I want to see this movie. I had heard good things about it. Thanks for posting.

I saw it. Thought it was great. Actually demeans democrats as slavers. HAH!

No thanks, I´ll pass. I´m suffering slavery fatigue, thanks in large part to the 50+ years of black power, affirmative action and the countless promotions of self-guilting white leftists. Such actions have created chaos in the black community, all self-inflicted.

Lincoln was the president who stabbed states´ rights in the heart and suspended habeas corpus as a bonus.

I´m too old to ever see any tribute to today´s current slave class, the conservative middle class.

Ditto, the film is worth a trip to the theater or movie rental in the future. Doris Kearns Goodwin´s book, "Team of Rivals", is vital to this movie. She spent 10 years researching letters and writing to acurately portray the characters and personalities of Lincoln´s cabinet members which all go by in a flash in the movie. It may take you 2 years to read "the doorstopper", but it is very good and gives you glimpses of Lincoln from many different perspectives. I liked Sally Fields as Mary Lincoln. Mary was a very intelligent lady and is often dismissed. This movie shows her as being very involved, interested, and aware of the importance of what Lincoln was doing.

FTA: “The Republican Party was founded in the belief that it was “the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery,” as the party platform of 1856 put it.

The party’s contemporary concerns about traditional marriage and the promotion of freedom have their roots in the origin of the Republican Party.

Lincoln criticized slavery as embodying the tyrannical principle he called “the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.” Don’t tell Tony Kushner, but the contemporary Democratic Party is preeminently the party of “you work and I eat.”

The “twin relics of barbarism” are coming back. Democrats are assisting both.

Slavery is already here. The sons of slaves have enslaved the slave owners’ sons.


Polygamy will arrive with the Global Caliphate and sharia law.

#3: You got it right. Good on ya.

Note: in the original article it says "Until reading David Brook’s [sic]obtuse column about the film...."

It is not proper to alter the original text when posting.

Hubby and I went to see Lincoln yesterday. It was a good movie, a bit long, but good. Most of it centered on Lincoln getting the 13th Amendment passed and what it took to make that happen. Shows that even then there was a lot of arm twisting and goodies promised to get a vote passed. It´s not a thriller. It´s not one of those Movies I would go and see again, but I´m glad went to see it.

This is a very good movie. It shows the old saw about making laws and sausages, you don´t want to take a close look at the process.
The Republicans had to bribe, cajole, and bully stubborn dems into passing the amendment before the war ended. The Republicans are on the side of the angels; the dems are pro-slavery.
My husband pointed out that the movie came out after the election! The MSM in action.

wil not se it, though was initially very enthusiastic about it:

1) Daniel Day Lewis is a huge lib, and made a point of publicly demeaning and bashing Clinot Eastwood for his Rep. convention appearance. I´m done with supporting dumb libs. with my money. Same with Spielberg.

2) The Emancipation was enacted as a war measure, not for moral reasons.

3) Kearns-Goodwin is a plagarist, PBS pimp-ette, and Boston libtard.

Years ago I would have wanted to see this movie, but not now. I am sick and tired of Spielberg and the rest of the liberal elites. Spielberg is rich enough. He does not need any of my money.

Even though I can´t stand Spielberg´s leftist politics, Kushner´s radical gay views, and Doris Kearns Goodwin´s accepted plagiarism, I went to see Lincoln anyway. After nearly walking out during the opening scene and the sledge-hammer speech to Pres. Lincoln by a black Union soldier, I settled down and actually enjoyed the film. DD Lewis gave an oscar worthy performance as did many of the supporting cast (Sally Field a little over the top but that´s just me).

I agree with Daisymae that it was too long as are most movies these days.

Daniel Day Lewis is an actor. I´m not going to not see a good movie because he spouts nonsense from his empty head at times when there´s not a script for him to follow. The movie was good. In it, Lincoln practically admits that the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional and tyrannical. That was why he pushed so hard for the amendment to be passed.

It interested me (and maybe others who like history) that the other day, I saw a blog of a black lady who loves to dress up in Victorian dress and has her house Victorian: She had a post about the black lady who was the friend of Mary Todd in the movie. Yes, she really existed! She was born a slave but worked as a dressmaker and made enough money to buy her freedom. At some point, she met Mrs. Lincoln and they had "an unequal friendship". Just thought that was interesting.

I´ll watch "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" before I go and see this. I´m sick and tired of being insulted by the MSM and the rest of the Democrats.

Great movie...the irony of Republicans freeing the slaves and standing for individual freedom in 1865 juxtaposed with modern Democrats increasing government control of our lives and keeping Blacks, and now, Hispanics on the entitlement plantation...

I wont watch it! I will get my History from a trustworthy source...not Spielberg.

I thought it was boring. Day-Lewis in a high-pitched voice did not do it for me although the mole on his face was well-placed. I thought it pandered to African-Americans as it put many in a noble light with straight hair and perfect English. It depicted the government representatives as a bunch of red-necked idiots--sort of what we have now, I guess.

Rent Amazing Grace about William Wiberforce which has a very similar plot. Other than the portrayal of Lincoln, I didn´t see much of Kearns-Goodwin´s book. DDL was great especially Lincoln´s supposed high pitched voice as well as Tommy Lee Jones. The rest including Sally Fields really chewed up the scenery.

Semper Fi

Let´s celebrate a man who is responsible for more American deaths than anyone else.
He did what Hitler & Emperor Hirohito(?) could NOT do - He killed about 3/4 million Americans.

Bloody Abe!

I prefer to get my history through books, not movies. Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter was way out there, but it sure was a lot of fun. In my defense here, the Calf and his wife made me watch it with them so we could make fun of it. Think what you will Lincoln was the right man for the job at the time.
Mrs. Cow

I will wait to see it on HBO

I teach high school U.S. history, so I do have a depth of knowledge on this period. While there was no earth shattering revelation in it for me, the movie was phenomenal!!!

Can´t wait to get it on Blu-Ray when it comes out. I loved the movie.

Initially, I was worried this would be a revisionist history designed to make Republicans look bad. But the movie was terrific. If anything, I wish it would´ve come out before the election. The Republicans look like the good guys in it.

No thanks. Have had it up to here with the eeeevil South always being bashed in Hollywood and popular culture. Slavery was wrong, but you would think the only racists in America still live in the South.

Lost interest in seeing it when I saw an ad that stated that Lincoln was the man who united the country. If that´s the case what was the war all about. Had the same problem with the movie Gettysburg with all the Northern soldiers talking about fighting for the liberty of the slaves, etc. Oliver Stone´s movie about JFK was good theater but absolute codswallop. DD Lewis is entitled to his opinions and is a fine actor.

When speaking to people about Lincoln, I am fascinated to find that there are two very important points about the man that most people do not even consider. First, he was a lawyer. Second, he was a politician. In the minds of those who deify Lincoln those two notions are dismissed since he "saved" the Union.

On the first point, Lincoln was very careful to couch any utterances and proclamations in the legalist jargon of his profession. The Emancipation Proclamation is a very legalist document which was designed to lead to slave insurrection in the uncontrolled Confederate territory. That it literally did not free any slaves until Union control was established is lost on most people. It was a legalistic political document that has satisfied the Radical Republicans of the past and the fawning historians of the late 19th and entire 20th centuries.

On the second point, Lincoln was a political animal. He was a loyal Whig who supported Henry Clay´s domestic internal improvements ideas. He even took up Clay´s mantle when he promoted the transcontinental railroad even during wartime.

I am not so foolish as to believe that the Civil War could have been easily averted. There was tremendous political pressure from the Abolitionists and Radical Republicans to destroy the evils of the aristocratic slave owners in the South. There was enormous pressure from Northern industrialists to continue the lucrative relationship between the cotton consumers and the cotton producers (who on the eve of the war were responsible for about 60% of GDP). Lincoln was between a hard spot and a hard spot. He chose to fight, and for that choice we had over 100 years of reverberation, the echoes of which can still be heard today.