MovieChat Forums > Lincoln (2012) Discussion > Only entertaining for Americans.

Only entertaining for Americans.

posted 11 years ago by lukeashnufc
225 replies | jump to latest

So, I watched Lincoln last night and to my extreme disappointment, it bored the pants off me. How this film is being tipped to win the Oscar for best film, over such great movies as Argo, Amour and Django Unchained is beyond me. The fact that I had no previous knowledge of the subject matter, should have been irrelevant. I mean, I don't know much about Facebook, but I loved the Social Network. I didn't know who Jake La Motta was and yet Raging Bull blew me away. I didn't know anything about Christopher McCandless's life, but as a film, Into the Wild touched me and intrigued more than most others.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the film fails on one main level. This is purely down to the fact that unless you are interested in American Politics, or are indeed American, Lincoln will struggle to hold your attention. This is a fault of how the film was made and due to the fact that it isn't accessible to people without any prior knowledge of the story, or of Lincoln himself. A good film should be able to captivate it's audience, regardless of what it is about. Shame on you Spielberg, shame on you.

Obviously some people who aren't American will love the movie and some Americans will probably hate it. On the whole though, I guarantee most of the positive reviews will come from Americans who know all about the 13th amendment, or whatever and most of the negative ones, will be from people who aren't American.

[–] sariforever 11 years ago

I am a German girl and in my late twenties.
I guess I have a basic understanding of who Lincoln was and what he accomplished and I gotta say that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and even teared up in the end.

I think I kinda know where you're coming from though. Someone who's not familiar with history and politics might struggle to understand the importance of certain scenes and dialogue but I wouldn't say that this really makes this movie less enjoyable. If you do not get the overall meaning and how important the topic was and still is, you might wanna just google some facts and try watching the movie again.

It really is a great one and oh boy DDL is unbelievable!

[–] CharlieChoo 11 years ago

I'm British and I don't suppose I have any better understanding of American History than the majority on non-Americans.

I watched the film yesterday and enjoyed it, largely for the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis who was absolutely mesmerizing (as usual - the finest actor of his generation). I would imagine that there's a layer of enjoyment, or perhaps empathy, that can most obviously be found by someone who understands the history a little more closely. But to say that its only entertaining for Americans is wrong in my opinion.

I do feel that it could have been trimmed in terms of running time, but having said that I didn't feel I was in the movie theatre for as long as I was.

[–] MsGeorgianaSpencer 11 years ago

Yes I have to agree with the OP,though technically i'm a american because I live en south america (yes, America is not only the USA).

I tried to watch it 4 times and never passed the half of the movie, it was so boring, i'm mean for what i saw I can say it's a "well made" film, very carefully with how the movie looks, the music and everything but it was really boring. And I knew a little about Linconl before but for me the movie wasn't that interesting, on the other hand i didn't knew a thing about the Argo project and i really liked the film.

So I think it was a movie you have to watch with more than a basic level knowing about Linconl.

[–] SenorDD 11 years ago

You should try to watch the rest of it. I too struggled through the first half of it, but I was determined to sit through the whole thing. I wasn't about to dismiss it as over rated until I watched the whole movie.

_______________________________________
Stupid people make me angry.

[–] micool123 11 years ago

I agree with you, also from a non-American background I found myself getting bored, I think the problem was that the story was all explained in a very dialogue heavy way and as you said, it is something that is not accessible to people with no prior knowledge or a vested interest in American politics.

I feel like this was written to be a play and instead it was brought to the big screen, it didn't work as a film because it wasn't captivating, it relied entirely on the acting to keep it alive. It would have been nice to have been shown America, as you get no real background of the country and you get no real sense of urgency about the struggle. It just throws you into a room with people talking for a couple of hours and unless you are versed with what is being said it leaves you feeling very detached.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MsGeorgianaSpencer 11 years ago

That can happen, but at least for me with what I saw for the film I wasn't really interested into knowing more about Linconl. In other movies like the duchess, marie antoinette, the king's speech even W.E (the madonna movie) after seeing the movie i was really interested into getting to know more about this historical figures. However I didn't feel the same with this one, maybe that's something that no only happen to me but to a lot of foreigns.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bond_98 11 years ago

How can somebody not know something about Lincoln. It's like an American who doesn't know who Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, or Desmond Tutu is. And Yeah there are probably a lot of Americans who don't who they are. But that's why they're called idiots.

[–] MsGeorgianaSpencer 11 years ago

But there are different kinds of knowing a character. For most of us (the people who doesn't live in USA) in schools they don't teach us about USA presidents, and particulary for my country slavery was abolished way before in the USA, so we didn't study Linconl.

Now as a person I know about him, but for what i've seen in movies and some documentaries, cartoons, etc. We know who he was, and what he did but really from an outside point of view.

That's why i love movies, they can make you interested in historical figures that you would never knew if it wasn't for films.

[–] nightwing60 11 years ago

And Here i thought only Americans were stupid when it came to world history. How Hard is it to use Wikipedia. The Entry for the 13th Amendment isn't that long. And Just for the heck of it.

The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. The Amendment overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford Decision that said that Black People were not citizens.

The 15th Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1870. Which gave Black Men the right to Vote.

Women didn't get the vote until. The 19th Amendment which was ratified on August 18, 1920.

[–] MsGeorgianaSpencer 11 years ago

Yes but actually that's usa history, world history is about topics that happened in the world and not in one country. Also i think is moré important for the people learn about their amendment and not the one in a country that we don't Live in

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lona87 11 years ago

It's not about that amendment per se. It's about what it means to be a democracy and what truly great democratic leadership looks like.

[–] TrevorReznick 11 years ago

It's not about that amendment per se. It's about what it means to be a democracy and what truly great democratic leadership looks like.

Exactly.

It's not about being 'American' or 'non-American.' It's about living in a democracy, and what a true democracy should stand for. It's about what a great leader -- such as Lincoln -- does.

It's something that can be appreciated by anyone, no matter their nationality.

As LeoFan already said, it's about being human.

[–] MsGeorgianaSpencer 11 years ago

Bute he wasn't the only leader that stand for democracy. What i'm trying to say is that at least for me as a foreing, you need more than just an interesting character to make a great movie. There's a lot of history about democracy leaders, so i think you need a little push up to make it THE film about democracy leaders, in fact i think Linconl life was more interesting that what i saw in the film, why they didn't make a movie about his entire life (wich is really interesting).

[–] TrevorReznick 11 years ago

for me as a foreing

For you as a what? Sorry, I'm not sure what word you're trying to use here...

you need more than just an interesting character to make a great movie. There's a lot of history about democracy leaders, so i think you need a little push up to make it THE film about democracy leaders

Huh? Why can't an interesting lead character make a movie? This is a character-driven film. That's the whole point.

in fact i think Linconl life was more interesting that what i saw in the film, why they didn't make a movie about his entire life (wich is really interesting).

I really don't think that's possible within a two-hour time frame. His life would need at least a miniseries, which is not viable when they are focusing on his effort to get the 13th Amendment passed.

The book the film is based on is Doris Kearns Goodwin's history, "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." That's what it was about, and that is what the film dealt with.

[–] MsGeorgianaSpencer 11 years ago

Yes, sorry english is not my specialty.
An interesting character is good enought to make a good movie, but not a great movie (as in a best picture winner). I think the people of this movie rely too much into the figure and the script felt for me (as an outsider) boring and slow. It's taking for granted the audience and thinking that just because it's Linconl, the movie would be reviewed as in USA.
Of course as in every person's life if you want to film every moment it's imposible in a two hour film, but that's the challenge of screen writers, that take one biography and make it a decent movie without you missed the important points, it's difficult but is not imposible, and i believe if someone in hollywood could do that and make it great it would be under the direction of mister Spielberg.

[–] TrevorReznick 11 years ago

An interesting character is good enought to make a good movie, but not a great movie (as in a best picture winner).

Err..you're kidding, right? I really don't agree with that statement.

And Lincoln is the favored film this year to win Best Picture at the Oscars.

but that's the challenge of screen writers, that take one biography and make it a decent movie without you missed the important points, it's difficult but is not imposible

It sounds to me that you're being a bit unrealistic. If you want to see the entire arc of his life (which actually I would love to see myself) -- and see real justice done to Lincoln's entire life -- a miniseries is the way to go.

The quality of TV miniseries lately, especially on HBO and Showtime, has really become excellent.

I'd love to see such a miniseries done by a prominent director, and Steven Spielberg would not be a bad choice.

[–] Raskel 11 years ago

sorry princesselene, I tried to read your post, but I just don't understand what you are trying to say

'the last gleaming' killed my last bit of faith in Joss Whedon

[–] MsGeorgianaSpencer 11 years ago

I tried to say that, at least to me, because i don't know much about USA history (as a person who live there should do) It wasn't a very interesting movie, i felt the plot was boring, slow and confusing at some points. So maybe that's why the movie wasn't that well received in foreign movie-goers.

I think the people who know about Linconl's life,in a way an american should know, they "get" this film, but it's really hard for a person who doesn't know that, to find this movie entertaiment, and the best in the list of nominees.

And i don't think it's a "human" thing (if you don't like the movie) as someone said before. It's just that maybe this movie wasn't made for the entire world to understand it. Also I think is not enough to say that making a movie about Linconl immediately makes this movie a human nature experience, and that just because he is so important already is a good film.

Now don't get me wrong i'm not saying this one was awful, but I don't think is strong enough to win best picture, as in Life of Pi or Zero Dark Thirty. (Argo was good but it looked weaker next to Linconl and Life of Pi production)

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ruth44 11 years ago

The suggestion that this film is "only entertaining for Americans" is complete nonsense.

We have just returned from a packed showing in Israel. There was total silence throughout the entire film and applause from many at the end. This film is outstanding on every level and possibly Spielberg's greatest achievement as a director. The cast is superb, Day-Lewis is breathtaking in the leading role whilst Tommy Lee Jones and Sally Fields steal quite a few scenes with their amazing talent.

This film is NOT for people seeking Hollywood entertainment. It is a serious film about a serious topic and it doesn't spare the audience which needs to be attentive and concentrated throughout. Anyone interested in one of the most significant events of the 19th century (the emancipation of slavery) needs to see how dirty politics was used to achieve this important goal.

I don't know if Lincoln is deserving of an Oscar more than Argo (also superb), The life of Pi or other films. But this is a film which will be watched by generations of filmgoers in the future and for that we should be grateful.

[–] Raskel 11 years ago

So maybe that's why the movie wasn't that well received in foreign movie-goers.

Hmmmm, In my country it;s not usual for people to applaud at the end of a movie, but in my theatre they did after watching Lincoln. Then I read in the paper it happened in more than a few theatres. So, maybe your statement above is simply a case of; it's all in the eye of the beholder'?

And Zero Dark Thirty for best picture??? you serious??? God, that movie was so lousy!

'the last gleaming' killed my last bit of faith in Joss Whedon

[–] lukeashnufc 11 years ago

"Zero Dark Thirty"...Lousy???. I know we all have different tastes but I thought that it was a great movie.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] goerz 11 years ago

You don't need to be American, or to hold a PhD in American History, to enjoy this movie. Anyone with a minimum of education, everywhere in the world, knows that Blacks were held in slavery in the United States, and that somehow in the 19th century the slavery ended. Many may also know about a civil war that happened at the same time. Some might have even heard of a President in a top hat named Lincoln, but that's optional to enjoy the movie.
If you don't know that there was slavery in the United States until the second half of the 19th century, then you're just ignorant, and you can't blame Spielberg for this.
I'm not American and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

[–] MsGeorgianaSpencer 11 years ago

I didn't enjoy the film, but at least I understand that this one was more than just slavery.

[–] shawneuser 11 years ago

Sorry, I don't get the OP's point.

Was I not supposed to enjoy Gandhi because he wasn't an American?

[–] deeveed 11 years ago

You know one thing I was just wondering about for those who do not live here in the United States and that was how they saw the practical side of politics here. The film does show in a way how "messy" democratic politics really was (and is today). It wasn't easy for Lincoln to get his way on the amendment and he did have to resort to some how can I say it? perhaps unsavory tactics i.e. payments, jobs etc. Politics in that way was "messy". I'm not aware that there was an criticism of that by non-US opinion but it intrigues me. One thing that defintiley comes therough in the film is that 'democracy" can sometimes be crazy raucous when momentous decisions need to be made.

[–] raimund-berger 11 years ago

payments, jobs

In the film there weren't any payments. And regarding the jobs, that's apparently been a widespread practice back then, known as the spoils/patronage system, which has later been restricted by civil service reforms.

That said, I guess everybody living in a democracy knows that political decision making is slow and governed by compromise and tit-for-tat deals amongst politicians. Politicians who still have to answer to their electorate for anything they do.

And the film makes it clear that Lincoln had a very limited time window to achieve what he thought was the right thing to do. So the measures he took were primarily meant to accelerate that slow decision making process rather than promote selfish goals.

We're seeing worse things happening today I guess. Like lobbyists and associated companies financing election campaigns of their favorite candidates. Or politicians being offered jobs by businesses possibly influencing their decision making while still holding a political office.