LINCOLN.

Keep in mind while reading this review that historical dramas aren't really my cup of tea. But I saw it because, well... it's Spielberg, DDL, and full of Oscar buzz. And I was honestly a little intrigued in seeing how Lincoln's life was handled. Most notably, I mainly wanted to see how his death was handled. The film follows Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) in the last few months of his life, but mainly in the month he strongly pushed to have the 13th Amendment (abolish slavery) ratified in the U.S. Constitution. During this time he struggles with his marriage as his wife, Mary Todd (Sally Field), continues to struggle with the passing of their son three years prior while their eldest, Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) demands to fight in the Civil War.

First, the positive. Daniel Day-Lewis was phenomenal in this film. I never once saw DDL. This was Abraham Lincoln surrounded by more modern-day actors in a film. If he wins the Lead Actor Oscar (and I believe he will), he deserves it. Hands down best performance of the year. And the other acting was pretty top notch, too. Tommy Lee Jones was awfully entertaining in the film, though he was honestly only playing Tommy Lee Jones. Still, it was a solid performance. Sally Field does incredibly well here, as well. And while Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a solid job, I felt his role was rather unimportant to the overall film. It added almost nothing except maybe one scene of drama between Lincoln and Mary Todd. He's barely in the movie as it is, and his whole fight to be a soldier pretty much amounts to nothing.

Unfortunately, the film is a bit overlong and quite slow in parts. If one of two things was happening the film was golden. First, if at any time Lincoln was telling a story (which he does quite often), I was totally entranced. He was totally captivating to listen to, and his stories were very entertaining and often humorous. Second, if Tommy Lee Jones was on screen (and usually yelling at or insulting somebody). If either of those things were happening, I was really digging the film. However, there are plenty of times when neither of these things are happening. And it felt like by the time we were maybe an hour and fifteen minutes into the movie, and I realized I still had over an hour left, I was dying. The story moved so slowly, particularly within that first half of the film.

Moving into some spoiler(?) territory, I was incredibly disappointed with the ending. I held out for two and a half hours just to see how the whole assassination and John Wilkes Booth thing was done. And what happens? A freakin' fake-out and you only end up hearing about it happening. How do you do a Lincoln biopic and not even show the shooting? And even worse than that, they pretend like they're going to show you but then you realize what they just did.

Besides that, though, this is almost assuredly going to win a ton of awards. Does it deserve them? Some of them, sure. Daniel Day-Lewis deserves an Oscar for this performance. And maybe another one here or there. But I don't think it deserves the sweep that is most likely going to happen. It's an incredibly well-made film. A brilliantly acted film. A superbly written film in its dialogue. It's just not my type of film. It was entertaining in parts, but too long and slow for my liking. And it was far more a film about passing the 13th Amendment than it was about Lincoln himself (there were entire chunks of the film without Lincoln in them). So for a score that looks at my entertainment over its own quality...

I Am McLovin!

SUPER 8.

Super 8 gives us the story of a group of kids (the only one of which you'll know is Elle Fanning) who are making a monster movie in 1979. One's dad (Kyle Chandler) is the deputy of their small town, and his wife died a few months back, so the kid hangs with one of his friends' houses more instead. Then there's a big train crash as the kids are filming their movie at the station, and something escapes. Weird stuff starts happening around town. That's about it.

I know I say this a lot, and have been criticized for it such, but I honestly have almost nothing to say about this movie. I liked it fair enough coming out of it, but the more I've thought about it (with almost 4-5 days now to do so), the more "blah" I feel. I still feel it's a well made and overall pretty good flick. It's just not sticking with me for some reason. So because of this, I am going to list 8 things about the movie and give my thoughts on these 8 things in exactly 8 words. OK? Here goes:

1) Steven Spielberg: It's very clear this movie was Spielberg inspired.
2) Elle Fanning: I usually love her; she fell flat here.
3) Other Acting: It was pretty good. The characters were believable.
4) Unexplained Things: Dogs running away? Magnetic attraction? Kidnapped people? Etc.
5) Truck Driver: How the *bleep* did he survive getting hit?
6) Visuals: The cinematography and CGI were pretty dang good.
7) Pacing: Could have been tighter; sometimes a bit slow.
8) Final Thoughts: It was good but didn't leave me amazed.


I Am McLovin!

60/60 Review #23: Schindler's List.

This is my third Spielberg film I've reviewed for this 60/60 List. The first one, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, didn't sit super positively with me. Next was Saving Private Ryan, a film that I did enjoy it quite a lot. Now we're up to what is probably considered Spielberg's best film. But did I perceive it as such?

Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) is a member of the Nazi party who also acts as a war profiteer. He starts hiring Jews to work in his factory, getting a lot of help from a man named Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley). But when another Nazi named Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) shows up and begins committing cold-blooded murders on the Jewish population of the ghetto, Schindler starts to become more and more sympathetic toward the Jews. And when he gets word that they're going to be sent to their doom at Auschwitz, he puts together a list of names that he can save by bringing them to another factory in his hometown.

The acting is of course fantastic. This is probably one of Liam Neeson's finest performances. Ben Kingsley was the most likable in the movie. Ralph Fiennes as the crazy Nazi was the most fascinating. He's completely psychotic, sniping Jews from his balcony just because he feels like it or gets upset. But at the same time, he works along with Schindler, letting him keep his "workers" and even (somewhat) helping to have Schindler's workers safe from Auschwitz. He's still a total evil bastard, though. And the way everyone is acted is superb. That being said, however...

I honestly don't know how I feel about this film. Obviously I can tell you it was masterfully made. Mostly in black and white, there are only a few segments in color. The film is bookended in color, and there are a couple parts in the middle--some candles and the girl in the red dress, specifically. So the cinematography is great, the acting is top notch, etc. So why can't I figure out how to talk about this movie?

There really is no "plot," per se. There's a story, but up until the last hour of the film (in a 3+ hour film), the story is more like a random set of events that sometimes include overarching characters. You see a lot of things happening to characters whose names we might not even learn. The film is more interested in giving us a window into the lives of these particular Jews in this place rather than giving us any kind of heavy plot. It's just... these are Jews; these are Nazis; this is World War II; watch what happens between them. Then in the last half or so of the movie, we start to get things happening in the sense that the story starts to become more focused and there's a clear idea of what's going to happen and/or where the film is headed. It's no longer just Nazis killing Jews and Schindler making money.

I'm just going to wrap this up, because this is one of the toughest reviews I've had to figure out and write for this project thus far. I really enjoyed the ending that showed us the real survivors. Like I said, the movie is masterfully made and has great acting and fine characters (I know they were real people, but still). I just guess I was partially bored despite all that. It's one of those "It's not my cup of tea, but I still enjoyed it" kind of things that puts me in an awkward place. So here's where I'm at: It's a great film, but I didn't love it. However, I certainly didn't hate it, and I more than merely "liked it." For the sake of this review, I'm starting with a score at the top due to the film's quality, but I'm going to drop it down a notch because I didn't love it. I guess.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

60/60 Review #2: Close Encounters Of The Third Kind.

Another review, another 2 days to watch the movie. Maybe I shouldn't try watching them at 8 PM, as I keep passing out by 9. Luckily, I lasted longer for this one. By the time I gave up and turned it off, I only had about 30-45 minutes left... and for a 2 hour and 15 minute movie, that's not too bad. As it is, I wasn't super thrilled going into the movie. Sure, it's classic Spielberg... but I'd recently been hearing a lot about how boring this movie is. And after what I went through last week (and, Lord help me, what I have to go through next week), I wasn't super thrilled for it.

For those of you who don't know, the movie follows a couple different people. The main character is Roy (Richard Dreyfuss), who is... I'm not too sure. An electrician or something. He has a "close encounter" with some UFOs, and all he gets out of it is a bad sunburn and a loss of his job... for some reason. It also follows Jillian (Melinda Dillon), whose toddler son Barry has some kind of connection with the aliens. Then there are a bunch of government people who are trying to make contact with the aliens. And all of them are connected by a giant landmass that they can't quite figure out what it is. Oh, and a song that gets stuck in their heads.

This is a very bizarre movie, to say the least. There isn't much of a plot as much as it is over 2 hours of people running around confused and upset. Richard Dreyfuss was good casting, though I could just picture Spielberg telling him "Quirkier! Be quirkier! You aren't nearly quirky enough!" Though despite the lack of any real plot, after the horribly boring first 30 minutes (or so) before we really get any kind of structured narrative flow, it's entertaining enough.

The special effects are pretty cool, especially the UFOs themselves. And although the cloud formation bits looked fake, it still looked really cool for some reason. Overall, visually, the movie both holds up and feels dated simultaneously. It's very strange. I think it's because the effects themselves are really good, but you can always tell there's a green screen, so it takes away from it.

The last act is something out of Fantasia... it's very bizarre. I'm sure if they remade this movie, it'd be changed into a rap battle showdown or something. As for the aliens, the tall alien looks freaky, and the tiny ones look like the tree sprites from Princess Mononoke. The very end of the movie, however, is slightly confusing. Was the government working with the aliens, or were they just sending people to go experience them? And what the hell was with the hand movements? I know they showed them throughout the film, but were they supposed to symbolize the musical notes so they could communicate with the aliens without music? That's the best I could come up with.

I guess in the end, I suppose I enjoyed it, but it didn't blow me away. The effects were pretty good for their time. There could have been a clearer story, and the movie probably could have been a lot shorter. Richard Dreyfuss was good. But if I had to choose one Spielberg alien movie, I'd definitely go E.T. So yeah, I guess that's about it for this one. On the upside, I now understand the keyboard joke from Monsters vs. Aliens.


Stop Saying OK! OK.