The Swamp logo

A Filmmaker's Review: 'LBJ' (2016)

2/5 - A film about LBJ passing the Civil Right's Act fails to live up to its name

By Annie KapurPublished 4 years ago 4 min read
Like

LBJ (2016) is not a bad film by all means, but what we're going to look at here is why critically, it isn't really that great of a film either. Directed by the same man who made This Is Spinal Tap, it fails to live up to prophecy with its confusing over-the-top dialogue and its lack of substance. Not to mention how the Kennedy brothers actually look and sound nothing like the actual Kennedy brothers. When we look at the movie through the eye of entertainment, we can see that yes, it is fairly entertaining. But, as a biopic it doesn't really hold up on its own and has been compared to other films about LBJ's presidency which are, in fact, better and more thorough.

I first heard about this film when it was coming out and I think it was being played that year at the Toronto International Film Festival. Everyone was really looking forward to seeing it and I was looking forward to seeing everyone's reactions to the film. But after the film was shown, things kind of went silent. There was no fuss made about it, there was no marketing campaigns I saw. There was nothing to say that the film stood out in any way, shape or form. A film about the Kennedy/Johnson Presidencies that didn't stand out - it is very, very strange. As you all know the film JFK (1991) is one of my personal favourite films of all time - I was fairly confused why everything dropped lower than a whisper after September in TIFF 2016.

The film came out in the winter of that year and yet again, I heard nothing. There was no uproar of applause, there was no shouts of amazement - there were just whispers of "well, that wasn't all that great was it?" Needless to say, I was saddened by the prospect that this movie wasn't really getting off the ground because I really wanted to watch and enjoy it. After that, I only actually made it halfway through the movie before I thought I'd had enough of the over-the-top dialogue. I have no idea what they were trying to paint LBJ as through that dialogue but most of it wasn't needed because it sounded all forced and pathetic.

When it comes down to the filmmaking, there was no real skill involved. It was far too simple and used a framework that you can see continuously throughout the film. There was nothing grand about it, like you see in other films about the same time period. Watch films like Malcolm X (1992) and JFK (1991) and you'll see what I mean. This was a time of great grandeur in politics and yet, you really don't feel that atmosphere come across at all. Instead, it feels a bit half-hearted and not very interesting. Come on guys, how could you make the Kennedy Assassination boring?

The acting was the one thing I was hoping to save the movie and it very almost did if it weren't for that terrible dialogue. Woody Harrelson's acting was actually pretty good, but the things the character said made it very difficult to take this movie seriously as a presidential drama. Characters like JFK and RFK were pathetically done and seriously, didn't look, sound or act like the people they were supposed to be portraying. It was quite weird because in that scene where LBJ is fixing his tie and opens the door to JFK, you don't even know it's JFK until Johnson says, "Hi, Jack..." That's how bad it is. Let's put it this way, when you watch JFK (1991) - you already know that Kevin Costner is Jim Garrison before he opens his mouth - the man looks almost exactly like him. You know that Gary Oldman is Lee Harvey Oswald because again, he looks, sounds and acts just like him. You may as well just watch Oliver Stone's film.

Let's go through what we've covered then:

  • There was no real marketing push behind it and so, after TIFF, it kind of fell silent
  • When the film came out, it was received pretty badly
  • There was no filmmaking skill involved, everything was very cookie-cutter biopic and nothing was very innovative
  • The acting was only pretty good from Harrelson, characters such as JFK, RFK and even Lady Bird, didn't look like, act like or sound like the people they were supposed to be portraying and so - it was very difficult to tell which character was which since they weren't recognisable.

When it comes down to it, the entertainment value of this picture is high, but the production quality is low. It is one of those films that lays too much on the surface and doesn't really do anything deeper or more innovative with the film. Therefore, I think a 2/5 is valid since Harrelson's acting was pretty good, but shaded by dodgy and unneeded dialogue. The film itself was a bit of a shambles and a mess. Overall, I don't think I'll be watching this again. It just wasn't my thing.

movie review
Like

About the Creator

Annie Kapur

190K+ Reads on Vocal.

English Lecturer

🎓Literature & Writing (B.A)

🎓Film & Writing (M.A)

🎓Secondary English Education (PgDipEd)

📍Birmingham, UK

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.