On a personal note, I saw the film and thought it was pretty great at moments but extremely cheesy most of the time. I saw it right before beginning Ken Burns' the Civil War documentary and I wish it had brought the era to life in a more gritty and real way. I felt like I was watching a movie the whole time and was never completely submersed in the film.But I don't think its relevant which senator voted yay or nay for this or that legislation to determine if Lincoln is a good film.
I would agree with this. But..some people I've spoken with take issue with it because it touts itself as being historically accurate. It is supposed to be based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography, "A Team of Rivals", which was heralded for it's fresh perspective of Lincoln. If you say, "hey, look how accurate I am," and then it turns out you aren't, people have the right to call you out on it. Does it make it any less entertaining? No.
I'm not really really defending Lincoln, per se. I'm defending the practice of taking liberties with facts. I didn't read Spielberg talking about how historical his movie is. If he sis that, then he should be shamed. Otherwise, I don't really think it adds anything to a movie to be "historically accurate". Am I supposed to look down on The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, because dynamite wasn't invented during the Civil War. Makes for a better move, so be it.
I'm with you. Am I supposed to look down on the Three Amigos for... well, most everything in the Three Amigos? Hell no. Best movie ever.