samkoseoglu
There are some weird reviews of the movie that I come across every now and then claiming that the movie actually portrays Lincoln as a saint and it would be better to present him with his mistakes and such. These sights are clearly presented with claims disproving themselves with that kind of perspective as Spielberg tries to demonstrate the exact opposite of that view. It may not be the best effort, but it is, in sharp contrast with this kind of reviews, an effort to portray a man, rather than a saint or a hero without a humane presentation. By portraying such a man, Spielberg takes a great risk of course. But, he does it with the only way that a director should lay his endeavors, he presents a small part of a grand narrative. That is the key to the movie. People complain about the movie's title or the presentation of a short period of Lincoln's lifetime, they have no idea about cinema in my opinion. Recently, I have watched one of the adaptations of "Germinal" by Emile Zola, such a grand narrative for me. Claude Berri tried to adapt the novel in that 1993 version. That was one of the worst adaptations I think, just because of the movie's incomprehensible endeavor to recapitulate the whole novel in nearly three hours. The only thing that could be recollected from the movie as a good feature was its language, which was French. If, by any chance, Claude Berri tried to recapture the last part of the novel, last ten days, even ten hours of three main characters of the novel when they are stuck in the mine after the accident, it might well be a nicely presented exhibition without the haste and tumultuousness of a very long novel narration in three hours which seemed to lose the influence of the story stored in a format that which we call a book, a novel. Why I gave that example, just to remind people that grand narratives equal grand lifetimes or biographies and Spielberg knows it. He also knows that 13th Amendment was the most important point to depict on screen about Abraham Lincoln. Some other director may think that it was not, it was some other thing from his earlier times worth to demonstrate, and that director may create a great demonstration as well, it is not my point. The point is that a director should capture a moment, a thing to present from a narrative rather than recapitulating all of it, and Spielberg does that.Other comments about Lincoln's stance against slavery, if it was fake or not what we see in the movie, are also centered around certain pieces of information about Lincoln's ideas, from some letters or deduced from political actions; however, they miss the point. Lincoln's notions are altering throughout the time just like all of the United States, he does not take a stance like an absolute abolitionist but one cannot claim that he does not actually care about slavery, he only uses that subject for his war policies. That is, to put it mildly, narrow-mindedness. Lincoln, as Eric Foner puts it, is part of a spectrum of thinking on slavery in that era believing that it would be a long process to get rid of slavery, but step by step he is, in some sense, evolving. Spielberg tries to portray that transition or evolution period with vague dialogues of Lincoln, he never takes a strong stance like Thaddeus Stevens, but it is a rather discursive evolution of a person with attitudes of a mediocre development.
denvergrown303
This movie was a good, historical look into the 13 Amendment, the sentiments at the time, the military and political factors affecting it's adoption. In fact the title of the movie should have just been "The 13th Amendment" as it is the central story here, not Abraham Lincoln's presidency.Daniel Day Lewis did a good job playing Lincoln, a stark contrast from his roles in "There Will Be Blood", "The Gangs of New York" and "Last of the Mohicans" showing his versatility at adapting to different roles.
jdoerfler-66402
This movie accomplished it's mission. It captured most of the aspects of politicians and who and what they were and still are. Lincoln is portrayed as a man on a mission" while being tugged and tormented by other human beings, all with agenda's, some political and some personal.
As far as being a historically accurate representation of Lincoln himself, those who find find fault with some of the "soft-soaping" of Lincoln's personal character would likely revile in any such movie made of their favorite President. Politicians are all people who compromise some of their personal beliefs for what they perceive as the greater good. They are flawed human beings, some much more than others.
Besides, who wants to go and see that kind of movie anyway? The truth can be very depressing.
ajourneywithjake
As a history fan, I found this film to be very enjoyable. A lot of attention to detail was put into imparting the feel of the Civil War to this film and it really shows in terms of quality. I also greatly enjoyed the political debates and arguments, which were brought to life by the excellent performances of the actors and actresses. Not only are these events and arguments an integral part of American history, but they resonate today and still have great impact. The main characters are very enjoyable to watch, having great emotion and vibrancy to their portrayals of historical people. Lincoln alone is a perfect portrayal and has many amazing scenes and speeches. I also found the locations to be excellently created and the cinematography to be perfect. While it might be low on the action side of things for action fans, it still is a very powerful film.You can read this and other reviews on my blog at https://ajourneywithjake.wordpress.com/
