Robert Joyner
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
Mandeep Tyson
The acting in this movie is really good.
Marva
It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,
thinker1691
The name of D.W.Griffith dates back to the silent era. To date, all his films possessed definite trademarks, such as grandeur, spectacle and adherence to entertainment. This early Black and White film called " Abraham Lincoln " was created back in 1930. For the true movie fan, the hissing background noise, poor soundtrack and uneven movie cuts are to be accepted as original efforts. The film does take literary license with the story of Abraham Lincoln (Walter Huston) and features his life story in several segments beginning with his birth in the now famous log Cabin, story teller, sparking Ann Rutledge, rail splitting, practicing law, to the spirited debate with Steven Douglas and commander of the Union forces during the civil war. Through all, the director creates a majestic film tapestry of the 16th president of the U. S. and a movie Classic in it's own right. ****
Robert J. Maxwell
It refuses to fly. The whole thing constitutes 90 minutes of parasitic drag.General MacLellan might have directed this. It has "a case of the slows." It begins with Abraham Lincoln's birth. There are extensive scenes of Lincoln (Walter Huston) tentatively courting Ann Rutledge (Una Merkel). They both move and speak slowly. The flirtation drags along. Merkel gets sick and dies with Huston by her side. She has long slow last words -- many long slow last words. Nine years later, John Ford zipped through all this in a few minutes. We didn't even see Ann Rutledge die, just a half frozen river accompanied by a few tragic chords in Al Newman's score.I understand that D. W. Griffith practically invented the grammar of the moving picture -- the cross-cutting, the invisible editing, the close up -- but he couldn't do a thing with this Steven Vincent Benet script, nor with the images we see on the screen.The close ups are an embarrassment. The actors are made up so emphatically that their lips and eyes might be seen from the most distant row of the balcony.One wonders whether Griffith really believed that Abraham Lincoln was such a great president. After all, from the director's point of view, Lincoln was on the wrong side of the Civil War. But maybe Griffith did admire Lincoln. Maybe he thought, "Well, at least Lincoln gave us Thanksgiving." But nothing can excuse a film that seems to have been shot in a vast tank of molasses.There's something to be said for quitting while you're ahead.
dwpollar
1st watched 1/19/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-D.W. Griffith): OK film about Abraham Lincoln's life is definitely a good piece of history for America but not a great movie. One of the two D.W. Griffith talkies in existence is definitely grand in scale for it's time and uplifting from an American standpoint. The problem is that it almost comes across too much like it's stamped with an American label. Lincoln's faults are not really well explored and he's portrayed as a savior to the country(the union must be preserved!! was his favorite saying) -- without question. Walter Huston's portrayal is good but the makeup is better especially in the later years. This is a technically well made film and Griffith does some good montage sequences to bring us from scene to scene but watching this movie is almost like reading a history book. Granted, Lincoln is a treasured part of America, but still a human being in my book. This was made during a time when we wanted our heroes full-proof unlike today where we like to see all sides of individuals. Therefore, the movie doesn't age well. Sure this is a good bit of history that can be viewed in a classroom but not enjoyed in a movie house. Again, maybe our enlightened age just dampers the viewing, but I have to say it how I see it.
MartinHafer
This is the 26th movie I have seen from Harry Medved's book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time" and I've gotta say that I agree with Medved's choice. While many of his "fifty worst" weren't THAT bad (a few were even pretty good), this one is probably the worst bio-pic I have ever seen. Now this doesn't mean that it's among the 50 worst films EVER made, however--just the worst bio-pic. You just can't get much worse than this one in fact.My biggest complaint isn't about how tediously slow the movie is or how horrible the dialog is. While these aspects did totally suck, they weren't the worst part of the film. The main problem is that so much of the film is just factually wrong, so on top of being boring and dumb, it isn't even correct!! Trust me on this one, I am an American History teacher and can assure you that this film appears as if they really didn't do any research--especially since the film repeats such obvious lies. Like George Washington before him (with his supposed wooden teeth and need to chop down cherry trees), after Lincoln's death lots of people pretty much made up the facts to make Lincoln seem bigger than life. Lots of great little homespun stories were created out of thin air--and Griffith totally made up many facts. The most obvious one is the supposed love affair between Lincoln and Ann Rutlage--this simply didn't happen. Other stupidly written and patently false portions of the film would include much of the Lincoln-Douglas segment of the film (especially the time-line for it), Lincoln loudly announcing that he'd found the perfect man to lead his troops (though Grant was about the 8th or 9th "perfect man" that Lincoln appointed to this position), etc., etc., etc.. Additionally, the film wasn't really told in a smooth narrative but seemed like overly-staged scenes from his life--often not in the right order or else done in such histrionic and melodramatic fashion that I laughed out loud. I loved the birth scene--John the Baptist and St. Francis must have had less auspicious and saintly births!! Heck, in THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, the birth was done with less melodrama!! The overall film really looks like an 1870s traveling company who did tent show, not a professionally made movie. Amateurish, silly and ridiculously nationalistic--it is meant to please dumb yokels, but not anyone with even a passing knowledge of history.Bad, dumb and totally uninspiring--this is one bad film disguised as something significant or patriotic. If you are interested in TRUE patriotism, read a biography of this man. The real Lincoln was a lot less "homespun" and much more a brilliant and occasionally very pragmatic politician--and THAT would make for a far more interesting film! By the way, one of the only things the film got pretty well was Mary Todd Lincoln. She really was a fussy woman who was almost impossible to get along with according to almost every description. Her life, though tragic, was also really interesting and could stand a GOOD bio-pic itself--giving more attention to her life before and after Abraham's death.I fully expect to get some hate mails and "not helpfuls" for this review. I have had to the nerve to criticize D.W. Griffith (a very important but very, very flawed film maker) and some knuckleheads might see this review as unpatriotic. The way I see it, lying about a nation's past like this film did is unpatriotic--plus the truth is far more interesting and compelling. Lincoln was a great president and a role model--not some sappy backwoods idiot who wears lipstick like he seems to be in this syrupy mess. And, yes, I did mean that he wore lipstick--the makeup was THAT bad.4/6/08 UPDATE: AN IMPORTANT NOTE--Please ignore the number of negatives posted for this film, as I have been "spammed". Although it's an old and obscure film, within a day or two I'd gotten slammed with five "Not Helpfuls". Obviously, my review hacked someone off enough that they are using proxy accounts to criticize my review. Normally with a movie this old and obscure, you MIGHT get one or two comments a year yet I got five in one or two days! Gimme a break!!
