Vampires have bite, while Spielberg is toothless

Rating: 8/10 (1 November 2014)

I am now ready to pass judgment on the battle of the Lincoln films (2012). For those who may have forgotten, there were two: Steven Spielberg's Lincoln and Timur Bekmambetov's Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. One of them was very good (the Bekmambetov); the other was awful (the Spielberg). Spielberg's Lincoln was ponderous and unilluminating, a leaden soporific. It was compelling and came to life only when James Spader or Sally Field was on screen. (I gave it a C-.) Daniel Day Lewis was, in a way, too faithful in incarnating Lincoln, so much so that he seemed to be robotic (the cinematic equivalent of the animatronic Lincoln in Disneyland). I think that the film would have put Lincoln himself to sleep. (Ken Burns did this much better in his PBS series on the Civil War.) Bekmambetov's Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, on the other hand, was a surprising gem of a film. However perverse the premise may be, it was done with such panache that it was credible. (I gave it a B.) In a strange way, this film was much truer to the spirit of Lincoln than the Spielberg was. In addition, it gave one a clearer (and concise) overview of Lincoln's entire life and a fuller (but still concise) picture of the war than one finds in Spielberg's film. Caleb Deshcanel's cinematography shows that he is still at the top of his game. Furthermore, it was a damn good story that kept me glued to the screen. I do not want to give a spoiler, so I will leave it to you to guess on which side in the war the vampires fought. (My only negative comment is that there was one gratuitous expletive in the middle of the film. However, these days, one is practically none. Except for that, I would have rated the film G since I do not think that children need to be shielded from stylized violence.) If you have to choose one of the two, my recommendation is to go with the vampires.