Every bio-pic prompts the question, “Did that really happen?”
One thing you can say with all certainty is, former president Abraham Lincoln did not hunt vampires.
Which is OK … assuming that historical fiction offers a good tale. “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” fails on that accord.
In every possible context, this movie is so bad that it is offensive.
In our great fictional cesspool that seems to discourage original, new thought, there is always room for a good, dark, suspenseful monster story.
I concede the “desire” for vampires in the entertainment media.
In that context, its presentation should at least capture one’s imagination.
Something in this film may have worked had they presented young Lincoln (B. Walker) as he really was —shy, intelligent, quick-witted and tall with long, strong arms and legs.
Instead Walker is a puffy-faced short guy who is handed an axe and overnight becomes a ninja warrior.
The narrative hinges on the fact that most southern states were chock-full of vampires, one of whom has killed Lincoln’s mother. Abe is driven by revenge.
He is mentored by Henry, a friendly vampire who teaches him vampire ways. Lincoln spends years hunting and cleaning out droves of vampires in southern Illinois. During the Civil War, the vampires take to the field for the South.
Vampire ranks at Gettysburg are turning the tide against the Union.
Lincoln’s tour-de-force is to melt down all of the silver in Washington, making lots of silver bullets. The vampires are vanquished and Gettysburg is won.
This movie has no redeeming qualities.
The story is absurd and disorganized — plausible fiction might have worked with a better, lighter script and better characterization.
The graphics are awful. There is not a hint of drama or suspense.
Don’t see it.
Jim Wigge is a retired engineer, Cazenovia resident and film-aficionado, who reviews movies for the Cazenovia Republican. He can be reached through the editor, at firstname.lastname@example.org.