Okay, but it should have been better.

Rating: 6/10 (15 June 2013)

It didn't seem like I could go wrong with this movie, and I didn't, not exactly. It's a good movie for me. I don't mind a deliberate pace for this sort of thing. I have a strong interest in politics, and I don't at all mind watching power players do their thing; frankly, I thought the backalley deals and the House speeches were very good and quite entertaining, certainly a subjective taste but doubtlessly well done from a cinematic perspective. And after you get past some of Spielberg's sentimentality, you can enjoy that the movie is well produced, with a fairly honest perspective on people's perspectives from the time. This is not a populist movie. It is the story of a man in a leadership position making a moral call, even against the institutional controls which are supposed to limit his power; I can appreciate that, as I am not a legal fundamentalist.
But this is Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis. I expected something far greater than a good movie. And there are some missteps.
Some stylistic elements of filming, particularly towards the end, were simply bad. The kid in the theater reacting to the news was a poor way to show the impact, and later, after Lincoln has been pronounced dead, his image in the candle flame was the kind of film school amateurishness that seemed deeply out of place. And the ending, showing Lincoln speaking his famous reconciliation speech (after he was already dead, in flashback) came off surprisingly flat.
And the personification of Lincoln through his homespun manner with people seemed either contrite or outright fake. I have never said anything bad about Daniel Day-Lewis as an actor, and this is rather difficult now, because technically, he did everything right. The voice and mannerisms are historically accurate and for playing someone who we have no video footage of, his improvisations were sensible and well thought out. But the illusion was not complete. I saw him under the character. Everything seemed scripted and it was more of a performance than it should have been, too unnatural, too stage-y. The only thing worse was the way that people often reacted to him in the film, which is also, at times, extremely stage-y and reflective of a reverence that, even given his popularity and office, seems far too distantly awed to be genuine.
Beyond this, the story and script were okay, as was the cinematography, but just okay given the quality they were working with. There was certainly a choice going on to not show too much of life at the time and the differences that mark out a period film. Why? Because Spielberg tried to make it feel like something much more contemporary than it was. He wanted to show that these kinds of dealings are gritty but necessary government work, and in the process, maybe impart a bit more tolerance to our own discussions of policy today. These kinds of machinations could be going on with health care or immigration now, and that was in the mind of writer or director somewhere. I don't really think it worked that well and I would have preferred a more period feel.
Sally Field and David Strathairn are very good, Tommy Lee Jones is enjoyable and very Tommy Lee Jones-ish, while other actors like Joseph Gordon Levitt aren't given much to work with. In all, it's a good film. Not great, though. I can't get past the feeling that there was a lost opportunity to make something truly excellent.