Lincoln review

 Number 836 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg's biographical period-drama 'Lincoln.'

The year is 1865. The American Civil War is coming to an end. President Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) is desperately trying to pass the thirteenth amendment so he can formally abolish slavery. Will he succeed? A sprawling ensemble cast includes Hal Holbrook, David Costabile, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

As I'm sure you're sick of hearing by now, I don't like period dramas. They are neither interesting or engaging. their huge casts only serve to complicate or confuse things. And, by their very nature, they're so lacking in conflict, the writers have to really struggle in generating any type of narrative tension. It's not like a thriller where there's a murder to be solved or the will-they, won't they trope, you have in romance films.

Lincoln only cemented this belief further. For me, it was unengaging, uninteresting and difficult to follow. The overly-large cast only made things more confusing. I'm sure it was just me and my short-attention span, but I did struggle in differentiating the different characters after a while.

Daniel Day-Lewis won his third acting Oscar for his role. But I'm going to be controversial and say that I don't think this role was Oscar-worthy. Compared to his magnificent performance in There Will be Blood, his performance here was very average. This is true especially by Day-Lewis standards. Unlike with There Will Be Blood, I don't think I can pinpoint one exact moment where I thought "yes, that's why Day-Lewis won this Oscar. I think Denzel Washington in Flight, who was also Oscar-nominated, was just as good if not better.

JFK review

 Number 306 on the top 1000 films of all time is Oliver Stone's epic political thriller: JFK.

Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) is the former New Orleans district attorney. After President Kennedy is assassinated, the Warren report declares that Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) was the lone perpetrator. Garrison has his doubts and reopens the investigation. He inadvertently unearths a massive conspiracy theory. The huge ensemble cast includes Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and John Candy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a film needs a very good reason to be over three hours long. And it needs an excellent reason to be three hours and twenty-five minutes long. JFK had no such reason. it was one of the longest films I've seen and far longer than it needed to be.

It's safe to say that Kennedy's assassination is one of the most controversial topics in history. Few people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting as a lone wolf. The true perpetrators range from the mob to the CIAS to the Russians to the Cubans. Any one of these explored in isolation could have made a very interesting film, but where Stone went was how he tried to connect everything. Reportedly, he read two dozen books on Kennedy's assassination and his research team read 100-200 books. And it was like Stone tried to include every single scrap of information he could find. This made for a bloated, unfocussed film.

The supporting cast was huge and certainly could have been trimmed down. Garrison's many deputies were very similar to each other and I regularly mixed them up. Some of them were also ultimately pointless to the plot as they were involved in subplots that went nowhere. Bill Broussard (Michael Rooker) is one such deputy who becomes uncomfortable at how the conspiracy begins to implicate LBJ. He betrays his former boss by starting to work for the feds, but we never see any consequences for this.

Stone was heavily criticised for taking liberties with history. But my issue isn't so much was he included, but what he didn't, which was nothing. He included everything which was not necessary. I could have done without seeing how Garrison's investigation was affecting his family life. This would have cut the film down a lot.

And everything was slow that after a while it became very tedious. Much of the film were characters sitting in a room either quietly talking or loudly yelling at each other. As such, a lot of the supporting cast was wasted. Gary Oldman did very little as did Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. With so many famous faces, it's inevitable that you can't give them all the attention they deserve and a lot of them did fall by the wayside. Although, John Candy and Joe Pesci gave memorable performances and Costner's ending monologue was particularly powerful.

The film did have the potential to live up to its ambitious premise, but if you have to watch a film in two halves then it is too damn long.