Lincoln

People will expect from this movie whatever they will. It was made by Spielberg, so in this respect there is nothing wrong with it, more or less. Daniel Day-Lewis in turn trained god knows how many years for this character. Everybody keeps saying that he articulates like Abraham, but nobody has really seen him alive. But yeah, I get it. But I’d say that such a movie only makes sense for the USA. Over here, it’s average at best and it’s impossible to have any deep emotions about it. Quite the contrary. I only watched it because of Spielberg and it was a waste of time. (18/10/2014)

Big words, lofty speeches, and in a way, just one big Abraham Lincoln bon mot. Steven Spielberg adored this part of American history so much that he simply made a passage from a history textbook. The brief family passages reveal sparse fragments about the main character while the movie strives purely for annotation, peace, and political negotiation. No emotions, no enthusiasm. Just with perfectly crafted production and zero added value. And we all knew even before the first applause that Daniel Day-Lewis wouldn't just play Abraham, but he would completely become him. The disappointment is even greater now, since Steven has obviously filmed a(nother) magnum opus of his dreams and yet managed to entertain me only with some unbridled Tommy Lee Jones and, as expected, the scene of the actual voting itself. After seeing this, the slightly problematic War Horse now looks like a perfect period piece. (05/01/2013)

So what, guys, shall we abolish slavery? Yay or Nay? Lincoln watches broodingly. The lawmakers negotiate. Lincoln speaks broodingly. The lawmakers debate. Lincoln remains broodingly silent. The lawmakers argue. Lincoln dictates a letter, broodingly. The lawmakers vote. Lincoln broodingly leaves the room. The lawmakers celebrate. Lincoln dies, this time without a sign of broodiness. I’ll say this, for the target audience of historical conversational biopics (the film shows a battlefield only once, and right at the beginning), this film about the famous American president and the process of approval of the 13th constitutional amendment will probably be perfect. Spielberg is a master of his craft, Daniel Day-Lewis is a master of his art, and both of them show it. But honestly, who among us (with the exception perhaps of art scholars) can be interested in this? In short, a likely bland Oscar winner that I will not like. But I have to give it to it that it never pissed me off the way Spielberg’s previous film did. PS: And I looked forward all the time at least to the assassination… but nothing. PS2: Steven, please, do Robocalypse next. (27/12/2012)

You are watching this historical borefest and keep thinking to yourself "where the hell did Spielberg's dynamism and fierceness in individual shots go, where’s the drive?". Lincoln is beautifully shot, solidly narrated with strong historical foundations, and Daniel Day-Lewis is once again captivating. However, films like this should be at least a little bit accessible to the audience, in other words, they must not be boring and tedious. Unfortunately, this was not the case here even in the slightest. (23/04/2014)

I love how different every Steven Spielberg film has been in recent years. How each time he tries a slightly different approach, a different genre, and works with different actors to get it right every time. Like now. For the record, I consider Amistad to be one of Spielberg's best films ever, which made me all the more eager to see how he would deal with slavery this time around. Almost as good (i.e., Amistad is better after all). To make a two and a half hour long film in which there is only talking and dozens of historical characters pass through obviously bothers some people. I don't understand why. A lot of so-called reviewers grumble that the film is a messy, chatty stew that was made just to win an Oscar(s). And most importantly, "there are no battles - even in War Horse there were more". Oh, my God, people! Lincoln is great precisely because there are no battles. We know that the Civil War is raging, we can imagine what a tragedy it is thanks to the opening scene, but why should we continue to watch it? Isn't it enough to watch what it does to people? I think absolutely. The relentless pursuit of the 13th Amendment is a hundred times more thrilling than scenes of a battlefield where cannons tear people apart. And that effort is well described - as is President Lincoln. A sensible and stubbornly opinionated man who has his quirks, his ailments, but also a sense of humor, a perpetual storyteller and (the nicest surprise for me) a thoroughly skilled schemer. The characters, of which there are definitely not as many as many people claim, can be beautifully understood thanks to their performances, the individual stories into which the whole plot is divided are excellent and especially well ended (the last scene of Tommy Lee Jones!). There's not much to say about the actors, Steven Spielberg doesn't pick bad ones... I just wonder why Liam Neeson turned down the role when he's certainly not too old to be the Lincoln we see here. But Daniel Day-Lewis is... Wow! Amazing! So now it's just classic praise for Kaminski's stunning cinematography, which once again plays with light and shadow and looks great in the movie theatre, and of course Williams' music (it doesn't stand out in the film as much as it does on the separate soundtrack, but it's still divine). Five pure stars. (03/02/2013)