caruso_stalker217 wrote:But, I don't know. Everybody sounds weird and looks weird.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests