Guest Review: Lincoln

When it comes to the 12:25 showing of Lincoln that I watched earlier today, I could rattle off a little grocery list of flaws about it, and maybe I still will a little bit later on. I could call it Oscar-Bait, roll my eyes and cross my arms. I could even claim that Daniel Day-Lewis isn’t human, and therefore should be disqualified from earning the Oscar for best actor this coming winter. Instead, I’ll go ahead and say this. Lincoln, directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Daniel Day-Lewis, is the best movie I have seen all year.

I should establish something up front here. I was one of the disgruntled masses that saw the trailer for this movie and a huge exclamation point sprouted up over my head. I don’t know what it was about the trailer that bugged me. Maybe it was the cuts to black every half second, maybe it was the schizophrenic soundtrack that changed tone every time the scene changed. I don’t know. I think I was afraid of this movie being something like War Horse, and I’m pleased to say that it was anything but.

This is not acting. This is channeling.

Lincoln is a film about a country nearly as foreign to us in our contemporary situation as it was and is to a lot of other nationalities. Watching this movie as an American (and indeed, as an American currently serving in the armed forces) was nothing short of a revelation. It pitched itself as Oscar-Bait, which was a pretty dumb thing to do since it’s anything but. This film is an important one, and we know this by the time ten minutes of it have rolled around.

I think the biggest problem with this film is the trailer. You read that right. The trailer undersold this film. It seemed like a trailer for a different movie altogether - though if you asked me to figure exactly what kind of film the trailer was for, I'm not exactly sure. A cheesy one. Lincoln, on the other hand, felt more like a Broadway or West End play captured on film. Maybe that's because some of the lead actors (Daniel Day-Lewis and Jared Harris) are from the UK. Who knows.

I could write pages about Daniel Day-Lewis and his performance as America’s most beloved president. Instead, however, I’ll go ahead and relegate myself to saying this – watching this film, I felt like I was sitting in a room with Abraham Lincoln. I don’t know what crazy things Lewis did to prepare for this role, and frankly I don’t particularly care to know, because that would dispel at least part of the illusion. All I know is that his portrayal of Lincoln is something I was lucky to see. This Lincoln is kind, warm, comforting, polite, soft spoken, and perhaps most surprisingly – very, very funny.

Thank you. All of you.

I think part of what makes Lincoln the film that it is can be traced to the performances offered up by its wonderful cast. I usually hate films with ensemble casts, since most of the time they seem to mute each other out. (See The Thin Red Line for an example of this too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen syndrome.) Lincoln somehow manages to dodge this plague, bringing in some of our finest thespians in roles that seem tailored to them. Tommy Lee Jones is at the absolute top of his game here, providing the audience with a figure we at once love and are wary of. Sally Field is wonderful (though sometimes seems a little strained) as Mrs. Lincoln, and Jared Harris is a walking embodiment of Ulysses Grant. Some have complained about his accent. I didn't notice.

I'm the one with the hair.

I was able to speak with some of my fellow audience members after this film let out and as a result got to canvas their reactions. Interestingly, we were all surprised by the same thing – this film is mostly talking, without much “happening” in the way of 21st Century Hollywood. I think a lot of people might find issue with this lack of action, but I found it refreshing. I was nice to see a film that relied purely on its writing, its photography and its acting to imbue it with a sense of importance. It was nice to see a period piece about an American icon that was so grounded in reality that when it did touch on the extraordinary circumstances surrounding him, the times felt real.

I’m no history buff, but I’ve done a fair bit of research in Abraham Lincoln, and while I cannot speak for the history professors at Columbia University, I can speak for myself – I thought this film did a great job of portraying Washington as it was in Lincoln’s day...and indeed, how it still is, in some ways. This look at government is beautiful because it shows us the humanity behind it, but also reminds us that government can and should work for the people – no matter how difficult the road to success can sometimes be.

That this film arrives at a time of such political discord is, I think, important. Movies like Lincoln are more than just your run of the mill popcorn fare. They are messages, a call to arms from another time, reminders that we, the American people (though young) have it in us both the capacity and the obligation to be strong. So much unhappiness today can be resolved by remembering our common identity – something I feel a lot of us have forgotten about. If you like history, if you adore film, if you love great actors performing tremendous roles – go see this movie. I for one will be returning to see it again, if only to spend time with that greatest of American heroes for just a couple hours more.

The Bottom Line: Poignant, important, relevant and fueled by a once-in-a-lifetime performance by Daniel Day Lewis (unless, of course, you’re Daniel Day Lewis and performances like this come around once every three years or so), Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is worth every caricature-graced penny.

Oscar Possibilities:
Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis
Best Picture

Overall Rating: 9.8/10

Nov 8: [Rec] 3: Genesis

"A couple's wedding day turns into a horrific events as some of the guests start showing signs of a strange illness."

Directed by: Paco Plaza, Rated: R, 80 minutes

I am incredibly conflicted with [Rec] 3: Genesis. One, it's part of one of my favorite horror franchises and I feel obligated to love it, no matter how different it is. Two, it's just that- different. Abandoning the found-footage aspect that made the first two films so intense and terrifying, Rec 3 becomes a generic horror film that actually tries to be funny as well. The end result is a grab-bag of genres that can't find it's focus. It's confusing because Paco Plaza, the man behind the first two films, is back at the helm and pulling-double duty on the screenplay. Yet, it never feels like a genuine Rec film.

The first Rec is still one of the only movies to genuinely creep me out. That ending... Damn

The film's buildup is excellent. The first twenty minutes is actual in the style of the Rec we know, using handheld cameras and wedding footage from the ceremony and reception of Clara (Leticia Dolera) and Koldo (Diego Martin). Unfortunately for the newlyweds, an unusual illness sweeps through their wedding party, turning their guests into flesh-eating zombies (that aren't necessarily zombies). We see the initial outbreak and attacks through the lens of a wedding photographer's camera, but as soon as a character gets tired of it being in his face, he smashes it. Then, Rec 3 becomes your usual, multi-camera HD movie with none of the suspense a close-quartered handheld can actually maintain. Clara and Koldo then must find a way out of the Church and its premises, survive the demonic invasion, and of course, find each other (they get separated at the beginning).

I guess every horror movie does need a beautiful leading lady... 

Paco Plaza is by no means, a bad director. I honestly think that his intentions were good, and that his little baby, the Rec franchise, really does mean a lot to him. With Rec 3, I think he just wanted to experiment a little and breakaway from the found-footage of the first two, maybe in hopes of expanding the series and showing that he can actual do more than film (through first-person) a bunch of people running around an apartment complex. Even with the bad decision to shift the series' style, Plaza still has a terrific talent with a camera. He sets up wonderful shots and captures the color and terror that goes on at a Spanish wedding ceremony brilliantly. However, the weak script detracts from the pretty visuals (including its leading lady, Dolera) and nosedives the film into the realm of the laughable and ridiculous. Plaza definitely attempts to turn the film into a horror comedy, even highlighting each physical joke with cheesy music, all to rather weak effect. Maybe going into this, knowing it was this different, I would have been more prepared, but you don't have to be a genius to know it just doesn't work. 

Showing a little leg while wielding a chainsaw is far from any Rec staple. 

Both leads are interesting characters, but as more horror stories go, they lack any depth or substance. Clara has her moments of being a badass (she goes crazy with a chainsaw) but again, it feels completely unnecessary. The first two Rec films were terrifying because they didn't show a lot, and the moments they did reveal a bit, were all the more terrifying. In Rec 3, Plaza embraces the violence, turning the series down the path of torture-porn and gore. Sure, this works for some movies, but it's not what you sign up for when you head into a Rec flick. However, there's still a lot to enjoy, from the great visuals, to the even better makeup. It's definitely not a failure, just a disappointment. Sure, [Rec] 3: Genesis could have been much greater than it really is but I still like it, even if it is a little difficult to swallow. 

The Good:

the film has style, even if it is a bit misguided

The Bad:

very little of the movie feels like an actual Rec movie and in turn, feels very, very generic (with a lot of blood)

The Ugly:

knowing that the premise is an incredible idea but that its execution ruins it almost completely

Overall: 6.1/10

Discussion Question:

What are some of your favorite foreign horror films?

Trailer:

Oct 25: Sinister

"Found footage helps a true-crime author realize how and why a family was murdered in his new home, though his discoveries put his entire family in the path of a supernatural entity."

Directed by: Scott Derrickson, Rated: R, 110 minutes

Sinister is a movie that starts off incredibly well but builds up to a rather lackluster finale. It's in no way a game-changer in the horror genre but it still manages to provide a good chunk of new ideas and a twist on a somewhat familiar mythology. Of course, a large majority of the scares are the gimmicky pop-out ones, but the overall dread the movie creates, with the help of a terrifying score and great sound work, still leaves you on edge.

"Creepy" children and an awkwardly tall post-pubescent boy are scary anymore. 

Ellison Oswald (Ethan Hawke) is a true-crime novelist. He's written a handful of books but cannot seem to recapture the success of his first book, Kentucky Blood. After a family is murdered in the backyard of a house, Oswald decides to move his family to the location, in hopes of uncovering secrets behind the murder and get into the mindset of the murdered family. Oswald discovers a box of old Super 8 films in the attic only to find out that they are actual footage of the murder that took place previously in the home as well as a few others. With the help of a local college professor (Vincent D'Onofrio), Oswald realizes that the murders are connected and that the source of evil behind each of the gruesome events is the pagan god, Baghul, a deity who uses images as portals into our world, only to kidnap children and feed on their souls. Oswald puts his own family at risk and needs to figure out a way to 

stop the evil.

If you look closely you can see him riiiiiighhhtttt there. 

Sinister's greatest strengths are the sounds, the actual Super 8 films, and the performance of Ethan Hawke. The score is incredibly unsettling and its constant dissonance becomes a white noise that distracts, making each scare more effective. Each movie-in-the-movie is just as scary, and the grainy, "found-footage-ness" of each makes them feel all too real. As for Hawke, he carries the film to a level that not only gives the movie a good chunk of credibility, but actually has someone who can act at the center of it. Most horror films suffer from terrible acting and with Hawke in the role, it escalates to awesome. Even with all of these strengths, however, Sinister has plenty of flaws. To start, the first 45 minutes are terrific but the last 45 are rather boring and lead to a very expected and almost laughable ending. Another problem with the film is that as Oswald looks into the films until the wee-hours of the night, he makes a lot of noise. Only once does he wake up his family, even after making enough racket to sound like an earthquake. Also, not once does Oswald turn on any damn light. As for myself, if I hear a single bump in the night, I go around turning every damn light on in the house. Because as we all know, lights keep away the boogeyman and pagan gods. Each of these things annoy the f**k out of you, and once you notice them, it takes a hell of a lot away from the movie. 

I idolize Ethan Hawke, but dammit man, turn on a light. You're smarter than that!

Sinister is still worth watching. With all the shit in the horror genre that comes out lately, it's a shallow breath of fresh air. One thing many horror movies these day suck at doing is creating a score that's somewhat memorable and just as scary on its own as it is with the accompanying movie. Christopher Young delivers a great score that blends both music, sound effects, and voices. Of course, director Scott Derrickson (The Exorcism of Emily Rose) also manages to create great images that crawl across the screen and his attention to detail is admirable. Even with its flaws, Sinister delivers some solid scares and gets under your skin. Had the ending been changed a bit (and  not as rushed), Sinister could easily have been a new classic, and Baghul could have begun his initiation process into the ranks of Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, and Jason Voorhees. Unfortunately  for now, he's gonna have to wait in line behind Jigsaw and just ahead of f**king Toby (Paranormal Activity). 

The Good:

the sounds, the music, the direction, and Ethan Hawke's performance

The Bad:

a script that has plenty of stupid moments and a apparently has a fear of turning on the lights

The Ugly:

the ending... it really could have been so much better

7.3/10

Discussion Question:

Do you think that in this day and age, we can see a horror villain as memorable as the classic three? Or are we too saturated with lackluster horror films to have any single character stand out? 

Trailer: