Lincoln (2012) Review

LINCOLN (2012)
Director: Steven Spielberg

Writer: Tony Kushner

Producers: Jonathan King, Daniel Lupi, Jeff Skoll, Steven Spielberg, and Kathleen Kennedy

Editor: Michael Kahn

Cinematography: Janusz Kaminski

Music: John Williams

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, David Strathaim, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Runtime: 2 hours 30 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (war violence, war carnage, and language)

Genre: Biopic, Drama, History

Release Date: November 16, 2012

Before Watching the Movie: It may help to quickly read up on the Civil War, especially the last months. It isn't necessary for the enjoyment of the movie, but it allows you to pick up on who's who and what's what a little better.

Intro: From the time I heard they were making Lincoln, I knew it couldn't be bad. Steven Spielberg is a great director who does a fantastic job at historical movies, and I saw they assembled a pretty impressive cast. When it came out a week ago and got good reviews, I was encouraged even more to see it. As if I needed any more encouragement to see it, my AP Government teacher told my class that we'd get extra credit if we saw it. And that was the nail in the coffin and I went to see it earlier today. Lincoln was pretty much as advertised and as expected. It had incredible acting, especially from Daniel Day-Lewis, a great script, and was slow at first but was very engaging by the end. There is almost no doubt it will be nominated and win several Oscars in February.

Plot: The movie tells the story of President Lincoln's last 4 months in office in 1865, focusing on the passage of the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery, and the negotiations with the South to end of the war. The emphasis is on the 13th Amendment, as the movie tells the story of how Lincoln and his supporters won the necessary votes in the House of Representatives to get the Amendment passed. There's not a lot I can say here without giving a full-on history lesson. If you want to know more, I suggest googling some of these topics.

Things people may find "objectionable": The main thing is language. There are 2 usages of the F-word, along with some other mild language. There is also one war scene at the beginning of the movie that is intense, as it shows people fighting and getting shot and stabbed. There is also a scene or two that shows the carnage of the battles, which involves a lot of corpses. Other than a couple instances, the movie really isn't bad at all in this department.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 9/10. Subtle but solid directing. It didn't stick out as much as Spielberg's directing usually does, but nonetheless it was very well shot and the visuals were good. If nothing else, you expect good directing when you see a Spielberg movie.

     -Acting: 10/10. Phenomenal acting. There's no doubt that Daniel Day-Lewis will at least be nominated for Best Actor and will likely win. He was really fantastic. The rest of the cast was no slouch either. I really respect Tommy Lee Jones and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as actors, and they both do a great job. This is easily the best part of the movie. Not to say everything else was bad, it's just that the acting was that good.

     -Writing: 10/10.

          -Story: 10/10. Can't really grade this on the story since it's history and not fiction, but I can grade the selection of the story to make a movie about. It's about time someone made a good biopic of Lincoln. It's really about time. And no, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter doesn't count.

          -Script: 10/10. Very good script. It was solid and produced a lot of good lines. This and the acting were the best parts of the movie.

After seeing Lincoln, I was inspired to make this teaser trailer for a fake biopic about our 

9th president, William Henry Harrison. In case you don't get the joke, he died after 31 days in office.

    
     -Special Effects: n/a. Not needed at all. Lincoln was a movies that would have functioned just as well if it were a stage play.

     -Music/Score: 9/10. The score was subtle, but good. Is it possible for John Williams to write a bad score? I mean, seriously.

     -Power/Emotion: 7/10. It started off relatively slow and I slowly felt more and more for the characters. Even after seeing the movie, I am still feeling for the characters and the situations they were in. The movie is slow in the beginning and then begins to suck you in, and I think becoming more engaged with the characters and situation help this a lot.

     -Adrenaline: 5/10. Not as much as I would've liked. The tension was slow and took a while to build and also wasn't constant like it was in Argo. It's also kind of sudden. You somehow subconsciously become engaged. This was the weakest point of the movie, though in Lincoln's defense, its point wasn't to thrill you.

     -Intelligence: 9/10. The movie really makes you think and is pretty intellectual. It taught me just how much corrupt bargaining and haggling the Lincoln administration had to do to pass the 13th Amendment. One reason I like Spielberg movies is that when he does historical movies like Saving Private Ryan or War Horse, he likes to get the facts straight. As a total history geek, I really enjoy and respect this, and it was cool to get some of the historical references in the movie.
     -Humor: 4/10. There were actually some pretty funny moments worked in. The majority of the movie was serious, but the comic touches were nice. In my opinion, it's always good to have at least some comic relief in any serious movie.

     -Best Credit: None. The problem here is that since it's so historical, nearly every character you see is an actual person. And for those who weren't actual people, their roles had boring names like "Congressmen" and so forth.

     -Final Score: Lincoln was exactly the type of movie I thought and hoped it would be--and that's a good thing. It will undoubtedly win multiple Oscars, probably at least for acting or writing. It will also be in contention with Argo for Best Picture. If I had to pick a Best Picture winner between those two, I would probably pick Argo, but both movies are deserving. If you like historical movies or want to see an extremely well-made movie, see Lincoln. While it starts off slow, it becomes great by the end.

Billy the Kid vs. Dracula (1966) Review

When it was released, it was released as a
double feature with Jesse James Meets
Frankenstein's Daughter, which I also
took the liberty of recording. I will write
a review of it soon.

BILLY THE KID VS. DRACULA (1966)

Director: William Beaudine

Writer: Carl Hittleman

Producer: Carroll Case

Editor: Roy V. Livingston

Cinematography: Lothrop B. Worth

Music: Raoul Kraushaar

Starring: John Carradine, Chuck Courtney, Melinda Plowman, Virginia Christine, and Bing Russell.

Runtime: 1 hour 13 minutes

Rating: Not Rated. Comparable to PG

Genre: Horror, Western, Drama

Release Date: April 10, 1966

Intro: (Please bear with me. I know it's November now, but I started writing this in October. It's a good intro though, so I decided to keep it.) I love October. The weather starts to get cooler and it actually starts to rain again (I mention it a lot in my review of Drive), the baseball playoffs are on a lot and those consume a lot of my time, and, of course since it's near Halloween, there are tons of cheesy horror movies being shown on TV. This is where I found Billy the Kid vs. Dracula. While perusing through channels, I found it and immediately set up the DVR to record it. I mean, can you really pass up recording a movie called Billy the Kid vs. Dracula? I sure as hell couldn't. It turns out that the movie is about as stupid as you'd imagine it would be. Billy the Kid vs. Dracula had very little hope and budget starting out, and with the hope and budget it has, it doesn't do much with it.

Plot: In the Old West, a mother and her brother are heading from the East to see her daughter named Betty that she haven't seen since she was a child and her brother has never seen. On the way there, the wagon picks up a mysterious foreign traveler with weird attraction to the picture of the mother's daughter in a locket she has. When they stop for the night, an nearby indian girl is mysteriously killed by two incisions on the neck (hint) and the indians stereotypically rampage and kill everyone on the wagon train except for the strange man (Carradine). The strange man (It's Dracula, ok?) finds the locket in the wreckage of the wagon and assumes the personality of Betty's uncle she's never met named James Underhill. Meanwhile, Betty and her boyfriend Billy the Kid (or just Billy) are planning to get married when "her uncle James" shows up and tries to pull the two apart, since Dracula wants Betty for himself. While Dracula tries to trick and seduce Betty and ultimately make a her a vampire, the foreign housekeepers and Billy suspect something is wrong and try to save Betty before it's too late.

Things people may find “objectionable”: Not that much. There are a couple BWC shots and a couple scenes with minor blood, but nothing major. One thing that might offend some is that the Indians are extremely stereotyped and portrayed in a way that would have you believe that the directors are a bunch of xenophobic white guys. And you know what? You're probably right.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography:

     -Acting: 5/10. John Carradine, who plays Dracula, is actually what you may consider a "real actor." He's kind of like Vincent Price and Nicholas Cage in that he's a pretty good actor, but at least towards the end of his career, he picked really crappy movies to star in for whatever reason (seriously, Cage needs to fire his agent). His performance is more cheesy than anything else, but I'd blame that on the director. Everyone else can't act that well, but it's not truly awful acting like the kind that is seen in I Eat Your Skin.

     -Writing: 4/10.

          -Story: 4/10. I really didn't see much creativity in the story, as it's pretty formulaic aside from the whole Billy the Kid meeting Dracula thing. It did have kind of a cool vampire legend twist that was intriguing and something I hadn't heard before, but the rest of the story was worthless and cliché.

          -Script: 4/10. Very forgettable script. Wasn't great but wasn't awful like the one in The Last Airbender. I wouldn't consider the script a strength or a weakness. It was just kind of there.

     -Special Effects: 1/10. Laughably terrible special effects. The best special effects were the super-fake flying bat (see picture below).

Two of the greatest shots from the movie: the über fake bat and Dracula's creeper stare.
 If someone looks at you like Dracula is in the picture on the left, call the police immediately.

     -Music/Score: 3/10. The music was very lame and cheesy. They got a lot of work out of the one harpist the hired, as every single time Dracula does his creepy stare (see picture above), a harp plays the exact same pattern. everything else just seems cheesy and formulaic. There was absolutely no creativity in writing this score.

     -Power/Emotion: 3/10. They kinda try to get you to care about the characters, but it doesn't work exceedingly well. In their defense, the writers' work was probably done when the movie's name convinced people to spend their $5 on this movie, creating a small, quick, profit.

     -Adrenaline: 4/10. The movie is really pretty boring until the end. The story gets caught up into this whole character development and love story crap and forgets what the audience is there to see: Billy the Kid fighting Dracula. It is pretty entertaining at the end, but it isn't that suspenseful.

     -Intelligence: 3/10. This movie really doesn't make you think at all. It's pretty mindless and serves pretty much only as cheap entertainment, which was its purpose.

     -Stupidity: 7/10. The title of this movie should give you a good insight into what

     -Humor: Intentional: 1/10. Unintentional: 5/10. The movie attempts to have a little bit of humor in it, but it fails for the most part. The movie is unintentionally hilarious because of the fake flying bat, Dracula's creepy stares (see picture above for these two) and mostly because of this lovely scene below, which is during the climax of the movie:

The funniest scene in the movie, and how Billy takes out the vampire after

 using many bullets to no effect and losing a fist fight to him.

     -Best Credit: None, sadly.

     -Final Score: The bottom line is you just shouldn't make genre mashups involving westerns and try to make them serious. I think Cowboys and Aliens failed for the same reason. Trying to mash genres is hard enough, but it's even harder when you try to make it serious. Still, Billy the Kid vs. Dracula fails more than Cowboys and Aliens because of the lack of budget and A-list actors. I would recommend this to any b-movie fans out there looking to kill about an hour and a half. If nothing else, the death scene and the scenes with the bat are entertaining and a brilliant way to kill time.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Skyfall (2012) Review

SKYFALL (2012)
Director: Sam Mendes

Writers: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan

Producers: Anthony Waye, Callum McDougall, Barbra Broccoli, and Michael G. Wilson

Editor: Stuart Baird

Cinematography: Roger Deakins

Music: Thomas Newman

Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, and Albert Finney

Runtime: 2 hours 23 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense violence, some sexuality, language)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Suspense, Thriller

Release Date: November 9, 2012

Intro: Well, I knew from the start that this was a movie I wanted to see. I have only seen two other James Bond movies before this (Casino Royale and From Russia with Love), but I know the franchise as a whole always puts out entertaining movies. Anyway, it was one I wanted to see, but wasn't expecting a lot out of. It turns out I was wrong. Skyfall is really well-made thrilling movie with great directing, a great score, and a surprising amount of emotion and intelligence.

Plot: A computer drive containing a list of MI6 British agents from around the world has fallen into the wrong hands, and it is James Bond's mission to get them back. While fighting a bad guy on top of a train, M (Dench),  the head of MI6, has another agent (Harris) nearby who is ordered to take a shot at the bad guy and missed and hits Bond (Craig) instead. Bond is believed to be dead until he shows up months later after MI6 has been blown up due to some cyberterrorism. He returns in bad shape to MI6 and to a point where M's job is on the line. Bond follows a man and through visits to Shanghai and Macao and it leads him to an encounter with the real man named Silva (Bardem) behind the plots against MI6 and especially M. Bond must work to protect M at all costs and to control Silva before he gets revenge and sabotages MI6 and England.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The main thing here is violence. The movie, as with all action movies, is very violent, and fighting is a central part of the story. There is also quite a bit of blood, but only one scene where you see it actually dripping as opposed to stained on someone's shirt. Finally, there is some mild swearing, but it isn't too bad.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 10/10. I am big on the visuals of a movie, and this one did an exceedingly good job. The whole movie was full of striking imagery and interesting shots and lighting. My favorite scene visually was Bond fighting Patrice in the building in Shanghai, where it was dark except for the flashing advertisements, and the whole area was covered with glass windows, which perfectly distorted the light and made for engaging action. I also like the attention to detail. Since 2012 is the 50th anniversary of the release of the first Bond movie, Dr. No, there were numerous references to the number 50 or to 1962, which was a cool touch.

     -Acting: 9/10. Seriously, Javier Bardem needs to play the crazed villain in every movie. He's great at it between his role as Silva here and the bad guy in No Country for Old Men. Everyone else did a good job of acting, though I don't see anyone getting nominated for Best Actor or Best Actress, maybe except for Javier Bardem. Also, I like Daniel Craig as James Bond. I think he does well in the role.

     -Writing: 8.5/10.

          -Story: 9/10. Very well-done. The story was interesting and exciting as well as suspenseful throughout. I liked it also in that it did not follow the typical Bond formula, as the "Bond Girl" plays a minor role and the attacks mostly come from within MI6 instead of from the outside. It also pointed out some of Bond's weaknesses and portrayed him as more human, which I much prefer to him being almost an invincible superhero.

          -Script: 8/10. Good, just didn't stand out. I doubt any memorable lines will come from the movie, except for the "Bond. James Bond." line that isn't specific to Skyfall at all.

     -Special Effects: 9/10. Not much CGI, but very good special effects as far as the explosions and guns are concerned. Everything looked pretty realistic and they really added to the visuals in some scenes.

All the actors who have played James Bond. From
left to right: Daniel Craig, Timothy Dalton, Pierce
Brosnan, Roger Moore, and Sean Connery.

     -Music/Score: 10/10. The score was great. It was fast-paced and really added to the suspense of the movie. I'd be willing to bet the score will at least be nominated for an Oscar.

     -Power/Emotion: 8/10. I do like the recent trend in Bond movies (at least in this and Casino Royale. I didn't see Quantum of Solace) of making 007 more human. It really makes you feel for him, and in Skyfall you feel bad for both him and M, as both their careers are on the line as some deem them unfit.

     -Adrenaline: 10/10. As an action movie, Skyfall definitely succeeded. This is the one aspect you should get out of Bond movies, as it's kind of the point.

     -Intelligence: 7/10. Actually pretty thought-provoking, considering it's an action flick.

     -Humor: 3/10. Definitely not the point of the movie, but there were some funny moments and lines, mostly used as comic relief for the very intense rest of the movie.

     -Best Credit: Peter Boyer as an Orchestrator (For a friend. You know who you are if you're reading this. And there was no best credit anywhere else).

     -Final Score: Skyfall greatly exceeded my expectations. It is very well made and well-rounded as well as thrilling. Will it have a lasting legacy or win many awards? Probably not, but it's worth watching. I'd recommend this movie to any Bond fans or action movie fans. I think it is a movie that can be enjoyed by people with all tastes.

Liking my Reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Argo (2012) Review

ARGO (2012)
Director: Ben Affleck

Writer: Chris Terrio

Producers: Ben Affleck, Chris Brigham, Chay Carter, George Clooney, Tim Headington, Graham King, David Klawans, and Nina Wolarsky

Editor: William Goldenberg

Music: Alexandre Desplat

Cinematography: Rodrigo Prieto

Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Tate Donavan, Victor Garber, Clea DuVull, and Christopher Denham

Runtime: 2 hours

Rating: R (language, some violent images)

Genre: Biopic, Drama, Thriller

Release Date: October 12, 2012

Before Watching the Movie: You may want to briefly read up on the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis beforehand, but it isn't necessary, as they explain a lot of it in the movie.

Intro: This is a movie I have wanted to see ever since I heard about it. I think I heard about it when I saw the trailer for either Prometheus, Ted, or The Dark Knight Rises. The trailer piqued my interest, and later I saw Ben Affleck on The Daily Show, which wanted to make me see it even more. Finally, when it came out in theaters, I heard the rave reviews it got, and that was the clincher for me. Finally, after waiting almost a month (my schedule has been crazy), I saw it last night, and I was not at all disappointed. Argo is a fantastic movie all around and is especially strong in directing and acting, as it is thrilling to the end and very accurately captures the mission and the time period.

Plot: In early 1979, during the Iranian Revolution, angry Iranians and supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini storm the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and capture all but 6 Americans and take them hostage. Six manage to escape out the back entrance and find refuge in the Canadian Embassy. They have no way of leaving at risk of being taken hostage and/or being publicly executed by the revolting Iranians. Back in America, the CIA is frantically thinking of ways to sneak the six out, and they call up on Tony Mendez (Affleck) and after much thinking, Tony comes up with a crazy idea to get them all out in which he would set up a fake movie production for a science fiction movie called "Argo" and then pretend to do location scouting in Iran along with his Canadian film crew, who the six trapped ambassadors have to pose as. The plan is approved since they have no better ideas and the operation is on as Tony enlists the help of a couple real Hollywood people (Arkin, Goodman). Tony must gain the ambassadors' trusts while trying to get them safely out of Iran as the government painstakingly reconstructs the shredded identifications of the missing ambassadors in hopes of capturing and killing them.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The first half of the movie has much more swearing and violence than the second, so even though there is swearing and violence, it mostly occurs in the first half. The violence stems from the shots of the Iranian revolution and the protesting, and again almost all of it is contained in the first half of the movie. There is also a lot of swearing, so if you see the movie, be prepared for that if you are uncomfortable with it.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 10/10. Affleck does a fantastic job with the direction. A couple things in particular caught my eye. At the end of the movie, they show pictures of the actual people involved in the operation side-by-side with shots from the movie, and it's stunning how accurate everything looked compared to how they looked in real life. The movie was also full of interesting shots and visuals. The one that stuck out to me the most was when Tony is waiting in the Iranian building in Turkey and he looks to the side and a portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini was staring down at him, as if Ayatollah were watching him. While this was far from the only great shot in the movie, this is the one that stuck out to me the most.

     -Acting: 10/10. Everyone did a great job in acting. The whole cast did a great job, though my favorite performances were from Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin, and John Goodman. Goodman and Arkin are hilarious as the two actual Hollywood people, and Affleck does a great job all around, with directing and acting.

     -Writing: 9.5/10.

          -Story: 10/10. Well, like they say, the truth is stranger than fiction, and the story is both truthful and extremely interesting.

This was the fake poster used for Argo in real life.

          -Script: 9/10. Really a great script. The lines were good and it was able to mix grave drama with witty comedy. There didn't seem to be any cheesy lines, and all the lines they had worked well with the movie.

     -Special Effects: n/a. Special effects were really not used that much in the movie. In fact, I'm not sure if they're used at all really, since there's no blood and guns are used only in two scenes. Still, the movie works extremely well without them.

     -Music/Score: 8/10. The score was very good and it added to the tension of the movie at points. While it doesn't always stand out, it definitely adds an element of tension to the movie.

     -Power/Emotion: 7/10. The movie does a pretty good job at making the audience care for the characters at least to the point where you don't want to see any of them die. You also feel especially for those from the embassy as they have to step out in public and trust a total stranger in Tony when they know they are public enemies to the Iranians.

     -Adrenaline: 10/10. The movie is very tense all the way through, as it starts off with the US Embassy being stormed. There is not a lot of action or chase scenes, but there is constant tension throughout. It will definitely have you on the edge of your seat by the end, knowing how slim the chances are of the mission succeeding and how perfectly everything needs to go in order to work and in order for all the characters not to die at the hands of the revolutionary Iranians.

     -Intelligence: 6/10. This is now the new name for the "mind-bendingness" section, as I think intelligence is a better word to describe the original intent of this section, which was to rate how much the movie makes you think and/or engages you mentally. In other words, a superficial movie like Transformers would rank low, while something mind-bending and intellectual like Inception would rank high. While the movie is smartly written and directed, it doesn't make you think as much as some movies do. The big thing that makes you think is the display of how much the U.S. is hated in this movie and the kind of things we did to Iran before Ayatollah Khomeini came to power. Still, this does not take away from the movie at all.

     -Humor: 6/10. The movie nicely blended humor and drama. There were some really funny moments and lines in the movie, especially coming from John Goodman and Alan Arkin's characters. The writer did a great job of working in good humor with such a serious story. Kudos to him.

     -Best Credit: Dorianne Pahlavan as "Airport Hysterical Wife."

     -Final Score:  Argo is one of the best movies I have seen in theaters this year. It is good all across the board and Ben Affleck is great both behind and in front of the camera. It's most likely going to take home some awards at the Oscars in February. If you can stand swearing, you should see this movie. I think it would be very hard to be disappointed.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook page.