Lincoln (2012)

I've gone on record before saying that my feelings on Steven Spielberg have reached a point of full-out dislike. And I stand by that. I'm not a fan of his films anymore, at least not the ones he's been making lately. And by "lately" I mean roughly the last 15 years. I'm also a complete weirdo in the fact the only movie of his I've seen since "Saving Private Ryan" that I did like was "Kingdom of The Crystal Skull," so please feel free to take whatever I say with a grain of salt since apparently I'm insane.

Here's the thing, though. Spielberg is a good director. Seriously, he is. I'm not going to say he isn't a master at what he does, because that would be ignorant. There are just certain things he does which I don't like, and of the 3 primary issues I have with him, only 1 of those has to do with his actual directing.

The first thing is that I don't like the scripts he chooses. They're cheesy, overly long, preachy, and play it pretty safe and mediocre. He directs them well, but I'm usually very bored by them. Yeah that's a big issue to have, but it has nothing to do with his actual directing. The second thing is that he keeps hiring John Williams. Similar to Danny Elfman and Tim Burton, this symbiotic relationship has gone from working beautifully to becoming one of tired acceptance with a distinct overtone of forgettable "not caring anymore." And at this point, Williams really seems to be running low on ideas as the last memorable piece he wrote was "Duel of the Fates" for "Star Wars: Episode I." Back in 1999.

Third and finally comes the only real issue I have with Spielberg from an actual directorial standpoint. There comes a time, oftentimes several throughout the course of his films, where something dramatic will happen, usually having something to do with racism and the like. In any case, someone will make a dramatic gesture, will say something, or will do something to fly in the face of the established oligarchy that has been opposing them. Everything slows down, the camera pans around everyone at a low angle as they look upwards with thoughtful expressions or mouths agape as they slowly nod their heads with new understanding on life and humanity,  all to John Williams' music swelling underneath.

This happens in nearly every Spielberg drama I can think of. And I hate this scene. I really do. It's so cheesy. It's so telegraphed. It's so cliche. And it's seldom really earned. It's just there because well, that's what Spielberg does a lot of. People are always labeling grand, sweeping action shots as "Spielbergian," but why doesn't anyone else use it to describe that hunk of cheese as well? He uses it more often than the first one, it seems to me.

I think it's the head nod. That's what kills it for me.

So it was not without some sense of apprehension that I went to go see "Lincoln." I'm not going to lie, I really wasn't digging this one from the trailers. Maybe if it had been another director I would have had more interest in it, but because it was Spielberg, I knew it would be cheesy and preachy. And I was right about that. It was cheesy. In fact it was cheesier than I had imagined it was going to be. And it was indeed preachy, but not as much as I had feared. So we've got a plus and minus with that.

But one thing I didn't count on "Lincoln" being was so droning, and even bordering on dull on occasion. And the reason for that is because the only reason this film exists is to get a few more Oscar nominations (and probably wins) for Daniel Day-Lewis. Now some of you may read that as being overly callous, but what else am I supposed to think about a film that is made up of Daniel Day-Lewis performing monologues for roughly 73% of the 2 and a half hour run time?

This should have been called "Speech: The Movie."

I'm going to come out and say right now, however, that if you like Daniel Day-Lewis, you will love this film for those exact reasons. Perhaps that is one of the benefits of being a weird method actor that only does a movie once every 5 years or something - when they finally get you to star in something you know nobody else is going to matter.

Daniel Day-Lewis is undoubtedly good as Abraham Lincoln. I did genuinely like him in it, he was quite convincing, and yeah I guess he "became the role" as he is wont to do. But honestly I didn't really feel an appreciable difference between his performance and any other good actor who would have probably played the part just as well. At no time did I think to myself "Only Day-Lewis could have pulled this off. Nobody else would have been close."

Does that make "Lincoln" bad or Day-Lewis' performance not matter? No, of course not. I'm just throwing it out there before the awards season begins and everyone starts kissing his ass as The Greatest Living Actor again. He's good, but perhaps people are mistaking lack of quantity for excess of quality. I call that the "Terrence Malick" effect. Although Day-Lewis is far better at his trade-craft than Malick is at his own.

The rest of the elements really don't matter too much, to be perfectly frank. It's set during Lincoln's last few months as he fights to pass the 13th Amendment, and much of the movie is political maneuvering as the Republicans fight to get a majority of the vote in the Senate in order to pass it. That's all well and good, and it is interesting to learn about aspects of the country's history that I was unaware of. But it's just a backdrop to see Day-Lewis start up with another amusing anecdote, which he does so often that it even becomes the topic of a joke at one point. And yeah, that was actually a funny joke, but we still had to sit through the long, plodding story afterwords.

To be fair there are many speeches Lincoln gives that are quite good. The best one that I recall concerns The Emancipation Proclamation, and the risks involved in doing it, and the potential fallout from it. Not only does that give us great insight into his state of mind, but it dumps a whole lot of exposition on us in a pretty believable manner, and clues us in as to why the 13th Amendment needs to be passed now. That's great stuff, but there just too many dull, repetitive monologues in between the good ones, and it makes Lincoln come off as more than a bit long-winded.

Tommy Lee Jones, playing senator Thaddeus Stevens I found to be a more interesting character than Lincoln, mostly because I liked his story and conflict along with his more fiery personality. The point when he is forced to compromise his values for the greater good is one of the more engrossing moments of the film. Unfortunately it's relegated to a 2 minute sequence and then never really brought up again.

He and his wig were honestly my favorite characters.

Sally Field will probably get some Oscar buzz, as its the kind of role that demands it. Was she good? Yeah, I guess. Am I going to remember her performance in a few days? Probably not. More than paying attention to whom they gave screen time to, I was more annoyed with the actors they wasted. Great actors like Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jackie Earle Haley who are pushed to the back of the room and given pretty "nothing" roles. For shame.

There isn't much more to say about "Lincoln," honestly. I came away feeling profoundly unmoved. The schmaltz of Spielberg didn't help, especially during the painfully bad opening scene where two soldiers recite The Gettysburg Address back at Lincoln, and the ridiculous closing shot featuring Lincoln superimposed over a flame in a lantern (SYMBOLISM!) which looked straight out of an early 90's sitcom.

There's also the scene right before the Senate vote on the 13th Amendment which has a group of black folk walk into the balcony to be seated. Everyone instantly goes mute, stops what they are doing like they have "black radar" and stares at them. Then one of the senators slowly stands and says with great gravity "We welcome you here" like they're the first black people to set foot in the building. Because apparently Mary Todd Lincoln's servant didn't count even though she was there all the freaking time. But whatever. Everyone gets to slowly nod in approval. That's what's important.

I don't hate Spielberg. I just hate Spielberg's cheese. But since his movies are jammed full of it, it's difficult for me to enjoy one. It bores me and makes me roll my eyes every 5 minutes. But whatever. It will win tons of Oscars. That's what's important.

I miss Bill Oberst Jr.

THE BOTTOM LINE - You know exactly what this movie is, even if you haven't seen it yet. It will do nothing to surprise you. If that's what you want, here you go. Daniel Day-Lewis fans will call it the best of the year and demand Best Actor, although they did that before they even saw the film. I personally found it boring.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

I like Guy Ritche. While "Revolver" didn't do much for me, I thought that "Snatch" and "Lock Stock N' Two Smokin' Barrels" were two very fun movies, and the first "Sherlock Holmes" was an awesome time. Of course, the first time I saw "Sherlock Holmes" I thought it was a confusing, disjointed mess that I couldn't make heads or tails of, and I slept through what seemed like a good half hour of the film.

This may seem odd, but I do have an excuse: I was ripped off of my freaking gourd. It was Christmas evening, and after I had put forth a long day of heavy drinking my friends called me up and asked if I wanted to see a movie with them. I said "Sure, as long as you drive." So while being so drunk that my back molars were singing "Anchors Away," I saw "Sherlock Holmes." This was a mistake.

"Sherlock Holmes" is not a movie for stupid people. Nor is it a movie for people not paying attention. Nor is it for people who are drunk to the point of reaching a plane of incorporeal existence. And while I don't consider myself part of the first group, the second and third group counted me among its VIP members that evening. So that was that. I did not like "Sherlock Holmes."

Then when it came out on DVD I watched it sober and loved it. Lesson learned: Guy Ritche is one director you don't want to watch drunk. Him and Darren Aronofsky. Ritchie because his plots are really twisty turney, and Aronofsky because if I did I'd probably want to kill myself afterwards due to apocalyptic depression.

Anyways, after waiting an obnoxiously long time for "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" to come out for rent (I sadly missed it in theaters) I'm happy to say that the sequel continues the first film's intelligence and entertainment factor. I dare say that it may be a tad more intelligent than its predecessor, in fact. But while the script is smart, and the characters fiendishly so, I can't help but feel that some of the entertainment factor may be ever so slightly lacking. And while the character is great, I have to say that it's due to the fact that the villain, Professor Moriarty, is a bit too obfuscated.

That is actually pretty ironic when you think about it, really. The whole point of Moriarty is that he is this criminal mastermind who is orchestrating Machiavellian plots without ever revealing himself or his true intentions to anyone. Holmes is the only one who can keep up with him, which is why him and Moriarty play so well off each other. These two are locked in a game of mental chess that only they know the true maneuvers of.

Like the game of chess they play which is AMAZING.

And that's why it's a problem for us. It's so tiring at times trying to figure out what exactly it is that Moriarty is up to. This makes sense, of course, and watching Sherlock figuring it out is fun, but as a result I found that I wasn't ever really intimidated by Moriarty. He has the makings of a fantastic villain, and Jared Harris does a phenomenal job playing teh eeeeeeevals, but I couldn't really get scared of him because I had no flipping clue what it was that he was doing. Now, they do explain his master plan, and he is killing people and torturing Sherlock with a meathook (good gravy), but I never picked up "World Shattering Consequences" from his plans even though that's what they amounted to. Perhaps a scene earlier in the film which laid his plans bare would have been helpful.

Now the main reason people see this film, and any film with Robert Downey Jr., is for Robert Downey Jr. And while I wasn't a big fan of how they turned Tony Stark into a mugging chuckle-head in "The Avengers," besides that I can't really think of a single performance he's given which wasn't spot on to the point of running away with the film. "The Avengers" was the only movie I couldn't stand him in. Everything else has been gold. And it's still true for "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows." He just so completely owns the role of Holmes that, like pretty much all of his characters, it's hard seeing anyone else doing it. So nothing has changed in that regard from the first movie.

If anything, Holmes is a bit more high strung in this movie, which in many ways is a lot more fun to watch, but he is climbing so many walls he should invest in some mountaineering gear. This is due to both meeting his intellectual equal (some would say superior), and Watson getting married, which brings up a facet of the movie which some might consider a tad...unnerving. Since there's no real polite way to say this, it's best to just come out and say it:

Holmes and Watson just need to bang and get it over with.

Now that's not being judgmental or insulting to the characters. I'm not even saying that either Holmes or Watson are gay, but there are some unresolved feelings and issues there that need to be addressed one way or the other on the right-quick, because the fate of the world could literally hang in the balance. I mean think about it. Moriarty is trying to cause a world war, and our only hope can't think straight because he's trying his best to underhandedly and subtly oust the bitch stealing his BFF. Is this really the best thing for the fate of the world?

Come on, Watson. For the sake of all mankind...give Sherlock some sugar.

Ok, ok. That's my little immature wink-wink nudge-nudge moment for this entry. Don't worry, there will surely be more. That whole dynamic between Holmes and Watson just makes it that much more interesting to watch anyways, and Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law both are having so much fun playing these characters that it's impossible to not like them. It's seriously one of the better on-screen buddy movie pairings I've seen in a very long time.

Also, on a closing note, it's nice to see me liking Noomi Rapace again. She's really growing on me as an actress, and while I wasn't as taken with her as I was in "Prometheus," her Madam Simza was another step in distancing myself from her Lisbeth Salander, which I am grateful for. And any movie where Noomi Rapace takes over for Rachel McAdams is doing at least one thing right.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" may not be as instantly memorable as the first film, but it's a fine addition to what will hopefully become at least a trilogy. Don't expect it to be as surprisingly good as before, but it's well worth the time. Recommended.