Abraham's Boys

This movie is a fanfiction sequel of Dracula and therefore requires a solid basis of knowledge of the Dracula canon in order to "work" for its audience.

The characters themselves have their own steady convictions they aren't giving up any time soon: the doubts and questions must live in the viewer instead. The audience knows what happened with Dracula. We were essentially "there" ourselves, witnessing the horror, the terror, and the gore of it through various books, films, and TV shows. We got splashed with the blood and felt the seduction first hand.

But here, under the pleasant California sun and tranquil landscape, and all that darkness far away in another movie/lifetime, it's easy to doubt our memories and wonder: how easy would it be to fool us? Could we have made a mistake? Are we the same as those people in the past who were so certain as they burned witches we now know we're innocent?

The flaws of this movie are that you do need this built in background knowledge of the characters or it's just not going to work. You will be bored and lost and wondering why certain things are big deals and who all these people are.

And while it's fairly well done, it feels like they did a great job using Walmart acrylics, when it could have been a masterpiece in oil grisaille if they'd gotten just slightly better actors/ writers/ directors all around.

A must see for Dracula fans for the very interesting thought experiment, but a pass for everyone else.

Abraham's Boys had all the right ingredients to be a horror hit: a chilling premise, rich source material from Joe Hill, and the pedigree of Natasha Kermani (Lucky) behind the camera. Positioned as a Dracula sequel through the lens of trauma, inheritance, and paranoia, the film sets its sights high, but sadly, this Shudder release ends up being more of a missed opportunity than a memorable fright.

The story follows Max and Rudy Van Helsing, two teenage brothers raised under the increasingly unhinged rule of their father, Abraham Van Helsing-the same Van Helsing who helped destroy Dracula decades ago. While the Dracula novel is treated canonically (minus the final, somewhat tidy epilogue), this film is more of a slow-burn domestic horror than a vampire thriller. Unfortunately, the burn is too slow, and the tension fizzles before it truly ignites.

The film clearly aims to explore generational trauma through a Gothic lens, what it's like to grow up with a father scarred by monsters both literal and psychological. That concept is compelling, and the moments that touch on this theme are some of the strongest. Watching Max and Rudy slowly piece together the dark legacy they've inherited, and realize their father's madness may be rooted in terrifying truth, should be captivating.

But here's the problem: while watching it, I couldn't help but be reminded of another, better film and I found myself wanting to leave the theater to watch it instead. Revealing that title will be a major spoiler.

That's not to say it's a total loss. But that's part of the frustration: Abraham's Boys has so much potential. For those curious about Van Helsing's tragic legacy, it might be worth a watch-but only with tempered expectations. There's a much better film buried somewhere in here, but like Dracula himself, it never fully rises from the grave.

Wow. They can even ruin a classic. Ever since movies don't all come out in the theaters, they think it passes as a movie. Every single person involved in this movie should quit. People must have money to burn to turn out this garbage. I guess I should be embarrassed I wasted over a hour of my life on this mess.

I need 1hr 29mins and 5secs of my life back🙄. I can truly appreciate a good slow burn as long as a fire eventually occurs. The most intriguing aspect mildly enjoyable was the looming question of Abraham Van Helsing's mental stability. No spoilers from me, watch at your own risk. I went in with fresh eyes, no expectations, and was left disappointed.

I'll start by saying that I really wanted to like this film. The location was gorgeous, the cinematography is fantastic, and the story it's based on is an interesting read. The issue? A really bad script that needed a few more revisions, scenes that played zero role in the story, and some really bad acting from half of the cast.

Dollar store Udo Kier just didn't do anything to help the film, and neither did the younger brother. Every scene involving the two felt like a chore to sit through because the acting was just poor. The mother, despite being from Amsterdam, had a very American accent, so it felt unbelievable even though her acting was up to par. The only good casting here was the older brother and the settler girl, the latter was not given much material to work with either, which was a shame as she played her role to the best of her ability. It didn't help matters that the dialog throughout the film was incredibly stilted, for all parties involved.

Another point to be made is that the film is just boring for the majority of it's runtime. Virtually nothing happens until about the last twenty minutes or so. I understand that it's a slow burn story, but the writer/director should have done something to spruce the story up a bit. For instance, it's the reason why Mike Flanagan is able to pull of Stephen King stories so well, he knows when to take chances and when to be faithful. There is a lot that could have been done with this story, and it all just ends up feeling like one big missed opportunity.

The film also neglects to show even a shred of the brothers believing in Abraham's atrocities once revealed. The brothers never buy into the fact that the man's determinations might be true, therefore making at least 20 minutes of the film null and void. It's one of the reasons why the film Frailty worked so well. In that film, the boys were never quite sure of whether or not their father's supposed mission was real, or if he was just a psycho, making us, the audience, rethink the entire thing ourselves. It's something that you can tell was an inspiration for the storyline, but the writer didn't study that film well enough to understand why it was so compelling and apply it to this story here.

Overall, it can wait until streaming. Yes, the location was a nice view and the cinematography steals the majority of the show, but it's really not worth sitting through in a theater, as it was, for the most part, a bore of a film and not compelling enough to make it an interesting viewing experience.

1.5 Frailty knockoffs out of 5.