American history, Spielberg-style -- am I right to be wary?

I'll state up front that I haven't seen Lincoln yet, but my instincts have been telling me that something is rotten in the absolute acclaim the film has been winning. Steven Spielberg is a nice director, but I have difficulty taking him seriously as an intellectual one.

I love Raiders of the Lost Ark. E.T. was fabulous. Ditto Close Encounters. But there was something too easy about his major intellectual and supposedly serious works, Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, movies that do their best to add an odd bit of gloss to what should have been far grittier films and whitewash any emotional or moral gray areas. Those two films -- which were overly long and sanctimonious -- can be summed up way too easily: patriotism and brotherhood is good (Private Ryan) and Nazis are bad (Schindler's List, when you think about it, was just a serious retake on Raiders and not nearly as riveting).

Now we have Spielberg telling the story of the 13th Amendment -- with help from the usually

Am I just being contrary? Am I just out of touch? Or is Tom Frank right when he calls the film a middlebrow apology for the false prophet (or is it profit?) of bipartisanism, horse-trading and compromise that takes as its chief target principled reformers?

I tend to agree with Frank on most things, just as I tend to agree with Matt Rothschild of The Progressive (full disclosure: he is my editor when I have written for the magazine and its op-ed project), who also has offered a pretty tart takedown of the film.

But I want to be openminded. For those of you who have loved the film, tell me why. And while you're at it, explain why bipartisan compromise -- which has brought us such important achievements as the original Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule, welfare reform, No Child Left Behind, sequestration, the PATRIOT Act, and a health-care reform bill without a public option but plenty of money for the insurance and drug companies -- is the cure for what ails us as a nation.