As
IMDb explains: “As the Civil War continues to rage, America's president
struggles with continuing carnage on the battlefield and as he fights with many
inside his own cabinet on the decision to emancipate the slaves.”
As a history
major in college, concentrating on American History, I was extremely excited to see this film. Throw in Spielberg as director and an all-star
cast, and Lincoln the movie seemed destined for greatness. Unfortunately, I may have set my
expectations too high, because I left the theater feeling a bit disappointed.
Don’t get me wrong, Lincoln was by no means bad, it just
wasn’t all I thought it’d be.
At
times it was slow, but that was to be expected from a biographical and
historical drama. There was no significant action, most of the conflict
existed in the House of Representatives, and the drama developed slowly. That was all fine and good, but to me the flow of
the movie was just off. For instance, I felt the scale of time was poorly represented, with
scenes often jumping from one geographical location to another with no regard
for how long it’d take for such travel in that day and age. That was a small,
nitpicky detail, but things like that do not go unnoticed and detract from the
overall product. In other words, Lincoln was a little rough around the edges and not as polished as I'd come to expect from Spielberg.
The movie itself is dialogue driven, which means having
the right cast is absolutely crucial. In that regard, Lincoln excelled. Daniel Day-Lewis is selective in his roles, coming out with a new movie every 2-3
years or so (his last one was 2009’s Nine, and before that 2007’s There Will Be Blood). Obviously the role of Lincoln, which originally went to Liam Neeson before he dropped out, was too good to pass up, and Day-Lewis nailed it.
His portrayal of the historical icon was mesmerizing and he truly brought the
character to life. It’s rare for an actor to be better known for his roles than
his personal life, which I think is a testament to their ability, and
Day-Lewis has certainly done it.
Furthermore, the supporting cast was as strong as I’ve ever seen, with
solid performances all around. Sally Field, who had to fight tooth and nail for
the role, made a great Mary Todd Lincoln (despite being 20 years older than her
character was at the time), while Joseph Gordon-Levitt excelled as their son
Robert Lincoln.
I also thought both David Strathairn and James Spader,
who played William Seward and W.N. Bilbo respectively, did amazing jobs. The
former helped drive the story as Lincoln’s Secretary of State and right-hand
man, while the latter provided comic relief as a 13th-amendment vote
getter. Other solid performances came courtesy of John Hawkes as Robert Latham;
Hal Holbrook as Preston Blair; and Jared Harris as Ulysses S. Grant, just to
name a few.
I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention Tommy Lee Jones as
Thaddeus Stevens. Many have praised his performances as the extreme
abolitionist advocate, even suggesting he is a favorite for a Best-Supporting
Actor Academy Award. I’ve never been shy about praising Jones (see my review ofHope Springs), but I have to admit he didn’t blow me away. He certainly did a
satisfactory job, but I don’t agree his performance was remarkable.
I
enjoyed Lincoln, but I wasn’t overly impressed. I had recently watched HBO’s
miniseries John Adams, which is of a similar nature; however, in my opinion
that film, starring Paul Giamatti as the second president of the United States,
was both better done and more entertaining. Granted it had a whole miniseries
to flesh out the story, but I’d be more prone to watch that again than Lincoln
(which probably would have been better suited for a miniseries).
I’m
glad I saw Lincoln, because it was a decent film—it just wasn’t as good as I
had hoped it would be.
Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 70%
No comments:
Post a Comment