Lincoln (2012)

What a fantabulous film.. I will take good acting over vampire hunting any day. All of the characters in this film were such characters. Even the small roles had enough showing to pick up character foibles and eccentricities that really brought everything alive.
Of course I had heard how great this movie was, but it was always about Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln. He was absolutely fantastic. When I can forget that such a well-known actor is playing the role, I think that is a sign that they're doing something very right. But, I was not prepared for very strong showing by Sally Field, David Stratairn and Tonny Lee Jones. I expect these three actors to do a good job, just as I expect Day-Lewis to do a good job, but they all really stepped it up a notch. But maybe The Amazing Spiderman, Alphas and Men In Black 3, respectively, are not the most dramatic of vehicles to show off their fine acting abilities. These four actors were essential to this movie's success and set the bar very high for the rest of the cast.
I loved seeing Hal Holbrook in period costume. He somehow looks more appropriate dressed as a gentleman from the nineteenth century than in contemporary clothes. Perhaps that is because the first thing I recall seeing him in he was dressed as Mark Twain, or perhaps he is drawn to those roles because they somehow fit him best. He is looking as old as ever, which is to say not a bit older than he did twenty years ago.
It seems hard to believe that there was ever a time when long beards were the norm de rigeur, but it warms the cockles of my heart to see so many whiskers. I am glad that no one has suggested recently that those of us with beards shave off our mustaches, as I've never liked that look and doing it would not only feel funny, but make me look funnier than I already am. It is interesting that so many of the young men were sporting mustaches, like Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the President's son, Robert Lincoln, as well as James Spader as Mr. Bilbo. I wonder if there wasn't a sort of generational rebellion going on? Probably yes and probably no. I suspect that like now, it was largely a matter of fashion more than anything else.

Lincoln on IMDb

Water for Elephants (2011)

I haven't read the book, so I can't compare this film to it, I can only compare the film to other circus films / love stories. Robert Pattinson is Jacob, wait isn't that the name of one of the characters from those other movies? Reese Witherspoon is Marlena the horse/elephant performer. There's a lot of smiling, and I guess if I was as pretty as either one of them, I'd smile a lot too. Add Cristoph Waltz in as August and you've got quite a main cast.
Considering that two of the three are Academy Award (r) you would think this movie would be amazing. It's not bad, but it's not amazing. The pacing of the film is a tad slow, though it does start to pick up at an hour or so into the film, but that is sooooo long to wait for things to pick up.
The vast portion of this film takes place in 1931, and everything seems to be very accurate. The costumery is top notch, as is the portrayal of depression era United States. But what really steals the show, is Rosie the elephant, played by Tai (hey, I'm giving everyone else their creds). She steals every scene she is in, but animals, especially those that are smart and well-trained, are well known for upstaging their human counterparts.
I wasn't around when prohibition was going on, but I was always under the impression that people did not flaunt their alcohol, they just drank in private, or if the movies are any indication, in speak-easies. This film has lots of booze. It seems to me that if you're going to fill a film with lots of booze and keep mentioning the prohibition that it should be key to the plot - cops busting you, or the friendly towny helping out with a warning, and then bam! In run the cops yelling it's a raid, just so that we can finally get the kiss we've been waiting for the last 78 minutes.
And then the movie goes on in slow motion with triumphant scenes of Witherspoon performing with the elephant as sad music plays to Pattinson looking on. Meanwhile Waltz is getting more and more jealous and a little crazy with what he imagines, and in no small part insures will happen.
But, at least Rosie is still in the movie. Right? As the movie finally builds to it's awkward climax, you finally get the idea that if the movie is like the book, that you're glad that you've watched the movie. Maybe I'm not a romantic (I guess there is more than one person that could confirm this for you if you need it confirmed) but I don't think this book would have done anything more than put me to sleep. Maybe the book was full of all kinds of delicious details like the wonderful "Night Circus" by Erin Morgenstern. And maybe the book wasn't as formulaic as the film, I know that making a movie can often shape stories into something unrecognizable.
The finale of the movie makes up for the previous slowness, but leaves me wondering why they didn't have better pacing all along - I don't mean non-stop action, but non-stop movement of the story or non-stop character development, or preferably all of the above.
Oh, and I'm sure that Pattinson is happy to know that when he grows up and then old, he will be Hal Holbrook. There are far worse ways to turn out.

Water for Elephants at IMDb