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!!

It is hard to go wrong with the likes of Walter Huston and Una Merkel, both capable of great performances (especially Huston, still remember his performance in 'Dodsworth' for example very clearly). Have also really liked to loved most of what has been seen of silent film pioneer DW Griffith's work, both shorts and feature films. Abraham Lincoln was a fascinating, important and iconic historical figure, one of the most famous of America's presidents and wholly deserving of a biopic.

Lincoln deserved much better treatment than 1930's 'Abraham Lincoln' though. It really doesn't do him justice, and it doesn't do Griffith (in his first sound film and clearly not comfortable) or the cast justice either. Huston is the only one to come off reasonably well, whereas Merkel especially gives one of her worst performances. Of the films seen of Griffith, 'Abraham Lincoln' is for me easily the worst being the only one to not show him in a good light all the way through. Yes even worse than the second half of 'The Birth of a Nation'.

'Abraham Lincoln' does have moments of nice photography, though it is a long way from being some of the most inventive of Griffith's films, and handsome costumes.

Huston throws himself into portraying Lincoln and although he does uncharacteristically overact at times, compensating for material he is well above, his efforts are valiant. There are some sporadic moments of poignancy, like the late night walking and the ending, and the scenes with more action have moments of excitement.

The rest of the performances are poor however in stock parts. Especially over-compensating Kay Hammond and even worse a wasted and anaemic Merkel. Griffith's direction is disengaged and uncomfortable feeling, not like him at all as he was usually an inventive director but he clearly was daunted taking on the film and never seemed at ease with it. The rest of the production values are pretty phony, especially the Lincoln memorial and overdone make-up.

Pace is tedious throughout, starting off dull and never recovering. One would be hard pressed to see any dramatisation of Lincoln's life and such that is this stiff and stagy. The script, on top of not being interesting or insightful, is badly stilted and too wordy, as well as too reliant on over-explained exposition. It also jumps around a lot which further affects the flow. 'Abraham Lincoln' tries to cover far too much and too many of the events are executed in cliffs note style and given short shrift as a result.

Structurally, 'Abraham Lincoln' constantly feels jumpy and the transitions from one event to the other never flow smoothly, quite choppy actually. Did not like how the characters were handled in such one-dimensional fashion, that is including Lincoln, and the emphasis on tolerance can be ham handed and is as hard to swallow as the distasteful portrayals of the supporting characters in the second half of 'The Birth of a Nation'. It was like Griffith was trying to prove that he was not a racist and went too far the other way.

Overall, has moments but pretty weak. 3/10

Before writing this review I saw that publicity driven line about this film. Abraham Lincoln is a lot of things, but NOBODY ever accused him of being a great romantic. All I can say there is, Huh?

Abraham Lincoln is one of two sound films made by movie pioneer, David W. Griffith. It's also something of an atonement for Griffith who was accused fostering racism with his masterpiece silent work, The Birth of a Nation.

Maybe if Abraham Lincoln had been a better film it would have succeeded in being an atonement. It certainly had one of the best interpreters of Lincoln ever in Walter Huston. The film also in many ways looks like a newsreel of the Civil War era. Our image of that era and you can see it in Ken Burns documentary comes from Matthew Brady's still photographs. In crafting this and The Birth of a Nation, Griffith was heavily influenced by Brady's still photographs.

Lincoln's prarie years were better told in Abe Lincoln in Illinois and Young Mr. Lincoln. Griffith should have stuck to the war years and made it in fact the Lincoln family story. One thing that would have done is eliminated Una Merkel as Ann Rutledge. Una Merkel had many a good role as a wisecracking dame in modern films. But in Abraham Lincoln she's just awful as Lincoln's lost love Ann Rutledge. It's a miracle she had a career after this film and a good one.