MOVIE REVIEWS: ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER

Possibly not since Snakes on a Plane has a movie come along that depended so much on its title to draw audiences as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. “It’s too bad that the film’s concept is way more entertaining than what has ended up on-screen,” writes Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times. That sentiment is echoed by Manohla Dargis in the New York Times. “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is such a smashing title it’s too bad someone had to spoil things by making a movie to go with it,” she remarks. Kyle Smith in the New York Post leads off his review by remarking, “Don’t let the stupid title dissuade you from seeing” the movie. He then goes on: “Let the stupid plot, the stupid history, the stupid action scenes, the stupid trivializing of slavery.” Rafer Guzmán in Newsday figures that with such a title, it “could have been a lowbrow treat, or at least a campy hoot. Instead, it’s a failure so complete that it may indeed make history.” On the other hand, Mick LaSalle in the San Francisco Chronicle praises the filmmakers for not “getting smirky and campy and blowing out the joke in the first few scenes.” And Michael O’Sullivan in the Washington Post gives it props for being “both terribly silly and a lot of fun … reasonably gripping summertime entertainment.”