DDL At His Best

Rating: 8/10 (10 March 2013)

Why you shouldn't see it:
Talking. If you aren't a fan of having dialog in your movies, then Lincoln probably isn't for you. So if you're one of the folks who voted for The Artist last year, you may not be too fond of this one. But, good thing for this movie, only two films lacking in dialog in the history of the Academy Awards have ever won best picture, and if all of the dialog was removed from this movie, it would probably just consist of opening and closing credits. And that would be a shame, because these are some old school credits without any entertainment value on their own.
Politics. It's not that they're spending the duration of the movie talking about anything. They spend the whole time talking in, about, and around politics. Even in what you would think would be personal family moments, there are still at least strong political undertones to the conversation. So you can imagine the scenes that are set in the political arena, where political discourse would make a good deal more sense. There are lots of men with funny hair saying lots of things to posture themselves in the debate.
History. In case you hadn't gathered, the plot of this film takes place in an historical setting, a little less than 150 years ago. And no, it's not an historical fiction, where they just take the setting and then add in a really crazy plot, a la Wild Wild West. It's a straight up history, 90% of which takes place within landmarks such as the White House and the Capitol Building (the one in Washington, D.C.). So if histories make you uncomfortable and/or bore you to tears, this one might not hold your interest.
Why you should see it:
Daniel Day-Lewis. This part is probably obvious. Or maybe it isn't obvious. If I'm going to be honest with you, I'll tell you that I watched this entire movie trying to convince myself that I was, in fact, watching Daniel Day-Lewis and not Abraham Lincoln. Try as I might, I was laughably unsuccessful. I could look the man right in the beard and not tell him from the man who lived a century and a half ago. I'm not sure what to say about Day-Lewis, other than the fact that I'm glad his method acting didn't lead him to demand that they film Lincoln's assassination using a real gun. With real bullets. I want to see more movies with this man being someone completely and totally not himself.
Tommy Lee Jones. He plays a supporting character (congressman Thaddeus Stevens), obviously, so his role isn't quite as prominent as Day-Lewis', but that doesn't mean he isn't essential to the film. And it's good for you that he is, because every time he shows up on camera, he steals the scene. His ornery attitude and the fact that he's a representative from Pennsylvania may make you think he's from Philadelphia, but he shockingly is not. His witty, sarcastic characterization frequently brings a much-needed lightness to the film.
Steven Spielberg. I'm not sure there was a person I was more disappointed in last year than Steven Spielberg. The fact that he would ever even think about releasing a movie as terrible as War Horse just makes me sad in my heart. The good news is that he has acquitted himself nicely here. He takes a moment of American history, finds the story behind it, and creates a gripping, expertly told tale. Much like Affleck with Argo, Spielberg is somehow able to make the audience feel suspense over the outcome of a plot that it already knows. It's not like Congress skipped the 13th Amendment. He's also done a fantastic job of casting, from the notable (and award- recognized) efforts of Day-Lewis, Jones, and Sally Field to any of the rest of the ensemble cast. Every time you turn around, there is another face that you recognize giving their hand in telling this important tale (keep an eye out for James Spader, who is excellent).
History. America hasn't always gotten everything right. Actually, they've gotten a lot of things wrong, but sometimes it's good to be reminded of the things it has gotten right. The 13th Amendment is one of those things, and I'm not sure many people realize just how close this country was to not passing it for many more years. It gives you a whole new appreciation for the will of a few extraordinary men and their clarity of vision to pass such an historically significant piece of legislation in the face of tremendous bigotry.
In Short:
Spielberg takes a part of history and makes it more. What could have been a drab exercise in the telling of the passage of a bit of legislation is instead a front row seat at one of the most important moments in US history. The whole film is shown in an almost dreamlike quality and pulls the audience into a powerful script featuring an iconic performance and generally excellent ensemble cast. I really want Abraham Lincoln to tell me another story, but sadly he's dead going on 150 years now, so instead I'll give this a 9 out of 10 and recommend it to anyone who can appreciate moments of historical significance.
Exceptions to the recommendation: anyone who would prefer to remain doomed to repeat history due to their lack of knowledge thereof; states' rights advocates who would be subject to high blood pressure from any increase in the power of the federal government; anyone who may just get confused that it's the republicans fighting on behalf of the minorities; people who were expecting to see Daniel Day-Lewis in a movie instead of Abraham Lincoln; people who are tired of the white-man-as-savior version of history; anyone who was expecting vampires or hunting thereof.