Maybe it’s just me, but Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter just seems wrong. Don’t misunderstand; I love quirky movies. I’m a big believer in weird and supernatural stuff that makes other people raise eyebrows. But Abraham Lincoln?
What worries me is the responses I’ve heard about the film from some of the young people I know. “If you really think about it, it starts to kind of make sense.”
When I REALLY think about it, I get a headache. You can call me old. I know.
I recently read the Belfast Telegraph article about archaeologists who unearthed two centuries-old graves in Bulgaria of people who had been buried with iron rods through their chests in an effort to prevent them from rising from the dead and feasting on the living. I guess the remedy worked.
Stories of vampires have been around for ages, and rise and fall in popularity with the news of the day. That’s the nature of the unexplained.
While I’m quite certain that there were people who explored, and perhaps even hunted, the evil deeds of those with vampire-like tendencies in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, I believe that the public, and even the “private,” life of Abraham Lincoln is thoroughly documented. I can’t find any vampire hunting in those historical accounts. Not even in the Wikipedia entries.
Back to my concerns—is the fact that Lincoln abolished slavery in this country not enough to warrant our respect and adoration? Must he also protect us from the undead? Considering he was dealing with a country torn in two, the mental instability of his wife, personal family tragedy, and constant threats against his life, he already had a full plate.
I can hear my kids now. “Mom, it’s a movie. It’s just for fun.”
I understand that. I just hope and pray that everyone else does, too.
Perhaps I’m wrong about the whole thing. I admit that I’ve been wrong about many a film. Stories and actors that I seriously doubted have turned around and surprised me. I really love when that happens. Who knows?
That’s a wrap for this Toast to Cinema. Thanks for reading.