Movie Review: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Title: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Director: Timur Bekmambetov

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 105 mins

Classification: R

Genre: Action, Fantasy, Horror

Even the thought of Abraham Lincoln being a vampire hunting is preposterous and they decide on making it a non-comedy. Did it deliver? NO.

For anyone who doesn’t know this already, Abraham Lincoln was the 16^th President of the United States and is famously known for ending slavery. He was assassinated in 1865.

Oh and he hunted vampires.

For a movie like this, I expected action and/or horror and/or comedy. From the trailer, it didn’t seem like a horror or comedy. Even so the trailer looked good. It made the title Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter look appealing...... ok so maybe just appealing to me. I was disappointed. 

Personally I am not a big fan of vampire movies, but I’ve seen enough to know how standard vampire movies are. I know vampires are not real therefore vampire hunters are not real, but in the Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter world they are. The vampires still have super strength etc etc and humans are still boring with no special power. So, how can a measly human boy fight vampires without any chemical/biological/technological help?

We start with a young Abraham getting thrown into walls by a ‘bullet in one eye socket’ vampire to a older Abraham throwing vampires out of trains with no assistance. No ‘super strength biological serum’ injection was used and no advanced technology was used. This does not sound plausible.

I get that most people watch it for the action and don’t mind if there’s no reason to Abraham’s super strength but I’m just one of those people who believe if you’re going to make a movie, don’t make it sloppy.

These vampires are not very convincing either. Be romantic or be scary. The vampires in this movie just confuse me. I wasn’t sure if they healed or were just immortal with a human shell. They weren’t particularly scary and obviously not romantic. (Which is fine since vampires are a type of walking dead. Why would anyone fall in love with a corpse? I don’t care how good looking they are.) It felt like the writer wasn’t sure which vampire rules they should stick by. Vampires with powers or vampires who heal and are scared of sun?

There’s a poor effort to integrate the vampire war with the Civil War (I may me be mistaken about the Civil War). I understand the attractiveness of it. To have a non related vampire story integrated into real history would be fun but this was poorly achieved. This is due to the weak background of the story and the awful editing. One day Abraham is young, the next he has a massive beard, a cane and his famous top hat. The texture of the movie design was probably the only thing that was consistent throughout the film.

Before I forget, Abraham’s wife is played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead... not much else to tell since this movie does not play on romance either.

The only thing I was impressed by was how much they made Benjamin Walker look like Abraham Lincoln near the end of the film.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has nothing to offer. Maybe if it wasn’t for the bad editing and unfilled gaps, the movie might have had some potential. Overall, it is not worth anyones time unless of course you want to waste time.

If your looking for a vampire movie, please seek else where as these vampires are busy trying to set their own fictional rules. 

Terri's Rating: 1/5

Book Review: The Demon's Lexicon trilogy

Title: The Demon's Lexicon, The Demon's Covenant and The Demon's Surrender
Author: Sarah Rees Brennan
Year Published: 2009-2011
Genre: Young Adult, Urban Fantasy, Action, Romance


I wanted to like this series. I really did. The reasons for this are twofold: first, not one, but two of my friends liked and recommended it; second, I've lurked on the author's blog and she seems really funny (those recaps!) and nice (as far as I can tell from my observations as a creepy internet lurker). In the end, however, The Demon's Lexicon series just wasn't really my cup of tea, though I can see why it might appeal to others.

The Demon's Lexicon introduces us to the Ryves brothers, Nick and Alan, who have been running from evil magicians their entire lives. Enter Mae and Jamie, two siblings from Nick's school who suddenly find themselves in need of magical help. Various kinds of fighting ensue. The novel is told from Nick's point of view, which was not a particularly fun place to be. I mean, I get that he has an unfeeling sort of personality, but some variant of “Nick didn't care, but he did it because he thought Alan might like it” pops up on every other page and I got fairly sick of being told about this over and over again. I couldn't really get into the plot either (despite heaps of action), nor could I bring myself to particularly care about the characters. The last third of the book, however, took me by surprise. At this point, all the various sub-plots come together in a really interesting way and I finished the book relatively quickly. While I enjoyed the ending (the book works as a standalone, thankfully), I wouldn't have read the sequels had I not already borrowed all three books.

In The Demon's Covenant, we have a continuation of the adventures of our intrepid four as they continue to oppose evil magicians (but I won't say anything about the plot because spoilers). I was actually a little disappointed that we weren't in Nick's point of view any more (given the ending of the last book), but oh well, Mae's point of view proved to be an easier read (replace “Nick didn't care...” with various metaphors and similes). The plot meanders more than in the previous book, and I wasn't really ever sure where things were going, or if they were going. Though I wanted to like Mae, the fact that she (minor spoiler alert!) dates/befriends her brother's bully – despite Jamie openly hating him and despite Mae seemingly loving Jamie the most – rubbed me the wrong way. As with the previous book, I didn't find myself compelled to pick this up again after I'd put it down. Then boom. Another great third act.

The series finishes with The Demon's Surrender, told now from the point of view of Sin, a relatively minor character from the previous books. At this point, I was getting a bit bored of the whole “Market people vs. magicians” conflict, which seemed to move sideways rather than escalate (if that makes sense). Still, I found this book to be the easiest to “get into” out of all of them. The writing seems more balanced and I also found Sin to be more likeable than Nick and Mae. Coincidentally, this is also the book in which all the romantic sub-plots become fleshed out, though it did seem a bit contrived at times to have Sin present while the other couple talked about their relationship. On this note, I also didn't buy Nick's “romance”; it felt like something was missing between the previous book and this one (not in a good way) and I couldn't make the jump. At any rate, the conflict and action are better paced in book three, with major events happening in the middle rather than just at the end. The ending itself is fairly satisfying too.


As far as YA urban fantasy goes, this series is pretty original (no vampires or werewolves). The demonic aspect of Brennan's world was really interesting and the books were at their best during the times they explored this. However, I wanted more world-building from this series. It's set in Exeter and London, but I didn't really get a sense of place other than the general “urban” kind of feel and the occasional landmark name-drop. The same goes with the Goblin Market and the world of the magicians in general. While these were described in a fairly detailed way, I could only get a superficial impression of what they were. Given that all the action occurs in these places (no hopping around cities to save the world), I would have liked more depth.

My other main problem was that this was a character-driven series and my failure to bond with the characters doomed me to diminished enjoyment. Despite the changing narrators all having different personalities, there's a same-ish quality to the writing – for example, the occasional quirky hook of a sentence or pretty turn of phrase, the same kind of descriptions and so on. In other words, since the writing style is similar in all three books, what didn't work for me in the first book also didn't work for me in the second and third. Worse, I couldn't even root for the villains, as they all felt a bit two-dimensional. This, for me, diminished the tension in the books even further.

Now for a bunch of even more subjective nitpicks/comments. First there is the humour: there's quite a bit of it, it is funny, but it feels a bit like internet humour and it was therefore a strange experience to be reading it a book (see the author's website for examples of said humour). Second, while some might find the many t-shirt slogans mentioned (eg. “Romeo and Juliet Wouldn't Have Lasted”) to be a particular treat, I personally found it distracting since I could not help but think of the Author Appeal. Third, included on p206 of The Demon's Covenant is my personal berserk button: arterial blood is described as dark (seriously, is this a thing now?). In all honesty though, these won't annoy you unless you have a (read: my) specific set of stupid pet peeves.

I'm sorry I didn't like this series as much as I wanted to, I really am. This was probably my own fault, since I started the series after my YA urban fantasy craving had passed. The premise is unique, the dialogue is snappy and the way the endings came together was well done every time – there's plenty to like. But I felt had to push my way through this series, I didn't really care about anyone, and it was just not to my (subjective) taste. My recommendation, if you want to give this a shot, is to read the first book and see how you go from there: if you like it, great, go read the next two. But if you don't, then I'm betting you won't much like the others – in which case, just go watch Supernatural or something to get your brothers-fighting-supernatural-forces fix instead.


Alex's Rating: 2.5/5

Movie Review: Looper

Title: Looper
Director: Rian Johnson
Year Released: 2012
Running Time: 118 minutes
Classification: R (MA15+)
Genre: Science fiction, Action/Adventure, Thriller

It was the premise that hooked me: a hitman's next target is his future self. Will he kill himself or let himself go? Whatever the outcome, it's a great concept. Thankfully, it's also a concept done well. Looper is one smooth sci-fi caper and a welcome breath of fresh air in an era of sequels, prequels, reboots and remakes.

So the year is 2044 and Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who looks strange but fairly convincing in Bruce Willis-ifying make up with extra thick eyebrows) is a looper, an assassin who kills and disposes of mob targets sent from the future. The world is a grim place, with rampant crime and poverty, but it's also close enough to ours to seem possible. Life is pretty routine for Joe until he finds out that the future crime king, the Rainmaker, is “closing the loops” - that is, sending the loopers' future selves back in time for assassination. When Joe's future bad-ass self (Bruce Willis) is sent back, he escapes assassination. The various conflicts between young Joe, old Joe, the mob and eventually Sara (Emily Blunt) provide rich fodder for suspense and moral dilemmas, making for a smart and intriguing film.

If the time travel aspect seems daunting – don't worry; the film is easy to follow and explains what you need to know. As old Joe says, you can just figure out the diagrams and stuff later on. I'm just going to say that I love time travel stories and have noticed that there are usually two types (as depicted in fiction). First, there's the closed system kind (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Gargoyles), in which there is only one reality – any attempt to change the past is impossible, as it will just bring about the things that were meant to happen. Second, there's the infinite possibilities kind (Back to the Future, The Lake House), where you can change the past, but this creates paradoxes or alternate realities. Looper belongs in this second group and it has paradoxes. My advice? Don't think too much about it unless you're a fan of headaches or you like playing “spot the paradox” or “why don't they just do [x]?”. Whether this bothers you is a matter of taste, but I'll say that it's closer to Back to the Future than The Lake House in terms of making sense.

The film has a slick feel to it, but it's not like your typical Big Action Movie. Sure, it's fast-paced and most of Bruce Willis' scenes involve him being Bruce Willis (in a good way), but there are also slower moments and sparse-looking shots that bring an almost art-house or dramatic vibe to the movie. The world-building is solid as are the performances, including child Cid (Pierce Gagnon). I liked that all the characters had their own motivations, were interesting, and worked well with and against each other in the grand scheme of things. As an aside, one aspect I should warn you about is the violence and gore – the fate of Seth (Paul Dano) is the stuff of nightmares oh my god.

However, I get the feeling that Looper won't stick around in my consciousness for too long. Not sure why, but I felt like there could have been something more, or that something was missing – it felt a little cold, almost clinical. Despite the moral and emotional issues at hand, I didn't really connect with the characters. The plot somehow felt too straightforward at times, despite the time travel and the twists (only a few of which were obvious to me). I also feel like it's the kind of movie I don't need to rewatch any time soon. I can't put my finger on why this is so and am willing to chalk it up to subjective taste.

Looper is fresh, intelligent and definitely one of the better movies I've seen in recent times. I'm probably biased towards it since I've been craving some original high concept sci-fi, but I don't care, it hit the spot like a cool glass of lemonade at the end of a hot day. Rian Johnson's done a fine job and I'll definitely be watching out for his future projects.

Alex's Rating: 4/5

Book Review: Shaolin Burning

Title: Shaolin Burning 
Author: Ant Sang

Year Published: 2011

Genre: Graphic novel, Historical fantasy, Action

I don’t usually read much graphic novels. They’re usually really big and have more than 1 volume which puts me off. But I am glad I read Shaolin Burning because I really enjoyed it.

Shaolin Burning is a story about a young girl, Plum Blossom, who is trained in a new Kung Fu style. She is determined to prove herself by challenging the most dangerous man in China. Little does she know the history of this man and his link to the 6th monks who escaped the attack on the Shaolin Temple.

I am a big fan of Kung Fu having grown up watching martial art films, so I am familiar with the saying ‘all martial arts originate from Shaolin’. This graphic novel depicts exactly that and more.

It is full of fight scenes with graphics of the Shaolin Temple being burnt down and heads of innocent people being chopped off but there is something deeper than that in this novel.

I felt pity for the evil man in this story. He is a dangerous man on a path of revenge, but his actions leave him empty.

The graphics in this novel are a blend of ancient China and modern punk. The main characters are drawn to be tough and rough without the drag of ancient Chinese robes but the era is not lost with the background and subtle details on the clothing.

Be warned, the names and titles in this graphic novels are translated from Chinese so they may sound a little odd and long in English.

I really enjoyed this graphic novel. It was like watching a modern take on an old martial arts film. I recommend it to anyone who likes to watch martial arts films or likes reading action novels. I know I will be looking up Ant Sang, the author, to see what else he has done. 

Terri's Rating: 4/5