Lincoln

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Pappers_

Moderator Emeritus
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
17,908
Reaction score
4,419
Location
Chicago
Saw Lincoln last night and it was much much better than what I was expecting. Really good and worth going out of your way to watch. Somehow, I had in mind that the 13th amendment, because it came towards the end of the war, was sort of just an obvious thing to do, not this remarkable milestone. The passage of a constitutional amendment might not sound like the basis for a movie, but this is a really engaging, keep-your-interest movie.

Not surprisingly, even though he only has a complimentary role, James Spader is remarkable in his role. Has he ever not been extraordinary in a movie?
 
Going to see it tomorrow. Been looking forward to seeing it. Glad you approve :eek:nestar:
 
There are so many good actors in minor roles in this movie, that together make it extraordinary. Sally Fields as Mary Todd Lincoln is appropriately frightening, but not one-dimensional. Jared Harris, in a very modest role, makes an extraordinary US Grant. Bruce McGill turns in a great performance as Sec. of War Stanton. In one of the final scenes, Jackie Earle Haley plays CSA V.P. Alexander Stephens in an arresting scene negotiating with Lincoln, when he realizes that slavery is done, that their treason has been for naught.
 
We haven't seen a movie in a long long time, but Bob definitely has this one in mind. I wasn't so sure, but you make it sound like something I would really enjoy after all.
 
I think I'll wait to see if the thing sounds like it's historically accurate of if they took a bunch of hollywood liberty with it.
I hate when they do movies about things of historic significance and don't stick to the facts or pick and choose what facts to use to make a good story.

If the historians give it a good review, I'll probably watch it.
 
I think I'll wait to see if the thing sounds like it's historically accurate of if they took a bunch of hollywood liberty with it.
I hate when they do movies about things of historic significance and don't stick to the facts or pick and choose what facts to use to make a good story.

If the historians give it a good review, I'll probably watch it.

Its based on Doris Kearns Goodwins book (she's a well-known historian).
 
Spielberg did Schindlers list and that was a fairly accurate version of events, he did saving private Ryan and although not a true story I saw many things that I had read about in various books about people's experiences in WWII and Vietnam so it shows he did research into war events to keep it real so I am hopeful that this one proves to be pretty accurate, but it wont take long before historians have their say on how well he did on the movie.

I'll wait and see.
 
We went and saw Lincoln last night, and thought it was good too. It's certainly not a Ken Burns documentary for those looking for something more along those lines rather than a Hollywood film. I suppose you could critique it for being somewhat one dimensional in that it's primary focus is the 13th amendment. Then again could you really go deeper in 2.5 hours? I haven't read anything critiquing it for being factually far afield. Either way, it was very good and we enjoyed it.
 
As much as I can't wait to see this movie, I am going to wait for the DVD. I can't stand going to movie theaters anymore around here. Too many inconsiderate people using cell phones the whole time, and although probably not an issue with a movie like this, teenagers who act up the whole time making me want to smack them. I definitely am excited to see it though, Lincoln is a fascinating president and overall historical figure.
 
I had planed to see this during the week when I travel on business. But my 11 year old son came home from school on Wednesday and asked if I would take him to see it. I wish I had a dozen of him. Thanks for the reviews, and I'll see 007 when I travel this week.
 
I can't remember the last time there have been three movies in release, currently in theaters, that I've seen! We saw Argo a few weeks ago, Skyfall last week, and Lincoln last night. Usually, we sit around like the old people we are and watch Jeopardy. Ok, we don't really watch Jeopardy. But we do occasionally watch NCIS.
 
I pretty much get to see Disney at the theater.
The rest is Netflix or DVD for me to.

40 years ago when I was my daughters age I was never that spoiled
 
If the historians give it a good review, I'll probably watch it.

I think the bigger problem is not that Hollywood rewrites history, but that we now require Hollywood to teach us our history.

Lincoln was "ok" from a historical standpoint. Just enjoy it for what it is... an unoffensive Spielberg film. However, the new Bond film's plot is so inane, it is insulting.
 
I think the bigger problem is not that Hollywood rewrites history, but that we now require Hollywood to teach us our history.

Lincoln was "ok" from a historical standpoint. Just enjoy it for what it is... an unoffensive Spielberg film. However, the new Bond film's plot is so inane, it is insulting.

There is some truth to that.
I like history myself. I can even enjoy a movie that is full of inaccuracy, as long as it's not supposed to be perceived as accurate.

I really don't want to watch a movie like this with my 7 year old if it's going to "teach" her wrong facts.

At 7 she knows more actual history than probably a lot of high school kids.
For example, after we went to see the king tut exhibit I was downloading pictures a week later and she was telling me the story behind many of the people who's statues I had pictures of.
 
Just got back from it. I liked Casino Royale much better (and that is IMO the best bond ever). This one was good though.

Casino Royale was a great Bond movie. I liked Skyfall because it seemed much darker than other Bond movies and perhaps could stand on its own, apart from the Bond franchise.
 
Casino Royale was a great Bond movie. I liked Skyfall because it seemed much darker than other Bond movies and perhaps could stand on its own, apart from the Bond franchise.

That's a good point.

It's difficult to fit this movie into the rest of them. On the one hand, Q makes fun of the gadgets they 'used to make", like exploding pens. And, Bond is old and retirement is suggested. That clearly puts this movie after the old ones. On the other hand, Bond meets Ms. Moneypenny for the first time, implying this movie precedes the others (i.e., after Casino Royale but before the rest).
 
That's a good point.

It's difficult to fit this movie into the rest of them. On the one hand, Q makes fun of the gadgets they 'used to make", like exploding pens. And, Bond is old and retirement is suggested. That clearly puts this movie after the old ones. On the other hand, Bond meets Ms. Moneypenny for the first time, implying this movie precedes the others (i.e., after Casino Royale but before the rest).

First, I want to engage in the topic, which is Lincoln. I'm so-so on the movie, but my wife is very excited to go so I guess I could say "I can't wait!" I'd really rather watch a documentary.

Now, the newest Bond movie is the best yet, IMO. I did like Casino Royale, but I thought this was went farther into Bond as a person and the plot was pretty solid for a Bond movie.

The new movies are like a "reboot" of the classics. They don't actually progress linearly from the older movies. They make references to "The way things used to be", but I think that isn't really a reference to the older Bond movies so much as a reference to the previous MI6 operatives. It's as if the Bond in the older movies did not exist, although MI6 did, and they did things and had operatives like Bond in the past.

They hinted that the current Bond may be aging and on the way out, but hopefully that is not the case as I really like Craig in this role. And my wife does too, which is good for me.

I just hope they don't go back to making the Bond movies so very over-the-top with the action. There is a point at which the action overcome believability.
 
Almost rented Vampire Slayer last night. Instead I rented the latest Spiderman movie.

I expected to be tired of yet another Spiderman movie, but it was pretty good.
 
Almost rented Vampire Slayer last night. Instead I rented the latest Spiderman movie.

I expected to be tired of yet another Spiderman movie, but it was pretty good.

I haven't seen Spiderman yet, no way my wife will want to see it, so its definitely a netflix or on-demand movie for me.

Can't wait for the Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer prequel featuring another president with a compelling story regarding an axe . . . .

George Washington: King George is a Vampire
 
I'm looking forward to it if it is at least close to historically accurate. Daniel Day-Lewis was made for this role, at least by appearances.

On a side note, if anyone is intersted in a decent degree of historical accuracy, don't waste any time watching on TV Mankind: the Story of all of us. It's just as appalling as America: the story of us. Seriously, I'm expecting the Lincoln movie to have more accuracy than those so-called documentaries, and it's a movie!. What is the world coming to!? :confused:
 
^ I was casually watching Mankind last night while trying to put my daughter to sleep alone for only the second time. I learned that 1 in 200 men alive today have Ghenghis Khan's DNA because of how much rapin' and pillagin' he did during his conquests (hehe). I looked this up online, and apparently according to a 2003 study, it's actually true!
 
I'll tell you this if the house and senate were half as entertaining today as they were depicted in Lincoln, we would all be watching cspan instead of these BS faux documentries and reality tv.
 
Back
Top