I have seen the greatest ever acting performance I have seen in a film in my life.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Some people may indeed find it boring. I found it utterly absorbing. No aliens, no special effects, no action scenes, no sentimentality, just a thorough re telling of January 1865 and the lead up to the abolition of slavery in the USA. Day Lewis was extraordinary.

9.1

US the whole movie relies on sentimentality to sell it. Lincoln's first intentions weren't to free the slaves, it was to stop the cessation of southern states from the Union. Other figures drove the anti-slavery line far harder than Lincoln ever did.

The fact a pivotal character like Frederick Douglass(a free black man) is left completely out of the film makes it nothing more than a typical play for an award that means little these days.

He was the man who recruited the black soldiers, who petitioned for black soldiers to get equal pay.

This film fails because Speilberg paints Lincoln as this almighty hero who seems through the movie to do it all by himself.

To quote Douglass '“Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.”

Spielberg missed a huge chance to paint the true story rather than a Hollywood sycophant one.

 

[Meade's Ball]

That's you, [MENTION=282]Meade's Ball[/MENTION], and now a fair few other 'normal' people coming to the same conclusion as my gut feeling.
That being:-

The film is not as good as the sum of it's parts.

I was saving my cinema pennies for Flight, but having sort critical reviews I'll be missing that one too, due to it's level of predictability.

Am off to see Bullhead tonight. A Belgian simmering crime drama for you. Meant to be good.

 

[Stat Brother]

Am off to see Bullhead tonight. A Belgian simmering crime drama for you. Meant to be good.

Kermode enjoyed it.

 

[willyfantastic]

That's you, [MENTION=282]Meade's Ball[/MENTION], and now a fair few other 'normal' people coming to the same conclusion as my gut feeling.
That being:-

The film is not as good as the sum of it's parts.

I was saving my cinema pennies for Flight, but having sort critical reviews I'll be missing that one too, due to it's level of predictability.

Don't swerve it, its a great movie

 

[simmo]

Michael Sheen - In the Damned United (and notable mentions also for him in Frost/Nixon and the Queen)
Forest Whittaker - In The last King of Scotland

......and Nicholas Cage in Captain Correli's Mandarin

 

[Stat Brother]

Don't swerve it, its a great movie

I'm not disputing the movies 'greatness', I'm sure I'll catch up with it, and enjoy it.
But the hyperbole surrounding it, and the fact it's not a subject I am or ever have been invested in, kind of means I'm too meh to give it a go.

Forest Whittaker - In The last King of Scotland

That's a hell of a shout.

There's been plenty of good offering on the parts of this thread, that I read.
But this is the first I've nodded sagely at, while stroking my chin!

 

[Stat Brother]

I realised I hadn't read Cosmo Landesman's 3* review of Lincoln:-

Too often, Lincoln the man is eclipsed by Spielberg's portrait of American politics in action.
It's a film full of politician's talking - so much so that the drama is smothered in exposition. But when it comes to bringing out the drama of pure dialogue Kushner (the screenplay writer) is no Aaron Sorkin.

He also says DDL's performance is wonderful and saves the film from getting bogged down!

 

[GreersElbow]

It's a great performance but my vote has to go to "man in black top and shades" for his gut wrenching scream in Sharktopus

[yt]m1Z87k9LC9U[/yt]

That's a very good piece of acting

 

[Puppet Master]

Cool.

 

[Mellotron]

Kermode enjoyed it.

I respect his opinions on all genres except comedy. As many others have noted, he just doesn't "get" comedy.

 

[Stat Brother]

I respect his opinions on all genres except comedy. As many others have noted, he just doesn't "get" comedy.

5 laughs makes a comedy.

I struggle a little with that, as certainly for me I'd say the audience makes a comedy.
I rarely laugh when on my own, but can get swept up with others.

I don't imagine a critics screening is a barrel of laughs at the best of times.

 

[Mellotron]

5 laughs makes a comedy.

I struggle a little with that, as certainly for me I'd say the audience makes a comedy.
I rarely laugh when on my own, but can get swept up with others.

I don't imagine a critics screening is a barrel of laughs at the best of times.

When there's a children's film that he doesn't like but the target audience does (Nativity 2) he will say fair enough, it worked with it's target audience. Yet The Hangover was a massive smash with it's target audience, but he absolutely slates it.

The things he does laugh at tend to be pretty slapstick/childlike humour from what I can tell.

 

[Stat Brother]

When there's a children's film that he doesn't like but the target audience does (Nativity 2) he will say fair enough, it worked with it's target audience. Yet The Hangover was a massive smash with it's target audience, but he absolutely slates it.

The things he does laugh at tend to be pretty slapstick/childlike humour from what I can tell.

I think what you've done is highlight to me the genre of film I care least about.

I'm really struggling to think of the last comedy I saw at the cinema. I guess I don't really pay that much attention to the reviews, either.

All news to me.

 

[RupertsFlan]

Watched it last night. Having studied this part of history for my thesis at university I was disappointed.

24 hours later and I've moved onto appalled. There are some horrific 'conveniences'. There are some appalling re-writes of history and critical characters and events simply washed out.

The fact that it ignores the letters from Lincoln through the early part of the Civil War where he clearly felt that slavery was not a reason for going to war - is a dreadful piece of history at convenience - a trend that Hollywood has never been able to avoid.

This is Spielberg at his worst - an American sychophant, a man who sees history as a 'buffet' where he picks the bits he likes and ignores the bits he doesnt.

As a Hollywood film it's up there for historical abhorations with Braveheart - where William Wallace bangs some French bint who in fact was not born until 34 years after Wallace had died.

It's up there for me with that abomination of a film u571 - where the German secret code was broken by some Yankee doodle f*** wit rather than the operation from Bletchley - at the end of that film did they, almost as an afterthought, suggest that the British Navy had in fact been running the whole show.

Sorry Uncle Spielberg - I don't want to upset you and I'm not laughing at a dead horse. However this movie is in fact an utter heap of shit. Poorly thought out by someone with the grasp of history one would expect from a three-year old and clearly pandering to the emotionally retarded, vulnerable and frankly uneducated masses in America.

 

[vegster]

US the whole movie relies on sentimentality to sell it. Lincoln's first intentions weren't to free the slaves, it was to stop the cessation of southern states from the Union. Other figures drove the anti-slavery line far harder than Lincoln ever did.

The fact a pivotal character like Frederick Douglass(a free black man) is left completely out of the film makes it nothing more than a typical play for an award that means little these days.

He was the man who recruited the black soldiers, who petitioned for black soldiers to get equal pay.

This film fails because Speilberg paints Lincoln as this almighty hero who seems through the movie to do it all by himself.

To quote Douglass '“Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.”

Spielberg missed a huge chance to paint the true story rather than a Hollywood sycophant one.

In that case would the film have been made at all then ? I think you can only " adjust " American history for Americans very carefully. Any big budget film that paints America or it's major figures as anything less than in a good light would not sell. Off the top of my head films like Objective Burma, The Patriot and U-571 are films made for what the American audience wants to see rather than a factual revision, and I think that is what we have here with Lincoln

 

[RupertsFlan]

In that case would the film have been made at all then ? I think you can only " adjust " American history for Americans very carefully. Any big budget film that paints America or it's major figures as anything less than in a good light would not sell. Off the top of my head films like Objective Burma, The Patriot and U-571 are films made for what the American audience wants to see rather than a factual revision, and I think that is what we have here with Lincoln

True - and perhaps a more balanced reaction than mine. Perhaps I am misguided or naive in going to watch a film about an historical figure and expecting it to follow some lement of what actually happened.

Oh well.

 

[Commander]

Can't believe I've only just seen this thread. Absolute classic Spielberg (the poster, not the film director).

US: outlandish statement made as fact.
Everyone else: er, no,
US: STOP f***ing BULLYING ME, WHAT THE HELL HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS SHIT I'M A GOOD GUY WHO WEARS HIS HEART ON HIS SLEEVE

Superb.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Can't believe I've only just seen this thread. Absolute classic Spielberg (the poster, not the film director).

US: outlandish statement made as fact.
Everyone else: er, no,
US: STOP f***ing BULLYING ME, WHAT THE HELL HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS SHIT I'M A GOOD GUY WHO WEARS HIS HEART ON HIS SLEEVE

Superb.

Bully.

 

[Albumen]

As I'm in the visual industry and a bit of a nerd I tend to watch about 5 films a week, I'm 40 so let's say between the age of 18 and now I've probably watched at least 5000 films. I can honestly say the only acting role that had me spellbound was Jack Lemmon in GlenGarry Glen Ross. And he didn't win best actor, wasn't even nominated. HOO HAR Pacino won it playing a blind man for the main, Pacino was nominated for supporting role as Lemmon's colleague.

Anyway. We all know Daniel Day Lettuce can act, I loved his over the top role in There Will Be Blood, but that's what he does, he overacts. You never see a real human being in him, you see DDL being powerful on screen. Some say that's great acting, when it's merely a great performance making the film bold. I havent watched Lincoln as quite frankly it's not at the top of my list. I'll watch it on Blu Ray on it's release and will probably tell you he's overacting.

 

[Stat Brother]

As I'm in the visual industry and a bit of a nerd I tend to watch about 5 films a week, I'm 40 so let's say between the age of 18 and now I've probably watched at least 5000 films. I can honestly say the only acting role that had me spellbound was Jack Lemmon in GlenGarry Glen Ross. And he didn't win best actor, wasn't even nominated. HOO HAR Pacino won it playing a blind man for the main, Pacino was nominated for supporting role as Lemmon's colleague.

Anyway. We all know Daniel Day Lettuce can act, I loved his over the top role in There Will Be Blood, but that's what he does, he overacts. You never see a real human being in him, you see DDL being powerful on screen. Some say that's great acting, when it's merely a great performance making the film bold. I havent watched Lincoln as quite frankly it's not at the top of my list. I'll watch it on Blu Ray on it's release and will probably tell you he's overacting.

Where does Forrest Whittaker's Armin in Last King of Scotland, come in the debate, for you?