Lincoln (2012)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is a tremendous film. Although the biopic only details the last year or so of Lincoln's life and presidency, it focuses on his most important contribution to the United States: the passage of the amendment that prohibits slavery. There is little of the Civil War, and there is lots of oration and debate. Luckily for me, I prefer thoughtful parables and eloquent monologues to simple-minding fighting, and that is exactly what this movie provides. Oh, and it brings with it plenty of sly witticisms and clever jokes.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays the titular character, although Day-Lewis completely disappears within Lincoln. Watching the 2.5 hour movie, I never once felt I was seeing Day-Lewis on screen. I only saw Lincoln. That is perhaps the greatest commendation I can give to an actor. Sally Field is immensely believable as Lincoln's wife; her presence allows us an unexpected and sharply penetrating look into Lincoln's personal life, including its love, its turmoil, and its troubles. Tommy Lee Jones gives an equally remarkable performance as Thaddeus Stevens, one of the biggest proponents for the end of slavery and the equality of every man and woman.

The movie is, unfortunately, relatively light on story. The dialogue could also feel preachy from time to time. There are actually quite a few loose ends and irrelevant side plots that crop up. Quite frankly, I don't understand the purpose of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, or why such a well-known actor was chosen to portray him. And James Spader and his men seem to stick around well past their utility and relevance. Overall, though, the movie is equal parts iconic and inspirational. It's a historical drama with the right amount of modern sensibilities peppered throughout its joyously old-timey vernacular.

IMDb link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/

Nine (2009)

4/5

I am a huge fan of Rob Marshall's Nine. It has been poopooed on by Negative Nancy film critics on each and every print and web publication, but I don't really care for their elitist perspectives, and neither should you. Nine is engaging, entertaining, and enlivening. It is full of energy and style and does not apologize for being in your face. I loved absolutely every minute of it. The movie is an adaptation of a Broadway musical based on a classic Italian film by Federico Fellini called 8 1/2. For any true lover of cinema, you are pretty much required to see 8 1/2, but that doesn't mean you're required to appreciate it or even like it. For my part, I both liked and appreciated it, and yet I find Rob Marshall's Nine to be a more accessible and more enjoyable version. No, it's not "better" than 8 1/2, but I feel more inclined to watch Nine with my friends (especially non-cinephiles) than 8 1/2.

The plot follows director Guido Contini (Day-Lewis) as his producer is pressuring him to make a new movie by creating a gigantic set, a poster, and a press conference even though Contini has no script and no concept. Stressed out, he runs away from Rome and tries hiding in a spa resort, asking his mistress (Cruz) to come while suggesting his wife (Cotillard) stay home. Eventually his producer finds him and brings the crew and set over so that he can continue his work. I'll leave the rest of the plot unstated and let you enjoy the rest of the movie yourself.

The acting was magnificent, as expected based on the Oscar-heavy cast. Marion Cotillard is a marvel, and I have become a complete fan of her acting after seeing this movie. She is soft and tender and fierce and sweet and everything you can imagine all wrapped up in an angelic visage and portrayed to perfection. I don't think I would have loved this movie nearly as much had she not been cast. Technically, the movie is more than competent. From his experience adapting musicals, I expected the costuming and makeup to be excellent--and it was. However, the cinematography, lighting, and editing impressed me because I never considered Marshall to be a particularly cinematic filmmaker. But here he has proved me wrong. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the songs blew me away. They're catchy and powerful and memorable.

However, the picture is not all rosy. I feel like some characters were miscast, specifically Daniel Day-Lewis. He does a fine job to the best of his ability, but he just doesn't fill out the character as I would have expected and would have liked. Javier Bardem (Marshall's original choice) would have been perfect, and would have given Cotillard a run for her money as the best part of the movie. Additionally, Nicole Kidman's role was relatively minor and the love between her character and Day-Lewis's didn't resonate as being believable. Still, even as it is, the movie is phenomenal. Watch it in theaters while you still can.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0875034/

There Will Be Blood (2007)

5/5

Wow. I expected There Will Be Blood to be good, but ... wow. That was a stunning cinematic experience. There is an intensity to every single frame that holds you rapt for the entire 160-minute running time; you cannot turn away for even a second. Much of the film's power stems from Daniel Day-Lewis's enormous, towering performance of Texas oilman Daniel Plainview. It is further amplified by the haunting, dissonant score by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood. This is the ultimate American parable on capitalism and competition, ambition and greed, success and vengeance. As Plainview goes from miner to prospector to millionaire, with it comes all the trappings of fame and wealth.

Daniel Day-Lewis's acting is simply unparalleled this year. His subtle mannerisms reveal his distorted thought processes while his wild ferocity showcase an awe-inspiring bravura. We empathize with him, though we do not understand him. We want him to succeed, though we do not like him. He grips us tight and pulls us close. On the other end is Paul Dano's Eli Sunday in an unexpected yet equally stellar performance. Though he contains just as much silent fury and displays of grandeur, we are repulsed by him. For the sole reason that he is Plainview's competitor, and therefore his enemy. The tension between these two vile creatures keeps us glued to the screen--their explosive clash at the climactic finale is unforgettable.

Despite this glowing praise, I also had some legitimate complaints. First, although I was engrossed for the whole movie, that was only because I had never seen it before. Looking back, I remember a lot of unnecessary scenes and excessively long takes--ones that would more likely than not bore me if I were to see this movie again. Thirty minutes could have been shaved off with smart editing. Second, it can be a bit confusing. Little is explained and much is left for the audience to infer; this is great for thematics but awful for key plot elements. Third, I found the acting by Dillon Freasier in the role of Plainview's adopted son to be dramatically bad. Maybe it was just in comparison to the rest of the performances, but I just didn't buy it. Fourth, several important shots were blurry, as if the camera operator didn't know how to focus. It was both distracting and angering. Though this movie has its flaws, it succeeds on a visceral and emotional level. There Will Be Blood has the ability to show us the power of cinema at its peak.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0469494/

The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

3/5

The Last of the Mohicans feels more like a Mel Gibson movie than a Michael Mann movie. The plot follows the French and Indian War as an action movie, a romance, and a historical period piece. But it doesn't quite live up to expectations as a Michael Mann action movie because he spends too much time on the other genres, and he's much much better as an action director. It took bits and pieces from varying genres and threw them together with no regard to its target audience. In addition, there were a number of subplots that were never followed up on (e.g., the colonials defending their homeland). Because there were so many, you leave not really knowing the point of most of the movie. I felt like it could have been a 30-minute movie and I still would have gotten the same overarching message. The action was too tame; it felt like a PG-13 movie and not an R movie. Where was the Michael Mann I know and love? Also, the dialogue he fills his movies with is usually slick and cool. There wasn't much of that in this movie, and it felt like he sacrificed that for generating a mood of time and place. Which is a shame, because I love his dialogue.

And yet there are a great number of positives. It was extremely well-shot and well-edited. That is what kept reminding me that it is not a Mel Gibson movie--it looked too good. They really took advantage of their locations and sets, and shot setups and framings were absolutely phenomenal. The music, while overbearing sometimes, was overall very effective at kick-starting the action and getting your blood pumping. While there were a number of subplots, they actually fit together quite nicely. The relationship that blossomed between the two minor siblings was unexpected and unique, fleshing out the story. Also, I didn't realize it would go so in depth into the "bad guy's" background and reasons for seeming so inhuman. It was a surprising and quite welcome asset to the movie that made it a richer action movie than I expected. And there are bits and pieces that are just stand-out. One line of dialogue I can't stop thinking about because of its subtler meanings and the fierceness with which Daniel Day-Lewis delivers the line: "They're not strangers, and they stay where they lay." Overall, a pretty good movie, but it left me feeling just a bit unsatisfied.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0104691/