The film script was based on the last few chapters of a novel. Basicly covering Lincoln from late 1864 till the end. Its historically based, but from a novel. Novels naturally tend to fill in the gaps to make a story flow, where items inherited are missing. Its not a documentary. The Lincoln pro or con scholars will be debating what did or didnt actually happen same as they have done for nearly 150 years already. Regardless which angle or exchange version displayed, one side or the other of that coin would have ruffled feathers, thats just a given. Few can agree on everything he did or didnt do, or how he did it... Attacking Spielberg because a given "novel" was used to make the screen play is a bit off target. Whatever he chose, someone else would be whining.

The Film focused on Lincoln the individual. Most all else was a whirl wind of activity around him, family, congress, opponents, the war. This was put in an angle that no prior Lincoln based film has done. It also includes his opponents, and he knowing "skirting the rules" to get what he thought necessary. It was good reasons that Spielberg delayed the release till after the Presidential Elections.

The film was very well made. Daniel Day Lewis portrayal of Lincoln was outstanding. So was Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln. The historical charactors were well done on both charactor and likenesses to the persons they portrayed. Regardless of ones political or heritage stance, its still a good well made movie to see.

I saw the film last week at a private advance screening premiere, a week before the public release is due. I worked on the film, so got invited to the premiere viewing.

Frederick