November 16, 2012, - 3:08 pm

Wknd Box Office: Lincoln, A Late Quartet, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2, Simon & The Oaks, The Loneliest Planet

By Debbie Schlussel

Even though it’s a movie made by leftists for lefists, there’s one movie I liked out of the five I saw which are opening in theaters today, and it is . . .

* “Lincoln“: This is a great movie, but beware that it has a very liberal, Obama-esque vibe to it. Beware also, as I’ve told readers before (after another reader alerted me), that Daniel Day-Lewis is a self-hating, anti-Israel Jew who sides with the HAMASniks in Gaza. Especially now–with HAMAS rockets killing innocent Jews on a more regular basis than normal, it’s something you must take into account whenever you consider whether or not to support a movie and the actors who are in it. Ditto when it comes to this movie’s screenwriter, Tony Kushner, another anti-Israel, self-hating Jewish creep, who supports HAMAS (which would filet his gay ass) and the boycott of Israel. Also keep in mind that the movie is based on a book about Lincoln by known plagiarist and liberal Doris Kearns Goodwin. Yup, these are the people that director Steven Spielberg a/k/a “Abu Spielberg” loves to hang with.



I wondered how historically accurate the movie is, and a very interesting piece on liberal Slate does a pretty good job at itemizing and documenting all the accuracies of the movie (DON’T READ IT UNTIL AFTER YOU SEE THE MOVIE), as it has many spoilers. I’m no Lincoln expert, and that’s at whom the movie is aimed: those of us who love America, love American history, aren’t experts, and would enjoy knowing and seeing the nitty gritty of Lincoln’s life at the White House during the period of Civil War in which emancipation of slaves was being pushed by Lincoln, at the same time he was also seeking to make peace with the Confederacy and end the war. I wonder about the historical accuracy of three things:


1) Did Black soldiers who fought for the Union really lecture Lincoln and essentially yell at him because they weren’t free? Although in those days, anyone could easily approach the President and tell him of their problems (we see more of that, later on in the movie), I wonder if Blacks would feel free to tell the President off in that day and age. I don’t believe that scene, in the beginning of the movie, ever really happened. 2) Did Tad Lincoln really have an obsession with the glass plates bearing photos of Blacks, to the point that he played with the plates late at night? Doesn’t seem likely. 3) Would Blacks be allowed to sit in the House gallery along with Whites at that time in history? 4) Did Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), the Pennsylvania Congressman who vehemently fought for freeing the slaves, have a relationship with his Black female housekeeper, with whom he lived? The movie says yes and shows him in bed with her. But history has never proven that. History shows that the allegations were used by pro-slavery opponents of abolition against Stevens when he fought for freeing the slaves, but that isn’t shown in the movie. It was a rumor, just like the rumor that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, something that’s never been proven (contrary to conventional wisdom). 5) The movie does show him in bed and also on a bed with men, but not in a gay way (at least, that’s not the way I saw it). He was working with them late into the night to pass the bill freeing slaves.

The movie explores how Lincoln got Congress to vote for freeing the slaves, when most had no intention of doing so. It shows the nimble balance between doing that and also getting Confederate leaders to make peace, despite Lincoln repeatedly being warned that he could not have both–that the Southerners would not make peace if slavery would be abolished, and that Congress would not vote for the abolition of slavery if it meant the Civil War would not be ended, and more Union boys would be killed. On the other hand, once Congress began hearing that Confederate leaders were negotiating a peace with Lincoln, they had no incentive to get rid of slavery, since their aim was to end the war. The movie is also a very interesting discussion of states’ rights versus federalism that goes on not only on the floor of the House, but also in the discussions Lincoln holds with his top advisers, including Secretary of State William Seward (who was very much against freeing the slaves, as he thought it would prolong the Civil War), played by David Strathairn.

Day-Lewis really looks and sounds like Lincoln, and a funny story he tells–a very funny story!–turns out to be a story he actually told and just as he told it. Sally Field is Mary Todd Lincoln, and while she isn’t really “nutty” per se, as history portrays her, she’s a bit overbearing and always crying, whining, and nervous. But who wouldn’t be, having lost two sons and having another who wants to go to war and could die on the battlefield? On the other hand, she believes an “accident” with their carriage was really no accident, but an attempt to assassinate Lincoln. The movie doesn’t delve into whether or not she was correct, which would have been interesting, since we know that there were constant plans and perhaps failed attempts to kill Lincoln, before the one that was ultimately successfully carried out by John Wilkes Booth. Robert Lincoln (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, whose parents founded an anti-Israel group for Jews–yup, this movie is populated by self-haters) is shown to be a very patriotic son, who desperately wants to fight for the Union and make the same sacrifices for the country as other Union sons did. And then there are those who worked with Seward to help secure the votes for Lincoln and how they “lobbied” in very interesting ways, ways not much different than today, minus the technology and tickets to sporting events. The legislators and their machinations, including those of Stevens, are explored. It’s pretty clear that the makers of this movie took great pains to not only present an accurate version of history, but also to make the actors look a lot like the real-life figures they played, down to Thaddeus Stevens’ wig.

It’s, overall, a great cinematic version of a particular time in American history that I enjoyed thoroughly. You won’t be bored for a second. Wonderfully done. But, again, don’t forget that this Lincoln is a HAMAS-lover. And take that into account when you decide where to spend your movie dollars.

THREE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS
reagancowboyreagancowboyreagancowboyhalfreagan.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

* “A Late Quartet“: I love symphonic, classical music. But if you go to see this movie for that reason, you’ll be thoroughly disappointed. Although it’s about a quartet consisting of violinists, a cellist, and so on, it’s really just another soap opera melodrama, the bittersweet ending of which doesn’t justify why I had to sit through non-stop melodrama chock full of crying, yelling, cheating, and an adult sleeping with the daughter of another woman he once slept with. Ick. This movie is aimed at the highbrow lefty culturatti crowd, but it’s really just lowbrow crap dressed in organic fine chocolate and tofu. The only good thing about this movie–cool, really–is that one of the main actors, Mark Ivanir, a Ukrainian Jew, was a top Israeli soldier in real life. (He was involved in a secret mission rescuing Ethiopian Jews and was repeatedly recruited by the Israeli Secret Service, but took a job as a clown instead, and later became an actor.)

Christopher Walken is the cellist in a longtime quartet that performs around the world. One of the quartet is his adopted daughter (Catherine Keener). Her husband is the second violinist (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The first violinist is her former boyfriend (Ivanir). Walken soon learns that he has early-stage Parkinson’s disease and decides to leave the quartet. (He’s the only decent, likable character in the whole movie.) Then, all hell breaks loose with infighting, drama, crying, yelling, and so on. Didn’t need it. Not my idea of a nice, escapist, relaxing movie. On the other hand, I can’t say it isn’t entertaining. It is, but not worth ten bucks and two hours of your life. Not even close.

TWO MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

* “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2“: OY. I hated this movie. Prime Gitmo torture stuff. But then I hated all the “Twilight” movies, except the first one–and that must have been a moment of drunkenness or something. It’s silly, confusing, and incredibly violent. Multiple people are beheaded and a baby is thrown into a fire to burn to death. And, yet, this is the crap aimed at young kids. Last night, as I was coming out of another movie screening, I saw two mothers with several of their kids and kids’ friends–whose ages I asked (8, 11, and 12)–waiting in line for two hours for the 10:00 p.m. early showing of this movie. I was surprised that they didn’t bat an eyelash when I told them that they were about to expose their kids to a movie with a lot of very graphic beheadings and a baby thrown into a fire. They just smiled. Yeah, that’s smile-worthy.

I didn’t get this absurd story. The sullen, brooding human chick (Kristen Stewart) became a vampire in the last movie so she could marry her effeminate vampire love (Robert Pattinson). She now is stronger than all the male vampires and must resist her urge to kill humans and drink their blood. Plus the angry council of vampire rules is upset that she and the other vampires are friends with a werewolf. Oh, and they must prove to the vampire council that their half-human, half-vampire daughter isn’t a threat to vampires and is not an immortal . . . or is an immortal? I don’t know. I got lost and just didn’t care to figure it out. The movie is long, boring, and a waste of time. Yes, I know I’m not the target demo for this absurdity, but even if I were, I think I’d hate it nonetheless.

Thank G-d, this is the last of the Twilight saga vampires on film. Or is it? Hollywood loves sequels of excrement.

THREE MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Simon and the Oaks [Simon Och Ekarna]“: At the beginning, I thought this would be an interesting movie. A Swedish kid from a wealthy Jewish family is sent to the country to live with his friend Simon and Simon’s gentile family when the Nazis invade the country. But, after that, nothing really happens. We’re shown that the Jewish dad keeps trying to seduce the gentile mom, and that the gentile dad resents the wealth and generosity of the Jewish dad. And then, very late into the movie, we learn something new about Simon, who is the kid raised by the gentile family. It still isn’t interesting. A total tease and waste of time wrapped in classy costumes and cinematography. In Swedish with English subtitles.

ONE MARX
karlmarxmovies.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

* “The Loneliest Planet“: More like the stupidest moviegoer, cuz if you waste ten bucks and 1.5 hours of your time on this long, boring, absurd waste of time, you’re an idiot. You were forewarned that this is 1.5 hours of footage of a woman and her fiancee hiking Georgia’s Caucuses Mountains with very little dialogue. Boooooring. There’s no plot to speak of. Not sure what the point of this movie was . . . other than to make me very angry. A total waste of time I’ll never get back.

FOUR MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

45 Responses

It is a consensus among historians that Jefferson did have an intimate relationship with his slave, proof of which a DNA test in 1998.

Nakruh on November 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Actually, no–the DNA test only shows some Jefferson DNA. It was most likely Jefferson’s brother. The Blacks took this and ran with it.

    lexi on November 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm

      Extremely unlikely it was Jefferson. Most likely Jefferson’s brother or one of Jefferson’s nephews.

      Adam on November 17, 2012 at 6:41 am

Well, if that Lincoln movie doesn’t invent a gay love interest for Abe, Gay Obama will cast himself into his mineshaft full of dingleberries and DROWN.

Just think, that marvelous, Princeton Law School-trained Maroon mind lost to the ages. Alas! Alas!!!

Status Monkey on November 16, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    Poor Muslim Monkey, with his dumb at-signs and his dingleberries, just can’t stay on topic.

    I’ll say this for him, though: even his vaunted homophobia is a lie, as he gets off on humiliation regardless of the gender who punishes him.

    skzion on November 17, 2012 at 2:49 pm

      @Gay Obama,

      Do you even HAVE a gender? I imagine you are more like a Ken doll – one that’s fished out of a storm drain after 7 or 8 years, that is.

      When you were at Princeton Law, which gender did you register as?

      Status Monkey on November 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm

        Looks like Muslim Monkey can’t even read. The issue isn’t my gender, but his indifference to gender so long as he is humiliated.

        skzion on November 17, 2012 at 7:06 pm

          @Gay Obama,

          Well, ONE of us can’t read, anyway. If you have no gender, your statement falls apart. Didn’t they teach you ANYTHING at Princeton Law School? Apparently not. Of course, they didn’t teach you anything at “Chicago,” since you were OBVIOUSLY never there.

          My Status is "Correct!" on November 17, 2012 at 9:26 pm

There is DNA evidence that a male Jefferson had a baby with a Hemmings but no proof it was Thomas Jefferson. He had several brothers IIRC.

Pinandpuller on November 16, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Twilight sounds atrocious and I am embarassed that members of my family were excited to see it.

Homercles82 on November 16, 2012 at 10:13 pm

Even though there is no DNA evidence, the nature of the relationship between Hemings and Jefferson – his taking her to Paris and all – is what makes it exceedingly likely. There is no evidence that Jefferson’s brothers had any relationship with Hemings whatsoever – when Jefferson most certainly did – and so no one would have ever proposed that one of Jefferson’s brothers was the father except for the purposes of protecting Jefferson’s reputation. (From what I don’t know however, as it is well known that the landed gentry used their female slaves for sexual gratification, and there is nothing that suggests that Jefferson would have been above that behavior. And no, there was no birth control back then to speak of).

“The Blacks took this and ran with it.” That is a lie, Lexi. The Sally Hemings thing was commonly spoken of in the black community long before the DNA test. As a matter of fact, those were what motivated the DNA tests to begin with. There is no reason to go about claiming as if it couldn’t have happened, as plenty of slaveowners did it. It is precisely why young, healthy attractive slave women like Hemings – who by the way looked eerily like a younger version of Jefferson’s wife! – were so expensive to begin with. It wasn’t due to the economic value that they produced with their labor in the fields, if you know what I mean.

Gerald on November 16, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Frankly, if your biggest bragging point is that an ancestor got laid by a former president, that is pretty weak gruel. It is a story that would be of interest to the racially minded, but few others. This is akin to gay activists claiming gayness for this or that historical figure, as if their alleged sexual activity made them noteworthy.

    Worry01 on November 17, 2012 at 12:47 am

It was not Jefferson’s DNA but his brother

dave on November 17, 2012 at 5:44 am

A group of prominent academics did extensive research on this, and all but one concluded that it was not Jefferson, who did not travel to Paris at the same time as Sally. Sally was assigned to look after Jefferson’s daughter in Paris. She did not live with Jefferson, but with the daughter at a religious school. At another point, when Hemmings did become pregnant by a Jefferson male back in the US, it was likely the idiot brother or one of his sons. Jefferson was old and ill at the time.

Adam on November 17, 2012 at 6:54 am

Thank you SOOO. Much for your movie take. For real your movie reviews are one of the best reads on the net. Would LOVE to see you writing an entertainment blog ( we need a blog written for us that isnt big Hollywood) keep up the great work.

ceannrua on November 17, 2012 at 9:35 am

Black soldiers did not yell at Lincoln. The blacks loved Lincoln. His son was not fascinated with the glass plates with black faces etched into them; come one, who would etch black faces in glass plates at that time in history?

While Jim Crow came to DC after the war(Washington, DC was a segregated city up until about the mid 1950′s, and portions remained segregated into the early 1960′s), it is doubtful that blacks (called negroes or coloreds then) would have sat together.

Thaddeus Stevens was an ass. He was anti-slavery, but treated his white factory workers and indentured servants worse than slaves. It is doubtful he had a relationship with his housekeeper. Thaddeus Stevens’ abuse of the South led to the Southern resentment against blacks.

The average white Southern soldier did not own slaves; only about 10% of the whites in the South could afford a slave, who actually filled the jobs poor whites could have had. The average white Southern soldier was fighting for his state, and not for slavery. When people asked about your citizenship in those days, you did not say “I am an American.” You said, “I am a Virginian” or “I am a Pennsylvanian.”

The first state to threaten to secede was South Carolina in 1830, when a pro-slave president (Jackson) was in office. The issue was high tariffs, which were choking the South.

While slavery was one major issue, it was far from the only issue, but it became more important as the war went on.

Sounds like a movie I can miss. In fact, I miss any movie made by or starring self-hating liberal jerks.

Jonathan E. Grant on November 17, 2012 at 10:26 am

    Amen, JEG. Excellent summary. I also won’t waste a dime or a second further of my time on this trash. I did see about 30 seconds of the trailer and laughed at Day-Leiws’ “take” on Lincoln, though.

    DS_ROCKS! on November 17, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Right back @ JEG. Judging by the trailers (you can easily judge a flick’s tenor just by watching them), “Lincoln” is an “Obama” movie.

    All these points that you raise appear plausible. Unfortunately, they don’t pull people into theatres. They want sunshine, rainbows and unicorns.

    Or if they’re tween-age girls, shirtless vampires and pre-transformation werewolves who strangely resemble they toy-boys in One Direction.

    This weekend, I’m broke until payday. Hello Netflix and “Mongol”.

    The Reverend Jacques on November 18, 2012 at 7:54 am

Lincoln??? Make me laugh so hard I throw up.

Let’s see, where to start?

“When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.”
Confederate General John B. Gordon

“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world”.
Abraham Lincoln – U.S. Congress, 1847

A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”
Charles Dickens, 1862

“All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”
Robert E. Lee

“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”
London Times, November 7, 1861

“If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the Constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty.

They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; The future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.”
Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina, in Our Danger and our Duty, 1862

And then there;’s GENERAL ORDER 11, 1862 – Lincoln’s main man Ulysses S Grant’s order to expel all Jews in his military district – Tenn, MO and Kentucky.

Lincoln?

(can’t type the next comment)

Jack on November 17, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Jack, you make some interesting points here. History is indeed written by the victors. At least so far in this country, one can read alternative histories.

    Those interested in a powerful argument against the Union take should read John Calhoun’s Disquisition on Government, where he develops his theory of the concurrent majority. It is tightly reasoned.

    skzion on November 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm

      @Gay Obama,

      You aren’t fooling anyone. Stick to your “Twilight” books, or (if they make your head hurt) get your copy of “See Spot Run.”

      Status Monkey on November 17, 2012 at 4:06 pm

        Poor Muslim Monkey has absolutely nothing interesting to say. No wonder he is envious and threatened by anyone who does–which includes every regular here.

        Still waiting for Dole!

        skzion on November 17, 2012 at 7:14 pm

          @Gay Obama,

          Does your last post even warrant a reply? You’re just phoning it in at this point.

          My Status is "Correct!" on November 17, 2012 at 9:24 pm

        MM, you expect me to spend even MORE time mocking you? You are insatiable.

        I think I see Dole in the distance! Better late than not at all!

        skzion on November 18, 2012 at 4:05 pm

It is certainly true that during Reconstruction, when most Southern whites were barred from holding office or voting, the blacks who were in Office were puppets of the North, and the North set about plundering the South for the next 100 years.

Hence, when union leaders from the NORTH came down to the South, they were met with hostility, as many Southerners still do not trust the phoney Northern liberals, and with good reason. After all, while the Northern libs were trying to integrate the South, most of their own neighborhoods were lilly white. As MLK said, “Chicago is the most segregated city in the United States.” And you know what? It still is largely segregated.

Jonathan E. Grant on November 17, 2012 at 11:03 am

… book about Lincoln by known plagiarist and liberal Doris Kearns Goodwin…

I like Doris Kearns Goodwin’s warm and cozy little spots on the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer; she reminds me of wool sweaters on snowy days and crackling fires, and I’d like to take a nap in her lap after eating a big bowl of hot oatmeal while she quaintly & colloquially explains American history.

Hesperado on November 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm

“Did Black soldiers who fought for the Union really lecture Lincoln and essentially yell at him because they weren’t free? Although in those days, anyone could easily approach the President and tell him of their problems (we see more of that, later on in the movie), I wonder if Blacks would feel free to tell the President off in that day and age. ”

Film critic John Simon wryly noted, about the 1995 movie “Jefferson in Paris” (in which Nick Nolte preposterously plays Jefferson), that one conceit of the movie — having the black slave Sally Hemmings (with whom Jefferson had sexual relations) be the assertive one in the relationship — was highly implausible and likely historically incorrect — though, of course, politically COrrect.

Hesperado on November 17, 2012 at 2:32 pm

Debbie, I may actually spend money on the Lincoln movie. Almost always I depend on Netflix so that I can terminate a movie at any time and send it back. Even great movies involve one annoying aspect: moviegoers.

I finally rented the first three Twilight installments, based on your review of the first one. The first one was ok; the second and third were atrociously boring and dumb. The writers didn’t even respect the the usual vampire rules of logic whereby vampires become stronger over time. After ditching that, the writers couldn’t even be consistent, as the most powerful “governing” body (residing in an Italian small town) are in fact extremely old.

I guess we are expected to believe that the relationship between age and vampire strength is quadratic. Yeah.

skzion on November 17, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Buckle your seatbelts, everyone. Gay Obama is turning his melon-sharp Princeton-Law-trained Maroon mind to the deep profundities of the “Twilight” movies. Quadratic relationship indeed. We all know why YOU watched those movies, you perv. LOL

    Status Monkey on November 17, 2012 at 4:01 pm

      Fifty Shades of Monkey is calling someone ELSE a perv?

      Now he’s trying to recover from his assertion that Princeton Law actually exists. What a dingleberry!

      Oh, and I have yet to meet a fellow alum who refers to other alums or active students as “Maroons.” That usage died out many decades ago when Hutchins took Chicago out of the Big Ten. I guess Wikipedia-based research has its limitations.

      Finally, there is no shortage of eye candy in Hollywood films. Twilight offers little of it, although I expect that anyone with Monkey’s IQ takes what he can get.

      skzion on November 17, 2012 at 7:27 pm

        @Gay -Obama,

        LOL, you would know about taking what you can get. In your case, I imagine it’s anything with two legs OR a pulse.

        We’re all very anxious to see you unlock all the profound mysteries of of the “Twilight” movies. Who ever said that the “University of Chicago” wouldn’t take you places? Do you like the vampire, or the werewolf? Wow, are you deep.

        My Status is "Correct!" on November 17, 2012 at 9:21 pm

        @ Gay Obama,

        I actually believe you when you say that you’ve never met an alum or student from “Chicago” who referred to himself as a Maroon. You’ve probably never met a college graduate, period. Most businesses have several layers of people insulating the educated from the Gay Obamas of the world.

        What a crafty, carefully-worded statement. Of course, I’d expect no less from a graduate of “Princeton Law,” LOL.

        My Status is "Correct!" on November 17, 2012 at 9:38 pm

Debbie, read any Civil War book by Shelby Foote or Bruce Catton..2 of the best historians on that time period in my view.

Jesse Wininger on November 17, 2012 at 7:56 pm

By the way, John Wilkes Booth’s father was a kind of New Agey nutcase who claimed to find inspiration in the Koran (among a whole kit & kaboodle of other things).

Hesperado on November 17, 2012 at 8:29 pm

Good reviews Debbie as always. Do you still do your reviews on Mike Church’s show? Just asking. As far as my comments, Debbie thansk because you watch and report on Hollyweierd crap so that we don’t don’t waste our time. There is no way I would watch a movie made about Obama, er, I mean Lincoln directed by that bum Steven Shillberg. This douche has been an Odumbo jockstrap holder since day one. It’s also really a shame that Daniel Day-Lewis has turned out to be just co-writer Tony Kushner a self hating, anti-Israel Jew. But to also support the terrorist group Hamas is the height of idiocy. I wonder how those two maggots feel about what has been going on in Israel lately. When I found out that my favorite girl on PeeonBS Doris Kerns Goodwin was also involved in this film that just raised the scumbucket level to a new high. This plagiarizing butt munch could write a good story if her life depended on it. I’d rather go and purchase that bloviating blowhard O’Reilly’s dumb book “Killing Lincoln” than sit through crap by Shillberg. Oh who am I kidding O’Really can join the others and go sniff Oblamo’s vapor trail.

Ken b on November 18, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Doris Kerns Goodwin…I discount anything with that name attached. Wonder if she got a mention of the Boston Red Sox in the movie? Another one of Imus’ idols.

Kent on November 18, 2012 at 9:46 pm

Good review on the Lincoln film, I went to see this one Friday Afternoon. My question to you is how do you know how Lincoln sounded? There are no recorded audio clips of him speaking.

I will say Daniel Day Lewis looks JUST like Lincoln in this movie, and plays the role very well. I see him being nominated for an Oscar in this role.

I went to a screening of A Late Quartet, wow was that movie painful to sit through. That’s two hours better spent watching paint dry, BOOORING!!!

trewsdetroit on November 19, 2012 at 9:51 am

I heard good ol´ Honest Abe doesn’t do that well in theaters.

Jaws on November 19, 2012 at 11:23 am

Thanks Debbie, I do use your reviews as a filter to decide on what I would watch. Thanks again.

jake49 on November 19, 2012 at 12:51 pm

I saw the Lincoln movie over the weekend. Not on purpose, but by the fact that Skyfall was sold out. Here are some observations:

One thing I can say is that it was long. Much longer than I think it needed to be. They dragged the issue regarding abolition throughout the entire movie. For the most part, it was about the amendment, not Lincoln at all. There were many funny moments, some of which delivered by a very fat looking James Spader (that may have been artificial padding…or not). Spader played on of the “lobbyists” trying to swing democrat votes to abolition. Oddly, I felt as if the Republicans in the movie were played very favorably by the actors. They seemed less annoying and had much stronger backbones, while the Democrats seemed to be spineless, whiny, and annoying. They were often put down by their political opponents more deftly and with acerbic wit. IMHO, Tommy Lee Jones stole the movie in his ridiculous wig and cutting dialog.

Day-Lewis DOES look a lot like Lincoln and I suppose he sounds like him too…based on all the other actors that I’ve seen portray the president. Either Day-Lewis is very tall, or the other actors chosen for the other parts are short. They only actor that came close to Day-Lewis in height was Grant and even he didn’t see him eye to eye. Plus he stooped the entire movie. I think that was historically accurate, as Lincoln had bad posture.

Be aware that the first 5 to 10 minutes of the movie is a battle scene cut from the same cloth as “Saving Private Ryan”…Civil War style. Kinda violent as it is all hand to hand combat. But there probably the same amount of blood as an average “Walking Dead” episode. Also annoying was the ending, which made absolutely no sense to me. It seemed as if after Lincoln was killed, they had to figure out a way to end the film. Dumb.

I wouldn’t have decided to see it had I not been able to get into the Skyfall show.

Best,

John

HokieCon on November 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Wonder if slavery in Lincoln is a metaphor for Obama care? Don’t think I’ll bother actually watching it to explore this possibility because although DD Lewis is a good actor his political sympathies are the same as V Redgrave and all the rest of that set and I’m bored of their dramatizations. Would encourage anyone who wants to watch it to obtain the free copies all Hollywood libs in their heart of hearts believe you’re entitled to.

Frankz on November 20, 2012 at 2:01 am

P.S. Meant the abolition of slavery is a metaphor for the introduction of Obama care just in case what I wrote didn’t make sense.

Frankz on November 20, 2012 at 2:42 am

We are watching this movie today on DVD. It seems to be historically accurate and picks up the look/feel of the times.

Certain things are omitted. The 2nd inauguration speech was not brief as portrayed. Andrew Johnson’s inauguration prior to Lincoln’s was disastrous and played heavily on events following the assassination.

Thaddeus Stevens was extremely ambitious for political power. Tommy Lee Jones seems to have played him well. Stevens figures prominently in American history. (I have often thought Newt Gingrich a modern analogy of Stevens.)

Lincoln’s government and congress were filled with scoundrels. He had to walk a tightrope of conflicting interests that constantly moved with the flow and ebb of the War.

I thought Day-Lewis (for all his personal shortcomings) did a good job of displaying the anguished deliberations Lincoln is known to have had. When I heard Sally Fields was playing Marry Todd Lincoln, I thought: “Of course! Who else?” Sally Fields kinda looks like Mary Todd Lincoln. (You might have mentioned Fields’ role in “Not Without My Daughter” when talking about some of the anti-Israel members of the cast. Not sure of her views on Israel, but I doubt she’s very popular with Muslims.)

Still, my favorite actor who portrayed Lincoln remains Gregory Peck. Perhaps that is because of Debbie’s note on Day-Lewis’ views. More than likely, it was Peck’s own persona that gave his brief portrayal of Lincoln (on a made-for-TV movie no less) a great sense of historical dignity.

There is NO Santa Claus on March 31, 2013 at 1:52 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field