Abigail‘s marketing spoils its only twist
The daughter of Dracula doesn’t have many surprises up her sleeve
Film Features Abigail
Spoiler Space offers thoughts on, and a place to discuss, the plot points we can’t disclose in our official review. Fair warning: This article explains the ending of the movie Abigail.
We couldn’t spoil anything Abigail doesn’t spoil in its trailer, posters, and elevator pitch: A crew of bickering crooks kidnaps a pre-teen ballerina who happens to be a vampire. The only one who doesn’t know the twist is the movie. For much of its runtime, Abigail, a riff on Dracula’s Daughter, stalls for time. In the first 45 minutes, the kidnapping plot plays out, with the film’s central mystery focused on the identity of Abigail’s father. “He’s Tom Hanks, America’s dad,” says Joey (Melissa Barrera). Well, at least we have that to look forward to.
Abigail is a fine horror comedy. There are literal bursts of gore that explode like the Fourth of July, a sharp cast led by an effective Alisha Weir, who plays the adolescent bloodsucker, and a snappy tone that keeps things moving as directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett spin their wheels. It just doesn’t have an ending.
Going into Abigail, everyone already knows the movie’s only surprise, with its marketing focused solely on the young nightwalker at the center. This means the first 45 minutes are spent wondering when we are going to get to the fireworks factory. When Dean (Angus Cloud) turns up decapitated, it’s no secret as to who did the cutting. Nor is it surprising that the pre-teen keeps outsmarting her captors. Unlike From Dusk Till Dawn, which plays the crime movie half straight, there’s no hook in the movie’s first half. From Dusk Till Dawn manages what Abigail fails: It makes you forget vampires are coming.
So, the big twist is spoiled by the trailers. It wouldn’t be the first time. The problem is, there are no surprises after it. The new M. Night Shyamalan movie, Trap, for example, also shares its basic premise in the trailer, but with Shyamalan, there’s at least the expectation that we’re not seeing the whole twist. Say what you will about the beach that makes you Old, but Shyamalan made damn sure that there was something worth waiting until the end for.
This brings us back to Tom Hanks. Abigail’s second biggest mystery is, which actor plays Abigail’s father? During the kidnapping, we see dear Dad coming home, but the directors withhold his face. Later, we learn her father is feared crime lord Kristof Lazar, a name that strikes fear into the heart of Dean (Dan Stevens). As the film continues, characters share horror stories about him, particularly regarding a mysterious mass murder atop a heavily guarded New York City skyscraper. He uses his enemies as Abigail’s plaything, and she’s happy to oblige. All of this would build suspense, if the audience didn’t already know he was a vampire, too, so we’re left waiting for him to appear…if only to see who’s playing him. After all, the movie called its shot.
By mentioning Hanks, the movie primes the audience for a big cameo—think Bill Murray in Zombieland or Margo Martindale in BoJack Horseman. Abigail doesn’t have that. What it has isn’t good. It’s Goode. Matthew Goode. And he’s fine. But it’s not a reveal that leaves the audience walking back to their cars with a smile. With nothing left to say, the movie half-heartedly leans into an underdeveloped theme of absent parents and what it means to “show up” for the kid.
Abigail doesn’t have the dexterity to withhold its surprise and doesn’t have much to say beyond it. Had Abigail revealed her fangs within the first half hour or less, viewers might not be so focused on why the hell a vampire has a pulse. Unfortunately, because there’s not much to distract audiences besides a serviceable time killer, we stay one step ahead the whole time.
42 Comments
Damn I’d have to see the movie to speak to it fully, but it almost seems like the “twist” isn’t intended to be a twist so much as a plot development. Unlike From Dusk Till Dawn, which plays the crime movie half straight, there’s no hook in the movie’s first half. From Dusk Till Dawn manages what Abigail fails: It makes you forget vampires are coming.
See, it feels less like “the movie is a failure on its own merits” and more like “the advertising for this movie wasn’t like From Dusk Till Dawn.” Rodriguez and the studio were able to play that trick because you could sell a crime drama with Clooney and Tarantino on its face in 1996; Giancarlo Esposito and Angus Cloud kidnapping drama isn’t enough to put a butt in a seat in 2024.
I’ve seen it and I agree. It would’ve been more fun not knowing that she was a vampire, but it’s the hook—I don’t know that I would’ve sought out the movie otherwise. Though maybe they could’ve packaged it as slasher-thriller and drawn people in that way.
The problem is, there are no surprises after it. The new M. Night Shyamalan movie, Trap, for example, also shares its basic premise in the trailer, but with Shyamalan, there’s at least the expectation that we’re not seeing the whole twist. Say what you will about the beach that makes you Old, but Shyamalan made damn sure that there was something worth waiting until the end for.
See, that strikes me as an issue of expectations, not the quality of the movie itself. “The movie doesn’t go anywhere” is a critique of the work; “I wanted more twists” is a personal preference. It’s kinda funny that they reach for Old as an example, as 1) I don’t know if I really consider the end of that movie much of a twist so much as an explanation, and 2) the movie succeeds (as much as one may consider it does) due to the immediate suspense of “what is happening to these people?” and “are they going to escape their fates, and how?” I don’t think the movie lives or dies based on that final twist/reveal.
M. Night’s entire gimmick is “twists” so if you see his name on the movie you always go in expecting one.That is, if you actually go to one and not just laugh at his name in the trailer.
I haven’t seen it so I can’t speak from personal experience, but from this article and a couple other things I read it seems like the movie itself is predicated on it being a twist. It seems like it takes the better part of an hour to actually reveal that part of the movie, which means audiences who have been told it was a vampire movie are just waiting for that to actually happen, and the movie is trying to treat what everybody already knows as an unexpected turn.
In the first trailer, Harvey Keitel is billed over both Clooney and Tarantino. Neither were proven movie stars, and Rodriguez was just coming off Desperado—not so different from the Radio Silence guys coming off two pretty massive Scream movies. The movie is pitched as a vampire movie starring two crooks, but the first half is effective enough to help you forget. The problem with Abigail is there’s absolutely no tension building to Abigail’s reveal. We’re just sitting there waiting for her to show up.
All ‘twists’ are plot developments, just ones intended to be a surprise or difficult to guess.
It feels less like ‘the movie is a failure on its own merits’ and more like ‘the advertising for this movie wasn’t like From Dusk Till Dawn”This whole article has me feeling like I’m taking crazy pills. The trailer for “From Dusk Till Dawn” is embedded right there, and the vampires are revealed in it too. Takes 45 seconds. It’s exactly the same as Abigail, and I don’t really recall FDTD having any wild twists beyond the vampires.
Eh, I still had a good time. I knew she was a vampire going in, but it was entertaining to see the characters figure it out. I was also still wondering how she was able to get out her restraints and sneak in and out of her room to kill people before the big reveal, though I think they could’ve played more with that and showing off her terrifying powers. There’s also the questions of how/if they’ll be able to escape and the usual slasher game of “who’s next,” so I wouldn’t say it’s the only twist.I do wonder how differently it would be received if it were marketed like Barbarian and the plot/premise was more of a mystery. Would people have not seen it because the beginning is just a generic heist or could they have made it seem like a horror movie without giving too much away?
This is where I stand. I would be annoyed if I went to heist movie and it turned out to be a horror movie. Or even if it’s who is the murderer, I think it’s twist 101 that it’s the girl that they took that out.
Yeah, there’s been plenty of good movies that have bombed because of bad marketing where what people got was not what they were expecting and they were the wrong crowd for it. Also good point, any seasoned horror/mystery fan would call that the girl is somehow involved very early on even if that weren’t revealed in the trailer.
“A bunch of people are hired to murder a daughter….” Yeah, the second you hear that you know some shit is up because why would they need a team?
Of the recent releases in my town, nothing looks good, except Monkey Man. I recommend Wicked Little Letters. I don’t think it has been reviewed here though, unsurprisingly. It’s a bonus that Olivia Colman And Jessie Buckley play opposite each other, after having played the same character in The Lost Daughter (highly recommend).
I would’ve liked to have gone in without the big spoiler, but thought it was a blast anyway. If you didn’t get anything out of the vampire movie where the cast is generally delightful and some of them explode, I don’t know what to tell you.
I saw the trailer a couple weeks ago before Monkey Man, and it looked really bad. B-tier quipping and shitty references. But I’ve learned over the past couple years that the trailer industry in general is just struggling. I bet modern-day trailer editors could make Breathless look like a Marvel movie. A lost art form. Paul Thomas Anderson trailers still rule, but that is mostly because he edits them himself.
Its not a “spoiler” for the trailer to show the basic premise of the movie. Abigail being a vampire wasn’t supposed to be a twist to the audience. Its just the plot of the movie.
Can we also now admit that their Scream movies are massively overrated?
I mean, they were fine, I guess? I still think 4 is the best after 1, then all the rest are kind of lesser versions of the original. 5 and 6 were pretty solid entries –I can’t speak to over-rated since I really wasn’t aware that anyone thought of them as anything more.
No, because they weren’t and this movie was good too. The person writing this article is basing it on thier expectations versus what the movie actually was
They’re not breaking any new ground but were entertaining enough without hitting the lowest lows of other long running horror franchises. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The sheriff in 5 responding to, “What’s your favorite scary movie?” with a tense, “I prefer animated films and musicals” gave me a good laugh and is a moment I still think about. Also thought the opening of that one was fun with the jabs at prestige horror. Ghost Billy was ridiculous but in a way that tickled me.
Was anyone saying they were good?
Scream VI has one or two vaguely interesting twists (i.e. the opening) and some lizard-brain-level entertainments (Melissa Berrara’s performance during the denouement in particular), but even by the standards of self-reflexive mainstream slashers, it has the kind of narrative holes that start becoming annoying – if you’re lucky – 5 mins After the movie has ended. Something like Thanksgiving has ‘heightened suspension of disbelief’, this has ‘come on, man..’. It’s basically the narrative equivalent of ‘cartoon physics’ injected into a live-action film and feels like it needed another draft to at least ‘cover themselves’ slightly better. V has that to a lesser extent but it also plays things safer (death of a certain man character, and the narmy hallucinations of a certain deceased character notwithstanding) and has weaker performances (again Berrara)
For me, the hook from the trailer came from watching some actors I love watching chew up scenery (primarily Dan Stevens, Kevin Durand, and Giancarlo Esposito, but Kathryn Newton was a surprising delight too) gnaw on the interior of a Gothic mansion while a vampire gnawscon them.I was a little disappointed there was no meaty third act twist or that the Dracula reveal was lacking heft, but I was generally happy to get what I paid for.I suppose they could have framed the marketing by making it clear that it was more than just a crime thriller (e.g. the group of ne’erdowells being hunted by something supernatural but not revealing the vampire ballerina bit), but they probably would have had to be careful with their marketing for viewers to not connect the dots.
Ah, Clasic AVClub, calling the trailer spoil the twist that every media already exposed. Then started to spoiler who her father was, that even the trailer didn’t show.
Wait, you didn’t assume the dad was also a Vampire the second you saw the trailer?
Is… is Matthew Goode being in the movie really a spoiler though?
Literally everything is a spoiler now according to the internet. Even the very suggestion that a film has an unexpected plot point is a spoiler. Also I love that OP got so indignant about seeing spoilers in an article that specifically says it contains spoilers and is part of a running feature called “Spoiler Space.”
So why’d it get an A-?
I don’t think there’s a version of marketing for this that can make the first 45-minutes better— they are weak with or without the twist or reveal or whatever you want to call it. The cast just isn’t that interesting until shit goes off the rails. If they were written even a bit better then it could have been marketed as a heist gone bad (essentially what it was) with horror elements, maybe?Ready or Not had the same issue with the marketing giving away the twist, so the ‘introduction’ felt like a time waster, except those characters were more interesting to watch (that cast was surprisingly strong with a lot of reliable character actors in it—hell, even Andie Macdowell is tolerable in that movie and I usually find her mind-numbingly boring) and the ending was a lot of fun.As it is for this movie, once the reveal happens it got much better and there were some fun character moments—thank the lord that fucking idiot died first is all I can say as he damn near ruined the movie for me.I don’t know that I entirely agree that there aren’t more twists. Finding out they were all chosen for specific reasons was pretty interesting, and Esposito’s choice to turn on her was sort of interesting, though really we should have seen more of his character to make that really mean anything except “sure, but why now as opposed to before a bunch of them were dead?” I liked Dan Stevens character deciding to take the deal and be turned into a vampire as well since it made sense for his character—plus he does ‘sneakily sinister’ very well (which made his boring character even more disappointing for most of this). The blood explosions felt like a love letter to those of us that loved Ready or Not, and had me laughing pretty hard by the final ones.While I liked the actor playing the dad, I agree that it wasn’t nearly a big enough reveal for the entire movie to set it up like that. Honestly that reveal is a pretty good summary of the movie—-it was fine, but felt like it should have been better…
I didn’t think the dad showing up was even meant to be a reveal, just a “you thought the hero was free, but another big bad appears!” moment.I liked the movie overall, but I agree the stuff before the reveal could’ve been cut down or made more interesting. It was mostly just going through the motions in the beginning.
From the moment I saw the trailer I figured the reveal was they were set up to get fed to the daughter.
I admit too that it’s a little annoying spending 40 minutes waiting for vampire kid stuff when the ads and even the title/poster basically spoil it. I thought they added in some more twists, as mentioned Dan Steven’s Frank going full vampire by the end was unexpected and Abigail herself becoming friends with the lead
I’m over these guys schtick. Ready or Not was halfway decent, but their Scream movies are absolutely awful. Wasn’t willing to give this film a chance.
The real trick that every movie that’s ever been made is aiming for is to fill it’s audience with the same wonder they had the first time they watched it for however many times after they ultimately rewatch it. Those rare few that can pull off this trick? Are considered classics.I don’t think a twist is really what you’re looking for. You’re looking for the wonder. Unfortunately the trap that some modern movies fall into ,and yes even semi-modern ones have fallen into this as well, is that they giveaway so much of the movie in their trailers that there’s very little wonder left to be discovered in the actual film.
Would it have been better if I hadn’t known the twist? Probably.Would I have gone to see it in cinema if had thought it’s a kidnapping movie? Probably not.
I can’t blame the marketing on that one… It worked.
Dramatic irony is a thing and people need to stop getting pissy about stuff like this.
It’s worth noting pretty much every horror franchise has a bunch of hapless kids slowly learning about the killer we’ve know as an audience for about a dozen movies.
Im sure others have already said this but I had a blast at Abigail but if the marketing just showed “bumbling crooks try kidnap a kid”, I doubt I would have gone to see it. SO it’s two fold…would I like to have been surprised that she’s a Vampire? Absolutely. Would I have gone to see it if it was just a heist flick? doubtful. Maybe the Marketing team could have leaned more towards a “….but she’s not what she seems” angle?
Horror isn’t my thing really, so I have to ask if people really expect twists beyond inventing kills and traps for something like this? Like maybe—where’s a parent, who made her, that sort of thing for a vampire movie, but it was some ancient spell or whatever the tension is in who’ll escape (if) and how, right?
This may get buried in gray but — I AGREE!!!Watching the movie, there’s so much build up in the beginning where the audience is way ahead of the characters.If they’d pulled a Hitchcock misdirection, marketing it as a kidnapping thriller and nothing more — I think it would’ve been awesome.THAT SAID… people are too complainy now that everybody has a voice. If the internet had been around when PSYCHO came out, people would be up in arms about how the trailers/promos lied to them.If this had been marketed as a kidnapping thriller and they hid all the vampire stuff, I’m sure there’d be people flipping out because they didn’t want to see a vampire movie.Sooo…. I get it. I think its saving grace will be when people forget about the marketing. When some kid finds it playing on cable without any knowledge about it.
“Abigail’s marketing spoils its only twist”It isn’t a twist, it’s the premise of the movie.