My Biggest Disappointment in Summer 2012

Rating: 6/10 (20 January 2013)

I received Seth Grahame-Smith's novel for Christmas in 2011 and loved it. It perfectly blended the events of Lincoln's life with a new life as a vampire hunter in such a way that you could almost buy it as legit (if you have a loose grip on reality). It was portrayed as a secret journal Lincoln kept from his youth in which he documents the events of his life and how he came to be a vampire hunter and why it led to his interest in freeing the slaves in the Civil War. I was excited to find out, shortly after I finished the novel, that it was on the fast track to a movie adaptation from producer Tim Burton and director Timur Bekmambetov (WANTED). It was a perfect combo for the source material! The book was dark, suspenseful, and a gripping read. Well, the movie was none of these things. ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER was turned into summer blockbuster schlock with mindless action and a modified plot that ruined or removed all the best parts of the novel. For those unfamiliar, everything you need to know about this movie is in the title. It's the story of Abraham Lincoln's secret life. Our country's beloved 16th president is famous for his Emancipation Proclamation but spent his free time hunting the undead. When a vampire murders his mother, Lincoln dedicates his life to avenging her and battling the undead threat. Under the tutelage of the mysterious Henry Sturges, Lincoln develops the skills necessary to engage his new enemies.
What bothers me most about the Burton/Bekmambetov adaption is how much it seems to veer away from the vibe of the novel. I understand that the script for the movie was written by Grahame-Smith (the original author) but even he seemed almost apologetic when I listened to his commentary for the film. In my opinion, he appeared to spend the entire movie trying to justify all the changes he made. No dice, Grahame-Smith. The changes were unnecessary and seem like pandering to the summer movie crowd in hopes of big box office cash. In a sense, he was successful because the movie made more than it's budget back in returns but it doesn't kill my disappointment. The action in the novel was brutal and fit the darker mood; the action in the movie is embellished and crazy with Lincoln running across the backs of stampeding horses or battling vampires on the roof of a speeding train. The writing and characters tried to take the material seriously (just as I'd hoped) but the events were so extreme that it bordered on campy. And what was the deal with Lincoln's almost supernatural abilities. There is nothing of the sort in the novel; Lincoln is just a normal man who trains his body and mind into peak condition. I know that's a lot to portray in a movie. That's what montages are for. We don't need to see Lincoln chopping a tree in half with a single swing. That's just stupid. I was hoping the movie would approach the premise and treat it as a "what if this were true" scenario and not as a semi-superhero tale.
I also didn't see the point in adding the additional characters. There was a lot to get across in this movie already without tossing in new characters to develop. I went in to the movie understanding that the movie would need to leave a lot out. The novel covers the majority of Lincoln's lifeway more than could fit into a movie running under two hours long. But don't waste time with new material when the original was great. Instead, we get Lincoln's best friend Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie), a freed slave, and vampire lord Adam (Rufus Sewell). I guess Johnson was tossed in so the audience would have an easy understanding of what led Lincoln to free the slaves and Adam was supposed to be a focus point for all the vampire villainy. In other words, over-simplifying everything for a movie audience. The novel worked perfectly without these characters dumbing things down. The novel had a more overwhelming vampire conspiracy threat with their agents everywhere while Adam merely sneers and hams for the camera. He's your generic action movie villain. But he's the big baddie and gives Lincoln someone to kill during a climactic final battle and that's what summer movies need, I suppose.
Anyway, fans of the novel are bound to be as disappointed in the movie as I was. Benjamin Walker was inspired casting as Lincoln. He was the smartest choice the filmmakers made. Mary Elizabeth Winstead didn't fit her role as Mary Todd. She's too adorable to be believable in the role, and the old age effects didn't work for her in the later parts of the film. Dominic Cooper has been scoring some major points as a rising star but I don't like his "rock star" version of Henry Sturges. I guess this was more a fault of the script, but I preferred the stoic mentor I remember from the novel. As far as its position as a summer movie, it's a stylish passable bit of entertainment. I was just hoping it'd have been a lot more.