Lincoln

source: Lincoln

I love the movies-- our American art form-- but I'm afraid the last 15 or so years have been dismal! I just saw Lincoln-- and what a bore! 2 1/2 hours of boring, inaccurate talk, talk, talk!! Anyone who tells you differently either is lying, politically correct, or worshiping at the pagan altar of Abe Lincoln ( who was really a tyrant and a war criminal who killed 600,000 people and fought a total war against noncombatants over economics and against the Jeffersonian principle of the right of sovereignty and self-determination--and not- not about slavery! Lincoln was a racist, and despite publicity to the contrary, never freed one slave!) And while I'm at it, Spielberg is a bad director-- manipulative and sentimental and Tony Kushner is a bad writer-- manipulative and political. In this movie the music is too subdued, the cinematography is too dark, the art direction is too drab and the acting is too mediocre. Even Daniel Day Lewis' extolled performance is merely just--OK-- and not the masterpiece we have been told to expect. And that's the truth. Can you handle the truth? If you want to see a good biopic watch Lawrence of Arabia. If you want to see good acting watch A Streetcar Named Desire. If you want to see good directing watch The Graduate. If you want to hear good dialog watch The Apartment. If you want to see a good Civil War picture watch Gone with the Wind. If you want an interesting plot watch Chinatown. If you want to know the truth about dishonest Abe read The Real Lincoln by Thomas Di Lorenzo. Alas, American movies, and American culture are, I fear, in a spiraling decline.

Together with some decent blockbusters, Spielberg has spent a portion of his career making propaganda films. That's fine, of course. He has a right to his opinion and he has the muscle and talent to express this opinion through movies. This particular movie is simply boring. It has other faults but there is no way around its lack of depth and capacity to engage. Historically, it is a mess. United States was the penultimate slaver country to abolish slavery (Brazil was the last one). Worry not, my dear fellow American, I believe Spielberg told us through another of his propaganda movies that slavery is to be blamed on Spain. The bottom line is that Spielberg is a republican and this one movie is meant to satisfy that particular itch.

I had greatest expectations with "Lincoln", a movie that had twelve nominations to the Oscar, winning two of them and another fifty-seven wins and one hundred and two nominations. Unfortunately "Lincoln" is one of the most boring (if not the most) movies I have tried to see, since I slept after 60 minutes running time. "Lincoln" may be interesting for American people and students of history since the biography of Abraham Lincoln is part of the history of that country and the movie seems to be very accurate about the efforts of this president to approve the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution by the House of Representatives. It may be also interesting for students of cinema since performances, cinematography and costume design are top-notch. But for a common viewer like me, it is painful to watch. I prefer Spielberg making science-fiction movies. My vote is one. Title (Brazil): "Lincoln"

Make no mistake, this is not art nor is it even a movie: in fact it is nothing more than a recording of a play thats only aspirations is to be shown in high school classes across the United States for many years to come. My faults with the film: -Spielberg's Lincoln speaks only through tedious, predictable allegories. These speeches are so boring that more than one character simply walks away during it's interminable running. I wish I could have walked away too. -Black people are treated as oracles and not human beings. The black characters in this film exhibit no manner of humanity and are reduced to simple plot devices. We don't care about their plight because they're not like us. They're heartless machines. -Relations between races in this film are portrayed in a dishonest way. Black soldiers and servants openly challenge and speak to Lincoln as if he's a fellow black man. This isn't the way things were and pretending that it was (from the very first scene!) simply disallows the film from building any heart, any credibility, any weight or substance. We learn quickly this is not a film about an important American historical figure, it is a (very) liberal interpretation. Since we do not see how poorly black people were treated we do not care about Lincoln's ultimate success with his proposed 13th Amendment. -Characters do not develop, character arcs fizzle, conflicts left unresolved. What of Mary Todd Lincoln's impassioned speech to Lincoln regarding the enlistment of their son? She demands to be locked up in a crazy house if the senior Lincoln permits his son to join Grant's side. Well, Robert joined the army and Mary Todd is still in Washington. What was the point of that scene other than to give Sally Field something to do? Why are Sally Field and Joseph Gordon-Levitt even in this film? They have no bearing on the narrative this film attempts to tell! Look, I did not expect this film to give an accurate representation of Lincoln's life. What I did expect is that I would get a tight, entertaining 2 hour slice of our greatest President's most critical hour. Instead I got a pandering, meandering, vapid, and vacuous play- on-celluloid treatment from one of the former cinema greats. This preachy, hunky-dory disease has plagued Spielberg since we were treated to those awful Present Day scenes in Private Ryan. Here it culminates into a suffocating veil which absolutely ruins any hope of this film being a success. Thoughtless, generic, boring drivel.

Lincoln (2012) A highly polished, restrained, important movie. That doesn't make this an exciting movie. The acting is terrific, and filming excellent (including a color saturation pulled back to give it an old look without seeming affected). It is clearly expert in the way we expect from Steven Spielberg above perhaps anyone, at least in the mainstream conventional sense. But there are two things that make this movie a must see. One is the content. It's about one of the two or three most important things ever to happen in this country--the fight to end slavery during the Civil War. This is such powerful stuff it will make you weep. (If it doesn't, you'll have to ask why.) It's laid out as clearly and emphatically as possible while still keeping accurate. The second thing is simply the overwhelming performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. It is so good you forget it's a performance (unlike, for example, his intensity in "There Will Be Blood" which stood out as a work of acting above the movie). Here he is so woven into the fabric of things he is indistinguishable from the historic truth, somehow. It's really the magic of the transparency of movie-making of this kind. Amazing performance. It seems sacrilege to say this but the movie isn't perfect. Because of its material--getting the anti-slavery amendment through Congress--it involves a lot of talk, and a lot of people that you have to keep track of. I think Spielberg did this as good as it could be done, so no criticism there, but it does mean a lack of physical and even emotional drama through much of the film. I don't mean it's dull, just that it's conversational. I also found shreds of Spielberg's Frank Capra quality of making the movies--and his subjects--a little simplified. He ties up loose ends. He makes it all a fine package, very fine. Maybe too fine for what I would call high art. At times. I think we'll have an easier time judging it in six months, or six years. Also the subject matter makes it almost unassailable, since clearly most of us are all for the passing of any anti-slavery legislation. See this for all the reasons you have heard. Don't miss it. Maybe down a coffee before you go, but see it no matter what. As I say, it's important. It reminds you of greatness, and that's not something to miss. UPDATE over one year later: I see that I accepted a lot of decisions by the writer and director as their prerogative, like focussing on one issue and narrowing to a short period of time. I had no bones with the scope of the movie. But in retrospect I see how the limitations of time and scope and background also create a sense of mis-information. That is, if you want a bigger picture of Lincoln, this movie is not quite right. Its aggrandizement is also not unavoidable, like the somewhat insipid (and yet moving) recital of the Gettysburg Address at the beginning by soldiers. Overall, though, I stick to my main thought--see it, and soak up what you can, without expecting perfection. Yes, see it for what it is, nothing less.

This is my first review of a film. I had to do this, because of the effect it had on me. I went to see a screening of "Lincoln" last week, and i was wondering if Spielberg could have done it again, like he did years ago with "Schindler's List", for example. And he did it, that's for sure. That's not "Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan", not even close, but this film captures wonderfully the way the director looks at that piece of history, and though it's probably not the more realistic film ever made about Lincoln (and i don't know if there will ever be one really realistic..), the movie offers tremendous performances (DDL will certainly be honored), a tremendous production design and, not less important,a great score by John Williams, once again! So,basically, i was, still, very surprised by the way Spielberg did it, because it shows a very intimate portrait of Lincoln's personality. And i warn you, this is film is for grown ups, not for teenagers looking for some kind of action war movie about leadership and honor in civil war. That's Spielberg in a kind of different but always faith full way, and i hope it earns lot of nominations in the Oscars this year, and i will not be surprised if Lincoln wins Best Picture in January. A 10/10, without any doubt ! :)

I rarely review movies but this one is the epitome of one that you are supposed to "like" so everyone says they "like" it and the honest truth is (I know I'm the exception)this is a terrible movie. Starting with the most glaring problem, it's boring beyond tears with stilted and rambling dialogue which, if it weren't so boring would be laughable. Acting: it's obvious that Daniel Day-Lewis had no interest in doing this role. His squeaky voice and mannerisms made me think of high school plays I attended when my kids were in school. Sally Field looks and acts like an old and wrinkled Gidget and overacts in her highlight scenes. But, the winner of the most horrible acting in the film goes to Tommy Lee Jones as a Pennsylvania Senator who is nothing more or less than a caricature of Tommy Lee Jones. Historically it's semi-accurate and many people will be surprised to learn that "Honest Abe" was anything but. His obsession with getting his way in passing the thirteenth amendment led to his violation of the Constitution, breaking of federal laws and bribing of members of Congress. Hmm, a lot like today though. The saving grace of the film and the only reason I would give it two stars is the outstanding costumes and relative lack of special effects that are usually so obvious and glaring in today's pathetic movies which are designed to make money from our sinking IQs in this country. I wonder if anyone will even try again to make a movie that provokes thought and discussion. Sorry Spielburg, but this is a turkey that arrived just in time for Thanksgiving.

I'm prepared to admit at this point that Daniel Day Lewis has succeeded to the title of most brilliant actor of his generation--and I do not say that lightly. But when I consider what he has done here--imbued the most sacred president in our history with such aching, gorgeous, complex humanity--seemingly without conscious effort on his part--I say give it to him. His Lincoln is at once ordinary and divine, passionate and all too earthy...and he inhabits the role so fully that not beyond the first minute do you think to yourself that you are watching an actor and not the man himself. I admit, at the first speech, I rather expected the voice to be deeper and more commanding, but that wore off instantly, and Spielberg to his credit gets every scene note-perfect. The scene where soldiers on the field were quoting back to him the Gettysburg Address was heartbreaking--The big guns, to be sure, but everyone in the theater stopped breathing. Spielberg has the mood and light fine-tuned to the point that when the characters are donning shawls against the cold--this in the white house--you shiver. I can'think of a single actor who was not up to snuff, but James Spader as a rascally vote procurer stands out. Sally Field as the troubled Mary Todd Lincoln is a sympathetic gem, and her portrayal should go a long way towards explaining and perhaps inviting history's revision of that unhappy woman. The film focuses most on the nuts and bolts of legislative and presidential processes, and while that may be boring for some,it has such a ring of authenticity and research that it had me scrambling for the history books to check on things I hadn't known. This is the most difficult of all subjects to film, a dense scholarly work translated to popular culture, but it succeeds on all counts. See it, make your children go with you. You won't regret it.

When i knew sometime ago that Spielberg was making a film about Lincoln i thought that it would be great to watch a film of one of the best filmmakers about one of the greatest men in history. I was totally wrong. This is not a film about Lincoln, this is a film about the 13th amendment of the constitution of USA, and everything in it is dull and slow. It is very painful to be watching 2 and a half hour of something that it could be told maybe in 1 just hour or less in a documentary, and for people interested in the 13th amendment of the USA constitution not in Lincoln itself.