If you know going in that that Lincoln is a procedural in which words provide the action, then you'll love it.

Rating: 8/10 (5 June 2013)

Many complaints about this film amount to people expecting a bigger, more plot-driven story. If you are expecting to see Civil War battles, Lincoln visiting Richmond while grateful ex-slaves applaud him, and his assassination (the money shot moment), then you are bound to be disappointed. Or if you are wanting a controversial, revisionist take on Lincoln as a hardcore racist/tyrant (rather than the evolving and fundamentally decent man of his time that he was), then you will be disappointed. But if you are looking for profound, funny, quirky and appropriately-archaic dialog, complex political maneuvering and subtle characterization, then Lincoln is the movie for you.
As many reviewers have already stated, the basic plot of the film consists of the passing of the 13th amendment within a short window of time-- a time in which it will appear to the be the result of war necessity..this in turn would help in the ratification (in the Northern and border states not being forced to ratify) of said amendment--which is one of the reasons the peace conference scene later in the film is essential.) Okay, if that stuff confused you, then you now know how complex politics (even 19th century politics)were. Lincoln and congressmen have to manipulate language as a means of eliciting change and passing legislature.
Rather than spend too much time on the politics, I will focus on the cinematic qualities of the film. The cinematography is darkly lit and at times beautiful but mostly unobtrusive.. Other than occasionally losing the facial expressions of the actors in the dark shadows of the naturally-lit rooms, the lighting is fine. The editing is also unobtrusive--allowing the actors to just act (in real time.) In other words, this is not a very cinematic film. It would be as effective (if not more effective) as a TV film, but that's not a complaint..its just a fact.
Now to characterizations and acting. I will start with the supporting actors. Tommy Lee Jones, of the supporting cast, is the MVP, giving a caustic, funny, dramatic and surprisingly endearing performance. He's a blunt instrument of idealism and reform. Sally Field also gives a strong performance. However, at times, she and Kushner's dialog are a bit too melodramatic. But, that kind of makes sense considering how much of a diva (and entitled southern aristocrat) the real Mary Todd had been in her youth. Other strong supporting performances include the exasperated David Stathairn as Secretary of the State Seward and the funny and raunchy James Spader as the political mover Bilbo..
Now to the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. He recently won the Oscar and there has been some backlash over this win due mostly to the fact that his Lincoln was probably the most emotionally-subtle performance of this year's nominees.. This is not a performance of emotional exhibitionism, but it is not an one-dimensional performance either; and the performance is as good as any other nominee in this strong year for acting. Yes, his Lincoln is admirable, pragmatic and smart as hell, but, he's also uncertain at times (about his decisions, the country's future and even racial issues),he struggles to communicate with his wife and older son, he lashes out unfairly at his hardworking cabinet, and he is manipulative and evasive.
He is a story-teller and a bit of joker. Some audience members have found his stories to be a distraction rather than crucial in our understanding of Lincoln. But I disagree. Lincoln's story-telling was part of his political maneuvering (at times used to expand upon a concept, at times used to evade more difficult discussion) but it was also used as a way for him to alleviate his own stress which is apparent by DDL's Lincoln laughing at his own stories and jokes. The real Lincoln did the very same thing--he laughed at his own jokes. However, when he wasn't engaged in political discourse or storytelling, he was a somewhat shy, passive man (not as strong-willed or communicative in his personal life as in his political life)...Like the real Mary Todd once said, "What {Lincoln}felt the deepest, he expressed the least." DDL's combination of warmth, evasiveness, subtle intensity, vulnerability, sly quirkiness, and burnout, was pretty much the Lincoln I read about in team of Rivals. Lincoln's humor was described as droll and eccentric and DDL got that down pat. But Lincoln, in his last couple years of life, was also a weary, burnt-out,lonely man--qualities DDL exuded as well.
Lincoln was a great leader not because he walked into a room exuding power..NO, he was a constantly under-estimated man during his lifetime. It was his cunning and one-on-one affability that got him where he was...(not that he didn't have enemies, but people who knew him generally liked him)
For those saying that this film's Lincoln is a mysterious mythic figure, I direct them to the fight scene between Abe and Mary that ends with Abe saying that he couldn't deal with her mourning their son's death because he couldn't allow it in himself. THe lines about wanting to crawl in the coffin with his son and how he has to suffer alone indicate the necessary burden of a leader (and father of another child) having to bottle up his feelings else be rendered dysfunctional if he surrenders to them--these lines say so much about the man. DDL's vulnerability is subtle but palpable in those scenes. Its a performance of great nuance. Those who say they weren't moved, sadly, don't seem to have been been paying much attention. Hopefully, they give the movie another chance.
I rated this film an 8 because of the slightly corny opening scene and because it should have ended after (spoiler ahead) Lincoln's long walk down the hallway. Also, since people already think its long, Spielberg might as well have bulked it up with more personal stuff and a bit more war carnage..after all, lives were at stake when Lincoln postponed peace conferences.