Big Fish Movie Review

Tim Burton films are kind of hit or miss. In recent years he's been doing little more than directing unnecessary remakes. These have served little purpose other than showcasing his unique and weird art style. Tim Burton isn't a bad director; his remakes are enjoyable enough, but have seemed uninspired lately. He's written and directed several films of his own design that were very good; Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice come to mind. Big Fish (2003) is much more grounded than his other recent films, and doesn't feature his signature art style as much.

William Bloom (Billy Crudup) never really knew his father, Edward (Albert Finney) outside of the tall tales he told Will about growing up, making his way in the world, and meeting his mother (Alison Lohman as a young woman, and Jessica Lange in older age). Will and his young wife, Josephine (Marion Cotillard), are summoned from their home in Paris to Will's old home in Alabama after Edward's health takes a turn for the worse. He's not expected to live much longer, so William and Josephine hold bedside vigil as the old man recollects elaborate tales of his youth (in which he is played by Ewan McGregor). Still doubting all the legend and folklore he heard growing up, William makes a journey to meet a mysterious woman (Helena Bonham Carter) from whom Edward had bought property. Even as Will meets people from his father's past, it's still impossible for him to separate fact from myth, and Will fears losing his father without ever really knowing him.

Tim Burton likes telling stories that play on creepiness coupled with cuteness. The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride come to mind; they feature spindly characters with huge, sunken eyes; the sets are strewn with hard angles, spirals, and stripes. Even in live action films, these visuals appear regularly and are Tim Burton's signature style. Big Fish doesn't have this kind of style, and indeed, classic “Tim-Burton-isms” don't manifest very strongly in Big Fish. It almost seems like he was going in a new direction with Big Fish, though he quickly reverted back to his old style once Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out. This refreshing change of pace gave the movie a much more grounded feel, in spite of the surreal visuals used in Edward's many tall tales.

Big Fish draws inspiration from a lot of fairy tale and myth. Not specifically stories you may have heard before, but similar enough to evoke thoughts of bedtime stories you may have heard as a child. This film helps us understand how important myths can be in our lives. They bring fun, adventure, and romance into our lives where it might otherwise not exist, and makes things more memorable and enjoyable. Particularly in the case of Big Fish, it shows us how as we approach the end of our lives, we depend on the legends we leave behind to give those lives meaning. We tell these stories not only to others, but to ourselves. Certainly there is truth in them, but the way our stories are told makes them special.

Burton weaves a very heartfelt story that will likely make us swoon along with the romance, and move us to the edge of our seats as Edward relates one of his stories. Burton likes to tell stories with visual effects, and he uses Edward's bizarre tales as a segue into visually rich flashbacks. They involve a witch whose glass eye reflects the way her visitors will die, and a circus run by a zany ringleader (Danny DeVito), making friends with Karl the Giant (Matthew McGrory), a catfish the size of a shark, and the time he parachutes onto the stage of a Red Army talent show in China where he meets Ping and Jing, a conjoined vocal duo sharing two legs. The visual effects are fantastic to behold, but they don't detract from the sweetness and sentimentality of the story.

Big Fish is a compelling look at father-son relationships, and the child coming to terms with the parent's mortality. As they try to make peace with one another, Edward instills the value of a good story in his son, and Will learns how myth makes life worth living. Edward is the kind of Grandpa you'd want to have tell tall tales to your children. The characters are so believable and even though they are at odds with one another, it is easy to relate to them.

Big Fish concludes with a touching tear-and-a-smile quality. You'll laugh and likely be choked up as the story unfolds. It's romantic, humorous, touching, sad, and happy. It's a new direction from Burton since he relies on powerful familial emotions rather than wacky visual splendor to sell the movie; he treads closer to the real world in Big Fish than he has in any of his other films. I would really like to see Burton do more movies like this one. I really feel that Burton allowed himself to shine with Big Fish since he goes out on a limb to do something he typically doesn't do. As a red flag to parents, there are a few brief scenes of nudity which are used artistically rather than sexually. I don't think it necessarily needs to be kept from younger viewers; especially since the intelligent way it is written wouldn't insult kid or adult audiences. Big Fish is a very good movie, I still get choked up every time I see it. This one is worth owning and seeing again and again.

What's your favorite Tim Burton movie? Why do you like it so much? Comment below and tell me why!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Movie Review

I'm sure most of us could tell some stories about rallying up friends to see the memorable Lord of the Rings movies. I hosted several all-day events where all three of the extended Lord of the Rings movies were watched in one day. They were great journeys that we, as movie goers, took to Middle-Earth. Finally we all get to make a whole new journey to Middle-Earth in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), and it was well worth it!

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is swept into a quest to reclaim the Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug. Approached by the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). Their journey will take them into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Giant Spiders, and Sorcerers. Although their goal lies to the East in wastelands of the Lonely Mountain, they must first escape the goblin tunnels where Bilbo meets the creature that will change his life forever ... Gollum (Andy Serkis). Here, alone with Gollum on the shores of an underground lake, the unassuming Bilbo Baggins not only discovers depths of guile and courage that surprise even himself, but he also gains possession of Gollum's "precious" ring that holds unexpected and useful qualities.

As a long time fan of Tolkien's stories and of The Lord of the Rings, I was chomping at the bit to see The Hobbit. Peter Jackson returned to direct this movie with every bit as much love and detail as The Lord of the Rings. It really felt like we were taking a new journey to Middle-Earth, and it was just as captivating as it was before. We revisit some key locations that we had seen in the previous films, and they looked just as detailed and beautiful as they did before. We saw familiar and new rooms in both Bagend (Bilbo's home) and Rivendell. We get to see familiar characters as they were before Lord of the Rings, which included some unexpected cameos, and plenty of new characters.

One of the most endearing things about Lord of the Rings is that they were perfectly spot on to how we imagined them from reading the books. The Hobbit does this, too, especially the scene where Bilbo is confronted by Gollum. If you've ever seen a movie based on a book that did such a perfect job depicting the story you read, you'll know what kind of a euphoric feeling it is to see it depicted just right on the screen. The Hobbit has several moments like this.

On the other hand, it's also got several scenes that were completely new to me. Peter Jackson obtained the rights to film material that only existed as J.R.R. Tolkien's notes. This expanded the story quite a lot, and made us aware of The Dark Lord Sauron's presence in this story and how events in The Hobbit set into motion events that lead up to The Lord of the Rings. It makes The Hobbit much more meaningful as part of a much bigger epic. However, I think this is also a weak point. I think the peripheral story points sometimes felt like red herrings that drew us away from the main story which gave the movie a kind of uneven and sometimes vaguely confusing quality. But "All good stories," as Gandalf intones, "deserve embellishment." These odd back stories were usually pertinent to the overall story; they weren't simply thrown in to pad the length of the movie. I still feel like some were unnecessary, but I have faith that as more of the story unfolds in future instalments, their purpose will become more clear.

The characters were spot on. Bilbo was a lovable, scared, and very reserved character that we got to see grow and become a hero. He's far from the stuff of legend yet, but he's getting there. Gandalf is still the wise sage with meaningful advice that even I took to heart. Gollum is just as wacky, bizarre, creepy, funny, and tragic as he was before. Thorin Oakenshield was an amazing character who had a strong presence and some interesting personality flaws with which he struggles. Nevertheless, he was an outstanding character whom I would follow on epic adventures given the chance.

I think part of what made The Lord of the Rings so memorable was the music. When a certain melody begins, who can help but think of the quaint and peaceful Shire where the Hobbits live? Or the ominous string instruments that permeate scenes where characters are tempted by The One Ring? We get a whole new set of music in The Hobbit, and it is gorgeous and feels as iconic and memorable as the music from The Lord of the Rings. Right from the opening credits I couldn't help but think that this is what Middle-Earth sounds like. The Dwarven company sings songs of their lost kingdom with great reverence that sounds like ancient hymns that would have been sung by druids of old; it sounds beautiful.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a really good first course in a whole new trilogy. The characters were great, the script was good, the sets were beautiful, and the special effects where fantastic! The pacing is a bit slow at the beginning, but picks up as soon as they leave The Shire. This is a really good adventure story that features some great characters who develop and grow. It ends on a positive note, but we absolutely get the feeling that bigger and greater things lie ahead for our new heroes. I'm anxiously looking forward to the next installment of The Hobbit trilogy. I highly recommend catching this in theaters while you can. I have a feeling this will be as big a cinema event as The Lord of the Rings trilogy was; you shouldn't miss out on it. It will be worth buying on Blu-Ray, but I recommend holding out for the extended edition. I enjoyed this so much, I want to get a copy of the soundtrack in addition to the extended edition Blu-Ray!

What scenes are you particularly looking forward to in the next two Hobbit movies? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Red Dawn Movie Review

When I was about 9 or 10 years old I watched my first PG-13 movie; the 1984 Red Dawn. I don’t remember much of it, but it was a bit too violent for my tastes back then.  A lot has happened in the world since 1984, and I could see why someone thought making a remake might be a good idea. Incidentally, they didn’t really do a very good job with the new Red Dawn (2012).

US Marine Jed Eckhert (Chris Hemsworth) is on leave from his military duties and returns to his hometown of Spokane, Washington. He reunites with his Police Sergeant father (Brett Cullen) and high school football star brother, Matt (Josh Peck). After a mysterious power outage, Jed and Matt are shocked to wake up in the morning to North Korean paratroopers that are invading the neighborhood. They escape to the Eckhart family’s cabin in the woods along with some of Matt’s schoolmates, including Robert Morris (Josh Hutcherson) and Daryl Jenkins (Conner Cruise), the mayor’s son.  Jed announces that he intends to fight for freedom and the others join him, calling themselves the Wolverines after their school mascot. Jed trains the teenagers to become guerrillas to fight against the North Korean commander, Capt. Cho (Will Yun Lee), and take back their land and freedom.

So, the world has changed a lot since the 1980’s; the Soviet Union (invading country in the original Red Dawn) has fallen, dictators have also fallen, the United States has been involved in several conflicts, and we are currently in a state of war. The United States has gained new allies and new enemies. In light of post-9/11 America, the idea of the US being invaded is a lot more plausible than it was in 1984. Indeed the scenes where Matt and Jed wake up in their safe suburban home to the sight of fighter jets and paratroopers above their neighborhood is a daunting and frightening sight that doesn’t seem as unrealistic a concept in the year 2012.

However, we needn’t worry too much. Red Dawn assures us that an invading communist country can be subjugated by a team of high school kids and their girlfriends using mostly automatic weapons stolen from the North Koreans themselves. I thought Red Dawn was a timely remake that was full of plot holes. How does  North Korea with a population around 25 million, raise enough invaders to attack the United States which has a population of about 513 million, even with some assistance from Russia? The story’s time frame is pretty vague; how long does it take North Korea to invade, import heavy weapons and vehicles, enlist the local traitors, and start running things? Why are they traveling over so many other countries and an ocean just to attack the US specifically? How long does it take one Marine to train a dozen teenagers to fight and use weaponry they’ve never handled before?

Focusing on the characters in one particular resistance group was fine, provided it featured interesting characters. Red Dawn didn’t actually do that. There was very little dialogue in the movie apart from cautionary advice, victory cries, and comments from enemy leaders  eavesdropped to the subjugated population. Yeah, Matt and Jed are at odds with one another and bicker with one another. Conflict gives characters depth, but I don’t even know why they are arguing other than the fact that they aren’t particularly fond of each other. Really? You’re country is being invaded! Get over yourselves and fight the enemy together! The other characters were given barely any dialogue, so in the rare case when someone dies, you don’t really feel sorry for their loss; you even need Jed to remind you what the name of the dead character is. Dialogue was mostly limited to, “Take that, screaming North Koreans with no agenda!”

Apart from Chris Hemswroth, the acting wasn’t very good. Josh Peck was not cut out for action or dramatic roles. Peck started out as a painfully juvenile comedy actor for Nickelodeon, I’m glad he’s moving on to bigger and better things, but he just wasn’t good in Red Dawn. Most of the other actors did pretty lame job, this was probably their first acting gig and it really shows.

Red Dawn really wasn’t a very well written or acted movie. It’s almost seems like someone woke up one morning with the idea to do an unnecessary remake of a cult classic, and about a week later they finished production. I appreciate what it was trying to do: communicate that the idea of a war on American soil isn’t a far-fetched idea anymore, and to make us question whether or not we would fight to protect the freedoms we inherited from our forefathers. That was a great idea to get the audience to think about. Red Dawn didn’t really do a good job of it, though. It was more of a pro-America action movie with lots of gun fights and explosions and very little plot for a war movie. Given the amount of gunplay, the carnage is far from graphic. There are a few rousingly patriotic moments in the movie that I really appreciated. You’re not going to be missing anything if you don’t see Red Dawn, but I enjoyed it for the message that wasn’t well expressed. If you even want to bother with it, I recommend borrowing from a friend. It’s barely worth the money to rent it.

Did you see this Red Dawn? In your opinion how did it measure up to the original? Were there parts they did better or worse than the 1984 version? Comment below and let me know if the remake did justice to the original.

Gangs of New York Movie Review

Historical films can be really interesting when they show you an obscure bit of history that typically isn’t covered in the usual history class. These films are especially interesting when the historical events are still affecting modern society. Gangs of New York (2002) showed us how gang warfare was prevalent even in mid-1800 and how even in those days Americans were leery and unwelcoming of immigrants.

In 1846, as waves of Irish immigrants poured into the New York neighborhood of Five Points, a number of citizens of British and Dutch heritage who were born in the United States began making an open display of their resentment toward the new arrivals. William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), better known as “Bill the Butcher” for his deadly skill with a knife, bands his fellow “Native Americans” into a gang to take on the Irish immigrants. The immigrants in turn form a gang of their own, “The Dead Rabbits,” organized by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson). After an especially bloody clash between the Natives and the Rabbits which leaves Vallon dead, his son goes missing; the boy ends up in a brutal reform school before returning to the Five Points in 1862 by the name Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio). Now a strapping adult who has learned how to fight, Amsterdam has come to seek vengeance against Bill the Butcher, whose underworld control of the Five Points through violence and intimidation has merged with the open corruption of New York politician William “Boss” Tweed (Jim Broadbent). Amsterdam gradually penetrates Bill the Butcher’s inner circle, and soon becomes his trusted assistant. Amsterdam also finds himself falling for Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful street-smart thief who was once involved with Bill. Amsterdam learns a great deal from Bill, but before he can turn the tables on the man who killed his father, his true identity is exposed even though he has concealed it from nearly everyone, including Jenny. With more Irish immigrants pouring in by the day, Amsterdam soon has an army to overthrow the rival gang. Before long, an all out turf war breaks out in all areas of New York City.

Honestly, I didn’t realize that gangs and street warfare were around in the mid-1800’s. I guess I (and presumably others) have this idea of relatively quaint and peaceful times until the Civil War broke out. That’s probably because history classes talk about politics and wars and less about social issues, culture, and other interesting things. No wonder these true events tend to fall through the cracks in our history books.

Gangs of New York is an interesting crime drama. Usually crime dramas are reserved for gangsters of the prohibition era of the 1920’s or modern underworld dealings. The fact that Gangs of New York challenges our notion of a crime drama makes it all the more interesting. It still has all the basic components that a crime story would have; gangs fighting, backstabbing one another, gaining power through intimidation and murder, and loose women as part of their spoils after victory. It will still remind you of modern underworld dealings that you see in contemporary movies or even in the news.

As a film, I wasn’t all that impressed with it. The movie makes some great political statements and commentary on the culture of its day that is still applicable to our day, such as how we treat immigrants. We might welcome them to our country but only give them the worst that our country has to offer; Irish immigrants were promised citizenship on the condition that they sign up to fight in the Civil War on the front lines.

One of the better parts of Gangs of New York was the colorful characters, which included a hired club named Monk (Brendan Gleeson) and a shopkeeper named Happy Jack (John C. Reilly). But easily the best character was Bill the Butcher, one of the best villains in modern film. He has strangely elaborate diction, a choked accent, and a tendency to combine ruthlessness with philosophy. He is disturbing with this uncanny use of blades and meat cleavers. While the cast was impressive, Daniel Day-Lewis really stole the show and made the movie worth seeing.

Gangs of New York is not one of Martin Scorsese’s greatest films, but even so it’s a good movie. There are a couple of scenes that are truly impressive and the tension is palpable. There’s amazing camera work with long moving camera shots. The sets and costumes are amazingly convincing. The movie seems longer than what I thought was necessary; there were a few times I was starting to get bored, but you will not be disappointed if you stick with the film. I recommend seeing it, but I personally wasn’t so taken with the movie as to go out and get my own copy to watch again and again. It’s an above average renter that I think should be watched at least once.

Is there an obscure bit of history that you would love to see made into a movie? I think a movie about the story of Alan Turing would be fascinating, but tragic. Comment below and tell me what kind of obscure historical event or figure you'd like to see a movie made about.

Wreck-It Ralph Movie Review

Video games have been around for about three decades. There have been movies made that feature video games, such as The Last Starfighter and The Wizard. There’ve been some dreadful movies based on video games themselves. But I think having a movie that’s actually about video games, such as Wreck-It Ralph (2012), has not been done before.

Wreck-It Ralph (John C. Reilly) longs to be as loved and accepted as his games’ perfect Good Guy, Felix Fix-It (Jack McBrayer). The problem is, nobody loves a Bad Guy. So when a modern, first-person shooter game called Hero’s Duty arrives at the arcade featuring tough-as-nails Sergeant Calhoun (Jane Lynch), Ralph sees it as his ticket to heroism and happiness. He sneaks into the game with a simple plan. Win a medal. But he soon wrecks everything, and accidently unleashes the alien threat from Hero’s Duty upon the other video games in the arcade. It turns out Ralph’s best chance is Vanellope von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a young troublemaking “Glitch” from a candy-themed cart racing game called Sugar Rush; she may be the one to teach Ralph what it means to be a Good Guy. Will Ralph understand what it takes to be a hero before it's “Game Over” for the entire arcade?

Wreck-It Ralph was remarkably creative. I’ve never seen a movie that is about video games in their own video-game-style setting. Because there are so many video games featured in Wreck-It Ralph, there’s a lot of opportunity for a diverse art style. Sometimes it looks simple and plain, like it does in the “retro” Felix Fix-It, Jr. game, other times it looks dark and gritty like in the Hero’s Duty game, and still other times it looks bright and colorful like in the Sugar Rush game. The often bizarre contrasts are what make Wreck-It Ralph so fun! For example when Calhoun is using her sci-fi gadgetry to find the aliens that have infested Sugar Rush, all the sugar and candy in the atmosphere interfere with the sensors.

Ralph at the Bad Guy support group.

There’s another fantastic scene early on in the movie when several video game Bad Guys meet together as a support group. In attendance are Bowser from the Mario series, Dr. Eggman from Sonic the Hedgehog, Kano from Mortal Kombat, Clyde the ghost from Pac-Man, and M. Bison from Street Fighter to name a few. There are lots of other classic video game cameos strewn throughout the movie, including a brief speaking part from Sonic the Hedgehog, and Mario mentioned in dialogue. This was important to make the movie relatable. For main characters and settings, Disney obviously had to make their own video games to keep from making copyright infringements, but if there were no actual video game references it would have made the games created specifically for this movie seem out of sorts. But because Pac-Man attends a party, Q*Bert helps Felix, Ryu uses his Hadouken move, and they all go to the video game root beer bar Tapper after the arcade closes for the night, the made up games seem more believable. They even use the Konami Code in Wreck-It Ralph, hilarious.

Even the made up games use obvious references to actual video games. Fix-It Felix, Jr. is based off of Donkey Kong and Rampage, Hero’s Duty is similar to Halo, and it’s hard to ignore Sugar Rush’s blatant similarity to Mario Kart. It’s almost like Who Framed Roger Rabbit of video games. So many cameos and references that watching for them makes Wreck-It Ralph even more fun to watch.

So, video game junkies will love all the references, but how does it stand as a movie? I was expecting a simple, typical Disney story. But unlike half-baked stories about being yourself, Wreck-It Ralph did a great job of telling a story with good characters who are overcoming their past, reinventing themselves, accepting weaknesses as part of what makes them unique, and learning to see the world from the perspective of the downtrodden. The characters are so well written, fun, and lovable that you can’t help but care about them. There are so many jokes and groaner puns the movie will keep you laughing, but there’s also some dramatic moments that you may get choked up over. I did, anyway.

Wreck-It Ralph might be the best animated movie I’ve seen this year, it certainly gives Brave a run for its money. I was worried that with a Halo-like game referenced, it might get a bit too scary or violent for very young viewers, but that was not so. This is a great movie to watch as a family. You don’t need to have been a gamer from the Pong-era to appreciate this movie. Small children who’ve never played a video game will love it, and adults who have been helping Mario save The Princess since 1985 will probably get the biggest kick out of this movie. It’s almost like the Toy Story for this generation; kids are growing up with video games more than toys, so I think Wreck-It Ralph will be much loved for years to come. I highly recommend this movie to anyone of any age. I really want to get a copy of this on Blu-Ray when it becomes available. Catch this in theaters if you can, it’s worth the ticket price.

What is your favorite video game you played as a kid? Mine has to be Super Mario Bros. 3 or possibly Bubble Bobble on the NES. Comment below and tell me all about it!

Lincoln Movie Review

A good biopic must be hard to make. You would have to summarize an entire life into a couple of hours, show the most dramatic highlights of someone life, and make sure the movie does it justice.  If you don’t do an absolutely amazing job, people who love and respect the individual the biopic is about will have a conniption fit. That’s probably why there hasn’t been many movies about Abraham Lincoln before Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012).

In 1865, as the American Civil War winds unavoidably towards its conclusion, U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) seeks to pass a landmark constitutional amendment which will forever ban slavery from the United States. This task is a race against time, for peace may come at any moment and if it comes before the amendment is passed, the returning southern states will stop it before it can become law. Lincoln must, by any means possible, obtain enough votes from the unruly Congress before peace arrives and it becomes too late. Yet the president is torn, as an early peace would save thousands of lives. While the nation confronts its conscience over the freedom of an entire population, Lincoln faces his own crisis of conscience; end slavery or end the war.

If you’re familiar with Daniel Day-Lewis and his movie roles such as The Last of the Mohicans, Gangs of New York, and There Will Be Blood you’ll likely assume, just as I did, that he doesn’t look like the 16^th President of the United States. However, the makeup job which was done for Day-Lewis was astonishing to say the least. Compounded by his stellar acting, you almost believe that the man on screen actually is President Lincoln. He’s a plain-spoken, practical, down-to-earth man from the farmlands of the Midwestern US who exhibits a lack of social grace but has a great intelligence and knowledge of human nature. Lincoln is constantly telling seemingly unrelated stories, but when he gets started he’s almost like this affable grandpa, and you just want to go sit on his lap while he tells you a story. Day-Lewis is calm, self-confident, and powerful in this role and really brings this revered president to life.

Lincoln has a very large cast that includes Sally Field as Mrs. Lincoln, David Strathairn as Secretary of State William H. Seward, Tommy Lee Jones as Radical Republican Congressional leader Thaddeus Stevens, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Robert Todd Lincoln, and Jackie Earle Haley as Confederate States Vice President Alexander H. Stephens. There was not a single actor who didn’t do an amazing job with their role. Alongside Day-Lewis, it really helped portray a remarkably vivid story about passing the 13^th Amendment.

The script they were given was also extraordinary. The dialogue wasn’t just good and well written, it was powerful! Lincoln is mostly calm and genteel, but there are times he speaks so powerfully and with such conviction that he’s almost intimidating; you can’t help but want to follow such a strong leader whose words are so profound and insightful. No wonder Lincoln was so well loved by the people. Famous historical words are beautifully woven into the script without making it sound like a stuffy, obligatory history lesson. The words of The Gettysburg Address are spoken with the greatest possible impact, but not by Lincoln himself. Since this movie is about an historical event, we all know how it will end before the first scene even starts. And yet the script is so powerfully written and draws you into the political suspense such that you can’t help but be on the edge of your seat while congress votes on the amendment.

It’s been nearly 150 years since the 13^th Amendment was passed, but the political situation is still applicable today. We still see the results of this Amendment. The accurate portrayal of politics is remarkable. Seeing the two political parties nearly at each other’s throats over a proposed law isn’t unlike contemporary politics. The elected officials jeer and insult one another in a remarkably articulate way while still getting their point across to Congress. This is especially true of Thaddeus Stevens, who provided some comic relief to the movie; there are a lot of jeers from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party whom opposes the 13^th Amendment. Still, the elected delegates that met to “discuss” politics yell, scream, and insult one another, which is also not unlike contemporary politics.

Lincoln wasn’t just a good movie, it was powerful. It’s a long movie at two and a half hours, but it’s so captivating and impressive that the time flies by. It’s a political drama, so viewers who don’t enjoy politics or drama films in general may not appreciate it as much. Personally, I don’t enjoy politics at all, and I enjoyed Lincoln a great deal. I strongly urge you to see this film; it’s powerful, dramatic, compelling, and still pertinent to today. It’s worth owning a copy of as both a beautiful piece of cinematic art and as a gripping tale about a significant land mark in the history of The United States of America.

Do you have a favorite political drama movie? What is it and why do you enjoy it so much? Comment below and tell me why!