I plan to see the film in both formats to make up my own mind about for 48fps. But it is a fact that disorientation sickness already affects a large population that see 3D movies. Not everyone's brain is wired the same.
I think I like the idea that this became 3 movies, and will have a 9 hour running time to watch them all. The same criticism was applied to Lord of the Rings too - it's too long - it could have been done in one movie. As we saw, you could not have shortened it, and in fact the 4 hour versions were better than the 3. Jackson pulled it off then, and I think he will here too. The universe he is presenting is richer than anything we have seen (short of Oz or Avatar), and I am looking forward to absorbing it all.
Let us only hope that Jackson makes enough form this one that he also commits to make JRR Tolkien's real prequel "The Children of Hurin"!
Saw it in 48fps 3D today and totally agree - it looks absolutely horrendous.
Actually Galadriel and Saruman are a part of the story of the Hobbit, although they don't actively appear in the book, their actions occur during the story and are relayed by Gandalf in both the Hobbit and LOTR, so it is not inappropriate that they are in the film. They will play a larger role when the White Council drive out the Nazgul king from Dol Guldur, which should be in film 2.
On TVs you have this feature for about 10 years. On modern 200 HZ TVs you could watch Blu Rays with 96 fps which even looks smoother than the Hobbits 48 fps.
I like the effekt and hope they will increase it to 96 fps in the future.
48fps is here to stay. The younger generation are absolutely lapping it up if the early word-of-mouth from HFR screenings is any indicator.
And the Avatar sequels will be even better suited to it.
I am amazed by this review. I was in the "love-it" camp on Cloud Atlas. I love Tykwer's work (ALL OF IT! yes in CAPS), but this was a unique joy - a thoughtful, taking its time, supurb movie about a complex subject. Tom Hands as the gangster was too much fun, but it just proved all of the cast to be the true professionals they are. But it was also a movie about fate and destiny. Sonmi was more that just another V-like story, it is something that we will deal with as humans, just as we have dealt with it in the past (as Lincoln shows so well). So I wanted to thank you for the ONLY well written review of this movie I have found, and for being a reviewer that "gets" it.
Reminds me of Terry Pratchett's "HogFather" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765458/
Matt was wrong. It is the best Spielberg film I've seen. It did an amazing job of capturing the time, the events, what was at stake and the emotion of it all. Daniel Day phenomenal as usual. What a humble, intellectual giant Lincoln was facilitating the best possible outcome. The only thing I'm sensing from the negative reviews is an inability to get out of the 2012 comfort zone for a couple of hours. I'd love to see what movies the naysayers like. On second thought spare me.
Matt got it right. The movie was painstakingly slow. It was 30 minutes too long. I felt myself saying, "so what." The 13th Amendment was important, but did we need a major Hollywood movie dedicated to the passage of it? I am glad a reviewer was bold enough to speak the truth. It reminded me of Elaine admitting she hated the "English Patient."
AWFUL analysis, although the characterization of the scene addressing the Gettysburg Address is apt.
I, for one, am relieved the film sidestepped most of the gaggy trappings of forensic pseudo-psychology, the insufferable id-hunt, of this man. Seriously, aren't we all tired of the standard formula Just-So analyses of the supposed daddy issues and other such repressions? Isn't there room in film today to present such a compelling story of a democratically elected leader's challenges, intuition, and skill wielding his quite limited government powers to accomplish sweeping change?
A TOTAL SNOOZEFEST! SPARE YOURSELF, DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE!
I really wanted to like this movie, but I did not. It was a bore, over-long and over-directed. Not even showing the assassination was a huge let-down.
Interestingly, Gregory Peck did play Lincoln once, in the TV miniseries THE BLUE AND THE GRAY.
Thanks for writing!
I agree with this review. I especially disliked Lewis' performance. It felt cartoonish, contrived, forced, wooden. It felt completely outside-in acting. I longed for someone like Gregory Peck to play this role, someone with heart and soul and quiet wisdom. I am a big Lewis fan, but was very disappointed in his performance.
The movie was too slow. I felt like I was watching C-SPAN live coverage, only it was an 1800's version of it. I don't mean to sound like a Puritan, because I am not one; however, too many bawdy comments came out of Lincoln's mouth. That's a shame, because he has so many beautiful, sagacious quotes that were very Biblical in nature. I also found some of the dialogue to be too difficult to hear. Maybe that's me just needing a Miracle Ear - or something. :--) I give the movie a B-
You are wrong.
Lincoln is a powerful and entertaining movie. Also, educational.
Powerful is the best word.
I found it very moving.
Amazing movie and important. Many Americans understand so little of our history. My expectations were high and the movie exceeded them. The screen play should win the Oscar. Elegant and concise. I thought I would be disappointed in the narrow scope, but the decision to focus on the 13th amendment was correct. Thrilling. Sally Field was outstanding in a role every bit is difficult as Daniel Day Lewis'. Well written and well acted.
We are fortunate to have this piece of art in existence. Whatever the shortcomings perceived by some, we all benefit from understanding a little about this seminal moment in human history and the man whose vision and leadership made it happen.
You precisely captured my feelings with your description of the prologue as "embarrassing in it's heavy-handedness". Indeed, Sally Field's performance was more shrill and obnoxious than realistically mentally ill.
Predictably, most of the abolitionists, including Lincoln, came off as a little too like-able. Lincoln slaps his son in a socially-acceptable manner, showing off his edgy side at an affront. Tommy Lee Jones' bedroom scene offers a facile example of politely discreet miscegination.
Worst of all, there were too few highs and lows. There was no real feeling of triumph or catharsis; it was an emotionally flat movie.
Not enough aliens or vampires in the film? Perhaps an intense carriage chase down candle-lit cobblestone streets? I thought the film did an excellent job of making Lincoln come alive as both a man and the president. It's often overlooked how arduous a task it can be to make history seem engaging, especially around well-known figures and periods. Rarely do I feel both entertained and informed by a movie, and "Lincoln" did a splendid job on both accounts.
Wow, who ever would have thought the Lincoln fans would be more whiny and juvenile than the Twilight fans?
Powered by Foundation