WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Discuss: Is "Lincoln" the Best or Worst Movie of the Year?

Posted: February 18th, 2013 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Discuss: Is "Lincoln" the Best or Worst Movie of the Year?Submit Comment
When the first reviews for Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" appeared online, almost all of them shared the same two bits of opinion. First is that Daniel Day-Lewis is amazing as President Lincoln, and second is that the movie is not for everyone.

"Lincoln" went on to receive twelve Oscar nominations, but has been struggling to win anything at the many other awards shows. In fact, "Argo" seems to be the film that critics enjoyed the most. I eventually got to see "Lincoln," and joined the rest of the critics who felt that the movie is not for everyone. Only my opinion is much harsher.

While Day-Lewis was great, he had very little to work with. His character was boring and seemed to exist just to give pointless, mumbling speeches. All the other actors, except for Tommy Lee Jones, also had very little to work with. So I'm not sure how Sally Field got an Oscar nomination or why an actor like Joseph Gordon-Levitt would want to be in this movie.

There was very little shown about the war, and there was nothing about slavery. The entire movie is nothing more than a boring school textbook. What's worse is that it's also inaccurate, as admitted by the film's writer.

But the worst part is that "Lincoln" breaks the first rule of movie-making, which is to entertain the audience. It fails on every level and was a challenge just to sit through. I would go as far as to say it's one of the worst mainstream films of 2012. In fact, "Killing Lincoln," the straight-to-TV movie that just aired, was far better.

Question: Do you feel that "Lincoln" deserves all the praise?

Source: WorstPreviews.com

Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 98 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
RickyGabrielBird writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 7:07:21 AM

Any film that is meant to depict actual events and facts, but adjusts them to fit a purpose, should not be allowed on screen.

People are gullible enough to take these kind of movies as 'gospel'.
Chris_G writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 7:55:33 AM

Daniel Day-Lewis gave an amazing performance, and I found that to be thoroughly entertaining. I guess if you are looking for nothing but explosions and action scenes(nothing wrong with those things) then sure...it was "boring"
SACdaddy writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 7:55:39 AM

Understandable but what if that "purpose" is to fit a 2hr time frame and to entertain?
SACdaddy writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:07:49 AM

The film was based on Lincoln dealing with Congressional infighting and the political rivalries that surrounded the slavery/states rights debate. It wasn't a biography about Lincoln's life or presidency, and it definitely wasn't about the battles of the Civil War. If that's what you wanted to see I can understand the frustration, but that doesn't make it a sh*tty film. Plus if you ever find yourself getting bored by a DDL performance you need to cut back on the Red Bulls and stop smoking the crack :)
darthnoah writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:08:44 AM

The movie gave broad historical points. You can't make an 'accurate' movie.. There just isn't enough drama in life and things like these to do it. History is a great dramatizer. (not talking about the Holocaust or anything, but I think you get what I'm saying)

The story was not about Lincoln. It was about the Amendment. Which is fine. And for a movie about the amendment and not the man, the movie was excellent.

Daniel Day Lewis was incredible in what we think Lincoln would have been like and almost all other actors did a great job. They might not have blown your socks off, but no-one was 'not convincing'..
darthnoah writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:18:53 AM

Also, I think a LOT of Americans need to watch this movie.

The segment where he talks about the necessity of passing the amendment is incredible and important.
I'm not American. But I see what I perceive to still be 'neo-racism' if you will. The American Democracy is no longer enviable. Which should be a sad thing even for the rest of the world. The one nation which used to be a role-model up until 10-15 years ago, no longer is.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:34:23 AM

The entire movie is nothing more than a boring school textbook.

I've heard that this is one of the most historically innacurate movies that depicts Lincoln as some sort of hero to the slaves when in real life he wasn't particularly interested in black people. This film had oscar written all over it since it got announced, regardless of how boring and stupid it was.
kate writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:57:33 AM

I don't understand why DDL gets so much praise for his role.it was good,but nothing amazing.Joaquin Phoenix's performance in 'The Master'(though the movie was a mess)was far superior.
As for 'Lincoln' - the movie was boring as f*ck. wouldn't say the worst movie of the year - that honor belongs to...oh,well,If I will say my true identity might be revealed so let's leave it at that.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:03:52 AM

kate- Don't tell me you're another Worst Previews regular conspiracy? I can't keep up with all of this drama lol.

The most boring film of this year Twilight/ Hunger Games.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:04:38 AM

films*/ last year*
kate writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:06:32 AM

started to watch the last twilight yesterday...most awful cgi i've ever seen...bella and her bitch running and jumping in the woods...and then the aids wolfman taking of his shirt in front of her father...had to stop then.
ollos1986 writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:09:39 AM

regardless of how "accurate' the film was i agree that it broke the 1st rule of entertaining. it was definently not something that should be turned into a piece of art.
plus the fact that it has so many oscar nominations goes to show that the academy is full of an older bias group of people who believe they know what passes for a good movie.
for someone to spend so much to go to the cinemas for an entertaining night out (Lincoln) is not the right choice for the general public.
the BBC has more entertaining doc*menturies!.
Stapes writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:21:54 AM

You gotta be kidding, Lincoln was atrociously inaccurate. For one, I dont recall seeing any Vampires in any history book I've ever read.
velocityknown writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:39:49 AM


Well-said. However, I will say, you have no right to be upset if you went into a film thinking it's going to be about the war or slavery and then come out because the movie wasn't about what you wanted it to be about.

Also, why do people get so up in arms about accuracy? Lincoln never billed itself (as no movie does) as "This movie is 100% accurate." I'm not going to a film for a history lesson, I'm going to be entertained. You'd be hard pressed to find a movie out there that's 100% accurate in every single way so until you do, don't dislike a movie because of its inaccuracy when I'm sure that you enjoyed both Argo and Zero Dark Thirty.

The only time something like that matters is if something doesn't make sense within the film (goes against the tone that was set). For example, if Lincoln had pulled out a katana and dueled with John Wilkes Booth at the end of the film for 15 minutes, that would've been a problem because the tone of Lincoln wouldn't have fit with that. But a movie like Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained can revise history because they set that silly tone from the beginning of the film.

"why an actor like Joseph Gordon-Levitt would want to be in this movie."

Yeah, because if you're an actor, playing Lincoln's son in a biopic by Steven Spielberg is a career killer. What a mistake that guy made, am I right? Once again, you're saying the actors didn't have much to work with just because they didn't meet your screentime expectations. You see that JGL, Sally Field, and all of these other big name actors are cast and you expect them all to have showy moments. If their roles had been played by people you didn't know, I guarantee you that you wouldn't be lodging that complaint.

If you didn't like the movie because of its pacing or tone then that's one thing. But to not like it because the movie wasn't what YOU wanted it to be and you can't pay attention to something that doesn't have battle scenes or isn't 101% accurate, I feel, is totally unjustifiable.

I am far from Lincoln's biggest fan, but you need a real reason to criticize it.
meanmonkey22 writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 10:02:26 AM

You did this same sh*t to Hugo last year. You know, ive visited this site daily since 2007, back when it was simply a place for movie news (with the occasional rumor thrown in). But then the reviews went to sh*t, followed by a rampage of grammatical errors, personal opinions in articles, celebrity insults, and now I really feel like this site is being controlled by a 15 year old gamer nerd with too much teen angst. After 5 years of loyalty i am officially leaving this site and going to a better one. Worstpreviews has become PerezHiltonMovies and I want no part of it.
alexgi writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 10:08:07 AM

@velocityknown: I just wanted it to be entertaining. Is that asking too much? Isn't that why people go to theaters. This movie is equivalent to taking a well-deserved vacation and learning that you're staying in a beautiful hotel that's on top of a landfill. You apparently wouldn't mind, because according to you, people shouldn't expect to get things that they want.
velocityknown writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 10:38:02 AM

"There was very little shown about the war, and there was nothing about slavery. The entire movie is nothing more than a boring school textbook."

Like I said, wanting it to be entertaining is one thing (and a huge matter of opinion and a very broad one at that). You criticized it for the above reasons which is goes beyond entertainment. Why does the movie owe you anything about the Civil War or scenes about the hardships of slavery? That's like if I were to criticize Argo for not having enough scenes with Jimmy Carter trying to negotiate the release of hostages.

The movie doesn't owe you what story you want out of it.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 10:41:46 AM

Alex- You wrote a provocative article and got the response you wanted, you don't have to defend yourself. A film about something this important could be both accurate and entertaining but instead it is a snoozefest, I don't mind a drama but couldn't even sit through half of Lincoln (they joys of piracy), I probably will finish it one day as the acting was pretty solid and the film was shot well enough but I feel like Spielberg is losing his touch. I got a lot of other films on my list before to watch to be wasting time with that I'll just read Lincolns wikipedia article and get the "truth".
kate writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 11:49:54 AM

I agree with Alex on this one.
Deaft0ne writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 11:50:12 AM

Lincoln is not the worst film of 2012 but it is absolutely the worst Oscar-nominated film of 2012.

Yes it was very dry and stodgy and boring and mostly a visual sleeping-pill.

I enjoy plenty of longer movies but they told their story in a compelling manner that engaged me and kept my interest.

Che, Carlos, Mesrine, There Will Be Blood, The Thin Red Line, and Spielberg's own War Horse are great recent examples of this.

DDL was fine as Lincoln but the film comes off as dinner theater where everyone else is phoning it in because they know the star is the attraction.

I know a lot if people did not like Amistad but at least that had a hell of a petformance from Djimon Hounsou.

DDL never gave the same vibrancy in his performance.

Joaquin Phoenix gave the best performance this year in The Master and absolutely deserves to win even though he is trolling on a whole notha level by lying about becoming a vegan at 3 years old which is utter horsesh*t.

Argo deserves best picture imo.
Deaft0ne writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 11:53:23 AM

Performance^ and alex since you are reading this thread can you please FINALLY add an edit button?

AICN added this ability by switching to DISQUS and they are obviously older than WP.
Tanman32123 writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 11:54:41 AM

Ok.. First off, who the f*ck would ever refer to Lincoln as "The worst" Movie last year? Whoever said that should be taken out behind a barn and shot repeatedly.

As if there were NO worse films last year..

And Secondly, Yes, Yes it was a great film, perhaps amazing even. But boring as f*cking sh*t. I'll give you guys that.. It's Two hours of constant talking, But they do a damn good job of telling the story.

Not to mention that the actors did a phenomenal job in their roles, even Tommy Lee Jones was amazing..

Finally, don't get me wrong, I'm not American and I don't know THAT much about President Lincoln, But I highly doubt the film was nearly as Inacurate that you fine gentlemen make it out to seem.
Deaft0ne writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 12:02:35 PM


Yeah it's a bit much to say Lincoln was THE worst movie of 2012.

Total Remake, Twilight, The Hunger Games, Bourne Legacy, Prometheus, and The Words were all pieces of sh*t and worse than Lincoln.
kate writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 12:16:24 PM

I wish Lincoln will get 0 out of 12... Spielberg should go back to make fun movies like he used to in the 80's and stop chasing Oscars all the time.
darthpinto writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 12:51:46 PM

I agree with meanmonkey22. I would like to say that the adds on here are ruining this site.

Also, this is an idiot of an idea "Is Lincoln the Best or Worst Movie of the Year?". Even if all these complaints by the staffer @ w.p. are valid. what about the score, cinematography, wardrobe, and set production? I thought this site was made by movie fans.

pornfly writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 12:57:40 PM

Spielberg is touting this movie like a text book
With plans to ship copies to high schools and other educational facilities across the country.
But refuses to change the part of the movie that has a state voting against the freeing of slaves when they were clearly for it.
James Cameron changed the freakin stars in the sky in Titanic when pointed out by some twit with a telescope that they didnt match that time period.
pornfly writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 1:03:31 PM

lemme know how those military career choices are goin
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 1:30:03 PM

I watched Close Encounters the other day for the umpteenth time.

Spielberg used to have it man. Lincoln was boring. Very boring. To call it the worst mainstream movie of 2012 is f*cking bold, Alex. You must not watch very many movies. Judging by your articles that statement is probably more true than most of us would think, considering you run a movie website.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least half a dozen stinkers that more than likely shared a similiar budget. That really were garbage films.

I'm surprised you hold this much disappointment here. What the f*ck did you honestly expect? Gods ans Generals? Glory?

Grow up, Alex.
i124q writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 1:50:47 PM

I'm from the UK, so my knowledge of American history isn't great (though probably far better than most Americans!! Apologies to my cousins on here!!!), however I know enough. As everyone has stated, Day Lewis is fantastic in his portrayal as one of America's greatest Presidents (arguably Lincoln is one the greatest men to have ever lived) and yes the film is "boring". I understand why most people wouldn't enjoy seeing this at the cinema, no action etc. I got through it, didn't learn anything new, but admittedly I went to see it just for Daniel's performance. I agree with Triggax, Gods and Generals, Gettysberg were much better films (whatever happened to the 3rd one they said they'd do?). I hope Daniel gets the Oscar for best actor (making him the only actor to win 3) and that's the only award I would give it. I don't think Argo should sweep the boards (though will probably win best film and director) as that is full of inaccuracies too, really bad blatant one's in actual fact. Personally I'd give Django best film as it pretty much fulfills everything you want in a film. But hey, what do I know?
Sleuth1989 writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 2:52:22 PM

Alright you know what this is ridiculous! Who posts this garbage?! And in hell here knows what it means to be a good actor?! I'm so fed up with a movie having to be considered entertaining in the way that involves quirky dialogue, sexy women, and ridiculously stupid comedy. Nothing wrong at all with those things and I'd be a hypocrite to deny I like those kinds of movies but there is another end to the spectrum my friends. Some movies that are considered "boring" are actually the greatest showcases of true acting because that is how real people. They don't say the cleverest things every two seconds or make it seem like everything works out perfectly. Life is chaotic and unexpecting in the things we do and the things we say. Now yes some people are right in tune with each other and can throw a snappy chat between each other but that doesn't happen. You know what movie I hated this year and everyone else seems to like? "Silver Lining Playbook"! I think Jennifer Lawrence is just some rich girl who asked Mommy and Daddy to get her agent. She knows sh*t about life or actual human emotion in my eyes. She's the new Marilyn Monroe. She is cute and charming but really couldn't act to save her life and instead throws sh*t out there. Her performance was so overrated it kills me. Yeah she was funny and had some good lines but she is what she is real life...a spoiled little brat who talks sh*t about people and gets away with it. She doesn't act she plays the same thing in every movie and we call that acting? "Oh I am a tough as nails girl who thinks she knows life when really I just was able to legally drink a year ago. I read lines from a script and can muster some tears because I grew up not getting a pony." Heck she thinks acting is stupid anyone so to hell with her. Let's stop criticizing films that try to be a little more than pretty faces and catchy lines shall we? Yes these movies are slow but that's actual life. Deal guys. I apologize if I step on anyone's toes over this but man some films this year are blown out of proportion and some are getting crap for no reason. Let's focus on movies that say they are an advocate for bi-polarism and OCD when really they cover that for about the first 40 minutes and then jump into a predictable love/ sports story that makes no sense in regards to the characters. I would be more specific but no matter what I don't spoil a movie for others unless asked directly. Anyway as you can see I despise SLP this year. Lincoln may be historically inaccurate but dead again who are we to decide what history was. As some movies, and even video games like Assassin's Creed, overdramatize history has even tweaked based on opinion and letters of individuals f that time but unless anyone has a time machine there is no way for sure to know how it all went down. I loved the movie "Lincoln" for what it was trying to do. A man in the middle of a chaotic time in our nation trying to change the way things are against a world that was more than unwilling to change. And in the process we saw Sally Field portray a broken woman who lost one son and feared losing another in the senseless war that was the Civil War and that son trying to fight for something. Good messages and portrayals of life if you ask me.
Deaft0ne writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 3:10:40 PM


Ben Affleck is not nominated for an Oscar for directing Argo.

DDL's performance as Lincoln was very average and he sure as sh*t does not deserve to win just so he can have 3 Oscars. That's absurd.

He definitely deserved to win for My Left Foot and There Will Be Blood. He was also fantastic as Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York.

Joaquin Phoenix gave the best performance of the year in The Master, hands down.
Johnnyb writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 3:24:01 PM

Talking about if Lincoln deserve all the praises from nominations to critics reviews; in some ways it does and in some other ways doesn't.

Lincoln from the proyection of historical accuracy, entertainment or character development, the film itself doesn't try show a story of where does it began the problematic of slavery and where does it end. For me in any cases, I really enjoy the film, but for the way I see, it tries to tell a story based on the idealism of what was important for Lincoln during his leadership as president of the US, and his dealing with different members of the cabinet to work out a good deal for the liberation of the black men.

The conflict itself is not on the prospect about the slavery or do the negroes deserve to be free men as any being. But more important, it tries to elevate that any human being deserve something in this case fair, truth, equality and justice.

In any cases, Lincoln was a wrong title itself and bad merchandising.
vaodsi writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 3:38:44 PM

I found it extremely entertaining and saw it twice.

I was talking to a co-worker who said his only probelm with Inglorious Bastards was that, "There was lots of talking." The script is my favorite part of inglorious Bastards.

This same coworker went on to say that Battleship and Transformers 2 were among his favorite movies. I have not seen Battleship, but I did see Transformers 2. I was not entertained in the slightest but bored with the ridiculous action, crummy script and obnoxious characters.

All this to say that entertainment is in the eye of the beholder.
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 3:39:21 PM

I'm not sure I even understand the question. Why does Lincoln have to be the best or the worst? Can't it be somewhere in between? Surely there's some gray area on the issue, right? But let's examine either or.

Okay, so is it the worst? I can't see how. There were so many other films last year that were terrible, or sub-prime. I won't name any of them, but they're there.

So it's not the worst, and I think all but a very small minority would truly say it is. Certainly Daniel Day Lewis' knock-out performance saves it from that title, at least.

So is it the best? No idea. Could be, to some. But on what level? As entertainment? Probably not, but then again, entertaining is a relative term. Some might find the Discovery channel or TruTV far more entertaining than a Michael Bay marathon on TBS. I would.

Is it the most informative? Not really. There were plenty of other true doc*mentaries in 2012, and Lincoln is, at best, a skewed recreation with plenty of liberties taken with respect to the historical facts to accommodate the run-time.

So it's neither the most entertaining, nor the most informative. What is it? And that's the problem. It tries to be both, but it fails at both, so while it's not the worst movie of the year, in terms of all qualities we would refer to when discussing a film's merit, it certainly isn't the rousing success Spielberg probably intended, and one might ask if this was his shameless and contrived, and lazy even, grab at the Oscars, and if so, perhaps next time he should put his entire heart and mind into the project as he once did when he was younger, and if he can't do that, then perhaps assists someone more hungry and genuine is the pursuit.
vaodsi writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 3:48:21 PM

"Nothing about slavery." WTF did you even see this movie Alex? Or understand the dialogue? Lol. Damn. Nothing about slavery.

"Now here's where it gets truly slippery. I use the law allowing for the seizure of property in a war knowing it applies only to the property of governments and citizens of belligerent nations. But the South ain't a nation, that's why I can't negotiate with'em. If in fact the Negroes are property according to law, have I the right to take the rebels' property from 'em, if I insist they're rebels only, and not citizens of a belligerent country? And slipperier still: I maintain it ain't our actual Southern states in rebellion but only the rebels living in those states, the laws of which states remain in force. The laws of which states remain in force. That means, that since it's states' laws that determine whether Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property - the Federal government doesn't have a say in that, least not yet then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my war powers allow me to confiscate'em as such. So I confiscated 'em. But if I'm a respecter of states' laws, how then can I legally free'em with my Proclamation, as I done, unless I'm cancelling states' laws? I felt the war demanded it; my oath demanded it; I felt right with myself; and I hoped it was legal to do it, I'm hoping still. Two years ago I proclaimed these people emancipated - "then, hence forward and forever free."But let's say the courts decide I had no authority to do it. They might well decide that. Say there's no amendment abolishing slavery. Say it's after the war, and I can no longer use my war powers to just ignore the courts' decisions, like I sometimes felt I had to do. Might those people I freed be ordered back into slavery? That's why I'd like to get the Thirteenth Amendment through the House, and on its way to ratification by the states, wrap the whole slavery thing up, forever and aye. As soon as I'm able. Now. End of this month. And I'd like you to stand behind me. Like my cabinet's most always done."
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 3:50:52 PM

I wish Alex had widened the discussion. Instead of boxing us into a simple yay or nay question, he should have should asked "If not Lincoln, then what movie is 2012's worst, and why?".
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 4:04:24 PM

Or best, but I think we've had that discussion already. And it's not The Avengers either. Probably Django or The Master.
velocityknown writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 4:13:53 PM

I didn't care for Lincoln and I wish Spielberg would be 80s Spielberg again and stop making movies that so plainly pander to the Academy voters, but Alex's reasons for disliking the movie need to go beyond: "It did not meet my expectations of what I wanted it to be" and "These big name actors didn't have enough screen time or showy scenes."
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 5:11:55 PM

Best movie I watched in 2012 was Life of Pi.. I think. I also really enjoyed The Master.

Lincoln, I liked. Not the best I've ever witnessed but certainly not as bad as this ridiculous article suggests.
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 5:19:42 PM

^^did you like Django?
Trivia Newton John writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 5:22:38 PM

Fell asleep. It was a sh*tpile. Maybe you've got to be American to like it, I don't know....
Dreamcast writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 5:26:36 PM

Lincoln is clearly a playwright's movie. Filled with endless monologues and too many characters and not much plot. Good for actors, boring for us. And how did Abraham Lincoln become the least interesting character in Lincoln?

Lincoln = Big Speeches in Small Rooms. If that sounds interesting to you, fine. If it sounds like the cure for insomnia...it is.
vaodsi writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 5:28:40 PM

The hobbit pretty much sucked. I really like the LOTR trilogy and am a fan of the book, but the adaption was so bloated. A nine hour adaption of a slender children's novel is just beating a dead horse for cash.

I really liked Django and Life Of Pi. Cabin in the woods, while not the best film of the year, entertained me a lot, far more than the Avengers, which I found well made but silly and certainly not worth its hype. The Master was just f*cking gorgeous and had some of the best acting I've seen all year. I couldn't get that movie out of my head.
Tanman32123 writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 5:44:27 PM

Yea! What they said!

And thanks Deaft
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 5:54:18 PM


Django was hard NOT to like, though because it was so highly praised by film fanatics, I think that really leaves it open to harsher criticisms. I thought about 30 minutes could have been cut from the second half of the film.

Sometimes the interaction between the whites and blacks seemed too over the top. The film seemed to try to make a point about how awful slave owners were, while at the same time making them likeable and hilarious? Seems redundant.

I loved Don Johnson in the film and though Sam Jackson played his part well.

Christoph Waltz was mesmerizing. The scene near the beginning where he shoots the towns sheriff and explains to the Marshall that he is now owed 200$ was a lot of fun to watch unfold.

The gun battles were awesome and the montage in the second act was absolute perfection.

All in all, could have been cropped for time and eased off on the heavy handedness... But thats Tarantino for you, love him or hate him. I liked the movie quite a bit though. I've yet to be disappointed by Tarantino. Kill Bill 2 is still my favorite QT flick. Unless you count True Romance, then its True Romance.
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 6:08:20 PM

So honestly, in my opinion, The Master got shafted this year. By far the best film of 2012, I mean, as far as all the ingredients being perfect, The Master hit it.

I think the themes presented in The Master put off a lot of people in Hollywood, the foreign press sure didn't like the film, not sure about the academy, the fact that it didn't receive an oscar nod for best picture, when there are TEN f*cking spots, is absolutely disgraceful. I really enjoyed Silver Linings Playbook, but I'm sorry, I enjoyed it about as much as I though, the Proposal was better than most sh*tty romantic comedies, or Love Actually was a great ensemble romance... f*cking best picture? actor? actress? Are we really giving this cheap romantic comedy this much praise? The academy seems to like David Russel, as far as I'm concerned even with The Fighter, Bale should have been the only part of that film recognized for anything. How does Russel all of the sudden start racking sh*t together like this when he was making way better movies in the 90s? With absolutely no awards consideration what-so-ever.. Three Kings, way better than either of his last two films. Flirting with Disaster WAY better, Alan Alda deserved an oscar for that role, easy....

I think there are some good films at the oscars this year... Zero Dark Thirty, regardless of its content was a damn good movie. I feel the same about Argo, if you look at these films as films and not f*cking doc*mentaries, they were amongst the best of the year... I stand behind the fact that I SERIOUSLY believe if any movie deserves the best picture oscar it's Argo, with the obvious runner up being Life of Pi.

Amour was boring Heneke tripe. He seems to try to cater to the academy every year with a maybe its foreign maybe its not film, which for some reason never ends up in the foreign category?? Why the f*ck even have a foreign f*cking category if Amour gets nominated for best picture? Yet the Master which is very much an American film... Dont get it.

Beast of the southern wild, although very very good, should be in the foreign category imo..

Les Miserables, that f*cking movie.. Gawd, I didn't like the story the first 800 different ways I saw it told. Hugh Jackman was very good here though and I would love to see him win the oscar over Day Lewis.

I have a feeling that Day Lewis will be nominated another 30 times before he dies, so he doesn't need this award for Lincoln, I'd like to see him win it for a better film.

BTW, Just watched In the Name of the Father, again.. f*ck i LOVE that movie!! Pete Posthelwaite man, so good. If Day Lewis didn't win for that, he surely does NOT deserve an oscar for lincoln.

Phoenix is the only person that truly deserves that oscar. Not one performance from 2012 could even hold a candle to the work he did there.
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 6:12:53 PM

Another really amazing, over looked Day Lewis film, was the Boxer, another Jim Sheridan IRA film. A little sloppy on the delivery but all in all a very good flick.

f*ck, Sheridan was once such an amazing director. Then he made a 50 Cent biopic and yeah that was that.

Also, if you can get around Winona Ryders absolutey dreadful acting, The Crucible was pretty dope, Day Lewis was great there.
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 6:30:28 PM

If anyone else on this website knows more about movies than you, Trig, f*ck if I know who the f*ck that person is. Christ almighty.

But don't go getting a big head either, because I haven't seen most of last years films, although I plan on catching up.

I do agree Phoenix smashed a home run for The Master, and I think Jamie Foxx is a largely under-rated actor, from Collateral up to Django. I also think I might be getting a little tired of Hoffman, even if he almost never fails to deliver a solid performance, even if each and every performance is much of a derivation from his previous performance.

I think Daniel Day Lewis, like you said, has a huge f*cking future sweeping awards. Seems like he was born to do just that, as he takes his roles seriously, and he takes serious roles, which is an attitude that has served him spectacularly, obviously.

Life of Pi was fine, but perhaps a little too empty, existentially, as whatever message it was trying to provide either didn't resonate with me, or it was a subtle, quiet message meant more to be felt and not heard. Or maybe I'm just full of sh*t. Probably.

Thee Dark Knight Rises, to switch to more commercial ventures, was an over-long and somewhat rushed conclusion to Nolan's trilogy, and I think he was in such a hurry to wrap it up, he didn't make it as much his story as TDK, borrowing heavily from The Dark Knight Returns as much as he did.

The Avengers was fine, being what it was. A commercial large-scale fund drive for Marvel/Disney. Too commercial, too by the numbers, too Dark of the Moon to merit much acclaim or applause or consideration other than for what it plainly was.

I already said what I needed to about Dredd, and I wouldn't mind another one of the same quality.

Cabin in the Woods I didn't like, not because it was a bad movie per se, but because it's obvious how it was made, and because it's construction wasn't nearly as clever as I had heard, which soured me on the film throughout. The cgi wasn't very convincing, I felt, and it's clear Whedon simply took a previous film, hacked off the third act and part of the second, and stitched on something he read somewhere, perhaps in a cheap horror anthology. The premise was dumb, there was virtually no scares, and I found myself predicting what would happen thirty minutes in advance. not a bad film, but assuredly nothing like the work of genius I had heard.
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 6:45:27 PM

No big head here. I just watch a lot of movies. You most likely will only get this much from me for the next day or so then it's back to f*cking work.

Cabin in the Woods, was labeled as such because in comparison to what you see in the particular genre, as of late, it was what it was, a f*cking masterpiece. Does that mean it truly is? No way in hell, it is because the rest of the crap it's up against, says it is.

At the time of its release I think it came out against a straight to dvd 7th instalment of Wrong Turn, I mean... Yeah, that's what you get.

You want to see some seriously excellent new horror films, that don't play on the negativity of the genre and actually help to evolve horror, which are also not gratuitous and just good f*cking horror films, like horror used to be?

Here's two titles of the top of my head that, if they were as mainstream as Cabin in the Woods, could actually change the genre for the better, instead we get what we're told is a masterpiece that adds absolutely nothing to the genre other than Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins being incredible on screen together.. Who would have thought.

Anyways, im off topic here... Check out, Behind the Mask:Rise of Leslie Vernon, and a thai film, might be harder for you to find, called The Coffin.

These films push the envelope in ways that Cabin in the Woods attempted to but failed at. If you like genre benders, specifically horror then check those out if you haven't seen them. For now, if you like them I can rattle off a few hundred more.. ;)
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 6:54:48 PM

Go for it, Trig. I'm listening, and I'm sure there are others, and in a few days WP will be back to a "whose joke d*ck is bigger" marathon, so better now than ever.

And...I looked for The Coffin, and found, Coffin, starring Kevin Sorbo. I knew THAT wasn't right, so I added the "the" onto the title and found to what you were referring. Interesting. What did you think of the blue tint? Overdone? Seems to have a not particularly high IMDb rating too, not that I would ever trust IMDb explicitly. Are most Westerners just too boorish for such a film? And what's with all the Asian flicks pushing boundaries and developing innovation in horror? Just a trend, or a portent of a time when even films are better made outside the US, or has that moment already arrived?
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 7:04:40 PM

I hated Hoffman as Capote.

I think Toby Jones nailed that role and got completely overlooked and shafted because of Hoffmans bloated over the top academy baiting.

Hoffman is good, he's very good, his problem seems to be that he cares more about the fame and awards recognition for his work than anything else. Which completely sets him apart from Day Lewis. I think Lewis just has a need to be the best at his craft. Hoffman knows he can pull crazy sh*t off and he constantly uses it to his advantage to bait the foreign press and the academy into what are in reality subpar performances.

Take Doubt, for instance.. That film was made for no other reason than to garnish awards and to make money off the coat tails of the nominations, the release of the film was just days before the nominations came out, these nods put interest into a film that the general public would most likely have never wasted any time on, Doubt was adapted from a playwright, so it played a lot like Lincoln, this is actually an interesting comparison. Lincoln was very similiar in its tone and delivery to Doubt, the big difference being Lincoln was Spielberg and Spielberg is synonomous with success. He has had quite a bit of success releasing just about anything around the holiday season.. Where as Doubt was released in January just days before the oscar announcements. Same movie, different marketing, just as f*cking boring and undeserving of its awards.

A lot of that ^ is rambling but hopefully you get where I was going with that. I'm not a brilliant writer so sometimes I get lost.

If Hoffman were to win an oscar for any film he has done in the past, it should have absolutely been supporting awards for Boogie Nights and Happiness as well as, a best actor award for Before the Devil Knows your Dead. Which I absolutely loved. Can't go wrong with Ethan Hawke.

Mink, did you watch In Time? With Timberlake? Just thinking of Hawke, I'm a huge Gattaca fan, and Lord of War, Niccols most recent was In Time, I felt a little underwhelmed by it, sadly.
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 7:11:21 PM

Rambling haha..

Asian horror, at least what western civilization sees asian horror as, is garbage, what we remake and hold in high regard as the scariest sh*t ever, is usually just as bad as the american remakes. Ringu, Ju-On, Kairo, Tale of Two Sisters... These films are held in the highest regard in the horror genre, in my opinion theyre all garbage, the same film we've made them into in North America, cheap non scary money makers, they serve the same purpose in Asia.

I like Korean Horror, they're able to literally make even the most obviously not horror films into the greatest horror films.

If The Shining was a master piece of the genre, then surely Oldboy and Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, and Memories of Murder and I Saw the Devil, would be in the same category and regarded as horror masterpieces.

We're so desensitized we see these films as crime dramas.

I remember in 1991 Silence of the Lambs was seriously regarded as a horror film of the highest caliber, ask anyone under the age of 25 about it, they will tell you it is absolutely a Crime Drama, no horror element. I find that to be absolutely crazy. the internet f*cked everything over man.

Anyways, the Coffin, you may or may not like.. Definitely one you have to just see for yourself.. If you like it though, you'll understand what I'm saying here.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 7:15:15 PM

Life Of Pi was definitely the most beautiful film I've ever seen in the cinema and one of the only times I've felt paying the extra for the 3D was worth it. Ang Lee is definitely one of the best directors out there at the moment to do so much with so little. Every shot seemed to be perfect, the birds eye view shots of the boat at night, where it looked like it was floating on the stars, f*cking amazing. Not sure if I would have loved the film so much on a small tv without the 3D though.

Looper was another film I enjoyed a lot even with the lack of logic. My personal favourite film of last year though The Raid, all day, that's what action films should be.
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 7:24:49 PM

I liked Looper quite a bit. I've also had this argument about a dozen times about the logic of the film.

Time travel does not exist, at least not right now. So, where does anyone decide that the film is not logical? is that logic based on all the concrete scientific evidence we have doc*mented on how time travel works?

I think a movie about time travel can use whatever f*cking logic it wants because there is no logic to it until it becomes fact.
cress writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 7:46:10 PM

@Triggax. I thought IN TIME was horrible. I don't think anyone could have made that film any good. The concept was fairly stupid, imo. And I'm a huge fan of GATTACA, and always thought Niccol was going to be a great fyture filmmaker. Now he's directing a Stephanie Meyer adaptation. Very disappointing that he's been a mediocre director ever since his promising start with GATTACA
cress writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 7:49:49 PM

OK, and since SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was brought up, I wanna know which serial killer film people prefer--SEVEN or SILENCE OF THE LAMBS?
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:07:17 PM

Silence was better.

Is the short and sweet of it.
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:12:15 PM

"I think a movie about time travel can use whatever f*cking logic it wants because there is no logic to it until it becomes fact."

It boils down to yes, time travel does have a logic, not because it's a fact, but because the mathematics, based on Einsteins field equations, have been studied rigorously for nearly a century.

The field equations are what determine how space and time evolve with respect to gravity, and bending space back upon itself is the only way of time-traveling, and you'd have to have ridiculous, and I mean ridiculous amounts of energy to travel back in time because energy would need to be converted into matter, and matter would be needed to warp space back upon itself. And then you could only go back so far to the point when the "time machine" was made. No further.

Even in Kip Thorne's scenario, using wormholes with one mouth moving relativistically with respect to the other, you're still warping space, and in addition to massive amounts of energy/matter, you'd need what's called exotic energy, which probably doesn't even exist, and if it did, you couldn't produce much of it, and you'd again need astronomical amounts of normal energy to just make a few micrograms. Even antimatter is far easier to make than exotic energy, and like I said, it doesn't exist. Regardless, Thorne's highly unlikely scenario would only, ONLY deliver as far back as when you made the "time machine". In fact, every single known theoretical scenario results in the very same condition.

So when you say tiime travel isn't a fact, you're right in that no one has built a working time machine, but wrong in that theoretical models using preposterously difficult mathematics have been constructed showing that if time travel were possible, it wold take this and this form with this and this condition.

One other thing I'll say, and that's that on the matter. David Deutsch popularized the notion that if you could travel back in time, and if you somehow got around the limitation of goig no further than the moment the time machine turned on, you'd actually be in another universe, an alternate one, almost indistinguishable from the one you were previously in. This conception is little more than philosophy, though. There's nothing behind it, really except the original concept. No mathematics of which to speak, no physics, just little more than what you might see in a Hollywood movie, which brings me to my closing statement.

Most people, and I mean generally all of them , think time travel is something you can do technologically like microwaving a pizza or combusting an octane molecule. It's not. Why? Because YOU are part of time and space. You're not separate. If you think of space and time as one 4D structure, like a 4D rubber rug, you would be "embedded" in that structure too. You;re part of it, not separate. You think time and space is something you experience, but it isn't. You are as much a part of spacetime as a floral print is part of a welcome mat. You cannot leave spacetime to travel back to other parts of the spacetime without either radically warping, and I can't even begin to describe what I mean by radical, or by TEARING the structure of reality itself.

I hope I've explained myself in way that makes some sense.
cress writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:13:41 PM

Since this is a Spielberg thread, I just wanna mention that the classic POLTERGEIST is on TCM right now. And it's a Spielberg film, through and through. There is no way Tobe Hooper directed that film. Spielberg's touches are all over it.
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:14:49 PM

Silence was a better film, technically, I agree, but Seven was more film noirish watchable. It was darker, grittier, more nihilistic and bleak. To that I might add Pitt's acting was barely tolerable and Freeman phoned it all in. On the other hand Spacey ruled, which is no surprise.
cress writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:27:23 PM

I prefer SEVEN. I think SILENCE is a great film as well, but SEVEN just punches all the right buttons for me. I love the way Fincher shot that film. And of course that ending is a doozy .
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:29:44 PM

"Looper was another film I enjoyed a lot even with the lack of logic"

I agree. And I mean, people expect things to follow other things. People expect consistency. No one ever sees a broken egg reassemble itself off the floor and fly into a frying pan. Time has an arrow, and people expect that if event b is predicated on event a, then event a had better f*cking happen in such a way that event b can happen, and Looper violated that concept entirely, repeatedly without regard to the audiences innate common sense understanding of time's arrow.

In addition, setting aside such objections, Looper wasn't even all that entertaining. In fact I kept waiting for it to end, and I hated the idea of one JGL and Willis fighting each other, which made no sense, really. JGL's character was fighting to survive, and so was Willis' so it would have made more sense I think for them to cooperate to ensure each other's long term existence, and yet they didn't. They were merely fighting for the time in which they were each living and though that might make some sense initially, neither was even the least bit curious about the other which I find highly unlikely in the extreme, even if they are both old hands at temporal homicide.

And why didn't Willis remember what happened to himself when he was younger? He didn't. It was like it didn't happen. You'd think JGL's character wouldn't have wanted to die in the future, but he didn't seem to even consider that issue.

To be honest, I didn't even understand the movie. It was heavily implied the sort of time travel used was the sort you usually see in films. One universe, guy goes back to an earlier point. And yet Willis didn't seem to recall his pertinent past, and yet when the past DID explicitly change, it changed in a weird way like it was taking its sweet time, although much like Frequency, it allowed the characters to remember what should have never happened.

Looper was pretty much all over the place, really. Tried to be a mindf*ck and failed because it made no sense, and because it thought it was such a brilliant take on a very old matter, didn't try too hard to give the audience the action we would have accepted as a compensation for the ridiculous time travel mechanisms.
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:38:47 PM

Yah Mink I see what you're saying. I think that most everyone including myself, have a hard time fathoming that the time around you you're traveling through. Is you. I have considerable knowledge of these ideas. My argument is simply that no matter what you say. Until someone time travels its still just theory. The day that happens and the logic from Looper is thrown out the window well then there is no argument. Anyone can argue the idea of time travel not being either right or wrong. Because we have yet to do so. Is it possible? Who knows.. Maybe...

Did you watch Primer, mink? That was interesting.

Also. Check out Timecrimes. You might like it seeing as you obviously have some interest in the topic. About a man that learns to time travel very slightly into his past. With very troublesome consequences. Almost a mild horror film. Check it out.

I also feel the same about Seven and in all seriousness I didn't really love the film. You're right on point with the awful performance from Brad Pitt. An amazing ending almost completely ruined by Pitts incability to express the proper emotion. When he opens the box at the end. His reaction. Extremely amateurish. Spacey was just okay too. I didn't think he was as good as he could have been.

Speaking of spacey. Has anyone checked out the Netflix original series. House of cards? Spacey is on his A game here. I've always loved him as an American southerner. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. Not Eastwoods best but certainly a showcase for spacey.

triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:42:39 PM

triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:47:03 PM

I didn't honestly like Looper enough to give a sh*t. My problems weren't with inconsistencies in the plot and with time travel. (If you remember I enjoyed Prometheus) My problem was that I loved Brick and when I heard Rian Johnson and JGL were teaming up for a film about time travel assassinations I could have sh*t. So I put too much into the film and walked out of it disappointed regardless of the time travel aspect.
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:48:47 PM

Not disappointed. I still liked the film. Did not live up to my expectations would be a better explanation.
cress writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:49:44 PM

The problem I had with LOOPER, and it's more of a criticism, is the TK storyline. Here you have one fantastical idea with time travel, and that should've been enough, and you also introduce this other fantastical concept with the TKs. I don't think the film needed the TK storyline. It did provide for some visually cool shots with that Akira-like kid, but the Looper storyline could've existed without it.
Fightclub1 writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:53:01 PM

Does anyone know a good bootleg site? It would be much appreciated
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:54:05 PM

Trig: all I will say is this, and I'll let it go.

Evolution is, as some are wont to say, "just a theory", despite all the science involved.

More importantly, scientists haven't evolved any new species. Yet.

But no one is suggesting, no one would dare suggest, that if we were to try to create a wholly new lifeform never before seen in the world, out would come a Peterbuilt cement truck, and that's my argument here.
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:55:11 PM

"Does anyone know a good bootleg site? It would be much appreciated"

What KIND of bootleg site?
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 8:58:09 PM

I completely see what you're saying.

Makes perfect sense and I have to say I agree with you.

I will say this though and leave it at that.

I don't tend to hold a films merits on their ability to explain how time travel works to me. Reasons I did like Looper, Jeff Daniels. Paul Danos short appearance and the very subtle look of the near future, not polished and very real looking. The motorcycles that hadn't quite been perfected yet I quite enjoyed.

Anyways I'm done. Time Travel Shrime Shravel..
triggax writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:00:23 PM

Like Hooch? Where to buy Shine?

Banana Brandy? Bootlegged cigarettes? Prada Handbags?

We don't steal movies here at WP so i'm sure that's not what you're getting at.
Fightclub1 writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:01:48 PM

@mink one for movies that I can watch for free and don't have to create an account
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:27:40 PM

Well Trig, **I** steal movies, but only when I bring my large waist pants to Best Buy.

@Fighclub: Ummm, sorry, no good answer bro. If you're looking for streaming movies, I sometimes use 180upload or Uploadcore. For filelockers, Depositfiles, Rapidgater, so on but they're all pay to play if you want decent download speeds.

I just usually use The Piratebay and watch them from my hard drive. Can't really get BluRay from streaming anyway. Not like you can from torrent or USENET.

Problem is, economy. You're on someone else's dime with these sites. Filelockers want you to pay, streaming sites want you to pay. Torrent sites expect you to seed seed seed, which is why there's usually a ratio. Bandwidth and storage cost money and altruism isn't much of a business model.
Kurskij writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:36:38 PM

Wow, movie talk.

To answer the question: no, "Lincoln" is not the worst movie of they year, neither is it the best. Did it deserve 12 noms (most this year) - no, no it didn't. It's an Oscar grab, and a personal project for Spielberg that either got a bit derailed in the process, or he' s simply feeding his ego these days by making Oscar baits.

Remember when 5 years ago or so they tried repeatedly to get this project off the ground with Neeson as "Lincoln"? It's not a bad movie, but it could've been so much better. It's a safe movie, very-very formularic (if that's the appropriate word), impeccably made (no surprise considering the people involved) - but it feels empty, it feels fake. There was another movie like this a couple of years ago - "Doubt".

It felt like an exercise in technic from everyone involved - Spielberg, Lewis, Kaminsky etc. Only Jones and Straitharn stood out (then again, Straitharn seems incapable of fake acting). Field I didn't like at all, no idea how she got nominated. Guess they really like her.
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 9:47:17 PM

Pretty sure whatever nom Fields received, it was out of pity. Either that, or because people were shocked how well she fit the role of a woman who lived before the advent indoor plumping, modern makeup and adamantium girdles. Ugh.
Kurskij writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 10:01:49 PM

Lots of interesting opinions here, btw. It's been a long time.

@trig, mink
"The Master got shafted this year. By far the best film of 2012, I mean, as far as all the ingredients being perfect, The Master hit it"

It basically an art house movie. This year those spots are reserved for "Beasts..." and "Amour" for some reason.

"Amour was boring Heneke tripe. He seems to try to cater to the academy every year with a maybe its foreign maybe its not film, which for some reason never ends up in the foreign category?"

Not the first time that happens. Amelie is the first that comes to mind. I didn't mind Amour, it was well acted and technically great - liked the cinematography, and, much to my surprise, wasn't bored for a moment. But it's an excruciatingly depressing movie. What was the point of it? Another exercise in style and technic from Haneke. It seems that he hates humanity so much if he didn't have a chance to make movies he'd be stabbing people in the streets or setting houses on fire. But, considering average age of academy members, not hard to see why it got all those nods.

"BTW, Just watched In the Name of the Father, again.. f*ck i LOVE that movie!! Pete Posthelwaite man, so good."

Golden years of Sheridan- Day-Lewis collaborations. I always thought Boxer was underrated. Hard movie to watch, but unlike many others its not overly manipulative and feels honest, raw.

Btw, didn't like "Crucible" - IMO, it suffered from the same problems as Lincoln.

About Phoenix's tour de force in Master - he still might get the Oscar, but most likely it will go to Day-Lewis.

Dude went sooo far out there, it's on the level of "On the waterfront", "Taxi Driver" and Day-Lewis's own "gangs of New York" or "In the name of father". To take such a challenging role and make it his own - that truly is something. No overacting (that would've been very, very easy), no useless hysterics. But as I've said, perhaps the movie was a bit too strange for him to get this ultimate recognition.

Enough for now I guess, I missed the party anyway.

Kurskij writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 10:11:57 PM

Oh, and about Zero Dark Thirty.

I liked it, but was this movie really necessary? At least right now? I mean if we're talking about it from a creative point of view, not awards grab or cash grab?

Sure, it was hard to get it off the ground, it's very well made and it must have been hell to edit it. But if it was the very same movie, but without Bin Laden as a target, would it get the same level of recognition?

^this question is kinda pointless, since it's the very reason why it got made and they started working on it before Bin Laden was killed, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

Best editing, best adapted screenplay, even best director nods - sure. But best picture? I don't think it deserves it.

Btw, I thought Jason Clark gave the best performance in the movie and if Chastain got the nod - he sure as hell, should've gotten it too.
minkowski writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 10:28:42 PM

That's the Kurskij I remember.
Fightclub1 writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 10:55:38 PM

@mink oh okay, thanks anyway bro! And it's not on my behalf just to clarify. My friend wants to watch Django
solidgoldweedwacker writes:
on February 18th, 2013 at 10:59:35 PM

"The Master" was over-rated, a hipster side show that was far to long and boring.
Tanman32123 writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 12:49:36 AM

I wish I came on this site more then I do, It'd be nice to actually be in the discussion for once lol.. You guys comment too fast lol

And From what you said Mink, I'd like to believe that a lot of people on this site would be in contending for the title of "Most Knowledgable on movies" or something of the sort.

Concidering I'm only 20, I'd like to believe I've seen a lot of movies and have the know how to show off and or have a decent conversation when it comes to the topic.

I'm going on about my 15th movie I've seen in theaters this year already lol :P
OneTime writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 12:54:37 AM

hahah wow
i124q writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 3:21:54 AM


I did not say DDL should win the Oscar for Best Actor just to make it 3. I said I hope he wins it as I think it's deserved. If he does win it, he would be the only Actor to have won 3 Best Actor awards. (And before anyone points it out, yes I know Jack Nicholson has 3 wins, but 1 of those is for Supporting Actor.)

As for Ben Affleck, I stand corrected :-)

And just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, I thought The Master was on a par with Lincoln, no worse, no better.
Panda writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 3:42:24 AM

Trigg, I would thoroughly enjoy it if you made a list of these movies you mention. Jesus, 95% of them I've never even heard of and my memory is terrible and declining by the minute. I suppose I could keep a little notebook on me when I browse through the comments, but that sounds like too much like work.
darthpinto writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 3:48:04 AM

Sleuth1989 comment is a fine example of someone living with a mental disorder and denying everything to do with their condition....just saying.

Really read his comment!
Panda writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 3:58:35 AM

^^^Dude I tried. Read the first 4 lines and started getting a migraine
jikae writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 4:32:02 AM

Sitting here and reading some of argument points has been pretty interesting, but regarding the entertainment of the movie; it comes down to this.

When you hear the name Abraham Lincoln.

Immediately, there are 2 things that come to mind.

1. The Civil War
2. Abolishment of slavery

Now, I've yet to see the movie, but reading most of the reviews and the article above, both points were barely touched upon. (Except I guess the abolishment of slavery because it was more on the political process behind it.)

Just my .02.
Tanman32123 writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 4:46:30 AM

It's like he's never heard of a Paragraph :P
ENFORCER writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 5:51:03 AM

Have not seen it, don't want to see it! Don't give a f*ck !!!
Paloche writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 8:56:18 AM

I'm sorry but this movie was so boring ! I almost left the theater. Great performance, good historical background but where is the story ?
I wanted to see something about Lincoln's life no a movie about a few months of his life. All the political drama left me aside as if it was a private movie... too bad !
Deaft0ne writes:
on February 19th, 2013 at 8:22:25 PM

The Master absolutely eclipses Lincoln and is not 'hipster' at all. It's a lot like a Kubrick or Fellini film.

It's not an easy film to watch and deserves a lot more credit than these misguided comparisons.

I have watched it 5 times now and it gets better each time.
seveltoto writes:
on October 28th, 2017 at 8:33:50 AM

aleale writes:
on November 11th, 2017 at 10:39:25 AM

sevelace writes:
on November 15th, 2017 at 12:21:28 AM

recreator9 writes:
on November 18th, 2017 at 11:26:18 PM

nikitavirza writes:
on January 21st, 2018 at 11:10:23 PM

Jenifer_616 writes:
on February 16th, 2018 at 4:50:03 AM

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"The Flash" Movie Hires Director

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved