My god... Does Ava DuVernay know that you can actually zoom out a camera? I've never seen so many "closeup" face shots in a single movie in my entire life. I'll never be able to get Oprah's giant-sized face out of my mind...
As for the movie itself, It's a bit all over the place. Some parts and themes are very well-done, such as Meg's journey to accept herself, while others are really half-baked (especially the relationships between Meg & Charles Wallace, Meg & Calvin, etc). Too many things just get thrown together or just suddenly happen by sheer "coincidence" without a solid lead-in or development. This could have definitely used some additional scenes and runtime to flesh characters and their relationships between each other out a bit more. Reese Witherspoon's character is actually my favorite of the 3 "Mrs."'s. Oprah and Mindy Kaling's characters definitely did not hit home.
Visuals were pretty stunning for the most part, but sometimes went a bit too overboard. Don't even get me started again on the cinematography and editing... This movie definitely had potential and I was excited to watch it, but it just misses out on some major points. It was enjoyable overall for the visual fest and seeing the world of A Wrinkle in Time, but other than that it is just an average film. I'd temper my expectations for sure. 5/10 as it is just an average movie...
Apparently this is just the third $100+ million budget movie directed by a woman. I'm not sure that Ava DuVernay's movie is going to help buck that trend...
3.5/10
This is movie is pretty much an excuse for Oprah to be bigger than everyone else in the film.
No, really.
The casting director on this should be shot. All performances felt so, very, incredibly fake. The only believable character was played by Chris Pine. EVERYONE else we come across is just awful. It could be the writing, the directing, etc, but the actors seem to be at fault here. It seemed so important to them to have a diversified racial palate of actors, that maybe they were just looking for a race, as opposed to an actual performance. I am not being racist, just look at the film and you will see what I mean.
The visuals were ok, but clearly very CGI. They didn't even try to get the lighting right on many parts, and that disgusts me for what this movie (original story from the book) could have been.
There is no development. You are thrown into these weird, unexplained characters, with a moody, but yet expressionless character (Meg). Then all of a sudden, they are on another planet, with some random dude joining them (Calvin), then suddenly the mothers (whatever the shit you call the big 3) disappear. Like. Why are they even in the movie? Idk.
I want my time back.
And YOU get acting lessons!..and YOU get acting lessons!..Aaaaaaaaaaaand YOUUUU get acting lessons!!!
Pretentious!!! Watching a child screaming "LOOK AT ME!", over and over is less pretentious than this film. There is no character development, at all, for any characters. There is so little story that massive amounts of the film time are wasted trying to impress us with the way over used special effects. Seriously, did we need a 10 minute transformation scene. Only one of the plot points is resolved and at the point in which it finally gets around to it, I just could not care anymore.
Boring.
Save yourself some agony, just watch the trailer and make up any story in your own head about what the movie is about and skip watching this garbage.
I'm keeping this one short because I have zero good things to say about this horrible movie.
A Wrinkle in Time is extremely unbalanced, strangely devoid of tension, and very scarreted about the tone. With powerful colors, bright parttersn and exuberant children, this new look from director Ava DuVernay's on this story squeezes through time and space, not knowing how to land any of it. Relying on room-wide music to provide the missing emotional connection and plastering huge plot holes this movie is one hot mess from the first to the third act. There's no saving grace in this movie, not even the acting of Hollywood top actors like Chris Pine, Reese Witherspoon or even critically acclaimed newcomers Gugu Mbatha-Raw.
Every generation gets The Never-Ending Story they deserve, This is not that movie
2,4/10
Terrible. This is what happens when you try to follow the book too closely and not realize book to movie does not always work. The earliest Harry Potter films were awkward, the latter ones were excellent with great pacing and a logical flow. If you haven't read the book, please, read it for the superior experience.
They had an exceptional multifaceted diamond and they replicated a rhinestone Happy Meal toy - glitzy today, forgotten tomorrow. I couldn't be more disappointed with the producers, director and screenwriter of this movie. Full disclosure, my life has been enriched by the world of Madeleine L'Engle. I discovered her writings in college and quickly devoured as many of her novels as I could find. Even reading WRINKLE again, 35 years later in anticipation of the film, I was totally captivated by her world view, philosophy, theology, scientific brilliance and her grasp of the struggles of childhood, and, indeed the world. All that was sublime about her writings was stripped away in this production and replaced with mundane imitations. The quotes of Mrs. Who, drawn from the great minds of time, were replaced by post-modern or contemporary banality. The awesomeness of Mrs. Which was reduced to a Disney fairy godmother. The excentric muddle that was Mrs. Whatsit was stripped of her very essence. And, the exceptionalness of Charles Wallace and his special connection to his sister were totally lost in this film (and what possessed them to make him adopted?). Whole plot lines were abandoned and the story was transformed to something unrecognizable. The themes of character, right, perseverance, courage, faithfulness, faith and wisdom were cast aside for a weak new age drivel about self exceptance, which missed L'Engles point entirely about self-worth being built on finding our strengths in our weakness. That said (Ok, that ranted) you can't fault the actors. They gave good performances of what they were given. Storm Reid is an absolute jewel and I look forward to seeing more of her. Special effect were laudable, but the variety of worlds was lost. Few time have I given a film a worse rating - I give this a 2 (terrible) out of 10. Do your kids a favour - DON'T take them to this movie and ruin the experience of L'Engle's wolds. Instead, buy them the book(s), or better yet, read the book to them at bedtimes. That was how L'Engle wrote it, each chapter a bedtime read for her kids, aged 7, 10 and 12. [Family Adventure SciFi]
The movie picked up after Reese Witherspoon, Oprah, and Mindy Kaling left. Sadly there were about 40 mins left of the movie.
The movie before that:
- Mindy Kaling looked awkward, esp. in those weird dresses which in turn made her running look more awkward! Oprah looked out of place and hideous, Reese was OK minus her white outfit.
- The camera work was horrible. I hate when they "shake" the camera. I didn't get the point of showing the girl's ear so many times at the beginning of the movie. I kept on expecting something to happen in regards to her ear or hearing but no such thing happened.
It is sad when the best part of the movie was the animation at the end, when they showed the title. And the music was good. Quite a few famous singers in there.
The kids' acting was really good, esp. the little boy. And for some reason Michael Pena stood out.
A fine enough film until the third act falls flat, like a three course meal where everything is fine until the desert comes but they don't have what you ordered and what they end up serving you is bland and hard to swallow.
Staying with the idea of the unbalanced meal, half of the characters disappear in the middle of the film (WTF) and this wouldn't be so bad except there the most interesting characters in the whole affair. The special effects are well done until they, too, disappear, making the third act feel drawn out, like waiting for the check when you have nothing left to say and can't find the waiter anywhere.
For those of you with good taste you're gong to have a lot on your plate with this, and many of you probably won't be able to finish it.
I didnt think it was a good choice to start right from the "end" but still i guess its no fairy tale.
I know this its a sad movie but still i cant help thinking a much better job coulve been done to make it more heartfelt.
THe acting was nothing lees than mediocre from both main characters, sometimes I felt that they were expressing emotions differently from what the context or speech implicates. The soundtrack its well picked but still its nothing out of the ordinary...a few calm songs and a few love songs and some could'nt really "go with the flow" of what was going on.
As for the writing I found some of the dialogues to be sometimes uncomfortable and innapropriate, and some repetitive things that don't add nothing to the story, actually found Myron to be more interesting than either one of the main characters. Sure it get a few tears out of you, even more if you're more sensitive or can relate to this, but still what makes it sad is more the subject then how it is represented.
With all things in a "mediocre" level i couldnt give it more or less than a mediocre rate.
PS:Found really cute and original the way Abbie "claimed" Sam, but did not check the veracity of this.
If you're looking for a fast-paced, action-packed movie, you'd better skip it. Often it's only people who really do not stare at anything.
Still, not a horrible movie. I can imagine a lot of governments wanting to implement this kind of technology. And I can actually see that this happens sometime in the future. I liked the look of the movie. Cold, dark colors that create a dull and gloomy atmosphere. And the old cars are actually working well in the future.
However, I would have liked that one goes even further into the negative aspects of this technology. This is only treated superficially. But I think that was not the main focus.
It's basically a relative simple crime thriller in a futuristic environment ..
I enjoyed this more than fast and furious. This felt like a real racing movie.
It was better than I expected. Don't expect too much though. I was thinking about The Breaking Bad whole time during watching the movie because of Aaron Paul. It's like seeing Harry Potter in somewhere else.
I was expecting another "Fast and Furious"-like movie but I was surprised. Not the best movie in the History of world cinema, but worth a shot. Specially if you played any Need For Speed. Although there are some plot holes, the movie is not that bad.
Don't waste you time on this piece of crap... You'll regret it unless you have very low standards when it comes to watching movies, or if you don't care about a story, plot lines, consistency, character development... Because this has none of that stuff.
The IMDB blurb says the following.
"Fresh from prison, a street racer who was framed by a wealthy business associate joins a cross country race with revenge in mind. His ex-partner, learning of the plan, places a massive bounty on his head as the race begins."
Now this is really inaccurate to begin with... The first 20 mins of the movie are devoted to the initial opening race to show that the protagonist is a real racer, the best of the best sort of thing who loves to street race. It also sets up the younger friend who's like a brother and will soon be dead scenario (predictable) and who happens to be the younger brother of the ex girlfriend who's now with a douchebag and the films antagonist... Still following that utterly predictable and lame format so far.
Antagonist makes offer protagonist can't refuse to finish building a 3 million dollar car... because protagonist does that sort of thing. Car is sold to a millionair after a few seconds of it being test driven and instead of taking the 500k fee for the work, protagonist accepts offer of a race to prove he's better than the antagonist in return for the rest of the cash from the car sale if he wins... By this point the movie is so predictable that I'm sat there saying, friend/brother will be dead a few mins. A few mins later, antagonist causes accident and gues what... the friend/brother dies in a horrible fiery death. Protagonist stops, can't help and gets arrested... antagonist drives of and claims he was never there and because he's rich is able to stick it to the man and get away with it... Still utterly predictable. Protag gets fingered for stealing cars and getting friend killed.
Cut to a few years later and protagonist is released from jail... according to the voice over... has managed to arrange to 'borrow' that 3 million dollar car he helped build from a virtual stranger who knows that he was in jail for stealing a car and getting a friend killed... but that's ok because we wouldn't want to hold up the lame and predictable plot now would we.
Car is delivered by the woman who works for the cars owner and flirted with the protag for a few mins when she met him a few years earlier. Is completely fine with driving across country with a convict she doesn't know so she can keep an eye on the car.
That sets up the love interest part of this predictable movie and does nothing to further the plot at all. In fact of the two women in this film... both are only there because they're new or former love interests of the protagonist... Why even bother having any women in the movie at all.
So protag and lover set of across country... they've got 45hrs to get to California to take part in a secret race that they don't know where it's being held, haven't been invited to and sets up the final act.
Now this is where the blurb for the movie pisses me off... they're travelling across country to try and take part in the race... not taking part in a race across country.
But first... the predictable plot needs to get the old team back together because the car that they built and is/was perfect and capable of doing 230mph now handles like a bag of shit and only the team can fix it... Not that they actually make any changes to the car at all, it's just mentioned and miraculously resolved... during the time wasted getting the team together, we have a police chase that one of the team films from the air (conveniently a pilot) and the protag films from the car... this is uploaded miraculously to the website of the guy holding the race in california and impresses him so much he offers an invite to the protag to take part in the race... because that's where the antagonist will be and we all know you can only prove yourself innocent by beating your former friend and killer of said other friend in a race.
Are you bored yet... because this review is actually more exciting than the movie so far.
Cue the antagonist finding out that he's invited to the race and puts out the call to stop him reaching San Francisco.
This is all in about the first 40 mins of the movie.
The actual racing across country and dealing with these bounty hunters out to stop him is completely glossed over, the 45hr trip is all said and done in around 30 mins complete with side stops to refuel, so he and the girl can flirt with each other and so we can see the lame how to stop the policeman from chasing you... that's ripped right from the script of the Blues Brothers... Seriously, they' not even trying to come up with a single original idea here.
So the sister of the dead friend/brother just so happens to be watching the podcast by the guy holding the race in San Fran when the new love interest calls in to defend protag and advance the plot by stating that the antag was also present when friend/brother died.
This prompts the woman who is engaged to the douchebag antagonist to go and search through his office... where she conveniently finds storage paperwork on his computer, with his signature on it... that happens to be where he put the car he was driving when he caused the death of the other guy... Yes, a few years later, that car is still in his possession, still owned in his name and was NEVER even repaired to hide the proof of the crash... C'mon, they're not even trying... I'm sure some one has a script generator program and just hit 'Run' to produce this pile of garbage.
So protag and love interest make it to San Fran just a few mins late and sign up for the race... As they leave to find a hotel, employee of the antagonist crashes into them in a truck and flips the car over. Cue maudlin scenes where he takes love interest to hospital and is moping around because 'Game Over Man, Game Over' (what I can't steal a line from Aliens, but this movie can steal everything from everywhere)... CUE old love interest turning up because she now believes he's innocent and hands him the address and code to get into the storage unit where the other car is stored.
YAY... now the protag has a car for the big race and it's the one used to kill his friend.
So what does he do.
Does he take it to the police to prove his innocence and that paint from the accident is still on the bodywork, does he show police the storage paperwork and ownership docs to prove the antagonist is responsible.
NOPE
He's going to race him instead to prove that he's the better driver because only then will that resolve anything.
GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK... This movies is so shit that I can't believe I'm still watching it.
So cue the race and one by one all the other cars are taken out, cops giving chase and so forth until just the two cars are left. You'll never guess which two... seeing as we were never even introduced to the other drivers taking part in the race at all.
Cue protag taking the moral high ground and not bumping the antag of the road, instead selling him a dummy and making him crash all on his own because he's an inferior driver.. Protag then sees his car upside down and on fire and has to stop and pull him out of the wreck... so he can check he's ok (because he's a doctor and knows all about internal injuries and so forth) and then punch him out for his friend.
Then he runs back to his car, finishes the race and gets arrested... whilst the podcast guy does the exposition voice over to explain everything to the audience... who I assume are 12yrs old and unable to follow the utterly stupid, predictable and pathetic script/story.
Cut to a few months later... protag getting out of jail again and being picked up by love interest who is perfectly fine after being critical in hospital where he just upped and left her to go race a fucking car... and she's fine with that, is ok with him being moron for racing instead of going to the police with the evidence that could have been destroyed by his actions.
Cue end of movie sexism where he won't let her drive.
Roll credits
This review is ten times better than the movie... Please save yourself from wasting a couple of hours and do something far more interesting... Like watching paint dry. You'll thank me for it.
Unless of course you like, pathetic movies with bad acting, terrible action sequences, one dimensional characters with no depth and a plot with so many holes you could sail the Titanic through them.
Because if you though this movie was good... I have news for you... You have idea what makes a good movie.
Liked this much more than FaF series :)
Just bad enough to be good. I love the sound design in this film.
As with all racing movies, this is not a good movie on itself.
But keep in mind this movie is a tribute to the games, and not an act to try to make a movie that can stand on itself. So do not expect anything about story or characters. This movie is all about fast awesome cars and racing them.
It was easily better than any of the Fast and Furious movies, mainly because they used better scenery, cars and camera work. They definitely have people more experienced with car filming than the crew from FaF.
The main pleasure point about the movie are the references and camera actions that came straight from the game. I did think they could've added a bit more cockpit views and 'behind the car' looks like in NFS itself. The constant shifting from left to right behind the car disappointed me.
I would give the movie a 4/10 but the racing shots + the NFS experience are really giving the movie extra points. So I will give it an undeserved 6/10 from me.
Great movie. I'm not sure how fictionalized it was but it was touching and inspiring, especially how consistently calm John was throughout the movie. He yelled once, that's it.
This is the second time I saw this. I remembered this as being a realy good movie. Seeing it today,opposed to 10 years ago, I think if you take away Denzels performance this is a decent but not awesome piece.
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him."
Ender's Game is a movie with many flaws, but many qualities as well. Keep in mind that it is hard to just categorize it as a good or bad movie because of that.
No real spoilers ahead.
Story:
Like someone pointed out here before me, the reason why kids are necessary and why that's humanities only hope is left completely unexplained. The lack of other commanders, besides the one in training school, is pretty odd to say the least as well. In 50 years not 1 trainee from the academy passed the test. So what happened to all those failed kids? Especially the ones that did get to the final test. They know a secret that cannot be known to society (about the hero commander.)
There was no real character development in this movie at all except for the main character, and his development was very thin. The 2 friends he made do not have much in common with him, nor do they have any reason to like him. Especially the girl, since she is in a winning team for a while. After Ender's 'problem' with the Salamander leader, he feels bad about it. But as soon this part is over he never seems to look back at it or takes any lesson from it.
On the brightside, the massive plottwist in the end was surprising. After watching a movie with a rather unsurprising (but not boring) story development, I did not expect that. They could've singled out the emotional/psychological aspect after this part a bit more to make up for some lacking character development earlier.
Visuals:
Special Effects were lovely. A real sci-fi feel with great spacey environments that didn't feel unrealistic or cheap. The funniest thing was how they could've had computer games with about the same graphics we have now :P
I really loved how they did the battle scenes between plains and fighters, both in air as in space. You really got sucked into the battle field, and lost the feeling you were watching at a screen like happens so often with big battle scenes with lots of SFX.
Music:
This has to be adressed. I think this was probably the best part about this movie. Steve Jablonksy was the one who composed it. He also composed the music for the game Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, where he surprisingly managed to not dissapoint after stopping Frank Klepacki's monopoly for the franchise. And that's while Klepacki set the stakes very high for him. And in mainstream modern movies he is probably best known for doing some music for the Transformer movies, too bad those movies suck too much.
He did an amazing job on the score for Ender's Game. Bombastic, classical and majestic music that made every scene way bigger and impressive. Something you could easily listen to and enjoy without looking to the film, but just play really loud on your speakers.
Acting:
This is always something that falls a bit short when kids are the main characters in a movie. Remember the golden rule: Never work with children or pets when you are making a movie.
Not that it was bad, I was actually positively surprised with the acting job most of the younger characters delivered. The worst acting came from the adults xD But even so, the acting was not something award-worthy. Just don't expect big personal acting extravaganzas and you will be just fine.
Enjoyment/Overall:
I really had a lot of fun watching this movie, therefore the end(er) ordeal from me falls into the category good movie. It has enough speed, nice visuals, great music and it is just fun to watch.
"Free Solo" is a spectacular achievement in storytelling, cinematography, and filmmaking. It expertly captures the pinnacle of Alex Honnold's accomplishments: his free-solo ascent of El Capitan. The film is absolutely worthy of a big-screen viewing!
I most enjoyed the way the creators captured the emotions of everyone involved in the climb. The main focus was naturally on Alex, but the movie also thoughtfully presented his girlfriend Sanni, his climbing partners, and the filmmakers themselves.
My main criticism: Certain words were censored via dubbing, and that yanked me out of those scenes. This was an emotional event - let the language flow freely!
Synopsis: In first century Rome, evil Emperor Nero rules with an iron fist. Those who follow Christ live in hiding and fear for their lives; Nero has been casting those of the Way to the lions because of their faith. Paul, world-traveling missionary, is imprisoned and nearing the end of his life. Luke, a doctor and fellow believer, visits him in prison. When military commander Mauritius' daughter is sick, he is desperate to save her...but, nobody seems to be able to help. He has heard that Luke is an amazing physician...but, he can't bear the thought of having one of those Christians set foot in his home. Will he be able to save his daughter...and learn the error of his ways?
The Good: For a Christian movie, the production values here are incredible. It really took me back to the time of Acts, which, ironically, was where I was in my Bible reading plan when I started and finished this. The actors all did amazingly well, and this flick doesn't shy away from showing the brutality that those of the Way faced back in the day. There is some blood, but much of the more intense violence is implied...which can leave quite the picture in your mind's eye. Showing Paul's past haunting him was a plus; I'm a Christian now, but, I had a rather troubled childhood as well, despite being raised in a faithful home. So, when his deeds in his younger years haunted him, that just makes me identify with him all the more. All in all, this was excellent, except...
The Bad: I had a hard time getting into this at first; the jumping around made me feel like I was watching a clips show instead of an actual movie. Plus, though Jim Caviezel did well as Luke, hearing his voice made me think I was hearing Jesus instead, as he does the voice of Christ in The Word of Promise audio Bible.
Conclusion: Other than Jesus, who is your favorite person in the Bible? I've heard answers ranging from Peter to Abraham to even Samson. (I don't understand the reason for the latter answer; he may have been really strong...but he was also a rather messed-up guy, and undone by a woman.) For me, that answer is Paul, because he is a lot like me: a checkered past, a passion for expressing ideas through words, and a head for Scripture. This film illustrates his life very well; though I've seen other cinematic interpretations of his life, this one ranks above the rest. Just make sure that you stick to it when you decide to watch this; it may be a bit hard to get through at first, but it's worth it.
Score: 4/5
In term of the film's polemic, I am in total agreement. The Bush Administration was not to be trusted after the events of 9/11. However, as a film, this is more political tract than a piece of cinema. The script is heavy-handed in getting its point over, and the dialogue, for the most part, seems forced. I am thankful to Reiner for wanting to bring our attention back to the lies the government span, but I wish he had made a better film to back up his political statements.
Joe Dirt 1 is a guilty pleasure of mine because it is a profoundly dumb movie about dumb people, but it's actually funny. Joe Dirt 2 should be a guilty pleasure for nobody. It relies heavily on referencing its predecessor and toilet humor (at one point literally) to get a laugh. The toilet humor isn't even only used to get laughs, but to actually further the storyline multiple times. That is some bad writing, even for Happy Madison productions which, as far as I can tell, is comprised solely of Adam Sandler's friends, and extras in his movies. Don't get me wrong, sometimes toilet humor can be funny, but as one line from this movie goes "22 times in a row isn't funny anymore." (which ironically was the only funny part of that scene because it was true) You can start to see what this movie is going to be like.
As far as the positives, Mark McGrath is kind of funny in his 5 minutes on screen, the opening 5 minutes is pretty funny (which gave me false expectations for the rest of it), and some situations were pretty comical. Any time they referenced the first movie it was funny. However, I also see that as a negative since the time I laughed hardest the WHOLE movie was at the "homos naked" line from the first movie when it was shown in a 10 second dream sequence. Continuing the negatives would be exhaustive, so I won't bother. Suffice it to say, the characters, story, jokes, and even cameos won't fulfill the average moviegoer's desire for entertainment.
The movie does not deliver, let alone live up to its predecessor.
1 / 2 directing
0 / 2 story
1 / 1 acting
1 / 1 pacing
0 / 1 dialogue
0 / 1 living up to its genre
0 / 1 originality
0 / 1 lasting ability to make you think
0 / 0 miscellaneous +/- point
3/10
The trailer really put her in a bad light and this was actually pretty tolerable, dare I say enjoyable. I was waiting for something to happen that would make me take it back. I just haven't been having much luck with what I've been watching lately.
A star studded telling of the birth of the CIA through the lense of one major player living through both the WW II and the Cold War. Incredible cast. Complex story. Long treatment. Great for a thoughtful audience but not a movie for BOURNE adventurers. I was impressed by the cast and the performances and didn't mind it being long (there was much to unpack) so I give it an 8 (great) out of 10. [Spy Drama]
It's hard to say how much knowing what happens affects our enjoyment of a story. We live in the age of the spoilerphobe, where nerds like me abandon social media in the days leading up to a major release for fear of having significant plot points or major twists revealed too soon. But in Shakespeare's day, everyone knew the stories being told, and the lack of novelty of the tale didn't lessen the draw. And that's a reminder that what the story is need not, and arguably should not, overshadow how the story is told.
Which is to say, I'm not sure how much the greater effect of Spotlight is lost on me already knowing a decent amount about the molestation scandal within the Catholic Church that played out in the newspapers and on our television screens for years after the time depicted in the film. The film is, if not exactly a mystery, than certainly a story of the intrepid reporters of the Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team starting small and uncovering how widespread a pathology this phenomenon was.
Much of the film is framed with the Spotlight team investigating something seemingly isolated and being shocked to find how the tendrils stretch out and reach areas and individuals they never would have expected. But the impact of this gradual discovery is blunted when you already know how deep the rabbit hole goes. Sure, there's something to the characters' realization that tries to drive the magnitude of the discovery home, but as horrible as what they uncover is, the film loses some of its narrative punch when it's telling you something you already know.
Which is why the film's most vivid and poignant scenes are those involving the Spotlight's team interviewing the victims of the abuse. There's a stark quality to these sequences, which feature straightforward but moving recountings of how these men were taken advantage of as boys, that make them stand out. The film as a whole has a Wire-esque sparseness in the production design and cinematography that makes these scenes, and the horrors they represent, more palpable, awful, and affecting.
But they also reveal a difficult hurdle for the film -- the story of what happened is more striking than the story of the people who found out what happened. But it's a sprawling, very individual story, splintered across thousands of victims and abusers, and director/co-writer Tom McCarthy uses the frame of the newspaper investigation to tie it all together. The unfortunate side effect is that it mediates terrible events that the film is concerned with, mixing them up with didactic discussions of psychological pathology and the personal effect that learning all of this has on the reporters who discover what happened.
There's a fair attempt made both to educate about this crisis and to bring its wide-ranging impact home by showing how it affects Mike Rezendes's (Mark Ruffalo) connection to his faith, or Sacha Pfeiffer's (Rachel McAdams) relationship with her grandmother, or Matt Carroll's (Brian d'Arcy James) sense of the safety of his children in his neighborhood. And yet even as the film is about the Catholic Church's molestation scandal, it's as much about the way that communities close ranks in the face of a potential crisis, and in how there's a certain complicity to it, a sometimes unconscious acceptance of how things are that invites horrific actions to be swept under the rug.
A laudable performance from Michael Keaton as Spotlight editor Walter Robinson anchors the latter theme in the film. As Robinson hunts down old leads and sources, he encounters resistance from well-meaning fellow journalists who believe the story was culled from the crank file, less-than-subtle suggestions from friends and community leaders who urge him not to rock the boat for the good of the community, and disdain from veteran soldiers in the fight to expose the abuse who chastise him, and by extension The Boston Globe, for not doing more and doing it earlier. Carpetbagging editor- -in-chief Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber, who makes a strong impression with a lived-in performance in a smaller role), represents the way an outsider can cut through the status quo and see the collective shame for what it is without the history in the community or the stomach to ignore it.
It's legitimate material to explore in a film of this sort, and yet it ultimately feels very paint-by-numbers in the attempt. Spotlight has all the trapping of the prestige picture. It hits on a Big Issue; it features palatable protagonists fighting against something abhorrent; and it boasts an impressive cast who are given more than enough room to underline the film's points. Every scene seems to end with a line or an exchange that puts a very obvious bow on whatever the audience has just witnessed. Ruffalo gets his Oscar reel moment to bang on the table and demand justice. And the end of the film features the predictable moment of self-questioning, the inevitable bit of triumph, and the white text on a black background explaining the real life consequences of the "Based on Real Events" story the viewer has just witnessed.
That means that the film gets every opportunity to make its statements, to throw in standard-if-creditable character moments, and to work in small but salient details of the scandal. It simply does not make this all feel like something other than a movie going through the motions in the lead up to the Academy Awards. The film has something to say, and it's worth saying, but it doesn't delve particularly deep into these ideas, and doesn't offer anything especially creative in how it presents them either.
Spotlight is a good enough film. It has a sturdy structure, good acting across the board, and locks in on some worthwhile thematic material. It's not a movie I'm sorry to have watched, but also not a movie I'm likely to ever watch again, because even if I haven't seen this exact film before, I've seen this type of film 100 times. It's a solid take on the dogged reporter breaking a scandal story, and hits all the right notes for an Oscar hopeful. But Spotlight never goes a step beyond that commendable-yet-spiritless flavor to the proceedings that seems to persist through so many movies in the same vein.
Sometimes it's easy to forget that we spend most of our time stumbling around the dark. Suddenly, a light gets turned on and there's a fair share of blame to go around. I can't speak to what happened before I arrived, but all of you have done some very good reporting here. Reporting that I believe is going to have an immediate and considerable impact on our readers. For me, this kind of story is why we do this.
For a film with such an emotive and challenging subject matter, this is such a low-key and underplayed film. The filmmakers seem to recognize that details of how the Catholic Church dealt with both the perpetrators and victims of child sexual abuse speak for themselves and instead they have used this as a background to a film that celebrates the hard work and graft of old-school journalism. In the Internet age of 24-hour news cycles and social media demand, it's refreshing to see a story that focuses on the reality of investigative journalism and the teamwork involved - there are no rushes to meet deadlines, no villainous editor or board trying to thwart their efforts, no heroic writer who uncovers the truth and threats from those complicit in the cover-up amount to little more than vague attempts at justifying their actions. Even the eventual publication of the work is simply portrayed as another day at the office, though the final moments do hint at the larger picture that is so widely known now. As the film is about a team of people that worked on the investigation, it is also nice to see a focus on the ensemble of characters rather than on one or two, with only one moment of cathartic grandstanding from Ruffalo that feels a little out of place in the film as a whole, notwithstanding his great performance. But it is difficult to single any one out here - perhaps for a film that celebrates the team effort in bringing such a difficult story to light, that is somehow appropriate.
