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/

Water for Elephants (2011)

3/5

I had low expectations for Water for Elephants, but it surprised me with its competence and adequacy. The movie starts with an elderly Jacob (Holbrook) telling a circus manager about the "greatest disaster in circus history." The younger Jacob (Pattinson) is studying to be a veterinarian when debt forces him to join the circus, where he meets up with charming but sadistic owner August (Waltz) and his star performer and wife Marlena (Witherspoon). There is supposed to be an instant attraction between Jacob and Marlena, propelling the events to follow in motion, but there is absolutely no chemistry between the actors. Waltz does a spectacular job, but his character is almost identical to Col. Landa in Inglourious Basterds, which made it less interesting and less terrifying to watch here. The cinematography was great and the visual impact of the movie was strong, but the story as a whole was about as thin as the romance. It's an entertaining diversion, but ultimately offers very little beyond that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067583/

Into the Wild (2007)

3/5

Sean Penn's Into the Wild is a touching story poorly told. Penn recounts, with a reckless abandonment of cinematic intelligence, young Chris McCandless's own reckless attempt to abandon society and live on his wits in the wild. The emotions he feels, the adventures he experiences, the people he encounters--all are striking and make this film as moving as it is. The rest is overlong dreck. The whole thing feels like one long montage, with little backbone to ground and support the story. While the cinematography was breathtaking, the editing was so rapid and hectic that it was hard to fully comprehend what was going on. Scenes extend for far too long or have no point. The music, excellent in its own right, often ruins the mood by coming in and out at times it shouldn't have. It always, and I mean always, seems out of place. Oh, and the acting was really good for the most part.

There is an extraordinary amount of inane voice-over narration that tries to make some sense out of the mess that is this movie, but it fails at that and simply pains the ears. Penn clearly does not know how to adapt, because its literary roots show in the frequent uncinematic moments that might work in a book but clearly fail in this movie. Still, it was enjoyable every now and again, and had the potential to really move an involved viewer, but it should have been 90 minutes instead of 150 and written (and directed) by someone who knows how to. Watch it if you're already interested, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to someone.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/