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/

Shutter Island (2010)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island is everything I didn't know I wanted. It is beautiful, uplifting, disturbing, sad, and compelling. It may not be what you expect the movie to be, but it is everything that a movie should be. The plot follows US Marshalls Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Ruffalo) on Shutter Island, home to a prison for the criminally insane. A patient has gone missing, having apparently evaporated through the walls of her cell, and they are tasked with finding her. They are welcomed by unhelpful security guards and menacing psychiatrists (Kingsley, von Sydow). They dig deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the island--the fortified Ward C for the most dangerous patients, the solitary lighthouse surrounded by an electric fence--but the truth just barely eludes them at every turn.

The movie is not typical in any sense of the word. It bears some resemblance to noir in thematics and cinematics, but it uses blinding whites instead of pitch blacks. It shows us his traumatic past in fragmented visuals instead of linear storytelling. Its labyrinthine mysteries take on new dimensions in the physical, mental, and spiritual realms. The visuals are reminiscent of Kubrick's The Shining, but the traditional Hollywood horror aspect is muted to allow the unnerving psychological dysfunction to haunt us. It tugs us between pity and awe, hatred and sympathy, for the ill patients and their past acts. It asks us how we would treat them. And then it flips everything on its head and asks us all those same questions again.

This is a movie where the acting complicates the written characters in the best possible way. This is not a simple movie, and none of the personas within it are simple either. They are alive and breathing. And they hide secrets from the camera that we are never meant to know. The editing is equally complex: it takes flashbacks to a new level and it does so with simplicity and expert craft instead of gimmicks and CGI. This film shows a director, an actor, and an editor all at the top of their form. And I hope they just keep getting better and better.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130884/

Watchmen (2009)

4/5

Watchmen was not as bad as I expected. I expected another 300, but I got something much better. After seeing both, I realized that Zack Snyder does little to alter, either improve or tarnish, the source material he is given. As far as graphic novels are concerned, Frank Miller's 300 sucks and Alan Moore's Watchmen rocks. Everything I liked about this movie originated from Alan Moore--the believable story, the complex characters, the mature mood and atmosphere. Everything I didn't like originated from Zack Snyder--the incessant slow-motion, the bad special effects, the poor music choices. There is one thing I will credit Zack Snyder with adapting successfully, and that is the intro credit sequence to backdrop the story's timeline.

Still, there were a number of changes Snyder should have made to make the adaptation more successful. First, it should have been around 2 hours (instead of 2 hours 45 minutes) and more focused. Snyder allowed extraneous material to bog down the pacing and confuse the audience. Second, there was way too much nudity, especially of a certain blue penis. (Also, why does Dr. Manhattan have eyebrows but no pubic hair?) Third, the actors spoke with comic book stylings, which stood as a stark contrast to the mature mood evoked by the movie's story. Fourth, it didn't really explain the universe. Why are these superheroes stronger/faster/smarter than everyone else? How can someone just raise their daughter into a career of crime-fighting? Why does Rorschach's mask constantly change ink patterns? How is Ozymandias faster than a speeding bullet? Most of these complaints are minor, but I often think of them when I think of this movie. Still, Watchmen is an altogether enjoyable experience and one I would highly recommend to people who are curious as to what might really happen in an alternate universe of superheroes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/