Spielberg's LINCOLN

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

Re: Abraham Lincoln - Why On Hold? (Now w/ 100% LESS On Hold

Postby so sorry on Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:27 am

Yeah that didn't exactly excite me either. Also, for me, when you make a 'serious' movie about a historical figure I'm all about the accuracy of the facts. If Senior Spielbergo takes too much liberty with the facts, then I'm going to be even more underwhelmed. Not to say that he did, I have no reason to believe that he would do such a thing.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15768
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Abraham Lincoln - Why On Hold? (Now w/ 100% LESS On Hold

Postby Peven on Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:02 am

I knew republicans were going to be looking for a reason to knock this movie, they are really uncomfortable with Lincoln being a republican considering the positions he took, and so they are not going to want him portrayed any better than absolutely necessary. over the last decade or so there has been a low key movement among those on the right to downgrade Lincoln and his achievements, whether through biographies or speaking, because Lincoln stands as an example of the Federal government over-riding the will of the states as individuals. before the Civil War the US was referred to in the plural, the United States ARE....., whereas afterward the United States was referred to in the singular, the United States IS. you'll find prominent republicans TODAY who will argue that the southern states were in the right and Lincoln was wrong in fighting to keep the union together, that the federal government had no right to interfere with slavery, and at least one of those republicans sits on the Supreme Court in Anthony "the knife" Scalia. the current movement among the tea baggers and right wing is all about portraying the federal government as inherently bad and untrustworthy, they are still fighting the "states rights" war which began with the fight to keep slavery and was then revived and renewed during the civil rights struggle as an argument against ending Jim Crow and giving Black Americans full equal rights. i know this is not the politics thread but this movie is going to get some real debate going and it is hard to avoid the political nature of it.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14687
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Movie Trailers 'Я' Us Thread

Postby Ribbons on Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:50 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:But, I don't know. Everybody sounds weird and looks weird.


I know people always bring this up, but by most accounts Abraham Lincoln had a high and somewhat squeaky voice. In truth he probably sounded far weirder than Day-Lewis does here, but I'm just glad he's going with something different than the stereotypical basso profundo "Lincoln" voice we're accustomed to seeing from impersonators.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13991
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: The Movie Trailers 'Я' Us Thread

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:36 pm

Ribbons wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:But, I don't know. Everybody sounds weird and looks weird.


I know people always bring this up, but by most accounts Abraham Lincoln had a high and somewhat squeaky voice. In truth he probably sounded far weirder than Day-Lewis does here, but I'm just glad he's going with something different than the stereotypical basso profundo "Lincoln" voice we're accustomed to seeing from impersonators.


I was thinking more about hair and speaking style. Sounds very theatrical, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I like that the Lincoln voice is more historically accurate, but it's more the way Lewis is speaking in the trailer that sounds odd.

And by hair I am of course referring to Tommy Lee Jones and Jackie Earle Haley. What the fuck is going on there.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN (Now w/ Trailer)

Postby Spandau Belly on Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:17 am

I think J. EDGAR set the bar in terms of dry, unengaging biopics with actors looking and talking funny. Everything else will seem gripping and natural compared to that. Man, I don't know how long it was before I shut it off. It felt like I had been watching it for over a month, but it may have only been 30 minutes.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: The Movie Trailers 'Я' Us Thread

Postby TheBaxter on Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:10 am

i'm confused. where's matthew mcconnaughey? and why isn't he playing a lawyer?

caruso_stalker217 wrote:I find this trailer a little underwhelming. Looks like typical Spielberg sap, which I expected. But, I don't know. Everybody sounds weird and looks weird.


it felt like the part of saving private ryan after d-day when they're going around giving letters to all the dead soldiers moms. you know, the boring part.
the music probably didn't help.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19259
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN (Now w/ Trailer)

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:18 pm

Spandau's J. EDGAR comparisons feels very apt to me. Both films seem to be shot in the same lifeless way. LINCOLN looks like it was shot digitally, but I don't think it was.

For a Spielberg film I think it doesn't look very good, visually. Like all the life has been sucked out of it.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN (Now w/ Trailer)

Postby Fried Gold on Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:53 pm

I've seen Lincoln for about a day now. I can't say it really blew me away like I was expecting it to.

It's obviously very well made and the acting skills involved are well over par. But the story felt a little bit lacking and felt more like an episode from a mini-series. Anyone not at all familiar with 19th century US history may find it a bit of a slog.

In terms of it being a Lincoln biopic, it's not. Really one could quite easily say that it's a slight misnomer to even call the film "Lincoln".

In conclusion, I give it the rating of: "S'alright, I suppose".

PS - James Spader for Best Supporting Actor.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN

Postby Ribbons on Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:07 am

I liked it, but you're right that there was plenty more fertile ground to cover in Lincoln's political career (and even his life before politics). In that sense something like this easily could and maybe should have been a miniseries, viz. John Adams. On the other hand I like the idea that it's just a snapshot of the man at work rather than a hagiography, although it certainly smoothed over some rough edges and probably gave him one too many folksy parables. I would have liked it if the scene where the telegrapher told him to shut up for a minute with his stories just ended there, rather than give him the chance to prattle on about rabbits and boxes or whatever. Basically I thought it was good, with just a bit too much of the typical Spielberg schmaltz. I also think they betrayed their own conceit in a way by depicting Lincoln's assassination (spoilers?). Even though the way it's done is conspicuously "tasteful," it's not really part of the story they seemed to want to tell.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13991
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN

Postby Peven on Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:45 pm

excellent film
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14687
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN

Postby travis-dane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:51 pm

Ribbons wrote:I liked it, but you're right that there was plenty more fertile ground to cover in Lincoln's political career (and even his life before politics). In that sense something like this easily could and maybe should have been a miniseries, viz. John Adams. On the other hand I like the idea that it's just a snapshot of the man at work rather than a hagiography, although it certainly smoothed over some rough edges and probably gave him one too many folksy parables. I would have liked it if the scene where the telegrapher told him to shut up for a minute with his stories just ended there, rather than give him the chance to prattle on about rabbits and boxes or whatever. Basically I thought it was good, with just a bit too much of the typical Spielberg schmaltz. I also think they betrayed their own conceit in a way by depicting Lincoln's assassination (spoilers?). Even though the way it's done is conspicuously "tasteful," it's not really part of the story they seemed to want to tell.


Seeing the reaction of his son after he learns that his dad was killed is heartwrenching, I like how the Berg did that and I agree with Peven, it is an excellent film. Daniel Day Lewis owned the part and the supporting cast did a great job. I love f@t James Spader.
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN

Postby Ribbons on Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:13 pm

I personally found it to be manipulative and annoying, but fair enough, let's say that scene worked. They didn't have to move onto Edwin Stanton's insta-eulogy of "Now he belongs to the ages/angels (take your pick since historians can't seem to agree which one it is) and will surely have the side of a mountain blown up to look like his face." To me it just speaks to Spielberg's chronic inability to wrap things up. He's like that kid whose papers all end with "...and that's what I learned about Abraham Lincoln."
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13991
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN

Postby Fried Gold on Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:56 pm

Ribbons wrote:Basically I thought it was good, with just a bit too much of the typical Spielberg schmaltz. I also think they betrayed their own conceit in a way by depicting Lincoln's assassination (spoilers?). Even though the way it's done is conspicuously "tasteful," it's not really part of the story they seemed to want to tell.

I don't think the assassination ending had any reason for being in the movie other than people expect it to be there.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN

Postby BuckyO'harre on Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:34 pm

It's a great final film in a trilogy where the preceding parts don't exist (yet). A young actor could do the first film then DDL comes in partway through the second. Seems like a good idea to me, but I imagine Steven would say that if you want more you should watch Young Mr. Lincoln.
BuckyO'harre
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:14 am

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN

Postby Ribbons on Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:15 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
Ribbons wrote:Basically I thought it was good, with just a bit too much of the typical Spielberg schmaltz. I also think they betrayed their own conceit in a way by depicting Lincoln's assassination (spoilers?). Even though the way it's done is conspicuously "tasteful," it's not really part of the story they seemed to want to tell.


I don't think the assassination ending had any reason for being in the movie other than people expect it to be there.


Yeah, same here. You go into a movie called "LINCOLN," you expect to see some assassinating. Still, they should have resisted that impulse.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13991
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN

Postby travis-dane on Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:58 am

Ribbons wrote:I personally found it to be manipulative and annoying, but fair enough, let's say that scene worked. They didn't have to move onto Edwin Stanton's insta-eulogy of "Now he belongs to the ages/angels (take your pick since historians can't seem to agree which one it is) and will surely have the side of a mountain blown up to look like his face." To me it just speaks to Spielberg's chronic inability to wrap things up. He's like that kid whose papers all end with "...and that's what I learned about Abraham Lincoln."


I want to be manipulated by a great movie and I want to feel something. Every great movie "manipulates" you to feel something. I was very happy that they did not show the shooting or some shady dude playing JWB.
What kind of ending did you want? There are many people on the planet earth who dont know that Lincoln was shot dead. Do you think a narrator or a text would have been better? The movie was about a great manipulator and the ending worked fine for me.
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

Re: Spielberg's LINCOLN

Postby Ribbons on Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:25 pm

travis-dane wrote:I want to be manipulated by a great movie and I want to feel something. Every great movie "manipulates" you to feel something. I was very happy that they did not show the shooting or some shady dude playing JWB.
What kind of ending did you want? There are many people on the planet earth who dont know that Lincoln was shot dead. Do you think a narrator or a text would have been better? The movie was about a great manipulator and the ending worked fine for me.


I get that it's a borderline-OCD complaint and that most people probably don't care, but again, THEY BETRAYED THEIR OWN CONCEIT. This movie was not a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It was a movie about the passage of the 13th Amendment where Abraham Lincoln was the main character. Showing him eventually die is just as inappropriate as showing any main character in any movie eventually die, because the plot and the character's life story are two different things, most of the time. The ending I would have liked would have been Lincoln leaving his Cabinet for the last time, followed by the speech he gave as an epilogue. Basically the same ending as the movie's, minus the assassination. As to your other point: I find it hard to believe anybody who knows Abraham Lincoln doesn't know he was shot, but telling them about it is not the movie's job.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13991
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Previous

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests

cron