Bomb Or Brilliant?

Summer is here, which means it is time for a lot of really good movies to come out. Movie studios like to save the movies they think will make them the most money for the time of the year when the most people can get to the theaters and they can maximize their profits, which means holding release dates back to hot days when kids are out of school and there no chance that people in colder areas of the country might get whacked by a big winter storm and be forced to stay home. It is also a great time to slide out the occasional stinker of a film, because it will largely go unnoticed. (Failure always stings a little less when you are part of a group.) For example, if you had a movie which you knew was not going to be well-received and would embarrass the studio if released during the dead of winter you might think about holding onto it until the summer, then putting it out the same weekend as, say, "The Avengers". Now it's not an obvious box-office bomb, it is just another movie which was swallowed by the biggest money-maker of the summer. That is why most summer movies turn out to be really good or really bad with no in-between. The trick is figuring out which movie belongs in which category. I have to be honest, one of these summer movies is giving me a real hard time deciding.

On the surface "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" (based on a book of the same name) looks as though it should be squarely in the 'bomb they are trying to hide' category. After all, everyone who hears the title for the first time has the exact same reaction, "That's not a real movie, right? It has to be a comedy spoof, like the "Scary Movie" franchise." But not only is the movie real and coming out today, the premise is just as absurd as the title makes you to think it is: the 16th President of the United States was a secret vampire hunter his entire life and the emancipation proclamation wasn't done to free the slaves, but to cut off Southern vampires' food supply. That means that not only does the movie have a fairly insane premise it expects you to swallow from the very start, it also feels kind of racist. Add into that the fact that it seem as though the entire 'vampires are hip' resurgence we have been dealing with for a couple of years is just about over (I won't declare it dead until the next "Twilight" movie is the giant flop it rightfully deserves to be) and the movie feels like it is coming out six months too late. When you put all of that together, it is actually could be a little crazy that I think this movie has even a glimmer of hope to be anything but an unqualified failure.

But, here is the one thing which makes me hesitant to simply dismiss this movie outright. At least it is different. How many times have we celebrated a movie that might not have been that good, but at least it tried to be original? I remember seeing "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" for the first time and while I didn't think it was a life-altering movie by any stretch, at least it wasn't the same teenage-angst movie we'd already seen half a dozen times that year alone. Everyone is making fun of this movie based on nothing but the title, but who is to say that once they get in and actually see it they won't be impressed by it? (The books were pretty well-reviewed.) Historians are annoyed that an entire generation of people might get the wrong impression about President Lincoln, but to me that says more about the education system than anything else. Plus "Inglourious Basterds" was far from historically accurate and that went on to win Oscars. (I'm not saying the movie are comparable, only that people shouldn't dismiss the latest movie just for playing with history.) So, before everyone goes and trashes the film they should at least ask themselves if they would rather have the movie studio make another romantic comedy starring Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore or Katherine Heigl against some brown-hair nondescript actor in which everyone ends up together, happily ever after, that we have already seen countless times. That flick would make a little bit of money, disappear from the theater after a week and be gone from our memories almost as fast. It may be for all the wrong reasons, but at least "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" looks as though it will be memorable.

Another reason I find myself wondering if the movie isn't all that bad is because if the studio was really trying to hide this movie by releasing it among all the big-budget blockbusters they would probably be doing so quietly. Instead, I'm seeing promos for this thing around every corner. (Half the reason it's getting so much bad press is that so many people are aware of it.) In the end, though, I guess the debate of whether to view "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" as a sleeper or a bomb comes down to one simple question - do I have any desire to see this movie? After all, I can admire the people behind it for being original and trying something new, but the best way to show support for any movie is to go to the theater and buy a ticket. (This is Hollywood - originality isn't nearly as admired as box-office receipts.) Thinking about it, I don't even have a slight desire to see this movie in the theater. Also given that movie tickets keep going up in price I'm probably not the only person who feels this way. People are willing to give bad movies a chance when they are spending $1 at RedBox, not when a trip to the movies can cost you $30. So, all in all there isn't much chance I'm going to see "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", but at least they get points for trying.