Skip to comments.'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter' review: (Dedicated to the proposition of Vampire destruction)
Posted on 06/21/2012 1:41:20 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The title, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," guarantees about 15 good minutes. Just on the strength and novelty of the gimmick - combining the real details of Lincoln's life with a secret antivampire history - the movie was bound to command a certain absurd appeal. The trick was in getting audiences past those 15 minutes, and that's what the movie does.
Based on the novel by Seth Grahame-Smith, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is a money-making stunt that its author - who also wrote the screenplay - wisely decided to treat with seriousness, or at least an attitude of seriousness.
Instead of getting smirky and campy and blowing out the joke in the first few scenes, Grahame-Smith and director Timur Bekmambetov straight-face it. They ask themselves, well, what would it be like if the main struggle of Lincoln's life were with vampires intent on taking over the new world? And they answer the question as realistically and soberly as they can within this loony framework.
A greater Lincoln
Further, they invest emotionally in the conceit of the story and in Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) as a man. Imagine: He didn't just save the union and free the slaves. Here was a man dedicated to the proposition that all vampires must be destroyed. That makes for an even greater Lincoln, one yet more worthy of reverential treatment.
Along the way, Grahame-Smith comes up with a metaphor that is appropriately descriptive of slavery and flattering to the Union. In this telling, the Old Confederacy was a hotbed of vampirism. Perhaps this should not come as a big surprise, given that the slaveholders were sucking the life out of their slaves.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
We now have wise-guy reviews like:
“Timur Bekmambetov’s revisionist take on the 16th president brings the evisceration proclamation” — THE GUARDIAN
“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter’ taps the wrong vein” — San Jose Mercury News
“Gettysburg redressed in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” — National Review
All I can say is this — If you like the premise, you should just go with the flow. You cant take this movie too seriously. Dont be a snob. This is a fun movie that youll have to suspend reality for in order to enjoy it.
Lincoln haters will whine about how he unjustly oppressed the undead, and that left alone, the undead problem would have withered away on it’s own, and how frankly, plenty of the undead fought for the living and were decorated for doing so.
Counting down to the arrival of the Lincoln-haters.
The Chuck Norris of the 19th century!
When history teachers start being overrun with papers and test answers claiming Lincoln hunted vampires, you’ll know it all started here...
From a review I read in the MSM paper, the screenwriter is a bearded marxist, commie. He said he read a lot of Lenin and couldn’t write about him as a vampire hunter.....(presuming he meant he had too much respect for the murderer).
RE: I don’t understand the fascination with vampires.
Vampires are about fantasy. Immortality and unconstrained sexuality where choices must be made and pleasure without guilt.
Isn’t that what a lot of people secretly crave for? In a sense they are living their fantasies through the vampires’ life.
William Jefferson Clinton: Succubus Seeker
Coming soon to a theater near you...
Not a Lincoln-hater, but I didn't like some things he did. He took liberties with the Constitution that put him in league with the biggest of the big-government Presidents we've ever had.
On the other hand, he did preserve the union. I might have done differently than Lincoln, but at what cost? The States divided might have been ripe for the picking by a foreign power like Russia, France or Britain. We might now again be British colonists, but for Lincoln.
King Obama, King George, what is the difference?
We need to push the refresh button.
Better chance of a hot queen with English royals than the Chicago girlie-man
“What a bunch of BS. Everyone knows that it was Lincoln who was the Zombie.”
That’s why John Wilkes Booth had to shoot him in the head.
I thought he yelled something about Lincoln being a dinosaur after he shot him?
I am one. (and proud of it)
It has been wisely said that while the Constitution was designed to handle an enormous range of issues, it was not designed to handle a civil war.
That is, of course, why the Founders allowed for suspension of civil liberties in cases of insurrection or invasion. It is notable that this is permitted by simple majority vote of Congress. The courts cannot overrule it.
I have never quite understood those who claim that no emergency justifies suspension of liberties. If liberties are suspended and the body politic survives, then there is at least the possibility of reviving them.
If the body politic is permanently destroyed, so are the liberties it was designed to protect.
This is well shown by the original Roman institution of the dictatorship. In extreme existential emergency the Senate appointed a dictator to exercise all functions of the state for a limited period. When this period was over he reverted to ordinary status.
But the Romans were wise enough to see that limited short-term loss of liberty is better than its permanent loss.
The USA has of course never been in this type of crisis, though the Civil War is the closest we've come. When compared to any other great civil war, ours had fewer atrocities and suspension of liberties. That's the logical comparison, not to time of peace.
I guess no one told you, but zombies are democrats, not republicans like Lincoln. The zombie reference comes from a joke that Bob Hope made about democrats.
very well said!
They, like zombies, are a socially acceptable surrogate and code name for a certain class, in the case of vampires the class is politicians, predatory banksters, union bosses etc.
(s) how day they make a republican president into a super hero (/s)
will pay my money to see it.
I should have stated the courts may have a role in determining whether a state of insurrection or invasion sufficient to justify such a suspension of liberties does indeed exist.
After the Civil War the Supremes ruled that martial law could not be used in areas where the civil courts were functioning, overturning several convictions by military tribunals during the war.
Russia was probably the reason why France and Britain did not intervene on the South’s side during the American Civil War, Alexander III was a liberal tsar who emancipated the serfs in Russia and he was smarting for revenge over the Crimean defeat a few years before, he was extremely pro-American and authorised the sale of Alaska a few years later...
Nah. I'm waiting for the sequels:
"George Washington, Vampire Hunter"
"JFK, Vampire Hunter"
"Benjamin Franklin, Vampire Hunter"
"Woodrow Wilson, Vampire Hunter"
"Andrew Jackson, Vampire Hunter"
"Harry Truman, Vampire Hunter"...
Then they should be making more movies about our Congresscritters.
“on the strength and novelty of the gimmick”
This gimmick is by no means new.
“Thats why John Wilkes Booth had to shoot him in the head.”
For women it's a two-fer. There's the excitement about the bad boy plus the fascination with the aristocratic lover.
Don't know what guys get out of it. I guess the girls just drag them along. Sooner or later the women complain that the men aren't as romantic and attentive as their favorite vampire so the couples break up.
“the States divided might have been ripe for the picking by a foreign power like Russia, France or Britain. We might now again be British colonists, but for Lincoln.”
You don’t hear that one all too often. Usually it’s more about how the North and South would’ve fought eachother over the West, though it’s never been explained to me why a fight sooner was better than later. Anyway, they were busy enough at the time. They prefered countries less able to fight back.
Remember Lincoln’s speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum, and remember we were still buffeted by the two oceans and cradled by the vastness of our continent. Us being one country instead of two was never alone the reason Europe stopped trying to conquer us after 1812 or so. Because they could’ve done it nonetheless, bygum. The major reason they didn’t in 1812, I should think, is due to us being but a sideshow in the war on Napoleon.
The North and South could take on comers seperately or together. Why couldn’t we have been allies, if not fellow countrymen, after the break? We had no trouble licking the Mother Country’s boots for two world wars, nor making them lick our boots afterwards. And that was after the humiliating for them War for Independence.
“They prefered countries less able to fight back.”
That is, until went crazy and attacked eachother.
I think that's the director. It's not that he's a Marxist or a Communist by conviction.
He's Russian or Kazakh, and that's what he grew up with. As I read it he was joking about the heroes of the two cultures.
“The zombie reference comes from a joke that Bob Hope made about democrats”
Um, we can’t call Republicans zombies because Bob Hope made a joke billions of years ago? As if there have been no “zombie reference”s since then.
Oh.... thank you. I misunderstood what he was saying..in the article.
RE: Thats why John Wilkes Booth had to shoot him in the head.
FOR THOSE WHO DON’T WANT TO BE SPOILED... STOP READING NOW.
FOR THOSE WHO WON’T WATCH... HERE IS THE REST OF THE STORY ACCORDING TO THE BOOK...
The Civil war ends with the South’s defeat. Lincoln receives reports that the vampires in the South are fleeing to Asia and South America in the wake of the slave system’s collapse.
Happy for the first time in many years, he attends a play at Ford’s Theater, only to be assassinated by the actor and vampire John Wilkes Booth.
Booth expects the vampires to rally around President Lincoln’s death, but instead finds himself shunned and hiding in a Virginia barn as Union troops arrive to arrest him. Henry (Lincoln’s Vampire Hunting mentor) arrives and confronts Booth inside the burning barn; it is implied that Henry is the one who kills Booth.
"George Washington, Vampire Hunter" Was
"JFK, Vampire Hunter"Slept with vampyrs.
"Benjamin Franklin, Vampire Hunter"Was, but also slept with vampyrs
"Woodrow Wilson, Vampire Hunter"Was a Vampyr
"Andrew Jackson, Vampire Hunter"Was
"Harry Truman, Vampire Hunter"...Wasn't, but vaporized quite a few. Good man!
“It has been wisely said that while the Constitution was designed to handle an enormous range of issues, it was not designed to handle a civil war.”
Yes, it was. It was desinged for everything. Hence the lack of a “civil war” or “emergency” clause saying, “In the event you don’t want to bother with the rest of this document, aw hell, do whatever feels right.”
“That is, of course, why the Founders allowed for suspension of civil liberties in cases of insurrection or invasion. It is notable that this is permitted by simple majority vote of Congress. The courts cannot overrule it.”
You’re talking about the suspension of habeas corpus I presume. Well, that is not specified as being permitted by simple majority vote. We only infer that given how the Constitution says it can only be suspended in so and so a situation. The Constitution is incomplete in that way.
That being said, I see no reason why the courts can’t overrule it. Say there was no insurrection, for instance.
That also being said, Lincoln did not get Congress to suspend habeas corpus for him. He did that all on his own, without any clause to point to for justification. He did a great many unprecedented things unilaterally, all based on the emergency and his so-called war powers. Most of which in my opinion were unjustified, and which aren’t even implied in the Constitution.
“If the body politic is permanently destroyed, so are the liberties it was designed to protect”
First of all, who said the body politic was in danger of being destroyed? Where? When? Did somehow the volley on Ft. Sumter land on freedom of speech?
More importantly, this is the old “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” argument. Yes, it is. There is no way out. You cannot save it by breaking it like Bush the Younger saved capitalism by abandoning it for socialism. The country ceasing to exist is a better outcome than the government ruling outside the Constitution.
“If the body politic is permanently destroyed, so are the liberties it was designed to protect.”
We’ll never know what relation to liberty the seperate North and South would’ve had. What we do know is that the North, on its own, during the war abandoned it. We know one of the reasons the South pulled the eject lever was because it was upset with the liberties already trampled upon and the fear of further trampling in future by the more numerous North. What I also know is that the North and South under the Constitution is not liberty itself. Liberty can exist with or without it.
I also know that we lost our liberty and our Constitution nominally under it eventually.
“This is well shown by the original Roman institution of the dictatorship. In extreme existential emergency the Senate appointed a dictator to exercise all functions of the state for a limited period. When this period was over he reverted to ordinary status.”
I trust you’re aware we are not Rome and never had such an institution. I’ve heard a great many justify Lincoln this way, and it is refreshingly honest. It’s just that a lot of us, you must understand, do not hear the word “dictator” and smile. A lot of us think it’s a bad thing to be. A lot of us think Caesar, for instance, killed the republic.
“The USA has of course never been in this type of crisis, though the Civil War is the closest we’ve come”
This gets to the nub of the issue, and why your words seem so off the wall to me. You make a seperation between North and South akin to, say, Nazi Germany besieging Russia. The U.S. Constitution was not being conquered from without. Some of the entities under it opted out, is all.
Well, and fired on one of the forts the states under the Constition held onto. But this, even, is not like a foreign sword coming to tear into our liberties. The union would’ve still been there, just smaller. The South did not invade the North to impose a new government upon them.
This whole idea of an “extreme existential emergency” is extremly preposterous.
A lot us us see Cincinattus as the model of the temporary git-r-done-and-get out dictator.
As for Julius Caesar, he was not appointed dictator in the traditional Roman way. Ordered to Rome to stand trial, he instead marched his legions against the government and siezed power, eventually coercing the disempowered senate into proclaiming him dictator for life, a title without precedent.
So yes, he did destroy the Republic, but not by accepting the normal Roman temporary dictatorship.
As for Julius Caesar, he was not appointed dictator in the traditional Roman way. Ordered to Rome to stand trial, he instead marched his legions against the government and seized power, eventually coercing the disempowered senate into proclaiming him dictator for life, a title without precedent.
So yes, he did destroy the Republic, but not by accepting the normal Roman temporary dictatorship.
Whatever else he did, Lincoln did not rise to the level of a 19th C AD Cincinattus.
“A lot us us see Cincinattus as the model of the temporary git-r-done-and-get out dictator.”
First of all, Lincoln may have got out, but against his will. Not to say he would’ve made himself King for Life or anything, but the Republicans he left behind ruled the South like a colony for more than a decade. Novelties of the war may not have carried on in force and in every detail. The draft ended, the income tax disappeared, there were pardons, martial law in the North left, habeas corpus was restored, the greenbacks stopped coming off the presses. But everyone knows things didn’t revert to what they had been antebellum.
There was a “ratchet effect,” as there is with every big war, especially the War Between the States, WWI, and WWII. Government power did not stay where it was at its high-water mark, but after ‘65 it never was again what it had been in ‘61. This is hardly like Cincinnatus returning peacefully to his farm after bailing out the Republic. It’s more akin to Caesar leaving behind Octavian to declare his principate (progressives, maybe?) and the rest of the Julio-Claudian line to pull it into decay (the New Deal?).
Also, an important point about Cincinnatus is that being dictator was not his idea. The Civil War was Lincoln’s, against the advice in many of his own (admittedly nascent) party. And it’s not as if Rome was supressing rebellion in the provinces, or something. Cincinnatus responded to an army in the field being besieged by neighboring tribes. Presumably if they lost Rome would be open to sacking. The South, contrarywise was not threatening invasion. That was the other way around.
Lincoln is no Cincinnatus. If anyone was, it’s Washington.
“As for Julius Caesar, he was not appointed dictator in the traditional Roman way.”
In what traditional way did Lincoln become dictator? Aside from the fact that there is no such American tradition, he merely declared he was so. Not in so many words, but he just went ahead and did it. Those who disagreed might be jailed or exiled. SCOTUS’ backtalk he ignored. Does that sound more like Cincinnatus or Caesar?
“Whatever else he did, Lincoln did not rise to the level of a 19th C AD Cincinattus.”
Yes, exactly. The way people talk about the union being broken as akin to an enemy force invading and destroying the Constitution and our liberty is weird. I don’t get it. The union wouldn’t cease to be, it just wouldn’t have been what it was.
Lincoln did not temporarily assume dictatorial powers to save the republic. He assumed them to keep southern states within the union. And we all know they ended up not being entirely temporary, though some of them were. Of course, Lincoln had no hand in extending abuses past the war, as he died with the war. But he shares responsibility for the infinite extension of federal prerogative.
By the way, Rome did not have a written constitution, just one of the many superiorities of our system. Having the Constitution, I must be able to read somewhere in actual words that in such and such circumstances the president has dictatorial powers and you have to listen to him or else. Since I can’t, no such powers legitimately exist.
In other words, however great was Cincinnatus and however unlike his dictatorship was Caesar’s, that venerable Roman tradition is not among ours, and we have no such office.