Why do they keep cutting away to shots of Tom Hanks on camera? It keeps taking you out of the movie. And the actor who plays Booth overacts like hell.
shareI agree about Tom Hanks.
One shot of him at the beginning, to establish who was speaking, would have been enough.
Totally agreed, I actually turned it off 15 minutes in, for those exact reasons.
'Always Hold On To Smallville'
The Day Lincoln Was Shot is much better than this, IMO.
I think Tom Hanks was chosen to narrate because he is distantly related to Lincoln through his mother's side (Nancy Hanks). His growing mustache was awkward enough for me.
Okay, well... filibuster.
"The Lincoln Assassination", 1995 documentary produced by the History Channel and narrated by Tom Berenger, is the best and most informative piece on this specific event in history.
Originality needs a reboot.
You said it yourself in the title of this comment: it's a docu-drama. If Nat Geo cut him out it would be a movie.
I didn't find it awkward at all. And you obviously didn't understand what the film was trying to get across about Booth at all. Tom Hanks even says it. Booth is depicted by history as a dim witted murderer. The actor was so fantastic as Booth BECAUSE he overreacted. That's who Booth really was; an overdramatic, self absorbed, flamboyant radical. He was brilliant but too absorbed with his own beliefs.
As a historian myself, I was extremely impressed with Killing Lincoln. Nat Geo did a phenomenal job.
It is a movie though: fictionalized scenes and dialogue, music, suspense scenes, etc. There's no reason why Hanks has to be on camera.
As for Booth, give me a break. The actor practically twirled his mustache. He might as well have cackled. He's ghoulishly lit in every scene with "sinister" music playing. You're right that the actor may be doing as good a job as he could, it's the director's choice. If they were trying to portray a more human JWB then the result is a joke. Compare his portrayal to Bruno Ganz as Hitler in Downfall, or Brad Pitt as Jesse James. In those movies you weren't reminded in every scene that this is a bad guy, but you actually got a feel for their charm and charisma and why others would have followed them.
right. and they went overboard with unnecessary detail while not filling in vital details. such as:
when booth is heading is out of town. he's stopped at a checkpoint. hanks tells us (unnecessarily) the rank, what part of the army the checkpoint guard is a part of, his favorite food, etc.
when abe is behind carried across the street. why? how did they choose the house to put him? what was that stuff the guy (a doctor?) had on his hand?
You stay classy, San Diego.
The street was so crowded they could barely make it through. They had to get him somewhere fast, and he wouldn't have survived a carriage ride to the White House. The first door they knocked at, no one answered. It was a boarding house, and not everyone would necessarily be home. Someone called from a house across the street "bring him in here". ((One of Lincoln's staff (not the saloon owner) said the President is not going to die in a saloon.
The doctors kept clearing out the clot in L's head every time he stopped breathing, in an effort to keep him alive, and as above, that was blood and matter on his hand.
While I give the docudrama excuse a little credence for Hanks popping in and out, I think that was because he was supplying information that they either didn't have the running time or the talent to write into the script. Couldn't agree more on the Booth actor. Way over the top. Also, John Wilkes Booth, while famous, was not considered as talented as his brother Edwin. John was Billy Baldwin to Ediwn's Alec Baldwin. So, the poster who called him a brilliant actor is a bit off.
shareI agree with CBWdancer. . . . .Booth was a big ham, full of himself, conceited, and the actor was wonderful at showing these traits of Booth. He wasn't overacting; he was following the director's plan 100%.
shareAlso, John Wilkes Booth, while famous, was not considered as talented as his brother Edwin. John was Billy Baldwin to Ediwn's Alec Baldwin. So, the poster who called him a brilliant actor is a bit off.
I still disagree but you guys make valid points. Perhaps I'm blinded by my (awkward) obsessional love for Lincoln and my love for National Geographic.
I think I can answer your questions though nutsberryfarm. They carried Lincoln out of the theater to get him in to a room and bed to see if there was anything more they could do to treat him. (Out in the street though it became pretty clear it was a lost cause.) Originally one of the doctors said to bring him in to the pub next door (don't know why a pub) but the pub owner stood up and said "The President of the United States will not die in a pub, even my own." So that idea was nixed. Then they wanted to being him somewhere directly across the street (I think someone's house?) but they couldn't. Can't remember why, but I think it was because they thought there wouldn't be enough room. Then they finally settled on the Peterson House across the street (kind of diagonal I think) which was someone's home.
The stuff the doctor carrying Lincoln across the street had on his hands was brain matter. Hence why I said they realized it was a lost cause even as they were trying to save Lincoln. The back of Lincoln's skull was shattered and splintered. There was no way to save him.
"Why do they keep cutting away to shots of Tom Hanks on camera?"
I can answer your question in one sentence: Because he's Tom Freakin' Hanks, and he can do whatever he wants in Hollywood.
I thought it was very well done.
Although Tom Hanks still wore his Walt Disney mustache, I think he was very good as the narrator.
From what I've read, Booth was pretty flamboyant. I thought it was a pretty good portrayal with that in mind.
shareI agree with Trump. We see a lot of Hanks because he's a star. I wouldn't be surprised if his agent required they give him that much screen time as a condition for getting him to consent to do the job. And since they probably paid him a lot, having him on screen saved them from having to film more scenes, which saved them some money. But I agree he's seen a little too much.
I wonder how well it would have worked out if they had Bill O'Reilly do the narration.
"Truth is its own evidence." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
I don't agree about any overacting, but I do agree that it might well have been better without Hanks being "host" as well as narrator. Perhaps an actor of his stature (or his agent) insisted on it.
shareI'm reading Blood on the Moon right now and the actor portraying Booth here seems to be doing a very good job. From what I understand, Booth was charismatic and a melodramatic. I'm not a fan of Bill O, but I think he deserves to be taken seriously as a lay historian.
shareHanks even looks uncomfortable in the host segments. He has to sit there and play awkwardly with these random props while reciting the script. Protip: If you can make Tom Hanks look awkward, you are really doing something wrong.
shareI thought Hanks looked completely absorbed into the role of narrator. Enthusiastic and knowledgeable.
Kay: Senators and presidents don't have men killed.
Michael: Oh, who's being naive, Kay?