Comments on: Review: ‘Lincoln’ Is A Handsomely Shot, Immaculately Acted & Terribly Dull Historical Biopic

By: JD V

JD V — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

Wow…I mean. Wow.

-"…are more concerned with two dudes talking"

-West Wing comparisons

-Seems to have considerable knowledge of the assassination plot and events following the Amendment, but unaware of Lincoln's famously high-pitched voice

-Thinks that showing Lincoln's assassination would have provided "much-needed thrills". ("thrills"? What do you want, the PEARL HARBOR-style take on American history?)

Ah well, at least we're spared any cheap shots at War Horse or complaints about what a terrible composer John Williams is.

By: Tobias Bowman

Tobias Bowman — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

A disappointing and uncharacteristic miss with this review; short-sighted, superficial, and yearning spectacle. If you want to watch a war film there are plenty out there. The film is a biopic with potentially the greatest film actor of all time in the lead role. [I am yet to see the film – which I appreciate weakens my opinion] however it sounds as if Spielberg might have developed from his blind, subjective sentimentality with which he treated many of the films you referenced. Not all cinema is popcorn crunching spectacle and "two dudes talking" can be pretty engaging [ref: Capote], especially within a biopic. The greatest biopics do not just describe what an individual did, they capture their essence. Otherwise you end up with 'Public Enemies' – did that get an A by any chance?

By: SteveLA

SteveLA — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

Finally! A review that tells it like it is!

This movie is misguided and dull, with about 10 preachy speeches too many. (I nodded off for a few moments during one of them.) All of the action, save for the lazy opening battlefield scene takes place off screen. And, like in a bad play, the characters are always talking about important expositional things that happened in the past instead of using the film medium to show it: "Remember when Willie died, father?" "This is like that time three years ago when you threatened to put me in the Mad House!" "I will write nothing more important in my life than last year's Emancipation Proclamation, which I won't bother to tell you about in detail" and the Gettysburg Address is recited by two black soldiers to Lincoln.

Characters come and go without having a proper introduction or explanation to us who they are or why they matter. Curiously, in the middle of the movie, Spielberg starts using lower thirds to explain who a few people are (like he did in "Amistad"), then for no apparent reason stops doing it. I heard a fellow audience member mutter: "Well why didn't he do this earlier? I would have liked to have know who all those other people were!" Indeed.

Drew is right…Spader is totally amazing (when did he suddenly turned into this great character actor?) His scenes are great because his has what the rest of the movie lacks: ENERGY. JGL is only in a few overwrought scenes despite the fact that he is billed third, then disappears entirely from the plot and film. And I don't care how great she is, Sally Field is 20 YEARS TOO OLD to play Mary Lincoln, who was in her 40s when all this was going on. (In fact, she's three years OLDER than Mary Lincoln was when she died 17 YEARS after the events of this movie!) It doesn't help that Abe never embraces or kisses her, so she ends up looking like his MOTHER, not his wife. God forbid that Spielberg show any real passion between a man and woman, sexual or otherwise, in any of his films.

I'm glad I saw it for the set design, the costumes and the chance to watch DDL's historic and perfect acting performance, but "Lincoln" is truly boring, has almost no black actors in the cast despite the fact that it's all about freeing the slaves (I counted only five) and, as this reviewer pointed out, there's no proper cathartic ending. Great. The ONE TIME I'm actually excited for a button-pusing emotional Hollywood historical epic from Spielberg, he goes all soft and indie on us. Go figure…

The fact that most critics are falling over themselves is suspicious to me. I truly think they are afraid to give Spielberg any bad review, fearful that public opinion will turn on them. Well, to put it into perspective, most critics also gave Indiana Jones 4 outstanding notices and we all know what a piece of utter sh*t that movie was.

Apologies if you liked it. I know it's hard to admit that the Emperor has no clothes, but he's naked as a jaybird, folks! What a stinker!!!

By: Catherine

Catherine — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

Christopher Bell,
I presume you're referring to me….
'namedropping rt'
Yeah, you know, names like AO Scott, New York Times, Village Voice (who rarely gives Spielberg a rave), Salon, Slate, Stephanie Zacharek, LA Weekly etc…
And then nine knucklehead reviews from someone named Smithie Coley or Dustin Something or other…..
Well, i know which consensus has more credibility to me.
And the 'boring' comments just make reviews like the one above all the more
Knuckleheaded.
Its not about some blind love for Spielberg, but about the kind of hipsterish rejection of all things mainstream or popular or aclaimed or whatever.
Its the same mindset of people who revel in hating The Beatles. Its phony and predictable.

By: Tim H.

Tim H. — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

Saw it in limited release. Pretty fucking dull. I know that's hard for the Spielbergos to believe, but it's patently true.

By: LOL

LOL — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

amazing review, 2 much talkin ruins movies, lol i don't care about some old white dudes talkin i want sum action!!! will smiths partner/dad shoulda shot that other beardy guy lol spielberg should get back to making star wars movies right guys

By: mac

mac — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

I actually agree with the review. It is talky. And DULL. I was expecting the assassination to be the dramatic highlight but instead it was presented almost like an afterthought, and tacked on as if they felt rushed because the movie is getting too long. And they were right.

By: Jordan

Jordan — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

Yawn… another younger yuppie critic who's trying to get attention by giving a Spielberg film hate.

By: BEN

BEN — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

most annoying part of indiewire – playlist sucks. Hey, are you really critic?

By: Brandon

Brandon — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

I thoroughly disagree with this review.

This review reads like it was written by a twelve year old who was disappointed with the lack of explosions.

By: An OBjective Viewer

An OBjective Viewer — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

With no horse in this race: lol at the spielberg fanboys in this comments section. Pretty damn transparent

By: Gustavo

Gustavo — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

What is it with The Playlist and the obvious need to smack-down every Spielberg film in existence?

Excuse me if I take your opinions with a HUGE grain of salt. You guys are like Jeffrey Wells, the web's most infamous Spielberg hater.

By: ben

ben — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

Is this review originally written by Rex Reed? Sucker.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

I agree almost 100% with everything in this review

By: Travis

Travis — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

I said much the same. Recognizing how beautiful and well-acted it is, as well as a superb handling of Lincoln's biggest achievement as President, I couldn't help but feel it was extremely slow and ponderous. I got bored far too often.

By: JWB

JWB — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

One of the most dunderheaded reviews I've ever read.
(Also, as has been stated many times 'round here, you fools are in desperate need of a copy editor.)

By: kitcon

kitcon — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

I was a bit less blown away by DDL's performance but a bit kinder towards the film as a whole.

By: Marko

Marko — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

So what you're saying, is that it's no Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.

By: AE

AE — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

Do we really need 'dazzle' to stay interested? I'd be happy simply with authentic depiction of humanity in the throes of life.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

And, not to put a finer point on it, but those of you calling Spielberg's exclusion of the assassination "pussing out" I strongly disagree. Had Spielberg choosen to include the assassination of Lincoln, he would have had an insurmountable task in avoiding a very cliche and tacky scene. I believe that Spielberg made the choice (and rightly so) out of respect for Lincoln, for his audience and for his own mastery as a film maker. The way Spielberg handled the assassination was not only tasteful and unique, but more deep and moving than any cliche, traditional scene could have been. And again, the fact that you were bored and put off by the exclusion of violence at every other line is a testament to the poor condition of our nation's population. Real history is not the history of battles and wars. Yes these exist, but the meat of history, its heart and soul is not in the events but in the people. That is where real drama, intrigue and interest can be found. A facade of history supported by "high-points" of Hollywood violence does not make a good film. A unique, insightful, accurate look at the man behind one of our nation's best and worst eras, done in such a masterful way does. And that is exactly what Spielberg accomplished.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

To those of you calling Lincoln "dull":
Shame on you. You have bought into the lamentable scourge of Hollywood. You who cannot sit through a movie if it does not consistently revert back to fire, explosion and death. You who are incapable of understanding the depth of Spielberg and Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln. You who are uninterested in the "chatting" of a few historical characters. Shame on you. You who watch movies intent on being thrilled, sitting on the edge of your seat during the action and then dozing off through the meat of the plot. You who cannot fathom the meaning of Lincoln's words and the significance of what is unfolding on the screeen before you. You who do not care for history or for meaning or for depth, but only care for entertainment. Shame on you.
In the 21st century we have become a society in decay, not only in terms of power and morality, but in terms of intellect. We no longer thirst for knowledge, for meaning, for passion but for gore, violence and adrenaline. We have replaced our quest for new perceptions and changes in our thinking for empty entertainment. Our culture of instant gratification and constant movement is no longer capable of understanding or valuing a true piece of historical artistry. Spielberg paints a picture of Abraham Lincoln unlike any other before. The movie is not about the Civil War, it is not about fighting or dying or victory or defeat, it isn't even about the 13th Amendment, or slavery or racial equality. The movie is about Lincoln. His character, his motivations, his story; hence the title. Spielberg didn't want to entertain you with fictional intrigue and Hollywood action, he wanted to show you President Lincoln in a way you have never seen before. And in this regard, Spielberg and Daniel Day Lewis succeeded immensely. This film is an indepth evaluation of the thoughts, actions and inner conflicts of one of our greatest Presidents of all time. Spielbergy gives us a glimpse of the deeper workings of Lincoln's mind. This is what real history is, an exploration of thought, decisions, a search for truth and meaning. Lincoln's controversy about the legality of his actions versus the morality of his actions is an insightful analysis of the thougths and conflicts of one of the wisest Presidents we have ever, or will ever see. To those who were "bored": shame on you. You can only be fulfilled by action and adventure and fast-paced fiction. You have become addicted to a terrible drug. You have lost all sense of intellect, of thought and of meaning. Again I say, shame on you.

By: Katie

Katie — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

I usually love spielberg movies, but I agree this one was super boring. My husband and I literally walked out because we were so tired of it. I also agree that the movie sould have been called "the 13th amendment." the cinematography and costumes were nice, but the whole movie was SO overdone. I agree with whoever said Mary Todd looked too old and like Lincoln's mother. I hate to say it but I was sick of Day-Lewis too. Lincoln's character was so overdone it was just annoying. We all already know Abe Lincoln's character/personality. You don't have to spend 1.5 hours developing it. There is a point where a someone says of Lincoln, "not another story!!" and that is seriously how i felt too. Just shut up and get on with it. "if this movie keeps rambling, i am out of here." And unfortunately it didnt get any better. Glad I didn't stay for the end. The amendment passes and Lincoln dies. Big surprise. I'm glad we went on half-price movie night.

By: JAB

JAB — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

No more Red Bull & 10 Hour Energy B-12 shots for you.
"Lincoln" is never dull (unlike the 2nd half of "Looper"). I'm a real wonk for pacing & this is supremely well paced.
The short time frame of the movie allows for it to be more intimate than a longer one would've allowed, but it is still monumental in tone. The fate of the nation hangs in the balance.
Daniel Day-Lewis performance reminds me of Heath Ledger's work as "The Joker" because the humongous hype & praise heaped upon it still does not prepare you for it. (He does not give the only great performance in it. Every actor in this prodigous cast is either at the top of their game or very close to it.) It is one of Spielberg's top five films he's ever made.

By: Look 2 the sky

Look 2 the sky — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

Yes the movie is well crafted but it is boring in many places. This movie , to me , should have been titled The Passing of the 13th!!!. Lincoln was more of a side note in this film. Spielberg by showing less (Civil war battle scenes and Lincolns death are nowhere to be found) severly narrows the films scope and impact. Even , my mother whose idea of an action film is My Dinner With Andre wanted to leave 1 hour into this boring thing. The night before we went to see Sam Mendes Skyfall. Wow, what a difference. American History was never this dull. Not even in my high school classes.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:09:40 +0000

Lincoln was a pretty good movie, but very slow at some points. It felt like DDL was giving a speech/story in every other scene which don't get me wrong I loved every word that came out of his mouth. It just didn't really have a good pace to it. Just felt like there would be a court scene then a story/speech and it just did that for 150 minutes. DDL is brilliant as he always is I just thought that everyone else besides Tommy Lee Jones & Sally Fields was just average. I thought that Her and DDL were really good together. But overall it was just too slow for me I would give it a 7.2/10 though. Also SS really pussed out when he didnt show the assassination.