Lincoln may be the best film of the year and it may also be the best film of Steven Speilberg’s career. The film takes on a representation of an iconic time and an iconic man, both represented with various levels of success in the past, and creates the quintessential vision of both. Speilberg, screenwriter, Tony Kushner and a jaw-dropping cast all contribute as does the understated cinematography.

Lincoln is a smart movie in conception. Instead of trying to make a run of the mill biopic about the United States’ most famous President they focus on a short time period in 1865, an extremely important historical couple of months in the history of the United States that is somewhat outside the consciousness of the general populace.

The passing of the 13th Amendment to the U.S Constitution banned slavery in the country, essentially forever.  Looking back popular history grabs onto the Emancipation Proclamation as the point where slavery ended. It simply isn’t true. Survey books given to students across the country will note that that proclamation did not really free very many slaves but they rarely go into the battle that followed to end slavery for once and all.

The passage of the amendment was no sure thing.

And this film, based on portions of Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, makes this quite clear. It uses this short period to define Lincoln as a man and as a politician. Daniel Day-Lewis can start writing his Oscar speech now as well. His performance, and playing a figure this iconic is no mean feat, is startlingly real.  There is less focus on making him look like the man on the five dollar bill and more in him becoming Lincoln on the inside—the Lincoln who wrote some of the most inspiring political speeches in U.S. history, the Lincoln who grieved for his son, the Lincoln who had to deal with a vaguely batty wife and viciously hostile political foes.

Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln does more than act crazy or ill-tempered. She gives us what is behind that ill temper—a mother’s grief and fear at losing her children and a woman inveterately hostile to her husband’s political foes.  Most accounts say she was a temperamental woman who didn’t forget slights or attacks on her family. She was not the politician in the family. People might not have been aware of the mean spirited investigations into household finances of the White House by the U.S House of Representatives at the time.  These were largely at the insistence of men from her husband’s own party. She never forgave and Field shows this side of Lincoln in all its mean spirited glory in a scene with Tommy Lee Jones.

Jones turns in a fine performance as well as abolitionist Thaddeus Stephens. If you read accounts of Stephens’s speeches in the House or read his writing you will realize, almost immediately, that the political climate of today is positively chummy compared to the times before and during the U.S. Civil War. Jones captures the feel of the historical record and makes it tangible. His performance is one of those that actors must long for—you get to articulate the words of one of the most articulate, funny and vitriolic politicians in U.S. History. Add to that the fact he was on the right side of history in the end just adds to the part.

David Strathairn, as Secretary of State William Seward, has the unenviable role of playing a virtual "straight man," not that this is a comedy. He has to play a more reserved role than Lincoln or Stephens and so falls a bit into the background. But his work is masterful.

One of the interesting things about this movie is how outstanding everyone who walks across screen is—even in tiny roles that last a minute—seem to shine and to embody the era and the earnestness of the subject matter. Every actor who speaks, even a few lines, seems to have their A game. Some small cameos and medium sized roles in this film are truly powerful appearances. You get who the characters are--seemingly instantaneously.

The film looks great as well. There is no camera trickery here. It is all straightforward shots of cramped, smoky rooms full of angry men.  The film is not some grand, David Lean-like effort.  There is very little that is expansive. An early representation (and the only representation) of an actual battle is a muddy, vicious fistfight—not a scene from Glory or Gettysburg. It seems real, horrible and frightening. Something director Steven Spielberg likewise achieved in Saving Private Ryan on a larger scale.

Lincoln is a film for the ages. There may be those who don’t like that it is mostly people talking. No battles, no sword fights. Lincoln never fires a canon nor beheads anyone. He tells folksy stories that befuddle and disarm the other characters.  If there is a legitimate gripe it is that they did not end it on a shot of Lincoln as he heads off to the theater. The ten minutes that follow this shot are fine but unnecessary.

We all know what happened to Abraham Lincoln.

First of all note this; disregard anyone who tells you how great the old Bond films are and then says Skyfall isn’t good. They are drinking nostalgia Kool Aid. If you do not believe me go try to watch From Russia With Love while simultaneously trying to remain awake.

Trying to watch the old films with my son I realized they just do not stand the test of time. They are like some of the successful but long forgotten musicals and skating movies of the 50s. They were fine in their day but now they induce yawns and rolls of the eyes. The new Bond is not about silly gadgets and hammy villains.

Skyfall falls somewhere short of being a great movie but it is certainly great within the Bond series.  If someone wants to argue that the first of the Daniel Craig Bonds--Casino Royale—is as good as this? There are arguments to be made perhaps but they would be largely splitting hairs.  They keep a large part of the Bond formula—the over the top villain, chases and mayhem—but modernize these and make them seem a tad more realistic. Hell, Craig even looks like he's actually been in a fight.

Skyfall gives a little peak at more of the character James Bond. He had a life before he started wearing tuxedos and sipping martinis. And while the film alludes to this past it does not explore it in depth. How much do we need to know? All the audience needs is a hint and in this case it is a hint that humanizes both Bond and “M” his boss and mother figure.

Likewise, any thinking person will pause to consider that, in this film; the villain has something of a legitimate grievance.  You really have to pause in the midst of the mayhem and say to yourself; I’d be pretty pissed if they did that to me too. If anything the film could have done a bit more than with this angle. The villain (who is also the basis for the ridiculous “Jaws” character of the lamentable Roger Moore years) could have used a little bit more meat and a tiny, tiny bit more back story. But that is not talking about the film that was made but wishing for another one, which is never productive.

In Bond films, old or new the villain usually makes the film. And Hollywood has learned that if you need a villain? Javier Bardem will usually fit the bill. Once again he does but he always shows up and acts in everything whether seriousness or scenery chewing is required.

Oddly for a “good” movie there isn’t a lot to say about the plot and the fact that these movies have as much in common with the Bourne series as the old Bonds has been beaten pretty much to death. The plot is simple. You know it. Madman terrorist threatens the world (or a portion of it) and Bond steps in. Mercifully they cut down on the one-liners and gadgetry—even poking fun at the latter. And the one liners that remain are actually funny.

This movie is also a bridge to new versions of old characters and, hopefully, further exploration of the characters that inhabit the Bond universe. It will be interesting to see where they go next, in a world where Russia is not necessarily the presumptive enemy and where, let’s face it. Britain is not the world player they once were.

There is so much interesting to do with this new Bond and signing Craig for three more movies and making excellent choices in new supporting cast bodes well—as does the choice of Sam Mendes to direct. It is to be hoped he is back for the next film.

Paranormal Activity 4 is a movie. Four (4) is a number and a word representing a number. Four rhymes with “bore” and “ignore.” It also rhymes with the phrase “ooo the invisible demon opened the door.” It does not rhyme with “scary”. This is ok since there is pretty much nothing scary in this movie anyway.

It is incredibly difficult to tell, if you have seen any of the other Paranormal films, to be sure if the lack of scariness is innate or if it is just because the viewer has already seen pretty much all of this stuff before. In fact, it is pretty damned amazing that this “franchise” (horrible term, makes a series of films sound like sandwiches from Arby’s) was kept relatively fresh through three movies. 

The first two worked because they took the standard horror movie time frame, where you wait for something to jump and scare you, and stretched it out. Right where you thought there SHOULD be something scary there wasn’t so you relaxed and THEN there was something scary. They also left you scanning the entire screen for little weird things happening in the background. They were tense. They also sort of made the filming of it all, the “found footage” aspect at least marginally believable.

The third film, which takes place back in the days of VHS, offered a slightly different spin with an old camera mounted on a rotating fan.  As it pans back and forth it really made you nervous. The introduction of child stealing witches in the third film was a whiff of desperation. It was trying to “explain” things maybe? But there was no real reason to do that. These films are all about the jumps and starts you make when something flits by or there is a loud sound. The more you explain the more dull it all gets.

In the new film? They try the same thing modern day with a Kinect. And the audience yawns.

The new film doesn’t get as much into the whole “coven” angle (except maybe at the ridiculous ending). But no one in the theater was surprised or jumping when things that were supposed to be scary happened. There is even a brief, “the cat jumps up” thing which is very Amityville Horror (the 1970s one). This film mostly uses computers and the Kinect as how the action is filmed. But what idiot runs around with their computer in their hand all the time? It is true that there are points where you can assume a hand held camera of some sort is being used but none of it really passes muster. The previous films kept the action more confined--which made it scarier somehow.

It would be interesting to have two theaters full of viewers—one who had seen all the previous films and another who hadn’t –to see if there was any difference in audience reaction.  Remember the ads for the first film showing audience members FREAKING OUT while watching the film? If you were that frightened of any of these films you are probably 7 years old. But they were certainly creepy. They took the creaking you hear in the night and gave you reason to be afraid of it. They took those creeped out moments we all feel and put them on film to creep us out even more.

Who knows? Maybe it is all just a matter of familiarity breeding contempt. And Paranormal Activity 4 is so familiar. It is like an old worn out pair of socks. It is done. It is over.  And it is to be hoped it is true that this is the end of it. But since the film has made over 40 million at this point? That is doubtful. Hollywood never, ever gives up on a series that is still making money.

It is really easy to take a hatchet to Silent Hill Revelation and many have done so. But my mom always told me; if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all. So, I have a list of good things about Silent Hill Revelation.

It looks cool. It is amazing what you can do with some mannequins, a shit load of plastic wrap and some CGI. Some of the monsters are even things you really wouldn't want to run into in a dark alley. Hell you wouldn't even, in real life, want to spend the night with one of the props in your house.

The acting, for the most part, isn't terrible. When you have vaguely ridiculous dialog having actors who can say it with a straight face really helps. It is even better if they can RANT it with a straight face (can you say "Malcolm McDowell"?).

It is almost possible to hear the director asking (during the few hours McDowell was on set); "Mr. McDowell? Can you dial it up to a 9 on the crazy-o-meter?"

It never slows down to such a crawl that you have an uncontrollable desire to play Angry Birds during the film.

Likewise they don't spend too much time with explaining what is going on or on any back story of any sort. Maybe one in fifty horror movies manage to do that sort of thing well and it is just a guess that, had they tried it, Silent Hill Revelation wouldn't be one of them.

It never tries to be too clever, there is no fake ending hiding another fake ending hiding another fake ending. It just sort of slogs along without much reason to hate it or like it. Hell, it might even be better if you just edited out the entire plot and had monsters and insane asylum inmates and demons and crumbling walls all happening for no reason whatever.

If they make another Silent Hill film they should definitely get Terrence Malick to direct.

This is the place where there would be further discussion of Silent Hill Revelation if there was anything else, whatever, to write about it.