln, Popular Fad Hunter” was enough for me. I might have enjoyed it as camp had a better job been done of the characters. But, as you say, a svelte Mary Todd who isn’t a plump, hysterical, harpy and an Abe Lincoln without warts and isn’t about 6 ft. 3 inches tall, is like substituting Harpo Marx for Wayne Gretsky on the ice. The big turn off for me was Lincoln’s Inaugural Address…
Now, we have no recordings of Lincoln talking, of course. But his voice was described by many as high and pipping (during his years in the White House, anyway). Also, he had a pronounced backwoods, Midwestern accent, despite a learned vocabulary. So what did I hear when the Lincoln in the trailer spoke? Not the real Lincoln, that’s for sure.
I swear that it seemed to me that the actor was coming as close to delivering a parody of Kennedy’s “Ask Not” speech as he could come without actually putting on a Boston accent. The timing, the emphasis, the diction was all the same. I could not have been more disgustipated if he yad soundered like Popeye.
Probably should do a double bill with JESUS CHRIST: VAMPIRE HUNTER.
I haven’t seen the Licoln film, not likely to do so. The trailer made me think that in years to come little kids will be writing “Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and killed vampires.”
That is, if they haven’t seen ABRAHAM LINCOLN VERSUS ZOMBIES.
I haven’t seen Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter yet, but I was impressed with the trailers and “about the movie” videos on the website, and left with the impression that the movie would be similar to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer t.v. show. Certainly the choreography of the axe-fighting scenes was impressive. (I presume the liquid being poured onto the axe blade in the trailer is holy water?)
As for Taral’s complaints, pfui. They make Lincoln a vampire hunter and you’re complaining of historical mistakes in the non-vampiric parts of the movie?
That’s so ridiculous that it would call for a “get a life” response if it weren’t so trite.
In my father’s day — back in the 1960s — they said “get a job.” I think it meant the same thing.
Film should try for a degree of accuracy. Though the mistakes often hamper the picture. I recall a Victorian setting in a film, and the shots of London showed TV arials.
For those concerned about accuracy in film, may I suggest Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”?
As you know Bob, “The dialogue is entirely in reconstructed Aramaic and Latin with vernacular subtitles.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ
And yes, as an aside, it was probably the most bootlegged movie ever, after its DVD release.
Have to consider how much of the movie was Gibson’s sadistic edge over what was passed over in descritions the the Gospels.
Buster Keaton’s THE GENERAL was a bit more accurate, even if it was film in Oregon (hint: no Spanish Moss).