Lincoln

I really expected a better performance from Waterson. He looks too frazzled and the dialogue often rings false. Moore came across well as a woman losing it bit by bit.

This was a well done movie, particularly for television. Sam Waterson's performance as Lincoln was well done. This will be evident to people who have taken the time to study Lincoln, the man, not what he is credited for. Lincoln is known for having a high pitched, "countrified" voice, which Waterson did very effectively. Lincoln was known for normally being a bit haggard looking, which was also portrayed well. His mannerisms and use of colloquialisms in conversation were accurately handled. The supporting cast did a fine job, particularly Richard Mulligan as Seward. Mary Tyler Moore was very effective portraying Mary Lincoln as they wanted it done in the movie. She certainly conveyed Mary Lincoln's mental shortcomings well. My only complaint is that the battle scenes used the same stock footage over and over, being that one can tell it was all filmed at one location. This is a good movie in general, and if you are a student of Lincoln, the man...surprisingly so.

This is NOT "unbelievable garbage", as some other critics, here, would say.

I am tired of those who would compare books to the movies made from them. For God's sake, a movie is INTERPRATIVE!!! When you read "The Nutcracker Suite", do you criticize the very beautiful ballet because EVERY WORD of the original book is not adhered to?

The PERFORMANCE given by Mr. Waterston is enough to launch this vehicle into greatness. He is simply wonderful.

You can HAVE Mary Tyler Moore. But Waterston is astonishing. And he always IS.

If people insist on criticizing films because they don't "match" the book from which they are taken, I suggest that they do NOT call themselves "film lovers".

This theory has been argued for decades, but still, people do not understand.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to put every thought, every line from a book, into a film. Please get used to this.

Thanks so much. -Studiojudio

I have watched this movie many times, as I use it to teach US history to eighth graders. It is an excellent portrait of Lincoln, showing his complexity and compassion. Yes, VerhoHo from NYC, NY, the book is better, but a movie that exactly mirrored the book would last for weeks. I think the movie does a fine job of summarizing Gore Vidal's comprehensive and historically accurate account of Lincoln's years as president. After seeing the movie the first time, when it aired on TV, I wanted to read the book and did.

Sam Waterson and Mary Tyler Moore are fabulous in their roles and bring these historical figures to life. I was also surprised to see Thomas Gibson (first from "Chicago Hope," then "Dharma and Greg") portraying Gov. Sprague. His accent and costume really disguised his identity.

I also like the way the director muted colors and added to the melancholy of the era.

This is a nice piece of work, but far from being ideal. It was clear the filmmakers had little funds so that they used the re-enactors to show the battle scenes, and the color scheme in those differs a lot. But that is OK. The film itself is a bit too long and bit too unrealistic. Gore Vidal was a writer and he did bring a lot of fiction onto real events. But despite all this, Watterson and Tyler did their main parts well and that counts as a big plus. In general, not bad, but still, much weaker than many other Civil War films of the era. The movie pays a decent tribute to the life and sufferings of a real great man, but it often tends to drag along or slow down painfully quite too often. Recommended but with some caution